Post-Mortems

I’m almost done with the post-mortems. In fact, I am done with them. I’ve read more than enough about the whys and wherefores of this loss over the course of the last 36 hours or so and I just don’t want to read any more. We lost, that’s it. Buck up. Move on. (ed: Did you just say Move On? Why, yes…yes, I did!)

I didn’t link to anyone yesterday, and I had my reasons—chief among them being I wanted to read as much as I could before deciding who best represented my opinion. (Hey, it’s my blog, right?) After due thought and consideration, here are the two post-mortems that resonate most clearly with me. Your mileage, of course, may vary.

First, Dean Barnett writing at Hugh Hewitt’s blog:

Most importantly, we didn’t lose because our countrymen suddenly misplaced the virtues that make America great. It is a distinctly liberal trait to blame “the people” when they don’t vote as one would dictate. I’ll brook none of that from our side. The fact is, we thought our country would be better off with a Republican congress. We made a case to the American people. They didn’t buy it because they thought it was a weak case.

And you know what? They were right. In the closing weeks of the campaign season, I felt like I was a lawyer who had a bad client while writing this blog. That client was the Republican Party which had broken its Contract with America from 1994 and had become unmoored from its conservative principles. As its advocate, I couldn’t make a more compelling case for Republicans staying in power than the fact that the Democrats would be worse. I believed in that case, but when that’s all the party gave its advocates to work with, you can honestly conclude that Republicans got this drubbing the old fashioned way – we earned it.

Second, Fred Barnes, in his usual venue:

THIS ONE IS PRETTY EASY TO EXPLAIN. Republicans lost the House and probably the Senate because of Iraq, corruption, and a record of taking up big issues and then doing nothing on them. Of these, the war was by far the biggest factor. Unpopular wars trump good economies and everything else. President Truman learned this in 1952, as did President Johnson in 1968. Now, it was President Bush's turn, and since his name wasn't on the ballot, his party took the hit.

[…]

Already the wails of the immigration restrictionists are rising, insisting Republicans lost because they weren't tough on keeping illegal border-crossers out. Not true. The test was in Arizona, where two of the noisiest border hawks, Representatives J.D. Hayworth and Randy Graf, lost House seats. Graf lost in a seat along the Mexican border, where illegal immigrants flock.

What Americans want is a full-blown solution to the immigration crisis. And that will come only when Republicans come together on a "comprehensive" measure that not only secures the border but also provides a way for illegals in the United States to work their way to citizenship and establishes a temporary worker program. If Republicans don't grab this issue, Democrats will.

Immigration was a big failure of Republicans over the past two years, but hardly the only one. Republicans cast themselves as the party of reform, but they didn't reform anything. And heaven knows, the public is eager for a lot to be reformed, starting with Congress itself and moving on to taxes and entitlements.

The choir is encouraged to read both essays. You may or may not agree with me, but I think these two guys hit the nail on the head. Back to basics, GOP…back to basics.

Just a Few Thoughts

Wow. SO much to read, and I’ve come to the conclusion that I just can’t absorb it all…not today, anyway. But there’s absolutely no disputing the fact that “we live in interesting times.”

Right off the bat I’ll say this: the Republicans did not deserve to win, period. Their track record over the past two years has been abysmal, particularly in the House. The only bright spots I’ve seen over the past two years have been the confirmation of Justices Roberts and Alito, the renewal (of sorts) of the PATRIOT Act, and the recent legislation concerning GWOT detainees. And that last success depends entirely on the law surviving the inevitable court challenges. Should the Supreme Court strike that law down, the Congress, as it appears to be constituted after last night, won’t go back to the drawing board to craft something in the same vein. So much for accomplishments. Missed opportunities are legion, from Social Security, to immigration, to ethics reform, to curbing pork-barrel politics…specifically, earmarks. ALL of those missed opportunities should have been no-brainers for a party that supposedly espouses limited government, “values,” and fiscal responsibility. And there are a lot more missed opportunities, but I don’t have either the time or the inclination to list them.

I think I’ve made my position clear—for what that’s worth—over the past six months or so. I’ve not been impressed with the Republican Party as it’s currently constituted in the Congress—and I exempt Dubya on that account, for the most part. I think the President could have/should have exercised more leadership to get the Republican congress back on track. But, he did not. Water under the bridge, and all that. Yet, still and even, I swallowed my distaste and voted for the bastards Republican candidates, because I felt there was no alternative. Apparently there weren’t enough people in America with views similar to mine. The results speak to that fact.

Now here’s the kicker: I’m beginning to believe a theory I rejected out of hand some six to eight months ago. The loss just might be a “good thing.” America now has two years to watch the Democrats in action. The Republicans have two years to purge the leadership and get back to the roots of small-government conservatism. Yes, there is potential for the congressional Democrats to do some damage, but I think the potential is small, realistically. We won’t be pulling out of Iraq tomorrow, next month, or even next year, and that’s where the greatest danger lies. If the Democrats win control of the Senate, you just might see some Liberal Supreme Court justices retire…but Dubya will still appoint their successors. There’s some danger, there, yes. But, once again, Dubya holds the cards. That scenario will be most interesting, should it occur.

Already there’s some dissension visible in the Democrat ranks. The ultra-libs, aka the “Progressives,” are at war with the centrists. That rift was visible during the campaign, but it’s louder now that the election is over and will get louder still, as time moves on. The Progressives aren’t interested in bi-partisan politics; they want their pound of flesh. They want investigations. Some want impeachment proceedings. Some of the Lefty blogs I read today are VERY strident on that point. I don’t believe the Ultra-Lefties will get their way because, ultimately, Pelosi and Reid are politicians first and foremost. They won’t cut off their noses to spite their face. Unless, of course, they want to lose the next election, which is far more important than the one we just went through.

Interesting times, indeed.

The Fruits of Another Late Night

As noted in the title: The fruits of a late, late night: another placeholder post. I was up until about 0300 watching the returns from what is turning out to be an election of serious historical import. While yesterday’s vote is hardly the Democrat equivalent of the Republican tsunami of 1994, it is indeed significant. And worrisome. I’ve only been up for an hour or so, and in that period of time I’ve seen Speaker-designate (presumably) Pelosi beaming at a press conference while talking about the “will of the American people” and “bi-partisanship.” We’ll see, now, won’t we?

Another bombshell: Rumsfeld is being replaced by the President of Texas A&M, Bob Gates. Mr. Gates is a former DCI, and that’s about all I know about that. I’m watching the President’s press conference as I tap this out, and he’s delivering about as good a performance I’ve ever seen, especially considering the circumstances.

What a night. What a day. Much remains to be seen, eh?

Back in a few.

Today’s Pic: ROTC Cadets from the University of Nebraska, just prior to a dry run of SN1’s commissioning ceremony, Offutt AFB, NE. May, 2000. They look SO young, don’t they? I thought a patriotic theme would be appropriate for today.

VOTE!!!

Do your duty. VOTE!

This should could might be interesting…CNN is featuring bloggers on election night. From Wizbang:

The cable news network plans to host more than two dozen bloggers from across the political spectrum - including sites like RedState and Daily Kos - at a Washington Internet lounge where they can monitor the election returns on a slew of flat-screen televisions. (Each blogger will get his or her own monitor, which can be tuned to any channel.) There will be free wireless access - and plenty of food and beverages, natch.

[…]

Beltway Blogroll notes some of those represented include (with links to their announcement posts): Althouse, Americablog, Ankle Biting Pundits, Betsy's Page, Captain's Quarters, Crooks and Liars, Daily Kos, Eschaton, FireDogLake, La Shawn Barber's Corner, Pam's House Blend, Redstate, TalkLeft, Townhall (Mary Katharine Ham), Wizbang. and others.

Some bloggers (and their commenters) at the links above speculate that the most interesting scenario is what happens if the anticipated Democrat tsunami fails to materialize. Will there be fist-fights? Much gnashing and thrashing? Or just profanity-laced tirades from the Left, as is their wont? I’m not a CNN fan, but I just might channel-surf on by this evening to see how the bloggers are interacting.

But…before I leave this subject, I just have to include this bit from the Lefty FireDogLake announcement (from that same internet café that will host tonight’s “event”):

Christy: We just finished a fun nosh — Pach and I split a cheese and fruit tray, with some brie, gorgonzola, goat cheese rolled in freshly chopped parsley, fig jam, toasted walnuts, smoked gouda, fresh grapes and pear slices and baguette, and a dish of a tasty warm shrimp and crab dip with more baguette. I had a great glass of chenin blanc, and some much-needed water. (Flying makes me very thirsty.) We've got a lovely slice of double chocolate cheesecake to take back to John Amato.

Make of that what you will. Personally, I find the entry just SO “in-touch” with the common man. And that’s what the Left is all about, right correct?

And one more thing. My absolute favorite television moment during the 2004 election night telecasts was when Ohio was finally declared for Bush. Poor Wolf Blitzer looked like he was going to cry. Seriously. I laughed my a$$ off. Hopefully we’ll see another moment like that this evening or early tomorrow morning.

Über-Lib Michael Kinsley, writing in The Guardian (UK): “Thank God I voted first; The Democrats may be poised to win the House, but their manifesto does not inspire confidence” (that’s the title of the column. No kidding.):

What will a Democratic House of Representatives be like? The Republicans have been painting a portrait of Democrats roasting children on a spit in the Capitol Rotunda. Hoping for a more encouraging view, I picked up A New Direction for America - a 31-page manifesto released by House Democrats in June. All I can say is, thank goodness I voted beforehand.

[…]

Fairness is one of three qualities that need to be restored to American public life after six years of George Bush. The other two are honesty and competence.

Honesty is not just therapeutic. Fiscal honesty is a practical necessity. A New Direction for America rightly denounces the staggering fiscal irresponsibility of Republican leaders and duly promises "pay-as-you-go" spending. But in the entire document there is not one explicit revenue raiser to balance the many new spending programmes and tax credits.

[…]

Competence, of course, brings us back to Iraq. Apparently, and unfortunately, Bush is right that the Democrats have no "plan for victory". (Neither does he, of course.) For national security in general, the Democrats' plan is mostly about new cash benefits for veterans. Regarding Iraq, the Democrats' plan has two parts. First, they want Iraqis to assume "primary responsibility for securing and governing their country". Then they want "responsible redeployment" of American forces.

Older readers may recognise this formula. It's Vietnamisation - the Nixon-Kissinger plan for extracting us from a mistake. But Vietnamisation was not a plan for victory. It was a plan for what was called "peace with honour" and is now known as "defeat".

Sounds a lot like buyer’s remorse to me. The only thing Kinsley doesn’t say (explicitly) is “I f*cked up.” He should have.

And finally…Bill Whittle has a new essay up at Eject! Eject! Eject! As another blogger noted, Whittle doesn’t write often, but when he does…home run. An excerpt:

Are we beating these terrorist scumbags and child-targeting insurgent bastards? Are we winning?

Well, let’s see if we want to switch sides with them. Let’s imagine the war where the insurgents have our cards and we hold theirs.

Imagine the US completely occupied by Al Qaeda forces, subject to Sharia law. We are able to take pot shots at a few of them, and we manage to murder a few dozen of our own people every day in an attempt to stop the population from collaborating with the hated invader. But more and more Americans seem to be turning to Sharia and want to get on with their lives. We find sixty percent of the population wants Al-Qaeda to leave, but hatred for the US insurgent forces – the Wolverines – is at about 98%. The people hate the occupiers, but they despise the Wolverines.

Now imagine that a year into the occupation of America, George Bush’s two daughters were killed in a firefight with the enemy, which had surrounded the college sorority house where they were hiding. A year after that, President Bush was pulled out of a septic tank in Crawford by the Fedayeen, then put on trial and sentenced to hang, which he did on national television to widespread cheering. Condi Rice was captured in an early morning raid several years ago, and Donald Rumsfeld was killed by a suicide bomber this last summer.

Everywhere you turn – in every street and every city in America – Al Qaeda forces run security patrols, training Americans to do this for themselves. The only way to stop this is by killing our own people, which further alienates us from a populace that already despises us.

Does that feel like winning to you? Me neither. Welcome to the insurgency.

Tip of the ice berg, that. Whittle takes apart almost all of the current Leftie memes, and he does it with class and facts. It’s a keeper.

Today’s Pic: Another, longer shot of the British train layout from the Clovis Depot, since all y’all seemed to like yesterday’s pic. April, 2004.

Another Curious Encounter

So…I went to bed around 0730 this morning. I was deep, deep in the sleep of the just, when a strange dream occurred. I was standing at a door, knocking insistently, yet no one was answering. Wait! This is no dream, someone is knocking on my door…insistently. So, I roll out of bed, not bothering to put on my glasses, and stumble to the door, opening same. Standing on my door step (so to speak) was a kindly-looking old girl in her late 50s or perhaps early 60s, nicely done up in a print dress and holding a handful of brochures. The following brief conversation ensued…

Kindly Old Lady: Hello, I’m Juaneema (spelled phonetically, that’s what she said, really) and we’re disseminating an idea world wide…

Me: Really? (delivered in a slight mumble, still shaking off the cobwebs)

KOL: Yes! (extends her hand and offers me a brochure, which says something to the effect of “The Death of False Religion is Near!”)

Me: Why thank you! Won’t you come in and let me tell you about an idea I’m trying to disseminate world-wide?

KOL: What idea is that?

Me: Sodomy! It’s not just for ga—

KOL: ::gasp:: Backs away slowly, then turns and breaks into a full run…

Well, it didn’t really happen like that. I gently, firmly, and politely declined to accept her brochure, she gave me a rather strange look and got on her way. It was over in seconds. I went back into El Casa Móvil De Pennington, returned to bed and fell back to sleep immediately, if not sooner.

But…some day someone is gonna wake me up and suffer the consequences. Maybe.

Some Thoughts on The NY Times and...Trains

So. What a weird day/night this has been. I appear to be going into another period of warped circadian rhythms. I decided to hit the hay a bit early last evening, around 2100 or so. Early to bed, early to rise, and all that. It was just after midnite when my eyes popped open—and stayed open, despite my best efforts to get back to sleep. I’ve been up ever since. When 0400 came and went I knew the game was up; I lit off the coffee around 0430. I’ll probably work on this post as I work on the coffee, put it up, and then put me up. I’m thinking I may last until about 0800 or so. We’ll see.

Well, at least they’ve finally owned up to it…The closing graf in an op-ed in yesterday’s NYT:

This election is indeed about George W. Bush — and the Congressional majority’s insistence on protecting him from the consequences of his mistakes and misdeeds. Mr. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and proceeded to govern as if he had an enormous mandate. After he actually beat his opponent in 2004, he announced he now had real political capital and intended to spend it. We have seen the results. It is frightening to contemplate the new excesses he could concoct if he woke up next Wednesday and found that his party had maintained its hold on the House and Senate.

Yep, Pinch and Keller are off to the gulag the day after tomorrow, with Dowd and Krugman in tow (hopefully). Will you miss ‘em? I won’t.

And speaking of the NYT, there’s this:

This fall has been a grand diversion for The New York Times’ left-leaning editorial staff, a metaphorical (or not, in some cases) bender, a prolonged sugar rush as reporters, editors and even some administrators are gleeful in anticipation of the Nov. 7 midterm elections. This column is written eight days before the election, and I’m not as sure as Paul Krugman, for example, that the Democrats will ride the “wave” resulting in Speaker Nancy “This gavel is for the children” Pelosi implementing her 100-hour agenda that will raise the minimum wage and roll back President Bush’s tax cuts, but it’s a possibility for which I’m bracing.

[…]

However, once the election is over, regardless of the results, The Times will be forced to consider its own declining fortunes and reputation, which, of course, go hand in hand.

[…]

What The Times ought to consider, but apparently hasn’t, is that its combination of editorial scandals and frantic political swing to the hard left is alienating a considerable portion of its once loyal readership. I’m not talking about the never-say-die loyalists—who won’t live forever— who still believe Sunday’s Times is a major cultural event, or the pundits from extremist publications like The Nation, The American Prospect, Salon and portions of the youngsters at The New Republic and Slate who continue to treat The Times’ editorial shrieking as gospel. Rather, look at the affluent reader in the metropolitan area who almost always votes Democratic (except perhaps for Bloomberg or Rudy Giuliani in his reelection bid), is pro-choice, against the death penalty and doesn’t mind higher taxes if they’re put to supposed good use.

The NYT suffered a 3.5% decline in circulation this past year, according to the latest audit figures published in October. And their stock ain’t looking so hot, either. I wonder why? Adopting a far-left editorial stance is one thing, and it’s not all that unusual. But when you purposefully and disingenuously publish classified information, in war time, on not one but three separate occasions within a period of one year for the sole reason of discrediting an administration you disagree with…well, you deserve what you get. And that’s a shame. The NYT used to be a great paper.

Today’s Pic: A close up of one of the model train layouts at the Clovis Depot, a railroad museum in…wait for it…Clovis, NM. Philip Williams, the proprietor of the Clovis Depot, is a former National Security Agency guy who was stationed in England and Australia, among other places, during his career. He’s been a model railroader all his life and bought the old Clovis depot from the Burlington railroad to establish his museum. A fine man with a great museum. If you ever come to P-Town I’ll take you over there.

I think I’m gonna go to bed now…

Support the Troops

That Kerry thing just won’t go away. While the Left is doing its absolute best to ignore the flap and dismiss it as “just a blooper,” much ado about nothing, or— if they acknowledge it at all— just more heated rhetoric from the Republican Attack Machine. Pundits on the Right, on the other hand, have moved beyond Kerry himself and are delving into The Deeper Meaning. And I keep reading what they have to say.

I read two such articles yesterday that have the ring of truth. One comes from Mark Steyn, one of my usual Sunday reads. The other is by a guy I’ve never heard of, Dennis Keohane, writing in American Thinker (via Real Clear Politics). Both guys write about the same thing, make essentially the same points, but do so in different ways. Keohane goes a little deeper than Steyn, but both are right on target. First Mr. Steyn:

Whatever he may or may not have intended (and "I was making a joke about how stupid Bush is but I'm the only condescending liberal in America too stupid to tell a Bush-is-stupid joke without blowing it" must rank as one of the all-time lame excuses), what he said fits what too many upscale Dems believe: that America's soldiers are only there because they're too poor and too ill-educated to know any better. That's what they mean when they say "we support our troops." They support them as victims, as children, as potential welfare recipients, but they don't support them as warriors and they don't support the mission.

So their "support" is objectively worthless. The indignant protest that "of course" "we support our troops" isn't support, it's a straddle, and one that emphasizes the Democrats' frivolousness in the post-9/11 world.

Now Mr. Keohane:

There is a clash of cultures at work in this, between the historic Democratic culture of ‘caring’, and those who value the ‘warrior culture’ of our military. Both sides care, but express that care with very different methods.

One can hardly find a Democrat anywhere who, when addressing the topic of support for our troops, does not immediately go to the subject of Veteran’s medical benefits, followed shortly by education and retraining programs. When it comes to addressing actual combat, the Democrats again almost invariably go to a lack of body armor or a shortage of up-armored Humvees and the like. The better of the Democratic left (and they are better than the condescending-to-hostile left from Kerry to numerous KosKids) look at the military and the veterans the military produces as another demographic constituency.

Like any other needy Democrat constituency, military and veterans need their help and care, naturally delivered through the offices of a paternalistic government. The warrior culture of the military rightfully views itself as the protector and defender of citizens, politicians and the state itself. The enormous gap between those two conceptions offers a profound clash of cultures.

Steyn makes a damned good point, and one that’s familiar to anyone who reads milblogs, even casually. The troops, in their wisdom, reject the “we support our troops but not the war” meme. Mike Fay, for one, is very vocal about this subject on his blog, pointedly telling Lefties dropping those sorts of comments on his blog to just STFU, albeit more politely. Lefties, for the most part, just don’t get it when they offer their support and it is rejected. Confusion, hurt, and all the other emotions associated with rejection come to the fore. And Mr. Keohane attributes that to “culture clash.” I believe Keohane is correct.

I only have anecdotal evidence concerning the accuracy of Mr. Keohane’s theory, but it’s pretty damned strong. Roughly half of my friends, interestingly enough, are Liberals. And half of my Lefty friends refuse to discuss politics with me—we’ve agreed to disagree, and I’m OK with that. They aren’t my friends because of their politics, anyway. Of the ones that do discuss politics with me, every single one of them are against the war but “support the troops.” And not a single one understands why this is a contradiction. Mr. Keohane again:

Even if the better Democrats understand that victory is a priority, that priority will always be in competition with another: caring. The shooting will no sooner start than they will want to get the troops out of there, because they care! They don’t want to see anyone suffer!

Yet the warrior culture, when that shooting starts, sees the priority clearly and simply as: we fight to win.

[…]

The better Democrats cannot shake the idea that any time we have taken casualties, it is somehow a military failure. Bill Clinton’s Kosovo Campaign is celebrated in the media as a victory primarilly because the ‘high altitude only’ bombing gave us zero casualties.

That the better Democrats have this attitude should be worrisome. Any Democratic administration will become incapable of fighting any war to victory if the harder left is only confronted by those who just think it is a failure to have to fight, and no casualties should be taken.

The troops want the nation to support their commitment to victory. They do not aspire to the status of needy client, they want to be victorious warriors and commit their very lives to it.

My friends are “better Democrats,” and they DO care. But they don’t get it. We’re in a war, and we’re fighting that war to win. Period. Support the troops, support the mission. It’s that simple.

And then there are the “not so good Democrats,” those that reject the very idea that we’re engaged in a global war. These folks acknowledge the reality of war in Iraq, but they want to put an end to that war, immediately, if not sooner. That war is wrong, it was started on false pretenses, it’s Dubya’s personal vendetta, it’s all about oil, yadda, yadda, yadda. Anything but the frickin’ truth. And here is where Mr. Steyn and Mr. Keohane end up, singing in perfect harmony. Mr. Steyn:

To be sure, like Kerry in 2004 deciding that the murderers and rapists were now his brave "band of brothers," the left often discover a sudden enthusiasm for the previous war once a new one's come along. Since Iraq, they've been all in favor of Afghanistan, though back in the fall of 2001 they were convinced it was a quagmire, graveyard of empire, unwinnable, another Vietnam, etc. Oh, and they also discovered a belated enthusiasm for the first President Bush's shrewd conduct of the 1991 Gulf War, though at the time Kerry and most other Democrats voted against that one, too. In this tedious shell game, no matter how frantically the left shuffles the cups, you never find the one shriveled pea of The Military Intervention We're Willing To Support When it Matters.

Mr. Keohane:

All of this points out why the Kerry kerfluffle may have a bigger impact Tuesday than many realize. Since the Foley imbroglio, the speculation has been that some or even much of the ‘Christian right’ of the Republican base, evangelicals and conservative Catholics, may sit it out in disgust, seeing a betrayal of their moral values by Republicans.

But as demographic groups, these two have had a significantly higher rate of membership in the military than the public at large. They honor their warriors as warriors, not as victims or charity cases, understanding that we have our freedoms because hard men and women are and have been willing to do hard things for our freedom’s sake.

Kerry’s reminder of how their family members in the military may fare under the Democrats will be powerful in an election that is now said to be a battle of turnout.

Bottom line? The prevailing mindset of the Democrat party renders them unfit to govern in war time. They simply aren’t mentally equipped to do so. We don’t need a “caring” government, we need a government that is willing and able to kill terrorists, where ever they are. That ain't the Democrats.

Hang 'em High...

Guilty…and he’ll hang…but we kinda sorta knew that, didn’t we? I happened to be awake in the wee small hours this morning when news of the verdict and subsequent sentencing came in. I watched the mini-drama unfold on Fox News, where the “overnight” crew appeared to be out of their element. Not a particularly inspiring performance by the anchor person, and that’s being kind. The folks “on the ground” in Baghdad turned in credible performances, but the anchor person? Not so much. But, on the other hand, at least Fox News provided coverage. MSNBC and CNN didn’t. Not all that important, then, I guess. What was FNC thinking, anyway?

So, I did a little surfing on the Lefty blogs this morning to see what the reaction is/was, and apart from the general “I question the timing” crap and other BS, I found this in one of the comment sections:

I can only hope that this trial is a preview or GWB’s future war crimes trial at the Hague……or, even better, in a free and independent Baghdad.

After all, W long passed Saddam’s record for number of Iraqis killed.

Another member of the reality-based clue-free community speaks.

I suppose your perspective depends, in large part, upon where you sit. Wanna guess where this writer is sitting?

Right now volleys of bullets ring not far from where I sit, some are fired to express joy while others are fired in a desperate expression of denial but I have no doubt who is going to prevail. Although the road is long but we are walking forward and will not look back.

I salute the honorable special tribunal that challenged threats and risks and insisted on keeping up the work until the end, and today it brought back the pride of the land that wrote the world’s first laws.

I salute the witnesses who risked their lives to reveal the truth and expose the crimes of the dictator.

I salute the brave men and women of the coalition who came to this land and made this day possible.

Congratulations to all my Iraqi brothers and sisters on this glorious day.

Why is it the Left absolutely, positively cannot accept, let alone celebrate, any good news coming out of Iraq? Rhetorical question… we all know the answer.

Another Green Wacko update, by Christopher Monckton, in the Sunday Telegraph (UK):

Sir Nicholas Stern's report on the economics of climate change, which was published last week, says that the debate is over. It isn't.

[…]

This week, I'll show how the UN undervalued the sun's effects on historical and contemporary climate, slashed the natural greenhouse effect, overstated the past century's temperature increase, repealed a fundamental law of physics and tripled the man-made greenhouse effect.

Next week, I'll demonstrate the atrocious economic, political and environmental cost of the high-tax, zero-freedom, bureaucratic centralism implicit in Stern's report; I'll compare the global-warming scare with previous sci-fi alarums; and I'll show how the environmentalists' "precautionary principle" (get the state to interfere now, just in case) is killing people.

It’s good to see the debate continuing, despite the best efforts of those individuals who stridently maintain there is no argument, like our buddy AlGore:

Taking a similar tack, former US vice president-turned-green-warrior Al Gore recently declared: ‘Fifteen per cent of the population believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona and somewhat fewer still believe the Earth is flat. I think they all get together with the global warming deniers on a Saturday night and party.’

I got that particular quote from a lengthy essay by Australian columnist Brendan O’Neill, who wrote a piece in Spike titled “Global Warming: the chilling effect on free speech.” Here’s another excerpt:

Whatever the truth about our warming planet, it is clear there is a tidal wave of intolerance in the debate about climate change which is eroding free speech and melting rational debate. There has been no decree from on high or piece of legislation outlawing climate change denial, and indeed there is no need to criminalise it, as the Australian columnist suggests. Because in recent months it has been turned into a taboo, chased out of polite society by a wink and a nod, letters of complaint, newspaper articles continually comparing climate change denial to Holocaust denial. An attitude of ‘You can’t say that!’ now surrounds debates about climate change, which in many ways is more powerful and pernicious than an outright ban. I am not a scientist or an expert on climate change, but I know what I don’t like - and this demonisation of certain words and ideas is an affront to freedom of speech and open, rational debate.

What he said.

Today’s “Preaching to the Choir” editorial, courtesy of the San Diego Union Tribune:

Voters seemingly poised to hand control of the House of Representatives and perhaps the Senate to Democrats should be thinking hard about the consequences on an array of defining issues. The most reliable guide to those consequences is not what Democrats are saying on the campaign stump – or mostly not saying, witness the suddenly missing Nancy Pelosi – but how they have actually voted in Congress again and again on core issues.

Bluntly put, there is ample reason to conclude that the prospective Democratic majorities in Congress would, in fact, be weak on national security, defeatist on Iraq, prone to raise taxes and would lean well to the left on cultural values.

Too harsh a judgment, you say? Consider the record.

“Consider the record.” Yes, please DO. And vote accordingly.

Today’s Pic: Inside the Butterfly Conservatory in Seattle, WA. June, 2000.

The Usual Short Saturday Post

Today’s Big News: Gannett’s Army/Air Force/Navy/Marine Corps Times family of publications will publish an editorial on Monday calling for Rumsfeld’s resignation. This lil item is only big in the sense that a LOT of uninformed folks are probably gonna get this wrong. Just because a paper has “Army Times” on its masthead doesn’t mean it’s an official publication of the U.S. Army. It is most decidedly NOT. Editor and Publisher is the medium breaking this news today, and they properly indicate the papers are owned by Gannett. But some freakin’ paranoid Lefty is sure to miss that point, or extend the point waaay beyond its actual meaning, and rant about how the military itself is turning on Rumsfeld. Example:

Long ago, I worked for the company that owns the military Times publications, although my own paper was aimed at the civilian side of the government (we called our small corner of the newsroom "the demilitarized zone.") Maybe things have changed in 20 years but I can assure you that back then the Times papers were even more mindlessly pro-military than the Pentagon itself (which is kind of like being more Catholic than the pope, but with superior firepower). If they're taking aim at the SecDef -- and timing their battery fire for maximum political effect -- it's reasonable to believe that the generals have reached a point that in many countries would be followed in short order by a military coup.

Disclaimer: Link provided for entertainment purposes only. There’s no useful information at the link, just a few good laughs.

Things may have changed since my day, but it used to be the AF Times was only good for the promotion lists it published. I never subscribed, and I never really had to, anyway. There were so many free copies floating around that subscribing would have been a serious waste of money. It’s the ol’ “cow-milk-free” argument… But I digress. What the sergeant really means is the Military Times family of publications in no way reflect the opinion of the military they purport to represent. They’re just rags, pure and simple.

Glenn has more, including a couple of e-mails from readers with very pertinent comment.

Voted today…and the only significant deviation from The Party Best-Equipped to Kill Terrorists was my vote for Kinky Friedman for guv’nor. Governors aren’t exactly in the bid’ness of killing terrorists, and I hope it never comes to that. You may think I threw my vote for governor away and perhaps I did. But…I think Kinky will make a damned fine governor. We need more cigars and bourbon in our state houses and less focus-group crap.

OK…short post, coz this stuff is distracting me from the usual, customary, and reasonable bid’ness of a Saturday: football!

Today’s Pic: Another pic from the Great European Divorce Tour, this time a lovely Dutch Girl who worked the counter at The (original) Bulldog Coffee House in Amsterdam. June, 1998.

Freedom of the Press...

From Brit Hume’s Special Report:

And the journalism advocacy group "Reporters Without Borders" has issued its Annual Worldwide Press Freedom Index. The U.S. came in tied for 53rd — with the group saying federal courts threaten journalists and refuse to recognize the media's right not to reveal its sources.

Denmark, which is listed in the 19th spot, brought charges against two reporters accused of publishing state secrets in a series of stories about pre-war intelligence.

And in Lithuania, which was 27th, the government shut down a newspaper's Web site, confiscated all 15,000 print copies of the paper, and arrested the editor — for running a story alleging political corruption.

Ah, I see. The US press is “less free” than that of Lithuania, who arrested an editor and shut down the paper’s web site. Look out, NYT…they’re comin’ to get ya! It's only a matter of time.
/sarcasm.

Soo…speaking of the press and such, I was looking for a way to diss this survey (What would we do without surveys?) and came across Norm Geras’ lil piece, of which I’ll give you the opening grafs:

This afternoon I'm ambling home from an appointment with the Singing Christians of Kingsway and I'm accosted not far from my gate by a young whippersnapper in mauve pantaloons and holding a clipboard and modern recording device.

'Sir,' he says, thrusting a mic towards me, 'Do you think The Guardian is the greatest threat to world peace today?'

Me: 'Well, no. I do have my quarrels with the paper, but it isn't the greatest threat to world peace.'

Him (disappointed): 'Oh...'

Not being the nosy sort, I thought I'd hang around a bit anyway to see if he was putting the same question to others, so I crouched behind my gatepost in a way that rendered me altogether invisible to the passing throng, and the thronging thring, and I waited. Sure enough...

I just can’t improve on what Norm did. No way.

(By way of full disclosure: I’m a big fan of British understatement and their dry, wry, wit. I’m much less a fan of The Guardian.)

A short follow-up to yesterday’s Green Wackos post… From an op-ed in today’s Las Vegas Review-Journal:

Anyone who attempts to debunk doomsday predictions is shouted down by the radical greens. Europeans Bjorn Lomborg and Phelim McAleer, loyal foot soldiers in the green movement, conducted their own research to support their causes -- and were shocked to learn how wrong they were. Mr. Lomborg, a professor, dismantled the core "truths" he once believed (including global warming) in his book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist," and now must employ bodyguards when he gives speeches. Mr. McAleer, a journalist, went to Romania to film a documentary about an evil mining corporation seeking to rape the landscape at the expense of peasants, and instead found radical environmentalists spreading lies about the project to keep thousands of people in extreme poverty. Today Mr. Lomborg and Mr. McAleer are viewed by many of their colleagues as traitors.

[…]

The punch line to all this? The British report acknowledges that even if the United States, England, Japan and all of Western Europe cut the ignition on every internal combustion engine forever, the developing economies of China and India -- granted exemptions from the Kyoto accord -- will still produce more than enough pollution to make up the difference.

For all this, the United States should cripple the world's largest and most productive economy? A better alternative is to tell the environmentalists spreading this global warming panic to get in touch with nature -- by jumping in a lake.

Not everyone have lost their marbles, thank God. We need a few more good heretics. Just sayin’.

Today’s Pic: A view towards Wenceslas Square, Prague, Czech Republic. Taken during the Great European Divorce Tour, June, 1998.

Message Received

This just in:

Click for larger, as usual. I doubt that anything will be done about my complaint, but Hey! It's nice to know I was heard. At the very least.

The Secret Letter from Iraq

My Buddy Dan in Florida just e-mailed me an item that’s worthy of being read by the entire US of A. The “Secret Letter from Iraq” is much too long to publish in its entirety on the blog, but a little judicious googling on my part turned up the link. You should go there and read… Here’s an excerpt:

Rather than attempting to sum up the last seven months, I figured I'd just hit the record-setting highlights of 2006 in Iraq. These are among the events and experiences I'll remember best.

Worst Case of Deja Vu — I thought I was familiar with the feeling of deja vu until I arrived back here in Fallujah in February. The moment I stepped off of the helicopter, just as dawn broke, and saw the camp just as I had left it ten months before — that was deja vu. Kind of unnerving. It was as if I had never left. Same work area, same busted desk, same chair, same computer, same room, same creaky rack, same... everything. Same everything for the next year. It was like entering a parallel universe. Home wasn't 10,000 miles away, it was a different lifetime.

Most Surreal Moment — Watching Marines arrive at my detention facility and unload a truck load of flex-cuffed midgets. 26 to be exact. We had put the word out earlier in the day to the Marines in Fallujah that we were looking for Bad Guy X, who was described as a midget. Little did I know that Fallujah was home to a small community of midgets, who banded together for support since they were considered as social outcasts. The Marines were anxious to get back to the midget colony to bring in the rest of the midget suspects, but I called off the search, figuring Bad Guy X was long gone on his short legs after seeing his companions rounded up by the giant infidels.

Thanks, Dan! Much appreciated!

Green Wackos

Global Warming is a minor hot button issue with me. Not the fact that the climate is getting warmer, but all the politics surrounding the fact, and the science/pseudo-science associated with the phenomenon. There’s some debate going on here, but not a lot. What little dissent one sees to the received wisdom about the causes of global warming is immediately pooh-poohed by a host of experts as “uninformed,” or worse. Witness our Bud AlGore, perhaps the leading light in the pantheon of Green Demagogues. And the previous link is old, predating the release of “An Inconvenient Truth.” Don't get me started on that subject. Please.

And so yesterday I learn, from the flippin’ Weather Channel, of all places(!), that Tony Blair “enlisted” AlGore to lobby the US on climate change. The Irish Times:

The British government has hired former US vice president Al Gore as a lobbyist to convince the American public that action must be taken urgently to combat the "disastrous" threat of global warming.

The unusual appointment was announced yesterday following the publication in London of a major review by the government's chief economist warning of the dire consequences of failing to deal with climate change.

Sir Nicholas Stern's review starkly warned that the world was entering "dangerous territory" unless urgent action is taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and prevent the rise in global temperatures.

[…]

The review was published just a week before the latest round of UN talks on climate change starts in Nairobi, Kenya and on the same day that the UN secretariat in Bonn released data showing an upward trend in emissions between 2000 and 2004.

The weighty review provides ammunition for Mr Blair's drive to persuade the US, as well as fast-growing developing countries such as China and India, to sign up to a new global framework to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

Well, now. That’s pretty interesting, isn’t it? Now about that Stern report…Here’s an op-ed in the WSJ on that subject. It’s a fairly long read, so it’s work. But Bjorn Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist," read the Stern document so you don’t have to. Thank him for that, and read his critique. I’ll give you the executive summary, according to Mr. Lomborg: the Stern report suffers from errors, bad data, bad assumptions, and worse…bad prescriptions for a solution to “global warming.” The “solutions,” if implemented the way the Green Wackos want, would be worse than the cure. More debate on this subject, please. Convince me, because I’m sure as Hell not there yet.

Oh, and for the folks at The Weather Channel: stick to your knitting and spare us the global warming sermons. You’re very good at what you do, which is weather reporting. On the other hand, I find Dr. Heidi Cullen, Climate Expert, and her "commentary" annoying as all get-out. Stop it.

Another Placeholder

Another one of those sleep-in kind of days. I’ve just poured my second cup, answered the overnight mail (always dangerous when one isn’t fully caffeinated yet) and am almost prepared to see what’s in the news. Almost. More J-F(rickin’)-Kerry, probably. Arrgh.

Today’s Pic: Apropos of nothing—it’s not raining, I’m not in California (Thank GOD!), and the current view out my window is nothing like this. However. I must have taken this picture for a reason although that reason escapes me now. Outside the window of my apartment in Berkeley, CA, two streets south of the corner of Telegraph and Ashby Avenues. A rainy Sunday in February, 2001.

Kerryism

Lord, please stop me before I blog about Kerry again. But wait! This is less about Kerry than about Kerryism, a new term coined by the inimitable Victor Davis Hanson. Here’s the closing graf from VDH’s essay (on The Corner, at NRO):

The Democrats should use this occasion to have an autopsy of Kerryism, or this strange new tony liberalism, that has turned noblisse oblige on its head. It used to be that millionaire FDRs and JFKs felt sympathy for those of the lower classes and wished to ensure that the hoi polloi had some shot at the American dream. But today's elite liberals-a Howard Dean, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, George Soros, Ted Turner-love the high life and playact at being leftists simply because they are already insulated from the effects of their own nostrums that always come at someone poorer's expense while providing them some sort of psychological relief from guilt. Poor Harry Truman must be turning over in his grave-from bourbon, cigars, and poker to wind-surfing and L.L. Bean costume of the day says it all.

Ya know, the Dems could do a lot worse than emulating Harry Truman, or trying to emulate him. As a matter of fact, they have done a helluva lot worse, ever since Bubba left office. And Bubba was no role model. Read the whole Hanson piece.

Front and Center!

Bec, in the comments to a post immediately below, gives us this, and it just HAD to come up front:

I had to bring this over from Big Pharaoh. Big chuckle from me. I love our military! :)

Get over to Big Pharoh, right now! You'll laugh your a$ off. John F(rickin) Kerry won't.

Update 11/02/2006: The story about the photo is here.

Staff Sgt. Erik Holtan, a member of the Minnesota National Guard, says he saw the picture and recognized the insignia as that of his fellow Minnesota guardsmen - and he immediately put it up on his own blog site.

"It's awesome," he told The Post. "The troops over there have to be livid because of what [Kerry] said. I don't know why he would say that."

Holtan, who works at Guard headquarters, said he believes the troops behind the Kerry sign are in Iraq, since all the members of the unit in the shot - the 1/34 Brigade Troops Battalion - have been deployed.

[...]

Without citing sources, ABC News in Washington said the photograph was taken in Talil, several hundred miles south of Baghdad, where members of the unit are located.

Update, 11/02/2006, Part Deux: Victor Davis Hanson, at The Corner:

One of the things I love about America is the spontaneous brilliance and humor that undermine all pretension. No better example was that wonderful banner from our brave and ingenious soldiers in Iraq, blaring:

"HALP US JON CARRY-WE R STUCK [backwards k] HEAR N IRAK."

20 million Americans must have seen it all over the Internet, and nothing sums up the nothingness of Kerryism better than those smiling soldiers. After seeing that, no wonder he's offering deer-in-the headlights apologies. This is a man who remembers everything and learns nothing.

Then there was the finger-in-the wind initial Democratic response: their supposedly slight ill breeze suddenly became a Katrina hurricane, and, Presto!, they were all over the airwaves demanding from poor Kerry the apologies that just a few hours ago they thought were not necessary.

As for Kerry — how quick the 24-hour metamorphosis from smugness to defiance to purported contriteness! At his earlier blame-the-wing-nuts-and-Rush-Limbaugh press conference, he thought he was a strutting, strong-jawed Napoleonic general leading his troops to rout the evil Bush-Cheney Prussians, and then, alone, suddenly turned around — and Mein Gott in Himmel!! — his Old Guard was heading for the hills.

I’d wager many more than 20 million Americans saw this wonderful photo. It was the lead item on several Fox News Channel shows yesterday afternoon/evening.

A Curious Encounter

I had to go out to the base this afternoon… mainly because the G-4 told me during today’s staff meeting it was time for a supply run—for fuel, medical supplies, and consumables. (All other areas were 5x5, but those staff guys always tell me that.) So, run I did, making stops at the Class VI store, the gas station, the hospital clinic, and the commissary, not necessarily in that order. I got home about an hour ago.

I had a sorta curious encounter immediately after I pulled into the clinic parking lot. I met Col. Ken Hall, commander of the 27^th Medical Group, and had a very pleasant conversation with him while walking from the parking lot into the clinic. The walk was longer than you might think as the clinic has two entrances and two parking lots, one in front, and one in the back of the former hospital, now clinic. I parked in the back lot, which is near the pharmacy, which was where I was going. Unfortunately, the whole damned base was in exercise mode, and the back entrance to the clinic was closed as a result. Col. Hall intercepted me in the parking lot while I was on my way towards the back door and explained I was going to have to go in the front door because of the exercise, offering apologies. He suggested I drive around to the front parking lot but I demurred, saying the walk would do me good.

So, the colonel (who was in uniform, by the way) and I walked all the way around the clinic and went in the front door, about a four minute walk. We introduced ourselves (“Hi! I’m Ken Hall,” sez he, extending his hand) and began chatting. He asked if I was a retiree, when did I retire, what did I do in the AF, what brought me to Cannon, and so on and so forth. As soon as I answered one of his questions he was firing off another. I found it difficult to get a word in edgewise, only barely managing to find out he was the Medical Group commander. Colonels are like that, for the most part. Don’t misunderstand me…the conversation was brief, non-stop, but good. Col. Hall seems like a great guy.

So, what’s curious about that, you ask? You meet people every day, right? Well, yes. But I realized something was different about this encounter as I walked out of the clinic, replaying the conversation I had with Col. Hall. First of all, I replied to all his questions requiring a “yes” or “no” answer with a snappy “Yes, sir” or “No, sir.” Emphasis on the sir. I realized I had immediately fallen into step with the colonel and matched his gait. I was slightly uncomfortable because I was on his right, when I should have been on his left, him being senior and all. In other words, I had fallen back into the role of Buck Pennington, MSgt, USAF, rather than Mr. Buck Pennington. Immediately, unconsciously, and naturally. I find that rather curious, given I’ve been retired from the Air Force for over 21 years.

I haven’t been a sergeant in a helluva long time, in more ways than one. Without going into too much detail, I was extremely fortunate in my civilian career. In the last year of my working life I carried the title of Director (rather miraculously, in retrospect), which is roughly equivalent to a senior field grade officer. Guys like Col. Hall were my peers in civilian life. But during my brief encounter with Col. Hall all that went by the boards and I became a sergeant again. I never even gave it a second thought as it happened, only afterwards. I suppose you can take the sergeant out of the Air Force, but you can’t take the Air Force out of the sergeant. And that’s not all bad.

But...whatever am I going to do when one of the Boys makes Colonel/Captain (USN)? THAT will be interesting!

Kerry, Kerry, Quite Contrary...

Jeez. Ol’ J-Frickin’-K sure lit off a firestorm, didn’t he? At one point yesterday fully half of memeorandum’s page was nothing but Kerry, Kerry, Kerry. And the poor SOB actually made things worse with his “statement” about how the Republican Smear Machine misquoted him; that he didn’t insult the troops, he was actually insulting Dubya, Dubya’s war policy, the President’s men, yadda, yadda, yadda. And the usual suspects rose up to defend Kerry for “fighting back.” (no links, I’m sure you know who I mean) One of the funnier things I read is that this lil flap is Kerry’s “Fox News Moment,” referring to Bubba’s calculated blow-up vis-à-vis Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday a while back. The key difference, of course, is that Clinton has more political skill in his little finger than Kerry will ever have. Proof? Kerry is withdrawing from the field, temporarily or otherwise, canceling all of today’s political appearances in Minnesota and one with/for Bob Casey in Philadelphia this evening. Kerry’s cancellations came after Iowa congressional candidate Bruce Braley cancelled Kerry’s invitation to appear at a rally, a fact not noted in the CNN link, above. CNN would like you to believe Kerry did the canceling. But, I digress. CNN:

Kerry's office said two House campaign appearances by the senator also have been canceled -- by mutual decision -- so as not to "allow the Republican hate machine to use Democratic candidates as their proxies in their distorted spin war in which once again they're willing to exploit brave American troops."

The SOB Kerry really is tone-deaf, isn’t he? Republican hate-machine exploiting the troops. Oh, that is just SO rich! That aside, I think the Dem (Dim?) power-brokers just might have been in contact with J-Frickin’-K last night. Just sayin’.

Stealing a line from Bill O’Reilly, I’ll “give the last word” on this subject to Jonah Goldberg, who wrote an op-ed in the Salt Lake Tribune:

But whether or not it was a joke, it certainly sounded like Kerry was talking about the troops, because that's the way Kerry talks about everything. Kerry's a bit like one of those cavemen from the Geico commercials, only he's a throwback to a slightly more recent era: Vietnam. All of his ideas were formed from his experience as an anti-Vietnam crusader. He may have run as a born-again war hero in 2004, but his political career was founded on his activism against a war he repeatedly labeled a crime.
That's why few gave Kerry the benefit of the doubt. The idea that the military is the last refuge for the lumpen-proletariat is a Vietnam-era chestnut that continues to pop up in liberal talking points. It wasn't very accurate during Vietnam, and it's even less so now. A timely study of the demographics of enlistees in our all-volunteer military found that the share of recruits from the poorest American neighborhoods has declined steadily since 1999 and throughout the war. Moreover, "U.S. military enlistees are better educated, wealthier, and more rural on average than their civilian peers."
 

Kerry thinks it's unfair for Republicans to seize on his comments, and to an extent he's right. He obviously didn't intend to insult America's servicemen and women. But Kerry fails to understand that he -- like so many fossils of his generation in the Democratic Party -- sounds like he's frozen in the past. The Democratic position on Iraq is that it's Vietnam all over again, and the only time Kerry ever seems sure of himself is when he's reprising his anti-Vietnam schtick.

Goldberg is correct. OLD liberals still believe that ol’ chestnut, as Jonah calls it. The younger ones? Not so much, I think, but that’s my gut call. But Kerry is an OLD liberal, and he’s repeatedly demonstrated old-line Liberal thinking, to his detriment. And by the way, that study Goldberg quoted? It’s here.

This is very interesting. Ruth Marcus, writing in the WaPo:

If Democrats win control of the House next week, Nancy Pelosi's first test as speaker will arrive long before the 110th Congress convenes. Her choice to head the House intelligence committee -- unlike other House committees, this one is left entirely up to the party leadership -- will speak volumes about whether a Speaker Pelosi will be able to resist a return to paint-by-numbers Democratic Party interest-group politics as usual.

Pelosi is in a box of her own devising. The panel's ranking Democrat is her fellow Californian Jane Harman -- smart and hardworking but also abrasive, ambitious and, in Pelosi's estimation, insufficiently partisan on the committee. So Pelosi, once the intelligence panel's ranking Democrat herself, has made clear that she doesn't intend to name Harman to the chairmanship.

The wrong decision, in my view, but one that's magnified by the unfortunate fact that next in line is Florida Rep. Alcee Hastings. In 1989, after being acquitted in a criminal trial, Hastings was stripped of his position as a federal judge -- impeached by the House in which he now serves and convicted by the Senate -- for conspiring to extort a $150,000 bribe in a case before him, repeatedly lying about it under oath and manufacturing evidence at his trial.

Ordinarily, that might doom Hastings's chances, but the situation is further inflamed by racial politics: Hastings is African American, and the Congressional Black Caucus has made it clear that it will not tolerate his rejection. Another black lawmaker, Georgia's Sanford Bishop, was passed over to accommodate Harman, who reclaimed her seniority when she returned to Congress in 2000 after a gubernatorial run. And the black caucus is still smarting over Pelosi's move to oust Louisiana's William J. Jefferson from the Ways and Means Committee after the FBI found a freezerful of cash in Jefferson's home.

Ms. Marcus goes on to detail the specifics of Hastings’ trial and the subsequent congressional investigations that ultimately led to his impeachment, conviction, and removal from the federal bench. What troubles me is the intransigence of the Congressional Black Caucus. Their backing of Hastings as the potential head of the Intelligence Committee, and their anger at Pelosi’s appropriate actions against Representative Jefferson sure as Hell doesn’t look good. Not at all. From where I sit, the CBC’s actions look much more like “defending their own,” rather than serving the needs of the country. I have a problem with that. And so does Captain Ed:

The CBC's spokesperson told the Post that its first order of business is to protect its members. Apparently, that takes precedence over protecting America, and the CBC views Intel as just another means to divide spoils. They also insist that Hastings has the knowledge and the experience in intelligence work. If they're referring to his clandestine work, they certainly have a point.

This is what a Democratic majority will bring.

What he said.

 

Today’s Pic: One of those guys Kerry insulted in his Class A Uniform, taken last month in San Antonio. Lookin’ Good! As always, click the pic for the larger version.

BTW, The Captain posted his quarterly update, in case ya missed it.

Valour-IT Update

Do you want to do well and do good, too? Well, if you’re a military history buff, a Marine, a fan of the Marine Corps, or simply someone who wants to know as much about the current Iraq War and/or Gulf War I, this is your lucky day! You can help buy voice-activated laptops for our wounded heroes and do something good for yourself…at the same time!

Richard S. Lowry, a prominent historian and author of “Marines in the Garden of Eden” and “The Gulf War Chronicles” generously donated two personalized (signed) copies of each book to Valour-IT. Team Air Force member Fred Griego volunteered his eBay sellers account to auction off the items, thereby raising money for Valour-IT.

About “Marines in the Garden of Eden” (from the official book web site):

The (book is the) true story of the bloodiest battle in the campaign to oust Saddam Hussein.

It began on March 23, 2003, a clear Sunday morning in the city of An Nasiriyah, Iraq, where members of the 507th Maintenance Company had become hopelessly lost on their trek through the desert. The enemy ambushed the 507th at first light, killing and wounding twenty-one soldiers and taking six prisoners, including the now-famous Private Jessica Lynch. By nightfall, 18 Marines had given their lives in what would become the battle for An Nasiriyah.

For the next week, An Nasiriyah was rocked with gun and mortar fire, as the Marines of Task Force Tarawa fought to wrest control of the city from Saddam's fanatical followers.

This is the story of the battle for "The Nas," as seen through the eyes of the soldiers, sailors, Marines, and newsmen who made it through those terrible seven days, and would never forget what they experienced, what they learned-or those they lost in the name of freedom.

Follow this link to bid on the signed copy of Marines in the Garden of Eden.

About “The Gulf War Chronicles” (once again, from the official web site)

The Gulf War Chronicles opens with the first Tomahawk missile launches that began the war. From there, readers are walked through the myriad of events and battles that occurred between January and March of 1991. The book ends with the return home of the 34 POWs who were captured during combat.

Richard’s attention to detail will satisfy even the most curious military historians. He breaks down events as they unfolded in the air, on land, and via the sea. The stories provide not only high level information about different engagements, but also take readers right into the events that occurred with small special operations teams trying to fulfill their missions.

Follow this link to bid on The Gulf War Chronicles.

Bid HIGH, all y'all. And good luck.