The Law of Unintended Consequences Mood:
a-ok Now Playing: "Teenager in Love" by Dion and The Belmonts
I can't help but to think that this would be related to the idea going around that Zarqawi is dead. Richard Miniter writes in Human Events Online (emphases mine):
Dead men tell no tales, but luckily for intelligence analysts, live women do.
Sajida Mubarak Atrous al-Rishawi was not able to detonate her bomb at the wedding party and fled with the guests as her husband exploded himself. Now, she is in the custody of the GID, Jordan’s intelligence agency. By all accounts, the interrogation is going slowly. Still, enough information is emerging for us to draw some lessons for the triple bombings in Amman, Jordan, on November 9.
Mrs. al-Rishawi’s family history reveals just how effective the U.S. military has proven to be in eliminating insurgents. Jordanian intelligence has learned that three of her brothers were killed by coalition forces in Iraq. Her brother, Thamir al-Rashawi, a member al-Zarqawi’s inner circle, was killed in April 2004 in Fallujah, when a missile fired from a U.S. aircraft struck his pick-up truck. Jordanian Deputy Prime Minister Marwan al-Mu’ashir described her brother, Thamir, as “the emir [commander] of the Al-Anbar region [of the Iraqi insurgency] in the Al-Qa’idah of Jihad Organization in the Land of Two Rivers. He was the right hand of Abu-Mus’ab al-Zarqawi.”
So why isn't Big Media reporting on these triumphs against the Zarqawiites? Would it ruin their storyline that the torture-happy American military are the real enemy and that their presence in Iraq is only creating more terrorists?
Another sign of desperation: Consider who Zarqawi sent to run the Amman operation, Mrs. Al-Rishawi’s husband. He also a member of Zarqawi’s inner circle. He is now dead. Why did Zarqawi send a top officer to die? He has already lost so many. It suggests that either he’s running short of suicide bombers (typically Saudi recruits) or he’s running short of people he trusts. Either way, it’s a sign of desperation.
Meanwhile, Mrs. al-Rishawi is alive and apparently talking. She can certainly tell her interrogators the location of the other insurgents and perhaps Zarqawi’s hiding place.
I am very pleased to hear that things might be wrapping up against Zarqawi. I know that this won't end our obligations in Iraq, but it will deal those murderous animals a serious blow. And done in by a woman? That just makes the irony more delicious!
I hope by the time I fall asleep tonight, I'll know that that piece of shit is dead.
Zarqawi May Be Dead
That's what's being suggested, anyway:
BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S. forces sealed off a house in the northern city of Mosul where eight suspected al-Qaida members died in a gunfight — some by their own hand to avoid capture. A U.S. official said Sunday that efforts were under way to determine if terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was among the dead.
Insurgents, meanwhile, killed an American soldier and a Marine in separate attacks over the weekend, while a British soldier was killed by a roadside bomb in the south.
In Washington, a U.S. official said the identities of the terror suspects killed was unknown. Asked if they could include al-Zarqawi, the official replied: "There are efforts under way to determine if he was killed."
I'm sure that the Mother Sheehan crowd are crying at the prospect that another poor, innocent Arab has been murdered by Halliburton Minderbinder, but the rest of us are hoping the report is true.
Bumping into Howard Hughes
I was looking through some old family papers tonight and I came across a letter from my grandfather to my mother postmarked 20 August 1968. Included with it was a clipping of a letter he had sent to a local columnist in El Paso named W.J. "Bill" Hooten who had published it in his paper there.
HOWARD HUGHES' AUTOGRAPH
Jake Shapiro is a retired telegrapher whom I have known for many years. Being one myself, we talk the same language on some subjects.
Saturday's mail brought this from Jake who is summering in Ruidoso:
In connection with the feature story in Sunday's Parade magazine concerning Howard Hughes which features the theme that he is one of the most invisible men of modern times I would like to tell a story about that.
You might remember this incident. It was back in 1946 as I remember it, there was a news item that on a flight east from Los Angeles, Howard Hughes accompanied by Cary Grant was forced down somewhere between Chihuahua and El Paso, the exact location was not known. About two days later I was down in the coffee shop at the Municipal Airport as it was called then and two guys walked in and sat down just opposite to where I was sitting. I recognized one of them immediately as Cary Grant but I had no idea who the other was for I had forgotten about the news item. I kept looking at Cary but paid no attention to the other fellow. Finally I pulled a piece of-paper out of my wallet, walked over to Cary and said boldly —'how about signing this, Cary?' Just like that. He never hesitated, pulled a pen out of his vest pocket and put his John Henry down. Getting bolder I said, 'How about your friend,' never realizing who he was. Without further ado, this guy pulled out a pen and signed it 'Howard Hughes.' I then remembered the news item, as it rang a bell. I walked back to where I was sitting and from then on out I forgot all about Cary Grant and kept looking at Howard Hughes. I wish I had that piece of paper but I lost it.
I thought I might recall the incident as it would interest you.
I notice you had a great time in Wa-hoo. That must be some place and I've never been there.
As ever, I have to smile at the course such pieces of the past can take. Would my Daddo have ever imagined that his grandson could take that clipping, run it through a machine that was a cross between a typewriter, a TV, and a waffle iron with a pane of glass and a flashlight in it, and then instantly share it with anyone else in the whole wide world who also had another such contraption ---all in the space of about five minutes?
These are fascinating times in which we live, aren't they?
Maureen Dowd on the Korean War
I find Maureen Dowd very attractive in her deliberately bitchy and cultivatedly shallow kind of way, but I'm watching a replay of her on CSPAN from yesterday with Brain Lamb and this guy calls to ask, appropos of nothing, really, why there hasn't been more reporting on the Korean War. Reporting by whom or on what aspect of that war, I don't know, but Dowd's reaction was amazingly dead.
She just shrugs her shoulders and says no, she never thinks or writes about it. Lamb tries to coax anything he can out of her by saying that we lost "50,000 men over there," but Dowd just can't be bothered.
"I'm in the opinion kingdom," Dowd says, "not the news-assigning kingdom."
So why does this bother me? Because it points to a problem that a lot of people have in arguing for and against the wars America has fought. There's an abuse of History that people ---especially the anti-war crowd today--- fall into through their ignorance and, certainly, their indifference.
The Korean War? Gosh, that was more than a half-century ago! What possible lessons could it teach us now? Maybe something about the great numbers lost in a hot war that didn't last much longer than the one in which our troops are now engaged? Could it tell us something about long-standing alliances and decades of deployment abroad? Maybe we might learn something about bipartisan responsibilities for these conflicts? Might we learn that our country has a long and accomplished history of resistance to oppressive ideologies? Do people like Dowd have any idea how much more degraded the path of human and civil rights in the world would be if our country hadn't fought against Communism in Asia?
More importantly, do these anti-war Leftists realize that the West must also resist and destroy Islamofascism today before it destroys us? Far-fetched, you say? Unlikely? Look at the demographics in Europe. Look at the birthrates in Africa. Look at whence the lifeblood of our global economy is derived.
The task of resisting tyrannical systems is ours ---and it has been for a long time. That is one reason why those who now enjoy liberty ---and prosper as fully as, say, Maureen Dowd does--- have some obligation to remember the tremendous sacrifices that were made on the Korean Peninsula in the name of free societies more than half a century ago. Not because it's strictly relevant to the War for Iraq, but because there are men and women alive today who fought and died to resist Communism in Korea. They deserve something more thoughtful than a blank stare and a flippant attitude from the New York Times' Queen of Opinion.
(That's something like an ethical argument, which, I hear, is superior to the merely logical kind.)
Curt Weldon's a good man. People should listen to him ---both when he's defending John Murtha and when he's talking about Able Danger.
I think he did himself a big favor tonight on the floor of the House of Representatives.
As for Murtha, I respect the man, but I disrespect the clowns who are kissing his ass. Like Howard Fineman. Fineman is a bag of wet stools. Sure, go on and on about how important it is that Murtha is drawing a crowd like this, but don't lie to the public about the man's record. Murtha's been against this war for more than a year now; this sudden change of heart that Big Media is trying to sell us is nothing of the kind. Fineman knows this, but he's too busy propagandizing to make mention of that.
But this all goes back to the President of the United States. So long as he refuses to seize every opportunity he can to explain to us what our troops are doing and accomplishing in Iraq, George W. Bush is failing them and the people who care about their mission.
If John Murtha is forcing the President to make some sense, then a big "Semper Fi!" to him.
Getting What They Wished For
Looks like Patrick Fitzgerald is going to go the distance and make everybody miserable on account of goddamned Joe Wilson and his wife:
WASHINGTON - Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said in court filings that the ongoing CIA leak investigation will involve proceedings before a new grand jury, a possible sign he could seek new charges in the case.
In filings obtained by Reuters on Friday, Fitzgerald said "the investigation is continuing” and that “the investigation will involve proceedings before a different grand jury than the grand jury which returned the indictment” against Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, Lewis “Scooter” Libby.
Fitzgerald did not elaborate in the document. For two years he has been investigating the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame’s identity. The grand jury that indicted Libby expired after the charges were filed late last month.
This is Pandora's box, you know. The anti-Bush Left wants this to bring down the White House, but it isn't going to work that way. Instead, I say that Fitzgerald's investigation is going to expose Big Media like it's never been exposed before.
Worth Staying Up For Mood:
It must be said that KXAN news anchor Michelle Valles' much-anticipated report on self-defense techniques was well worth the wait. Although the very idea that this woman should ever be attacked or harmed is hateful to me, it was a delight to see her in action. She is magnificence itself.
What I Said over at Jeff Goldstein's Crib
Jeff Goldstein has put a foot up Rod Dreher's kiester on the topic of John Murtha's remarks today against the War for Iraq. I added this in the comments section there:
Since it's been forgotten, let me remind certain wankers of a basic truth about the advocacy of ---or opposition to--- this war or any other issue in political life: citizens in a civil society are only obligated to know what they are talking about. They are not obligated to have personal experience of the thing they advocate or oppose, but they must be informed and have a conscience.
Anti-war Leftists (or troubled minds like Rod Dreher) have somehow convinced themselves that opposition to this war is available to anyone with a mouth or an asshole (if they can be distinguished), but that advocacy is only available to military veterans. You know that something must be wrong if anti-war liberals are deferring to the military in any way since their default setting when attacking advocates who have not served is that they should go and die in Bu$hitler's War.
Which is a suggestion made with the greatest respect for the men and women who do fight on our behalf, right?
Fuck dumbasses who can't think straight. I'm past done with them.
The Theoretical Limit of Irony Now Playing: "Fantasy" by Aldo Nova
I found this Reuters story over at Michelle Malkin's place. It is about a man so hypocritical and full of chutzpah that he actually emits a small amount of radioactivity:
Joseph Wilson, the husband of outed CIA operative Valerie Plame, called on Thursday for an inquiry by The Washington Post into the conduct of journalist Bob Woodward, who repeatedly criticized the leak investigation without disclosing his own involvement.
"It certainly gives the appearance of a conflict of interest. He was taking an advocacy position when he was a party to it," Wilson said.
Kean and Able Now Playing: what else? cowboy junkies, man.
I found thisWall Street Journal op-ed via Drudge's place earlier today and was quite blown away by how angry Louis Freeh has become towards wankers like the Kean Commission. On the subject of them and the inconvenient Able Danger story, Freeh writes:
It was interesting to hear from the 9/11 Commission again on Tuesday. This self-perpetuating and privately funded group of lobbyists and lawyers has recently opined on hurricanes, nuclear weapons, the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel and even the New York subway system. Now it offers yet another "report card" on the progress of the FBI and CIA in the war against terrorism, along with its "back-seat" take and some further unsolicited narrative about how things ought to be on the "front lines."
Yet this is also a good time for the country to make some assessments of the 9/11 Commission itself. Recent revelations from the military intelligence operation code-named "Able Danger" have cast light on a missed opportunity that could have potentially prevented 9/11. Specifically, Able Danger concluded in February 2000 that military experts had identified Mohamed Atta by name (and maybe photograph) as an al Qaeda agent operating in the U.S. Subsequently, military officers assigned to Able Danger were prevented from sharing this critical information with FBI agents, even though appointments had been made to do so. Why?
Read it all, gang. This man was the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The worm-filled Left and other kinds of Clintonistas don't want you to pay him any mind because they know it reflects poorly on their man, but Freeh is in full throat.
Posted by Toby Petzold
at 8:32 PM CST
Post Comment |
Updated: Thursday, 17 November 2005 8:33 PM CST
Thanks to Duncan Black for banning me again. He must know that I could do much better work here if I would just stay away from his dive. And it's true. I mess around there too much when I should be working on my own site.
The Perpetual Atrocity
Did you see John Kerry on Wolf Blitzer's program tonight? I can't wait to see the transcript, but he was just fucking awful. Inexcusably stupid, dodgy, and stuck in campaign mode.
My favorite bit, though, was the threat he made to consider another run for the White House in 2008. Can you imagine? He'll get his seat at the table because he's earned it, but what's the dynamic going to be like between him and Hillary, the presumptive nominee? He'll be pulling her to the left and she's going to have to explain why she voted for the war and kept on supporting it.
The Mother Sheehan vote will balk at her, at least publicly.
But three years hence is a very long time. Kerry won't be anything to worry about at all if certain developments in the War against the Terrorists come to pass (such as Osama's or Zarqawi's death) because Hillary will just be able to say she told him (and everybody else) so.
I'll post a few excerpts of Kerry's crapola later on if I feel like it.
We Already Knew This
Have a look at this story in tomorrow's Washington Post about Bob Woodward's recent revelation to Patrick Fitzgerald that he was himself told by a CIA employee that Valerie Plame was with the Company a month before Robert Novak's infamous column was published.
Woodward's testimony appears to change key elements in the chronology Fitzgerald laid out in his investigation and announced when indicting Libby three weeks ago. It would make the unnamed official -- not Libby -- the first government employee to disclose Plame's CIA employment to a reporter. It would also make Woodward, who has been publicly critical of the investigation, the first reporter known to have learned about Plame from a government source.
Is this really any surprise? The CIA confirmed to many journalists that Plame was one of theirs. A spokesman told Novak she was ---and he told his readers. And it may have been this same person who also told certain reporters with the New York Times and the Washington Post. And just who do you think told Andrea Mitchell?
Bill Bennett responds to Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia's strange admission to Chris Wallace last Sunday that he had taken
a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq — that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.
Senators and congressmen don't have to agree with their president's policies, and they should make the president robustly defend his policies — but they should not be acting as if they are the president or secretary of state; they should not be tipping off sometimes friends and definitive enemies about war plans that not even the president has yet made as policy. This is the true mockery of prewar intelligence, and Senator Rockefeller should fully explain his actions.
If Syria — or elements in Saudi Arabia — began acting on this information before we even went to war in Iraq (more than a year later), then Senator Rockefeller may have seriously harmed, impeded, and hindered our war efforts, our troops, and the entire operation in the Middle East. This should be investigated immediately; and perhaps Senator Rockefeller should step down from the Intelligence Committee until an investigation is complete.
But just observe how this will go down. Unless the President of the United States himself steps up to a microphone this afternoon and questions in the strongest terms possible why Senator Rockefeller would have done such a thing, this admission will sink into the memory hole, never again to be shown to the public by Big Media. George W. Bush will have to actually come out and make this thing a news item if it is to ever be sufficiently appreciated just how fucked up and saboteurish the Democratic Party really is.
I mean, do you know a better adjectival form of sabotage?
The Low Spark of High-Heeled Boys
This link looks like it's got a short shelf-life, so go check out this new GOP ad featuring all your favorite Democrats saying then about the need for regime change and stopping Saddam what they won't cop to now.
It's devastating, as our own words thrown back in our face usually are.
Is That Gingerbreadman Humping a Test Tube? Now Playing: "It Keeps You Running" by the Doobie Brothers
I went to read Pincus' and Milbank's steaming load in today's Washington Post ---but cannot concentrate on the column because of this extremely disturbing mortgage company advertisement moving back and forth on the left margin of the screen.
It's some sort of FlashMedia movie or a .gif file of some kind, but just look at it. What the hell is that thing doing? It's a gingerbreadman stuck in a test tube along with ---what? And why is he humping the tube like that?
Just what the hell is going on?! If you can figure out the significance of that, you must be some sort of genius or something because, to me, that ad is weird and against God's law.
Why Ron Jeremy Masturbates with His Pinky Out Now Playing: "Because it's classy!"
With much thanks to Jeff Goldstein, here's a great essay on Sarah Silverman ---a very tasty Jewish girl who tells amazingly offensive jokes. She's been giving me a college boy boner ever since I saw her on The Larry Sanders Show.