mypetjawa v. 2.0 (beta) "<i>Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to ev

March 26, 2006

Gall

Half a million marched in Los Angeles, demanding, in effect, the end of the rule of law in the United States, at least as it applies to illegally entering the country. From the Associated Press via The Drudge Report:

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Thousands of immigration advocates marched through downtown Los Angeles in one of the largest demonstrations for any cause in recent U.S. history.
More than 500,000 protesters - demanding that Congress abandon attempts to make illegal immigration a felony and to build more walls along the border - surprised police who estimated the crowd size using aerial photographs and other techniques, police Cmdr. Louis Gray Jr. said.
Wearing white T-shirts to symbolize peace, the demonstrators chanted "Mexico!" "USA!" and "Si se puede," an old Mexican-American civil rights shout that means "Yes, we can."

Violating this country's laws by entering illegally, seeking covert employment from criminal US citizens, evading taxes while consuming the services those taxes are meant to provide...then brazenly marching en masse in cities all over the country you have victimized, shouting slogans in a foreign language, with the purpose of subverting its political process takes...gall.

I fault the Federal government for not having the Immigration and Naturalization Service aggressively checking citizenship at all of these insurrections. Each and every one of the estimated 11.5 million illegal aliens within our borders represents a failure of the government to enforce the laws of the nation.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 02:55 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 245 words, total size 2 kb.

1 The INS is now BICE. We don't have enough ICE agents to arrest illegal aliens at these protests. Which is part of the problem. Because of Bush, the GOP, the Dems, and various other actors, we now have millions of illegal aliens here and we have to deal with them in some way. What if they don't get what they want? Will they riot? If we allow millions more illegal aliens or "guest" workers in the U.S., won't we not only have future marches but they'll be even bigger? Have we not only lost control of our borders but of our interior as well? Will our "leaders" capitulate to the demands of these foreign citizens? Our safest solution in this case is to back away slowly: start enforcing our laws and start reducing the numbers of foreign citizens here. Otherwise, this is going to only get much worse. Please write to your Senators and other reps demanding that they do what's in America's best interests.

Posted by: TLB at March 26, 2006 03:18 PM (vyK5U)

2 This stuff needs to be nipped in the bud NOW. It will only be tougher later. And the marches will be bigger. I read some of the quotes from these people and it made my blood boil. One guy uttered, "I am in my homeland". I've got news for him. This is MY homeland and I'll fight to keep it. This aint Mexico. They've already closed 5 emergency rooms here in L.A. because illegals are using them for primary healthcare. And believe me, in L.A. we need LOTS of emergency rooms. The situation is way out of hand.

Posted by: Richard at March 26, 2006 03:28 PM (7KF8r)

3 One of the statements of the illegal aliens was; the United States is a country for everyone who wants to come here, and this is a free World, so we should be able to come and go as they please. Friends, I have nothing against Hispanics who come here wanting a better life. But, they are here in violation of the law, they are using services that they in no way have paid for, and they pay no income and property taxes. They drive without having a license and cannot read signs in English. If the US is to survive as a nation, this has to be stopped. And before you say that Mexicans are only doing jobs that white people don't want to do, the truth is that Mexicans are doing jobs most Americans won't do at the wages that are being offered. This influx of foreign workers is driving down wages, but do the Democrats or Republicans either one care? No, I guess not. Both seek short term gains at the long term expense of the nation. Besides, there are enough people here. We have to stop somewhere, or do we want a billion people here? Or two billion? Where does it stop?

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 26, 2006 03:38 PM (rUyw4)

4 Soon (if not already) they will be here in enough numbers to basically hold both parties hostage. And they will determine what our country's immigration policies will be. Essentially, you can kiss the souther border goodbye.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 26, 2006 05:18 PM (8e/V4)

5 As someone who very much wants to someday live in the United States, I can sympathise with anyone who wants to emmigrate, for whatever reason, be it economic or social. Illegal immigration, regardless of the nationalities involved makes me furious simply because illegal immigrants take a dump on the rest of us who take the time to go through the proper, lengthy channels. Every person who crosses a border illegally, leaves a stain on their countrymen that forever damns them to be viewed with suspicion at the immigration desk - I can testify as to how lousy it feels for just a visit, to have to justify why I should be let in and to prove that I intend to leave. Yet I can never fault a government for wanting to protect its territory. I don't care how honest or hardworking you claim to be, sneaking across the border is not your right - but it is the right of the government to send you back.

Posted by: Graeme at March 26, 2006 05:57 PM (VwhTY)

6 I belive i can sum this up witha Quote from a popular Sci-fi TV series. "The avalanche has already started, it is to late for the pebbles to vote."

Posted by: Harley at March 26, 2006 07:48 PM (VmTUn)

7 waves of hispanics, increasing strength of hurricanes, global warming, the northern states may have to rethink their immigration polic....y STATES RIGHTS !!

Posted by: john Ryan at March 26, 2006 08:36 PM (TcoRJ)

8 I was in LA last summer for the first time since the 1980's and the change is startling, I can tell you. It resembles nothing more than a third world city. Pathetic is how I would describe it, and the situation at the southern border of the US is on a par with LA as well.

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 26, 2006 08:44 PM (rUyw4)

9 On the other hand, they do work hard, unlike our iPod generation who are a bunch of irresponsible no good lazy bums. I weep for the future when I think it belongs to these slugs, and if immigrants bring their hunger to succeed it will do this country some good. But at least make them learn the friggin language. None of this multi-culti crap. It's a melting pot, not a salad bowl.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 26, 2006 09:11 PM (M3nr/)

10 Well, 20253, you were moaning like a little bitch, and saying 'harder daddy', so we figured you were enjoying it.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 27, 2006 05:57 AM (0yYS2)

11 Now back to the topic. In historical context, a large group of foreign citizens in a nation illegally is called an invasion. Invaders should be met with machine gun and tanks, not news cameras and hollow legislation.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 27, 2006 06:01 AM (0yYS2)

12 Hope they got everyones' name- we can then issue each a big fine(that would create budget surplus) then deport them and let them apply legally.

Posted by: splashtc at March 27, 2006 08:20 AM (zlay8)

13 Landmines and machinegun emplacements. Let's stop screwing around with these people.

Posted by: dick at March 27, 2006 08:45 AM (XlQVK)

14 I'm tired of the mantra that these people do the jobs "Americans won't do". There are many jobs Americans don't "want to do" but that doesn't equate to "won't do". I commented on this at Decision '08. I said that this country thrives on competion at all levels and that competion is removed when there are masses of people who are willing to be exploited with rock bottom or below wages because they aren't here legally. Why would I compete to collect garbage for minimum wage? This is a result of failed government policies and their emphasis on legally admitting a glut of people to do jobs Americans "want" to do with H1B visas and the like and ignoring those who are simply willing to work hard. My husband went through a very difficult time not long ago trying to find IT work that was being handed out to foreigners willing to accept a fraction of what the market would normally dictate as wages for the same work, all the while those who hired the H1B workers had to deal with language barriers and sub-quality work. But they were encouraged by the government to hire them. We should have had a more comprehensive "guest worker" status to offer all along. Our government has created this mindset of "jobs Americans won't do" by putting little or no value on blue collar labor. In the meantime they ignored the influx of illegal laborers at the borders while they focused attention on admitting white-collar workers. That's how we end up with admitting into the country highly qualified engineers and educators who just want to blow us up rather than the kind of people who will actually assimilate and contribute to the economy at the most base level. They make it too hard for the average person to get into the country to work legally and too easy for someone who may have nefarious goals simply by virtue of their white-collar skills. This is only part of the problem. If the government didn't kow-tow so much to labor unions exacting such a burden on companies who employ blue collar workers they migh not be so compelled to hire "undocumented" workers. And yes, there are Americans who "won't" to do these jobs, but many of these are people who "won't" to do much of anything.

Posted by: Oyster at March 27, 2006 09:19 AM (V9juS)

15 Damn, Oyster, I always marvel at how you are able to cut through the crap and make the relevant points. And to make matters worse, the US is about to triple the number of Saudi students who are allowed to come to the US and attend college, or perhaps they have a more nefarious scheme. Didn't Saudi's participate in something really bad just a few years ago...ah, well, the memory escapes me. Perhaps I'll think of it later.

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 27, 2006 09:32 AM (rUyw4)

16 Thousands of supporters of illegal aleins and AL QUEDA terrorists march in LA waving their stupid signs and chanting nonsense why dont they all move to mexico and stay there

Posted by: sandpiper at March 27, 2006 09:53 AM (Tl3bz)

17 JJ your point was illustrated quite succinctly by Yale University in the way they gleefully admitted Ramatullah Hashemi, the Taliban spokesman, under the pretext of "cultural diversity" yet rejected Afghan women who were oppressed by the regime he represented. Women who were more educated and more qualified than he to benefit from an education there.

Posted by: Oyster at March 27, 2006 10:09 AM (V9juS)

18 And also more likely to accomplish something positive for their country, Oyster. And where are the women's rights groups? If they were worth a plug nickel, they would have already condemned the shoddy behavior of Yale toward the Afghan women, who were much more accomplished and deserving of a quality education than Hashemi.

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 27, 2006 10:31 AM (rUyw4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

March 23, 2006

Jesus Was an Illegal Immigrant

I know a lot of Mexicans named Jesus. I'm afraid Hillary wasn't talking about any of them.

Posted by: Rusty at 04:18 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

March 21, 2006

It's Official: Bill Clinton is the Bitch

Bill Clinton admits he is the bitch in that relationship. Come on, don't act surprised. The only question is whether or not he and Hillary had a Star Wars themed wedding?

Hat tip to Tim at Opinion Bug and Bill Dauterieve from the Rainey St. alley. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 05:50 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 229 words, total size 2 kb.

March 20, 2006

It's Time to Fire Rumsfeld

Contrary to what the partisan defeatists on the Left say, Iraq is not a quagmire. Nor do I believe it is a 'Civil War' as Michael Kraig asserts in yesterday's Des Moines Register. However, that is not to say that things have gone splendidly there either. Things are getting better on the ground in Iraq. But in admitting that things are getting better, we also must realize that things had gone badly. I believe we are heading in the right direction in Iraq, but in hindsight we could have saved ourselves a lot of agony had things gone right in the first place.

So, who is to blame for the long lapse between what should have been done in Iraq to what is actually being done today? Donald Rumsfeld.

It saddens me to come to this conclusion--I love Rumsfeld on so many levels for so many reasons. I love Rumsfeld for being blunt, taking no crap from reporters, his uncanny ability to deconstruct criticisms, and his grand vision of retooling the military to meet future adversaries. Nevertheless, Rumsfeld was in charge of the Iraq invasion and it was Rumsfeld who got so many things wrong.

It is time to let Rumsfeld go. No, it's long past time to let Rumsfeld go.

Paul Eaton's editorial in the NY Times yesterday is wrong on its first point but, I believe, right on its second. First, General Eaton faults Rumsfeld for not building a larger coalition in Iraq. This is just a stupid criticism. Any one who thinks that Iraq was a failure in diplomacy just does not understand why coalitions are formed. Nations aren't talked into military invasions, they join military coalitions because they believe it is in their national interests to do so. Clearly, the fall of Saddam Hussein was not in the best interests of France and Russia.

But there is a great deal of merit to the second argument: that Rumsfeld was wrong on nearly all fronts on how the war in Iraq would develop once the invasion stage was complete.

Mr. Rumsfeld has also failed in terms of operations in Iraq. He rejected the so-called Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force and sent just enough tech-enhanced troops to complete what we called Phase III of the war Â— ground combat against the uniformed Iraqis. He ignored competent advisers like Gen. Anthony Zinni and others who predicted that the Iraqi Army and security forces might melt away after the state apparatus self-destructed, leading to chaos.
It is all too clear that General Shinseki was right: several hundred thousand men would have made a big difference then, as we began Phase IV, or country reconstruction. There was never a question that we would make quick work of the Iraqi Army.

I do not reach the conclusion that Rumsfeld should be fired with any happiness. I have been mulling the idea for some time, knowing that such public statements are almost universally heralded by the Left as some sort of apocolyptic sign. Some of my most popular posts in the past have been when I have been critical of people like Karl Rove--no doubt because the Left jumped all over it.

But as Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor document in their book Cobra II : The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq there were tons of missed opportunities after the brilliant invasion. At each turn, when it was possible to rectify these problems early on, one man seemed to stand in the way: Donald Rumsfeld. You can hear the authors discussing their book here.

It seems that one of the very reasons that I love Donald Rumsfeld is the reason why he has been such a lousy Secretary of Defense--his ability to poke holes in his critics' arguments. It is a great intellectual ability to have, but when that ability is turned on those who urge corrective action then it can become dangerous. Donald Rumsfeld did not want to hear that we needed many more troops on the ground right after the invasion. He was so convinced of the superiority of his position, that more than a few military officials were sacked.

This is no way to run any department of government--especially the military during a hot war.

Perhaps Rumsfeld has learned his lesson. Things in Iraq are going much better than they were two years ago. Month after month U.S. casualties have been on the decline. Month after month the Iraqis themselves take control of more territory and take the lead in fighting terrorist forces. But if Rumsfeld and the Pentagon have learned their lesson, then aren't we admitting that they screwed up somewhere along the road? And if someone screwed up, shouldn't they be held accountable? And if that someone turns out to be Donald Rumsfeld--as I believe it probably is--then why hasn't President Bush fired him?

There are other lessons Rumsfeld and the Pentagon have not learned. Foremeost is the way to fight the internet and information war. They have ignored the information war altogether--although paying a lot of public lip service to it. As Robert Malloy and Peter Harling remind us today, the insurgents believe they are winning. I would argue that this is largely because we allow them to create their own discourse through the internet.

Given the choice between the Bush Administration and any of the choices offered by the Democrats, I'd still vote for Bush despite the many failures along the way in Iraq. Ulysses S. Grant was probably not the greatest military strategist and was wrong on a number of occasions. By all accounts, George B. McClellan was a better strategist and perhaps the greatest military organizer of the time. But given the choice between McClellan's perfect inaction and Grant's imperfect action, Lincoln made the right choice in firing the timid McClellan. The Democrats have only offered McClellan like alternatives in the past.

Fortunately, today's alternatives are not so stark. President Bush could easily replace Donald Rumsfeld as it is too late to go back to the policy of appeasement offered by the Democratic party. And even though the short-term consequences of firing Rumsfeld might negatively affect the Republican party (if if is conceivable that they could go even lower in the polls), I'm afraid that by sticking with Rumsfeld is to convey the message that all has gone right in Iraq from the begining and will only hurt the party in the long-term

Just a thought. Sorry to piss off my many loyal Republican readers and doubly sorry if this helps the Democrats in any way.

Update: For a second there, I thought I had an original thought. Maybe not. Rob from Say Anything sends this along. Add both Rob and Fred Barnes to the list.

Fred Barnes:

The president's most spectacular move would be to anoint a presidential successor. This would require Vice President Cheney to resign. His replacement? Condoleezza Rice, whom Mr. Bush regards highly. Her replacement? Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, whose Bush-like views on Iraq and the war on terror have made him a pariah in the Democratic caucus.
Mr. Cheney would probably be happy to step down and return to Wyoming. But it would make more sense for him to move to the Pentagon to replace Donald Rumsfeld as defense secretary, a job Mr. Cheney held during the elder Bush's administration. The Senate confirmation hearing for Mr. Cheney alone would produce political fireworks and attract incredible attention. At Treasury, Mr. Bush has a perfect replacement for John Snow, someone he already knows. That's Glenn Hubbard, former chairman of Mr. Bush's council of economic advisers and currently dean of Columbia's business school. He is in sync with Mr. Bush ideologically and has the added value of being respected on Wall Street.

Okay, so maybe Barnes wants Rumsfeld out for political reasons, but whatever the motivation, it's time for Rumsfeld to go.

Rob at Say Anything has more.

Posted by: Rusty at 04:57 PM | Comments (64) | Add Comment
Post contains 1330 words, total size 9 kb.

1 I'm in no way pissed off, it's a very true assessment. As I said to my wife, at the time of the Iraqi invasion, rushing to Baghdad to topple a regime, and declaring the war over, would be like China declaring victory by occupying Washington DC.

Posted by: davec at March 20, 2006 05:31 PM (CcXvt)

2 Dude, you actually READ the Des Moines Register? If it wasn't for the ads, comics, and movie listings, I'd drop it altogether. It's a sad shell of it's former glory - completely "Gannetized for your protection".

Posted by: Russ from Winterset at March 20, 2006 05:40 PM (y6n8O)

3 The biggest problem with firing Rumsfeld is that it would remove the only significant opposition to the immense bureaucratic inertia of the military (industrial complex - DDE) status quo; the 1970-2000 military structure just won't get the job done in the 21st century.

Posted by: Glenmore at March 20, 2006 05:44 PM (x+293)

4 I disagree with the idea that Rumsfeld is to blame. The CPA that was established soon after the fall of SH's regime drove the country into the ground. Also de-baath'fying the country was a very serious eror in judgement.

Posted by: Agent Meatball at March 20, 2006 05:51 PM (30FRH)

5 This will serve no useful military purpose and will only give ammo to the moonbats-- WHICH WILL IN TURN HARM OUR MILITARY, and the cause of victory in Iraq. Ix ney.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 20, 2006 05:56 PM (8e/V4)

6 I also must say that Powell doctrine of overwhelming force is something that belongs in the past. Rumsfelds idea to transform the force into a smaller lethal army IS the correct approach. What's missing from the equation is the economic and social warfare that must also be used in step with military force.

Posted by: Agent Meatball at March 20, 2006 05:57 PM (30FRH)

7 I agree that Rumsfeld has made some mistakes. I, like you, admire his character when it comes to speaking frankly, and deconstructing criticism. However, with that being said, I do not think now is the time to let him go. A year and a half ago, maybe. But now that things are on the upswing, I do not think he should be fired. It would diminish our momentum, and apparently he has begun to do things well.

Posted by: The Gentle Cricket at March 20, 2006 06:31 PM (jz8oq)

8 Wait a second, what was so brilliant about the invasion? The very idea that somehow an invasion can be separated from a well-conceived occupation is just the kind of folly that has lead to the problems of today. Of course the US could beat the Iraqi military in conventional warfare--there's nothing brilliant about that. Insurgencies that follow regime overthrows was allowed to fester in the power vacuum for years now. Nope, Rummy made the oft-made mistake of the US military: strike hard and fast with overwhelming force and little discrimination, and let the occupation --the winning of hearts and minds-- take care if itself.

Posted by: Mark at March 20, 2006 06:38 PM (oxMjD)

9 Dude, Purple? Or green? Wouldn't it be more productive to fire the Turks as "allies"? Had the 4th AD been able to roll south, the supply route would mean a heavy presence of US/allied troops in the Kurdish region. Something I'm sure the Turks wish were there today. There would also have been an anvil to the hammer coming from the south. The Sunni triangle would more closely be described as the Sunni box. We went with the army we had. We made the mistakes we made. Instead of "Cobra II" you should check out Thomas P.M. Barnett. You'll get out of your funk. Time exists so that everything doesn't happen at once. That's a good thing. But sometimes people get frustrated by its simplicity.

Posted by: OregonGuy at March 20, 2006 06:41 PM (etmFp)

10 Keep Rummy, fire the whole State department! Agent Meatball, calling agent Meatball, have you seen agent 69 anywhere?

Posted by: Leatherneck at March 20, 2006 06:44 PM (D2g/j)

11 Thank God for Victor Davis Hanson

Posted by: Vinnie at March 20, 2006 06:45 PM (f289O)

12 If anyone has a clear and precise vision of the realities in any war, it's Hanson. As far as "overwhelming force" and "several hundred thousand troops" I think Wretchard (Belmont Club) gave a pretty good explanation a long while back why that would have been a bad idea. I'm pretty sure the equivalent of the word "clusterf**k" was in there, but being a gentleman, it's not exactly the word he chose. It would take me forever to find his post on it, but you're welcome to give it a shot. Demosophist reads him pretty regularly. Maybe he'll remember the post.

Posted by: Oyster at March 20, 2006 07:27 PM (YudAC)

13 Wait a minute......the entire US govt is full of liberals....especially, the State Dept. What do you expect from them,; Courage, Honor, Love of America? Get serious, they hate all of us.

Posted by: n.a. palm at March 20, 2006 07:58 PM (bBFJr)

14 No reason to be pissed off about that, Rusty. Honest discourse, laid out with facts and substance, is the hallmark of a Free society. While some may not agree with you, it is a convincing, thought provoking argument, worthy of afterthought. The real shame is that there cannot be civil discussion like this when Liberals are involved.

Posted by: William Teach at March 20, 2006 08:19 PM (jNcSm)

15 The idea that we should have more not less troops in Iraq has been going around. The idea being that more control would allow us not to to root out the same bunch from the same places over and over. McCain has pushed this and has been backed up by Jimmy Carter and many others. I like the idea except that it does expose more men and so more casualties are likely. More men more screw ups and problems a well. Two competing ideas here the first one had it's share of problems. I'm sure the other one would have had other drawbacks we just haven't lived those yet. Might help to get some fresh momentum. If so I'll miss the old rooster too.

Posted by: Howie at March 20, 2006 08:34 PM (D3+20)

16 >>>The real shame is that there cannot be civil discussion like this when Liberals are involved. Because we know the moonbat agenda is just to get "Bush". Rusty's agenda is the good of his country. That's the difference. The struggle in Iraq is primarily political, not military. Militarily, the terrorists are a flee on an elephant's left nut. It's POLITICS which will win or lose this war. Is firing Rummy good politics? I don't think so, and Rusty hasn't convinced me. Patriots can disagree.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 20, 2006 08:39 PM (8e/V4)

17 Ya know.... it's funny watching this discussion. For years I have been shaking my head while Don "Duck the Question" Rumsfeld went off like a crazy man.... But hey... here's my .02 Arguments of convenience lack integrity and inevitably trip you up. - Donald Rumsfeld, in Rumsfeld's Rules

Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at March 20, 2006 08:57 PM (uc7DK)

18 I agree. I was as supportive of the war as any blogger. Disappointed is an understatement. Rumsfeld should go. It won't help Bush or do much to change the details on the ground in Iraq but it is the essence of responsibility.

Posted by: Thomas the Wraith at March 20, 2006 09:01 PM (zTWhc)

19 I'm not pissed off, but I think you're falling for a logical fallacy that's been pushed by the Left. Rumsfeld was responsible for many of the decisions at the start of the war. Now, three years later, to go back and say this guy was right and Rumsfeld was wrong, and that guy was right and Rumsfeld was wrong, and this woman makes a good point...well, how many of these latter-day critics were right on every decision that had to be made? You could do the same thing with any boss responsible for making large number of critical decisions. I'm also in disagreement with the "several hundred thousand troops" meme. Maybe several million could cover every nook in cranny in a country the size of California, but the terrorist-insugency's ability to hid amongst the civilian population was the culprit, in my opinion, not a low number of troops. And several hundred thousand troops in theater would very likely have validated the liberals before the war who spoke of "tens of thousands" of bodybags... ...which brings me to my final point. Recognizing the human tragedy of each soldier killed, 2300 KIA during three years of war is a remarkable achievement conservation of force, not so much a testament to Rumsfeld as to the commanders on the ground, but c'mon, critics were predicting thousands of dead in the invasion alone. Don't let yourself get stampeded here, Rusty.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 20, 2006 09:01 PM (RHG+K)

20 DPB--Rumsfeld was WARNED of such a likelihood (loosely organized militants mixed amongst the civilian populace) by high-level CIA and seasoned military brass in the pre-invasion planning stages of the war. He chose to ignore their opinions because needing three times the number of personnel to keep the peace as to capture it didn't fit his ideals of a down-sized military. Then, post-invasion, he was warned by theater commanders of a strengthening and ever-more organized insurgency using, among other things, civilian deaths to whip up discontent in the very populace we were trying to win over. Again, explained away as dead-enders in their final gasps. These were not merely mistakes made by someone making a large number of critical decisions; these were failures made by a man who was given warning after warning and chose to ignore them until even he couldn't any longer. Quit beating the worn-out "victim of politics" drum and face up to the fact he's a f**k up in his role. Let someone else try.

Posted by: Mark at March 20, 2006 10:50 PM (oxMjD)

21 So Mark, it's your position that all of Rumsfeld's advisors were absolutely unanimous on every occasion you believe he was wrong, and that not a single soul advised him to take a different course? That's remarkable.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 20, 2006 11:09 PM (RHG+K)

22 Alternatively, you didn't read my post before responding.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 20, 2006 11:11 PM (RHG+K)

23 insanity... the entire concept... pure folly... it took years for President Lincoln, to find a worthwhile General to wage a serious effort against the South... Iraq remains an historic achievement, with record low casualty rates, strategic success, and swift accomplishment... the fast food, instant mindset, has corrupted many opinions. no one could liberate a Nation of 25 Million, in the heart of the troubled Arab Region with such amazing success... such endeavors are difficult, and you have lost serious context, on the reality of the mission. Rumsfeld is outstanding... Give him a raise...

Posted by: brooklyn at March 20, 2006 11:57 PM (zN+Cl)

24 I won't disagree with you in your respect for Rumsfeld or in your belief that it's time for him to go, but do consider that he has pursued his doctrine because it is our purpose to be in Iraq. Victorious, yes ---but the idea has always been to be there. To project our power there for as long as possible and not to have smashed everything and withdrawn immediately. We have other work to do in the region. We are in Iraq at a sustainable level that leaves us free to respond elsewhere, if need be. But we must not look to get out any time soon.

Posted by: Toby Petzold at March 21, 2006 12:33 AM (i05d+)

25 Rocketsbrain is neutral on Rumsfield for the moment. I too like his frank speaking. There is much too little of this within the Beltway. After all the CIA is in an all out organizational war with the CINC to CYA its failure to foresee the events of the last five years. They're too entrenched in their own bureaucratic morass to carry out their prime mission to defend this Country. I agree we have done a poor job on the War of Information which is key to ultimately winning the GWOT (See this piece from Redstate) Rumsfield has supported the release of the Saddam docs to use the Blogosphere to force leverage the intel analysis of this documents. See Athena. Rocketsbrain prediction - amended with VP Cheney roster change as suggested above. If the Russians and the Chinese can't reign in Iranian President MAD and his religious mentor Yazdi, then the "Rove" trump card will be played e.g. Saddam's WMD was moved to Syria with Russian assistance. The Chinese and their surogate, the NORKS, will be outed for aiding the Iranian Manhatten Project. RBT doubts President MAD et al will be detered because they truly believe in the return of the 12th Imam. They have also been consolidating their power base with similar ultra religious conservatives. They will not be detered by conventional MAD policies. The Israelis will not let the Mad Mullahs go nuclear. We will assist to ensure the mission is successful. The Great Satan will get blamed whether we help or not. The Rove trump card will be played once the strike is launched which will leave the LL and the MSM swinging in the breeze. This will be a very lethal lightening strike with both air and ground special forces to render key sites useless. This will be a one night's stand. The Shiia will cry foul however the Sunnis will complain loudly but privately will be pleased. VP Cheney will take the fall and retire early. Rice will be put forth as his replacement. Perhaps Cheney will go to DOD and Rumsfield will be retired and sent to the "farm." RBT

Posted by: rocketsbrain at March 21, 2006 01:20 AM (bU5l0)

26 The success in Iraq now is due to a trained Iraqi police force and army. No one could keep the original Iraq army together with Baathist officers and conscripted soldiers. It's no one's fault Iraq security had to be rebuilt from the ground up in a process that takes years instead of months.

Posted by: dvorak at March 21, 2006 02:18 AM (BX3ky)

27 Including more ground troops whould have had practical consequences. They would have to come from somewhere. The reserves are already strained to the breaking point. Do we keep troops in theater until the end of hostilities or rotate them out? Do we reduce our commitments in other areas to provide troops to Iraq? It's easy to say more ground troops are needed, it's a different matter to provide them. The general on the ground has the responsibility to to say what they would like to have but it is the secretaries job to consider the global logistical picture. To criticize the US performance in this war is unfair and uninformed. By historical standards the casualty rate is the lowest ever. The real problem is that that the war didn't end before the commerical break. Nothing a person can do is perfect and it is trivially easy to harp on inevitable flaws especially in war where you have a living thinking enemy who can react and adapt to your tactics.

Posted by: anonymous at March 21, 2006 02:50 AM (SNkm5)

28 Before US troops can leave Iraq certain things have had to happen: 1) A new Iraqi government has to form 2) The new government has to form compentent military and police forces. These things can not be accomplished instantly. While these were going on the US troops went methodically through the country pacifying one area and then moving on to a new area. Because it was done one area at a time it seemed that the US was in constant combat and the selective reporting by the media which reported combat but failed to report the "peace" gave the false impression that the resistance was intense simultaneously throughout the country. The US performance was surperb not flawed, and it is comical to think that any of the critics could have done a better job.

Posted by: anonymous at March 21, 2006 03:03 AM (SNkm5)

29 I appreciated Rusty's thoughts, and those of the commenters. Two cents here: The low casualty rates Brooklyn cites really are unprecedented, especially considering the lethality of the enemies -- and friendlies -- in Iraq. I reckon a considerable amount of credit for that low rate should go to Rumsfeld's transformation push, which improved communication among units, increased lethality, and reduced headcounts. Fewer, more lethal and better-informed soldiers -- seems a good way to reduce casualties. Cause-and-effect, I guess. And a few cents more: The Department of Defense is more properly called the Department of War. Soldiers don't join up to hide behind a defensive wall, but to go out and kill our enemies. War is killing, baldly put. As Secretary of Defense, Don Rumsfeld should I think be judged first and foremost [and I find it surprisingly hard to say this, but...] first and foremost by how effectively his soldiers kill. In crudest terms: how many of theirs to how many of ours. By that measure, the low U.S. casualty rate speaks for itself. It's a strong indicator of Rumsfeld's fitness to serve as Secretary of Defense. Iraqi reconstruction, civil affairs, diplomacy -- these all seem to me mere adjuncts of the mission of the Secretary of Defense. They should not be critical to our evaluations of his fitness. And of course many of these labors are directed by other government departments, such as the State Department. So credit and blame where it's due, is all I'm saying. (And that applies to the President as well, since he, rather than Rumsfeld, made the executive decision for war.) Maybe one more cent: One might ask, "What if full-blown civil war someday engulfs Iraq, and even the greater Middle East? How then would you rate Rumsfeld's fitness to serve?" To which I'd say, so long as the chaos does not bloody our shores, or kill many of our military personnel abroad -- in that case I think the chaos shouldn't weigh heavily against the Secretary of Defense. In the final analysis he works for *US*, and us only. Agree / disagree / renoberate?

Posted by: Tex at March 21, 2006 03:12 AM (U2XeS)

30 Being a public servant is not a picnic. Rumsfield is not doing it for the money and he is not doing it for his health. He is making a tremendous sacrifice and his reward is to be misquoted, misunderstood and vilified by the press. The headline: "It's time to fire Rumsfield" is just one more example of a smarmy self important pundit criticizing his betters. Rumsfield deserves better than that for his sacrifice and the superb job he has done.

Posted by: anonymous at March 21, 2006 03:30 AM (tQpsl)

31 Rummy Stays. Don't make me call Chuck Norris on you.

Posted by: Filthy Allah at March 21, 2006 04:46 AM (AvsR8)

32 I have to agree with a couple people who have made a very valid point. While everyone is laying blame at the feet of the war planning, the one thing we have bitched and moaned about constantly is the massive amounts of misinformation, leaks and sometimes outright lies by the MSM. What Rumsfeld and others have failed miserably at is communication. While the MSM ran amok forming people's opinions for them, nothing was done. They were further emboldened and became more shrill over time because STILL no one countered their agenda driven reports. And we've been in nearly complete agreement that this has been a dream come true for the terror groups. Have we forgotten bin Laden's item by item iteration of DNC talking points? Haven't we all agreed, wholeheartedly, that the silence of the administration has been the biggest failure? Haven't we all said at one time or another that we're wondering if in fact they WANT to fail by doing nothing to counter all the bullsh*t? Rusty, you yourself have said over and over that without the support of the public wars are lost in spite of meticulous planning and execution. Bloggers have almost singlehandedly fought the information front of the war. It's not enough. And now we want to throw Rumsfeld under the bus?

Posted by: Oyster at March 21, 2006 07:14 AM (YudAC)

33 I think we can all agree -- on both sides of the Iraq question -- that you can't get good results by running a department through intimidation and "groupthink." Rumsfeld ignored the generals, and cowed them, at all our peril. The real shame is the lack of accountability in the present government. From Tenet to Rummy to Franks to Bremer to Feith and Cambone and on and on, not one person who orchestrated the failure of Bush's (in my opinion unneccessary) Iraq invasion policy has been forced to step down. The only people forced out were those who correctly assessed the troop strength we would have needed to pull off a successful occupation. Cheers, Dr. R.

Posted by: JoyReid at March 21, 2006 07:58 AM (o1EiK)

34 I think it is a bit naive to claim the problem is merely one of communications. After all, Torie Clarke was the Office Director for Hill & Knowlton in New York. I think she understands communications. Rummy is no novice to the game either. You simply can't reconcile the statements made before, during and since the invasion. The fact is while American casualties have been relatively low (over 2,300 dead and over 16,000 wounded), it is certainly nothing to cheer about. There is also the now-documented fact that PTSD is rearing its ugly head and can likely be expected to manifest itself in 20% or more of the returning troops. The costs of this debacle have yet to be totaled, but we know they are currently running around 215 Billion spent with at least another 65 Billion for FY2006. Before this is over we are looking at 1 Trillion bucks. It is humorous, in an ironic sort of way, to hear people describe Rummy as a "straight talker"... it just proves how masterful he is at obfuscation. Sure, his sentences make sense syntactically, but semantically they bear little or no relation to the question he is "answering" with his tirade. The most recent example is his comparing our departure from Iraq to a hypothetical retreat from Germany. When Kissinger and Brzezinski call that nonsense... it probably is. Pretending the problem is merely one of perceptions is fine if you want to create your own reality, but even Torie Clark knows that ain't so...after all, look at the title of her new book: Lipstick on a Pig : Winning In the No-Spin Era by Someone Who Knows the Game If you honestly think the problem is one of communications, then I would suggest someone might want to share Torie's first piece of advice with Rummy, and the president as well.... "Deliver bad news yourself, and when you screw up, say soÂ—fast!" Until they grasp the importance of honesty, debating whether Rumsfeld is the next man tossed overboard or not is about as meaningful as rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic while the captain decides to stay the course -- in spite of all the warnings. = You can't fix stupid.

Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at March 21, 2006 08:21 AM (YU6U4)

35 Wow! did I miss this topic by going to bed early last night! Myself and others wanted him fired 2 years ago - but kept it muted because 1) we agreed with the overall reasons and principals behind the war, and 2) it would only give ammunition to the opposition. I would love to tear into Rumsfeld and voice my complaints - but the only thing that would achieve here is give the opposition an erection - they can play with themselves - I'm not going to help them.

Posted by: hondo at March 21, 2006 08:31 AM (9pQ6D)

36 hondo says: I would love to tear into Rumsfeld and voice my complaints - but the only thing that would achieve here is give the opposition an erection - they can play with themselves - I'm not going to help them That's a perfect example of why this is a problem. Until you honestly discuss mistakes made, it is impossible to benefit from any lessons learned. If you are so afraid of honest reflection because it will "give ammunition to the opposition" let me assure you of two things: 1) the opposition already knows there's a problem (that's why they are the opposition) 2) you don't need to worry about giving the opposition ammunition when you are busy shooting yourself in the foot.

Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at March 21, 2006 08:39 AM (Yl9Ux)

37 Er, asshole ... If your going to quote me ... do it verbatim! The two lines directly above say it all ... especially #1 comment! That is KEY to the problem between us - everthing else is just noise.

Posted by: hondo at March 21, 2006 08:58 AM (9pQ6D)

38 But if Rumsfeld and the Pentagon have learned their lesson, then aren't we admitting that they screwed up somewhere along the road? And if someone screwed up, shouldn't they be held accountable? And if that someone turns out to be Donald Rumsfeld--as I believe it probably is--then why hasn't President Bush fired him? Every war in human history can be described as a series of errors. The winner of the war is the side that makes fewer errors, of smaller magnitude, and learns more from the errors it does make. It has always been thus. More importantly, it will always be thus. This is due to the nature of war- two sides developing conflicting objectives and trying to achieve them, while simultaneously trying to determine the objectives of the other side and doing whatever can be don to prevent the other party from achieving them. This is inherent in the nature of warfare. Do not expect perfection of anyone involved in planning or executing any combat operation of any scale, you will always be disappointed. A lot of the time, what people in that situation are forced to do is to choose between choiced of varying badness, with nary a 'good choice' in sight. Judging Rumsfeld by historical standards, rather than in comparison to an ideal war that has never been achieved in human history, the man comes off rather well. As the Instapundit noted recently: "ANOTHER "GRIM MILESTONE" IN IRAQ? Three years of cumulative casualties equal one month's worth from Vietnam." I have some Viet Nam veterans in my family. They all have very deep respect for Mr. Rumsfeld's accomplishment, and I'd bet my paycheck that they all wish he'd run that war, too. As far as the 'information war' is concerned... we have to face reality here. The MSM is not on our side, and they're not going to join our side. So the current administration has to decide between 1) calling the MSM on it (aka 'questioning their patriotism'), 2) setting up a 'Department of Propaganda' to get their side of the story out, or 3) ignore them, and hope alternative media will take up the slack. Options 1) and 2) are politically unappealing for various reasons. ...and finally, to the critics: it is not enough to say "X should have been done better". Anyone can do that, it's easy, especially with the benefit of hindsight. Instead, try saying "We should have done Y instead of X". Then we can evaluate your proposals, compare them to the alternatives, and decide which we like better.

Posted by: rosignol at March 21, 2006 08:59 AM (ofA/v)

39 Bush Disagrees that Iraq in Civil War (Reuters)- It is clear that Rumsfeld would also agree with this disagreement, therefore we should agree to disagree about this disagreement or are you disagreeing to agree since Bush obviously would also disagree with your agreement and therefore Rumsfeld would also agree with Bush while disagreeing with this purportedly insightful agreement?

Posted by: Holy Mole at March 21, 2006 10:17 AM (27NBf)

40 first to hondo: you want to be rude, that is your choice. I did quote you verbatim. If you don't know what the word means, you shouldn't use it. ------ to rosignol, who said: ...and finally, to the critics: it is not enough to say "X should have been done better". Anyone can do that, it's easy, especially with the benefit of hindsight. Instead, try saying "We should have done Y instead of X". Then we can evaluate your proposals, compare them to the alternatives, and decide which we like better I have two responses..one for each of your comments. First, the criticism of invading Iraq BEFORE we invaded was pretty widespread. I said BEFORE we invaded that using Iraq as a "test case" (the President's words not mine) for the Bush Doctrine (the colloquial name for the NSS of 2002) was a mistake for the following strategic reasons: 1) It discounted the economic impact of protracted war. 2) It disdained the diplomatic imperative of alliances in a nuclear age. 3) It disregarded intelligence that did not support the policy. 4) It disrespected seasoned military commanders with combat experience. That's a lot of fundamental problems. I was not the only one saying that. In fact, there were a number of people who criticized this adventure as a major distraction from an unfinished job in Afghanistan. Including the following: Gen. Clark (Supreme Allied Commander, NATO) Gen. Hoare (Commander in Chief, U.S. Central Command) Gen. Schwartzkopf (Commander in Chief, U.S. Central Command) Gen. Scowcroft (National Security Advisor) Gen. Shalikashvili (Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff) Gen. Shelton (Chairman, Joint Chiefts of Staff) Gen. Shinseki (Army Chief of Staff) Gen. Jones (Marine Commandant) Gen. McPeak (Air Force Chief of Staff) Gen. Zinni (Commander in Chief, U.S. Central Command) I summed up their concerns by saying: The only generals in favor of invading Iraq Were General Electric, General Dynamic, and General Technologies. ------ Your second point is one I agree with. I have always made it clear that someone shows up in my office with a problem, they better at least have a suggestion for a solution. Here's my response to your second point: A lot of people (myself included) were arguing for aggressive inspections by UNMOVIC and IAEA to buy time for coalition building. After all, UNMOVIC uncovered and destroyed more WMD than either Desert Storm or the current adventure. Of course that route would have its costs. So let's assume we had paid the entire tab for both UNMOVIC and the IAEA's global operations for the last three years.... as a way to bribe folks into joining our coalition. What would that have cost and where would we be now? The total annual budget for UNMOVIC was about $60 Million. The total annual budget for the IAEA's global operations was a lot more, about $260 Million. So... let's do the arithmetic: $260,000,000,000.00 (three years of OIF) - 180,000,000.00 (three years of UNMOVIC) - 780,000,000.00 (three years of IAEA) =259,040,000,000.00 (NET SAVINGS) In other words, we could have saved about 99.75% of our money and: Kept the global support we enjoyed on September 12th. Not lost any troops. Not overextended our Army. Not emptied our treasury. Without providing propaganda bonanzas for islamic fanatics. Oh and I forgot.... Saddam would still be boxed in. Here's the bad news. We are going to be stuck there for at least another decade. Do the math. It doesn't matter how you monkey with the numbers this war is going to be more expensive than Vietnam. Which is kind of ironic given the current crop of leaders came in saying they were going to run government like a business. Which brings me back to Rumsfeld. Imagine if Donald Rumsfeld was a CEO and he went to a board of directors with takeover artists like Gates, Buffett, Branson, Turner, Icahn, and Trump and suggested a hostile takeover of a cash strapped competitor flush with assets... And they all said "Don't do it because...." you will bleed the cash reserves dry. you will damage our credit rating . you will drop our stock value . you will damage strategic partnerships. you will create a new class of competitors. you will alienate your workforce. you will trash our brand identity. Imagine if he ignored them and everything they predicted happened? I wonder if folks would hold him accountable for his foolishness. ---- Finally, let me reiterate the distinction between Afghanistan and Iraq and repeat what I said to hondo quite awhile ago when he asked the (apparently rhetorical question): Hondo asks: Then why are we even bothering in iraq or Afghanistan? My response then and now is the same:

Good question.

Afghanistan... because the failed regime turned into a launching pad for international terrorists that attacked us. When we demanded they hand over the perpetrators, they refused. We invaded with the support of virtually every country in the world, including Iran, Cuba, Libya, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, China and Russia. The realization of that threat to international stability was why central asian countries like Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and others allowed us to set up military bases for operations. The opposition to that invasion was extremely muted. Congressional approval was virtually unanimous. Even Quakers went on record supporting it.

Iraq... There have been over 2 dozen reasons floated by this administration to justify the invasion. Now that the long predicted Civil War has begun, the only plausible reason left is to maintain control of oil contracts so they can be denominated in dollars not euros. In contrast to Afghanistan, opposition to this invasion was very vocal. About 1/3 of Democrats voted against it. Most of our allies refused to participate. Those who did have since cut back dramatically on their involvement. The consequence is the costs have spiraled out of control, we have damaged our standing around the world, we have stretched our military to the point that is no longer a credible deterrant. Gulliver has tied himself down and inflicted more damage on himself than anyone else could ever have done.

The worst part is the radical new doctrine of preemptive war has provided incentive for other nations to join together. The growing alliance known as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCo) demonstrates the US will soon be confronting a political/economic/military alliance that it cannot defeat.

The pending admission of Pakistan and India to an alliance dominated by China demonstrates how the Bush Doctrine has successfully driven countries that are normally at each other's throats into each other's arms. The rise of SCO will mark the end of American hegemony as it will consist of 4 nuclear powers (with a 5th pending), 2 major oil producers, 2 major gas producers, 1/2 the world's population, and a land mass from the Baltic to the Pacific, the Arctic to the Indian Ocean.

Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at March 21, 2006 10:37 AM (IREfg)

41 backgr0und n015e, you are remarkably astute

Posted by: Holy Mole at March 21, 2006 10:44 AM (27NBf)

42 My ha' penny: Rumsfield stays. He's not perfect but he's good enough. Don't fire anybody. Instead, hire more people. Hire people to get out the message, strongly and emphatically, that we will not lose this war, we cannot lose this war. No WMD's found? Get over it. Rumsfield was wrong on how the war in Iraq would develop once the invasion stage was complete? Get over it. Haven't located Osama bin Laden yet? Get over it. Past misteps and tactical blunders? Get over them. We must win. We will win. We cannot lose this war.

Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at March 21, 2006 11:22 AM (aH6Zf)

43 "I think it is a bit naive to claim the problem is merely one of communications." This is what I find so tiring. I never said that. I never implied that. But don't let that stop you, Background Noise, from implying it first and foremost so you can go on your long and drawn out dissertation to assert your superior stance. And then implying it a couple more times to hammer it home. I merely expounded on one point, a valid and verifiable point, out of many brought up here. Communications have been awful, from the administration to the MSM and the fact that little or nothing was done to counter misinformation or selective information put out by the MSM. I was speaking the the waning support of the public as an important factor and why. Instead you go off into left field and don't even counter that very point; your sole purpose being to discredit something I didn't even say. You seem to be having a difficult time in understanding what anyone says here on any and all subjects. Much of your debate is based on what you infer rather than what is said. So much so that you're led to argue every point made until someone stops arguing with you and points out that your condescending manner might be a barricade to understanding, at which point you deem them unworthy of your intellectual prowess and dismiss them as the problem. Frankly, I'm tired of it. So do us both a favor and dismiss me too as an unworthy adversary as you've already done with at least two other people. That'll leave you on top in your own mind, which seems to be your priority, and I will be done with you.

Posted by: Oyster at March 21, 2006 12:34 PM (g9UJq)

44 Ms. Background Noise does indeed make a lot of noise. Just to put the harridan down: > 1) It discounted the economic impact of protracted war. Look out your window. See the children begging in the street? No? Right. Economy's going gangbusters. Subtext: You're delusional. > "The only generals in favor of invading Iraq..." ...were irrelevant to the political decision. It's called civilian government, whom we elect. Subtext: You had your chance Nov. 2004. Dems blew it. Go claw Dean's eyes out. > "...aggressive inspections by UNMOVIC..." ...amuse tyrants the world over. More efficient inspections are performed by another agency you might have heard of: the USMC. Nothing inspects naughty spots quite like a Javelin. > "...Saddam would still be boxed in." And given he lives in a iron box *today*... Subtext: You don't know when to stop using an inadvisable metaphor. > "We are going to be stuck there for at least another decade." Garrison: n. ( OFr. garir, "to watch" ) -- "troops stationed in a fort". See South Korea, Roman Empire, Escape from New York. > "Even Quakers went on record supporting [the invasion of Afghanistan]." As did the Southern Baptists. But unlike Quakers, SBs don't lose themselves in fits of trembling, shouting, dancing, shaking, and speaking in tongues. Also unlike Quakers, they're allowed to have sex -- which might explain above. It also explains why there are only 4 -- *four* -- Quakers in the U.S. today. (Sabbathday Lake, Maine, if you're planning a shaky-quaky sleep-over. And are you, Ms. Noise? Remember, no sex.) "shaky-quaky sleep-over": my work here is done. :-b

Posted by: Tex at March 21, 2006 01:32 PM (U2XeS)

45 Oyster's statements: 1. "What Rumsfeld and others have failed miserably at is communication." 2. Haven't we all agreed, wholeheartedly, that the silence of the administration has been the biggest failure? 3. And we've been in nearly complete agreement that this has been a dream come true for the terror groups. Background Noise' statement:""I think it is a bit naive to claim the problem is merely one of communications." Oyster's retort: "This is what I find so tiring. I never said that." My statement: You didn't?

Posted by: Mark at March 21, 2006 01:33 PM (UHKaK)

46 Rummy is old and I understand he has a catheter attached to a piss bag that is strapped to his ankle.

Posted by: The Liberal Avenger at March 21, 2006 02:39 PM (kgBuS)

47 The return of the Libtard Amoeba! did you finish coloring with your chunky Crayola's? He has a catheter? damn, well at least he can empty it himself -- and doesn't need mommy to pull off his Depends during blogging sessions in the basement, eh Libtard?

Posted by: davec at March 21, 2006 02:55 PM (CcXvt)

48 Tex... Thank you for flaunting your ignorance. Heroic Dreamer.... you need to wake up and smell the coffee. Maybe words of wisdom from a younger, and wiser, Donald Rumsfeld will help you get the point: Plan backward as well as forward. Set objectives and trace back to see how to achieve them. You may find that no path can get you there. Beware when any idea is promoted primarily because it is Â“bold, exciting, innovative and new.Â” There are many ideas that are Â“bold, exciting, innovative and new,Â” but also foolish. Beware of the argument that Â“this is a period for investment; improvements will come in the out years.Â” The tension between the short term and long term can be constructive, but there is no long term without a short term. Arguments of convenience lack integrity and inevitably trip you up. If you are lost -- climb, conserve, and confess. -- U.S. Navy SNJ Flight Manual === Oyster, It would be unfair to lump you in the same pile as the jesusland boys... they're bigots. That's one reason why I dismiss them. If you want to argue the problem is misinformation, leaks and lies... that's fine. I would agree with you on that. You want to talk about misinformation, lies and leaks -- let's go to the source. Unfortunately, I don't think you can hang that albatross around the neck of MSM. They may have been complicit, but they are not the source. They reported what Rumsfeld, Bush , Cheney, Powell, Rice, et al. said. Pretending that the MSM was able to run roughshod over these people because no one advanced the administration's point of view is hard to swallow. That's why I take issue with your criticism pointing to communications as a problem. Focusing on communications... whether merely the problem, mostly the problem, or largely the problem ... misses the point that people are abandoning the president because of the growing divide between what people in this administration say and what actuallly is happening. Bush knows it. At today's press conference he kept referring back to the comment about the woman in Cleveland, a former supporter of his, who said "He's lost me." Here's why: Bush's strengths have been Commitment Clarity Consistency Credibility If you go back and look at why people voted for him over Kerry and just look at those "Personal Qualities" .... that accounts for about 80% of his support. People who picked those qualities as MOST important voted overwhelmingly for Bush. He's still committed. He's still clear. He's still consistent. The woman in Cleveland represents the reason his numbers have tanked. He has lost credibility. That is not something you can pin on the MSM. When General Electric is simultaneously the largest contractor in Iraq and majority owner of NBC, it's hard to claim they are badmouthing the war in Iraq by putting out lies and misinformation that undermines people's confidence. Shooting the messenger is the same sort of revisionism you hear about Vietnam. Lots of people like to rewrite history and say Walter Cronkite turned America against the war in Vietnam. Nonsense. He reflected public opinion, but he did not lead it. His first comments questioning the likelihood of success came almost a month after Tet. At that point, McCarthy was only polling about 11%. Even with all the protesters at the convention in Chicago, McCarthy didn't get the nomination and Nixon beat Humphrey in the general election. The real turning point came with the release of the Pentagon Papers three years later. Then, like now, the issue was credibility.

Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at March 21, 2006 03:02 PM (7b75u)

49 Background Noise: I do get your point...your point is to make background noise - blah, blah, blah - like a leaf blower - freeway traffic - cement mixer - road construction - long, very long, comments going nowhere special, quotes and misquotes, out of context, unnecessary, boring ... so no discussion can result.

Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at March 21, 2006 03:17 PM (aH6Zf)

50 Seems plain that Background makes his observations, supports them with a line of reasoning that can be followed, if not neccessarily agreed upon, and makes conclusions that are consistent with his previous lines of reasoning. It's the fragmented babblings and non sequitirs of the Heroic Dreamers of the blogosphere that make rational discourse all but impossible.

Posted by: Mark at March 21, 2006 03:40 PM (UHKaK)

51 dream on noise The topic served up was an openning for you - but all you have is the same song - you just do minor adaptations to fit the moment and hope it sells - We will see - the only polls that count are the one's done on the first Tuesday's in November.

Posted by: hondo at March 21, 2006 03:40 PM (9pQ6D)

52 Â“Â….you go to war with the Army you haveÂ… not the Army you might want or wish to haveÂ…..Â” ~Donald Rumsfeld Just what Â“rabbitÂ” were we to pull out of the hat in order to achieve the overwhelming force as called for by the Powell Doctrine? The high water mark for US military power in terms of sheer numbers in the last 30 years was 1990, just in time for the First Gulf War. All branches of the military saw dramatic reductions in force levels during the 90s. The Army itself went from 19 divisions to 10 by the time President Bush took office. Granted the first Bush Administration recommended the Army to be reduced to 12 divisions after Desert Storm, it was the Clinton Administration that opted for an even smaller force. The number of divisions committed to Desert Storm was 10. In 2003 that was the entire US Army. YouÂ’re not advocating committing the entire US Army to one theatre of operations, are you? Bottomline, there simply wasnÂ’t enough Â“bootsÂ” to begin with. Those two extra divisions that Clinton cut out would have come in handy then and now, donÂ’t you think? It is simply ironic that Senator Clinton has put forward a proposal to add 40,000 troops to the Army, the very troops her husband cut out in the first place. Also forgotten is the fact that combat readiness went out the door during the Clinton Administration and the first order of business for the new Bush Administration became to bring the existing units back up to Â“snuffÂ”. A process that was just underway when 9/11 happened. Given the available force at the time of the liberation of Iraq, it is remarkable that it went, and continues to go, as well as it did. Â“Amidst all the clutter, beyond all the obstacles, aside from all the static, are the goals set? Put your head down, do the best job possible, let the flak pass, and work towards those goals.Â” ~Donald Rumsfeld I for one vote for Rumsfeld to stay.

Posted by: Tarnsman at March 21, 2006 03:47 PM (DkkHZ)

53 Yeah, Tarnsman, we all read the WSJ article. And if you knew something other than what you learned yesterday, you'd know the Powell Doctrine alone did not call for overwhelming force; this was accepted doctrine in the armed forces throughout the 70s, 80s and 90s. And military downsizing began in earnest during the first Bush presidency under Defense Secretary Cheney, not during the Clinton presidency. Yes, Powell supported overwhelming force; he also supported a much larger follow up to keep the peace tha had been won...upwards of 400,000 peacekeeprs as opposed to tropps. Know your facts!

Posted by: OyOy at March 21, 2006 04:07 PM (UHKaK)

54 I too would like to know the real reason we are in Iraq. I think the oil contracts are a very big part of that reason. I also think there is another. I am just not sure what it is.

Posted by: Leatherneck at March 21, 2006 04:13 PM (D2g/j)

55 Following up on Oyster's thoughts, re: poor communication: It looks like the State Department, under Rice's command, is now being forced into much improved field diplomacy and communication, as colorfully commented by Ralph Peters: http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/62028.htm J. R. Dunn calls this "transformational diplomacy" (official policy name?) in his multi-part essay, "Prospects of Terror: An Inquiry into Jihadi Alternatives": http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5345 "Transformational diplomacy": a nice label for the frog-march of our wine-stained European diplomats into the most dangerous (and wine-free) corners of the Earth. :-)

Posted by: Tex at March 21, 2006 05:10 PM (PGzrn)

56 I agree with 8ackground noise! Democracy has been rendered unpalatable by our misleader who hi-jacked the election process and demonstrated to the world what a fragile system democracy is that it can be bought by a green, tyrannical wannabe. His approach to spreading Democracy around the world is like trying to get a dog to come to you by beating it! We need sensible leadership that will work hard day and night trying to figure a way out of this mess even if it means missing a photo-op, golf game, 5-week war-time vacations, playing guitar with the old folks during hurricanes, or autistic basketball. http://votetoimpeach.org The world is my oyster! Round 'em up and rope 'em off!

Posted by: Thesaurus at March 22, 2006 10:59 AM (Y2ILH)

57 Someone wrote: I agree with 8ackground noise! Democracy has been rendered unpalatable by our misleader who hi-jacked the election process and demonstrated to the world what a fragile system democracy is that it can be bought by a green, tyrannical wannabe. Since I never said democracy was unpalatable (indigestible, inedible, disgusting,unpleasant,revolting,nasty,bad). It is hard for you to agree (concur,be of the same opinion, see eye to eye) with what I wrote. Thanks for sharing (giving,alloting,distributing) your opinion. == What's another word for Thesaurus?

Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at March 22, 2006 01:29 PM (+INRh)

58 Sorry Background noise. I didn't mean to misrepresent you. I like your viewpoints and think that we are in the same camp! This particular blog is vexed with a failure to communicate. That being said let me fly loose with my repeated diatribe: Round 'em up and rope 'em off! Oh, and while we're at it go to http://www.votetoimpeach.org to impeach the chimp that went in with brawn instead of brains to force-feed Democracy to the unwilling. Thesaurus = namwarts

Posted by: Thesaurus at March 22, 2006 02:25 PM (Y2ILH)

59 Yes, I too believe Thesaurus and Background Noise to be in the same camp. Everyone here knows what camp that is.

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 22, 2006 05:30 PM (rUyw4)

60 Thesaurus, I will say this for Jawa ...while it has its share of whack jobs there is at least an effort by some to address issues with substance. Moreover, they are not prone to banning people because they can't tolerate blasphemy against Party Doctrine. That is certainly more than you can say for RedState or Townhall or even LittleGreenFootballs which has had to close its registrations to protect its orthodoxy from being overrun by the "reality based" world.

Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at March 22, 2006 06:17 PM (K5Ko+)

61 Let me make myself as clear as I possibly can. Information that flows from the MSM to the public often bears little resemblance to what was communicated to them from the administration as it is spun and riddled with opinion. Yes, this happens from both sides, but predominately from the leftists in the media. Often the administration does nothing to counter what misinformation gets communicated to the public by the MSM. The MSM has done a fabulous job of telling us of every bit of bad news and of every drop of blood spilled. By their own admission we were told bluntly "unfortunately the bad news makes the headlines". Is this an admission that they cannot control this? Is this an admission that good news or positive occurrances are not what they wish to disseminate to the public? There are many people, who by reading only MSM accounts, are under the impression that you cannot walk down a street anywhere in Iraq without getting your head blown off. This is simply not the case. At least 90% of Iraq is quiet and people are rebuilding and living their daily lives. We wouldn't know this without the few freelance writers willing to go there and see for themselves. The MSM focuses on that 10% of the country almost to the exclusion of the rest. If no one else sees any of this as a problem, fine. It IS part of the problem. That's all I was saying. When I say "I am tired" Here is what I mean: Background: "If you want to argue the problem is misinformation, leaks and lies... that's fine." I clarified this as "part" of the problem. "I would agree with you on that." Thank you. But again, "part" of the problem. It has an enormous impact on public opinion. "You want to talk about misinformation, lies and leaks -- let's go to the source." I did. The administration is the source of much of it. Their communication or lack thereof has been awful. I said so. You then countered with Torie Clark's credentials. "Unfortunately, I don't think you can hang that albatross around the neck of MSM." Yes, I can and I do. " They may have been complicit, but they are not the source. They reported what Rumsfeld, Bush , Cheney, Powell, Rice, et al. said." "May have been complicit?" This is where I have the biggest problem. The op-ed sections, in particular, take what is said and spin it out of control. Even the "reporting" section twists this information with horribly misleading headlines, continue this theme with the first half dozen paragraphs, then bury the crux of the matter in the continuation of the story on page A-6. Often, if they didn't actually label the op-ed section as such, you couldn't tell the difference between it and the front page. Look at the airtime and publication space given to Cindy Sheehan, Jack Murtha, and every other opponent of the administration and compare that to airtime and publication space given to those who support it. Look at the airtime and publication space given to republican corruption and compare it to airtime and publication space given to democrat corruption. Look at the airtime and publication space given to bad news coming out of Iraq and compare it to airtime and publication space given to good news coming out of Iraq. I won't go on. Mark: No. It was not my intention. We have a lot more problems in Iraq, logistically, tactically and otherwise, than just communication. I said I was addressing that issue as an important one. Not to imply that it was the only problem. But it plays a vast role in forming public opinion which is in turn used by the enemy to great advantage. It is also used as fodder for some to write to their representatives demanding withdrawal. These representatives in turn continue to undermine the administration, not just as is pertinent to the war, but in every single decision made in regard to everything from domestic issues to foreign policy. Whether or not it actually changes administration policy is another thing, but it does have an impact on it as we've seen from history. But guess who gets the most airtime. Few people doubt that the media plays a significant role in wars being won and lost. I wont say anymore about it. If I haven't made my thoughts clear, then it's the best I can do. Take what you will of it. I'm done.

Posted by: Oyster at March 23, 2006 07:35 AM (YudAC)

62 Oyster, I agree with your general thrust that the media distorts information. Where we disagree is how that distortion is focused. Because of the tremendous explosion in media outlets, anyone arguing either your position or mine can point to evidence that supports their argument. I would point out that when you look how people rate professions for trustworthiness, etc. Journalists, politicians, and used car dealers are routinely at the bottom. I don't think Americans are fooled by journalists OR politicians ... at least I don't think they trust either very much. Having said that , it is impossible to ignore the David Caruso-like drop in popularity Bush has seen over the last few years. When bedrock conservatives like Buckley, Buchanan, Wills, and Rollins are abandoning ship...it's not because they are being manipulated by a liberal media. I think that the recent press conference really shows this problem in stark detail. There's no filter there. Just look at the White House transcript. Search for "Helen" and you will see the question, and the response. Three years into the war in Iraq, and the president cannot give a direct answer to a simple obvious question of why we went to war with Iraq. I've said it before.... Bush beat Kerry because he projected the following personal qualities: Commitment Clarity Consistency Credibility You don't have to look any further than that press conference to see he remains committed, clear, and consistent... but he has lost credibility. The President of the United States has to accept responsibility for that. Arguing the alternative is effectively saying he's right and 180 Million people (~60%) are wrong. If we were talking about vision... you might be able to make the argument by claiming he had better information than those people. But if you are arguing history... that's a lot harder to swallow.

Posted by: 8ackgr0und N015e at March 23, 2006 10:12 AM (9AVlt)

63 I'm for the Powell doctrine. But that's neither here nor there. How can you say you're transforming the Army into a lighter, faster, more agile Army, and then turn around and launch the largest recruiting campaign in history? The Army has its own video game and NASCAR for God's sake. Here's what's happening. Soldiers are getting out faster than they can be replaced. The primary reason is that our leaders (ahem, primarily Rumsfeld) has failed to acknowledge the numerous INTERNAL problems that the military deals with everyday.

Posted by: Rich at March 27, 2006 07:18 PM (0hzhL)

64 You wroted: "Nations aren't talked into military invasions, they join military coalitions because they believe it is in their national interests to do so." Dude! Do you realllllly still believe that? If you mean no ambassador-types approach a nation either by talking, writing, blackmail, insults, cajolationism, strategeristic persuasionistic stick/carrot wave/waggerism, sign-language or grain alcohol to join a military coalition; if you mean absolutely no sovereign entities present them with a sweet, sweet platterful of business opportunities, debt-forgiveness, sex, drugs and those pictures of Jenna Bush as a reward for their sacrifices of blood, sweat and so forth, then how do they presume to "believe" that joining a military coalition is in their "best interests"? Don't tell me. A thousand royal chimps sitting at a thousand gold-plated typewriters eventually produce.... Dude! Stop! You're killin' us!

Posted by: rabbit hole at April 14, 2006 10:31 AM (hCLe1)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

March 17, 2006

Something Fishy With this Poll: Plurality of Americans Want Bush Censured (UPDATED: Nope, I guess they don't!)

Critical UPDATE 3/17: A new Rasmussen poll has the numbers reversed! 45% opposed and 38% in favor of censure. A poll by the American American Research Group, released yesterday, had claimed that more Americans want Bush censured than didn't want Bush censured for alleged misdeeds committed in spying on suspected terrorists telephone calls. Is it possible the American people simply don't know what the word "censure" means?

Here is how Rasmussen worded the question:

Senator Russ Feingold has introduced a measure to censure, or publicly reprimand, President Bush for authorizing the NSA wiretapping program. Should President Bush be censured for authorizing the NSA wiretapping program?

Notice how the word "censure" is explained. In the ARG poll, it is not.

Dan Riehl has further analysis. My original post from yesterday in which I questioned the legitimacy of the poll is below. I said something was fishy, and I guess I was right!

------------------------- more...

Posted by: Rusty at 02:47 PM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 576 words, total size 4 kb.

1 oh god. Another non-scandal.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 16, 2006 05:33 PM (8e/V4)

2 Please, Republicans don't answer the phone and if they do they have hung up before the pollster get's through their first sentence. How many Republicans (like myself) are never polled because we have no home phone....... I look forward to seeing how wrong the polls are for the 06 elections

Posted by: Fred Fry at March 16, 2006 06:11 PM (HJnrm)

3 Newflash to these morons, Bush isn't running for reelection.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 16, 2006 06:15 PM (8e/V4)

4 Rusty Have any info on the potential and future impact on any kind of polling by those (like myself) who now depend solely on cell phones. I'm out of the loop on any kind of landline based polling/sales etc.

Posted by: hondo at March 16, 2006 06:24 PM (9pQ6D)

5 I LOVE THEY WAY THE QUESTION IS WORDED! I already know that if the wording on THIS question is altered - the results would do a 180!!!!! IS THAT IT? IS THIS ALL YOU GOT? I'd love to go the Censure Hearing" route on this - preferably a few months prior to the '06 elections! Please! Do it! Any wonder why the Dems sheepishly slithered away from this one. My God! Who's in charge over there? they really have no clue whose turn it is to wipe.

Posted by: hondo at March 16, 2006 06:40 PM (9pQ6D)

6 Does anyone ever take these wacko, fringe group polls serious?? Well, other than the Wackos!

Posted by: Mike at March 16, 2006 07:18 PM (2tRi8)

7 Wowser. Pixy Misa commented? This must be serious. ;-) Don't shoot me, just teasing. It's my understanding that the word "wiretapping" is inaccurate. And the question only addresses the fact that an American is on the phone. Not some scum sucking, American hating, got-my-citizenship-only-so-I-could-sue-someone, ACLU loving a**hole.

Posted by: Oyster at March 16, 2006 08:29 PM (YudAC)

8 Oyster! GAWD! THE LANGUAGE!

Posted by: hondo at March 16, 2006 08:45 PM (9pQ6D)

9 Hey! I drank wine tonight. I have an excuse. [burp]

Posted by: Oyster at March 16, 2006 08:59 PM (YudAC)

10 You go on with your bad self girl.

Posted by: Imprbulus Maximus at March 16, 2006 09:10 PM (0yYS2)

11 Oyster, I remember Pixy Misa coming in here one time with a gang of playful otters. Or is that herd of otters? Whatever, I can't even remember what we were talking about, but it might have been religion. She can eviscerate you if she wants to, I can tell you that. Oh, hi, Pixy Misa, how do you do?

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 16, 2006 09:45 PM (rUyw4)

12 And one more comment to fix my URL...

Posted by: Pixy Misa at March 16, 2006 10:03 PM (RbYVY)

13 I don't know what you find so hard to believe about 29% of Republicans wanting censure. It was your party that was saying for years the president is not above the law. It seems 29% of your base must believe it.

Posted by: Dick Tuck at March 17, 2006 03:13 AM (lZePN)

14 Too many people use poll results to help influence their own decisions. Those that do are intellectually lazy. I'm not saying anyone here is, but you get my drift. This poll question, in particular, was asked with an assumption that the people responding knew enough about the issue to answer knowledgeably. BTW: I commented on several threads last night after a wine tasting. I tend to get snarky when drunk. Do I owe anyone an apology?

Posted by: Oyster at March 17, 2006 06:46 AM (YudAC)

15 Maybe a lot of people didn't read the whole question - I think he should be censured, but for signing McCain-Feingold and for overseeing profligate spending.

Posted by: Glenmore at March 17, 2006 06:56 AM (loaB2)

16 This place is a scream. What a sewer. Your Dear Leader is spying on domestic calls without a warrant, between Americans. This isn't in dispute. But hey - cry about "poll bias" or whatever denial game you cultists play. It's just amusing to watch your sinking ship and the antics you go through in the process.

Posted by: Bud Grant at March 17, 2006 09:34 AM (/gcFd)

17 Can we realy trust any poll taken by the liberals anyway? polls like CNN/TIME AP/UPI and the rest of them are a little suspecious to me

Posted by: sandpiper at March 17, 2006 09:52 AM (D9h75)

18 Uh, Bud, we're all on the same ship. Sorry to be the one to break the bad news to you. And didn't you die, or at least retire? Whatever, get to bailing!

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 17, 2006 10:13 AM (rUyw4)

19 "This isn't in dispute." Yes it is.

Posted by: Oyster at March 17, 2006 11:21 AM (g9UJq)

20 A significant plurality of Americans can't spell "censure", much less explain what it is.

Posted by: Theocrat at March 17, 2006 12:44 PM (daAGo)

21 Boy! Now that's a winning strategy! I'm lovin' it! Oh! But you can spell it .... sooooo .... the message (claim) is ..... what exactly? Please! Pile on more of this winnin' formula!

Posted by: hondo at March 17, 2006 02:21 PM (9pQ6D)

22 I think I understand what Theocrat means. Start asking around to your colleagues what the word means and see how many are right. I'm sure it would depend on the environment one works in, but where I work we have a lot of double digit IQs and the first digit is "0".

Posted by: Oyster at March 17, 2006 02:26 PM (g9UJq)

23 Libtards like Bud can't seem to grasp that though he's entitled to his own opinion, he isn't entitled to his own facts. Jesus H., liberals are stupid.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 18, 2006 05:29 AM (0yYS2)

24 Thanks Rusty. When the pundits started quoting this poll over the weekend. Cokie Roberts, whom I like but she quoted it anyway, for example. I knew exactly which poll and how it was taken and how it was skewed. Rusty kicks ass no question.

Posted by: Howie at March 20, 2006 03:43 PM (D3+20)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Public Execution for Child Molesters

Kevin McCullugh and I see eye to eye on a lot of things. Public execution is not one of them. More and more of late I've been rethinking my stance on the death penalty. I'm for it in theory, but in practice, I'm not so sure.

Perhaps it's all the Taliban beheading videos I've been watching lately. The most recent one I watched features crowds of people being escorted by the mutilated bodies. They seem to enjoy it. There is something sickening about a culture that would find pleasure in the death of another human being--even when those human beings are disgusting criminals.

However, on another level, I find myself yearning to personally execute the human excriment who did this. WND:

The men and women who this week were arrested in association with the child porn sting carried out by the Justice Department should experience true justice. They should be dragged to Times Square in New York City, hands tied behind their backs, and their crimes should be announced to the packed square and an international TV audience. They should be given no more than two minutes to sort out their business with God.
And then ... they should go meet Him!
They should have their necks stretched, a bullet placed in the back of their heads, or a dozen bowling balls tied to their necks and dropped into the ocean. Or all three.

So, I'm conflicted.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:11 AM | Comments (25) | Add Comment
Post contains 247 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I see nothing wrong with publicly executing filth like this. That story so turns my stomache I would be more then glad to send them to their maker and face my time in court. But what I would do would not be quick, nor painless. To rape your own toddler and to broadcast it to others, he deserves more pain then I could inflict on him. If any one disagrees with me fine, welcome to the US, the land of open debate. An animal like that needs to be used as a lesson to others of it's kind, and no, 15 years in prison will not send a good enough message. Semper Fi Sean

Posted by: SPO at March 17, 2006 08:27 AM (OZn2O)

2 There are people that are just not fit to live. Public executions I think might be a real incentive NOT to be doing heinous things. There's always going to be people who enjoy watching, but I'm all for it. Take the scum that murdered Carlie Burcia. These kinds of murders seem to happen all the time. As a society, we need to make a statement that this will NOT be tolerated.

Posted by: Richard at March 17, 2006 09:00 AM (7KF8r)

3 I could agree with abolishing the death penalty, in exchange for a complete abortion ban. Stop killing the unborn, then we can stop killing the born.......

Posted by: n.a. palm at March 17, 2006 09:09 AM (UBf/U)

4 Hang 'em High. They deserve it.

Posted by: Palm Boy at March 17, 2006 09:28 AM (fcFPZ)

5 Child molsters should be removed far away from any kids very far away

Posted by: sandpiper at March 17, 2006 09:45 AM (D9h75)

6 As much as I believe the death penalty to be the strongest deterent to crime, for some death is too kind. As in this case. Don't kill them, then "they won't learn nothin'." Let their trial be "to the pain" (Inigo, you should know this one.) Put them in the nastiest prison in the country, in general population, and make sure everyone knows what they did to get there. Cause, cons hate a child molester as much as we do. Let them spend the rest of their days being utilized in the same fashion as they did their own child. They will surely die there, let their death be excruciatingly long and painful.

Posted by: Sly2017 at March 17, 2006 10:18 AM (UADHi)

7 I've come around to the idea that no one should have the type of control over a person's life that abortion and the death penalty have. BUT there must always be exceptions. Regarding abortion, if the mother's life is in danger, a choice has to be made. Regarding the death penalty, there are those people that are no more than rabid dogs, that are so obviously guilty, that have committed deeds so beyond forgiveness, that are so entrenched in their murderous philosophy that only the ground itself can rehabilitate them into something useful. Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler, Milosevic all fit that category, as I'm sure do others.

Posted by: Ernie Oporto at March 17, 2006 10:28 AM (/lpvu)

8 Wow. I would be totally against a public showing of brutality regardless of the crime. I'm a cautious supporter of capital punishment, but no where near to the degree of doing it publicly. It's exactly that sort of barbarity we fight against. While we may privately entertain the literal idea of an eye for an eye thinking that it simply rewards people with justice, in effect what we're doing is sacrificing one more part of what humanity we as civilized people have left. The execution of another person is a solemn occasion, not a sport.

Posted by: Oyster at March 17, 2006 10:48 AM (g9UJq)

9 Likewise Oyster, I agree with the death penalty, but public executions have always been valuable tools of the totalitarian Government to exercise control by fear, or a tool of religious authorities to exercise compliance, like the executions in Afghanistan soccer stadiums, beheadings in Saudi Arabia, hangings in Iran. It's a road I would not like to see opened.

Posted by: davec at March 17, 2006 11:06 AM (CcXvt)

10 'Zactly, Dave. I was thinking about this last night, but having been drunk, I can't remember if I commented on it ;-) A good friend of mine is in Kuwait City right now and last I spoke to him he said everyone was talking about the public hanging that was to occur in a few days time. Regardless of what it was for (in his case it was for possession of alcohol!) people were cheerful and planning for the day's outing to the execution. UGH! Does that give any idea of what kind of slippery slope this is?

Posted by: Oyster at March 17, 2006 11:58 AM (g9UJq)

11 It just makes me shake my head.

Posted by: Jack at March 17, 2006 12:30 PM (aFawc)

12 Tough subject. On the one hand I endorse the death penalty yet have no desire to see an execution so I suppose that makes me a hypocrite. I could and would witness one if the condemned had murdered a loved one though. I suppose if we have jury duty we should have hangman's duty as well, though the feeble and otherwise infirm would rightfully have to be excused. We wouldn't want Granny falling down the steps of the gallows now would we? On the other hand, I doubt the Public would flinch no more over a hanging or gassing or the chair or lethal injection than they would a violent, graphic movie. We shouldn't kid ourselves by thinking stoning or beheading is less humane because it takes longer. A good old fashioned firing squad is darn hard to beat in my books, though I don't think the family of the victim should be billed for the cost of bullets like is done in China.

Posted by: goesh at March 17, 2006 01:04 PM (vX0fY)

13 trial first ?

Posted by: john ryan at March 17, 2006 01:05 PM (TcoRJ)

14 I'm with Sly on this one. Let the scum spend the rest of their days picking up the soap that their new best friend Bubba dropped in the prison shower. Just before they slipped and hit their heads on the toilet. 17 times.

Posted by: CUS at March 17, 2006 01:34 PM (bbXZq)

15 (I hate these damn errors and my comment goes poof!) Goesh, I think you're trying to equate two very different things. There's a vast difference between Hollywood fantasy and and a public, real life execution. I'd even say there's a big difference between seeing a real execution on TV, or a Hollywood movie or actually attending. Three levels of immersion there. You know we have to think too about innocent family members and the damage it would do to them. -------------------------- And John Ryan, yes, of course - a trial first.

Posted by: Oyster at March 17, 2006 02:09 PM (g9UJq)

16 Dude, they frack children! I call for executions on pay per view, with a running man format, and Ann Coulter as host. Unless Richard Dawson wants the gig. Gawd, that would be sweet!

Posted by: Princess Kimberley at March 17, 2006 02:45 PM (9xjdU)

17 Not only execute these filthy humans, you must torture and execute their entire families as retribution. Thier mothers, fathers, children, cousins, everyone.

Posted by: Leatherneck at March 17, 2006 03:01 PM (p74Yq)

18 I give up.

Posted by: Oyster at March 17, 2006 04:11 PM (g9UJq)

19 Not only execute these filthy humans, you must torture and execute their entire families as retribution. Thier mothers, fathers, children, cousins, everyone. How far removed would you have to be to not get whacked, Leatherneck? As for the method of execution, the James Bond movies provide a ton of creatively gruesome possibilities. My favorites: Getting sliced in half by a high-powered laser, starting at the nuts (Goldfinger), getting dropped into a shark tank (The Spy Who Loved Me) or out of an airborne vehicle without a parachute (A View To A Kill), getting locked in a car that is then crushed into a cube (Goldfinger again, although in that case the guy was already dead), or, well, just about any actual or attempted offing done in Licence To Kill.

Posted by: Joshua at March 17, 2006 04:17 PM (2c7xL)

20 I think we all need to go back to hangings myself.. done right, it is quick and painless.. I'm guessing

not cruel and unusual.. maybe to someone watching.. charles manson would be one to hang, and any other child molesters who are guilty...

Posted by: The Other Dave at March 17, 2006 05:19 PM (o03mE)

21 Oyster: Slippery slope? Slippery slope?!?! There USED to be public executions in America and Europe, and I know of no accounts from those days of businesses involved in the rape of infants and children as entertainment for live audiences. The REAL slippery slope is that which makes it progressively less risky to engage in felonious activity, and I think we as a nation are nearing its bottom. My ideal punishment for these wastes of skin? Place them in small cages with their hands tied above their heads. Then allow the public to pay for the privilege of reaching in, metal spoon in hand, and ripping a chunk of flesh from their bodies. An eyelid. An eye. A flap of scalp wrapped in blood-matted hair. A lip. A scrotum, or a penis, or a testicle. A prostate extracted transrectally. And just to be equal opportunity, a labia majora, labia minora, or clitoris. A nipple. A length of intestine pulled out through the belly button. A set of vocal cords. A tongue pulled out through the hole where the vocal cords used to be. A heart, with double your money back if it's still beating. A chunk of lung pulled out from between the ribs. A length of muscle peeled from the bone. Hell, just a blob of belly fat. Anything anyone can imagine. And just for good measure, IV fluids will be administered to prolong life, and bleeding wounds cauterized with a blowtorch. There are some people whose existence ought not be tolerated by a civilized society, and child molesters are at the very top of that list.

Posted by: Guncrazy at March 17, 2006 08:48 PM (xtzF2)

22 Guncrazy: Are you seriously suggesting that 'public' executions would be much more of a deterrent than the ones they have now? 'oh no! someone might be mocking me and having a picnic while they're killing me'

Posted by: davec at March 17, 2006 10:58 PM (CcXvt)

23 "There USED to be public executions in America and Europe, and I know of no accounts from those days of businesses involved in the rape of infants and children as entertainment for live audiences." Don't put words in my mouth. And take note of the words "used to be". There's a reason for that. It's called civilization. You don't like "slippery slope"? Okay, how about "backslide"?

Posted by: Oyster at March 18, 2006 06:22 AM (YudAC)

24 McCullough twists the truth on the execution of Lincoln's assasins to make his point. If you have to lie to make an argument what does that say for the argument? The biggest problem that I have with executing criminals is the fact that the government does it. Every day blogs just like this one are filled with items about how badly government does things. I don't think a government that steals money from our pockets to fund a $255 bridge to nowhere is trustworthy.

Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at March 18, 2006 01:49 PM (oF7U/)

25 Right or wrong, my opinion is that these animals do not deserve to live among humans. Furthermore, although her physical wounds may heal, that child's soul has been shattered, irreparably. Long into her adult life (IF she allows herself to live, some victims do not!) she will have vague shadows of memory, or perhaps vivid memories of the pain, not to mention the loss of innocence, the absolute abandonment of trusting anyone to keep her safe. I don't have the answer, only my opinion, but I DO KNOW THIS - this is NOT what God had in mind for this child. I hope that she does not have to grow up in a world so sick that it allowed her father to get away with HIS life intact after this horrific act. As the mother of a victim of a sick tortured mind, I watched my daughter suffer every day for the rest of her life, even though she tried and tried to "understand" and "get past it". Violently molested at the age of 23 months, she took her own life at the age of 13. In her own words, "I know this is a permanent solution to a 'temporary' situation, but I'm just too damned tired to try even one more day." It was the day that her molester was paroled from prison, free as a bird... the end of any freedom she may have ever known. I say "hang the bastards!'

Posted by: Sandy at March 18, 2006 10:35 PM (f5Luo)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

March 15, 2006

I'm Still Voting McCain

After all is said and done, John McCain is still my candidate of choice. Why? Because he will do whatever is necessary to win the war on terror. That's the impression that I get, at least. While not my only concern, it is my greatest. If you look at John McCain's voting record, he's not nearly as 'liberal' as many on the Right seem to believe. And since I'm not really a Republican, it doesn't really bother me if he's 'loyal' or not. John Hawkins has a different take.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:05 AM | Comments (26) | Add Comment
Post contains 97 words, total size 1 kb.

1 It wouldn't be a total disaster if he won.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 15, 2006 09:17 AM (8e/V4)

2 Rusty, an intelligent informed guy like yourself single issue voting? Personally McCain scares the hell out of me. All kidding aside, I have this gut feeling that the man may be mentally unbalanced.

Posted by: traderrob at March 15, 2006 09:30 AM (3al54)

3 Me too, traderrob. I personally know one of the prisoners who spent 6 years in the Hanoi Hilton with McCain, and McCain has treated this man like a pariah. This one episode tells me all I need to know about this man's character.

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 15, 2006 10:00 AM (rUyw4)

4 Other than the fact that he's villified at every turn, what evidence is there that he's either unbalanced or has a lack of character?

Posted by: Rusty at March 15, 2006 10:07 AM (JQjhA)

5 Unbalanced? not sure, but irony would be the anti-torture bill he introduced to the house, shortly followed by his appearance on "24", a show made famous by plotlines of Government agents really torturing suspects, none of this pansy naked pyramid / panties on the head / barking dog torture -- we're talking knives, electric shocks, soldering iron, type of torture! I wanted Mccain to win over Bush, and was disappointed when he ran out of money, now I'm not so sure that is a bad thing.

Posted by: davec at March 15, 2006 10:17 AM (CcXvt)

6 Rusty, I don't want to reveal this man's identity, but he spent several years(6) as a POW in the Hanoi Hilton, knew John McCain very well as you might well imagine given their shared horrors, but has been treated shabbily by McCain. McCain has refused to meet him on numerous occasions, refused to help him when he ran for political office in another state as a Republican, and has generally disrespected this man who I believe to be a hero. I guess it's just a personal thing with me, but this episode has poisoned me against McCain.

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 15, 2006 10:22 AM (rUyw4)

7 Rusty...Please follow this url. They have up a huge piece on Sen. McCain. Personaaly I think he and my Sen. Rino Hagel were seperated at birth. http://www.rightwingnews.com/

Posted by: mag44_vaquero at March 15, 2006 10:40 AM (0OC6r)

8 I guess if it comes down to Hillary or McCain then, for me, it's a no brainer. But I'll still be holding my nose as I cast my vote.

Posted by: Oyster at March 15, 2006 11:40 AM (g9UJq)

9 Yesterday, Senator Russell Feingold (D-WI) introduced a Motion of Censure on the floor of the US Senate, to formally take Our Commander in Cheat to task for violating the Constitution and the law in his illegal domestic wiretapping program. Astonishingly enough, the main response from the Republican leadership (specifically, Dr. Bill "I've seen the videotape and in my medical opinion she's conscious" Frist) was they they couldn't support the motion on the grounds that -- and this is a direct quote -- "it would send the wrong signal around the world." This is the man, by the way, who wants to be the next Republican President of the United States. (READ MORE HERE: http://mattstover.blogspot.com/2006/03/so.html) None of these idiots seems to comprehend that invading a nation which has not attacked us, killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians (the current best estimate, which our Pentagon continues to suppress, is 25-30,000 Iraqi civilians died in the actual fighting, and the bump in overall death rate from all factors, comparing pre- and post-invasion, suggests that the invasion of Iraq was responsible, by the end of 2004, for 130,000 Iraqi civilian deaths. And we wonder why they hate us . . .), kidnapping innocent citizens of friendly nations and shipping them off without trial or even the faintest shred of evidentiary review to be tortured -- not to mention maintaining our own officially-sanctioned torture chambers in Cuba, Iraq and Afghanistan, and having an executive banch of government (Constitutionally charged with enforcing the our nation's laws) openly declaring that our nation's law does not apply to them . . . I mean, how much more wrong can our fucking signals get? Ahhh, anyway. Anyone still wondering about the actual legality of the domestic wiretap program might want to check out the details here: www.nybooks.com/articles/18650

Posted by: Cain at March 15, 2006 11:44 AM (i36qN)

10 barking moonbat alert!

Posted by: deranged moonbat at March 15, 2006 11:45 AM (8e/V4)

11 Rusty It's a wee bit too early - but generally I agree. I can support McCain without too much of a problem (Rudy fans! As a NY'er, he's a problem!). The MSM, Dems, and libs have a tendency and technique to "project" their beliefs and positions on others - then turn around and say - "See! even they agree with us! - so we must be right!". They do this with McCain - they do it with Powell etc. When the above attempt to correct or challenge it - it goes unreported - when their positions clearly don't match theirs - it goes under-reported. Its like a sales technique popular with used car salemen. McCain's a politician - he knows this - and often uses it to his advantage to "be out there" - its free PR. How he uses it and deals with it is an art - which he is only marginally good at based upon the reactions he get amongst Conservatives and other Republicans. Only time will tell - but rest assured - if he is the nomination in '08 - they will vilify him as a right-wing war-mongering gay/black hating woman-abusing reactionary who hates poor people and children (and puppies too).

Posted by: hondo at March 15, 2006 11:59 AM (9pQ6D)

12 McCain's been sitting on the fence so long he has developed crotch rot! I can't tell who's side he is on. An opportunist, he is on whatever side is in favor at the time.

Posted by: Crotch Rot at March 15, 2006 12:16 PM (Y2ILH)

13 EEEK! I don't want to settle for "not as liberal as you think". I want Ronald Reagan! I want General Patton! I want Don frackin' Rumsfeld! /seriously dislike McCain

Posted by: Princess Kimberley at March 15, 2006 12:23 PM (9xjdU)

14 Listen, I've been through 9 general elections now and each time a new one comes up I tell myself, "I'll never make it throught this one." But I do. And I'll get through this one too, without the heart attack I predicted I'd suffer from each time since 1972. What I've learned though is not to get all worked up too soon saving my energy for the final stretch. And this is too soon. So ya'll argue away. I'll watch. But the gloves are off beginning early in 2008.

Posted by: Oyster at March 15, 2006 12:35 PM (g9UJq)

15 Rusty: "villified at every turn" The man is absolutely adored by the press. Chrissy Mathews is positively orgasmic whenever he has him on. If Bush got half the press that McCain gets his approval would be at 60%. As I said the unbalanced thing is just a "gut feel" kinda thing. He has this weird look in his eyes I just can't put my finger on it. I've read several places that he is volatile and has a nasty temper but that wouldn't preclude him from anything in and of itself.

Posted by: traderrob at March 15, 2006 01:41 PM (3al54)

16 I mean he's villified by the Right--Limbaugh, etc. As far as I can tell he's much more conservative than Bush. I'm sorry, Bush is not a Conservative. McCain is a guy who once proposed aboloshing the Dept. of Education. His only big mistake seemed to be that stupid censorship bill of his.

Posted by: Rusty at March 15, 2006 02:08 PM (JQjhA)

17 Rusty Both are conservatives - different kinds - different degrees on various issues - but both conservatives (we all seem to have a problem recognizing the differences amongst ourselves too). Limbaugh (The Great) does not villify McCain - he mocks him. He does so because of McCain's active acceptance of the "projections" of the MSM upon him - and the gadfly role McCain clearly enjoys. I know - it's annoying - irks me too - but that's McCain's way of 'playing the game of politics" and keeping himself out front as an alternative to all on both sides.

Posted by: hondo at March 15, 2006 03:02 PM (9pQ6D)

18 He has more than a few black marks. The BCRA is a disaster and the torture ammendment is an undue restriction we really don't need right now. His spearheading the "Gang of 14" kneecapped two well qualified conservative judges (Henry Saad and Brett Kavanaugh) and his co-sponsorship of the McCain-Kennedy (Immigration) act illustrates anything but conservatism. The press loves him and for me that's the biggest red flag of all. It may all be academic anyway because I don't believe he can win the primaries. He certainly doesn't top my wish list, but bottom line I would vote for him over any Democrat he would potentially face.

Posted by: traderrob at March 15, 2006 03:25 PM (3al54)

19 Well, if the only choice in 2008 is the devil or the witch, I'll take the witch McCain over the devil Billary anytime. But I won't like it!

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 15, 2006 03:49 PM (rUyw4)

20 Filthy will be upset with us but I like him and will most likely vote for him unless a big ? changes my mind.

Posted by: Howie at March 15, 2006 04:25 PM (F72fF)

21 Come see why McCain is the man in 2008. http://blogsformccain.blogspot.com

Posted by: Blogs for McCain at March 15, 2006 04:25 PM (+0kbO)

22 If the choice were to be between Hillary or McCain, I'd swallow hard and vote for McCain. Here's the rub. I don't mean going back to the fallout over the DIDMCA of 1983. I have the creepy feeling that this guy associates with some pretty heavy hitters in select industries, building up chits to carry into campaign financing. The kind of industries where there are hundreds, if not thousands, of upper and medium level managers that can be induced to contribute to a political campaign based upon trying to please the corporate leaders of these industries through their contributions. Imagine the Savings and Loan industry. Being well connected in the industry means that one or two letters from top corporate officers could induce political contributions in the hundreds of thousands. How many S & L's are there? How many branch managers contributing $100.00 or $250.00 per person would it take to raise a million bucks? Do you even have an estimate of how many savings and loan, credit union, thrift offices there are in your state? Take a look at how McCain is leveraging between requirements by television and radio stations to give free advertising time to federal candidates--and his efforts to decrease the role of local ownership for radio and television stations, increasing the number of stations that can be owned by companies like Clear Channel. How many newspapers would love to own all the papers AND all the radio and television stations in their market? Don't think it's possible for a newspaper to own all the TV and radio stations in a market? Take a look at proposed McCain legislation on broadcast ownership. How can McCain be viewed as a populist when he works against the best interests of small mom & pop operators whose voices are those few remaining of the non-corporate, local community? McCain isn't just a Republican that talks about the Contract with America. He's also advancing his and his friends' commercial agendas. It might not be your agenda for commerce in the future. Your call.

Posted by: OregonGuy at March 15, 2006 05:08 PM (wzg5R)

23 Ha Ha Ha McCain starts to get a real look at by conservatives - and someone already is out there dusting off the Dem attack play book. S&L references? Oh I do remember! All those poor Democrats and MSM frantically scrambling to come up with a name (any Republican name) to take some of the heat off them at the time - and failing lamely with McCain.

Posted by: hondo at March 15, 2006 05:46 PM (9pQ6D)

24 Yer right, of course. It's the D's...like this link http://www.redstate.com/print/2006/3/15/181054/915 What makes a RINO a RINO?

Posted by: OregonGuy at March 15, 2006 06:21 PM (wzg5R)

25 McCain is a political chameleon who will betray whomever it is in his interest to betray, and to me would only be acceptable as an alternative to Hitlery, but not by much.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 16, 2006 05:40 AM (0yYS2)

26 WorldSex Daily Updated Free Links to Hardcore Sex Pictures, Movies, Free Porn Videos and XXX Live Sex Cams

Posted by: SEXMENS at April 06, 2006 09:23 PM (9q5sH)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

March 14, 2006

Planned Parenthood and Greenville Tech

Radical abortion rights activists help the students at Greenvill Tech celebrate 'herstory'--- which I hear is a lot like 'history', only with an all female prison run by a bull-dyke prison matron.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:16 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 42 words, total size 1 kb.

March 03, 2006

K.T McFarland to Challenge Hillary

Karol at Alarming News calls her the ultimate security mom. Sweet.

Posted by: Rusty at 03:45 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 21 words, total size 1 kb.

March 02, 2006

The AP Goes Dan Rather

Kevin Aylward reports that the author of the AP report which alleges that President Bush was warned about the possibility of a levy breach used to work at CBS's 60 Minutes II.

Now, Rob at Say Anything notices that the video was selectively edited to exclude footage of Dan Brown being asked whether more resources would be needed by Michael Chertoff. The transcripts show that Brown said no.

So, a major story breaks claiming Bush was warned but fails to mention the fact that the person warning Bush declined additional resources?

Dan Rather, eat your heart out. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 04:18 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 125 words, total size 2 kb.

25 Greatest Moments in U.S. History

That's funny. For some reason the election of Bill Clinton didn't make the list.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:39 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.

Citibank subsidizes mortgages to illegal aliens

Great. It's not bad enough that we won't do enough to discourage illegal immigration, we have to subsidize it as well. Brilliant.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:37 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.

February 28, 2006

Student Group Raffles AK-47

An independent student newspaper at Clemson University that last week published Danish cartoons of Muhammad is sponsoring a drawing this week for an AK-47 assault rifle, stirring some student and faculty protests. Bwahahahaaa!!

Posted by: Rusty at 11:43 AM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.

1 It sure is nice to know that not all of our young people live in an idealistic and Utopian world. I wonder if they are organized enough to take donations. These are kids that truly understand what this is all about.

Posted by: slug at February 28, 2006 12:09 PM (vQoK9)

2 I'd take either of those guns. Then have to have my mom help hide them back home because my father doesn't want guns in the house. I love the alarmist bit about the AK falling into the wrong person's hands. It's possible, but if it's really the wrong person, they're going to go find one on their own anyway.

Posted by: Ranba Ral at February 28, 2006 01:04 PM (GyNTD)

3 This will get TED KENNEDY,ROSIE ODONNELL,BILL AND HILLARY CLINTON, and the rest of the gun control wussies up in arms. Now i suggest they have a raffle for a UZI or a M-16

Posted by: sandpiper at February 28, 2006 01:57 PM (162Hn)

4 Raffle an AK????? What is wrong with this country! Doesn't anyone believe in Made In America anymore?

Posted by: hondo at February 28, 2006 02:35 PM (fyKFC)

5 I'm with you, hondo. Raffle a Socom, and I'll take the first ticket!

Posted by: jesusland joe at February 28, 2006 03:24 PM (rUyw4)

6 Aaaaahhhh JJ You do understand my point!

Posted by: hondo at February 28, 2006 03:35 PM (fyKFC)

7 >>>Longo said if one of his class members wins the gun, that person plans to do something with it he feels is ethical -- either have it melted down and possibly turned into a piece of art or donate it to the university police department. hahaha! Is there any remaining doubt whatsoever that Liberals are insane?

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 28, 2006 04:41 PM (8e/V4)

8 JC Old funny cartoon story from my early college days .... Two hippies out in the woods find two rifles. They each take one and wonder aloud what they should do. One is filled with inspiration and remembers the great phrase about beating swords (weapons) into plowshares. He runs home - melts down the rifle - and fashions a plowshare. He then runs back to his friend to show and impress him with what he has done. His friend looks at him and his plowshare - then shoots him dead. "Now I have a plowshare .. and a rifle."

Posted by: hondo at February 28, 2006 06:03 PM (fyKFC)

9 forgot one thing JJ One hippy was idealistic and the other was revolutionary - you can now figure out which one is what.

Posted by: hondo at February 28, 2006 06:06 PM (fyKFC)

10 hondo, I have a Bulgarian AK. I've killed deer at 300 yards using steel sights, and it's never jammed on me. And it came pretty cheap too.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 28, 2006 06:09 PM (8e/V4)

11 JC You actually hunted deer with an AK? Oh Gawd! Say it ain't so! (Though iron sights at 300 yards is a good feat - depending of course on where was the hit?)

Posted by: hondo at February 28, 2006 06:16 PM (fyKFC)

12 I love news like this, because it makes libtards pee themselves.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 28, 2006 08:46 PM (0yYS2)

13 Shot him right in his little ol neck. Saddest thing you ever saw. Tasty though.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 28, 2006 09:31 PM (8e/V4)

14 JC With iron sights! Your pullin' my leg now! Did he go down, or bleed out on the run .. if he bled out that must have been some hump to follow up on! Don't tell me you had your truck with you and followed his blood trail! My God! What's hunting coming too! ... What next! Remote sensing trackers!

Posted by: hondo at February 28, 2006 10:08 PM (fyKFC)

15 hondo, It was a lucky shot. I could barely see him at all behind the sight when I pulled the trigger. He wobbled off and tried to jump a fence, and he got his two front legs stuck in it. And then he extricated himself and ran/wobbled along the fence for about 50 yards or so and then he just went down and never got up again. Really, it was the saddest thing you ever saw.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 28, 2006 10:42 PM (8e/V4)

16 JC You had to trek what - 400 yards on recovery? That's some hump for game. Why take a shot at that distance anyway - especially with a 7.62x39 round? That's really pushing the envelope on the safety issue! You did fire just once - right? You didn't do an Uncle Jimbo did ya?

Posted by: hondo at February 28, 2006 11:14 PM (fyKFC)

17 Must be the weak female in me. I love meat, but I just can't bring myself to kill it first. I guess I could if I had to. But I've got men around for that stuff.

Posted by: Oyster at March 01, 2006 06:50 AM (YudAC)

18 >>>Why take a shot at that distance anyway - especially with a 7.62x39 round? hondo, cause it was a desperation shot and it's the only gun we had! No safety issues that I could tell. We just drove our truck out there and scooped him up. Oyster, it's easier when they're far away. The ones close up who look you in the eye are the hardest to pull the trigger on.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 01, 2006 09:39 AM (8e/V4)

19 JC I'm shocked! I haven't hunted in years - and did so for just a few. long gun - black powder - my partner/Uncle often preferred the bow. He used to say any other way to hunt game like deer was French. Truck! Hell, we'd park then go bush for a few days. Do it all and carry it out. If your clothes got bloody and funky - hell! Take them home and wash them out in beer. (boy was his wife always pissed!) Oh - and when you can get close enough to see clearly into those sweet deer eyes .... now that is a KILL! Damn! And we were just a couple of guys from Brooklyn! Please God! Don't tell me my Red-neck cousins are going - soft!

Posted by: hondo at March 01, 2006 02:18 PM (fyKFC)

20 hondo, I live in the Texas hill country. I can shoot a deer from my back porch if I want to, dress it, then go back in for a nice hot shower! lol! Those are the ones that just look at you with the big doe eyes as you pull the trigger. Very sad.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 01, 2006 02:53 PM (8e/V4)

21 I also brought a vulture down midflight at what must have been close to 50 yards. That one I'm not proud of at all. I took a potshot at him not thinking I'd hit him, and he just dropped like a rock. You gotta hand it to the AKs.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 01, 2006 03:06 PM (8e/V4)

22 JC Not too many deer wandering the streets of Manhattan. Well, you could make it fair and sneak up on them and razzle with'em. Good knife should be sufficent. Think my Uncle would like that - afterwards we could drink blood and sing Klingon Operas.

Posted by: hondo at March 01, 2006 03:13 PM (fyKFC)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

February 17, 2006

Cheney Hunting Affidavits Released (Originals)

Here is a copy of the original affidavits relating to Vice President Dick Cheney's shooting accident. They come via USA Today and the Corpus Christi Caller-Times.

They are .pdf copies of the original affidavits filed by the Kenedy County Sheriff's Department. Click here to see them.

You'll notice that all involved agree this was an accident. No quantities of alcohol were consumed. That the Sheriff's department was notified almost immediately, etc. So much for the conspiracy theories and tirades about a 'cover up'.

For his part, Harry Whittington is apologetic about all the fuss that has been caused by being shot and looks forward to hunting with Cheney again in the future. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 01:04 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 141 words, total size 1 kb.

February 15, 2006

Lawrence O'Donell is an Idiot

To the tinfoil crowd, lack of evidence is always proof of a coverup. And, FYI: there is a major difference between reporting a crime to the police (eg, CHAPPAQUIDDICK) and notifying the media of an accident. The media, despite what many on the Left believe, are not the nation's police force.

Decision '08: Smearing Dick Cheney

Dan Riehl: Lawrence O'Donnell Is Scum

Radio Equalizer: Fact free zone.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:12 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 77 words, total size 1 kb.

February 06, 2006

Pat Leahy Questions My Baby's Intelligence

It's just like those Quakers, babies, and nuns to make international phone calls to suspected al Qaeda terrorists. And all this time I've been dialing Osama bin Laden for my two year old! Do you think Julie Aigner-Clark will come out with a Baby Einstein video to help my apparently retarded kid learn to first dial 0-1-1?

Hat tip: Confederate Yankee.

Posted by: Rusty at 01:42 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 85 words, total size 1 kb.

February 03, 2006

Kabuki Outrage

Strictly Speaking this sort of thing doesn't bother me all that much. I mean, it's true that western media are kind of bending over backwards, matrix-style, to placate muslin sentiment, but the backdrop is that we're more afraid of what we might do, than what they might do. Consider that human beings, as a rule, are not really that different from one another in spite of modest differences in local and regional culture. We basically all have the same sense of fairness and usually recognize the same constraints against the First Commandment. And the thrust of history that substantiates the reform and progressive movements in Western Culture (individual freedom, anti-slavery, anti-totalitarianism) are not merely "Western" but human, in a sense that's vastly larger than the regional appeal of a Seventh Century Prophet who "shall not be disobeyed." And while the world of Islam has been offended, yet again, by our iconoclasm, we have yet to see the awakened offense of Western Culture to the affront of being challenged and blasphemed by the regional superstition of "low Islam," before it has even awakened itself to a righteous indignation about chattel slavery: a conflict that cost the United States in excess of a million untimely deaths. (And in my own case, almost 50% of the progeny of our Arkansas hillbilly family.) If the sense of Jacksonian offense at being taken for granted by a lesser cultural light is ever genuinely awakened, the modest threats tossed out by the Islamic world as a thin figleaf against its own shameful past will seem anemic and pale by comparison to the wrath that will be loosed on that poor excuse for "progress."

Do not get me started...

(Cross-posted to Demosophia)

Posted by: Demosophist at 10:13 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 289 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Somebody forgot to close their bold tag. ;-) You'd think the multitude of innocent people who have been deliberately killed by suicide bombers would get them riled up. But nooooooo. Draw a picture of their precioussssss and they go wild. It simply proves the point once again that all those things in the Koran about "getting along, charity and forgiveness" applies only to other Muslims.

Posted by: Oyster at February 04, 2006 06:07 AM (YudAC)

2 Right now I'm itching to rewrite Frank J.'s "Nuke the Moon" and make it "Nuke Medina." HOW 'BOUT THAT, ISLAMOBOY? what's your freakin' sage "hallowed be his name" pedophile's pearls of wisdom when that kind of hammer gets rammed up his ass?

Posted by: TC-LeatherPenguin at February 04, 2006 08:17 AM (ItXz2)

3 I have observed an interesting phenomena on a couple web sites that I read on a periodic basis. These sites have political discussions that are more or less evenly divided between calm, reasoned conservatives and flaming moonbat liberals (guess which side I support). Any way, since the latest protests over the cartoons have erupted, the moonbats have become calm, reasoned liberal commentators who point out that it is quite alright to protest, to even protest through boycott but kidnapping and cutting off heads requires strong enforcement of normative behavior (I think one of them even mentioned turning sand into glass via excessive application of heat). The radical Muslims best beware the uniting of public opinion in the West against them for we will settle the issue to our satisfaction, then go back to our own family squabbling.

Posted by: oldgeek at February 04, 2006 09:31 AM (6ENow)

4 A commenter on a different weblog once pointed out that in LA, we shoot people for fun, and I have long held that our deep reserves of civilization are a self-defense mechanism against the truth: Americans are the deepest and darkest bastards on the planet. Woe betide he who awakens the Jacksonians: consider that bin Laden did so only for a few months. Imagine the fate of the one who awakens the Jacksonians until they are sated ....

Posted by: Jeff Medcalf at February 05, 2006 09:57 PM (eer2X)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Border Threats

By 'threats' I don't mean the problems associated with an open border. I mean actual threats...against police officers along our borders...by the Mexican military.

Posted by: Rusty at 03:23 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.

February 02, 2006

Beavis Moment of the Day

Is that pronounced "boner"?

Posted by: Rusty at 03:48 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

February 01, 2006

Last Night's Must View TV

Man, that was a classic episode of South Park last night, wasn't it? And, call me a geek if you will, but the history of lumber mills is wicked cool. And no, I regret not watching that other show about as much as I regret not watching Desperate Housewives.

Posted by: Rusty at 07:55 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 59 words, total size 1 kb.

207kb generated in CPU 0.04, elapsed 0.1305 seconds.
135 queries taking 0.1039 seconds, 512 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

March 26, 2006

March 23, 2006

March 21, 2006

March 20, 2006

March 17, 2006

March 15, 2006

March 14, 2006

March 03, 2006

March 02, 2006

February 28, 2006

February 17, 2006

February 15, 2006

February 06, 2006

February 03, 2006

February 02, 2006

February 01, 2006

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds