Donald Sensing provides one of the best arguments for an increasingly popular theory about the recent Democrat political machinations. He thinks there's method in their madness:

So, knowing that the plan was to redeploy troops beginning next year, the Democrats decided to get in front of the wave: Demand the troops be sent home NOW and then when the Pentagon announces the plan to redeploy, take credit for it.

The two prongs of the attack serve two purposes. The "Bush lied us into war" wing satisfies the huge numbers of the party's base suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome. The "declare victory and go home" attack preserves, however weakly, the party's appeal to traditionally patriotic Democratic voters, of which there are also huge numbers. Doubtless the Dem leadership sees the attacks as a two-fer.

The appeals to both wings are intended to garner huge dividends in November 2006.

With any president but George W. Bush, they'd be wrong. But GWB is the easiest president to blind side that I have seen in my life.

The lynchpin of Rev. Sensing's theory is the observation (accurate in my view) that the Bush administration is composed of politically inept strategists and tacticians (more the latter than the former). So, if that's all it takes to give substance to his theory then he's home free. But there are a couple of nagging doubts:

more...

Posted by: Demosophist at 12:14 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 543 words, total size 3 kb.

"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana

Generals know how to fight wars. That's how they get to be Generals. It's not something that's just handed out. So when the General you put in charge of something starts telling you things, it's probably wise to listen. We didn't learn this lesson in Vietnam and it looks like we still haven't learned it.

Lt. General John R. Vines, commander of the Multinational Corps Iraq, disagrees with Congressman Murtha on the pullout of our troops from Iraq. Considering he is the one on the ground and in charge of making things happen, I think it would behoove our leadership to listen to what he has to say.

Lt. Gen. John R. Vines, who commands the Multinational Corps Iraq, said that 36 Iraqi battalions, about one-third of the total force, are now responsible for their own security sectors and can fight the insurgency. But they are not yet ready to operate totally independent of U.S. supply lines and tactical advice.

Because of that, he said, now is not the time for an American withdrawal.

"Iraqi security forces are able to conduct operations in a large portion of their area with only limited coalition support," Gen. Vines told Pentagon reporters via a teleconference from Baghdad. "They do require our support at this time. That support will be increasingly less over a period of time, but a precipitous pullout, I believe, would be destabilizing."

That, to me, sounds like good news. We've got a lot of troops trained and we're gradually moving things over to the Iraqis as they can handle them. Imagine for a moment that you would like to be a pilot. You go to the airport, sign up for lessons and get started. The instructor teaches you the basics of flying and how to take off, then takes you up for your first flight. Halfway through the flight, the instructor simply bails out. He hasn't taught you to land yet, but suddenly you're on your own. Sounds like a pretty messed up situation, doesn't it? And yet that's exactly what Congressman Murtha and his Democratic compadres propose doing to the Iraqis. And the exact same thing they forced us to do to the Vietnamese. It wasn't right then and it isn't right now.

The mistakes that the politicians made in Vietnam were fatal and avoidable. Certainly it was a brutal war, but does that make it not worth fighting? Wasn't our own Revolutionary war quite bloody? Did that keep the French from coming to our aid? Without them, we might still be paying taxes to Britan. Our future certainly would have come out very differently. Now it's time to give other people in the world the same chance. It's time to stop all the political bickering and get the job done right. Stop worrying about trying to score political points and listen to what your commanders are telling you. We've started a job. Let's finish it and prove to the world that we CAN learn from the mistakes we've made in the past.

Posted by: Drew at 07:20 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 525 words, total size 3 kb.

They finally called me a slut. After Zionist, CIA, tool of the opposition, Mason (?), unemployed, and ignorant, finally they accused me of a romantic relationship with an oppositionist. LMAO But that's STILL not as funny as "owner of a bad website."

Posted by: Jane at 08:39 PM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 46 words, total size 1 kb.

I hadn't planned any serious posts for Thanksgiving. However, opening the local newsrag this morning to a snotty little piece of disinformation from New York Times political hack Paul Krugman (and no, I won't provide the link) changed my mind. Since the enemies within won't take a break today, neither will I.

From the Associated Press via Yahoo!News:

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration and military leaders are sounding optimistic notes about scaling back U.S. troops in Iraq next year, as public opposition to the war and congressional demands for withdrawal get louder.

While military leaders would not confirm the size of possible withdrawals, conversations with defense officials and analysts suggest troop levels could drop below 100,000 next year, contingent on the progress of the Iraqi government and its security forces. There are currently about 155,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

Now we know the reason for increasingly loud Democrat attacks on the Administration and the troops. Democrat leaders got wind of (were most likely consulted on) contingency plans to lower the number of troops, and made a cynical decision to create the illusion that any planned cutbacks were the result of their "protests", knowing of course, that they could depend on their water-carriers in the mainstream media to help them make the case.

I am continually amazed at the willingness of Democrat party leaders to put US troops at risk to further their own political schemes. Of course, as someone educated in the purported principles of journalism I'm continually amazed at the overwhelming number of "journalists" who are willing to aid and abet such schemes.

Also at The Dread Pundit Bluto. Get there before the tryptophan kicks in.

Posted by: Bluto at 10:55 AM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 342 words, total size 2 kb.

I used to be a total spazz for video games and computer games. I rarely have time or money for them anymore, but I enjoy them once and a while and try to keep up on the new stuff--which is why I downloaded, installed, and ran through the pre-release demo for Call of Duty II. (Warning! Loud, awesome trailer there.)

So I think that actually makes me more qualified than some complete techhead to review games meaningfully. What do I, as Joe Average who might kill two or three rainy evenings a year playing these things, think about this one?

I'll tell ya:

ATMOSPHERE: This is pretty intense, and it's frighteningly realistic. Bullets start whining by you and you really do get flustered--your head moves to dodge them. When you smack somebody with a rifle butt, your whole frame of reference shakes with the blow.

And even with my stuttery old PC, it looked like a movie. I'd say it was beautiful, but it's really pretty ghastly when your squadmates get blasted and pile up like driftwood, so I'll just say it's beautifully visualized. As someone who actually owned a Pong set as a small child, I am in awe of how this game looks and sounds. It's as close as I want to get to the real thing.

The enemy are smart, too. I got waxed several times when I thought I'd put a Jerry down, only to have him whip out a Luger and drill me as soon as I looked away. I took to doing the "just to make sure" shot like that marine in Fallujah, but with no Kevin Sites around to video me.

That said... more...

Posted by: seedubya at 03:04 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 686 words, total size 4 kb.

I take some pride in being one of the blogosphere's biggest proponents of John Bolton's appointment to the U.N. Ambassadorship. Were I more inclined and less inebriated I'd back this up with a whole bunch of links, but you don't really care. Just go over to LGF and see why Johnny B's treatin' us right:

When asked what changed from Monday to Wednesday, one diplomatic official replied: “John Bolton,” a reference to the US ambassador to the UN.

Long live the 'stache!

Posted by: seedubya at 12:51 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 90 words, total size 1 kb.

Here's the latest campaign from the whackjobs at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals: comic books to pass out to your kids telling them that their parents are killers if they fish or eat meat. The comic book covers are below.

The Dread Pundit Bluto's message to the children of PETA members: "Your parents are lunatics."

Posted by: Bluto at 07:28 PM | Comments (30) | Add Comment
Post contains 77 words, total size 1 kb.

(Tampa, Florida) Debra Lafave pleaded guilty today to two counts of lewd and lascivious battery for having sex with a schoolboy. She originally planned to plead insanity but was encouraged to accept a plea deal with the stipulation that she would not go to jail. Lafave was facing a possible 15 years in prison on each charge if she went to trial. But there will be no trial and she gets no jail.

People should reject the delusion that Lafave's sentence is having the punishment fit the crime. She regularly had sex with a student with total diregard for the law and absolute refusal to exercise her responsibilities as a teacher. In my estimation, justice has not been served.

Pics and history at Interested-Participant.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 05:59 PM | Comments (40) | Add Comment
Post contains 132 words, total size 1 kb.

Bush wanted to bomb al Jazeera. Okay. It's still not too late. It's not like The Jawa Report Editorial Board hasn't made the same suggestion on a number of occasions.

Here is the latest 'editorial' cartoon from al Jazeera. Remember, this is the English version which is far less critical of the U.S. than the Arabic. I've put the two frames together (the original is animated). Click for a larger view. It shows the U.N. watchdog interested in a basic chemistry expirement by Iran while ignoring the far more serious use of 'chemical weapons' by the U.S. in Afghanistan and Iraq.

This is why the insurgents fight us. Because they believe--exactly as the Left does--that America is guilty of the worst crimes. By characterizing the use of WP in Fallujah as 'chemical weapons' the critics are lumping the U.S. in with the worst and most despotic regimes in the world.

The same principle applies to those who accuse we on the Right of 'moral relatavism' and of 'not taking the moral high ground'.

The word torture, for instance, is used by the Left and by our enemies abroad to characterize certain interrogation techniques.

And because Jeff Goldstein is on effin fire lately, let me just throw a Goldstein quote in here as a response to the inevetable objection that I'm now defending torture:

One commenter even went so far as to say my arguments constituted a form of moral relativism—a charge I find completely uncredible: first, if one really is against torture, one should WANT to narrow the definition instead of adopting or accepting an expansive definition that hamstrings the pragmatic necessities of effective interrogation (which can include nothing more than a threat of coercion). To think of tactics like waterboarding or sleep deprivation as commensurate to rape rooms is troublesome, it seems to me—but that is exactly what one commits oneself to once one commits to a morally absolute stand on “torture” that abides such an expansive definition.

Because I don’t think all forms of suffering and anguish are equal—I am willing to draw distinctions where those who accept an expansive definition of “torture” cannot. And not being able to draw distinctions is where relativism comes in, I would argue.

Posted by: Rusty at 04:03 PM | Comments (99) | Add Comment
Post contains 390 words, total size 3 kb.

Dear Markos,

You and the Left are sounding more and more like al Jazeera every day. You're blind hatred of the Bush Administration is endangering the lives of U.S. soldiers and embolding our enemies to kill them.

I know you 'love' America, but your 'love' of America is like that of an abusive husband who 'loves' his wife. You 'love' America so much that you will not let any opportunity pass to belittle and abuse her. You 'love' America only when America acts in exactly the way in which you believe it should act. When America gets out of line, you pull no punches.

Whether you 'love' America is beside the point just as whether an abusive husband 'loves' his wife is irrelevant. What I and the rest of America want is less of your proclamations of love, and more evidence of it.

From reading your blog I have come to the inevetable conclusion that you 'love' America so much that you are willing to kill it. I know you have the best of intentions for our great nation, but so does the abusive husband who really didn't mean to kill that bitch wife of his, but, you know, she just up and made him soooo angry that he couldn't help himself.

You have betrayed America with your perverse love in the exact way that an abusive husband betrays a wife. You are a traitor.

Your latest screed on the use of white phosphorous by the U.S. military in Fallujah is really beyond the pale. Equivocating between the U.S. military and the Saddam Hussein regime is exactly what our terrorist enemies do in their propoganda. You say:

Saddam tortured, we torture. Saddam used WP chemical weapons against insurgents and civilians, we use WP chemical weapons against insurgents and civilians.

Perhaps you are unaware of this, but supporters of al Qaeda read blogs like yours and take them seriously. The reason they fight us in Iraq is that they believe, like you do, that the U.S. is the moral equivalent of Saddam Hussein. Each time you publish insane theories about the U.S. using chemical weapons, they eat it up.

If you actually believe that the U.S. is as bad as Saddam Hussein regime, then I suggest you grow a backbone and join the mujahidin in Iraq. The moral implications of your statements are that we are the bad guys. If such is the case, then the inevetable conclusion for you--or an Iraqi 'fence-sitter'--is that morality requires armed resistance to the U.S.

In fact, at a jihadi forum which I frequent, the terrorists and their supporters make the exact same argument that you are making. White phosphorous has become quite the hot topic lately 'proving' that the mujahidin are in the right and that the U.S. really is the Great Satan.

Thank you for legitimizing the jihadists and their belief system. They love Americans like you and use words like yours to benefit their recruitment efforts. See, they say, even the Americans now understand that their own government must be stopped.

Which is exactly the morally correct conclusion to reach if you actually believe the U.S. is guilty of systematic torture, mass murder, and the use of WMD against civilians.

If you believe this, though, than you have made yourself an enemy of the United States of America. No, not the Bush Administration, but the United States. The country which you love, but only insofar as she acts in the exact manner proscribed by you.

You are like so many member of the Communist Party USA in the late 1940s and 1950s who loved America so much that they gave our nuclear secrets to the Soviets. Their acts of treason, like yours, were done out of concern for the nation and for principle. They didn't hate the U.S., they loved it, but only to the extent that their love was conditioned on the U.S. acting in the exact way in which they thought it should act.

They, like you, believed a strong U.S. was a danger to world stability. Thus, in their own warped minds, giving the A-bomb to the Soviets was the only morally appropriate thing to do. It was for America's own good, they thought.

Markos, I don't mind it when you attack one of Bush's Supreme Court nominees. That's just domestic politics. But war is different. Tearing down our troops and comparing them to Hussein's murderous Republican Guard is outside the bounds of patriotic dissent.

And please don't hide behind your military service. Plenty of traitors have served in the United States armed forces and plenty of patriots have had no military experience. Benadict Arnold, Aaron Burr, and Lee Harvey Oswald all served with distinction before they betrayed the country. Bill Clinton, a patriot in my book, had no military record.

Last, you might argue that it is the actions of the troops that have disgraced our country and not your characterization of them. This is an idiotic thing to say when the morality of the actions are in dispute.

Using white phosphorous during a battle is a fact. Calling them WMD is a characterization---a choice of words meant to equivocate them with Saddam Hussein's gassing of the Kurds. It is your characterization--your choice of words--which degrades the soldiers who chose to use white phosphorous in the heat of battle to help the U.S. win victory over its enemies.

Facts are always morally neutral. It is human judgement that gives meaning to facts. By choosing to equivocate the use of white phosphorous to the gassing of the Kurds, you have morally judged our troops. You, in word and deed, have called our troops mass murderers. You have chosen to characterize them this way.

In light of that, I believe it would not be unfair to characterize you as a traitor. The kind of traitor that believes they are doing the right thing for the country that they love. But, alas, if you knew anything about traitors you would understand that the vast majority of them are well intentioned.

Cordially,

Rusty Shackleford

UPDATE: Apparently this has generated a lot of outrage. It should.

John Cole is pissed.
Confederate Yankee expresses righteouss indignation.
The Commissar, Dread Pundit Bluto, & Wunder Kraut agree.
Caedorioa has a slightly different nuance.
John at Castle Argghhh debunks the WP thing here.
Dean Esmay is right on here.
INDCent Bill makes up a new game out of this.

Posted by: Rusty at 11:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1100 words, total size 7 kb.

What fraternity does Rusty Shackleford advise at the University of Texas, Arlen? Why Alpha Kappa Qaeda, of course! Trust me, click the link. It's that funny.

Thanks to Ghost of a Flea for sending the link.

Posted by: Rusty at 09:55 AM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 46 words, total size 1 kb.

This is the face of our allies in Iraq that some wish to abandon. No, you won't see any of this from the mainstream press. More photos from Michael Yon from Iraq here.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:49 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.

Jason at Generation Why does the yeoman's work of investigating Rep. John Murtha's (D-France) policy stances. The single greatest mistake made by the Clinton Administration was cutting and running from Somalia. Why, you ask? Because the financial and logistical force behind the warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid was a much more insidious and, at the time, unknown character: Osama bin Laden.

As Jason notes in his excellent post, Murtha urged cutting-and-running from Somalia too--making the sacrifices of the men who died their vanity.

Osama had something of a religious experience while in Somalia in which he predicted that America would cut-and-run. When the U.S. did pull its troops from Somalia, some Muslims--including Osama himself--took this as a sign that bin Laden had mystical powers. Bin Laden would later recall to ABC News:

"Our people realize[d] more than before that the American soldier is a paper tiger that run[s] in defeat after a few blows," the terror chief recalled. "America forgot all about the hoopla and media propaganda and left dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat."

More from Jason at Generation Why. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 08:37 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 377 words, total size 2 kb.

Um, wait, sorry, The Therapist!

He's wacky. Check him out.

Posted by: seedubya at 01:52 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.

Long ago I decided that the fellow who deserves to be remembered for his interpretation of "The Sixties" was this guy, not this unmitigated sausage. (h/t: Lileks)

Swing low, sweet chariot.

Posted by: Demosophist at 01:21 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.

(Albany, New York) Today, Albany County Judge Stephen Herrick formalized a six-month jail sentence as punishment for Sandra "Beth" Geisel (photo) after she pleaded guilty to one count of rape. And then, astonishingly, the judge made all her excuses for her by stating:

"At the time this occurred, you were needy, drinking heavily and had a low self esteem. While you looked at this as affection, you were being used, abused and sexually abused. You became their playmate."

Nevertheless, with credit for time served, Geisel skates out of jail next month with a hand slap and an apology. Poor thing. Note to all future defendants appearing before Judge "Bleeding Heart" Herrick: Wear a dress.

Previous on Jawa here. Companion at Interested-Participant.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 08:19 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 198 words, total size 2 kb.

Chris Matthews has finally jumped the shark. Excuse the metaphor, but Ace dropped the ball on the obvious one this time.

I've never understood why so many on the Right hated Matthews so much. Personally, I always liked him much more than, say, Bill O'Reilly. Yeah, I thought, he's a blowhard, but name some one on Fox, CNN, or MSNBC who isn't?

I'm beginning to see where that disdain comes from.

Edmonton Sun:

"The period between 9/11 and Iraq was not a good time for America. There wasn't a robust discussion of what we were doing," Matthews said.

"If we stop trying to figure out the other side, we've given up. The person on the other side is not evil -- they just have a different perspective."

Matthews is the sort of liberal that would take great exception to Eisenhower's charicterization of WWII as the Crusade in Europe.

We dub thee: Chris Matthews, Dhimmi.

Malkin, Ace, and Charles Johnson, and Dan Riehl have more.

Posted by: Rusty at 04:35 PM | Comments (26) | Add Comment
Post contains 176 words, total size 2 kb.

Happy Blogoversary to the second best blog written by fictional characters out ther--The Llama Butchers.

Posted by: Rusty at 04:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.

We will grant that University of Oklahoma suicide bomber Joel Henry Hinrichs III may have not been part of a larger Islamic plot.

But I think the larger issue is being missed here: if you want to blow yourself up, which major world-wide religion do you consult for the expertise?

No, it's not the Mennonites.

Denver Channel:

FBI agents found the same type of volatile high explosive believe to have been used in the suicide bombings in London inside the apartment of a University of Oklahoma student who blew himself up near a packed football stadium, according to newly released documents.

....The FBI also found Hinrichs downloaded from the Internet "numerous text and image files" on weapons and explosives, including one on TATP four days before his death.

One video on his computer depicted a lit match being placed above a white powder then a bright flash.

The FBI also discovered "explosive experiments and paraphernalia" and 0.4 pounds of a white powder that turned out to be triacetone triperoxide, or TATP, which is composed of hydrogen peroxide and acetone, according to warrants to search the home of Joel Henry Hinrichs III.

Even so, that is saying a lot.......

Posted by: Rusty at 11:36 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 291 words, total size 2 kb.

Okay, so Instapundit has cornered the market on referral posts. I'm not Glenn Reynolds, but I do play one on T.V.

Project Hero: 1LT Brian R. Chontosh receives Navy Cross. God bless our heroes serving in Iraq.

Don't question Murtha's patriotism! Ever. Any one who would question Murtha's patriotism cannot be, by definition, a patriot. More Murtha lunacy here. Fellow Jawa blogger, Chris Short, discusses last Friday's vote.

Plame-gate continues. Am I the only one that finds this 'story' a little boring.

Why Republicans are such pussies when it comes to fighting illegal immigration.

Me on a deck of cards? Awesome-o! Vote for Jawa!!!

Help Meryl Yourish find a job. No, 'professional blogger' is still not a 'job'.

Decision '08 turns numero uno. And to think I knew Mark when he was just a twinkle in Glenn Reynold's eye.

Judicial tyranny in....wait for it...Israel. Apparently the repurcussions of Marbury v. Madison know no boundaries.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:46 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 158 words, total size 2 kb.