Here's what I said over at Steve Soto's place in response to Juan Cole's latest [analysis] of the situation in Iraq:
Indeed, by chasing after imaginary weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, he may have lost any real opportunity to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon should it decide to do so.
Another way of saying that Bush the Younger lied about Iraq having WMD is that he knew, as a matter of fact, that they did not have any. Which means that he purposely chose to invade a country next door to another country that even the IAEA acknowledges does have a nuclear weapons program. That's far wiser strategery than any of you can admit. Thus, the greatest military machine on Earth now sits on the east and west flanks of Iran. It is a machine that has demonstrated to all the world that it does and will act against Islamist terrorism and Arab dictatorships with enormous destructive power.
How does this fait accompli ---along with whatever political, economic, cultural, and intelligence tools we will eventually bring to bear on Iran--- hinder us from neutralizing their threat?
Pushpolled Now Playing: "Such Great Heights" by The Postal Service
The screenshot you see here was taken from CNN's homepage yesterday afternoon.
It epitomizes the abject ignorance, defeatism, and meaninglessness of the anti-Bush/anti-war Left in the West today.
Our Commander-in-Chief and our military cannot wage the War for Iraq by referenda. We cannot succeed in destroying Islamofascism there or anywhere else if Big Media insists on undermining our efforts with their stupid horse-race mentality.
If these [internationalists] are such fucking fans of Islamist doctrine and violence, then why don't they just be upfront about it?
But if they actually do realize that animals like Zarqawi need and deserve to be eradicated, then they have an obligation to do more to educate the world about such Islamofascist enemies. It's a real obligation, as I see it, but Big Media won't do it because they are frightened little dhimmified losers.
Like I say, beat up on Bush the Younger all you want for his refusal to make The Argument every fucking day of the week. That's on him ---and he damned well knows it. But don't dare pretend that there aren't great things to be achieved through a democratized and friendly Iraq. Our men and women are fighting and dying for that potential. It's a moral outrage that the people who presume to bring us the news can't also bring themselves to take the right side in this conflict and enlighten the public.
In the course of discussing a recent assault case, local KTBC reporter Crystal Cotti just said that students at Travis High School told her that the school's administration actually shortened the lunch break earlier this year to reduce the opportunity for the kids there to get into fights.
I don't know if that's true, but if it is, then the prinicipal there should he ashamed of himself. His whole crew should be.
Shit like that is a big reason why I couldn't hack it as a public schoolteacher. Do these overpaid assistant vice-morons realize what sort of stress it puts on a growing body to make eating a rushed and inconvenient ordeal? It's monstrously stupid to punish every student just because some of the vermin posing as students can't keep it together.
Whatever happened to the lunch hour? Why is there such pressure to force young people through these schedules where there's no time to relax and socialize and be teenagers? That, too, is what high school is all about ---and the idea that students whose bodies are still maturing on a daily basis ought to be made to wolf down their grub and rush off to the next thing is just stupid.
Lengthen the lunch break, get rid of unnecessary homeroom and "advisory" bullshit, and flush the pieces of shit who want to get into fights. Strangle those worthless fucks with their own shoestrings and start doing right by good kids.
UPDATE: I can't seem to find any proof of this shortened lunch break policy, but I'll look into it. It may have been a district-wide policy change for all I know.
Posted by Toby Petzold
at 5:35 PM CST
Post Comment |
Updated: Thursday, 1 December 2005 8:33 PM CST
Wednesday, 30 November 2005
Have you seen the photos of Mother Sheehan's recent book-signing in Crawford? Word has it that they are as fraught with metaphoric meaning as the President's attempt to exit a press conference in China. You know: no exit strategery and all that?
Posted by Toby Petzold
at 7:48 PM CST
Post Comment |
Updated: Wednesday, 30 November 2005 7:49 PM CST
Bombing al-Jazeera ...and the Beeb
Is it true that the President wanted to bomb the offices of the al-Jazeera television network in Doha, Qatar and "elsewhere" back in the spring of 2004? That's what the Mirror said last week (emphasis mine):
Its single-storey buildings would have made an easy target for bombers. As it is sited away from residential areas, and more than 10 miles from the US's desert base in Qatar, there would have been no danger of "collateral damage".
Dozens of al-Jazeera staff at the HQ are not, as many believe, Islamic fanatics. Instead, most are respected and highly trained technicians and journalists.
To have wiped them out would have been equivalent to bombing the BBC in London and the most spectacular foreign policy disaster since the Iraq War itself.
And that's supposed to be an argument against such a plan? Ha, ha. Lousy fucking clowns.
Party of Treason Now Playing: "Street Spirit" by Radiohead
No one believes that the anti-war Left actually cares about the military or about the lives from amongst its ranks that have been lost or affected in the fight against our Islamofascist enemies. But because it makes good copy or TV to confuse the supposed concerns of these rodents with the true interests of the American people, we are expected to take the word of Big Media seriously on the topic of war.
But I just can't.
I don't care what goddamned Howard Fineman says to the excremental Keith Olbermann about anything. These miserable rats squeak at each other and groom each other's hides on the TV every night, but am I supposed to believe that they have our country's or our military's best interests at heart? Get real. This isn't about conscientiously defending the lives of American servicemen and women against the irrationalities of war ---this is only about a couple of liberal Democrats getting their shots off at the President.
And when the only reason why you are anti-war and anti-military is because you can't cope with the grief of losing the past two Presidential elections, then what that makes you is a fucking tool in the hands of the party of treason.
The Old Man
This is a picture of my old man when he was a young man.
He passed away ten years ago tonight.
I don't think I've done much in the decade since that awful night that would genuinely have made him proud, but I certainly don't think that he would be ashamed of me. Maybe just a little disapppointed that I should have so little ambition.
But life is long and my pace is not his. There is time enough to make him proud ---and that is what I will choose to believe.
I miss that man beyond words. But so long as I live, so does he. Whatever I accomplish is his, too.
I give thanks to him tonight that I exist. That is the first thing any son must do.
Some Unusual Crap
The guys over at the Power Line direct my attention to this article by Murray Waas in the National Journal on the undying subject of the Plame Unpleasantness (emphasis mine):
The Plame affair was not so much a reflection of any personal animus toward Wilson or Plame, says one former senior administration official who knows most of the principals involved, but rather the direct result of long-standing antipathy toward the CIA by Cheney, Libby, and others involved. They viewed Wilson's outspoken criticism of the Bush administration as an indirect attack by the spy agency.
And why shouldn't they, Murray? It was George Tenet and his miserable bunch of lawyers who referred this nonsense to the Department of Justice after his agency basically allowed Wilson to run his fucking mouth to anyone who would listen to him talk about Niger.
At this point, it would take a lot to convince me that Tenet wasn't ratfucking the White House on the WMD issue.
Those grievances were also perhaps illustrated by comments that Vice President Cheney himself wrote on one of [Douglas] Feith's reports detailing purported evidence of links between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. In barely legible handwriting, Cheney wrote in the margin of the report:
"This is very good indeed … Encouraging … Not like the crap we are all so used to getting out of CIA."
Of course, what fascinates me most about all of this is that it's the anti-war/anti-intelligence Leftists who are sticking up for the CIA. Have you noticed that? They will sometimes lapse into their usual mode and even criticize the Company for its incompetence, but most of the time these days, the anti-Bush Left are perfectly happy to find heroes like Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson coming in from the cold to help them undermine this Administration.
Expediency is the the new ethic, see.
As for whether Saddam was linked to al-Qaeda, I have only one name for you: Zarqawi. There's your answer, friends. If you can explain Zarqawi's activities in Iraq in the aftermath of the War for Afghanistan without involving the Saddamites' collusions, then it may be you who is manipulating the evidence.
This Is Me Giving You the Finger, Animal Lovers Mood:
Have I mentioned lately that people who are better with their pets than they are with other people are actually goddamned sociopaths? No, really; it's true. Dressing them up and posing with them for Christmas photos? Talking about them glowingly and attributing human qualities to their behavior? Spending more quality time and generally showing more care and concern for their welfare than for that of their own family?
The Left believes in the perfectability of the individual by elevation of the State.
The Right believes in the perfectability of the State by elevation of the individual.
Therefore, Leftists are more naturally inclined to favor the ideology of Islamist absolutism, where the individual is subsumed into the community; and Rightists are more naturally inclined to the liberalism of Christian doctrine, which teaches free will and personal redemption.
That is to say, the American Left are true dhimmis. How they would reconcile themselves to the homophobia, xenophobia, and misogyny of Islam is something I'd rather not suffer to see.
The Old Man to Be Now Playing: "New York Mining Disaster 1941" by the Bee Gees
I just got back from having coffee with three of my oldest friends, one of whom is celebrating his birthday today. He is also celebrating the news that he will be a father come next summer.
I am very proud of you, K. You're gonna make a great dad because you're a gentle soul who's all about the beauty of the world. You ---and J. and E. (because they share it, too)--- cannot fail to impart that love to your child.
The Wisdom of Anger
Charles Johnson points me to Mark Steyn's latest masterpiece. This time, Steyn wonders about Zarqawi's decision to bomb those hotels in Amman:
True, he did manage to kill a couple of dozen Muslims. But what's the strategic value of that? Presumably, it's an old-fashioned mob heavy's way of keeping the locals in line. And that worked out well, didn't it? Hundreds of thousands of Zarqawi's fellow Jordanians fill the streets to demand his death.
Did they show that on the BBC? Or are demonstrations only news when they're anti-Bush and anti-Blair? And look at it this way: if the "occupation" is so unpopular in Iraq, where are the mass demonstrations against that? I'm not talking 200,000, or even 100 or 50,000. But, if there were just 1,500 folks shouting "Great Satan, go home!" in Baghdad or Mosul, it would be large enough for the media to do that little trick where they film the demo close up so it looks like the place is packed. Yet no such demonstrations take place.
The past couple of days have left me with a feeling that things are spinning out of control. People who don't really have this country's best interests at heart are too gleefully cheering on the enemy.
Which makes them the enemy.
Demonstrating the will to lose as clearly as America did in Vietnam wasn't such a smart move, but since the media can't seem to get beyond this ancient jungle war it may be worth underlining the principal difference: Osama is not Ho Chi Minh, and al-Qa'eda are not the Viet Cong. If you exit, they'll follow. And Americans will die - in foreign embassies, barracks, warships, as they did through the Nineties, and eventually on the streets of US cities, too.
It's true. They will follow. Unless they are destroyed now.
In these four years of the War against Islamofascism, our troops have fought with incredible bravery and resourcefulness, but they have done so conventionally. The day will come when they will have to unleash Hell on these animals.
You pretty much have to check out this amazing timeline of the events leading to the War for Iraq, courtesy of the indefatigable Greyhawk at The Mudville Gazette. It is extensive and very useful ---a real corrective to the lies of Big Media and the Democratic Party about the responsibility for this war.
Is it possible to read through the events of 1998 and not believe that Clinton and his party only pursued an offensive policy against Saddam to distract the nation from his own petty disgraces? For that man to criticize this war today when all Iraq ever meant to him was to be a venue to demonstrate his phony commitments to American security and power is an outrage.
His wife is playing it pretty smart, though. Is he helping her with the good cop/bad cop routine? I wouldn't doubt it.
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.