The U.N., the EU, the Arab League, and the host of domestic critics, triangulating pundits, and democratic politicos will never properly appreciate our necessary audit and censure of prison abuses. Nor will they praise the restraint shown in Fallujah. Nor will they try to place the combat losses of Americans in historical perspective -- of the near impossibility of subduing a country of 26 million people at such a cost. Nor will they do the hard moral calculus of appreciating $87 billion and hundreds of American lives -- at a moment of all-time high petroleum prices and during an acrimonious election year -- spent to end fascism and inaugurate democracy, at least not when they can scream "No blood for oil" for psychic satisfaction on the cheap. But they most certainly will go silent when al Sadr relents or is in chains, calm returns to Baghdad, and al Qaedists flee from or are killed in Iraq.
Saturday Night Massacre, Part Two
It's not quite as weird as Jefferson and Adams dying on the same day (4 July 1826), but it's weird enough: bothArchibald Coxand Sam Dash appear to have died tonight.
Cox was the special Watergate prosecutor whom President Nixon had fired in the infamous "Saturday Night Massacre" of 20 October 1973, along with Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus. Neither man would consent to Nixon's order to fire Cox, so he fired both of them and had Robert Bork fire Cox.
Dash was the chief counsel of the Senate Watergate Committee. His investigations had as much to do with bringing down Nixon as anybody's.
A curious bit of synchronicity for a bored guy to notice on another Saturday night some 30 years on.
A Motley Crew (No Umlauts)
Courtesy of The Command Post, there's a story from The Australian describing Little Muqi's so-called "Mahdi Army" as being infiltrated by Ba'athists and ---wait for it--- terrorists. No foolin'?
I guess this puts the lie to the idea that Sunni nutjobs like the Ba'athists and Iranian stooges like the Sadrites won't join forces when all their asses are on the line.
I have an idea: let's kill 'em all and let a think tank somewhere explain how Saddamites don't fall in with foreign terrorists.
Posted by Toby Petzold
at 10:52 PM CDT
Post Comment |
Updated: Saturday, 29 May 2004 11:01 PM CDT
Something for Your Memorial Day
Have a look at this magnificent history of the Great War as told by Jack Neely from the perspective of the town of Knoxville, Tennessee. It's a long, but beautiful read.
You will hear this from an atheist only rarely, friend: "God Bless America."
Senator Waffles Offers No Alternative
For the record, the United States and its Coalition allies, as well as a great many Iraqis, are doing a great job in Iraq. They have captured the completely discredited Saddam Hussein; killed his two sons and a grandson; killed or captured thousands of Ba'athists, insurgents, and terrorists; guaranteed the safety of giant swaths of Iraq, where people live, worship, trade, and speak freely, and where they have been abiding by the government of freely-elected local officials for months; rebuilt, re-staffed, and re-funded countless electrical grids, water-treatment facilities, hospitals, clinics, and schools; and have set in motion the mechanisms by which Iraqis will soon govern themselves.
Having said that, I must also acknowledge the idea that an "alternative" exists, if for no other reason than that we have a Presidential election coming in five months. John Kerry, because he is the antipode to what George W. Bush is, claims that he has an alternative way for us to go in Iraq. But, besides the fact that our political system is essentially bi-polar, what is the real necessity of whatever his "alternative" may be? I simply don't see one.
Whatever mistakes and failures we have made in Iraq, only a fucking dhimmicrat would deny that the terrible price our men and women have paid there has been worth it. Those heroic soldiers, sailors, and Marines have laid a foundation upon which the world will be changed. Our military and provisional government have accomplished tremendous goals in Iraq ---and it is only the partisans and defeatists in Big Media and on the political Left who have managed to convince too many of us otherwise.
For instance, almost by default, these miserable fifth columnists and fourth estatists declare that we are in a quagmire and that Iraq is a huge disaster. But ask them to quantify, and you will get this: Abu Ghraib. This would be the prisoner abuse scandal that had been publicly reported months before by the Army itself before it "broke." And why did it break? Because assholes don't know to be outraged by something until they see pictures. Assholes who run Big Media have a fetish for porno that they want to flood the market with ---and they only did it because assholes who do the viewing have apparently given their consent. And how does it go? A million apologies and self-abasing explanations about how we're not "like that" and how "what happened at Abu Ghraib doesn't reflect Americans' true character." Yes. I already knew that because I have confidence in my country to do the right thing, including punishing those who engage in aberrant and politically-insensitive behavior; I don't need to flagellate myself in penance for the deeds of fools. Nor do I have the asshole liberal's need to assign blame to everyone (or the "system") for the idiocy of individuals.
Besides Abu Ghraib, what are the signs of our failure? Have we mistakenly killed innocents? Yes. That is an unavoidable cost of war. Did we go into Iraq with too few troops? I believe we did. And it has cost us because we have been unable to fully stanch the influx of terrorists. And it kept us from fully protecting important museums, archaeological sites, and government buildings. But in the lightning quickness of our triumph over the Saddamites, would we have expended more American lives in the interest of protecting mere booty? I doubt it.
What else have we done "wrong" ---we who have toppled one of the world's worst regimes of the past 50 years and begun to replace it with freely-chosen government? I'm sure there are many examples that can be dredged up, most of them involving intelligence failures, but Americans should be proud of our decisive victories over the Saddamites. We should be proud that our military has done all it can to kill the guilty and spare the innocent and the sacred places they worship. Only fucking fools would suggest that the Army or Marine Corps have been stymied or defeated by these asshole Mahdis and their terrorist friends in places like Fallujah or Najaf. We have done the wise thing time and time again ---and the great majority of Iraqis know how much we have sacrificed to do right by them and to look to their future without just carpet-bombing the whole goddamned place.
Remember: America is winning. Fuck the Leftist media for suggesting to you otherwise. And fuck them for allowing this idea that John Kerry has some wonderful alternative. An alternative to what? Victory? The man has no ideas except to say that he will go down on his knees before the French and Germans. But to what end? They're not going to send any troops and probably not any money that they can't make back, anyway. His whole "plan" is stupid defeatism.
It's time for the dhimmicratic Left to realize that they have no power over the righteous cause that most Americans see in our eforts in Iraq. All that they and Kerry can do is hope to demoralize real Americans into giving up.
Don't let that happen.
A vote for John Kerry is a vote for those who hate America.
Moore Claims to Have Berg Interview on Film
The anti-American toilet plunger Michael Moore claims to possess 20 minutes of a taped interview with the late Nick Berg. Why? Moore says it is not in his new film and that it will not be released to the public. So why mention it?
If Moore is lying (in this instance), I'll bet someone calls his bluff. And it will probably be an agency of the Government of the United States. Which is what Moore would like: make a big claim and then wait to embroil himself in some journalistic/artistic pissing match with the G just to generate some publicity. What a rotten piece of shit. I hope it backfires.
CNN's Kelli Arena Says al-Qaeda Wants Kerry in the White House
In a report yesterday, CNN's Kelli Arena said:
[...] there is some speculation that al Qaeda believes it has a better chance of winning in Iraq if John Kerry is in the White House.
In the Leftist opium dens of the blogosphere, this comment is causing quite a hostile reaction. But why?
Because even the Communist News Network seems to be conceding the fact that terrorists are operating in Iraq and, even worse, that they are hoping to install Kerry in the White House through their violence. They know he's got to work to placate the anti-war Left (as he did when he cast his "protest vote" against the $87 billion supplemental, basically contradicting his own vote in support of military action), so a vote for John Kerry is a vote for those who hate America. How much clearer can it be?
Arena also observed:
Al Qaeda affiliates attacked Spain just before its elections in March. Some suggest that cemented an overwhelming win for the socialist party.
As well as this:
The attack did result in Spain pulling its troops out of Iraq. Experts say the less Western influence in Iraq, the better for al Qaeda.
It's a real measure of the anti-war Left's moral depravity that they find themselves denying the existence of terrorists in Iraq but that, whoever it is that's exploding IEDs and car-bombs in the middle of crowds of innocent people, it is a good thing for their side because it weakens the President. How disgusting.
Of course al-Qaedists want Bush defeated come November. They know they'd get a better deal with Kerry. There's no question about that. But the Left wants you to believe otherwise.
Richard Clarke Authorized the bin Ladens' "Escape"
I've heard tell that the anti-American grease-trap connoisseur Michael Moore has made much of the very suspicious exodus of several prominent Saudi citizens (including members of the bin Laden clan) from the United States in the days after 11 September 2001. His insinuation is that the Evil Bush Family bended the rules and allowed their co-conspirators to escape the wrath of our justice system. But it looks like the asshole Left's best buddy, Richard Clarke (ex-terrorism expert, current apologizer), is the one who authorized those flights. As it's reported in The Hill:
Richard Clarke, who served as President Bush's chief of counterterrorism, has claimed sole responsibility for approving flights of Saudi Arabian citizens, including members of Osama bin Laden's family, from the United States immediately after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
In an interview with The Hill yesterday, Clarke said, "I take responsibility for it. I don't think it was a mistake, and I'd do it again."
"It didn't get any higher than me," he said. "On 9-11, 9-12 and 9-13, many things didn't get any higher than me. I decided it in consultation with the FBI."
This new account of the events seemed to contradict Clarke's sworn testimony before the Sept. 11 commission at the end of March about who approved the flights.
"The request came to me, and I refused to approve it," Clarke testified. "I suggested that it be routed to the FBI and that the FBI look at the names of the individuals who were going to be on the passenger manifest and that they approve it or not. I spoke with the ---at the time--- No. 2 person in the FBI, Dale Watson, and asked him to deal with this issue. The FBI then approve...the flight."
So, which version is the truth? Clarke now says it was all his own idea, but back when he was the darling of the assholes in Big Media and on the Kean Commission, he had a different story. Very interesting.
Did you get a load ---a steaming load--- of the Gorebot yesterday at that kooky kommie klavern sponsored by MoveOn.org? He was simply unhinged.
Would it be too much to ask Big Media that they follow up the Gorebot's ill-informed rants with coverage from Najaf and Karbala where our just and judicious prosecution of the war is being rewarded? If you listen to chattering sphincters like our former Vice President, you just might think that events there are "spiraling out of control," but if you're a literate citizen (an instant disqualification for a great many Dhimmicratic voters), you might know that we are succeeding. We are demonstrating to the Shiites that we are not going to destroy their great shrines and that all we want is a piece of this worthless turd and his militia so that order can be restored. The majority of Iraqis know this, but not the anti-war Leftists running Big Media: they want you to think that we are in deep trouble.
Hmmm. Time to run some more pictures from Abu Ghraib.
My Response to a Dhimmi
Over at The Left Coaster, I made the following reply to a dhimmi by the nom de plume of Parallel Universe. He wrote:
"Iraqi nationals fighting a foreign occupier of their country are hardly terrorists."
The Iraqis who are fighting the Coalition are either Saddamite Sunnis who don't want to see Kurds or moderate Shiites gain any power or hardline Shiites who want to introduce a mullahcracy like their coreligionists in Iran. Are you defending the rights of these two groups to kill Americans and our allies? Do you believe that the kind of government they want to establish is one that will respect human and civil rights? If not, then what, exactly, are you defending?
Useful to the Mahdis and the Saddamites are the many foreign fighters who are seeping into Iraq: jihadis and mujahadeens who practice terrorism against everyone, including the future leaders of a free Iraq. Are you also defending their right to kill our men and women? Are you like that jar of rancid pus (Michael Moore) who is rooting for our defeat and who calls these psychopaths brave resistance fighters? They are detonating cars full of explosives in crowded areas where men and women are trying to find jobs and get on with their lives. Is that brave? Do you have a conscience?
At some point, even anti-war Leftists have an intellectual obligation to think about what they are supporting. No one really doubts that the goal of a free Iraq is the promotion of the human and civil rights that its people were denied for decades under Ba'athist rule. Why is that important to Americans? Because it addresses the root causes of the problem of Islamofascism ---be it stateless terrorism in support of theocratic fantasies or totalitarian oppression of Islamic nations. A liberated Middle East is a peaceful Middle East interested in free trade and cultural exchange in the widest sense. This is a worthy goal. Who are you to stand in the way? All you have is empty, reflexive anti-Bush bullshit infesting your mind.
Remember: Nick Berg lost his head because terrorists wanted to incite his father into trumpeting their cause to the Western world. They succeeded. They killed Michael Berg's son because they knew what a goddamned dhimmi he is.
I just heard the interruptor maximus Chris Matthews say that Abu Ghraib has engendered "centuries of hate" towards America. He was breathing heavily with a former spook, Robert Baer, who suggested that we won't "get over this in our lifetimes."
This need by asshole anti-Bush partisans to beat up on this country's military and leadership week after week over Abu Ghraib is absolutely depraved. The self-abuse is beyond all reason. "Centuries of hate" over what? Sexually humiliating a small group of prisoners is a greater crime than decades of filling mass graves and debasing Iraqi society? The stupidity of a few soldiers now trumps all of that?
Enough of the hyperbolic declarations and ridiculous "understandings" of Muslim sensibilities. Isn't it somehow condescending to reinforce this notion of cultural immutability ---as though Iraqis are incapable of ultimately seeing these acts in their proper prespective as aberrant? As though they lack the intellectual and emotional maturity to accept the true insignificance of those crimes for their society as a whole?
True freedom and popular representation for Iraq will lift the stain of Abu Ghraib. Stop acting as though we have irrevocably damaged our chances to liberate them from real terror.
The Heart of Karbala Is Still
American troops have forced the Mahdi insurgency from the center of Karbala. And we are pressing hard on Kufa, where we have killed three dozen assholes holed up in a mosque there.
Say, Muqi, that sanctity defense just hit the fan. You've got the life-expectancy of a Palestinian pediatrician.
So That's Why King Abdullah Visited the White House Last Week
I'm still trying to learn all I can about Chalabi, and here's something from the New York Post to explain why the White House dumped him this week.
Jordan's King Abdullah fueled the U.S. move against Iraqi leader Ahmed Chalabi by providing bombshell intelligence that his group was spying for Iran, The Post has learned.
An explosive dossier that the Jordanian monarch recently brought with him to White House sessions with President Bush detailed Mafia-style extortion rackets and secret information on U.S. military operations being passed to Iran, diplomats said.
Needless to say, it reflects poorly on those in the Administration who sided with this guy. (Powell and Armitage are said to have opposed his "assistance" from the start.) But, in the game of chess, there's always sacrifices of pawns and strategic feints. Was he selling us out or were we setting him up? I don't know yet.
If those who are constantly serving up and dining on Abu Ghraib from dawn to dusk weren't such worthless turds, I'd say we might actually have a story here worth our attention. I know it's not going to have the same exciting photos to jerk off to, but maybe y'all can give it a shot. Whadda ya say, Big Media?
"First He's Gonna Shit, Then He's Gonna Kill Us!"
Damn! You ought to read about Marine Captain Brian R. Chontosh ---devil dog like a mug!
While leading his platoon north on Highway 1 toward Ad Diwaniyah, Chontosh's platoon moved into a coordinated ambush of mortars, rocket propelled grenades and automatic weapons fire. With coalitions tanks blocking the road ahead, he realized his platoon was caught in a kill zone.
He had his driver move the vehicle through a breach along his flank, where he was immediately taken under fire from an entrenched machine gun. Without hesitation, Chontosh ordered the driver to advance directly at the enemy position enabling his .50 caliber machine gunner to silence the enemy.
He then directed his driver into the enemy trench, where he exited his vehicle and began to clear the trench with an M16A2 service rifle and 9 millimeter pistol. His ammunition depleted, Chontosh, with complete disregard for his safety, twice picked up discarded enemy rifles and continued his ferocious attack.
When a Marine following him found an enemy rocket propelled grenade launcher, Chontosh used it to destroy yet another group of enemy soldiers.
When his audacious attack ended, he had cleared over 200 meters of the enemy trench, killing more than 20 enemy soldiers and wounding several others.
Capt. Chontosh has been awarded the Navy Cross for his great bravery. What a bad-ass.
"Incriminating Pocket Litter"
The US military continues to insist that the ass-kicking we delivered to those desert rats near the Syrian border earlier this week was not a wedding party. It's looking more and more like this is, in fact, the case.
Senior coalition military spokesman said that dozens of people killed in a U.S. attack in the Iraqi desert early Wednesday were attending a high-level meeting of foreign fighters, not a wedding. Photos shown to reporters in Baghdad support that contention.
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt said six women were among the dead, but he said there is no evidence any children died in the raid near the Syrian border. Coalition officials have said as many as 40 people were killed.
Kimmitt said that video showing dead children killed was actually recorded in Ramadi, far from the attack scene.
"There may have been some kind of celebration," Kimmitt said. "Bad people have celebrations too. Bad people have parties too."
If you know what's good for you, you'll check out Amir Teheri's recent public remarks on the incompatibility of democracy and Islam. It's a truly impressive argument throughout.
Muslims should not be duped into believing that they can have their cake and eat it. Muslims can build democratic society provided they treat Islam as a matter of personal, private belief and not as a political ideology that seeks to monopolise the public space and regulate every aspect of individual and community life.
Ladies and gentlemen: Islam is incompatible with democracy.
More on Gas
My man Charles Krauthammer (easily the best name in all of punditry) has a thought or two on what needs to be done about the gasoline crisis. But it ain't gonna please the hoi polloi.
(That's you and me, jackson.)
Posted by Toby Petzold
at 10:46 AM CDT
Post Comment |
Updated: Saturday, 22 May 2004 10:47 AM CDT
The Washington Post: "Convention as Farce"
Even the Washington Post thinks that Kerry's idea to delay his acceptance of the Democratic Party's nomination in order to keep spending as he wants is crap.
And how is he supposed to sell that thing, anyway? Have a huge convention in Boston, all at the taxpayers' expense (not to mention the security costs and inconvenience it imposes on the locals), and not even have the decency to formally accept the nomination, which is why the convention is held in the first place? What balls.
I can just see the documentaries in the years to come, showing those dramatic moments when nominees accept their parties' nominations ---but with Kerry proudly proclaiming that he will delay his own acceptance so that he can keep on spending primary campaign funds. How cynical! How embarrassing!