Despite a strong showing from the USA’s Democratic party, and their champion Olympic Waffler John F. Kerry, Australia’s Labor party is predicted to sweep the board in the Backflip event at the next Olympics.

Under a Labor Government
* All Troops will be withdrawn by Christmas
* Except for the ones there at the moment
* Who will be definitely be withdrawn…
* ..at some unspecified time…
* Then sent back.
* Except they won’t.

As reported in a previous post, Australia’s Opposition leader, Mark Latham, has promised that under a Labor Government, Australian Troops in Iraq would be “Home By Christmas”.

Then the Opposition Defence Minister said “Not Neccessarily”. But Opposition Leader Latham re-affirmed Labor’s position the day after. The day after that, the position changed again. Then it didn’t. Or maybe it did - it’s difficult keeping track.

What may be the final act of this farce has now been played.

From News Ltd :

The Federal Opposition could support keeping Australian troops in Iraq beyond Christmas, Labor backbencher Dick Adams said today.

Right! It’s changed

Opposition Leader Mark Latham has committed a Labor government to withdrawing Australian military forces from Iraq by Christmas.

Or maybe not….

An ACNeilson Poll published in Fairfax [Rupert Murdoch’s Deadly Rival - AEB] newspapers today found 61 per cent of Australians supported keeping Australian troops in Iraq until their job was done.
[…]
Mr Adams said the Australian troops currently in Iraq were part of an occupying force and should be withdrawn but they could be replaced by Australian members of a United Nations peacekeeping force.

So Labor policy is now to withdraw all troops… only to send them back in! Brilliant Move by Labor, a Gold Medal for sure!

“When we start talking about peacekeepers and we’re talking about reconstruction, we’re talking about different things than (when) we are talking about troops that go there to fight a war,” Mr Adams said.

Of course, all the SAS and other special forces who actually did the fighting were withdrawn long ago. The people there now are all engaged in training Iraqis and rebuilding infrastructure, with a small contingent providing local security for the Australian Embassy. He can’t be as clue-free as not to know this. Can he?

He said it was also possible that Mr Latham’s Christmas deadline for bringing the troops back to Australia could be extended.

”It was a date that was given, but I think if circumstances change, circumstances change,” he said.

“… you’ve got to be flexible in that and I think our leader would be flexible in that and the party would be if things change.”

So policy has changed again. Or has it? Yes. No. Maybe. Although this flexibility sounds plausible, even praiseworthy and obvious, why didn’t they say so in the first place? Or is it that they’re just waffling…

Liberal [i.e. Government - AEB] backbencher David Jull said Labor had failed to think through its policy on Iraq.

”They’re carrying on like a pack of half-shut penknives,” he told reporters.

And not the sharpest blades in the bunch, either.

But wait, according to the ABC, they won’t be sent back after all.

Foreign Minister Alexander Downer says Labor is inconsistent.

”It’s just chaos, it is absolute chaos and it’s an enormous embarrassment for the Labor Party and it strikes at the very heart of Mr Latham’s integrity,” Mr Downer said.

Federal Labor leader Mark Latham denies there has been any internal division on the policy announced last week.

Mr Latham has dismissed Mr Adams’s call for Australian troops to remain in Iraq as United Nations peacekeepers.

So there’s no division, they’re just divided.

As for what Australians of Iraqi origin have to say, there’s this from the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) :

The president of the Iraqi Migrants Council in Australia, Kasim Abood, says the current debate over whether Australia should withdraw its troops is premature.

”It’s because the election is looming and each party is trying to score a point on that very important issue,” Mr Abood said.

He says while security is an important issue for the Iraqi people, the question of whether foreign troops remain should wait until Iraqis themselves can decide, once handed power is handed over at the end of June.

As soon as a reasonably representative elected government is installed, the Iraqis decide for themselves what should happen. Sounds good to me.

But one thing’s for sure: when it comes to Political Summersaults, the American Democrats take days, weeks or even months to do what Australian Labor does between the beginning and end of the day. Even the USA’s Democratic Champion took months between voting for something and voting against it.

Aussie Aussie Aussie! Oi Oi Oi! Oi Vay, that is.

Looks like apologies are in vogue.

While the major media, from The New York Times on down, has largely remained silent about their own failings in [reporting on the war], a young columnist for a small paper in Fredericksburg, Va., has stepped forward.

For a second, my heart stops. A reporter is going to apologize for the media’s one-sided, bad news only coverage of the war? I just may faint.

Well, that was too good to be true.

“The media are finished with their big blowouts on the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, and there is one thing they forgot to say: We’re sorry,” Rick Mercier wrote, in a column published Sunday in The Free Lance-Star.

“Sorry we let unsubstantiated claims drive our coverage. Sorry we were dismissive of experts who disputed White House charges against Iraq. Sorry we let a band of self-serving Iraqi defectors make fools of us. Sorry we fell for Colin Powell’s performance at the United Nations. Sorry we couldn’t bring ourselves to hold the administration’s feet to the fire before the war, when it really mattered.

“Maybe we’ll do a better job next war.”

Mercier admitted that it was “absurd to receive this apology from a person so low in the media hierarchy. You really ought to be getting it from the editors and reporters at the agenda-setting publications, such as The New York Times and The Washington Post.”

I must respond to Mr. Mercier:

Perhaps because you are young, you still have that tiny shred of idealism that usually disappears by age 30 or so. Or perhaps you have been swayed by too many readings of Noam Chomsky columns.

Or perhaps you were swayed by Mr. Apology himself, Richard Clarke. Following a trend, maybe? Insincere mea culpas are the new black, I suppose.

But here’s the main thing that bothers me: your list of reasons to be sorry seem borne out of some alternate reality; perhaps a bizzaro world where the media doesn’t question the administration, write negative articles or dig for dirt when they are standing on cement.

I’ve just spent some time looking back at news articles from the past year, and it seems to me that most of the media concentrated on the bad things going on; the lack of WMDs, the slow hunt for Osama, the death toll, the despair of the Iraqi people and so on.

Judging from the hundreds upon hundreds of news stories spanning the last twelve months, what the media needs to apologize for is misleading the public into the thinking this war reached quagmire status about twelve hours in.

Even when good things did happen - for instance, the day that Baghdad fell and the statue was toppled - the media put a negative slant on every report. They tried to tell us that the statue toppling was set up. They tried to tell us that Iraqis hated us, yet there were Iraqi bloggers popping up all over the place telling us the opposite.

I could go on with many examples, the most glaring of which are the exagerrated body counts and the comparisons to Vietnam, but I think I’ve made my point.

The media should be sorry. They should apologize to the coalition soldiers from other countries who are made to feel insignificant when the media calls this war unilateral. They should apologize for the swarming coverage of anti-war protests and the complete lack of coverage of rallies for the troops. They should apologize for going out of their way to find negative statistics when good things like rebuilt schools and hospitals were staring them in the face. They should apologize for pretending as if the freedom of the Iraqi people was inconsequential given that no WMDs have yet to be found.

I really like that snide little comment about the “next war” that you managed to insert in there. That lets me know what side of this war you are on, giving your credibility on this issue a zero balance.

So, Mr. Mercier, your apology is worthless. I will, however, forward it to a bunch of Iraqi soldiers I know to see how they feel about it. In fact, I’ll forward it to all the Iraqi bloggers who have spent quite a bit of time thanking the American troops and President Bush. I’m sure the soldiers in particular will be thrilled to know that in Fredricksburg, Va., there is a small time reporter who thinks the media should have done even more to turn this country against them and make their job even more difficult than it is.

Speaking strictly for myself, I would like you to take the paper your apology was written on and stick it up your ass.

Thank you.

This is a duplicate of the original post on the nikita demosthenes weblog.

The war against Saddam Hussein was an integal part of the global war against terror. Here’s why.

Liberals and Democrats say again and again that: “The war in Iraq actaully detracted from the war against terror.”

This is false. The war in Iraq was, and is, an integral part of the war against terror. (And besides - the results flowing from the war against Iraq can be very good for the U.S. and the world without regard to the debate over their contribution to the war against terror).

Here’s why.

First, it’s worth noting that this debate has grown sad in a way. Both sides just talk past each other. Certainly, it seems that, no matter how many times the case for war against Saddam is made, liberals and Democrats pretend like they didn’t hear the case - they just ask all the same questions over again, but just pound the table a little harder each time.

The war against Saddam was crucial to the war on terror for the following reaons:

1. Prior our troops’ entry into Iraq, we knew that there was a global al Qaeda network that very much wanted to kill as many Americans as possible. (See 9-11).

2. Also prior to our troops’ entry into Iraq, it was the consensus view among the global intelligence community and the UN that Saddam had WMD that he had failed to reveal and/or destory. This was corroborated by Saddam’s own admissions. That is, Saddam listed WMD in reports to the UN after the 1990 Iraq war which WMD he never accounted for.

So the situation faced by the Bush Administration post-9-11 was a global al Qaeda network plus a nation-state (Iraq) that admittedly had WMD (and which all global intelligence agencies able to opine on the topic agreed had WMD).

So the Bush Administration fairly asked, “What is the threat we need to be most worried about?” A fair answer to that question was: “The threat that Saddam will give or sell (using bin Laden’s fortune) WMD to al Qaeda for use against the U.S.

Was this a risk to be taken seriously? The answer is “yes” for several reasons.

First, Saddam had tried to assassinate President GHW Bush. Bill Clinton had responded to this remarkable attempt by Saddam to decapitate the U.S. Government in a perfunctory way - by shooting a single closely-targeted missle into Iraq. This one-shot response caused little to no harm to Saddam or his regime.

So the idea that Saddam might undertake an aggressive act harmful to the U.S. (e.g., sell or simply give Iraqi WMD to al Qaeda for use against the U.S.) was not farfetched.

Second, the type of danger posed by these 2 threats potentially connecting - the al Qaeda network plus WMD in the hands of a Stalinist dictator like Saddam - was very great. In other words, a small amount of biological, chemical or nuclear material given to al Qaeda by Saddam could create a horrific result in an American city - dwarfing the carnage of 9-11.

The point of the above is that the fear that al Qaeda and Saddam would work in concert in some manner was not unreasonable. The additional point is that, even a very small chance that they would work in concert was still unacceptable - because the potential harm to the US was so potentially huge. (For example, release of a small amount of chemical agent like ricin into the NY City water suppy could kill thousands or more).

Thus, the Bush Administration gave Saddam an ultimatum and, when he didn’t meet it, our troops went in.

The way the above-discussed war against Iraq helped the war on terror was by quite literally addressing a grave terror threat that faced the nation: the danger that al Qaeda and Saddam would work in concert vis-a-vis Iraqi WMD.

The fact that this danger appears to have been less threatening after our troops entered Iraq than it did before our troops entered Iraq does not mean it wasn’t a legitimate national security concern for the Bush Administration at the time - for the above-discussed reasons.

So - as part of the war on terror - based on the intelligence we (and the rest of the world) had at the time, we went into Iraq.

To say that the war in Iraq did not help the war on terror is to engage in the most transparent kind of 20-20 hindsight. If we could have been certain prior to going into Iraq that Saddam had no WMD and/or that he wouldn’t work in concert with al Qaeda to harm the U.S. - then we wouldn’t have gone into Iraq. We didn’t have the luxury of that knowledge at the time, though.

And, certainly, if Saddam and al Qaeda working in concert HAD put ricin into the N.Y. City water suppy, or otherwise harmed or killed Americans, John F. Kerry and his ilk would be the first to be saying …”G.W. Bush should have invaded Iraq before this happened.”

Also, a democracy in Iraq will, over the long-run, help put pressue on the Middle-East’s tyrannical states to democracize. This process will reduce threats to the U.S. This result is being seen today in pressure exerted internally on the Syrian government by its citizens for more indivdual liberties and press freedoms.

Finally - a point that it’s surprising Democrats don’t get - promoting freedom and democracy in former dictatorships like Iraq is a good in-and-of-itself - without regard to any debate we may have on its affect on the war on terror. (In effect, the “how did it help the war on terror” is a false dichotomy the Democrats are creating; we as a country can and do undertake many actions that may or may not directly help the war on terror - but are beneficial to us and the world all the same).

George W. Bush has liberated over 50 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq. 50 million! This is a very great good. Liberals like John F. Kerry are missing the forest for the trees.

Is the War on Terror really a war between the West (or at least some parts of the West) and Islam? Do the terrorists speak the true thoughts and aspirations of Muslims around the world? And can Westerners speak freely about the limitations of Islamic societies? This is a sensitive and complex topic. My hope here is to begin a thoughtful discussion about the role that religion plays in international affairs and how that role may impact us all in the 21st century. The issue goes well beyond Islam.

Last week the former (Anglican) Archbishop of Canterbury spoke out regarding Islamic culture, saying it was authoritarian, inflexible and under-achieving:

“[Lord Carey] acknowledged that most Muslims were peaceful people who should not be demonised. But he said that terrorist acts such as the September 11 attacks on America and the Madrid bombings raised difficult questions.

Read The Rest…

[The following editorial originally appeared here and is reprinted with persmission of the author]

RICE AND THE UPCOMING 60 MINUTES INTERVIEW
By Joe Gandleman

Partisan storm clouds are in place for political lightning over National Security advisor Condoleezza Rice, in the ongoing clamor for her to testify publicly under oath in the Congressional 911 hearings, the White House refusal to allow her to do so, and her high-profile 60 Minutes interview Sunday night.
—-Like everything else in Campaign 2004, this issue has become highly polarized. If you make the slightest criticism of Rice, you are pigeon-holed as anti-Bush. If you defend her in the slightest way, you’re a Bush supporter.
—-A few things:
—-1. SHE HAS A SUPERB REPUTATION. Before George Bush was elected, two academics who don’t know each other personally told me that they wanted Bush elected BECAUSE OF Rice: they knew Rice and described her to me as a person with impeccable credentials, a superb intellect, a delight to deal with personally, and someone with lots of integrity. They felt the U.S. would be in skilled hands if Bush won and she played a role in the administration. These are prominent academics in their field. This was before she became well-known; their zeal about having someone like her in the government was NOT due to political agreement but academic and intellectual admiration.
—-2. EARTH TO THOSE IN DENIAL…THERE IS INDEED A MAJOR CONTROVERSY SWIRLING HERE: There is precedent for a White House refusing to let a National Security advisor testify publicly under oath. And the case can also be made that the White House argument is a flawed case and that other top officials have been allowed to testify publicly under oath under other administrations in the past.
—- While on the road this week. we received comments suggesting that somehow The Moderate Voice was part of a media/Democrat conspiracy, that there was no controversy about her testifying and that she already had. One suggested we get “our facts straight.” A reporter for Insight Magazine even wrote a letter to the readers using that same phrase, blasting the media.
—-So we did a quick internet news search and here are the facts: She testified privately before commission members, and got extremely high marks. Many of those who support the White House position especially want to have her talk in public under oath (like former terrorism Czar Richard Clarke did) .
—-So, YES, this battle over sworn testimony definitely is a BIG, fat, authentic controversial issue.
—-To those who still insist anyone who mentions a controversy is either making it up or a closet Bush hater, just check a few places on the internet like this and this and this and this and this and this. And there are lots more, like this. Even this and also this.
—-Clearly, this very quick medley of links above — from the editorial, to the news report, to the downright anti-Bush — indicates there is indeed a definite controversy out there that the White House must defuse because it’s giving critics ammunition. And although none of these analysts and reporters above epitomize TRUE PERFECTION, the bottom line is: the storm clouds have gathered for months and 60 Minutes will likely the the catalyst that will cause them to burst.
—-Also: those who suggested this is a non-issue and only Democrats want her to talk should go this link and you’ll see how Senate Majority Bill Frist wants Rice to testify as well (he MUST be a closet Democrat or Bush hater or on the media elite’s payroll…). So does Former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean (another person who must be out to get Bush and is an agent of the New York Times and Katie Couric…)
—-3. THE WHITE HOUSE IS SHOOTING ITSELF IN THE FOOT: There have been exceptions made by Presidents to allow top security officials to testify publicly under oath. At this point it’s irrelevant what the reasons were…the fact is, there have been instances where other presidents ALLOWED IT.
—-If she testifies the Republic will survive and the White House will remove a potential credibility stumbling block that Democrats could use to win swing voter support.
—-4. SHE IS A CHARISMATIC INDIVIDUAL WITH A BRIGHT FUTURE: You’d think the White House would want Rice to be talking under oath, getting massive international media coverage, presenting not only its case for its 911 efforts — and case against Clarke’s testimony — but also use the testimony to profile a true rising Republican star.
—-5. THE WHITE HOUSE HAS HURT ITS OWN ARGUMENT BY RAISING HER PROFILE: She has been on CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX and now comes 60 Minutes. It seems the only network she has not appeared on is Cartoon Network.
—- A friend emailed me this NEW JOKE (not a good sign): “AT&T is marketing a new Condi Rice public telephone. You can get information by dialing ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX but you can’t get information if you dial 911.”
—-If she’s on every network and on 60 Minutes refuting former terrorism Czar Richard Clarke but won’t appear before the commission in public and under oath what is the net difference? All of her public appearances are brief ones and not under oath. Who testified under oath? Clarke…and he’s the one GOPers are now suggesting just might have committed perjury. No one can accuse Rice of that…since she hasn’t testified publicly under oath.
—- To someone who doesn’t belong to either party, it seems as if oaths and perjury are vital values to the GOP, but not always. The are exceptions, except of course in cases that involve executive privilege …although there are cases that show there HAVE been exceptions made in executive privilege..(Oh. Now I see the consistency…????)
—-6: OVERALL: The White House is suppressing one of its best voices, prominent policy intellects, and appealing future stars — and by not letting her testify under oath makes it seem as if they’re afraid to have her give sworn testimony in front of the country. She can testify on 60 Minutes…but Mike Wallace doesn’t require an oath (if he did that would probably mean spiking 60 percent of their stories and 90 percent of the “sources say” reporters’ statements).
—-7. IMPACT ON THE CAMPAIGN: No matter what she says or how effective it is, no matter how many more hours of private testimony she gives the commission, it won’t be the SAME as sworn public testimony under oath — and the Democrats will have a potent issue.
—-You can already see John Kerry leaping on this political gift to his sagging campaign in this statement: “If Condoleezza Rice can find time to do `60 Minutes’ on television before the American people, she ought to find 60 minutes to speak to the commission under oath,” Kerry told reporters. “We’re talking about the security of our country.. Certainly we can find a way to respect executive privilege, not to have it be an opening to the door, but nevertheless to accomplish America’s needs to protect the security of our country.”
—-All this political verbiage means is: “Thank You White House lawyers for this opening that will be featured in our ads and speeches in the future!”
—-Bottom line: Condi Rice unrestricted is the best defense for Condi Rice and the administration. White House lawyering will only hurt Rice and a Bush re-election campaign relying on the issue of his anti-terrorism leadership qualities. 60 Minutes won’t erase the sworn public testimony issue; sworn public testimony will.

Joe Gandelman is former Madrid-base Correspondent for The Christian Science Monitor

Um, dude - lying under oath to Congress is, like, really frowned-upon. And I think you’re about to find out the hard way.

Lying under oath to Congress is especially frowned-upon when you do it in a self-interested, cover-your-ass, self-rightous, cash-in-on-your-own-failures kind of way - like you did. You’re the poster-child of the new blogospheric term: “self-fisking.” (And - no - it’s not a compliment).

You, Mr. Clarke, had more to do with America’s national security lapses vis-a-vis al Qaeda during the 1990’s than any other person alive. Your ham-handed attempt to CYA at this late date is transparent, desparate … and not working.

Richard A. Clarke, you get the Chutzpah Award indeed:

- - - - - - -

It is only March, but the 2004 Chutzpah of the Year Award can be safely given out. It goes to Richard Clarke, now making himself famous by blaming the Bush administration for Sept. 11 — after Clarke had spent eight years in charge of counterterrorism for a Clinton administration that did nothing.

The 1990s were al Qaeda’s springtime: Blissfully unmolested in Afghanistan, it trained, indoctrinated, armed and, most fatally, planned. For the United States, this was a catastrophic lapse, and in a March 2002 interview on PBS’s “Frontline,” Clarke admitted as much: “I believe that, had we destroyed the terrorist camps in Afghanistan earlier, that the conveyor belt that was producing terrorists, sending them out around the world would have been destroyed.” Instead, “now we have to hunt [them] down country by country.”

What should we have done during those lost years? Clarke answered: “Blow up the camps and take out their sanctuary. Eliminate their safe haven, eliminate their infrastructure. . . . That’s . . . the one thing in retrospect I wish had happened.”

It did not. And who was president? Bill Clinton. Who was the Clinton administration’s top counterterrorism official? Clarke.

- - - - - - -

As Clinton Defense Secretary William Cohen testified, three times the CIA was ready with plans to assassinate Osama bin Laden. Every time, Clinton stood them down, because “we’re not quite sure.”

We’re not quite sure — a fitting epitaph for the Clinton anti-terrorism policy. They were also not quite sure about taking bin Laden when Sudan offered him up on a silver platter in 1996. The Clinton people turned Sudan down, citing legal reasons.

The “Frontline” interviewer asked Clarke whether failing to blow up the camps and take out the Afghan sanctuary was a “pretty basic mistake.”

- - - - - - -

“Pretty basic mistake.” CYA. And John F-word Kerry is the “Real Deal.”

How ironic. These guys are all bush-league.

This is a duplicate of the original post at the nikita demosthenes website.

[ This editorial was written by Wayne Fielder and originally appeared here. It is reprinted with permission of the author]

We have an interesting combination of items in the news these days. We have Richard Clarke’s book hitting the shelves and the 9/11 Commission hearings at the same time. Nice scheduling there Mr. Clarke!

We’ve all seen the news and have some idea as to what has been said at the Commission hearings and about Mr. Clarke’s book so you won’t find quotes here.

What I’m seeing here is a Government trying to place blame for the attacks. Obviously, as Michele points out, Al Queda and Bin Laden is to blame but there are some lingering questions we should ask to make sure this thing doesn’t happen again. Thankfully, the Bush administration already asked those questions. Questions like why wasn’t the FBI and CIA sharing information more eagerly and why is there such a back log of SigInt at NSA. The President put together the Homeland Security Department to ride herd on the boys and girls at the FBI, CIA, and NSA. But, alas, it is an election year so we have to draw this thing out for a while and try to find some political blood in the wreckage. The discussion in and out of the hearing chamber has been very enlightening.

There are some folks, like Richard Clarke, that are claiming the Bush Administration did nothing to protect those 3000 folks who died on 9/11. Mr. Clarke has said made this administration out to be the whipping “boy” for all things terror related. Heaven knows President Clinton did all he could to put down Bin Laden, right? Sure! and I’m serious about that.

You see, what is now politically possible wasn’t politically possible on September 10th, 2001 and it has nothing to do with who’s butt is sitting in the Oval Office. Had President Clinton given the Taliban the 48 hour ultimatum he would have been the subject of international ridicule. Had President Clinton went on national TV after the USS Cole bombing and said, “Every nation must now choose…” he would have been laughed off the World Stage. Yes, it is true that Sudan offered Bin Laden to us and the fact we didn’t take him is something we can debate for years to come because, as the saying goes, hindsite is indeed 20/20. Especially when the field of view has been cleared of the debris from WTC, the Pentagon, and that field in Pennsylvania.

This jaw flapping will continue in the 9/11 Commission hearings. A big book will be written to share the shelves with the other great investigative commissions our country has endured. The newsies, bloggers, and pundits will have lots of fodder to chat about for years to come. The extreme political left and right will blame the heroes of the other side and we will all get excited..then irritated…then angry. The fact of the matter is that on 9/11 EVERYTHING changed for us from the way we view the Middle East, to the way we consider our neighbors who happen to be Muslim, to the way our Government handles Foreign Affairs. We can’t look back and play what if games because the world was a much different place then.

At 7am EDT on September 11th 2001, no President could demand a country turn over a single man. After 10am EDT on September 11th 2001, ANY President can demand a country turn over a single man if that man was involved with a terrorist incident.

Wayne Fielder writes at Confessions of a Pilgrim

I thought I would take the liberty (because I can) of re-printing Alan E Brain’s editorial from June of 2003 - Hamas in their own Words.

Now that Hamas is in the news more than ever, this piece might help people who are unfamiliar with this particular group gain an understanding of who they are.

HAMAS IN THEIR OWN WORDS
By Alan E. Brain for The Command Post

Many people (myself included) have wondered about the nature of Hamas, whose leaders are now officially targets for the IDF. Recently, I found (courtesy of Yale University’s Avalon Project) the “Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement”, otherwise known as the Hamas Covenant, which clearly states the nature of the organisation, its aims and aspirations.

It contains things that surprise me, but in retrospect shouldn’t have. (Not for the first time - I was aghast when I found out that Itzak Shamir, ex-PM of Israel, once headed a group that proposed an alliance with the Nazis against the British). No-one really believed what Adolph Hitler said in Mein Kampf until he started to implement the Endlosung, the “Final Solution”. Think the comparison is invalid (as I tend to do when anyone ever starts talking about Nazis)? Read on, to find out exactly what Hamas’s beliefs and aims are.

WARNING : May be offensive to Freemasons, Rotarians, members of the Lions Club, and other tools of the International Zionist Conspiracy (just read it, OK? I can’t make this stuff up.

Some quotes;

Article Two:
The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of Moslem Brotherhood in Palestine. Moslem Brotherhood Movement is a universal organization which constitutes the largest Islamic movement in modern times.

So while “Moslem Brotherhood” and “Hamas” are not synonyms, Hamas is part of the Moslem Brotherhood - support for it is support for Hamas.

Article Eight:
Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.

Taken literally, this would lead to Hamas members becoming Human Bombs to kill unbelievers. Hmm, I guess we do have to take this document’s words literally, no matter how unbelievable. OK….

Article Six:
The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinguished Palestinian movement, whose allegiance is to Allah, and whose way of life is Islam. It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine, for under the wing of Islam followers of all religions can coexist in security and safety where their lives, possessions and rights are concerned….

Given the situation where Sharia law is practiced, I have grave misgivings about the truth of this proposition, but at least the intent is relatively sane and rational.

Article Seven:
…

“The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.”

(related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).

You know what I said about “sane and rational”? I take it all back. Still, you can find equally crazy things in the Bible, the Torah, the Bhagavid-Ghita etc etc. But these people take it literally.

Article Ten:
As the Islamic Resistance Movement paves its way, it will back the oppressed and support the wronged with all its might. It will spare no effort to bring about justice and defeat injustice, in word and deed, in this place and everywhere it can reach and have influence therein.

More rationality, few could quarrel with these words as worthy objectives.

Article Eleven:
The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up.
…
This is the law governing the land of Palestine in the Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land the Moslems have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Moslems consecrated these lands to Moslem generations till the Day of Judgement.

This includes Spain, France as far north as Tours, India, and all parts of Europe east of Vienna. Osama Bin Laden is not alone in not accepting the “Tragedy of Andalucia” as he put it in one of his tapes, and so will continue to fight as long as Spain remains outside of the Caliphate. Hamas says they will do likewise, unless this translation is erroneous.

Article Twelve:
Nationalism, from the point of view of the Islamic Resistance Movement, is part of the religious creed. Nothing in nationalism is more significant or deeper than in the case when an enemy should tread Moslem land. Resisting and quelling the enemy become the individual duty of every Moslem, male or female. A woman can go out to fight the enemy without her husband’s permission, and so does the slave: without his master’s permission.

An interesting section from a Feminist perespective : to praise because it gives the Right of Women to blow themselves up (as long as they kill unbelievers), or to condemn because it portrays women as slaves? To an old Abolitionist like me, any slavery is odious, whether it be due to gender or otherwise, and I don’t value the right to become human dynamite very highly.

Article Thirteen:
Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement….

OK, so they’re being consistent. Peace is impossible as long as Hamas exists(and Israel, Spain, and India aren’t under Sharia law). Rigghhht.

Article Fifteen:

…It is necessary that scientists, educators and teachers, information and media people, as well as the educated masses, especially the youth and sheikhs of the Islamic movements, should take part in the operation of awakening (the masses). It is important that basic changes be made in the school curriculum, to cleanse it of the traces of ideological invasion that affected it as a result of the orientalists and missionaries who infiltrated the region following the defeat of the Crusaders at the hands of Salah el-Din (Saladin). The Crusaders realised that it was impossible to defeat the Moslems without first having ideological invasion pave the way by upsetting their thoughts, disfiguring their heritage and violating their ideals. Only then could they invade with soldiers.

So the Renanaissance, the Enlightenment, in fact all of Western Civilisation is all just a plot, hatched over 8 centuries, to win the Crusades. Damn Cunning, these Fiendish Occidentals! These people really believe this….

Article Seventeen:
The Moslem woman has a role no less important than that of the moslem man in the battle of liberation. She is the maker of men. Her role in guiding and educating the new generations is great. The enemies have realised the importance of her role. They consider that if they are able to direct and bring her up they way they wish, far from Islam, they would have won the battle. That is why you find them giving these attempts constant attention through information campaigns, films, and the school curriculum, using for that purpose their lackeys who are infiltrated through Zionist organizations under various names and shapes, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, espionage groups and others, which are all nothing more than cells of subversion and saboteurs.

So Feminists, Rotarians, and Freemasons are all part of the International Zionist Conspiracy. Sorry, my bogglemeter just pegged at maximum. I’m not playing Illuminati, these people are For Real.

Article Nineteen:

…All this is utterly serious and no jest, for those who are fighters do not jest.

Believe me, we’re not laughing. there’s nothing funny about Psychopathic Insanity and serial Killers.

Article Twenty:

…The society that confronts a vicious enemy which acts in a way similar to Nazism, making no differentiation between man and woman, between children and old people - such a society is entitled to this Islamic spirit. Our enemy relies on the methods of collective punishment. He has deprived people of their homeland and properties, pursued them in their places of exile and gathering, breaking bones, shooting at women, children and old people, with or without a reason. The enemy has opened detention camps where thousands and thousands of people are thrown and kept under sub-human conditions. Added to this, are the demolition of houses, rendering children orphans, meting cruel sentences against thousands of young people, and causing them to spend the best years of their lives in the dungeons of prisons.
In their Nazi treatment, the Jews made no exception for women or children. Their policy of striking fear in the heart is meant for all. They attack people where their breadwinning is concerned, extorting their money and threatening their honour. They deal with people as if they were the worst war criminals. Deportation from the homeland is a kind of murder.

Such sub-human conditions that the 750,000 Palestinians that left Israel, some “ethnically cleansed” by Jewish terrorists, some just temporarily vacationing until the victorious Arab Armies killed all the Jews, have now grown to 4 millions. There’s no mention of the similar number of Jews in the surrounding Arab countries that were forcibly deported, or sometimes just exterminated. To compare the survivors of the Holocaust with the perpetrators of it is a classic case of “blaming the victim”. What are suicide bombings against civilians but a classic case of “collective punishment” and “shooting at women, children and old people, with or without a reason.” There’s still more than just a smidgeon of justice in what they say though.

Article Twenty-Two:
For a long time, the enemies have been planning, skillfully and with precision, for the achievement of what they have attained. They took into consideration the causes affecting the current of events. They strived to amass great and substantive material wealth which they devoted to the realisation of their dream. With their money, they took control of the world media, news agencies, the press, publishing houses, broadcasting stations, and others. With their money they stirred revolutions in various parts of the world with the purpose of achieving their interests and reaping the fruit therein. They were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there. With their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others in different parts of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests. With their money they were able to control imperialistic countries and instigate them to colonize many countries in order to enable them to exploit their resources and spread corruption there.
You may speak as much as you want about regional and world wars. They were behind World War I, when they were able to destroy the Islamic Caliphate, making financial gains and controlling resources. They obtained the Balfour Declaration, formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the world. They were behind World War II, through which they made huge financial gains by trading in armaments, and paved the way for the establishment of their state. It was they who instigated the replacement of the League of Nations with the United Nations and the Security Council to enable them to rule the world through them. There is no war going on anywhere, without having their finger in it.

Ummmmmm…… Genuine Moonbats. we’re talking serious reality dysfunction and derangement here. Any moment now they’ll start babbling on about the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”.

Article Twenty-Eight:
The Zionist invasion is a vicious invasion. It does not refrain from resorting to all methods, using all evil and contemptible ways to achieve its end. It relies greatly in its infiltration and espionage operations on the secret organizations it gave rise to, such as the Freemasons, The Rotary and Lions clubs, and other sabotage groups. All these organizations, whether secret or open, work in the interest of Zionism and according to its instructions. They aim at undermining societies, destroying values, corrupting consciences, deteriorating character and annihilating Islam. It is behind the drug trade and alcoholism in all its kinds so as to facilitate its control and expansion.

So the International Zionists control the UN, the drug trade, the alcohol industry, the Freemasons, Lions, Rotarians… and it’s all a part of an 800 year plot by the Crusaders.

Article Thirty-One:
The Islamic Resistance Movement is a humanistic movement. It takes care of human rights and is guided by Islamic tolerance when dealing with the followers of other religions.

<sarcasm>Whew! That’s a relief!></sarcasm>

It does not antagonize anyone of them except if it is antagonized by it or stands in its way to hamper its moves and waste its efforts.

In other words, do what we say, ad no-one gets hurt.

Under the wing of Islam, it is possible for the followers of the three religions - Islam, Christianity and Judaism - to coexist in peace and quiet with each other. Peace and quiet would not be possible except under the wing of Islam. Past and present history are the best witness to that.

As for Hindus or Buddhists - they don’t count.

It is the duty of the followers of other religions to stop disputing the sovereignty of Islam in this region, because the day these followers should take over there will be nothing but carnage, displacement and terror. Everyone of them is at variance with his fellow-religionists, not to speak about followers of other religionists. Past and present history are full of examples to prove this fact.

We are the Master Race - er - Religion, destined to rule all Untermenschen - er - inferior religions, in a Thousand Year Reich - er - Caliphate.

Article Thirty-Two:
…The Zionist plan is limitless. After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying.

There! Told you the good old Protocols would be making an appearance.

Summary:

• Islam is the Master Religion, it is the duty of all other religions to peacefully submit to co-existence under the benevolent rule of Islam
• Spain, Most of France, Israel, Europe east of Vienna, and India should be under Sharia Law
• Until this is achieved, in full and in every particular, there can be no Peace
• And any violence (as well as the French and Russian Revolutions, WW I and WW II) is all the fault of the Zionists, and their puppets, the Freemason, Rotarians, Lions Club, and 800-year-old Crusader Conspiracy against Islam

There’s always a danger in any article quoting from another that parts may be taken out of context, that the lilly may end up being gilded. So rather than take my word for it, read what the original article actually says - then tell me where I’ve gone wrong with my interpretation. Because if I’ve got it right, then this organisation must be destroyed, root and branch, purely as a matter of self-defence. Especially if you’re a Freemason, Rotarian or Lion.

________

And there you have it. Discuss as needed.

Worried about the U.S. Patriot Act? Then don’t go to Europe. There journalists can be arrested, interrogated, and all their files taken (including all their confidential sources), and IT’S ALL LEGAL.

This is what happened to Hans-Martin Tillack, Brussels editor of the German news weekly Die Stern.

Fainting in Coyles weblog has been watching what happens when there is no First Amendment.

Per the EU Observer, for example:

- - - - - - -

Under Belgian law, a lawyer is not allowed to be present during questioning on the first day of police custody, said Mr Tillack’s lawyer.

- - - - - - -

The Faining in Coyles weblog has been reporting on this sorry spectacle of lack of freedom in the heart of Europe.

See Terrance’s reports starting here (“This is scary”). The latest report is here (“Hans-Martin Tillack update”). Scroll down to follow this sad example of what happens when there’s no First Amendment.

This is a duplicate of the original post from the nikita demosthenes weblog.

Per Clinton Administration diplomat Mansoor Ijaz:

- - - - - - -

Clinton administration diplomatic troubleshooter Mansoor Ijaz charged Monday that one-time White House terrorism czar Richard Clarke blocked efforts to gather intelligence on al Qaeda and torpedoed a deal to have Osama bin Laden extradited from Afghanistan in the years before the 9/11 attacks.

“I was personally asked to brief Condoleezza Rice’s deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley on exactly what had gone wrong in the previous efforts to get bin Laden out of the Sudan, to get the terrorism data out of the Sudan, which I negotiated the offer for,” Ijaz told Fox News Channel’s “Fox & Friends.”

He said he also personally negotiated an deal “to get bin Laden out of Afghanistan in the spring and summer of 2000, using at Abu Dhabi Royal Family as a proxy to get him out on an extradition offer.”

But Ijaz told Fox:

“In each case of things that were involved in the Clinton administration, Richard Clarke himself stepped in and blocked the efforts that were being made over and over and over again.”

- - - - - - -

Via the Little Green Footballs weblog.

This is a duplicate of the original post at the nikita demosthenes weblog.

Imagine you are running for President. You have asked for Secret Service protection just in case some lunatic takes a shot at you. You have been campaigning hard and have wrapped up your party’s nomination. So you take a much needed vacation that you expect will provide some nice photo ops. You are a good snowboarder, so you invite the media along to admire your prowess. Most of them hate the current president, so they’ll make you look good unless you do something really stupid. Then it happens.

A secret service agent cuts in front of you and you go tumbling. This should not be a big deal, reporters say you fell at least six times during the day. But you wanted to look in control, a hip sixty-something, perfect. You know, you wanted to look presidential. So you tell the reporters “I don’t fall down. The son of a bitch knocked me over.”

Never mind the fact that you have reinforced your reputation of being a vulgar man. Many Americans use profanity and your base will certainly overlook that. However, you just publicly insulted one of men responsible for protecting your life. This man is expected to jump in front of a bullet for you. In the remote chance anyone decides you are worth killing, you have now reduced the Secret Service agents’ motivation for placing your welfare above their own. Your lack of judgment is astounding. And you expect voters to give you responsibility for our well being. Senator Kerry, I am not that stupid.

This story was put together from accounts I heard on television, but you can find some details at Drudge.

Richard A. Clarke - Bill Clinton’s counter-terror point man on the National Security Council - has made some serious charges against the Bush Administration. In his new book, “Against All Enemies,” Clark alleges that President Bush tried to find a 9-11 - Saddam link where there was none. Based on these charges, Clarke was the star of a segment on 60 Minutes.

Yet many other commentators have noted the hollowness of such charges coming from a member of the Clinton Administration - especially Richard A. Clarke.

1. Clarke’s legacy - as a public official - of acurately focusing the nation’s resources on the correct set of threats was dismal, as noted by George Smith in his article, “Richard Clarke’s Legacy of Miscalculation.”

2. Democratic Senator Joseph Lieberman has denied that there is any basis for Clarke’s allegations.

3. National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice has denied the allegations.

4. The Drudge Report notes that CBS - in a serious breach of journalistic ethics - has helped promote Clarke’s book without revelaing CBS’s financial stake in the project.

5. FrontPage.com has generally discussed the hypocrisy of a Clinton national security staffer leveling charges at anyone:

- - - - - - -

Richard Clarke is a bitter, discredited bureaucrat who was an integral part of the Clinton administration’s failed approach to terrorism, was demoted by President Bush, and is now an adjunct to John Kerry’s presidential campaign.

- - - - - - -

Luckily, through the blogosphere, the fact that Richard A. Clarke is a fraud can now be revealed.

Via Instapundit.

This is a duplicate of the original post at the nikita demosthenes website. See, also, the commentary at Lucianne.com.

Update: See, also, the discussion at Tacitus.

Update: Jimmy Carter decries the liberation of 50 million Muslims from rape and torture under the Taliban and Saddam Hussein dictatorships. Compare this post from The Command Post archives.

Meanwhile, Clarke, Clinton and Kerry apologists attack your humble blogger at the John Kerry for President blog and at Atrios.

by Gabriel Gonzalez (Paris, France)

After reading Kenneth Timmerman’s condemnation of France in his recent article “The French War For Oil”, and my own recent article “From Madrid to Paris,” some commentators have expressed the view that France is just an ordinary country defending its interests and is no different than any other country, including the U.S. Indeed, for some in the anti-war camp France is even assumed to be necessarily a morally superior nation.

This view is so thoroughly ignorant of French foreign policy realities that it should really be put to rest once and for all.

Read The Rest…

By MJ Sheppard

I was very reluctantly for the war in Iraq. I was well aware of the problems the aftermath would present to the U.S as an occupying power and, if anything, I overestimated the number of casualties that American forces would sustain in combat. In conversations that I had in the 18 months before operations began, I said that the U.S could sustain upwards of 5,000 dead. As I write this, the number is slightly over one-tenth of that.

My support of the war arose from its inevitability. Given the continuing conduct of the Iraqi regime and its continuing non-compliance with the provisions of the cease-fire agreement it signed in March of 1991 and later ratified in several United Nations Security Council resolutions, this war had to happen at some point. As everyone knows, the ’91 Gulf War ended through a cease-fire NOT a peace treaty. Therefore, as is still true with North Korea, the United Nations was still in a state of war with Iraq. For Saddam Hussein to continue ignoring multiple resolutions of the Security Council and the conditions of the cease-fire calls into question the purpose of the U.N itself.

On the matter of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), it should be remembered that everyone was in agreement that Iraq was in continued possession of them. This includes the most passionate critics of the war such as France, Germany, Russia and Howard Dean. Insofar as John Kerry believes anything, he was certain of the existence of WMD in Iraq and voted for the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act on those grounds. For the Bush administration to predicate the war on WMD was a disastrous mistake and one that only fed the cynicism of the war’s opponents. A much better case for war would have been Saddam’s continuing abrogation of his commitments to the international community, or the threat that his having such weapons continued to pose to both his neighbours and the autonomous Kurdish region within his own country. At no time did serious people ever believe that Iraq’s WMD posed a direct threat to the American homeland. Nor did anyone seriously believe that Iraq was an operational collaborator with al-Qaeda.

Those who opposed the war implored the administration to continue to leave the U.N sanctions in place. Yet many of those same critics decried the sanctions as unduly targeting the Iraqi people. The United Nations itself estimated that the sanctions were responsible for the deaths of some 500,000 Iraqi civilians.

President Bush, however, did predicate the war on the imminent threat of WMD and suffers the political consequences of that decision today. The administration concedes an “intelligence failure” but still stands behind the premise of the war. The problem with the opposition of the Democratic Party to American reliance on this intelligence is that it overlooks the fact that said failure was not contained to the CIA. The intelligence services of Britain, France, Germany and Russia all came to similar conclusions over the course of the previous 13 years. The Iraqi government itself did nothing to correct that misimpression. It is my belief that the Iraqis desired the world to continue to fear its possible possession of WMD for the strategic purpose of intimidating its neighbours, particularly Kuwait.
One should also remember that much of the same evidence that the Bush administration cited in its case for war was also the predicate for Operation Desert Fox, launched in 1998 on the eve of President Clinton’s impeachment by the House of Representatives. In a speech to the nation Clinton clearly stated that the operation was launched because of Iraq’s intransigence with weapons inspectors and the threat that WMD posed. For the most part, this is the same intelligence that Bush relied upon and very probably originated from the same sources.

The president’s Democratic critics, however, have chosen to ignore the consistency of the faulty intelligence and have asserted that Bush has “mislead” and “lied” to the American people in his drive to war. There is no power more grave than a president’s ability to make war. As I have noted before, most analysts felt that the 2003 war on Iraq could well have sustained between 5,000 to 10,000 dead servicemen and women. If the Democrats wish to assert that President Bush knowingly and with malice aforethought deceived the American people and therefore endangered thousands of lives in doing so, then they are suggesting that this president is guilty of a war crime at most and an impeachable offence at minimum. Accordingly, if Senator Kerry truly believes that this assertion, then it is his moral and constitutional obligation to call for the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives to begin an impeachment inquiry against President George Walker Bush. The fact that he has not done so belies the fact that this is mere campaign rhetoric. If Kerry honestly believes that Bush has committed what most people would agree is a High Crime and Misdemeanor and does not call for the impeachment of the president, he is in violation of his own oath to “preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States.” The president would do well to point this out during his campaign for re-election. In short, he should call for his own impeachment and note that failure to do so exposes that the Democrats are “playing politics” with national security.

The Republican Party should welcome a debate on executive reliance on intelligence agencies. Any such debate would allow for the exploration of what intelligence the Clinton administration exploited in the 1998 bombing of Iraq, and perhaps even the 1994 bombing conducted weeks before the disastrous Congressional elections. As the Democrats continue to point out, the Kay Report asserts that there is no evidence that there were WMD in Iraq after 1994. They cannot have it both ways. Either Presidents Bush and Clinton manipulated intelligence for political purposes, or neither did. Bush/Cheney ‘04 can make no wiser political move than to expose the cynicism of Kerry’s position. The president should stand up and say, “If my congressional opponents firmly believe that I knowingly endangered the security of the United States for political purposes, the constitution makes their recourse clear. I am, in effect, being accused of treason. If they believe that I betrayed my country and my oath of office, they have no choice but to begin the process of impeachment. If they do not, then the voters can infer what their true motivations are in making such a charge.”

At a minimum, the president can elevate the campaign by challenging his opposition and inoculate himself from potentially damaging charges during a campaign. At maximum, there actually will be congressional hearings that will get to the root causes of intelligence failures over the past decade. In any event, the presidency and the national security apparatus of the United States will be better for it.

MJ Sheppard is an aspiring writer with strong interests in American politics and International affairs. He lives in Toronto, Ontario.

From my e-mail archives:

From: “Alan and Carmel Brain” <aebrain@webone.com.au>
To: <michele@asmallvictory.net>
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 5:11 PM
Subject: Request to Blog

Dunno if I qualify - I’ve commented on a lot of blogs,
but don’t have one of my own. Yet.

But I would like to contribute to commandpost.

Alan & Carmel Brain
mailto:aebrain@webone.com.au

Again, from the archive:

From: “Michele” <email.address.suppressed>
To: “Alan and Carmel Brain” <aebrain@webone.com.au>
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 10:57 PM
Subject: Re: Request to Blog

Alan,
You’re in. An invite email is on the way. If you need any help working Blogger, just let me know.

That was it.

At the time, I knew absolutely nothing, ga nichts, blogger all, about blogging. (Some say this hasn’t changed). A.E.Brain, my Blog didn’t start up till much later, when I found I had more to say than would be relevant to TCP.

But in the process, I learnt something. Alan and Michele were very encouraging to this clueless newbie, gently steering me straight when I deviated from the guidelines, but never in a way that left me feeling chastised. A few “attaboys” go a long way, and I got more than my share from them, despite the hectic pace they were operating at. As Team Leaders, they shone.

I got to be, if not a participant, then a diarist of history. When Saddam’s statue fell, my post on the subject “..and the crowd goes Wild!” was on the net within 20 seconds of it happening (we beat pretty much all the mainstream media, sometime by minutes, sometimes by hours on that one). When the BBC World telecast started, I told my wife Carmel “What they need is an armoured recovery vehicle.” and started blogging it. As soon as I saw that big old M-88, I knew what was about to happen, and it was every bit as enthralling as I expected. A moment in history that will long be remembered. (hmm.. I hope the guy who called in the M-88 got appropriate recognition).

Australia being one of the original “Coalition of the Willing”, or as John F Kerry puts it, “The Bribed, the Bought, the Coerced and the Extorted” (Don’t you love this guy’s nuanced, subtle diplomatic language?), I thought I’d make sure that in this allied action, Australia’s contribution wouldn’t be completely overlooked.

(Quick Quiz: How many readers knew that Australia was a US ally in Vietnam? Or that in World War I, the first American troops in Europe were brigaded with, and trained by, Australians, all under Australian command?)

As it turned out, the time zones worked for me. Events in Baghdad in the morning ocurred in Australia’s early afternoon, while most of America was sleeping, or just going to bed. I often had 6 or more hours of reports and expert analysis to sift through and post, well before any US blogger not suffering from insomnia got around to it. At really hectic times, I’d often be “manning the post” till after midnight local time, until Michele, Alan or other contributors came “on-line” and took over. We had 24/7 coverage, often duplicated by posters in Europe or Israel.

There have been times when I’ve been heartsick - such as when reporting the ever-increasing deathtoll in Madrid. There’ve been times when I was elated, such as when reporting the capture of Saddam. I’ve tried to report not just the successes, but the setbacks too. In fact, I’ve put more emphasis on reporting analysis I didn’t agree with, to try to balance my very pro-War stance. My objectivity hasn’t always been what it might have been, and for that I apologise. (So dock my pay for it.). Remember that, despite all appearances to the contrary, we’re not some high-priced clipping service. TCP is free, as in beer, and the contributors get paid nothing, nada, zilch, tiddley-squat. Given the less-than-stellar objectivity shown by major mainstream media, from Fox through to the New York Times, I think we did pretty well.

If nothing else, I must have increased the overseas readership of The Australian and the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation, not the US TV network, Dammit!) significantly. Not that the b*stards have hit my tip-jar, the sods. <grin>

To the many who’ve given me bouquets in the comments section, my grateful thanks. To the few that have given me well-aimed painfully truthful brickbats, my thanks doubled. To all my readers, hope I’ve been useful.

And to Alan and Michele who did all the hard work… Onya mates.

This birthday post comes from TCP reader Jeff MacMillan.

***********************************

I went through a period of abject, political, lonliness when I first attended college. During my freshman year, I made liberal friends and they remained my friends throughout the years. However, I could never find a conservative for three years straight. There wasn’t a College Republicans group on campus. I had to sit and cringe at the liberal perspective from students, teachers, and professors for three years. I was astonished to see so many liberals in one place. It was like walking into Caesarland only to be swarmed by 72 kids (Caesarland is a children’s pizza, playground. I used to work there, long ago.).

Then, finally, a liberal classmate informs me that there is a brand new College Republicans organization. I join up with this group during election campaign 2002. Imagine a group of people who have formed a brand new, political organization and then helped elect a candidate, among others, that has never entered the political, legislative arena before!

The passion I had for politics nearly exploded when I finally found students who were conservative. It was liberating. It was like finding someone that speaks your language in a foreign country. I felt the same, powerful, and liberating feeling from the moment I first discovered the Command Post.

Here was this website during the era of Sept. 11th, 2001, that clearly rivaled the partisan, mainstream media. A website that was like an interactive newspaper, that brings you the news of the day, that greatly effects us and reaches out for our soul, across the world, and seemingly begs for your immediate opinion. The Command Post is like a public, opinion, command center.

The Command Post shares with you the statements and opinions from our allys AND our enemies. It brings you topics that the mainstream press does not mention or emphasize, but should. What makes ‘The Command Post’ draw you in and keep you ensared in its pages are the intelligent, painstaking pursuit of the truth shown by the people who post on the Command Post. In a time of American crisis, we are all in it together. Ideological beliefs and passions need to yield to understanding, knowledge, and truth.

I don’t need to mention names, you know who you are. You are the people (without knowing it) that keep reminding me that no matter how much I feel my gut instincts are correct, I should consult the facts before cementing my opinion. Thank you all and long live the Command Post!

This birthday observation comes from reader Waffle Stomer.

******************************

I can’t really remember when I first came across TCP, but I know I was late to the party. Being relatively new to the entire blogdom, I lurked for a little while before daring to post a comment. Although I couldn’t tell you what they were, I used a few different nic’s before settling in on ‘wafflestomper’. I did a search to try to find my first comment on TCP using the stomper nic; the earliest one that I found was June 10 - a rhetorical question on whether it was appropriate to haggle when buying suicide vests (that comment is actually pretty representative of the level of incisive philosophical discussion I bring to the CP table).

In the beginning, I stayed fairly low-key until I read that a post by Alan that he expected the occasional snarky comment which put me at ease. I remember that post distinctly because it was the first time I had ever seen the word ‘snarky’. Looking back now, I hope to hell that means what I think it means. I use wafflestomper almost exclusively for any blog, although I will on occasion make a new nic (once the corporate office of Burger King). I like the stomper nic, but I liked it better before ‘waffling’ became a campaign issue.

Snarky was just one of many terms I learned reading blogs. Troll is another. A verb defined on one website as meaning to deliberately post inflammatory comments to a blog in order to bait other users into responding. I think that definition makes The Command Post possibly the largest collection of trolls on the net. It’s not our fault, though - it’s the subject matter. Generally, I can write opinions or link together thoughts that I believe present a moderate, tranquil viewpoint only to be shocked with the realization that my logic can be aggravating to others.

You don’t really have to try to bait others here, it happens when you speak your mind. Intentionally baiting someone here is like deliberately breathing. It’s something I typically have never done (outside of once falsely accusing a certain General of pedophilia which I know now that was wrong, just wrong).

Everyone knows that you should not feed the trolls. But I gotta say that we are all trolls and damn, are we ever hungry. The Command Post is a relatively unique place where trolls diametrically opposed in more ways than I thought were possible coexist provided they have thick enough skin to get past the more aggressive comments. Here I give the left-of-center commenters here the highest praise for standing in there and dishing it out as well as you all do (I would give you all high praise for your insight and rationale, but that would just mean you’re not left-of-center :-P)

I like the news portion of TCP, but I love the comments section. It’s interesting to watch the dynamics of this group. Who writes-off who as insignificant. Who refuses to give an inch to who. Who reflects on the counter argument and who ignores all opposing views. It seems to me that there is someone here that gets under the skin of each one of us.

My favorite comment threads:

• Pass challenges the righties of TCP to post comments at Kos

• Johnnymozart parodies the group - the all-time, must-read classic (Alan notes: “Yes!”)

There are people here that have absolutely overwhelmed me with their wit, with their style, with their knowledge, and with their intelligence. Looking back at old posts, I see names that I miss now. Names like Seth, Wolf, Elvis/Thurston Powell III, Lefty Patriot, GPiF, June 16…

My hope is that you may all continue to find interest in this site and continue to post your thoughts.

wafflestomper

Observed at the Peace Protests in Melbourne on Saturday -

Tom Paine of Silent Running describes the festivities here.

The first of our Reader TCP Birthday submissions, sent in by our always opinionated but avid supporter, Pass The Gas.

*************************

Congratulations on reaching the ripe old age of one.
By TCP reader Pass The Gas

When I first came upon Command-Post, and started reading the comments, I thought, what a bunch of weirdos. I mean, it had never occurred to me that there were people out there that actually believed that stuff. And then when I posted a couple of comments of my own, whew, these guys jumped down my throat like I’d never seen. They were calling me a “lefty,” of all things! Well, natcherly I was insulted, and Pass the Gas doesn’t sit still for that sort of thing. So, natcherly I insulted them in return (in my gentle and always-tactful way). And away we went. There were times that I felt quite alone, but I couldn’t just walk away, that’s too much like giving up.

The discussions here have a lot of content to them, people post links and quote sources, and I’m sure these bloggers are ten times more knowledgeable about the war in Iraq than the typical voting-age American. But beyond that there is a lot of passion. People really feel strongly about this war, and the attitudes that led up to it, and yes, sometimes this turns into a shouting match. And that’s fun, too.

I think of C-P as a microcosm of world opinion — and in fact we do have people from all over the world. Sometimes the talk is technical, sometimes it’s purely inflammatory, sometimes it’s political and sometimes it’s personal. All sides are represented here, or if they’re not it’s their own fault!

I use a pseudonym in these discussions, and there have been several times I was real glad of it. A couple of times it got more intense than I was comfortable with, or weird — do you guys remember when that girl accused me of stalking her??? Yikes. My particular pseudonym is easy for people to make fun of, and I can’t explain why I picked it, I just was looking at the screen, trying to fill in the little box with your name and everything, and, mmm, the voices in my head told me I had to go forth and preach The Truth as “Pass the Gas.” I don’t know where it came from, but I’m glad I was able to create and develop this alternate persona, which no one in my real life knows about, but which keeps me sane in a crazy world.

All in all, Command Post has provided me and a bunch of other people many hours of good, stimulating conversation and thought-provoking debate. We have solved all the world’s problems many times over, and the world just keeps comin’ up with new ones for us to argue about.

Michele asked for thoughts from the contributors, and since everybody knows that I don’t have any thoughts besides the occasional berserk outburst, I thought I’d share this’all instead…

A year since a whole country of Oil-For-Food starving cowards had to get liberated by some Texas know-how, but also a year since Command Post had to get built to tell you about it all. Way too many razor-thin lines being drawn by a bunch of gung-ho weekend-warrior media types embedding their heads up their posteriors to test out their new toys and satellites, so somebody had to read in between them to paint the Big Picture before the batteries ran down on everybody’s clicker trying to chase down all that news flying around.

There I was, flat broke, no job prospects, suicidal, rickety computer on a cheesy dial-up, and nothing better to do that watch the cats arguing on who’d eat my corpse first and the Dead Pool turn into the Live F—-ing Forever Pool. Michele gave me something to do, and I think I’ve done it better than rock-bottom awful at times.

…

Read the rest at ATS.

Quite a few times during the course of the war, we posted some correspondence (mostly uncredited, by request) from reader Sondrak K.’s Cousin Joe.

One year into the war, Cousin Joe, by way of Sondra, has sent us this excellent, informative and detailed article on the first year in Iraq.

A Year in the life of Cousin Joe…

The 504th Military Police Battalion Secures the Iraqi Theater Main Supply

The Long Road to Baghdad

By Major John Voorhees and First Lieutenant Adria Toth

The advanced party of the 504th Military Police Battalion arrived in Kuwait on 20 March 2003 and immediately began operations to receive assigned follow-on units. The battalion was assigned to the 220th Military Police Brigade (a U.S. Army Reserve unit from Maryland), as part of the 377th Theater Support Command (TSC). Due to the critical need for military police to support combat operations, the advanced party was tasked to move forward to occupy Convoy Support Center (CSC) Navistar on the Kuwait/Iraq border. Its mission was to coordinate and direct essential troop movement and combat resources across the border into Iraq by the theater Main Supply Route (MSR) Tampa. With equipment loaned from Headquarters Company, 220th Military Police Brigade, and some staff augmentation from the brigade adjutant (S1), intelligence officer (S2), and supply officer (S4), the 504th entered combat operations. With no originally allocated units, the battalion took command and control of L Troop, 3-2 Armored Cavalry Regiment, 302d Military Police Company (Texas Army National Guard) and 2d Platoon, 410th Military Police Company (Fort Hood, Texas) (all previously assigned security force missions in Kuwait) and began securing CSC Navistar. They worked to protect, stage, and move the convoys in support of 1st Marine Expeditionary Force (1MEF) and V Corps offensive operations in Iraq.

The 504th Military Police Battalion has a rich history of supporting and securing its military brethren during combat operations, as reflected in its support of World War II and Vietnam. Then after several contingency deployments to Panama and Kosovo the 504th was battle-tested again during Operation Iraqi Freedom. The task organization of the battalion included the 105th Military Police Company (New York Army National Guard), 300th Military Police Company (Fort Riley, Kansas), 333d Military Police Company (Illinois Army National Guard), and 933d Military Police Company (Illinois Army National Guard).

The small battalion staff worked with the British forces, movement control units, Coalition Forces Land Component Command (CFLCC) operations (C3) and logistics (C4) personnel and individual convoy commanders to prioritize, stage, and secure all coalition convoys passing through CSC Navistar. By setting up a briefing area in the staging yard, the S2 section ensured that convoys were situationally aware as they readied to cross the border. The operations (S3) section used military police on the ground to ensure the most combat essential supplies were moved forward quickly. This required establishing hasty holding areas and staging yards to accommodate the increased traffic volume at Navistar, which exceeded the capacity of the initial staging yard. Working with limited resources, the battalion continued planning and conducting security operations.

On 4 April, three days after landing in Kuwait, the 300th Military Police Company arrived at CSC Navistar. The company soon became the main effort for escorting critical Class III (petroleum, oils, and lubricants) and Class V (ammunition) supply convoys along the extended supply lines to keep 1MEF and V Corps forces on the offensive. On 8 April, the remainder of the 504th’s headquarters detachment arrived and began to integrate into ongoing operations. At the same time, the battalion’s area of responsibility was extended 125 miles north of CSC Navistar to Tallil Air Base in An Nasiriyah, Iraq, as the 18th Military Police Brigade moved forward in support of V Corps. This was a result of the CFLCC directive for the 377th TSC to secure MSR Tampa.

One of the first efforts to improve security for units on the MSR was the battalion’s installation of a 911 emergency frequency utilizing a series of communication relay points and two OE-254 antennas per site. The self-secured relay sites provided an emergency frequency for coalition forces traveling the MSR and enabled the battalion to operate a communication network to direct operations. The relay system has become the primary method for convoy assistance and medical evacuation requests-its relevance reflected in the fact that it’s still in use today and has been specifically tasked to other units by Coalition Joint Task Force-7 (CJTF-7). The large-scale dependency upon the communication system was not anticipated at the battalion level, but its frequent use by thousands of convoys has made it an essential element of MSR security. By holding key terrain, operating the communication relay system, and conducting round-the-clock security patrols along the route, the 540th created an effective security corridor for movement on the MSR.



Movement Into Central Iraq

As the 377th TSC assumed responsibility for the security of MSR Tampa (from Kuwait to Baghdad) and support for the forward movement of the 1st Armored Division and 4th Infantry Division (4ID), the 220th Military Police Brigade tasked the 504th to secure the newly established CSC Scania, south of Baghdad. On 11 April, elements of the battalion moved 300 miles north of CSC Navistar to Shumali, Iraq, and occupied an abandoned rest stop and gas station adjacent to the MSR to begin supporting the 377th TSC. The same coordination and effort required to make CSC Navistar efficient was implemented at CSC Scania to move crucial supplies and units forward in support of the offensive on Tikrit. Working continuously and gathering resources from wherever possible, the battalion transformed the location into a critical transportation node. Additionally, as soldiers endured the debilitating heat of summer, the battalion continued to expand CSC Scania and make quality-of-life improvements for soldiers living there, constructing a $10 million life-support area and a dining facility.

Although the battalion headquarters was located at CSC Scania, the headquarters detachment had to overcome the challenge of supporting four military police companies in three locations on the battlefield: Tallil Air Base, CSC Scania, and CSC Scania’s Forward Operating Base (FOB) Kalsu (positioned in Iskandariyah, Iraq, north of Scania and south of Baghdad). Maximizing its ground movement assets, the headquarters detachment conducted sustainment operations from three support nodes: CSC Scania; Log Base Seitz, near Baghdad International Airport; and a small cell in Camp Arifjan, Kuwait. Conducting weekly logistic runs from Kuwait to the company locations, the headquarters detachment was able to assist the battalion in overcoming a critical shortage of Class II (clothing and individual equipment), Class IV (construction materials) and Class IX (repair parts) supplies. Though the headquarters detachment was not resourced to conduct extensive split operations, it afforded exceptional logistical support to the battalion, which was stretched more than 400 miles.

When the battalion moved to CSC Scania, it assumed responsibility for convoy and route security along MSR Tampa from Tallil Air Base to CSC Scania, a distance of more than 187 miles. With the expanded battlespace came the extension of the relay communication system and the number of committed military police patrols and convoy security squads. The main effort for the battalion in these operations included the 300th, 333d, and 933d Military Police Companies. The battalion directed air and ground medical response operations for major traffic accidents and enemy engagements, saving the lives of many coalition soldiers as units from the 1st Armored Division and 4ID pushed into Iraq. The battalion conducted both convoy security and MSR combat patrolling. Convoy security operations focused on logistical convoys, including contracted “sustainer” pushes. In addition to maintaining a coalition presence as an enemy deterrence, MSR combat patrols targeted enemy ambushes and snipers, improvised explosive devices (IEDs), and problem areas along the route.

Extended Battlespace Into the Sunni Triangle

In May, the 220th Military Police Brigade directed the 504th to expand its area of responsibility north along MSR Tampa, from CSC Scania to the intersection of MSR Tampa and Alternate Supply Route Jackson, south of Baghdad. The extended area, which later became known as the true start of the Sunni Triangle, was the most problematic area of the battalion’s area of responsibility. In an effort to stop enemy activity and continue to provide a secure MSR for troop movement, the battalion established FOB Kalsu, named in honor of First Lieutenant James Robert Kalsu, a Buffalo Bills defensive lineman killed in Vietnam on 21 July 1970. Initially occupied by the 105th Military Police Company (Buffalo, New York) and then the 300th Military Police Company, FOB Kalsu quickly became a critical site with two objectives to provide immediate emergency response to convoys under attack and, due to its location, operate continuous MSR combat patrols in the battalion’s most active area. FOB Kalsu’s location at the start of the Sunni Triangle, just south of Baghdad, has made it an essential location to conduct operations against enemy forces and provide rapid assistance to coalition forces traveling on MSR Tampa. The 105th and 300th were engaged in more than 50 direct enemy contacts along MSR Tampa. As a result of FOB Kalsu’s strategic placement, the battalion effectively responded to 20 IED attacks against coalition convoys, and combat patrols discovered more than 25 IEDs before detonation. Although FOB Kalsu came under frequent attack by enemy rocket-propelled grenade, small arms, mortar, and rocket fire, the units continued to provide an effective and aggressive defense, ensuring that the FOB remained open. FOB Kalsu was transformed from a bombed and abandoned former regime military antiaircraft radar station to a U.S. military base whose sphere of influence extended well beyond the battalion’s original expectations. The FOB now supports more than 350 soldiers from the battalion and the 2-505 Parachute Infantry Regiment and is slated to become a long-term base in support of future Operation Iraqi Freedom operations.

From FOB Kalsu, the battalion conducted operations with the 4ID, 1st Marine Division, 1MEF Aviation, 1-152 Infantry Battalion, and 1-162 Infantry Battalion in an effort to maintain security on MSR Tampa. Recently, CJTF-7 supported the request of the 220th Military Police Brigade to employ Company B, 2-505th Parachute Infantry Regiment, to assist with security operations along Tampa.

Humanitarian Fuel Convoys

One of the most operationally significant missions of the battalion has been humanitarian assistance. With Iraq’s oil and fuel production and transportation completely in ruins, the 504th was called upon to escort badly needed fuel (kerosene, gasoline and diesel) for the Iraqi civilian population. The fuel convoys originated in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and traveled to Tallil Air Base and CSC Scania, where they were sent on to major fuel distribution points. Scania became a vital fuel distribution hub. The battalion safely transported millions of gallons of fuel in an effort to bring about a stable and secure environment for the Iraqi people. A significant responsibility for this mission fell on the shoulders of the 333d Military Police Company, operating from CSC Scania, and the 933d Military Police Company, operating from Tallil Air Base. Experiencing IED attacks and attacks by hijackers in the desolate sections of the MSR in the south, the battalion did everything possible to keep the convoys operational.

In support of the mission, the 333d encountered 7 IEDs en route to fuel depots in and around Baghdad. Working to eliminate the dangerous criminal threat to the convoys, the 933d conducted antihijacking operations against armed Iraqis, capturing a dozen criminals and sending them to prison in An Nasiriyah.

The Ultimate Sacrifice

By creating CSC Scania and FOB Kalsu to launch security operations and maintain the extensive communication relay system along the MSR, the 504th successfully secured the coalition’s logistical lifeline into Baghdad. The battalion worked tirelessly to maintain security and stability on their watch¾with a cost of 3 soldiers killed in action and 6 wounded. The battalion’s dedicated efforts to keep MSR Tampa safe prevented additional loss of life.

Significant Accomplishments

In addition to security operations, the units in the 504th executed multiple combat operations with 1MEF, Polish forces, and Special Forces, bringing the combined arms concept to the small-unit level. The battalion completed more than 20 cordon-and-search operations, 10 raids, and hundreds of hasty and deliberate vehicle checkpoints leading to the detention of more than 200 people suspected of anticoalition or criminal activity. The battalion placed a special emphasis on protecting Iraqi infrastructure within and adjacent to MSR Tampa, to include oil pipelines, power lines, power substations, and fuel holding tanks. Iraqis found looting or stealing from these critical sites were apprehended. This effort drastically reduced the number of incidents with the battalion’s area of responsibility.

From May through early August, the 504th provided relief operations for 1MEF to secure the bridge crossing the Euphrates River on MSR Tampa north of An Nasiriyah, allowing thousands of convoys to safely cross a vulnerable target. Additionally, the battalion provided security from June through September to support the 724th Engineer Battalion as it worked to improve the 60-mile unpaved and dangerous stretch of the route.

The battalion also became involved in cultivating civil-military relationships with the Iraqi people from Ash Shumali, Al Imam, Al Mashru, Al Nile, Al Zubyar, Sumar, Tunis, and Latifiyah towns adjacent to MSR Tampa and within the battalion area of responsibility. The battalion participated in restoration and reconstruction projects for schools, medical clinics, and police stations and allowed local families living behind CSC Scania to establish a market. Additionally, the battalion nurtured its relationship with the local sheiks, capitalizing on their influence in the surrounding area. This rapport was paramount for gathering intelligence information and as a reference point for identifying local people to work on the base camps, ultimately gaining positive word-of-mouth contacts in the area concerning the military presence. The positive civil-military connection with the sheiks was fully felt when the enemy activity around CSC Scania significantly decreased.

Tribal Relations

The battalion’s community relations deepened after a meeting with one sheik in particular. The coincidental encounter with a Shia sheik of the Abu Sultan Tribe one of the largest tribes in central Iraq proved to be a solid partnership for the battalion and the Iraqi reconstruction process. The battalion became the liaison between the sheik and officials at the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Al Hilla. Additionally, the battalion was able to foster a relationship with an influential Sunni sheik from north Babil, who provided necessary connections with the Sunni population in the battalion’s northern area. He facilitated civil affairs projects and worked aggressively to convince the local Sunni population that the coalition was a positive force working for Iraq. Though the battalion made a tangible impact in tribal relations, its most significant accomplishments were truly captured in the relationships developed in the Iraqi communities.

Base Camp Construction

At CSC Scania, the battalion focused on making the CSC fully operational and secure to support the heavy flow of convoys, while simultaneously upgrading the quality of life for soldiers. Efforts were set in motion to construct a force provider logistics support area (LSA). Contracting for the real estate leased from a local farmer began in July. Working with the support services contractor, Kellogg Brown and Root, the battalion played a lead role in the planning, design, and construction of the LSA and improvements to existing on-site structures, including the current tactical operations center and medical treatment facility. The construction began in August, and the battalion worked with the contractor on a daily basis to ensure that all project objectives were met. On 1 November, LSA Nakaamura officially opened to house CSC Scania’s tenant units; in December, the CSC was fully operational to support the convoy movement of CJTF-7.

Iraqi Highway Patrol

In September, the battalion began working to turn over highway security to the Iraqis by establishing the Iraqi Highway Patrol in Babil Province. Working with the regional CPA, the battalion received funding for the construction of the first highway patrol station in one of the most active enemy areas, south of Baghdad and west of Iskandariyah. In November, the battalion opened the station with 60 police officers and 24-hour operations. The military police in the battalion contributed to the training and resourcing of the highway patrol, making it a true success that has paid dividends in protection for the coalition forces and the Iraqi people. The highway patrol has grown from a concept to a reality and, through the efforts of the battalion, has expanded to include additional existing police stations. In February 2004, the battalion assumed resourcing and training responsibility for two additional highway patrol stations along MSR Tampa and in An Nasiriyah and Al Zubyar all part of a program designed to build on the highway patrol system that will eventually be handed off to the Iraqis.

Civil Affairs Efforts

The 504th widened its scope of responsibility and assumed civil affairs projects within the battalion area. The battalion initially solicited donations from family support groups back home to provide needed supplies for local schools in and around the area. Getting more involved in the civil affairs efforts, the battalion created a civil affairs staff “out of hide.” In addition, the battalion teamed up with the Philippine Civil Affairs Battalion to leverage a needs assessment for the areas in and around MSR Tampa. Obtaining funding from the commander’s Emergency Relief Program, the CPA, and the Multinational Division-Central South, the battalion acquired more than $500,000. Projects included the refurbishment of four water treatment systems, the restoration of two medical facilities and four schools, and the resourcing of five police stations. Additionally, the 504th played a critical role in the reactivation of the Baza irrigation system, which provided water to thousands of farms south of Baghdad, and the Shumali water pumping system, which prevented hundreds of families from being flooded out of their homes during the winter rains. The battalion was recognized by the CPA as one of the most effective military units working civil affairs projects in the region.

Operational Summary

In January, the battalion became a part of the 16th Military Police Brigade (Airborne) where it will continue to operate until relieved of its mission. The operations of the 504th Military Police Battalion in Iraq have included more than 70 armed engagements with the enemy. While conducting more than 4,000 combat patrols on more than 300 miles of MSR Tampa, the battalion confiscated more than 1,200 weapons and detained 201 Iraqis suspected of anticoalition activities. Further, the battalion was responsible for the apprehension of hundreds of Iraqis caught damaging or destroying critical Iraqi infrastructure. Working to protect coalition forces, the battalion ensured the safe detonation of 30 IEDs and is working closely with the newly formed Iraqi Highway Patrol to continue locating devices before additional damage occurs. Finally, the battalion has secured more than 8,000 convoys and ensured the safe passage of more than 25,000 convoys moving troops and resources across the MSR.

Conclusion

On of the biggest morale boasts for the battalion was the extensive support of the 504th Military Police Battalion Association. Many World War II and Vietnam veterans from the battalion wrote letters and sent packages to the deployed Dragon Fighters. The sense of camaraderie from these great Americans, who knew first-hand the sacrifices and the challenges the battalion endured, gave many an inner motivation. These veterans had a special way of saying “thanks” that encouraged soldiers to give their best every day, no matter how difficult the mission, adding chapters to the honorable history of a great and proud organization the Dragon Fighters!

Major Voorhees is a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy and is currently the executive officer of the 504th Military Police Battalion. He previously served as the battalion S3.

First Lieutenant Toth is a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy and is currently the assistant S3 of the 504th. Her previous assignments include platoon leader in the 170th Military Police Company.

[Thank you to Sondra, Cousin Joe, Lt. Toth and Major Vorhees for this article]

This is an historic accomplishment which makes Bush one of the greatest world leaders in history. Bush’s accomplishments for the advancement of world peace, freedom, and democracy, dwarf anything done by anyone who has ever won a Nobel Peace Prize.

The Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns were just military campaigns without peer. The U.S. and its Coalition partners liberated 50 million people from the brutal dictatorships of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein.

This feat was accomplished in 24 months - at a cost, to date, of approximately 500 U.S. soliders.

Let’s be clear. This was a military campaign stunning in its: (1) swift success, (2) unvarnished good result for the benefit of 50 million people, the region, and the world, and (3) remarkably low loss of life on all sides of the conflict, both military and civilian.

This is the military campaign against which all future military campaigns toppling dictatorships must be judged and compared.

Compared to this campaign, the military campaigns undertaken by Democrat Presidents Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman, and FDR seem barbaric and grotesque. And, of course, these former military campaigns were all justified and just.

For good measure, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt (and Bill Clinton in Kosovo, for that matter) were all ‘chicken-hawks’: the left’s current slur du jour.

For any American - for any citizen of a democracy - to not be proud and grateful for the military success of the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns of the Bush Administration borders on a wish for a decline of freedom and democracy in the world. In this regard, critics of the Bush Administration’s stunning success in these two military campaigns are fairly called unpatriotic, anti-freedom, and anti-democracy.

Of course, critics of these Bush Administration military campaigns have every right under the First Amendment to espouse their views. As do I.

For critics of these two military campaigns to criticize such unparalleled success - the freeing of millions of oppressed peoples - places them firmly on the side of history’s losers: Napolean, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, the USSR, Communist Eastern Europe, Communist Cuba, the Taliban, and Saddam Hussein.

The only wonder is that anyone criticizing the Bush Administration’s stunning military successes - for the great good of millions of formerly brutalized Arabs and Muslims - is not immediately labeled as anti-Arab, anti-Muslim, anti-democracy, and anti-freedom.

Here’s hoping for the continued success of the forces for democracy and freedom.

The above link is via Instapundit - who linked to the original piece by Victor Davis Hanson in National Review Online.

See, also, the background material on the Iraq military campaign, and post-war Iraq, at the Whitehouse’s site, “Renewal in Iraq.”

April 18, 2003 - Northern Baghdad, IRAQ Marines from 2nd Battalion 5th Marines Regimental Combat Team Five (RCT 5) 1st MARDIV out of Camp Pendleton Calif., pause for a routine stop during a convoy. Lance Cpl. Seam M Langley from Lexington, Ky., interacts with a local civilian family during the convoy. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lacne Cpl. James P. Aguilar)

The young boy with Lance Corporal Langley above will now grow up in freedom - and not under Saddam Hussein’s brutal dictatorship. This may be beside-the-point to John Kerry. It is most assuredly not beside-the-point to this young boy or his family. Neither is it beside-the-point to the security of the Middle East, the United States, or the world.

We should give Corporal Langley - and the Bush Administration for its stunningly successful and just military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq - the praise they deserve.

Orson Scott Card agrees.

This is a duplicate of the original post at the nikita demosthenes website.

One year ago from today I had an idea. A year from tomorrow, that idea was put into motion, thanks to Alan.

Alan and I were both covering the start of the Iraq war, as were many other bloggers. We saw a need to converge all of that coverage, to put it one place where people could get as much information and commentary as they wanted on one page.

We opened a Blogspot account, sent the word out to other bloggers and the Warblog Corner was born.

Just days after, when we realized that we had created a monster, so to speak, we bought a domain name, signed up with Hosting Matters, hired Sekimori Design and The Command Post came to life.

For the first few months, the news was happening fast and furious and, thanks to contributors that spanned the globe, TCP was on top of things, often posting news before the mainstream media websites did. We made fast friends with quite a few people in the news industry, enabling us to get scoops and leads before most news outlets.

Our bright idea worked because of supply and demand. People were demanding up to the minute news; we were supplying it. Readers wrote to tell us that they kept TCP open at work all day because it was the only way they could get decent coverage of the war without a television. The CNN newsroom was monitoring TCP. Military news outlets were aware of us. We were hounded for interviews.

I think Alan and I both realized early on that we were onto something huge. Even as the war - and thus the news - was at its peak, we were looking forward, thinking up ways to keep TCP relevant even after the major news from Iraq waned.

At one point we realized that if we wanted to continue to be taken seriously as a news site, we would have to separate the obvious opinion pieces from the straight news, so we created the OpEd section, a place where people were free to opine and rant without worrying about presenting the news in a biased fashion. The OpEd section has grown quite nicely, often featuring guest pieces from both bloggers and reporters.

Still, we needed to expand more. There were other things going on in the world besides our fight with Saddam’s men. Eventually we created the Global War on Terror page and the Global Recon section (which started out as a North Korea page, which spread into a page covering hot spots around the world). Global Recon became an important place when news broke that didn’t quite fit into any of our other sections; news like the blackout that hit the Northeast last summer. Many mainstream media outlets pointed to TCP as a way to get up to date news on the situation.

It wasn’t until then that I realized the potential of TCP; we were performing a service of sorts, not just a gathering of links and news bites, but a real service. Later, that thought would resonate again when we covered the Bam earthquake and other news from around the world that most media outlets were ignoring. Again, that is because we have an amazing lineup of contributors from around the world. We had firsthand accounts from uprisings in Iran, bombings in Israel and a coup in Haiti. People right there, able to quickly update our readers on volatile situations without having to go through a submit process or work with editors. I think that’s one of the most outstanding features of TCP; it’s raw news. It’s not sliced up for easy consumption, it’s not stripped of emotion. That’s what separates TCP’s coverage of breaking news from other news outlets.

Another thing that makes TCP different is the comments feature. While many news sites have message boards, TCP has, like most blogs, a comment feature built right in to each post. The conversations and discussions that go on in each thread only adds to the personal aspect of TCP; often readers will leave links to updates on the stories they are commenting on, or add information we didn’t have.

In order to keep TCP fresh and viable, we needed to keep the news fresh. When the breaking news is slow (which is really a good thing in most cases), we still needed to find ways to keep the site fresh without rehashing old news.

Fortunately, there is always something going on, especially in an election year. So we created the Election 2004 section, which, over the past few months, has clearly been the most popular place on TCP. We covered each primary, each speech, each caucus live. We had reporters on the spot in all the states necessary, posting photos and conducting their own exit polls. We covered speeches, debates and news conferences live. We were the source for up to the minute election information, and we hope to continue to be that for the rest of the election season.

It’s certainly hard to become a popular destination on the web without help from other people. Glenn Reynolds and Jeff Jarvis were two of our earliest fans, and linked TCP often enough to keep fresh readers coming over. We’d like to thank them, Stacy for her hard work and dedication to TCP, everyone who ever linked to TCP, our incredible contributors, everyone who made a donation to TCP to help cover the costs of running the site, our advertisers and our loyal readers.

TCP is only going to get bigger and better. If you would have told me a year ago that today I would be equipped with a laptop and a press pass to the GOP convention because of Command Post, I would have thought you crazy. But here we are, at just such a place. Alan and I both run the place in our “spare” time. We both have full-time jobs and families. But every letter we received from a reader who appreciated our work, from a soldier in Iraq who uses TCP to keep up with things going on besides the war, every time we were able to direct our readers to relief efforts or charitable organizations makes it worth every second and every penny spent. I love doing this. If I could afford to do it full-time, I would. Perhaps some day.

It’s been an interesting, exhausting, wild year. I wouldn’t trade it in for anything. I know look forward to another year of news, and hope for most of it to be good.

I want to take a moment to personally thank Alan for his inspiration, dedication and overall brilliance. TCP is nothing without him; he’s the brains behind the operation. I just work here.

Again, thanks to everyone who supported TCP and encouraged Alan and I to keep it going. A toast to all of you.

[Links to all articles in which TCP is mentioned or featured can be found here. Please visit our contributors and give them a nice round of applause for all of their hard work. There is no way TCP exists without them.]

Supporters of the War on Terror have been troubled by the results of last week’s elections in Spain, so troubled that some of us have even used the word “appeasement”. Not surprisingly the use of the A-word has brought a torrent of criticism from war opponents. Users of such terminology apparently do not respect Spain’s right to make a decision independent of the US and its Iraq “Coalition”. By calling the Spanish appeasers we are misrepresenting their actions. It is not appeasement to withdraw one’s military from a “quagmire” it is rational national security strategy. At least that is the argument. All this got me thinking about what appeasement is exactly.

Read the Rest at the Chicago Report

Imagine a world where access to the Internet was prohibited. A place where you weren’t allowed to learn what was happening in the world around you. No access to newspapers and other print media, no access to cable news, to world news or otherwise. You live in a place where you are told what is happening, where the word of your government must be taken as gospel. In this world there is no room for independent thought, and your opinion must remain just that, yours. To opine to others means to risk what little you have.

Today marks the one year benchmark of the plight of 75 independent journalists rounded up by Fidel Castro’s regime and sentenced – through mock trials – to as much as 20 years in prison. These people weren’t fomenting revolution, they weren’t running clandestine operations to topple the government. No. They were doing what each and every one of us that is reading this does on a daily basis – learning and reporting. Reporting the news, speaking out on events, disseminating information about the world they live in.

Information is the enemy of any oppressive regime. And Castro, ever the stalwart dictator, knows this all too well.

As I write this there are prisoners of conscience stranded in their jail cells, their bodies failing and their thoughts decaying. Alone and imprisoned for their convictions and their courage to express them.

March 18th is the date these 75 dissidents had their voices muted. One year ago today they were forcibly removed from the world they knew, the world they tried to show us, and were discarded as human excrement by their government. The rest of the world sits idly by.

Next time you log on to the Internet or your blog or some media website, remember there are those who lack that opportunity. There are people who aren’t allowed to learn or express or, even, to think for themselves. And without freedom of thought, there can be no freedom at all.

Only oppression should fear the full exercise of freedom. – Jose Marti

By Val Prieto

No-one really believes that the Islamists are actually against Freedom and Democracy, do they? It’s all Bush Propaganda, designed to take our minds off other things, like… er… whatever.

What real Islamists say are things like this:

The obligation of hating false religious
This Saturday’s LIVE talk on Paltalk will discuss one of the greatest forgotten obligations in Islaam - Hating false religions. Allaah (swt) orders the believers to hate all other religions, way of lives, creeds, doctrines and beliefs that contradict with Islaam, and one cannot be Muslim without to declare animosity and hatred towards kufr, bid’ah, shirk and nifaaq (Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Democracy, Freedom etc.).

Date and time: 20th of March 2004, from 6pm to 7:30pm GMT
Room: LIVE - Hating false religions
Speaker: Abu Muwahhid

See? It’s all a misundertanding.
(Hat Tip to Tim Blair)

Can’t say we weren’t warned. And to any true Muslim reading this - sorry mate, you must be squirming with embarressment. As must the Compassionate, the Merciful.

As I recently posted on the Iraq page, Hans Blix has admitted that he believed that Iraq had WMD. This would put him in the same camp as Jacques Chirac and all of the Security Council nations that repeatedly signed resolutions based on their belief that Iraq had WMD and was continuing to pursue them (something Blix said even Hussein might have believed). As Torie Clark put it to Wolf Blitzer yesterday, “[I]f you go back and look at what the world believed it knew back then, we thought, the French, the Germans, the Russians, the British, the UN, all fully thought that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. …So back then the debate was not over whether or not he had weapond of mass destruction. Everyone truly believed he had them. He had used them in the past. It was what we should do about it.”

In my many debates with anti-war folks, none of them made the assertion that there were no WMD. The constant refrain was “we need to let the inspections work.” Even Sean Penn, who made the assertion that he and other actors knew there were no WMD in Iraq during his Oscar speech, was singing a different tune in December 2002, when his publicist insisted a quote in Iraq Daily saying Penn had “confirmed that Iraq is completely clear of weapons of mass destruction” was fabricated. The recent crowing over Bush “lies” regarding WMD is disingenuous. I respect the opinions of those who opposed invasion; there were valid arguments to make against it. But claiming those who opposed invasion knew something the rest of the world didn’t regarding WMD (Sean Penn, noted weapons inspector?), and that President Bush knew for certain that there were no WMD while France, the UN, and even Hussein didn’t, is incredulous.

Turning to inspections, it seems unlikely that they would ever have been effective. Using a process designed to confirm destructions by willing nations in to seek out weapons in a unwilling nation seems like trying to use your toaster to boil water. Blix’s assertions that Iraq probably didn’t have weapons at this time, even if true, couldn’t be reliably confirmed by the inspections process, and the matter of Hussein’s continued desire for such weapons is wholly ignored by the inspections process (what good would confirming their absence and lifting sanctions do if Hussein would have simply restarted the program the next day?).

Should we poll the Kuwaities and Iranians on Blix’s assertion that Hussein was not a threat to the region? Does evading the inspections process, refusing to comply with UN resolutions, and acting as if he had WMD capability meet the goals of the inspections process? In order for UN inspections to give any kind of assurance of destruction and absence of programs, nations need to 1) confirm the destruction of weapons by destroying the weapons in front of the UN representatives (if it is known or admitted that they had these programs), 2) allow inspectors freedom to investigate all previous production areas (Hussein did not even allow inspectors back in until credibly threatened with use of force; left to the UN alone, Blix would never have gotten back in Iraq), and 3) demonstrate resolve not to pursue those weapons further (by open and full compliance with the process, and account for all previous weapons). Trust of Hussein would have been tenuous even under the previously successful destruction and inspections process used by other nations. Hussein’s destruction of weapons outside of UN view (if indeed that is what has happened, rather than burying them in a rose garden or smuggling them to Syria) made trust impossible.

I’m no uncritical fan of the German publication Der Spiegel. Like the BBC, the best I can say is that it’s like the little girl in Longfellow’s poem :

When she was good, she was very, very good
But when she was bad, she was Horrid.

Recently, Der Spiegel has been posting headline articles, and those with international ramifications, in English. My German’s moderate at best ( my wife is the one with the Goethe Institut Zertificat Deutsche als Fremdsprache - Certificate for German as a Foreign Language), but the few translations I’ve seen appear flawless, correct in idiom and spirit as well as literally.

Which brings me to the point of this post. The article A Thousand and One Fronts.

Its been almost a year since the war against Saddam Hussein began, and commanding General David Petraeus has more important things to worry about than demolished Jeeps and a few gunshots.

There’s the merest whiff of Fashionable Eurocentric Leftism in it, so only those hyper-allergic to it will even be able to detect it. Rarely, almost uniquely in a Spiegel article, there’s no significant bias. What there is only semantic, nuanced, adjectival, no distortion-by-omission of facts. While researching news articles on the situation in Iraq, I’ve encountered many accounts from people actually on the front line, saying how things are going, both good and bad. This article distills and captures the quintescence of the situation, and it probably took a journalist from a nation that underwent a process similar to de-Ba’athification nearly 60 years ago to write it.

“We must not forget that this is an historic process. Remember what Germany looked like ten months after the war.”

There’s little of the America-bashing so often found in European articles for and by the Intelligencia. None of the usual pompous sneering (so redolant of Nazi propaganda) at Ignorant, Barbaric Cowboys.

In Mosul, Petraeus who, in addition to being a general, holds a doctorate in political science, began a whirlwind of new beginnings. Within a few days, he had organized reasonably democratic elections, the first in the entire country. He repaired the court system, the fire department and the river police, helped the police force regain its footing, and encouraged brigade commanders to begin with reconstruction everywhere and at the same time. Petraeus transformed his soldiers into urban planners, teachers and social workers.

It’s not all good news, however. Though even then, the reporting of each inevitable minor setback as a major and unexpected disaster is given a serve (as we say in Australia):

The troops of the 101st Airborne captured thousands of minor and major ringleaders, cataloging their successes like meticulous bookkeepers: they collected 111,807 rounds of ammunition, 1069 Kalashnikovs, 567 rocket launchers, 730 bazookas, 2450 warheads, 6145 mines, as well as pipe bombs, artillery ammunition, hand grenades, and bayonets. They razed training camps and terrorist camps, and they broke up guerilla cells.

They risked their lives for this new Iraq. But, as if cursed, they were not victorious.
[…]
The terrorist attacks quickly covered the colored charts showing repaired potholes, village wells and school books. They made it easy to forget that Mosul was still blossoming, simultaneously, as if it were in a parallel world. But none of that reached the outside world. Major newspapers back home in America printed nothing but headlines about how Operation Iraq was turning into a disaster. The only impression the outside world received was of another Somalia, another Vietnam.

Hence the views of the incoming Spanish Prime Minister. Or at least, the ones he has to say in public for his constituency. Maybe it’s because I’m an Australian, but we tend to think that most politicians are both a lot smarter and a lot more dishonest than is usually perceived. Anyway, I heartily recommend that you go read the whole thing, from end to end.

JERUSALEM POST: Berlin museum displays life-size Hitler wax figure

A life-size wax figure of Adolf Hitler has gone on display in the heart of Berlin in what museum officials say is the first such public exhibition of the Nazi dictator in post-war Germany.

“Provided it’s all just art, it’s permitted,” a Culture Ministry spokesman told Reuters on Tuesday, when asked if the Hitler waxwork was breaking Germany’s tough anti-fascist laws banning the use of Nazi symbols and insignia.

It’s when they start making him larger-than-life-sized again is when you should be concerned.

Four days after al Qaeda attacked Spain, a Spanish plurality voted as the terrorists desired. Four days before Tawian holds national elections, the French and Chinese attempted to intimidate Taiwan by holding the largest-scale joint drill [ever] held by Chinese and foreign navies.

This is actually subtle for the Chinese. In 1996, the Chinese were even more blatant.

China, whose 2.5 million-strong military represents the world’s largest standing armed forces, threatened Taiwan with missile tests and war games in the run-up to the island’s first direct presidential elections in 1996 to try to dissuade voters from re-electing President Lee Teng-hui.

The move backfired and Lee won by a landslide.

Americans have much in common with the Taiwanese and I regret the US showed a lack of will in allowing Taiwan to be kicked out the UN in 1971 and replaced by mainland China. As we repeatedly fail to learn from history, allowing pragmatism to triumph over principle causes greater problems in the future. We should have stuck to our principles and make recognition of an independent Taiwan a requirement for mainland China’s admittance to the UN.

Despite our reluctance to take a firm stand on this issue, the US has been a good friend to Taiwan and would most likely defend the Taiwanese in the face of a Chinese attack. The actions of both the Chinese and the Taiwanese are not surprising, both have been very open about their long term objectives. The Chinese hope to absorb Taiwan as they have done with Hong Kong (by treaty) and Tibet (by conquest). The Taiwanese hope to maintain their independence.

The involvement of the French is disappointing, but the only thing surprising about their involvement is that they are now openly helping China attempt to intimidate Taiwan. France is primarily interested in making money and instead of trying to do so with honest competition, their large corporations target markets that are forbidden to firms that reside in more principled countries. For example, the French were heavily involved in oil and weapons contracts with Iraq at a time when more principled countries refused to do business with Iraq (and France violated UN resolutions in doing so). Europe has an embargo on selling advanced arms to China. The French have been doing their best to overturn this ban. You may not be surprised to learn that Chancellor Schoreder also wants to remove the ban.

German Chancellor gerhard Schroeder and French President Jacques Chirac are proposing that Europe lift its arms embargo against China, imposed in 1989 after the crackdown on China’s democracy movement at Tienanmen Square.

…the move seems to be prompted by political expediency and commercial opportunism. It would enable the sale of quiet German submarines and advanced French Mirage fighters to a weapons-hungry China, a country that is one of the major sources of tension in the East Asia region.

I hope and expect the Taiwanese people to stick to their principles and vote in favor of their referendum. I hope the European Community maintains their ban on selling advanced weapons to China. As an official Taiwanese spokesman explained, We don’t want to see the situation where China is using French weapons to fight the Americans.

I remain guardedly optimistic that as China becomes more democratic, more Christian, and more interdependent on trade with the US, it will eventually become a much more stable and friendly country. French efforts to help stir up trouble are only in best interests of those who don’t mind blood money so long as there is plenty of it.

At 6:50 p.m., I posted about the 3 Southern Baptists who were killed in Mosul. The information about these individuals was obtained from the Baptist Press news service of the Southern Baptist Convention. Now, at 9:35 p.m. EST, this is the information at NYTimes.com:
Gunmen kill 3 U.S. Civilians in car in Mosul

BAGHDAD, March 15 — Three American civilians were killed and two others wounded Monday when their vehicle was raked by gunfire in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, a military spokesman said.
The victims were affiliated with a private aid organization working in Iraq, and not the American-led reconstruction effort, the military spokesman said.
The names of the victims and of their organization were being withheld pending notification of family.

I don’t get it. Even if they were waiting to name the individuals out of deference to the families, there is absolutely no reason to refuse to name the “private aid organization” they worked for. I am mystified as to why the Times would do this.

Is it possible that there’s some religious bias at work here? The writer doesn’t even mention that it’s a Christian aid organization. Or (the more likely scenario, I admit) why is the reporter relying on a military spokesperson? Could it be that the reporter didn’t do any actual reporting, but just showed up at the daily press briefing in Baghdad?

Hmm.

A bomb went off in Shea Stadium yesterday. Of course, it was a mock bomb, part of a mock drill to assess mock response to a mock terrorist attack.

Everything may have been fake about that bomb, but I can tell you, the fear is real. Everyone I talk to, from the deli owner who is thinking about moving back to Trinidad, to the elderly couple on line in the movie theater, is afraid.

Don’t let them fool you. Don’t let anyone tell you that the Socialists won in Spain because 90% of the people were against Spain’s involvemenThet in the Iraq war and they were voting with that in mind.

This paragraph appeared in the March 11th New York Times - before the bombs went off on the trains in Madrid:

Spain goes to the polls on Sunday, and Mariano Rajoy, a 48-year-old lawyer, who has pledged to adhere to Mr. Aznar’s policies, enjoys a comfortable lead in the polls. Even less charismatic than Mr. Aznar, he nevertheless has benefited from the extraordinarily well-disciplined machine of his center-right Popular Party and the country’s strong economic performance.

A comfortable lead. Obviously, the Spanish people were not voting with the Iraq war in mind. And then, the bombs, the deaths, the fear; al Qaeda. Terror struck Spain and a message was sent in the form of flames and explosions: We will kill you. It was blackmail of the worst kind and the payoff was the votes of the people of Spain.

Unfortunately, their votes spell certain doom for other countries, other innocent people. It’s not hyperbole, it’s not some form of right-wing histrionics to cry that the terrorists have won, because they certainly did. They want the Popular Party out and the party that would deal a blow to the Iraq war in. And they won.

So now the spotlight is on Bush and how Americans react. Will they blame Bush for not ridding the world of bin Laden and driving al Qaeda into the ground? I’m sure that’s what the terrorists have in mind. They are hoping to sway the American voters with residual fear. And if the polls don’t change and Kerry doesn’t take a commanding lead soon, perhaps they will try to sway us with death.

Maybe today people are waking up and thinking, hey Kerry will pull our troops out of Iraq. He’ll make nice with Chirac and Schroeder. He’ll use “vigorous law enforcement” to fight terror. For some reason, those things do not make me look at John Kerry as the man to keep us safe.

Kerry also said:

At the core of this conflict is a fundamental struggle of ideas. Of democracy and tolerance against those who would use any means and attack any target to impose their narrow views.

The War on Terror is not a clash of civilizations. It is a clash of civilization against chaos; of the best hopes of humanity against dogmatic fears of progress and the future.

It most certainly is a clash of civilizations and a president who cannot see that is a president who does not understand terrorists at all. Oh sure, he’s right in that it’s a struggle of ideas; they want to kill us, we want to live. “You love life, we love death,” as the saying goes. They want us to worship their god and follow their religious guidelines to life. We like our freedom to choose.

…democracy and tolerance against those who would use any means and attack any target to impose their narrow views.

I don’t know about you, but the words democracy and tolerance, when used in the terms of dealing with people who want to kill you, strike fear in my heart. These people want us dead. Well, dead or wearing veils and facing Mecca.

So, Kerry says Bush has done too little in the war on terror. Bush opposers say that al Qaeda striking in Spain is proof that that the war on terror isn’t working because al-Qaeda is still alive and well. Which leads them to believe that if we had captured OBL two years ago, al-Qaeda would be dead as a doornail.

al-Qaeda is just an umbrella organization for a host of terrorists, would-be martyrs, murderers and thugs. Even if OBL was hung in front of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue on international television, these groups would still exist. From the closest offshoots of al-Qaeda to the fringe groups, they would act separately and together to fulfill their mission.

Do you think it would really matter had bin Laden been captured already - or at least proven dead?

I don’t think so.

It’s likely that OBL stopped running the show soon after September 11, 2001. If he’s not dead already, then he’s holed up in a shabby hut somewhere, powerless and feeble.

It’s not like al-Qaida was formed on 9/10/01 and then struck with force the next day. They’ve been around a while. And before them were other groups and other factions hell bent on turning the world into one giant Muslim playground. As it will always be.

The war on terror probably can’t be won anytime soon. But we can play the best defense we know how and hold them off from scoring again. For every OBL that bites the dust, another one rises in his place, spurred on by dreams of heavenly virgins and martyrdom. It’s our job to strike these self-appointed leaders of murder down as they appear, and just keep hacking at them until either their numbers are diminished or they get the hint that we don’t want to live under their law, their religion, their rules, and we will fight them every step of the way.

So no, the capture of OBL months or years ago wouldn’t have mattered. It might have been a moral victory for us and a moral letdown for them, but, like cockroaches, they would gather up again and look for the crumbs of fear to prey on. They’ll move out of Spain and into places like Poland or America. They’ll once again try to sway elections with fear, driving cars laden with explosives into crowded buildings, sending out signals that it’s time to submit or be killed.

Of course the terrorists have won. They’ve been emboldened and strengthened by the Socialist win in Spain. Fear wins. Terror works. So they pat each other on the back for a job well done and start planning the next.

I’m no longer sitting around wondering when the other shoe to drop. I see its shadow hovering above us. It’s not the mock shadow of a mock attack.

Any minute now.

In the midst of smoke not quite dispersed, with confusing signs pointing this way and that, whoever set off the bombings in Spain achieved their desired result - to throw the Spanish elections into turmoil.

I can only consider that the reaction of the Spanish public is not one of abject fear, and a desire for appeasment. That sentiment is present, to be sure, yet there are a range of strong emotions, bare and raw by the events of the past few days. A toxic cocktail of anger, anguish, fear - such things great masses of people do not hold inside.

Without the true targets to vent upon, for purging these emotions, the people turned on the most opportune target available - the government in power. The people that were supposed to keep them safe, the ones that were not supposed to allow things such as the nightmare of a few days ago to happen. The ones that were supposed to stop the almost unstoppable. Absent the cowardly perpatrators that have slunk away, the tidal wave of emotion crashed onto those left behind to pick up the pieces.

A hard lesson, for all of us to learn. That terror can be effective.

In such a compressed and volatile situation, humans will and do lash out. As such, the concept that these events were staged simply to ‘hand’ the Socialists the election because they’ll be appeasers, or that the Spanish are cringing away in fear, while passionate arguments to make, probably are not totally the case. It is true that whoever set off those bombs expected to influence the election. And they did. And they could do so again in other countries. But expect that the line taken by the new Spanish government will not be exactly the dhimmitude anticipated, if it was in fact the Islamofascists. And god help the ETA if it turns out to be their handiwork. The rage that was turned against the ruling party will not be diminished so quickly - and the Socialists will be pushed, despite any campaign retoric to the contrary, to seek justice for what was done. Because they will be the ones that are supposed to make sure that this doesn’t happen again. They’ll be the ones that are supposed to keep the people safe. If they don’t, they’re very likely to find themselves turned out once people sit and think about it for a while.

With the exception of Vladamir Putin, probably every Western leader facing a plebecite in the near future should view the events of Spain with great alarm. As should every citizen of a Western Democracy.

As such, every citizen of a Western Democracy should go to school on what happened in Spain. The lesson should be for you to make your choice in a calm, deliberate fashion - before anyone has a chance to thrust a manufactured ‘emergency’ upon you to try and sway your opinion, if only for a critical moment. And be aware, that if such an occurance takes place, that is exactly what is happening. Not a discussion of issues, not a rational argument to present facts, but a base attempt to reach in and rudely pluck the strings of your emotions. To play you, as an instrument. And hope for a herd reaction.

Be aware. Don’t simply consider that it could happen, count on that it will happen. And be on the watch for it. Be on the watch also, for those that would attempt to capitalize on such a grotesque methodology, with soothing and placating words of solace, intertwined with those intended to focus and channel the raw emotions evoked, to thier advantage.

Recognize these things. And recognize what it is they wish to do; to drive populations, to drive you, as masses of sheep, towards their objective.

Reject such things absolutely. It’s easier to do if you know which course you wish to take.

The terrorist attacks in Madrid, which are probably the work of al-Qaeda, have turned the tide of their national elections reports the Washington Post. The Popular Party, which supports the war on terror and was ahead in the polls, has been ousted in favor of the Socialist Party.

“I was going to vote for one side, and now I ended up voting for the other because of the attacks,” said one voter, Manuel Yunta. “The thought that it could be al Qaeda behind the attacks changed my vote, because I blame the government for the massacre.”

Another voter, Jose Antonio Alvarez, said, “I voted for the Socialists, but I wasn’t happy with the protests I saw last night in front of the PP headquarters. It’s not the time even though I don’t think the government has been completely open with all the information” it has about the attacks.

That the anti-war socialists in Europe would vote in favor of appeasement directly following a major terrorist attack is not altogether surprising. While Americans tend toward emotions of vengence and retaliation (lets go get those bastards), it has been no secret that Europe has largely embraced an attitude of appeasement (why do they hate us).

What is bothersome is that terrorists were able to sway a national election through senseless violence. With our own election coming up in November, al-Qaeda will undoubtedly be planning an October surprise for us?

I used to watch Fox News and the cable news shows. Now I only want to watch TLC, the Discovery Channel, and Comedy Central. Is this normal?

The people on the TLC and Discovery Channel shows make me, well, happy. There - I said it.

I love Stacy and Clinton on “What Not to Wear.” They could dress me any day (and probably should).

I’m in awe of the carpentry and seamstress skills of Andrew Dan-Jumbo and Leslie Segrete on “While You Were Out.” And I’m the furthest thing from gay - but I think Evan Farmer is, you know, an entertaining and really good-looking guy.

Say it with me: “Andrew Dan-Jumbo and Leslie Segrete.” Don’t you feel better?

I sit through entire episodes of “Trading Spaces” just to catch a glimpse of Paige’s shoes. God help me, I do.

And, yes, I follow that up by watching an entire episode of “In a Fix” just on the off chance that Jennie’s halter top will pop off.

But it’s not all about putting the jiggle back in home improvement. I want to give the Dad and two sons on “American Chopper” a big hug.

Is this normal?

There is something about TLC that’s so soothing and, well, inoffensive. I don’t ask for much in my TV programming. Indeed, there are big chunks of time when I just want my TV to provide inoffensive background noise and, er, pretty colors. TLC fills this bill perfectly. And I inevitably get caught up in their shows’ little pseudo-dramas anyway.

I will always remember the episode where Mikey on American Chopper told his brother, Paul, Jr., that he (Mikey) didn’t want any “flames or skulls” on his blues-inspired chopper. The priceless part was that he felt it necessary to add: “…not that I have anything against, you know, flames and skulls.” (Episodes 12 & 13: “Mikey’s Bike”).

Ok - I need to get out more apparently.

Really, I see all this as part of a natural progression. I mean, why are we at war with terrorism anyway? Do you think Al Jazeera would show Jennie laying tile in her halter-top? Au contraire. Let freedom ring - or jiggle, for that matter - I say.

This is a duplicate of a post from the nikita demosthenes website.

John Kerry seems intent on getting as much mileage as possible out of decrying the export of American jobs overseas. He’s tossed around terms such as ‘Benedict Arnold CEO’s’ and taken every opportunity possible to play pin the blame on the Administration for what his campaign is describing in terms of a national tragedy.

Reading through Diana West’s Washington Times article that talks about the ‘Axis of Asses’ buttons episode (mentioned here, and though Ms. West’s piece mentions it had been removed from the Kerry website, the link in the SR article still works). Noted a reference to an interesting point made by James Glassman. A quick Google hop, and we have this article, in which Glassman lambasts CNN’s Lou Dobbs for extolling trade protectionism. Tucked in at the bottom, last paragraph, is the tidbit of interest (emphasis mine)

Unfortunately, Dobbs and xenophobic politicians are out to kill the goose that lays our golden eggs. Sen. John Kerry, in his stump speech inveighs against the “Benedict Arnold CEOs [who] send American jobs overseas.”

By the way, the Kerry family business, H.J. Heinz Co. of Pittsburgh, operates 22 factories in the United States and 57 in foreign countries. I don’t think that Kerry should shut down The Heinz 57, but he might drop the rhetoric and talk about trade responsibly. He should support, not trade’s contraction, but its expansion, like George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and every president since Herbert Hoover.

Looks a lot like the corporation that has provided John Kerry with the financial ability to not only enter this race, but stick with it when the contributory chips were down, is basically the epitome of the type of business model that Kerry has been busy trashing in his stump speeches.

So, John, how many American jobs were exported to buy those houses you mortgaged to stay in the race? Teresa? Anybody?

Glassman’s observation about killing the goose that laid the golden egg seems to fit, in Kerry’s case, quite literally.

David Brooks has an excellent op-ed in today’s NYT (registration required) regarding John Kerry’s history of muddled positions on foreign policy:

The Iraq problem returned in 1998, and Kerry proved again that there is no world crisis so grave it can’t be addressed with a fusillade of subordinate clauses. Teams of highly trained spelunkers have descended into the darkness of the floor speech he gave on Oct. 10, 1998, searching for meaning, though none have returned alive.

In a characteristic sentence, which admittedly sounds better in the original French, Kerry exclaimed: “We know from our largely unsuccessful attempts to enlist the cooperation of other nations, especially industrialized trading nations, in efforts to impose and enforce somewhat more ambitious standards on nations such as Iran, China, Burma and Syria, that the willingness of most other nations — including a number who are joined in the sanctions to isolate Iraq — is neither wide nor deep to join in imposing sanctions on a sovereign nation to spur it to `clean up its act’ and comport its actions with accepted international norms.”

… Kerry has made clear that if he is elected president, the nation will never face a caveat shortage. He has established the foragainst method, which has enabled him to be foragainst the war in Iraq, foragainst the Patriot Act and foragainst No Child Left Behind. If you decide to vote for him this year, there would be a correctness in that judgment, but if you decide to vote for George Bush, that would also be correct.

Read the whole thing, as they say.

No one would argue that the President is a gifted public speaker. It seems that Kerry isn’t a very good one either. His words are longer, but he falls short of the ultimate goal: conveying your meaning to the audience.

I’ve never heard the President speak without understanding exactly what he’s getting at, even if he does mangle a few syllables along the way. It seems to me that Kerry tosses in as many 50-cent words as he can to disguise the fact that’s he’s not really saying anything at all.

[The following editorial originally appeared here and is reprinted with persmission of the author]

THE BASQUES, SPAIN AND ETA: RETROSPECTIVE & PERSONAL VIEW
By Joe Gandelman

When the bombs went off in Madrid yesterday they pitchforked back into the headlines a group that was in international news a lot in the 1970s — and even in the late 1990s: ETA (which stands for Basque Homeland and Freedom).
—-ETA formally denied responsibility for the murders, but the Spanish government is skeptical, maybe because ETA attempted to assassinate Spain’s Prime Minister a few years ago, wanted to assassinate King Juan Carlos and was believed to be the group behind a batch of explosives found for an apparently planned big attack in February.
—-On the other hand, a news report quoted Spanish security forces saying the bombs were set off by mobile phone and contained copper detonators. ETA usually uses aluminum detonators. So Spanish investigators — like terrorism experts elsewhere — are so far divided over who staged the attack. Still others insist that while fingers within Spain continue to point to ETA, the carefully-timed murderous attack has all the makings of an Al Qaeda operation.
—-I dealt with the ETA story a LOT during the mid to late 70s as the Madrid-based “Special Correspondent of the Christian Science Monitor”” (I also did some stories on it for the now defunct Chicago Daily News). I made several trips to the “Pais Vasco” over the years. And most folks there were decidely NOT clamoring for the Basque goal of a separate Marxist state carved from regions of two countries.
—-Here are some notes that might help provide context, if ETA is indeed behind the massacre or even IF the ETA was working with Al Qaeda to pull it off.

—-WHEN I ARRIVED IN SPAIN: I arrived after nearly two years in New Delhi writing for the Daily news. When I arrived the Basque story was raging due to periodic random terrorist acts. I helped Madrid’s make-shift Newsweek bureau there with some incidental material on the big fall of 1975 story: Spain’s decision to execute (by mechanical garrote) five convicted ETA members for terrorism, despite angry international protest.
—-News about the executions, outcry, and the 82-year-old dictator’s steadfast determination were carried by worldwide media. (I was WAY in back of a monster crowd when the wizened Franco gave his famous “last hurrah” speech in his high pitched wispy voice, defying international opinion and warning of the influence of the Masons…)

—-WHY THE BASQUES? There is a long history that you can find on many different sites, but one thing is this: the Basque separatists formally burst on the scene in 1968, born as the Franco era slowly began showing signs of age. And if they never achieved their major goal (a separate Marxist state) they contributed to another: shifting the Franco’s plans for Francoism without Franco.
—-It came in ETA’s first spectacular act: in 1973 ETA explosives blew Franco’s friend Spanish Prime Minister Luis Carerro Blanco’s car sky high.
—-Spaniards often told me this joke: St Peter: Who are you? Carrero: Luis Carrero Blanco. St: Peter: We don’t mind having you here, but did you have to bring your car?
—-The Prime Minister’s assassination unleashed a chain of events that probably sped up democracy: Franco had other government heads who increasingly loosened the government’s controls. Juan Carlos was on the scene and his influence grew. And once Franco died, under King Juan Carlos, various governments used “evolution without revolution” to kill off parts the old system until the first democratic elections since the Civil War took place in 1978.
—- So Spain changed — ETA DID NOT.

—-SOME THINGS TO REMEMBER ABOUT THE BASQUES AND SPAIN: This is not the definitive fact sheet (and some reports are contradictory) but:
—-—Some reports say ETA was founded as early as 1958 by some radical youths who wanted to carve a Marxist Basque nation from four Spanish and three French Basque provinces.
—-—Spain’s regions are culturally diverse and there have periodically been separatist tendencies throughout Spanish history.
—-—The Basques had a Swiss-style Democracy with their own parliament, army and money but backed the losing side in the 1800s Carlist wars. Madrid imposed central rule.
—-—The then-autonomous Basques backed the losing Republic side in the 1936-1939 civil war. Victorious Franco banned autonomy, renamed streets and banned the Basque language.
—-—During the Franco years ETA would gain limited sympathy with parts of the Basque public. They would shoot officials such as police inspectors and the government would angrily respond, usually in a way that made it more enemies. In April 1975 Spain imposed “state of exception” status on two Basque provinces, suspending freedoms and civil rights, and giving police and troops nearly limitless powers. There were widespread and highly specific allegations of torture which led to outcries in Spain and abroad.
—-—Until Franco’s regime died, the Basques would get back 30 percent of the tax money sent to Madrid versus 100 percent elsewhere in Spain. It was perceived as a form of punishment.
—-—During the Franco era, ETA honchos often lived across the border, in France’s Basque country. France usually looked the other way. France was also then home to Basque moderates which had set up the Basque-government-in-exile.
—-—During the time I was in Madrid, the Basque region would occasionally hold general strikes to protest Madrid policies. They did more than 10 under Franco.
—-—Sources at the time and reports indicated ETA raised much of its money by kidnapping and extortion.
—-—The attitude in 1975, as expressed to me by a businessman: “Look, I’m a Basque and a businessman…But police have made us realize we are Basques so we look the other way when ETA runs by.”
—-WHAT I COVERED: I did many of the reports from Madrid but on various trips to the Basque Region I did several long reports from the field. But no matter where I did the report, it was clear that Basque moderates were going to be increasingly in control, as they were…once Franco died. ETA was like any terrorist group: small but brutal enough to kill its way into the headlines.
—-Among other things, in June 1976 I visited an “Ikastola,” a Basque language school that was allowed to operate following a late 1975 decree signed by King Juan Carlos allowing unofficial use of regional languages banned by Franco.
—-But I wanted to do one more long piece that would contain quotes from ETA militants about its plans for the new democratic era. I had never talked directly with an ETA militant. Various sources told me to talk to a member of a Basque party,who then had a younger party member call me. This young Basque student told me he wanted to talk over lunch, and if things went well he’d tell me where to show up…where I would be secretly evaluated again (in those days they feared everyone was a CIA agent).
—- We talked over a huge Basque style lunch with pre-dinner drinks, wine, after dinner drinks, then he later called to tell me to show up for dinner at a village. The village had a dinner that was bigger than the lunch. I was told the answer would come “in time” but I ran out of time up there and had to go back to Madrid. I had planned another visit to the Basque Country but stories in Madrid kept me there and I decided to leave after the country’s first democratic elections. I left in December 1978.

—- MY CONCLUSIONS:
—-1. ETA is small. But you don’t need big numbers to do damage as terrorists.
—-2. ETA’s longtime goal will never happen: Spain’s Basque County won’t unite with France’s Basque Country and there are no signs the majority of Basques want to totally break away.
—-3. There are Basque moderates and leftists. They’re not in sympathy with ETA.
—-4. ETA’s one hope, then as now, is in provoking the government to overreact and do things that upset moderate or leftists. Think of it as a wedge issue, with higher stakes involved.
—-5. If you look at the history of ETA in recent years, no matter what chronology you read, you see that ETA simply never adjusted to the times and was even battling Spain’s first post-Franco Socialist government.
—-6. If ETA’s point is to provoke the government, then murdering 200 people and injuring 1200 would be a good test of the government’s patience. If they DID do it and deny they did it and the government cracks down hard on them, they can call it a diversion — that the government doesn’t want the people to know it was really done by Muslim terrorists. (In this view, evidence the police found with Muslim links was to make the government look like it’s lying about who did it)
—-7. ETA has gone through various incarnations with varying styles of leadership and, in that context, and you can just hear some young ETA terrorist say: “Just kill THREE people? That’s so 20th century!”
—-So, in the end, what happened in Madrid may be an example of Al Qaeda as a bad role model for youth……

Joe Gandelman is former Madrid-base Correspondent for The Christian Science Monitor

The support for terrorism came from the nuclear-free-zone “fantasy world” known as Takoma Park, Maryland:

- - - - - - -

NEW YORK (AP) - A former journalist and one-time press secretary for four members of Congress was arrested Thursday on charges she served as a paid agent for the Iraqi intelligence service before and after the U.S. invasion.

Susan Lindauer, 41, was arrested in her hometown of Takoma Park, Md., and was to appear in court later in the day in Baltimore, authorities in New York said.

She was accused of conspiring to act as a spy for the Iraqi Intelligence Service and engaging in prohibited financial transactions involving the government of Iraq under dictator Saddam Hussein. Prosecutors say she accepted $10,000 for he work.

“I’m an anti-war activist and I’m innocent,” Lindauer told WBAL-TV as she was led to a car outside the Baltimore FBI office.

- - - - - - -

She worked for Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore. in 1993 and then Rep. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., in 1994 before joining the office of former Illinois Sen. Carol Moseley Braun as press secretary in 1996. From March to May 2002, she worked for Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif.

- - - - - - -

More than a half dozen FBI agents could be seen searching Lindauer’s residence in Takoma Park, a city known for its liberal views. Her neighbors recalled her as friendly.

- - - - - - -

“It’s a big surprise. Who would think that it’s (espionage) in your neighborhood?” said Dean Paris, 45, who sometimes greeted Lindauer on the street, which is less than a mile from the District of Columbia line. Paris said he never saw anything suspicious.

But Malvina Lacey, who lives next door to Lindauer, added, “She lives in a fantasy world.”

- - - - - - -

There’s no way the liberals can blame that on Bush! Oh - I’ve underestimated their mendacity again.

This is a duplicate of the original post from the nikita demosthenes website.

The war on terror is everyone’s war.

[AP Photo/Peter Dejong]

Remember this?

Grief shared is grief comforted.

To send flowers to the Spanish Embassy:

2375 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W. - Washington, D.C. 20037.

The Embassy phone number, which you’ll need to enter for Internet orders is 202.452.0100.

[info from Instanpundit]

Update: Here is a list of all Spanish Consulates. Thanks, Emily.

John Kerry went too far yesterday, effectively accusing President Bush of corruption.

In comments, caught on tape, Kerry had this exchange with union workers:

“Keep smiling,” one man said to him.

Kerry responded, “Oh yeah, don’t worry man. We’re going to keep pounding, let me tell you — we’re just beginning to fight here. These guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group of people I’ve ever seen.”

Shame on John Kerry! Kerry should be required to support the slanderous charges with detailed facts or apologize to President Bush and the country. What evidence does John Kerry have of corruption or lying by President Bush? John Kerry has no more evidence to support his assertion of corruption and lying than Terry McAuliffe had to support his outrageous allegations that President Bush was AWOL, Al Gore had to support his outlandish charge that President Bush “betrayed” the nation or Howard Dean’s “speculation” that President Bush was warned about the 9-11 attacks.

Why can’t John Kerry and other Democrats stand up and debate policies based on reason and facts? Instead of resorting to slanderous name calling, Kerry ought to try to engage President Bush in a reasoned discussion about the merits of particular policies. Why is that too much to ask?

Bush campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel chided Kerry for breaking his promise to run a clean campaign, and faulted Democrats for “harsh, angry (and) bitter” comments:

“Throughout the primary process and obviously now, Democrats have used some of the most harsh, angry, bitter rhetoric that we have seen in our country’s history,” Stanzel said.

“As always, we indicated that we want this to be about the issues,” he added.

Stanzel said that on the night of March 3, when Kerry effectively clinched the nomination, Bush called Kerry and said he looked forward to a spirited race. Kerry replied that he hoped the campaign would stick to the issues but, Stanzel said, “It doesn’t seem to me that Senator Kerry is following that statement.”

Fox News reported that Bush-Cheney campaign chairman Marc Racicot called for Kerry to apologize:

“Senator Kerry’s statement today in Illinois was unbecoming of a candidate for the presidency of the United States of America, and tonight we call on Senator Kerry to apologize to the American people for this negative attack,” Racicot said in a statement. “On the day that Senator Kerry emerged as his party’s presumptive nominee, the president called to congratulate him. That goodwill gesture has been met by attacks and false statements.”

According to the Washington Post, Kerry shows no remorse for slandering president Bush:

Kerry campaign spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said the Democratic candidate had no regrets about his characterizations of the opposition. “Not at all,” she said.

If this election is to be a meaningful debate about the conduct of the war against terrorism and other important issues, the outrageous and slanderous name calling must stop. Reasoned debate requires a modicum of decorum. Accusing a sitting president of corruption and lying, without any supporting evidence, is not the sort of “debate” I expect from a former attorney general who is a U.S. Senator and wants to be president.

Want to know what I first thought when I woke up and read the headlines?

“Thank God it wasn’t in Israel.”

You don’t see the United Nations creating agencies and commissions and special assemblies concerning the “Basque Occupied Territories.” Where’s Kofi’s statement demanding that Spain return to the bargaining table with the ETA? Where’s the global shunning of Spain’s legitimate government while welcoming the Socialists meeting with the ETA as distinguished guests, potential partners with which to write Madrid Conventions calling for a new land-for-peace territorial surrender?

I have yet to hear the European Union demand the granting of a Basque state (or the acceptance of credentials of a “Basque Observer Permanent Mission”), or President Bush declaring that he’s come up with a Roadmap for them. Mexico and Venezuela are too busy propping up their corrupt crypto-democratic regimes to pay for arms smuggling into Spain with their oil revenues.

Where’s the separate telephone codes? Where’s the top-level two-letter Internet country code? Where’s the cheese-flavored chips with the ETA leaders face on them?

Instead, the battle cry is unanimous: kill the ETA. Obliterate the ETA. Protect Spain’s sovereignty.

Feh.

Some of my Democratic friends have been excited about the news reports discussing the expected record voter turnout in the Democratic primaries. A few states, such as New Hampshire and South Carolina, did indeed have record turnouts. However, most states had the lowest comparable primary turnouts since 1964.

It is tempting to say this bodes poorly for Kerry, especially since many Democrats have been using the alleged high voter turnout to support their prediction of a Kerry victory. However, I think it actually shows a reasonably well-informed electorate. The states with high turnouts were mostly the ones where the outcome was in doubt. For example, Edwards won South Carolina, not Kerry.

By the time Super Tuesday rolled around, Kerry’s victory was assumed by almost everyone. Indeed, the only real news was that Kerry did not win Vermont. So while if Super Tuesday had shown record turnouts, the Democrats may have been justified in seeing this as a sign Bush’s reelection is in trouble, the reverse does not hold. Democrats may or may not be excited about Kerry. But American voters are smart enough to know when their votes do not matter, and I can understand why many Kerry supporters would have stayed home on Super Tuesday. Their candidate already had the election wrapped up.

Who: Senator Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii).
What: Speech in opposition to amendment No. 1452 to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (excerpted from the Congressional Record).
When: February 2, 1994.
Where: The floor of the United States Senate.
Why: “As long as we are confronted with madmen, terrorists, and countries with strained agendas, I think it would be prudent on the part of the United States to maintain a ready force of men and women who are willing to stand in harm’s way.”

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, if I may, I would like to say a few words about amendment No. 1452, an amendment submitted by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry]. The amendment offered by Senator Kerry would reduce the 1994 appropriations for national defense by about $4 billion. I believe the Members of this body should recall that Congress has already reduced DOD’s budget in 1994 by more than $18 billion. Moreover, in each and every year of the past 10 years, Congress has cut the funds provided for defense. We have already cut defense spending drastically. To graphically demonstrate what I am saying, Madam President, 3 years ago the Army had 18 divisions; 2 years from now we will have 10. Three years ago the Navy had nearly 600 ships; 2 years from now we will have 350 ships. This applies to all services. We are now in the process of the drawdown. As a result, this committee, ever since I have been chairman of this subcommittee, has always come forth with an appropriated recommendation which is vastly less than that requested by the administration. So, as far as cuts are concerned, we have done that. In fact, the bill before the Senate already rescinds more than $900 million from DOD. That is further reductions, beyond that of fiscal year 1994, reductions that will tax the ability of the Department to meet the base closure requirements. Cutting another $4 billion is simply insupportable. […] Now if I may comment on another section that reduces funding for intelligence programs, and this amendment would reduce such funding by about $1 billion. Madam President, the intelligence budget has already been cut by almost 18 percent over the past 2 years. An additional reduction of $1 billion would severely hamper the intelligence community’s ability to provide decisionmakers and policymakers with information on matters of vital concern to this country. These issues include nuclear proliferation by North Korea—this has been on the front pages for the past 3 or 4 months—peacekeeping efforts in Bosnia and Somalia, as well as terrorist threats against American citizens and property. Congress has worked in close partnership with the intelligence community to refine the intelligence budget without detrimentally affecting this country’s national security. This reduction, as proposed in this amendment, would <result in a termination of programs and activities that are essential to the security of this Nation. […] What are theater missile defense systems? During Desert Storm, we heard much about the Scud missile. This is the missile system that can knock down the Scud. The Patriot system is part of this Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. We are not talking about the Minuteman missile. We are talking about these smaller systems to protect our deployed troops. If this rescission action is carried out, there will be no funds for the management of these programs, for research and technologists to make our theater missile defenses more effective. It will just put it out of business. It was not too long ago when Members of this body spent much time singing the praises of the Patriot, concerning ourselves with the damaging potential of the Scud. This was our answer to it, and now this amendment would cut it out. […] The next item is on Department of Defense recruiting. The Kerry amendment proposes to reduce funds for DOD recruiting programs by about $33 million. The amendment also calls for consolidating the military services recruiting program. Based upon data and testimony that the committee received from the Department during last year’s budget review, the Congress added about $60 million for recruiting. Madam President, you may be wondering why is recruiting important? I think we should remind ourselves that our military is made up of volunteers. We are not drafting our young men and women. They are volunteers. Less than 1 percent of the people of the United States volunteer to serve in our behalf and stand in harm’s way to protect our interests. In recruiting, obviously because of the demands upon our intellect—after all, we are a high-technology military organization—we try to recruit at least high school graduates and, if possible, a college graduate. There are not too many of them. We try our best not to go below that. […] I am concerned, Madam President. In the 1970’s—and many of us look back to that period with some horror when we found this Nation with hollow military forces. By hollow forces, I will just give one example which I provided yesterday. Very few Americans recall that during that period, about one-third of our naval vessels were not ready for combat. These were not old, decrepit ships; these were brand new ships. But we did not have the personnel to man these vessels because over one-third of our recruits, about 35 percent of our recruits, were category 4 [high school dropouts]. College graduates were not volunteering; high school graduates were not volunteering. So we had to depend upon category 4’s to fill the slots in our ranks. Now we are up to 11 percent, Madam President. We also have an ongoing survey to determine the propensity to recruit, the propensity to enlist of the young men and women of the United States. In 1 year’s time, this propensity has dropped 40 percent. We have been doing the survey in high schools throughout this land. We all agree that a military is necessary. If it is necessary and we cannot get manpower through the voluntary system, then I suppose we will have to revive our Selective Service System, drafting young men and women. I hope that the Members of this body consider this very seriously—drafting. Today, we still have the finest military that we have had since the founding of this Nation. This little amendment may be the beginning of a real downgrade of our military. […] This is a very important amendment. I hope that when we consider the Kerry amendment, we will keep in mind the following: I am certain, whether we like it or not, we will have to consider the events that are now unfolding in Bosnia. I think it would be wise to anticipate that we may be soon considering air strikes, air strikes by our United States Air Force and Navy attack aircraft against Serbian artillery positions. At a time like this, is it prudent to reduce funds for the very intelligence programs which we need to identify these targets? This amendment would do that. It would blind our pilots. Is this the time to cut the satellite programs that give our forces warning of attacks? I hope that we will keep this in mind. It is on the front pages of every paper. Are we or are we not going to participate in the bombing of Bosnia? If we do and this amendment passes, then we are putting blindfolds over our pilots’ eyes. Madam President, if we expect the 1 percent of our Nation to risk their lives and stand in harm’s way, the least we can do is to provide them with all of the resources necessary so that they can carry out their mission and get home to their loved ones. We cannot do any less. This amendment would take away their protection, and I am not prepared to do that. I urge all Members to vote against this amendment. It is not a problem then for consideration at this time. I hope the time will come, Madam President, when we can slash the Defense Department to almost nothing, when peace will come upon this planet. But much as we dream about that moment, that has not arrived yet. As long as we are confronted with madmen, terrorists, and countries with strained agendas, I think it would be prudent on the part of the United States to maintain a ready force of men and women who are willing to stand in harm’s way.

Emphasis added. To read the original text in the Congressional Record, click here, then click on “AMENDMENT NO. 1452”

NOT SURE where John Kerry stands on Iraq? TIME magazine has an exclusive interview with the presumptive Democratic Presidential Nominee on that very topic.

TIME: Obviously it’s good that Saddam is out of power. Was bringing him down worth the cost? KERRY: If there are no weapons of mass destruction— and we may yet find some—then this is a war that was fought on false pretenses, because that was the justification to the American people, to the Congress, to the world, and that was clearly the frame of my vote of consent. I said it as clearly as you can in my speech. I suggested that all the evils of Saddam Hussein alone were not a cause to go to war. TIME: So, if we don’t find WMD, the war wasn’t worth the costs? That’s a yes? KERRY: No, I think you can still—wait, no. You can’t—that’s not a fair question, and I’ll tell you why. You can wind up successful in transforming Iraq and changing the dynamics, and that may make it worth it, but that doesn’t mean [transforming Iraq] was the cause [that provided the] legitimacy to go. You have to have that distinction.

That should clear things up.

Originally posted at The Indepundit

This is a continuation of yesterday’s discussion about the 9/11 widows and the Bush ads. Please read here for context.

Today’s Opinion Journal offers an editorial from Debra Burlingame, “a life-long Democrat, [and] the sister of Charles F. “Chic” Burlingame, III, captain of American Airlines flight 77, which was crashed at the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.”

Ms. Burlingame is not offended by Bush’s use of 9/11 imagery in his campaign ads. Ms. Burlingame is probably in the majority of relatives of 9/11 victims in this opinion, but you would never know that. The squeaky wheels get the grease, and certain widows belonging to certain organizations are mighty squeaky.

In the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on our country, the families of those who perished on that day became forever linked through our shared anguish and grief. But “the 9/11 families” are not a monolithic group that speaks in one voice, and nothing has made that more clear than the controversy over the Bush campaign ads.

It is one thing for individual family members to invoke the memory of all 3,000 victims as they take to the microphone or podium to show respect for our collective loss. It is another for them to attempt to stifle the debate over the future direction of our country by declaring that the images of 9/11 should be off-limits in the presidential race, and to do so under the rubric of “The Families of Sept. 11.” They do not represent me. Nor do they represent those Americans who feel that Sept. 11 was a defining moment in the history of our country and who want to know how the current or future occupant of the Oval Office views the lessons of that day.

She then goes on to make a very salient point, one which I wanted to address from the start:

The images of Ground Zero, the Pentagon and Shanksville have been plastered over coffee mugs, T-shirts, placemats, book covers and postage stamps, all without a peep from many of these family members. I suspect that the real outrage over the ads has more to do with context than content. It’s not the pictures that disturb them so much as the person who is using them.

Precisely. After all, as I mentioned yesterday, the 9/11 Victims Assocation is aligned with Moveon.org and Democracy Now!, two strong anti-Bush organizations. This hardly makes their motive here altruistic. Don’t be fooled. These people aren’t concerned about feelings, memories or painful reminders. No, they are just on a crusade against Bush getting re-elected.

Burlingame says about those who purport to represent 9/11 families:

They are “9/11 family members” and therefore enjoy the cloak of deference that has been graciously conferred upon them by the public, politicians and, most significantly, the media.

In fact, I have viewed this specific, limited faction of family members as more of a lobbying group than anything else.

9/11 belongs to all of us. Nobody owns it. Nobody has control to the rights over pain, tears, sorrow, anger or memories. Nobody, not even a group of women who think they can run roughshod over your feelings has the right to speak for you.

The leader of a lobbying group advised individuals at a 9/11 family meeting shortly after the attacks: “Make no mistake, you have a lot of power. Politicians are more afraid of you than you know.” They know. As “relatives of 9/11 victims,” they are virtually immune to challenge on the issue of who should have the loudest voice regarding the legacy of this national tragedy.

You have a lot of power. And now they are using that power to practically run a presidential campaign on the platform of sympathy.

We should not tolerate or condone remarks such as those of the 9/11 relative who, so offended by the campaign ads, said that he “would vote for Saddam Hussein before I would vote for Bush.” The insult was picked up and posted on Al-Jazeera’s Web site. In view of the sacrifice our troops have made on our behalf, this insensitivity to them and their families suggests a level of self-indulgence and ingratitude that shocks the conscience.

They are lobbyists, these people. They have an agenda, and it is not one based on carrying on the memories of their loves ones. It is a political agenda, and - to me, at least - that sours any emotion at all I carried for the members of this group.

Burlingame is right. 9/11 belongs to all of us. Every one of us. We all suffered, we all felt fear and panic. We all cried and carried the sorrow of 3,000 families. I lost people I knew that day. My family was traumatized. She lost a dear friend. He saw the first plumes of smoke from his seat on the train. His uncle was on one of the planes. He was there. He was lucky to make it out alive.

Did anyone ask those people their opinions? Did the people who call themselves The Families of September 11th ask if they could go around representing the feelings and needs of every single family member of every victim? Probably not. And for them to go around demanding that Bush’s ad be taken off the air, campaigning for John Kerry and saying ignorant things about voting for Saddam under the guise of that name is tantamount to usurping someone’s grief. And you, the American public, are being duped by those people. They are guilting you, shaming you, into rallying behind them. They are using their victimization as a tool to get you to vote a certain way in November. They have become master manipulators of the media and the public.

All of these people have stories to tell. 9/11 belongs to them, as well. It belongs to the shopkeeper who lost his business. It belongs to people who lost bosses, teachers, teammates, clients. It belongs to everyone who felt fear, sadness or anger. No one has the right to herd everyone into one small compartment and say it’s for your own good.

I am as angry now as I was in the days right after 9/11. We are being taken advantage of. We are being used. Peaceful Tomorrows and the 9/11 Victims Association and even, to some extent, the IAFF are playing us for all it’s worth. They want to use our empathy to further their political motivations.

Burlingame closes with this:

George W. Bush says that his presidency is inspired by an enduring obligation to those who lost their lives on that brutal September morning. The images of that day stand as an everlasting example of our country’s darkest day and finest hour. They are a vivid reminder of the strength and resilience of our great country. They belong to us all—including this president. Let the candidates make their own choices. I trust the American people.

The left accuses the right of politicizing 9/11. Seems to be that most of the politicizing is being done by those who are complaining loudest about the ads. After all, when the people who demand the ads be removed are actively campaigning against the president and for his opponent, the pot is talking to the kettle.

The Voices project is an ongoing collection of personal stories dealing with 9/11. New entries are always welcome. Please email micheleATcommand-postDOTorg for details.

A comment by reader Carl over on a previous post rather got my dander up. I started to reply, then as the reply’s length grew, I thought that it would be better off as an Op-Ed piece.

Hey, you get very few perks as a contributor to TCP, I thought I’d make the best of it. So without further ado…

Carl wrote:

chickenhawk—someone who avoided hot military service (when they could have served on the firing line) and prefer military action to other foreign policy solutions—bellicose first response. Someone who precipitously orders other family’s children to do what they themselves found ways (usually privileged) to avoid doing. Someone who orders other family’s children to do what they are unwilling to have their own children do.

Pretty good definition, I thought. To continue…

Please see historical references going back forever. And the distinction between someone who leads in battle and someone who hides out at HQ far behind the lines.

In other words, Cheney and to a somewhat lesser extent Bush, in addition to others in this admin.

And here’s my reply :

I don’t know about Chaney (literally, I’m ignorant about him): but anyone who thinks that driving F-102’s wasn’t farnarckling dangerous (rather more dangerous than being a Grunt in Vietnam) is either stupid or ignorant.
The F-102 even served in Vietnam, and it was only the Luck of the Draw that Bush’s squadron didn’t go there - the F-102 was ordered withdrawn from Vietnam only 3 months after he’d finished training on it. It was retained instead to try to knock down any intruding Soviet bombers should nuclear war break out. You know, “Toe-to-Toe Nooclear Combat with the Rooskis” as Major Kong once said.

Go read some of the articles by people who know what they’re talking about. Some quotes:

First, let’s dispense with the idea that Bush was some sort of chicken hawk, hiding in the National Guard while others risked their lives. According to four of the pilots who flew with him, then-Lieutenant George W. Bush was a better-than-average pilot who did a dangerous job very well.
[…]
Retired Col. Bill Campenni was one of President Bush’s squadron mates. The Texas ANG had the F-102, and probably wished it didn’t. According to Campenni, “The F-102 was underpowered and, unlike modern fighters, had a split front view through the canopy. It literally had a bar down the center, so you’d have one eye on each side of the bar. It also had a built in altimeter error of up to 500 feet, which made it interesting when you were at 500 feet out over the ocean at night.” Flying and training in the ‘102 was a dangerous job that required a lot of smarts and flying skill.

Bob Harmon is another of Bush’s former squadron mates. At the time, Harmon was an instructor pilot. He remembers Bush as a “young, affable guy” and an above-average pilot, very good for his level of experience. “We flew together two or three times a month.” It was dangerous duty. Harmon said that a couple of pilots were killed in F-102 accidents while Bush was there.

OK, so even if it was more dangerous than service as an infantryman in Vietnam, it wasn’t as dangerous as serving as a fighter pilot there. By the strict terms of your definition, a member of a Bomb Squad in the US is a Chickenhawk, whereas a seaman on a transport somewhere near the Persian Gulf isn’t. But even then, your definition doesn’t fit.

Of the four pilots I spoke to who flew with Bush in the Texas days, Fred Bradley knew him best. They had met before going off to the year-long ordeal of pilot school, and entered the 111th at about the same time. Both were junior lieutenants without a lot of flying experience. But the inexperience didn’t prevent Bush — along with Bradley — from going to their squadron leaders to see if they could get into a program called “Palace Alert.” “There were four of us lieutenants at the time, and we were all fairly close. Two of them had more flight time than the president and me, said Bradley.” All four volunteered for Vietnam (Bradley doesn’t remember whether he and Bush actually signed paperwork, but he specifically remembers both Bush and himself trying to get into the Palace Alert Vietnam program.) Bush and Bradley were turned away, and the two more senior pilots went to Vietnam.

So…care to retract your statement about Bush? I won’t call it a lie - someone can be honestly mistaken based on the evidence they know of, and not know all the facts.

Hey, I’m completely ignorant about Chaney’s record, unlike Bush’s, I haven’t done any research. Anyway, If you’re still not convinced that a complete retraction is in order, here’s another relevant article :

WILSON: There’s a big difference between the Air Guard and the other services, even back as far as Vietnam. In 1968, Johnson did call up four state’s Guards: New York, Iowa, Colorado and New Mexico. Our ‘Tacos,’ our ‘Enchilada’ Air Force went to Vietnam, and some of them didn’t come back. And so, no, I don’t think it was disingenuous.

In the Guard, two of the positions that actually really did have quite a burden were pilots and crew, where you went on active duty for two-and-a-half years just for the training, and you were actually pretty highly likely to be called up for service.

MAHER: But he ’ but he flew a plane that was being phased out, that would have never been sent to Vietnam.

WILSON: He flew the F-102.

MAHER: He flew a plane ’ what?

WILSON: He flew the F-102, and it was used early on in Vietnam. It was not used later in Vietnam, but it was used ’ you know, we’re talking the Cold War here ’ this was air defense.

MAHER: But he did not have a time machine. So, I mean, he would not’[laughter]’I mean ’ I don’t mean to pick nits here, but I mean, that plane was an air-to-air plane, and we were fighting a country that had no air force, so’[laughter]

I’m sure Col. Tomb, the NVAF ace with 15 US Aircraft kills to his credit, would disagree. Had he not been shot down by Randy Cunningham, the USN’s premier dogfighter (5 kills), in an epic one-on-one air battle still taught about today. But I digress, back to the quote..

WILSON: That’s why they no longer used the 102. [applause]

MAHER: Okay.

WILSON: Bill, wait a minute, Bill. I think this is there were five guys that served in the Texas Guard who were contemporaries of George Bush, who didn’t make it to their 30th birthday because they were lost in F-102 accidents and incidents. So to say that somehow this service to the country of air defense is less important, I don’t think is respectful of the Guard and the mission that they have served for so long.

Fighter Planes in the 1960’s were a helluva lot less safe than they are today - and Fighter Pilots today still take plenty of risks. The F-102 was one of the “safest”, with a mere 1 pilot fatality every 100,000 hours. Which says more about the skills of the pilots than the planes themselves.

One time I was teaching at ADFA (the Australian Defence Force Academy), and one of my Air Force students wasn’t his usual self. I asked him about it, and a mate of his that he often flew with had just augured in that morning. It still happens.

As for me? I’ve never worn a uniform (at least, not since the equivalent of ROTC). Sure, I’ve spent some of my life on board submarines, doing stuff. Also destroyers, aircraft, and other military vessels.

Just before the war to liberate Kuwait started, I flew home from Europe to be on “stand-by” to do any required emergency update to software on our ships. Thereby breaking Rule Number One : NEVER volunteer for anything…For one of my colleagues, it would have been his second time: he’d been flown to the Falklands to do an emergency update to Royal Navy ships in 1983. But we weren’t needed.

So next time there’s an alert, wave at the ANG “Chickenhawks” flying CAP over your head. Or go down to Norfolk, and farewell the “Chickenhawk” submariners as they go out once again on patrol. For after all, any one of them could be running for President in 30 years.

As for me - in comparison with them, I deserve the appelation. They do this stuff - on board submarines or combat aircraft - every day, unlike me, who only do it when absolutely neccessary. And worse, I’ve trained other people’s children to help protect their country at the risk of their own safety, and there are literally thousands of them from a dozen nations whose very lives depend on the integrity of the software I’ve written, and designs I’ve produced, over the last 20 years.

For some of us, these posts are not just empty words.

Economist.com | America's election
Without Dean to generate fear among the masses, me included, Kerry will appear to be much more of a leftist than before. That's more of a sign of the Democrats that were running than anything else. Kerry still gets snaps from me on his voting record on trade, current rhetoric notwithstanding.

If Bush and Rove aren't capable of using Kerry's voting record and waffling effectively against him, they deserve to lose. He favored a nuclear freeze at a time when we were placing nuclear missiles in Germany -- in response to the Soviets -- and won his first Senate campaign arguing for large cuts in the defense budget ($50 billion as I recall, and that was 1984).

TIME was when John Kerry looked a steady, dependable, moderate sort of chap. With screaming Howard Dean and crowd-pleasing John Edwards to the left of him, he was a man the Democratic establishment could embrace with relief. Now that he stands alone, after his near-sweep of the Super Tuesday primaries, his liberal colours suddenly seem more obvious. It may be that the Democratic nominee for president is still too left-wing for his party's good.

It is not just the pictures from 1970s' anti-war rallies, or the easy slurs about Massachusetts. In conservative eyes, Mr Kerry has a long bad record. The National Journal, in its latest issue, ranks him the most liberal member of the current Senate on the basis of his votes last year. The evidence is much the same for previous years, too. In 1986, 1988 and 1990, over 138 votes on the economy, social policy and foreign affairs, he did not side once with conservatives.

Several of his positions on social issues—for abortion choice, for civil unions, against the death penalty—could be expected of any non-southern Democrat. They can also be defended from the moral high ground (not that this will help him in Kansas or Wyoming). On foreign policy, his liking for multilateralism, typical of wimpish Democrats, is balanced by a willingness to endorse unilateral military adventures (see article). In either sphere, he is not a glaring target for Republicans.

But these are not the core of his campaign. Mr Kerry recognises that Americans care most about the loss of jobs overseas and the slow pace of economic recovery. And here the Swiss-educated Boston Brahmin strays close to left-wing populism. He rails against “Benedict Arnold” bosses who betray their workers by shipping jobs abroad. He promises to restore in his first 500 days all the 2m-3m jobs lost under George Bush. Companies will lose their tax breaks if they send jobs offshore, and they must give workers notice of doing so. Manufacturing firms, especially vulnerable, will get a tax break for two years.

Hmm. Kerry will personally restore three million jobs in his first 500 days? Bullsh*t. He's counting on the economy recovering from the lapse in business investment for the restoration of jobs, which will happen regardless of who is elected.

As for how far to the left Kerry is, Chris Lawrence has an interesting analysis of that very issue. Kerry, via his voting record, does come out on the far left consistently.

UPDATE: Jeff Goldstein has an amusing take on Kerry. Amazingly, Jeff has a larger DVD collection than me. I have over 500 and he's pushing 1000.

There’s a Pictorial Record of the major weapons systems used in the Liberation of Iraq. And all the systems that Senator John Kerry tried to have cancelled. The two lists aren’t the same. But they’re close..

It would be difficult to find any US politician of whatever stripe who is more single-handedly irresponsible for the military victory in Iraq, than Senator John Kerry.

Money quote:

In retrospect, Kerry said some of his positions in those days were “ill-advised, and I think some of them are stupid in the context of the world we find ourselves in right now and the things that I’ve learned since then.”

Read the article to see if his voting record over the last 10 years showed any sign of improvement. HINT: 2 years after the first Al Qaeda attack on the WTC in 1993, guess which US Senator attempted to slash $1.5 Billion from the Intelligence Budget - an attempt so outrageously, manifestly unwise that it had no co-sponsors?

[The following was written by Bryan Preston and originally appeared here. It is reprinted with permission of the author]

Super Tuesday Insecurity
By Bryan Preston

Maryland is one of the Super Tuesday states, so I voted this morning in the GOP primary.

Maryland has adopted the Diebold electronic touch-screen voting machine across the state. This was my first experience with the machines, and I don’t like them. They just don’t seem secure.

When you walk into the polling place, the poll workers ask you who you are, verify your address, the usual drill. At no time do they ask for proof of identification, because that’s against state law. It would be no great chore to register multiple times in multiple jurisdictions, and it would be no great chore to have others register and then show up at the polls and vote for them. Elderly shut-ins are particularly vulnerable to this kind of scheme. It would, in other words, be no great chore to cheat the system, but I digress. Maryland is what it is, and there isn’t much I can do to change it.

When they find you on the list and check your party registration, they sort through a box of cards, pull out yours and hand it to you so you can verify that the information on it is correct. Mine was fine to the letter, so I signed it as instructed. Then the poll worker gave me a plastic card the size of a credit card and told me to walk over to a machine and vote.

The place was pretty much empty, so I had the run of the machines. I picked one and fiddled with it until I figured out that you’re supposed to take that plastic card and put it all the way into the slot on the machine until it clicks in. Since they made the card the same size as an ATM card, and since the slot on the Diebold looks a little like the slot on an ATM-capable gas pump, it looks for all the world like you’re supposed to swipe the card instead of inserting it fully.

Whatever.

So I figure it out, get the card in there and start voting. That part is very, very easy. You touch the box next to the name of the person you want to vote for, and when you’re done with a page you hit “Next” and go to the next page to select more names. When you’re completely done, you hit “Cast Ballot” and the machine looks like it’s thinking, then you hear a click and the plastic card is popped and ready for you to remove it. That’s it. You’ve voted, or at least you believe you’ve voted.

The problem is, you get no paper record of how you voted. No receipt comes out, so you can’t walk away with anything in your hands that shows how or even whether you actually voted. And I couldn’t see any security mechanism that would stop poll workers from casting votes for absentees when no one is around—well, other than the fact that some are supposed to be Republicans and some are supposed to be Democrats and therefore they’re supposed to serve as a check on each other. But what if there is a strong third-party challenge? It’s not unthinkable that the two major parties could collude and block the third party using these electronic machines and their lack of verifiable output. It’s very disturbing. What if the machine misregistered my votes? I have no way of detecting error, and therefore no recourse.

Look, I don’t trust elected officials of either party to play completely fair. Power is an intoxicating potion, and the temptation to hold on to it at all costs is too much for some to resist. These Diebold machines may well be the most secure invention in the world, but they don’t seem like it. They seem all too easy to manipulate, and they seem like the perfect vehicle to hijack elections and further erode democracy.

MORE: I’m probably creating some sort of feedback loop by linking back to a post that links directly to this one, but new stories about insecure electronic voting machines seem to pouring into InstaPundit. This one echoes my own distrust of these things:

I’m an undergraduate in a large Georgia university, which also happens to be the place I vote at election time. Although I have been a casual follower of the voting security debate, I now find myself in a unique position. A sitting position. More precisely, sitting 10 feet away from a stack of 10 unguarded electronic voting machines. Despite having been here for for 120 minutes (and taking a conspicuous number of photos), I have yet to see any security presence, or anyone associated with these machines at all.

Read the whole thing. It’s a hair-raiser.

MORE: I pass on these two quotes without much comment:

In several software and hardware tests, critics have shown it’s easy to jam microchip-embedded smart cards into machines, or alter and delete some votes — in some cases simply by ripping out wires. They’ve cracked passwords to gain access to computer servers and showed that some systems relying on Microsoft Windows lacked up-to-date security patches that should have been downloaded from the Internet.

All insecurity roads lead back to Bill Gates, I guess.

Computer experts told Maryland lawmakers in January that the hardware contained “vulnerabilities that could be exploited by malicious individuals.” Among their surprises: all of Maryland’s machines had two identical locks, which could be opened by any one of 32,000 keys or be easily picked.

Makes you feel safe and secure about your vote, doesn’t it?

MORE: Mike from California writes:

I’m in California, and we seem to be having a few problems as well.

Not all counties use the machines - it’s a big expense (as you know,
California’s a little short of cash these days).

There’s a relatively simple safeguard: require any company supplying
electronic voting machines to be ISO 9000 sertified.

In a nutshell, this organization certifies companies and documents that
they follow accepted standards, in all steps of their processes.

I’ve looked at the Diebold website, and they don’t mention it. If they
were certified, you can bet that would be right up front.

It’s a long and difficult process - not something you can get for a
suitcase full of money.

It may be that there are no ISO 9000 certified election system
companies. If that’s the case, governments should take the position
that as soon as there are, then we’ll start looking.

Mike relates that his company is ISO certified and couldn’t bid for gov’t contracts otherwise (to understand what ISO certification means, click here). I used to work for a major gov’t contractor that was similarly certified. He brings up a good point—did state and local governments make sure that serious attention was being paid to sufficient standards when these machines were being manufactured? If so, fine, I’m a little more at ease about this, though I’d like to see some proof. But if not, why not?

[Bryan Preston maintains the Junkyard Blog weblog]

IT’S DECISION TIME. In today’s California Primary, I’ll be voting on the Democratic ballot for John Edwards.

John Kerry is an establishment New England liberal. For all of his efforts to paint himself as an independent thinker, there’s really nothing new or unique about him. He consciously tries to draw parallels between himself and his childhood hero, John F. Kennedy. They both served in the wartime Navy as skippers of small patrol boats, they were both Senators from Massachusetts, and they even have the same initials.

But John F. Kerry is no John F. Kennedy.

Kerry’s Vietnam experience apparently made quite an impression upon him. He ran for Senate in 1984 on an anti-military platform, urging the cancellation of various weapons programs that later proved to be critical to our national security. Kerry was so eager to spend the “peace dividend,” that he wasn’t even willing to wait until the Iron Curtain fell.

And he really hasn’t changed much since then. If you visit his campaign website, you’ll be hard-pressed to find any discussion of military policy. In fact, outside of pandering to veteran’s groups, and the transcript of a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, he hardly mentions the military at all. In such tumultuous times as these, we can’t afford to elect a leader with such a huge blind spot.

John Edwards, on the other hand, is a southern populist. As a former trial lawyer, he’s also quite an eloquent and polished speaker. He consistently stands up for “working families,” and against “corporate corruption.” In the finest tradition of the Democratic Party, Edwards stands for the “little guy” against “moneyed interests.”

His main drawbacks are his relative inexperience, and his strong ties to the “lawyers’ lobby.” But at least with Edwards, you pretty much know what you’re getting.

Best of all, Edwards doesn’t share Kerry’s myopia on national security.

Edwards is committed to maintaining a military with the most advanced training, the most sophisticated technology and adequate resources to accomplish their mission.

Unlike Kerry, Edwards actually gets it.

The latest polls show Kerry leading in every one of the ten states voting on Tuesday. But that doesn’t mean you have to go along with the crowd. If you’re a Democrat, follow my lead and vote for John Edwards.

* * *

ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE, there’s a race to see who will go up against California’s disappointing Democratic senator, Barbara Boxer.

While it may be tempting to vote for former United States Treasurer Rosario Marín, an Hispanic woman whose signature is in the lower left-hand corner of all US paper currency, she doesn’t stand a chance of winning on Tuesday. Bill Jones is going to run away with this one, as well he should – he’s the only candidate on the ballot to have won a statewide election, having served two terms as Secretary of State from 1994 to 2002.

But can he beat Boxer? Let’s hope so.

* * *

Click here for my recommendations for San Diego City & County issues.

Click here for my recommendations on California ballot issues.

Click here for a complete list of my recommendations.

Originally posted at The Indepundit.

In light of the current attacks in Karbala and Baghdad, it’s necessary to recall the text of the Al Qaeda communique, recently seized coming out of Iraq:

D. The Shi’a in our opinion, these are the key to change. Targeting and striking their religious, political, and military symbols, will make them show their rage against the Sunnis and bear their inner vengeance. If we succeed in dragging them into a sectarian war, this will awaken the sleepy Sunnis who are fearful of destruction and death at the hands of these Sabeans, i.e., the Shi’a. Despite their weakness, the Sunnis are strong-willed and honest and different from the coward and deceitful Shi’a, who only attack the weak. Most of the Sunnis are aware of the danger of these people and they fear them. If it were not for those disappointing shaykhs, Sufis, and Muslim brothers, Sunnis would have a different attitude.

(Emphasis mine)

I would wager anything that this is exactly what these attacks are supposed to do, provoke a sectarian war. It’s the jihadists playing both sides against each other, here’s to hoping they won’t be fooled that easily.

From Reuters, via the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) :

An Israeli military tribunal has found an army officer guilty of negligence in the death of a Palestinian teenager in October 2002.

A statement from the military spokesman’s office explaining the rare decision blames the officer in the death of Ali Zaid, 16.

The youth is from Nizlat Zaid, a village near the West Bank city of Jenin.

The statement says the officer, reported to be a captain, had fired at a wall to disperse stone-throwing demonstrators.

The bullet went through a window, hitting Mr Zaid, who later died of his injuries.

The court found “clear negligence” in the officer’s behaviour.

“Although the accused had to act swiftly and under pressure, there was no danger to his life or to that of his peers during the shooting, and the use of live ammunition was done with too much haste,” it said.

The officer’s identity has not been disclosed and sentencing is postponed until a later time.

Can anyone seriously imagine a Palestinian tribunal making a finding anything even remotely resembling this?

The Israelis are fighting a war, but are doing so within a set of civilised norms and rules. As the story shows, there are sometimes tragedies where innocents die. That happens in warfare, no matter how careful you are, all you can do is try to minimise the butcher’s bill. But the next time anyone seriously suggests that there is a moral equivalence between Israel and the various Martyr’s Brigades and more-Jihadi-than-thou groups, think on this article. On one hand, a society that expects its defenders to act in a way that scrupulously respects the lives and property of enemy civilians, even when under fire, and on the other, people who deliberately target schoolkids.

Maybe I’m only preaching to the converted here, a sterile and futile activity. But there are plenty of people of good will and intelligence who want "Justice for Palestine" , who have only been exposed to the PLO’s very competent and extremely well-funded propaganda campaign. If even one of them reads this, and then goes looking behind the scenes, then writing it’s been worth it. I can but hope.