Three reasons:

1) Katrina. I'm broke. Despite the crazy blog money rumors, I don't have any. So, I'm putting my time where my wallet can't help. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 08:00 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 213 words, total size 1 kb.

As some of you know, I spent the weekend down in the Gulf helping victims of hurricane Katrina. The area I was in was about 45 miles inland from the coast, so I'm sure that I did not see the worst of it. But after seeing the devestation of the storm, I think I am now in a better position to comment on the grand-standing and finger-pointing of politicians and of pundits alike: you are all full of an enormous amount of bullshit.

The biggest bullshit coming from partisans on the Left, trying to blame the federal government, and partisans on the Right, trying to blame local governments, is that the response was somehow too slow. Let me briefly explain.

Nearly a hundred miles inland I began to see downed trees. By the time we approached about the sixty mile mark from the coast (we were driving from Jackson, Mississipi, towards the coast--so, say 20 miles outside of Hattiesburg) it became worse. Much worse.

Downed trees lined the road. I presume that the majority of them were blown across the highway during the hurricane. They had been roughly cut and then dragged to the side of the road, . Hundreds of them. No, thousands of them.

Each tree had to be moved just to let traffic flow. Every. Single. One. For mile upon mile upon mile. For hundreds of miles. In every direction. This takes time.

And as lanes were cleared and highways opened, trucks and supplies had to move into the zone at the same time as hundreds of thousands of people were trying to move out.

If getting people out of the zone of destruction was a logistical nightmare, getting relief in was an equally daunting task.

Now imagine that same task, and add on severe flooding. Also, you don't know how deep the water is between point A and point B. Difficult under any circumstances, nearly impossible when such a large area was affected.

I spent most of Saturday and Sunday cutting trees off of people's roofs, sheds, and dog pens. By the time we got to their houses most of the trees had been cut out of the roads and driveways, but this took some time depending on a lot of factors. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 07:53 PM | Comments (33) | Add Comment
Post contains 856 words, total size 5 kb.

Here's your chance to hear Michael Yon. Shawn at Bareknucklepolitics interviews him here. Yon is one of the few embedded reporters sticking it out in Iraq and, unlike the talking heads on CNN, Fox, and NBC who don't ever leave the Green Zone, is actually out and about reporting facts from the ground.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:56 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 59 words, total size 1 kb.

Why are so many conservatives fascinated with Rome? Personally, I think it's latent homosexuality. In contrast, Dean Esmay has a more serious take on the same question for you conservatives of what he calls "the America sucks right."

These are the guys at your church that think God has an invisible shield over the U.S., and that as America slouches toward Gomorroh he slowly raises the shield. This line of thought can go to the extreme and become one that basically says were doomed, DOOMED, DOOMED!

In many ways, this argument is very similar to the namby-pambies of the 'hate America first' Left and self-proclaimed paleocons on the Right who share the belief that America is destined for failure, soon, because that is the fate of all empires.

The remedy? End the empire, bring troops home, etc. Only by ending the empire can America be saved.

Which, of course, is stupid, since at any point in Rome's history the same argument could have been made. Bring troops home from Palestine now, one could have argued in 70 C.E. Of course, 300 years later you would have found the city of Caesaria, near modern Haifa, bustling with activity--all of it Roman.

And what is so great about the Romans anyway? Filthy mass-murdering buggers that they were. Dean writes:

They were a vicious, savage people, given to mass murder on a scale that would make Saddam Hussein seem like a piker--and that was while their Empire was growing. Julius Caesar, before he seized power and turned Rome into an Empire, boasted of slaughtering over 100,000 people in just one of his jaunts into Gaul. Not 100,000 on the battlefield either--no, this included razing villages, hacking off the heads of children, women, old men, the crippled and lame. This was celebrated as a part of Ceasar's greatness, with triumphal celebrations and murals and statues showing in gory detail as Ceasar and his troops raped barbarian women and sliced barbarian children's heads off.

All that, and Rome's greatest days were yet ahead of her.

Biggest: British empire. At one time controlled a quarter of the world.

Most powerful: U.S., present day. Is there any doubt about this? Ok, we'll give special runner-up status to Alexander's short-lived but very kick-ass empire and a tie going to Genghis Khan's Mongolian hordes.

Longest lasting: China is by far the longest lasting empire ever known. Before the Romans even began to consolidate power let alone think of empire, China was already an imperial power. The Chinese Empire begins in 221 BCE. And when did it end? It hasn't. Even when China is conquered by external forces, such as during the Mongolian invasion, it continued. Instead of 'Mongolionizing' the Chinese, the Mongolians were Chinafied. How's that for 'end of empire' theory!

And China was, and is, a real empire. Not an empire in the Leninst sense of the word, or an empire in the dependency literature of the new Left, or like an empire, or an empire defined by--well, by whatever definition suits the purposes of polemists who wish to use the word to describe something they don't like, namely, America.

So, when did the Chinese Empire fall? It didn't. It's still in existance today. So, there's no more Emperor. Big deal. Go to modern China today and you will see it is not a 'nation-state' but an Imperial power. Nearly half of China's land mass is located West of where most Han Chinese live. Ask the Uygyars of Xinjiang or Tibetans if China isn't an 'empire'.

The Chinese Empire might suck every bit as much as the Roman one did, but it has lasted for 2,226 years and shows no sign of falling.

Even if we were to date the beginning of the modern Chinese Empire with reunification under the Sui Dynasty in 589 and date its end (wrongfully, I believe) to 1949, when The People's Republic was set up, that's an empire that lasts 1360 years!!

And we've been around, what, a couple hundred years? I bet it will be another 500 before we even begin to invent a food dish that is the cultural equvalent of the all important General Tsao's Orange Chicken.

Is America doomed? Hell no! World, you aint seen nothin' yet.

UPDATE: First, apologies for mispelling 'dego'. It should be dago. Laura is right--if you're going to use racial slurs to get people's attention you really ought to spell it right. I guess I just don't use racist terminology enough......

Second, Dean's orginal post was in response to an updated post by La Shawn Barber, who I have a great deal of respect for, but who I also disagree. Dean has a related posts here.

Like James Joyner, who enters the discussion here, I also have many concerns about some of the moral decline of America. I just believe that the argument that such declines preceed the downfall of a civilization are not backed by historical facts. If one wishes to argue that cultural decline preceeds the downfall of a civilization, I believe you are on to a more solid argument. One that is not, of course, without its own flaws. Part of what makes American culture so different than those others, though, is its ability to adapt and change over time. Further, if anything, American culture is still on the rise and spreading across the globe

La Shawn's argument actually is religious, if you go read her post. As a religious person--which I actually am to the surprise and shock of my readers (You thought I was kidding about being a Christian Universalist who happens to believe only Mormons go to heaven and that God is really a Buddhist?)--I believe La Shawn is basically right in her assessment and characterization of moral issues (with the exception of her not distinguishing between good gay and bad gay). As you all know I don't believe in gay marriage, as a rule, unless it is between two very hot chicks.

But, if you'll close your Qurans for a moment and open the Bible to the book of Ecclesiastes--the entire book--I believe you'll find that the good preacher notices something that many Christians today have overlooked. Let me quote him from the NIV, chapter 8, verse 10:

There is something else meaningless that occurs on earth: righteous men who get what the wicked deserve, and wicked men who get what the righteous deserve. This too, I say, is meaningless.

I would suggest to the religious-right in America, and this includes Doc Rampage who makes an even more overtly religious argument here, not to make the error that their theological reading of history is orthodoxy. Even if one were to read the Bible in this way, one might make the argument that God punished the nation of Israel when it was wicked, and blessed it when it prospered, but that Israel is a covenant nation, different then the rest. Rome was not Israel, and neither is America.

Rampage is right, of course, that this is 'in house' fighting. Chomsky hates America, La Shawn doesn't.

Further, I thought it was the Romans that killed Jesus, the encarnation of God in the flesh--something my Sunday School teachers taught was kind of like the ultimate sinful behavior--and yet Rome grew and prospered for hundreds of years after that. I also seem to recall something about throwing Christians to lions, crucifying Peter upside down, and even one emperor (Nero) using them as human torches. All of this, of course, as they were busy buggering (not being buggered, mind you) young boys in the traditional Greek fashion.

And as for China, the longest lasting empire, did you know that the practice of polygamy was not done away with until this century? I have a friend from Hong Kong who comes from the noble class. His grandfather had many wives, not even counting all the concubines.

Last, let me just clarify that I do not believe that America is really an 'empire' in the same way that Rome was or that modern polemists believe. I thought I had made that clear in the paragraph about definitions of empire, but I guess I hadn't. America is Iraq is not empire. California Mafia has a related point here.

However, if you were to define America's empire as within the boundaries of the United States, then I might concede the point. We certainly conquered a lot of territory, colonized it, culturally extinguished native peoples, and subjected them to our wills. Go to Hawaii. Forget Hawaii, go to Virginia. That seems a lot like empire my friends.

Posted by: Rusty at 06:08 PM | Comments (32) | Add Comment
Post contains 1520 words, total size 10 kb.

by Jeff Goldstein:

Shearer’s implicit argument that because not everyone who remained behind in NOLA could have been safely evacuated, attempts to evacuate some or most of those left behind could (should?) not have taken place clearly echoes the anti-war argument that because the US can’t simultaneously overthrow every tyrannical dictator in the world, it is somehow indelicate to rid the world of one (even if doing so jibes with our national interests)—and, in the process, frees 25 million people from a murderous Ba’athist rule.

Posted by: Rusty at 04:57 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 88 words, total size 1 kb.

Guest commentary by Bill Dauterieve:

I was watching "Black Hawk Down" yesterday night. It is a testament to the courage, honor and commitment of American soldiers. I liked the Hollywood treatment of soldiers as a bunch of different guys. You had Obi Wan Kenobi as a office clerk, the Incredible Hulk as a Fonzie like Delta Force fighter, and Lucius Malfoy from Harry Potter as a by-the-book Ranger. When they were under the gun, they set aside all their differences and fought as a single unit. They left no one behind. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 08:29 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 416 words, total size 2 kb.

(Gaza Strip) Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas has promised to put an end to "armed chaos" in the Gaza Strip, a day after the withdrawal of Israeli troops.

"No-one is above the law," Mr Abbas said in a televised speech.

"If these were white people stuck in Gaza," Abbas continued, "I donÂ’t have any [bleep]ing doubt there would have been every single helicopter, every plane, every single means that the U.S. government has to help these people."

Civil Rights groups in Gaza, such as Islamic Jihad and Hamas, have harshly criticized President Bush's FEMA team for their poor handling of the Gaza situation.

Community leader and Hamas spokesperson Mushir al-Masri was pleased at the announced resignation of FEMA chief Michael Brown Monday, but said the move did not go far enough.

"50 years of Zionist occupation and all the President could do was accept Michael Brown's resignation? Where was FEMA when they were needed? Did they send us money? No. Weapons? No. The least Bush could have done was send one of the twins for a martyrdom operation, inshallah." more...

Posted by: Rusty at 07:22 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 604 words, total size 4 kb.

Posted by: Rusty at 03:08 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 6 words, total size 1 kb.

Dean Esmay has an excellent post on the moral argument for staying the course in Iraq:

With some moral arguments, there really is no middle ground. I'd like to think there is but there isn't. So my suggestion--as "black and white" as it may sound--is simple: take a stand. Do you want to abandon those people in Iraq or do you not? Do we turn them over to the "freedom fighters" who bomb women and children and mosques and cops and elected politicians as well as our soldiers? Or do we protect the victims of those "freedom fighters," recognizing the "freedom fighters" as vicious fascist thugs and theocratic nutjobs, and try to help the real people, the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi people, establish a democratic, human rights respecting, and free nation?

Further, I believe the war must be won for pragmatic and Realist (I mean this in the foreign policy school of thought sense) reasons. If we do not set up a government that will be allied with the U.S. in Iraq then we will be sending a signal to jihadi forces that terrorism works. Remember, Osama bin Laden first began to believe that America was weak and could be defeated after our retreat from Somalia.

The Left's freedom fighters who we are fighting in Iraq are intent on setting up a Taliban-like state. If they succeed, then not only has the cause of freedom been set back, but the cause of America as well.

Posted by: Rusty at 05:44 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 295 words, total size 2 kb.

The U.S. government has revealed for the first time that a pre-emptive nuclear strike could be used against terrorists who threatened America with weapons of mass destruction. The discussion paper was accidentally posted at a Pentagon Website over the weekend, but has since been removed. The complete .pdf file can be downloaded here.

Washington Times:

A Pentagon planning document being updated to reflect the doctrine of pre-emption declared by President Bush in 2002 envisions the use of nuclear weapons to deter terrorists from using weapons of mass destruction against the United States or its allies.

International reaction toward the country or nonstate entity that first employs weapons of mass destruction (WMD) is an important political consideration....Nevertheless, while the belligerent that initiates nuclear warfare may find itself the target of world condemnation, no customary or conventional international law prohibits nations from employing nuclear weapons in armed conflict.

The document uses this figure to show the mix of nuclear and non-nuclear weapons that could be used in a premptive strike. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 12:58 PM | Comments (27) | Add Comment
Post contains 838 words, total size 7 kb.

1 "Oh Sayeed! Look! The sky is so bright tonight. Ohhh shabash what a sight!....oh....my skin is itchy....and burning.... Sayeed what is that smell....why are your robes on fire?"

Posted by: Filthy Allah at September 12, 2005 01:27 PM (5ceWd)

2 Let's see, we should start with Damascus, Riyad, Teheran, Baghdad, and Islamabad, just to get their attention, then move on to second-tier cities and work our way down. Oh, and Detroit, can't forget that one!

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 12, 2005 02:13 PM (0yYS2)

3 The document decribes Iran and North Korea to the letter if read correctly. They left quite a bit open for individual interpretation. Plus, it's always been the US's prerogative to bust a cap in their enemy's ass without a vote or even the general consensus of the American public. I personally think it's beautiful. Kind of brings a tear to my eye. Been nice knowing ya fellas!

Posted by: elliott at September 12, 2005 02:15 PM (XlQVK)

4 I am assuming the mullahs in Iran got their copy by FedEx.

Posted by: From the Swamp at September 12, 2005 02:20 PM (7evkT)

5 HA! About time - like we hadn't thought that already. Cindy

Posted by: firstbrokenangel at September 12, 2005 02:52 PM (jHRvj)

6 Actually I got a hold of this document two days ago, and I would have blogged it, but I fell asleep reading it! I don't know how you all stayed awake to read the whole thing. Maybe you didn't. Anyway, the response from al-Qaeda seems to be to threaten a chemical attack. They're definitely testing U.S. resolve now.

Posted by: IO ERROR at September 12, 2005 02:54 PM (48Hov)

7 This is not anything new. While this may be the first time the actual discussion paper has been seen, it has always been the discreet policy of the US that any means necessary will be used to stop a WMD attack, or to respond to such an attack. Of course, the shitheads on the left will try to spin this as some new dangerous policy that has the World on the brink of nuclear war. Their allies in the MSM will aid the lefties by giving them publicity. THIS IS WHAT EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW! The greatest danger to world peace and civiliztion as we know it is Islam. If you are a moderate Muslim now is the time for you to speak up, as it soon will be too late. Islam has to be remade, or it will surely take all of us back into the dark ages. The amount of suffering and death and disease is too staggering to comtemplate. The fate of mankind hangs in the balance. I mean no hate or disrespect, but you Muslims need to look inward and see if this is what you want. A world without any modern conveniences, medicines, air travel, electricity, automobiles, computers, and just about everything else you can think of. The city of Rome was not destroyed by barbarians until the aquaducts that brought water into Rome was destroyed. No one knew how to rebuild them, and the population melted away from 1.5 million to about 10 thousand.

Posted by: jesusland joe at September 12, 2005 02:56 PM (q9AWQ)

8 IO, Rusty thinks this kind of stuff is sexy. Thankfully. Nukes should be on the table, given the fact that these folks - Islamofascists - haven't backed off in rhetoric one iota since we returned the favor of declaring war. I'm glad the powers-that-be have let their "slip" show. Having nukes on the table should and hopefully will make the necessity to use them a bit more remote, which is a good thing. Since people on the left want to "retro"-fit this war, maybe it's time we agree. Let's just aim for WWII rather than Vietnam.

Posted by: tee bee at September 12, 2005 03:51 PM (q1JHF)

9 Mark my words: This will be the decision that eventually starts WWIII. The first ever serious attempt to justify using weapons of mass destruction as an instant retaliation, can't be a good thing for anyone, except a trivial joy for bitter people suffering from a deadly illness. If a WMD is used, it is suddenly ok for everyone to use two or three. You saw what happened with nuclear testing. Everyone figured 'Hell, if they got one we need to get one too and let 'em know we got it.' and now even countries with people who seriously believe in reincarnation got them. Domino-effect... Don't you go knocking down the first block.

Posted by: A Finn at September 12, 2005 04:01 PM (eFE81)

10 Hey Finn, This might be a surprise, but we've always had a 1st strike policy with the Soviets, even though their official policy was that they would never conduct a 1st strike on us. Even though we maintained a 1st strike policy thoughout the cold war, we never did. The point is that this really isn't anything new. Pre-emptive is just another catch phrase for 1st strike. The only real difference is that in the past, we have targeted nations, now we are willing to target groups. However I severely question any politicians willingness to ok the use of Nukes. I don't think that even GW has balls that are bigger than Harry Trumans.

Posted by: Sgt Beavis at September 12, 2005 04:10 PM (XCqS+)

11 Sgt Beavis is dead on. The idea behind having a pre-emptive first strike policy is that this will deter the actual use of those weapons.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at September 12, 2005 04:29 PM (JQjhA)

12 Mr. A Finn, Can't you read? This is not anything new. You are sounding like one of the dumn asses from the Left. This has always been the policy of the US.

Posted by: jesusland joe at September 12, 2005 04:29 PM (q9AWQ)

13 And by the way, Mr. A Finn, World War III was started on September 11, 2001. By the very people you seem to want to protect.

Posted by: jesusland joe at September 12, 2005 04:33 PM (q9AWQ)

14 I think Finn's argument is wrong, but within the bounds of discourse. His is a strategic argument, that the strategy is ill suited to the ends of winning. He might be wrong, but he's not trying to protect our enemies.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at September 12, 2005 05:55 PM (JQjhA)

15 A nazi ally in the Second World War, a Soviet patsy ever since... and a Finn thinks he has the right to criticize.

Posted by: DaveP. at September 12, 2005 06:21 PM (6iy97)

16 The First Strike policy is nothing new. The fact is, if we had to use nukes (first strike or not) we would use them. I would say this was slipped out as a warning to states like Iran and North Korea of the consequinces of giving Nuclear, Biological, Chemical or Radiological weapons to groups like Al Queda. Personally I am glad this was slipped out. With North Korea and Iran resuming their nuclear activities and the obvious fact that AL Queda would love to get its hands on WMDs. Overwhelming force is the only thing that the Koranimals understand.

Posted by: Alex at September 12, 2005 06:54 PM (7wMwj)

17 I wonder if it really "slipped out"? It seems to me kinda like a gunfighter casually pulling his coat back to show his Colt Peacemaker.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 12, 2005 07:13 PM (0yYS2)

18 Jesusland, you are wrong World War III was declared the day those crazy Iranians stormed the embassy and the hostage crisis began...

Posted by: Henry at September 12, 2005 07:47 PM (NdKxH)

19 If they decide to huke the terrorists could we get SEAN PENN to do the DR STRANGELOVE rotine? just like what SLIM PICKEN DID ride it al the way down you greenhorn BLA-WHOOM

Posted by: sandpiper at September 12, 2005 08:15 PM (AFJdY)

20 Last words of the Arab Man On The Street: "ABDUL WHAT'S THAT FLA -- ............"

Posted by: Macker at September 12, 2005 09:33 PM (2GH66)

21 The first ever serious attempt to actually justify using WMDs... No-one justified anything during the Cold War, that was an inevitable 'shit happens' situation of 'if they might, we will, screw the consequences'. A justification makes it ok to use 'em, so there's nothing but the (0,1*lightspeed/lenght of electric wire between launch codes and missiles) slowing down using it. In the Cold War it was at least a moral issue, with the hippies and uncertainty and everything.

Posted by: A Finn at September 13, 2005 04:21 AM (cWMi4)

22 Oh yeah, and DaveP., make two picks: 1. a) An ally all the way from pre-Christian times all the way to this day, with only a few minor clashes which can be blamed on another country b) An enemy all the way from pre-Christian times, 2-10 wars with it every century, one of those just a year ago, in absolute chaos and with a piece of paper that justifies taking you over 2. a) A previously isolated country that has suddenly taken interrest in world politics after destroying the ally from pre-Christian times twice. Keeps shoving itself in your face, practically begging for recognition and attention, makes demands, tries to brainwash your people with a media overflow, gets in a coalition to stop you from getting into international organisations, openly states that your continent will be a nuke landing site once a war starts. b) A previously hostile country now clearly learnt it's lesson, not making any demands after the big war is over, offers shelter from the other one in exchange for immunity in world politics. Doesn't try to make you do anything, doesn't meddle in internal affairs, doesn't even mind the fact that their leader party is illegal in your country and that your country makes twice more money from the trade between countries, as long you just act as a negotiator between your continent and them.

Posted by: A Finn at September 13, 2005 04:40 AM (cWMi4)

23 The mind boggles! Rusty, are you really a professor or just a propaganda merchant for the more hawkish members of the Republican Party. We need to be told!

Posted by: conor at September 13, 2005 06:55 AM (4PPsx)

24 Screw nucular bushipig plans

Posted by: Downing Street Memo at September 13, 2005 08:29 AM (VhNDM)

25 DSM, don't think you should be the one to say that, since those things might be dropping right next door to your house, if you're in Korea like someone said you are.

Posted by: A Finn at September 13, 2005 01:35 PM (lGolT)

26 Seriously, who thinks the US would ever nuke anyone ever again? Nuking isn't exactly a precise thing.... you can't take out a warehouse without taking out the city that contains it along with all the innocent people living in that city. No one here is crazy enough to do that, except maybe me, which is why I don't run for president. Hell, to be honest, I miss the days when we used to level cities. It's a hell of a lot easier to fight house to house when the highest rooftop is six inches off the ground. I just don't think we'd do that again.

Posted by: Slice at September 13, 2005 03:00 PM (ZSDaZ)

27 If the majority of the people gets absolutely furious about something, then using nukes becomes a likely option, but that would take a foreign invasion or a series of smaller things like extreme weather combined with terrorist attack and death of government members, with others gloating about all of 'em. So it will take a while unless someone of Arab lineage shoots Bush in New Orleans.

Posted by: A Finn at September 14, 2005 02:35 AM (cWMi4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I blame the President of the United States for everything. I mean, does the buck stop at his desk or not? more...

Posted by: Rusty at 03:10 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 152 words, total size 1 kb.

Late last month a Reuters sound technician was shot and killed by a U.S. sniper. We reported that incident here, including an account from an eye witness who claimed the Reuters crew drove into the middle of a firefight and the camera was mistaken for an RPG. At the time, we argued that any one found filming immediately after an terror attack should be a fair target within the rules of engagement since terror organizations such as Ansar al-Sunnah and al Qaeda in Iraq routinely film their exploits.

On Sep. 1 the military cleared the soldiers involved, essentially saying the news crew was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Even though this story is at least five days old, the Associated Press decided to release a 'news' story about it today. The piece essentially rejects the U.S. military version of events, and then recounts other stories from Iraq in which journalists were accidentally killed. Thus, the picture that is painted is one of the U.S. intentionally targetting journalists.

The Associated Press could save themselves a lot of time and money by just running al Jazeera stories and al Qaeda press releases verbatim.

Posted by: Rusty at 01:24 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 216 words, total size 1 kb.

After reading a series of press releases from Centcom about sucesses in Iraq, I decided to do a New York Times search of the past seven days, to see if the nation's leading paper of record was helping to disseminate the good news. Here are the results:

Sept. 2: Seven terrorists killed in the al-Rashid district of Baghdad

Sept. 2: Two IED makers captured near Abu Ghraib on tips from locals.

Two NY Times stories that mention Abu Ghraib, both about abuse at the prison.

Sept. 2: 12 terrorists captured with weapons cache East of Al-Amiriyah.

Sept. 3: Ambush foiled near Ad Duluiyah, 8 terrorists captured.

Sept. 5: 11 terrorists killed in after mortar attack on U.S. base near Balad, six more captured.

Here: 24th paragraph down, no mention of terrorists captured, or of why house was bombed.

Sept. 5: 11 suspected terrorists detained in Mosul.

Two hits, neither about this story or any other U.S. success.

Remember when being neutral meant being non-partisan and not indifferent to whether or not the U.S. loses its wars? There is no such thing as a Republican or Democrat war. The nation is at war. U.S. troops are fighting. Either the MSM will help win it or help lose it. Unfortunately, it seems lthat the NY Times has chosen the latter course.

Posted by: Rusty at 10:04 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 235 words, total size 2 kb.

John from Wuzzadem has the latest hurricane related pornography (I assure you, Safe for Work). Hilarity ensues.

On a more serious note, the media are treating New Orleans like Rome's Colliseum. There is a race to see who can find the most tragic stories, and then find some one to blame. A certain bloodlust underlies their coverage. What is even sadder is that we, the American people, love this coverage.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:27 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 78 words, total size 1 kb.

Too often our University trained military officers and State Department employees overlook the lessons of WWII and buy into the myth of diplomacy. By conceding ground to Muqtada al Sadr in an effort to have him 'buy in' to the process of creating a nation, we have let a dangerous man create a radical Islamist fiefdom. From NRO:

Not long after, Sadr was implicated in a massacre in the gypsy village of Qawliya. His Mahdi army tried to abduct a woman accused of prostitution in order to try her in SadrÂ’s kangaroo religious court. When the men of the town resisted, 20 were killed and the town nearly leveled with machine guns, mortars, and RPGs, after which the survivors were beaten and tortured.

Sadr’s victims are not only his fellow Iraqis. The Mahdi army often attacks Coalition forces, on one occasion turning a Sadr City marketplace into a “300-meter-long-kill-zone” in a battle that claimed the life of Sgt. Yihjyh (Eddie) Chen. Many more Americans have died fighting his goons in Najaf and Karbala.

Sadr is accused of being a pawn of TehranÂ’s mullahs as well, helping them subvert the progress of Iraqi democracy. If military action is taken against IranÂ’s nuclear weapons program, SadrÂ’s Al-Mahdi militia could counterattack within Iraq.

One can only imagine how the restive Sunnis in central Iraq fear the prospect of SadrÂ’s growing influence. Why would they support a new Iraqi government that, favoring the Shiite majority as it must, might eventually make Sadr their de facto ruler?

Posted by: Rusty at 03:38 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 297 words, total size 2 kb.

Heh. My son went to Iraq to die for the Neocon-Zionist-Halliburton Conspiracy and all I got was this lousy shirt.

Posted by: Rusty at 10:23 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.

Confederate Yankee has an interesting analysis where he comes up with a ratio of the number of people liberated divided by the number of American soldiers killed in various U.S. wars. America's wars, though, are not fought to liberate other peoples--it is just a side-effect that we leave freedom in our wake--our wars are fought to protect our national security. That is the ultimate measure I am interested in.

Posted by: Rusty at 10:13 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 77 words, total size 1 kb.

When I heard that Pat Robertson said that maybe we might want to assassinate Hugo Chavez, my first reaction was, Wow, did he say that out loud? You see, I think Pat Robertson is right, we really ought to assassinate Hugo Chavez. He said what a lot of us think all the time.

What makes Robertsons statememt foolish is not that it's a bad idea, but that Pat Robertson is a public figure. Since I don't really qualify as a public figure, I'll go ahead and second Robertsons motion. Hugo Chavez must die. While we're at it, I hope the CIA saves a bullet for Fidel Castro. No, I don't think the CIA will actually kill the pair, but that doesn't mean it's a bad idea.

Why is political assassination such a bad idea? Only those who view the world from an international law paradigm could make such a case. Political assassinations, it is argued, destabilize the international legal system. Besides, they say, if you begin to justify the political assassination of that two-bit dictator, what is to stop our enemies from justifying assassinating our President?

Good point. But

a) There is no such thing as an international legal system. International law is a fiction slightly less believable than the notion that Sasqatch communicates with a woman in a double-wide trailor on the edges of Boggy Creek, LA. Where there is no force there is no law. When the U.N. can begin to enforce its will, come back and then we'll talk. Just because you wish there was such a thing as international law does not make it so.

b) If you believe all nations are essentially equal, then you and I have a major disagreement. What is good for the goose is not good for the gander. What is the difference, for instance, between the U.S. having a nuclear warhead and Iran? If you cannot see the difference between the U.S. and Iran than you are an idiot. Just because many in the world are blind to these differences, does not make the differences any less real.

This may sound simplistic, but we are the good guys and they are the bad guys. I want the good guys to prevail.

All nations are not equal and neither are their leaders. If you wish to put your faith in an international system which equivocates between the King of Denmark and the King of Saudi Arabia, be my guest. I don't buy it.

c) I am an American. Ultimately, what is good for America's national interest is the highest moral metric that I am interested in. This may not be a popular position to hold these days, but it is one that I believe in wholeheartedly. This does not mean that I wish national interest to trump moral concerns whenever the two are at odds, but some times what is in our interests must trump what is good. If you wish our leaders to always do the moral thing rather than the right thing, I suggest electing a slate of Buddhist monks to Congress.

Fortunately, I believe that what is usually in America's national interests is also what is usually moral. The spread of democracy, captalism, and liberalism are both moral and in our national interest.

I certainly don't wish to set aside America's national interests for the sake of some false sense of morality which rests upon the baseless equivocation the U.N. makes between nations and their leaders. If the U.S. could have taken out Saddam Hussein with a single bullet, breaking international law in the process, I would lose no sleep.

In the shootout at the O.K. Corral, which is the international stage, I, for one, root for Wyatt Earp to win. I really could care less that the Clantons and McLaurys were deputized: they were the bad guys. When the law begins to equivocate between the good and the bad, then that law has no legitimacy in my eyes.

So, if any policy makers are reading this post, and I doubt if they are, then do us all a favor and take out a few of our enemies. Only, if you do it right, make sure that it looks like another one of our enemies did it. If there's anything The Godfather taught me about life, it is that it is always a good thing to make one enemy look bad while taking out another one.

Oh, but keep your traps shut. Thinking, planning, and executing the political assassinations of America's enemies is not necessarily bad. Talking about it, though, is.

UPDATE: Jeff from The Shape of Days agrees. Check out his post in which he recounts the crimes of Hugo Chavez. Even though Jeff makes the claim to fame that he was first since he wrote his post eight ago, I'm going to have to remind you that my server was down. I thought this post up nine hours ago. I swear. No I can't prove it.......

UPDATE II: Brian B. makes an excellent point here.

Posted by: Rusty at 06:58 PM | Comments (34) | Add Comment
Post contains 855 words, total size 5 kb.

1 I'm sure they've got the "keeping your traps shut" part worked out already. And you can never be quite sure who's reading, unless you're paying close attention. Someone in the DOJ drops in and reads my blog from time to time, I've learned from the server logs. Someone in the NSA dropped by once. I also have regular readers all over the armed forces, including in the Pentagon. You just never know, when you put your words out on the net, who's going to run across them.

Posted by: IO ERROR at August 23, 2005 07:25 PM (HaVXj)

2 Good. Follow my recommendations and then find some sort of plausible deniability.

Posted by: Rusty at August 23, 2005 07:37 PM (JQjhA)

3 This may sound simplistic, but we are the good guys and they are the bad guys. I want the good guys to prevail. This instantly shuts the moral equivocators up. Their jaw drops and they don't even know what to say. They actually think everybody believes we should treat America and Iran the same and that we should be "consistent". Morons. Yes you assholes, America and Israel can have nukes-- Iran can't. End of discussion.

Posted by: Carlos at August 23, 2005 08:22 PM (8e/V4)

4 Good to see you are back up and running.

Posted by: Jay at August 24, 2005 01:27 PM (2FcUc)

5 Some people just need killin.

Posted by: Howie at August 24, 2005 01:29 PM (sknEY)

6 Carlos, sometimes you just make me feel redundant.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 24, 2005 01:30 PM (0yYS2)

7 And you too Howie.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 24, 2005 01:40 PM (0yYS2)

8 While I have no problem with seeing Hugo leave office in a pine box, I'm not convinced it's somehting the government could do without severe domestic repercussions, given the current political climate. Having said that, I wish the people, including my fellow conservative bloggers, who are screaming about "Religious Intolerance" just because this came out of Robertson's mouth would just shut up. Robertson wears two hats, one as a religious figure and one as a political pundit. You'd do well to pay attention to which one's on his head when he's talking. Furthermore, there's a world of difference between espousing the view that the assassination of a brutal dictator is in the strategic best interest of the United States, and calling for Jihad against all unbelievers. Hyperventillating about "Fatwahs" just make you sound like a n overreacting schoolgirl.

Posted by: Brian B at August 24, 2005 02:12 PM (CouWh)

9 Rusty, for some reason, with regard to Pat Robertson, I can't help but remember your recent comment that the right has its crazies under control. Regarding the substance of your post: a) There is such a thing as international law, it just only applies when the U.S. desides it should, which means it is more show than substance. Exactly the recipe for draining American moral authority (soft power) around the world. International law could exist in a real way if the leading superpower in world history got behind it by supporting the UN (similarly to the way the states legitimized a central power by supporting the Constitution - the prominent states were crucial in gaining legitimacy), joining the International Criminal Court, and lending objective support to the Declaration of Human rights and other established international codes. This is the project we should be involved in. b) You're suggesting that the U.S. be allowed to employ any means, including the use of nuclear weapons and assassination, to enforce its will. This is precisely the sort of arrogance that has spawned radical Islamic terrorism. And, it is precisely the course of action that Osama bin Laden would love for us to (continue to) take. c) The problem is, your do not leave any room for the idea that your definition of the American national interest might be profoundly wrong. I would think that the history of how radical Islam rose in the first place would suggest that military options do far more short term and long term harm than good. It also suggests that you think that American institutions always justify an anything goes approach (since it makes us the good guys), which is extremely dangerous. You are simplifying the way the world works to the extreme and your Saddam assassination suggestion is really quite telling; the result of such an act would have resulted in either a) another strong man similar to Saddam taking power, or b) a civil war, not unlike what we see right now happening in Iraq (capturing Saddam has not lessened this in the least). Your Godfather reference is far more appropriate. As long as we can all see very clearly that your aspirations for American foreign policy amount to little more than thuggery, then we can dispense with all the rhetoric about bringing freedom and democracy to the rest of the world.

Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at August 24, 2005 02:22 PM (BueBw)

10 Oh, come now. Without leaders like Chavez, Castro, Jong Il, and the Ayatollah, life would be very boring for neocons.

Posted by: Venom at August 24, 2005 02:24 PM (dbxVM)

11 lol...and now Robertson's apologizing for his remark.

Posted by: Venom at August 24, 2005 03:00 PM (dbxVM)

12 Is it a crime to threaten a foreign nation? For example, if someone went to the Chinese embassy website and threatened a Chinese interest would that be a crime under American law?

Posted by: Hedgy at August 24, 2005 03:20 PM (A8rF5)

13 Peter, Sorry, but I'm a realist at heart. I'm not sure you know the history of radical Islam, which has been around since, er, Muhammed's day. We did nothing to cause it, it has always been there.

Posted by: Rusty at August 24, 2005 03:59 PM (JQjhA)

14 I'm afraid I'm with Feisty Republican Whore on this one. (See the post that got her fatwa'd.) Even if we were to bump off Chavez, that would probably just hand the reins of power over to one of his lackeys, and who's to say he won't turn out just as bad, or worse, than Hugo himself? No, we really would need a full-scale invasion to get rid of him and the mess he's made of Venezuela. Trouble is, of course, the U.S. military is just a tad preoccupied at the moment. Bigger fish to fry, don'tcha know.

Posted by: Joshua at August 24, 2005 04:32 PM (XPnN/)

15 duh. we can't do assassinations. the Clinton adminstration passed a law against it.

Posted by: matoko kusanagi at August 24, 2005 06:56 PM (DsETa)

16 Rusty, "I did not call for the assassination of that man."

Posted by: IO ERROR at August 24, 2005 08:06 PM (HaVXj)

17 Robertson has been around for a long time. If you note the first sentence of his statement. He did it on purpose. He has a history of making, well wild statements. He knew exactly what he was doing he needed/wanted attention for Pat just as much as he wanted attention for the Chavez issue. He won on all fronts no better publicity than bad.

Posted by: Howie at August 24, 2005 08:50 PM (D3+20)

18 They can shout death to America. They can kill Americans. They can scream death to our President. (By they, I mean Chavez and his friends, Castro, Irans leaders and such). But when one over zealous American says the same its a big deal. Liberal crybaby assholes. If you're on the other side move there.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 24, 2005 08:53 PM (CBNGy)

19 Rusty, I don't think you're a realist at heart. I think you're a neocon at heart, which is really something quite different, unless you want to make the argument that neoconservatism is a radical form of realism. Hugo Chavez is the democratically elected president of Venezuela, so it is pretty strange (not to mention counter to much of your rhetoric on this site) that you'd agree with Robertson on this. Or do you join him in apologizing today? Also, I do not see how eliminating Chavez would serve U.S. national interests. Could you explain that to me? If you do take this up, I think it will become clear that the "U.S. national interest" you favor actually benefits a small minority of American citizens and corporations (i.e. very few of the readers of The Jawa Report). Regarding radical Islam: You are correct to note that it has been around since the early days of the religion, but this is a minor point (The U.S. government might as well base its entire approach towards Mormonism on the fact that there are still radical Mormons marrying 13 year olds by the dozen in Utah and northern Arizona). You should know that I was referring to the rise of radical Islam as a political force significant enough to support 9/11 style terrorist attacks and garner sympathy from those otherwise moderate Muslims upset with U.S. policy. If you don't see the U.S./European role in prodding the development of that sort of radical Islamic terrorism I really don't know what to tell you other than that you should read Mark LeVine's excellent new book Why They Don't Hate Us.

Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at August 24, 2005 09:00 PM (BueBw)

20 IM: you're indispensable.

Posted by: Howie at August 24, 2005 09:03 PM (D3+20)

21 Oh one other thought. If Robertson really approved of this policy and thought it was possible he just made it about as improbable as it can possibly get.

Posted by: Howie at August 24, 2005 09:17 PM (D3+20)

22 Sigh.... I miss my trolls....

Posted by: Howie at August 24, 2005 09:23 PM (D3+20)

23 Professor Von Nostrand: Is international law positive or natural? If positive, what is the legislative body? If natural, what ethical theory does it derive?

Posted by: John "Akatsukami" Braue at August 24, 2005 09:51 PM (SNKfY)

24 Hugo Chavez is the democratically elected president of Venezuela,..." hahahaha. Sure he is. Jimmah said so.

Posted by: Oyster at August 24, 2005 10:06 PM (YudAC)

25 I don't necessarily disagree with points A and B... but I do think that there is a sense of "if the U.S. does it, it is okay." If we do it and are caught doing it...it gives other nations carte blanche. So, we can't give the U.S. the power to assassinate with impunity if we don't also trust, oh, say, Iran with the same power. Unfortunately, the US has to play by the same (or at least similar) rules as which it would like others to play. Finally, maybe you trust the current administration with this power... but how do you know you'll trust future administrations with this power. No, we'll just have to do it the old fashioned way. Have operatives pose as locals and foment a coup. ;-)

Posted by: ArmyArtilleryWife at August 25, 2005 09:39 AM (14kpv)

26 I don't necessarily disagree with points A and B... but I do think that there is a sense of "if the U.S. does it, it is okay." If we do it and are caught doing it...it gives other nations carte blanche. The problem with this logic is that it assumes that other countries never have, are not, and never will attempt to use assassination, and that it's only some code of ethics that stands in their way. The only problem is, we KNOW that other countries have and are and will try it. So, we can't give the U.S. the power to assassinate with impunity if we don't also trust, oh, say, Iran with the same power. Depends on who you mean by "we". If you mean "We, the People", my response is, why not? It's not like Iran is waiting for our permission anyway. Unfortunately, the US has to play by the same (or at least similar) rules as which it would like others to play. No, the US is expected to play by a set of rules much much stricter than that by which everyone else DOES play. And while the rest of the world commits the most egregious of offenses, even the most minor of infractions by Americans is greeted with howls of indignation. Let's face it -- nothing we do, no matter how far we bend over, no matter how much we could grovel and prostrate ourselves, would make a dent in the demonization of the US. So I am left wondering why we keep worrying about international opinion when it's obvious that it's prejudiced to begin with. We're the Great satan? Fine. Just don't be surprised when we actually start wielding that pitchfork. Finally, maybe you trust the current administration with this power... but how do you know you'll trust future administrations with this power. I don't trust ANY administration with ANY power unless there's some sort of checks and balances. But let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Posted by: Brian B at August 25, 2005 10:58 AM (CouWh)

27 Professor Von Nostrand, I really must question your grip on history as well as reality. 1. There is no international law. Period. Law without an enforcement mechanism is merely a suggestion. The UN has shown repeatedly that it cannot and will not enforce anything. See, e.g. Saddam Hussein's Iraq. What the UN does do is allow murderous and undemocratic regimes (Iran, Syria, China, etc.) a forum to bash us accusing us of violating "international law" as they define it, setting up a moral equivalency between us and them, which is unacceptable in theory as well as practice. The US "throwing its weight" behind international law has no effect if the real violators of it continue to define it and prevent its enforcement against themselves. 2. Radical Islam, in its present strains, dates from at least the 19th century, with the founding of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, well before the US or even Western Europe was involved in any meaningful way in the Middle East. If you want someone to "blame" for that aside from the supremecist elements within Islam itself, take it up with the Ottoman Turks. 3. Hugo Chavez was indeed elected democratically -- for the first election. The recall election last August, however, was rife with fraud noted by nearly every single independent international observer (including the OAS) except for Jimmy Carter. The fraud was perpetrated by the election officials picked by Chavistas who counted the votes and may have just reversed the percentages. If you think Hugo Chavez was democratically elected last August, you must also think that Saddam Hussein was democratically elected, not to mention the thug in charge of Iran right now.

Posted by: ProCynic at August 25, 2005 11:45 AM (bfkgE)

28 Uh... news flash... "our enemies" are "justifying assassinating our President" and "justifying" targeting women and children.

Posted by: DANEgerus at August 25, 2005 12:35 PM (J8yxJ)

29 Pat helped point out what the Washington Post and all other media ignores: Hugo must go. He is a thief and a liar, hum sounds like the devil.

Posted by: John Morrison at August 25, 2005 02:25 PM (ZETBb)

30 To equate Hugo Chavez to Saddam, or to any of the other tyrants we've supported around the world is just assinine. Chavez is a democraticly elected leader who enjoys widespread support among the populous of Venezuela (59% according to last year's recall vote endorsed by the Carter Center and the OAS as fair). Chavez may be less than perfect, but to see Rusty call for his assassination only demonstrates the degree to which any ethical standards he ever had have been flushed down the toilet. And to hear what I can only assume to be a bunch of Bush Republicans suggest that Chavez' victory in the recall election were tainted is beyond hypocritical. When you want to deal with Florida 2000, or Ohio 2004 then I'll listen to your complaints. Otherwise, you have no moral standing at all.

Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at August 25, 2005 08:33 PM (BueBw)

31 If we allow the murders of political leaders all over the world it would bite us in the behind. The markets of the world would become so unstable that it would wreck our economy.

Posted by: social rob at August 25, 2005 10:23 PM (tXv5y)

32 Oh, Professor, your comments sound like those of a "useful idiot" in the failed Marxist-Leninist tradition, of which the last bastions are Castro's Cuba, Chavista Venezuela and, not surprisingly given your opinion, American university campuses. But I'll play If you actually think that last year's recall "election" was fair, perhaps you should visit Daniel's blog (http://daniel-venezuela.blogspot.com/) can tell you how much of a sham last year's election was, how Jimmy Carter sold out the people of Venezuela just to hurt the US in the true Carter anti-American tradition. Msybe he can give you an idea of the hell Chavez has created, the dictatorial power he has assumed, the aid he has given to murderous narco-rebels in Colombia, the mullahs in Iran and, yes, al Qaida; and the threat he represents to the US. That is, the people here who read this blog who don't want to be killed or made to suffer just so you can maintain your sense of moral superiority. Maybe, if you're willing to listen. But your kool-aid comments suggest you are not. Now, I could say that on a practical level, you are correct in that the Venezuelan recall "election" last year was comparable to Ohio and Florida, the chief difference being that the attempts of the leftists to cheat in Venezuela to "elect" Chavez were successful, while the leftists' attempts to cheat in Ohio and Florida to get the traitorous John Kerry elected failed. And I could go one step further and suggest that if you want election fraud in the US, you have far better places to look than Florida and Ohio. May I suggest Washington state's gubernatorial race? How 'bout the presidential race in Milwaukee? How 'bout other races in East St. Louis and East Chicago? But I'll just settle for stating the obvious that anyone who insists that Hugo Chavez runs an election more fair and honest than the US surrenders all moral and intellectual legitimacy. I'd tell you to book your trip to Jonestown, but you're already there. Your academic institution and your students have my sympathies, but we've come to expect that from our universities today. Please say "Hi!" to Ward Churchill for me.

Posted by: ProCynic at August 25, 2005 10:32 PM (6krEN)

33 Why stop with hugo chevez lets include fidel castro in that list as well

Posted by: sandpiper at August 27, 2005 05:37 PM (qMAo+)

34 Pat Robertson apologizing for a remark against an enemy of America and the moonbat liberals think it a big deal. Clinton apology for getting blow jobs in the White House and lying to the American public on television is small deal? Von Nostril, Vemon how one sided and stupid can you get? You two are beginning to remind me of the Sheehan bitch.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 27, 2005 11:04 PM (CBNGy)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Via Glenn Reynolds, this from Michael Yon. It's sad that our military does not understand how to handle the flow of information from Iraq. For all the great stories Yon brings us, I was surprised to learn that many more are suppressed. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 03:25 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 334 words, total size 2 kb.

Organizations and institutions have cultures. Cultures set boundaries for acceptable behavior. Who do you blame when an institution's culture directly led to 9/11? The Clinton Administration and Jamie Gorelick are too easy targets. Cultures are not created overnight. They take years to develop into routines that are followed without a second thought. To claim that a single memo and a new Adminstration could change a culture is to overlook mountains of research on bureaucratic behavior.

Clinton and Gorelick should both be blamed for reinforcing and bolstering an institutional culture that limited the sharing of intelligence with law enforcement, but that culture has deeper roots. Its foundations are in the institutional design laid by Congress dividing intelligence gathering from enforcement and in the Carter Administratian's over correcting of perceived Nixon era abuses.

Even so, the Clinton Administration and Jamie Gorelick did nothing to correct this culture. In fact, all indications are that they made things worse. But making a dysfunctional culture worse is a far cry from claiming that they are responsible for creating the culture.

This story, told by an veteran Intel. operative over at Captain's Quarters, is precisely the kind of thing one would expect to hear from a bureucrat working in any number of government agencies. For some reason, though, we expect this kind of behavior at the DMV, but not the FBI, CIA, or DIA. We all hope our Intel agencies are run by characters resembling 'M' from the James Bond movies. Unfortunately, it seems, our Intel agencies have been run by those who have more in common with Patty and Selma Bouviere, the twin sisters of Marge Simpson who man the window at the Springfield DMV, than MacGyver. Captain's Quarters:

"Yeah," the head DIA guy said, a bit sheepishly, "they are DIA, but theyÂ’re a different part of DIA and we canÂ’t talk to them." [That's the only quote from the meeting where I recall actual words spoken.]

We blinked a few times, and then all consideration of terrorism was dropped from the task. But not before it was pointed out that we and DIA werenÂ’t really counter-terrorism experts [although we were threat assessment experts], that the problem was probably being worked by so-&-so and such-&-such, and that they probably had better data, more experience, more resources than we did.

That is what Clinton and Gorelik's Wall culture did. It just didn't just prevent more effective cooperation and data sharing; it prevented the whole question of terrorism being addressed in a coherent fashion at all. No one was working the problem effectively, but I bet they all thought -- just like we were told – that someone else was. That’s the "I thought you brought the matches" school of intelligence analysis, and that was the end effect of Clinton's intelligence policy: it turned the whole process of intelligence into one big game of "Who brought the matches?"

And on 9/11 we found out who: Al Qaeda brought the matches.

Posted by: Rusty at 02:50 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 485 words, total size 3 kb.