Friday, May 05, 2006

Rummy "lied"

Andrew Sullivan says the man who heckled Rummy was

Not some crazed lefty. The man who demanded that Rumsfeld answer the questions we all want to have answered turns out to be the man who gave former president George H. W. Bush his daily intelligence briefing. And he was right in the exchange; and Rummy was factually wrong. Yep: Rumsfeld lied. Quelle surprise.

No not some crazed lefty. The man was Ray McGovern, who Sweetness and Light noticed was part of Daniel Ellsberg's Truth Telling Project. Here's the relevant blog entry from the Belmont archives:

Sweetness and Light has noticed that the press has quoted two former counterterrorism experts in defense of Mary McCarthy but omitted one interesting detail, which may or may not be relevant. Here's ABC News report quoting the first expert, Ray McGovern to the effect that McCarthy had a higher duty to "defend the constitution".

To supporters, McCarthy is a woman of conviction who exposed actions she believed were against the law.

"This a matter of principle," said Ray McGovern, a former fellow CIA analyst, "where she said my oath, my promise not to reveal secrets is superceded by my oath to defend the constitution of the U.S." ...

Then Sweetness and Light notices that both Ray McGovern and Larry Johnson are associated with Daniel Ellsberg's The Truth-Telling Project. For those who are unfamiliar with the name Daniel Ellsberg, here's the Wikipedia entry.

Daniel Ellsberg (born April 7, 1931) is a former American military analyst who precipitated a national uproar in 1971 when he released the Pentagon Papers, the US military's account of activities during the Vietnam War, to The New York Times. His release of the Pentagon Papers succeeded in substantially eroding public support for the war.

Ray McGovern's role is described on this Truth-Telling Project web page.

The Truth-Telling Coalition, comprised of high-level national security truth-tellers, as well as non-profit whistleblower organizations, provides a personal and legal support network for each other and for government insiders considering becoming truth-tellers. Current coalition members include Sibel Edmonds, Daniel Ellsberg, Frank Grevil, Katharine Gun, Ray McGovern, Coleen Rowley, the Project on Government Oversight, and the ACLU. (Bios and info on members will be available on the Truth-Telling Coalition Website, currently under construction.) To see press coverage of the Truth-Telling Coalition, see the Press Coverage page.

Commentary

Watching the video I fully expected Rummy to be massacred inside of McGovern's kill-zone since McGovern had the ability to choose the very specific ground on which to challenge Rumsfeld. The verbatim transcript of the exchange is below.

QUESTION: So I would like to ask you to be up front with the American people, why did you lie to get us into a war that was not necessary, that has caused these kinds of casualties? why?

RUMSFELD: Well, first of all, I haven’t lied. I did not lie then. Colin Powell didn’t lie. He spent weeks and weeks with the Central Intelligence Agency people and prepared a presentation that I know he believed was accurate, and he presented that to the United Nations. the president spent weeks and weeks with the central intelligence people and he went to the american people and made a presentation. i’m not in the intelligence business. they gave the world their honest opinion. it appears that there were not weapons of mass destruction there.

QUESTION: You said you knew where they were.

RUMSFELD: I did not. I said I knew where suspect sites were and –

QUESTION: You said you knew where they were Tikrit, Baghdad, northeast, south, west of there. Those are your words.

RUMSFELD: My words — my words were that — no, no, wait a minute, wait a minute. Let him stay one second. Just a second.

QUESTION: This is America.

RUMSFELD: You’re getting plenty of play, sir.

QUESTION: I’d just like an honest answer.

RUMSFELD: I’m giving it to you.

QUESTION: Well we’re talking about lies and your allegation there was bulletproof evidence of ties between al Qaeda and Iraq.

RUMSFELD: Zarqawi was in Baghdad during the prewar period. That is a fact.

QUESTION: Zarqawi? He was in the north of Iraq in a place where Saddam Hussein had no rule. That’s also…

RUMSFELD: He was also in Baghdad.

QUESTION: Yes, when he needed to go to the hospital.

Come on, these people aren’t idiots. They know the story.

(PROTESTER INTERRUPTS)

RUMSFELD: Let me give you an example.

It’s easy for you to make a charge, but why do you think that the men and women in uniform every day, when they came out of Kuwait and went into Iraq, put on chemical weapon protective suits? Because they liked the style?

(LAUGHTER)

They honestly believed that there were chemical weapons.

(APPLAUSE)

Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons on his own people previously. He’d used them on his neighbor (AUDIO GAP) the Iranians, and they believed he had those weapons.

We believed he had those weapons.

QUESTION: That’s what we call a non sequitur. It doesn’t matter what the troops believe; it matters what you believe.

MODERATOR: I think, Mr. Secretary, the debate is over. We have other questions, courtesy to the audience.

The counterfactual which proves Rumsfeld "lied" is this cited exchange from a DOD briefing:

STEPHANOPOULOS: And is it curious to you that given how much control U.S. and coalition forces now have in the country, they haven’t found any weapons of mass destruction?

SEC. RUMSFELD: …We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

But the citation is not complete. If you read the full exchange, which took place at a briefing on March 30,2003 it will be abundantly clear Rumsfeld made these statements when neither Tikrit and Baghdad were in Coalition hands. Baghdad fell on April 8, 2003, more than a week after this exchange between Rumsfeld and Stephanopoulos. Tikrit fell even later. The verbatim exchange is given below..

SEC. RUMSFELD: Yeah. Do it. His circumstance is not a happy one. We're within 49 miles of Baghdad. He's being closed on from the north, south, and there's so many people running around hyper-ventilating that things aren't going well. This plan is working.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally, weapons of mass destruction. Key goal of the military campaign is finding those weapons of mass destruction. None have been found yet. There was a raid on the Answar Al-Islam Camp up in the north last night. A lot of people expected to find ricin there. None was found. How big of a problem is that? And is it curious to you that given how much control U.S. and coalition forces now have in the country, they haven't found any weapons of mass destruction?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Not at all. If you think -- let me take that, both pieces -- the area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

Second, the [audio glitch] facilities, there are dozens of them, it's a large geographic area. It is the -- Answar Al-Islam group has killed a lot of Kurds. They are tough. And our forces are currently in there with the Kurdish forces, cleaning the area out, tracking them down, killing them or capturing them and they will then begin the site exploitation. The idea, from your question, that you can attack that place and exploit it and find out what's there in fifteen minutes.

I would also add, we saw from the air that there were dozens of trucks that went into that facility after the existence of it became public in the press and they moved things out. They dispersed them and took them away. So there may be nothing left. I don't know that. But it's way too soon to know. The exploitation is just starting.

So now if we compare the statements of Ray McGovern and Donald Rumsfeld side by side, here is what we get:

Ray McGovern Donald Rumsfeld
QUESTION: You said you knew where they were. RUMSFELD: I did not. I said I knew where suspect sites were and –
QUESTION: You said you knew where they were Tikrit, Baghdad, northeast, south, west of there. Those are your words. RUMSFELD: My words — my words were that — no, no, wait a minute, wait a minute. Let him stay one second. Just a second.


Ray McGovern had plenty of time to examine the transcript above. It's abundantly clear from the transcript that Rumsfeld had only intelligence indications that the WMD were "in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat". It was clearly a statement of belief that the WMDs would be found there. He also categorically warned Stephanopoulous the WMDs might not be found at all. "I would also add, we saw from the air that there were dozens of trucks that went into that facility after the existence of it became public in the press and they moved things out. They dispersed them and took them away. So there may be nothing left. I don't know that. But it's way too soon to know. The exploitation is just starting."

None of this means the points which Ray McGovern raised were invalid. But it is not obviously the case that Rumsfeld knew for a fact the WMDs would not be found in Tikrit, Baghdad, etc ... and lied about it. Rumsfield may have lied, but the proof is not to be found in the exchange above. What would be more convincing is some kind of document which indicated intelligence believed they would not be found in Tikrit, Baghdad and other suspect places and that Rumsfeld maintained the contrary. But the exchange above actually supports Rumsfeld's assertion that he maintained they were "suspect sites" rather than sites in which he had definite knowledge of their location.  I think the assertion that McGovern "proved" that Rumsfeld lied is simply an assertion. And no, Ray McGovern was not some "crazed lefty". He was the best the Left had to prove that Rumsfeld lied fighting on his chosen ground. And he didn't prove anything.

191 Comments:

Blogger Pierre said...

That the administration has not been more aggressive in refuting the leftwing is one of the biggest failures of the war. Strange because its not like the reasons for our failure in Vietnam are such a mystery. We will fail again if we do not take seriously the need to convince the American public that fighting in Iraq was crucial to the war. Rumsfeld timid responses to that Moonbat in regards to the links between Al Queda and Saddam are part and parcel of why the war has become so unpopular.

When the public believed that Saddam had some part in 9/11 everyone understood why we went. When the Administration themselves started throwing cold water on that the support for the war went away.

Pre-War Intel Regarding Saddam's Threat

5/05/2006 06:41:00 PM  
Blogger Deuce ☂ said...

Sorry Pierre 6:41,
The only one qualified in articulating a response is inarticulate to a fault. This administration is a failure. It is incapable of defending and reasserting itself. it is really too bad and I am sincere in that.

5/05/2006 06:49:00 PM  
Blogger Ash said...

For Rumsfeld, or Bush for that matter, to have lied they must have knowledge that what they said was in fact false. This is a tough hurdle to cross. If it can be shown that they lied then the case would be very damning. Even if they didn't lie, the fact that that they cherry picked the intelligence (probably knowingly, but not necessarily) is damning enough. Ultimately, historically, what really matters is what occured, and that is very damning. The administration can prattle on til they depart that they thought there were WMD, that 'bad intelligence' led them on the goose chase but the result is what matters and that result sucks.

5/05/2006 06:59:00 PM  
Blogger Ash said...

p.s. let me use a chess analogy. You can say you thought that your opponent was using the classic kings cross, your 'intelligence' indicated that that was indeed the truth, but if your opponent feinted and beat you, you can winge on all you like about what you thought he was going to do, but you still are the loser. In Chess second place is last place.

5/05/2006 07:02:00 PM  
Blogger wretchardthecat said...

Proving a lie is extremely hard to do. What can be shown was that pre-war intel was bad. On the balance I think history will sustain that charge. Somehow there is the idea that GWB was keeping two sets of intel books, like a crooked accountant: one with the "good" intel and another with the fake intel, and one day we will discover the legitimate books and establish the conspiracy. But from what has come out so far every set of books has been a mess.

Intel didn't see 9/11 coming. It didn't forsee Turkey would reject the 4ID; it couldn't find the WMDs in Iraq; it has not, to this day, found Zarqawi. In a way it would be more comforting if Rumsfeld did lie. It would mean we actually knew the truth and chose to lie about it. What seems more likely is that intelligence knows comparatively little that was definite. And that is a far more dangerous indicator operationally, than a commander's willingness to lie. It goes to a deficiency in capability, not intent.

5/05/2006 07:14:00 PM  
Blogger Deuce ☂ said...

Wretchard,

I agree with your assessment. The two things that convince me is the fifty odd page British dossier and the elaborate and extremely uncomfortable chemical protection gear worn by the GI's. I also believe there was a high level of administrative pre-disposition to believe it was true, probably not unlike a cop who knows the perp is guilty and plants a little evidence to give the case a boost. Bush bet the farm on Iraq. Without WMD he loses politically because that was his entire case. His administration cannot recover without the outside help of a unifying tragedy or attack.

5/05/2006 07:29:00 PM  
Blogger Ash said...

an analogy I used way way back was:

say you were happily living in your home, renting out the basement to a nice couple, and one day the cops came in with a warrant based on evidence supplied by your neighbor. They ripped the place a part and found nothing. They kept at it, dismantling the place looking for the alleged coke. Oops they got it wrong, your tenants left (who would pay rent under those circumstances) and there is a lot of damage to repair do to the meticulous search. Maybe a lawyer in the house can anwer, would the cops (or neighbor) be liable for damages or does it just suck to be you?

5/05/2006 07:37:00 PM  
Blogger Deuce ☂ said...

Loyalty also hurt Bush. His loyalty to Tony Blair led him to support one too many trips to the UN. That entire case was based on WMD.

5/05/2006 07:38:00 PM  
Blogger John Aristides said...

CNN, the aspiring news channel, has committed yet another journalistic transgression against truth and fairness in reporting. Today's big news item, played several times, was the spat between Rumsfeld and the ex-CIA/current-dissident McGovern during Rumsfeld's speech in Atlanta. CNN put together a short video segment on it, headlined "CNN Fact-check" (which you can watch if you follow the link), to help the viewer understand who was telling the truth.

One of McGovern's charges was that Rumsfeld, before the war, proclaimed that the connections between Saddam and Al'Qaeda were "bulletproof," And this began CNN's fact-checking. It starts with video and a voice-over, which notes that the New York Times in 2002 quoted Rumsfeld as using the word 'bulletproof,' and that a few days later Rumsfeld reiterated it. That is premise one: Rumsfeld really said it. The video segment then moves forward to provide the viewer with premise two, showing a question and answer session in 2004 in which a woman asks Rumsfeld why he said "evidence of Saddam's involvement in 9/11 was 'bulletproof.'" On the video, one sees Rumsfeld move quickly forward to say, "I never said that." The message (the conclusion) is clear: Rumsfeld said the evidence was "bulletproof," and two years later Rumsfeld refused to own up to his own words. CNN's report does not delve any further into the issue, and the viewer is left with the impression that McGovern was right: Rumsfeld is a dissembler and/or a liar.

But is this true? Well, actually, no, it isn't. As is often the case, the devil is in the details. This is what the New York Times actually reported on October 25, 2002 (which CNN couldn't be bothered to expound upon):

Mr. Rumsfeld said today that information he cited last month on Iraq's links to Al Qaeda was "bulletproof" because it was compiled and vetted by the C.I.A.

"When I said something was bulletproof, I was referring to the five or six sentences that I had read here off of a piece of paper which I'd received from the agency," he said.

Mr. Rumsfeld had cited information indicating that contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraq stretched back a decade and had increased since 1998, that Qaeda members had been in Baghdad, and that Al Qaeda had sought help in acquiring weapons of mass destruction from Iraq.


The video clip CNN dug up showed a woman accusing Rumsfeld of saying "evidence of Saddam's involvement in 9/11 was 'bulletproof,'" which, of course, Rumsfeld was right in denying. He never said evidence of Saddam's involvement in 9/11 was bulletproof. Never. Not once. He said evidence of contacts between Saddam and Al'Qaeda was bulletproof -- and it is. We have loads of documentation on these contacts and connections (for instance, here, here, here, and here). Rumsfeld was right then, and he is right now.

The opponents of the Administration have long sought to conflate the two issues; for instance, the Press recast the 9/11 Commission's findings of "no proof of operational coordination" into no link whatsoever. That is a false meme, because the Commission did find quite a few contacts and connections between Saddam's Iraq and Al'Qaeda. This is not an arguable point; this is simply what they found.

Yet here, once again, CNN does the bait and switch, "proving" that Rumsfeld said bulletproof (without elaborating the circumstance), then showing a clip of him denying it. But what CNN doesn't tell you is that Rumsfeld was not denying the word, but the context -- and here, context is everything.

Rumsfeld says one type of evidence is bulletproof (connections and contacts), and gets accused of saying it about another (involvement in 9/11). He correctly denies the latter, and he has never backed away from the former. So what's the controversy?

It is not Rumsfeld's fault that this nuance is lost on his critics. CNN is either too dumb, or too dishonest, to report it.

5/05/2006 07:45:00 PM  
Blogger wretchardthecat said...

2164th,

It may simply be an outsider's impression, but it feels like the intel apparatus is incredibly ponderous. If I were to guess, the CIA was outsped by an incredibly nimble Russian intelligence operation, which moved most of the stuff out of Iraq and had a jump on US intel in knowing how the Turkey decision vis the 4ID would work out. They may have turned a military defeat into a postwar political victory. May.

Will we ever know? McCaffrey's report asserts that State can't even deploy to Iraq. Can't even deploy. So while I don't doubt that the DOD has its share of problems, whatever their defects the Armed Forces performance has made the intel and state guys look like clowns. At least they took what they had to take and beat who they had to beat. Even insurgents. At least they could deploy to Iraq and appear to be able to keep operational secrets. Again, it's an outsider's impression and there is much I don't know.

All this discussion about lying really assumes the intel organization is actually working but is just being misused. I almost hope that's the case.

5/05/2006 07:51:00 PM  
Blogger Harrywr2 said...

"That the administration has not been more aggressive in refuting the leftwing is one of the biggest failures of the war."


This crap goes back to McCarthyism. McCarthy was over zealous and discredited himself as a result.(He was right about the infiltration of communists) Republicans have been realing ever since.

The lefties will hang themselves with their own rope, or burn in an Iranian nuclear hell.

5/05/2006 07:53:00 PM  
Blogger Deuce ☂ said...

A must read:

Cannoneer No. 4 said...
JVERITAS - TRANSLATING THE IRAQ DOCUMENTS

7:52 PM

5/05/2006 08:01:00 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...

Maybe a lawyer in the house can anwer, would the cops (or neighbor) be liable for damages or does it just suck to be you?

Well, if you were on parole for a previous drug-dealing violation, it would really suck to be you, since one of the terms of your release was your agreement that your palace -- oops, I mean basement -- could be searched at any time, without restriction.

5/05/2006 08:06:00 PM  
Blogger Starling said...

2164th

I take issue with the assertion that WMD was the "entire case". There were numerous casus belli offered. The Joint Resolution of October 2002 and the UN Security Council Resolution 1441 both document numerous reasons for war. The former lists 22, by my count and as I read them, they are not 22 synonymous was of saying "we know Saddam still has WMD stockpiles." The administration may have made many mistakes, but failing to list lots of different (but admittedly related) reasons why Saddam's number was then up wasn't one of them.

To be fair, my reading of the casus belli does find that WMD looms very large. Something related to WMD appears in the overwheling number of reasons stated. But again, to suggest that the entire rationale was about WMD, in general, or stockpiles of them, in particular, doesn't square with (my reading of) the official record of rationales.

5/05/2006 08:34:00 PM  
Blogger allen said...

The players in this game are lifelong players within a well established system. The players are incapable of thinking outside the frame of reference of the system. The players are trapped within their paradigm of reality. The system has/is/will continue to fail to meet challenges that do not fit neatly into the available templates of recognizable reality.

Why does Dr. Rice continue to pleasantly spout the vacuous platitudes about the “world community,” while China and Russia evidently have taken a far different tack? It is the only reality the Secretary knows. To move outside that perception of reality would leave her as ignorant and anxious as many of the participants in the blogsphere. Like the generals on a WWI battlefield she will deploy in the only way she knows, despite monumental contradictory evidence of futility. Simply, there is no other way.

Like Wretchard (I think), I would much prefer cunning manipulation, even falsehood, to an impotent blindness and the false confidence of a drunk stumbling and fumbling for his keys in the dark. Give me a Richelieu; spare me the Clemenceau.

Why hasn’t Mr. Bush moved more aggressively to repair or reorganize the system? It seems obvious now that he detected no need.

5/05/2006 09:02:00 PM  
Blogger wretchardthecat said...

Starling David Hunter,

Your observation brings to mind the most famous failure to find WMDs in history, which was of course the postwar discovery that the Germans were nowhere near building an A-bomb. If you recall the well known history, Albert Einstein wrote to Roosevelt and warned him of the imminent danger of a Nazi bomb. On that assessment the US developed an A-bomb and perhaps unnecessarily brought nuclear weapons into the world. Yet although the danger of Hitler's A-bomb loomed large it was hardly the only reason for bringing down the Nazis. If Roosevelt were held to the same standard as GWB ... but that's another story.

5/05/2006 09:09:00 PM  
Blogger wretchardthecat said...

In the previous post I cite some publication asserting that one quarter of the CIA's 100 K employees were fired under Porter Goss. (I haven't checked that figure and report it without comment). Time Magazine has an article (also linked to in the previous post) lamenting the degrading of the CIA's importance. The MSM is now full of stories about the CIA in crisis, etc.

Without taking sides in the fight it is probably safe to assert the existence of a huge bureaucratic fight in Washington. It is probably on a scale unprecedented in the last hundred years. So what can we deduce from the existence of this bureaucratic struggle? It's a huge grapple for power and whichever side one is on, it is not surprising to observe what we've been seeing. Prepare for more.

5/05/2006 09:16:00 PM  
Blogger blert said...

The US Army has found plenty to crow about in Iraq: binary nerve gas shells for instance.

PROBLEM: Can't crow about CB ordinance that is VERY likely still in possession of the unlawful combatants -- but they don't recognize it.

Saddam created his chemical munitions to look virtually identical to conventional rounds. That way he could shoot them off right in front of French military advisers during the Iran war.

Soooo...

We're in a double bind: Saddam had chemical weapons, we've found them, yet we can't dwell on them -- certainly can't expose them to the media.

The same is true for biological weapons.

It never occurred to us that it is AND ALWAYS WILL BE impossible to present discoveries of WMD ordinance.

Those who argue that Saddam didn’t have these programs will be shamed by history. But it’s going to take quite a while to turn the cards over.

In the meantime, Bush & Co have to suffer yapping fools while holding a poker face. War is hell.

Before OIF virtually everyone expected to find substantial fixed installations that would greatly resemble the surprises found in occupied Nazi Germany. No one expected that Saddam had long structured his entire WMD program to be deniable.

Binary shells that look identical to base-bleed chemical explosive rounds: hidden in plain sight.

Mobile, dual use anaerobic culture grow out rooms: perfect cover in place.

Huge investment in ballistic missile systems lacking any serious military-economic utility – lacking NBC warheads: “Look at what a rich fool I am.”

‘Crop-dusting’ jet fighter-bombers: what a technical breakthrough.

Yes, yes, yes… no WMD here…. Close your lying eyes!

5/05/2006 09:19:00 PM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

Wikipedia has outdone itself on this topic. All there is to know about what was said publicly, is here.

The accusation that the administration lied, is the lie.

And it's deliberate, as no adult lives in the cartoon world that the Ray McGoverns try to conjure.

5/05/2006 09:27:00 PM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

Who do these people think they are? That their own little sh*t politics gets to drag the whole free world down to massage their half-baked neuroses? Are we all just props in their theater?

5/05/2006 10:00:00 PM  
Blogger Foobarista said...

One interesting point: I happened to be watching Chinese state TV news (my wife is Chinese and Chinese state TV is carried on local cable) and they actually showed part of the exchange. Rummy made a good comeback, which was loudly appluaded by the audience (most of which was cut off on the broadcast). I'm not sure what the point was of showing this - it frankly doesn't make Chinese officials look good as they never argue with hecklers on official television.

Oddly, they didn't show the part where the Falungong woman challenged Hu a couple of weeks ago; I was in Shanghai at the time.

5/05/2006 10:21:00 PM  
Blogger Pierre said...

It is not "crap" to suggest that the Administration do a better job of defending our fully justified reasons for going into Iraq.
The lefties will hang themselves with their own rope, or burn in an Iranian nuclear hell.
Yea I keep waiting for that to happen and since I have started waiting I have watched the "discredited" lefties gain more and more power. Sure they lose elections but they control every other aspect of our national life, starting with education and the press...except for blogs.

Before we bloggers pat ourselves too firmly on the back lets remember we have not been able to counter the absolute full court press by the left wing to discredit the war. We won a couple of small fights where the MSM made up some real whoppers. But we have lost all the most important fights where the MSM was making up stories so outrageous that no one would believe they were making it up. For instance we have lost the debate with the population of the United States that Saddam was joined at the hip with every single major terrorist organisation in the ME. How? It was common knowledge and yet the MSM drowned us out.

One of the ways we lost the fight was that we didn't get any help from the Bush administration. This was probably a function of the CIA being in open revolt but still President Bush should have moved immediately to cripple that mess of incompetents. As an aside during the movie Bourne Supremecy I leaned over to my wife and whispered that we could only wish our intelligence services were so "fearsome" and competent.

Yes it is true that the Bush administration did cite Saddams terrorist connections. But instead of using all of the evidence that was open source to show the connections all they did was cite Saddams funding of terror bombings in Israel. Not one single mention was made by any Bush administration official of the Radio Free Europe bombing plot by the man who met Atta, Al Ani. Only one half hearted mention of the attempt to assasinate Former President Bush which President Bush ran away from as soon as the press asked whether it was proper to start a war for the desire of a son to seek revenge. As if attempting to assasinate a former US President is done all the time by failed States. After a few half hearted attempts to link Saddam to terror the effort was given up. And with that effort went the support for the war.

It was simply fantasy to believe that a parent will gladly send his child to war to avenge the violations of the United Nations. The Bush adminstration apparently believed that was compelling...and their poll numbers prove their error.

And then lets not forget that if we accept the Adminstrations default main reason for going to war, the desire to stop the spread of WMD's. We failed. We moved slow enough to allow Saddam to move them. We moved slow enough to allow Syria and Iran to hide them. We moved timidly enough that both of those nations believe we won't hold them to account.

No I am no longer facinated with the Bush adminstration. Count me in that percentage of conservatives who wonder whether the President we watched in awe on September 20, 2001 give one of the best speeches of any US President has been kidnapped by aliens.

5/05/2006 10:36:00 PM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

I just can't help but wonder, since there've been numerous findings of significant quantities of WMD, is there some quantitative level that the actual stuff actually found, doesn't quite reach, and so the 'shortfall' below this mysterious level is what allows the "No WMD!" to continue?

5/05/2006 10:40:00 PM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

Pierre said "No I am no longer facinated with the Bush adminstration."

Of course you're not. When its every step is dogged by lung-ripping politics, human nature is such that after awhile you just get tired of lung-ripping politics. The knowledge that it's the oppo causing it, is strictly a secondary knowledge. The Big Guy is still the cause, he makes 'em do it by his being, and when you're tired you just want it to all go away.

This is, of course, the strategy of the oppo, and explains the shameless jack-in-the-box bounce-back after every fact-based knock-down.

5/05/2006 10:51:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Great Job on CNN, Aristides:
I watched that one and concluded nothing of substance was proved, but they did stage it to make it appear that Rumsfeld did indeed "LIE" about "bulletproof," which even if he had contradicted himself, would not have amounted to anything.
Too bad your Sterling refutation of their BS can't find a larger audience somewhere.
---
Pierre, Canoneer, 2164th:
One of Hewitt's guests said Negroponte became the biggest obstacle to releasing the documents Steven Hayes has begged for all these years.

Wouldn't want the public to know anything, would we, or have a chance for thousands of people to pore over the papers and get a few translated.
But Negroponte is a Diplomat, Goss wasn't, Negroponte worked at the UN, Goss wouldn't be caught dead.
The only men left in the admin are Cheney and Rummy imo.
---
"We must have a leader with strong credentials, a demonstrated track record of independence and objectivity, and the ability to bring much needed harmony within the ranks"
said Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV
---
Kum bay ya.
Gelded CIA and FBI agents, Girlie ROE's, Kid Glove detainment, no hot pursuit (Vietnam redux)
we're so sensitive and feminized I can hardly stand it.
Whata way to fight a war.

Smoothing democrat feathers prior to their next B... F... of GWB seems to be the administration's highest priority.
While sticking it to the base, not vetoing one bit of pork, and encouraging ever more invaders from the South.

5/05/2006 11:56:00 PM  
Blogger Deuce ☂ said...

Pierre legrande said:

"No I am no longer fascinated with the Bush administration. Count me in that percentage of conservatives who wonder whether the President we watched in awe on September 20, 2001 give one of the best speeches of any US President has been kidnapped by aliens."

The tragedy with Bush is that he was very much like those one hit musicians. You loved one song, bought the album, and only played that one song. Two of the greatest presidential performances in history will be the rubble bullhorn speech and the strike at Yankee Stadium. It was magic, presidential theater at its finest. How did a nation go from being awe struck to not being able to stand listening to the man speak? Politics is the cruelest profession. It seduces the aspirant and can crush a man completely. Richard M. Nixon, one of the greatest American Presidents, capable, brilliant and deliciously ruthless was reduced to a man without a country, or a friend, by the profession which was the love of his life. George Walker Bush will go down in history as a man who seized one grand moment and failed to control the political stage. He will forever be the jilted lover of his chosen craft.

5/06/2006 12:04:00 AM  
Blogger Deuce ☂ said...

Starling David Hunter
8:34 PM,

I always enjoy your posting and consider your objection. My argument is simply that GWB failed to anticipate his enemies and walked into a trap of his own creation. A better politician would have heard what his audience was hearing. They only remembered WMD.

5/06/2006 12:12:00 AM  
Blogger Deuce ☂ said...

Doug said..

"Kum bay ya.
Gelded CIA and FBI agents, Girlie ROE's, Kid Glove detainment, no hot pursuit (Vietnam redux)
we're so sensitive and feminized I can hardly stand it.
Whata way to fight a war."

AMEN

5/06/2006 12:16:00 AM  
Blogger Deuce ☂ said...

Iraq Warns on Iran Border Moves

By Jim Muir
BBC News, Baghdad


"Mr Zebari has attempted to play down any tensions
Iraq has expressed concern about troop build-ups by both Iranian and Turkish forces along their borders with Iraq."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4979582.stm

Is this the making of a new Iraq? It is beginning to sound like statecraft.

5/06/2006 12:32:00 AM  
Blogger ledger said...

It appears like the Election Season is upon us.

We see a sudden flurry of the old "Bush lied to steal the oil... No WMD were ever found in Iraq... Porter Gross probably use a limo service with all of the extra 'services' for free at our expense..." lines plus the appearance of lefty CIA "experts" such as Ray McGovern and Larry Johnson to push an agenda. And, it's well known that Andrew Sullivan dislikes Rumsfeld - whatever the cause. That is Not News. It's all Politics.

I need not recount Wretchard's deconstruction of Ray McGovern and Larry Johnson. Wretchard has done a fine job of showing them to be aggressive partisan hacks.

I agree with Wretchard's theme that the fact that no large military bases armed with chemical or biological weapons were found (after the Coalition Troops secured various parts of Iraq) doesn't prove Saddam did not have said weapons.

Saddam could have hid them during that time frame. That is obvious.

Wretchard and other posters have clearly stated that Saddam and his partners could have easily moved said weapons to other locations where they were stored or buried. I agree. In fact, the "Case of the WMD" are is far from closed.

Further, Saddam's conventional weapons and his shredder happy sons were basically WMDs themselves (Hitler is a like example using convention weapons to kill on a massive scale). Thus, to say that the War was unjustified is not true.

As to the CIA and the departure of Porter Gross, I believe that we saw a realignment of a governmental structure in the classic D.C. fashion.

The guy on the way out is gone on Friday and on Monday things will resume. That's the way things happen in D.C.

What's the real cause? Was it poor leak control? Was it Negroponte consolidating power? Was it a vast scheme to dismantle the CIA and rebuild it under a new name? I don't know.

One thing I do know, an effective Intelligence Agency should keeps it's profile low and not splash it's internal business all over the NYT or the WoPo.

Further, having some "100,000" agents employed (including the likes of Ray McGovern and Larry Johnson) would seem to the average Joe to be a large pool of potential leakers - or worse.

If more "consolidation" or "shrinking" is needed to stop said leaks - then let it move forward.

I would like to see Less Bickering and Leaks from the intelligence community and more unexplained Positive Results in the battle area.

5/06/2006 01:58:00 AM  
Blogger allen said...

Well, well, well, we may take heart. The Washington Post carries the inside story of the removal of Mr. Goss from CIA. And what can the ever knowledgeable scribes tell us: absolutely NOTHING.

It appears that the usual suspects may be getting the message: if you say, you will pay. In my opinion, that is a good thing. For that bit of consolation I’ll gladly waste the time of a perusal of the Post’s ineffectual handiwork.

It seems likely that another shoe will eventually drop in the Goss saga but, at least for the moment, the Washington Post appears as ignorant of what that shoe may be as the rest of us. Good.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/
05/AR2006050500937_pf.html

For some real news, I wish the Post would tell us what Representative Kennedy knew and when he knew it.

5/06/2006 05:27:00 AM  
Blogger Annoy Mouse said...

The CIA has been diminishing in importance as three letter agencies are concerned. I have been convinced for years that it was still being held together as kind of a war hero after the civil war. Further more, with it's previous ferocious reputation, I thought that it was being kept around as a red herring, or a sh!t magent as you will. But it seems that the malcontents finished a job that was never really meant to happen.

5/06/2006 06:06:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

There is a piece by the "Style" Editor, over at the WaPo.
Usually, I'd skip over the "Style", but what Henry Allen has to say in Winning's Everything" is insightful.

I'd say that 'cause the fellow agrees with me.
Bet he didn't even know.

5/06/2006 06:21:00 AM  
Blogger allen said...

desert rat,

Your 6:21 AM - Winning's Everything"

You, sir, are to be commended for pointing out an excellent piece of prose.

Indeed, we are all trapped within our own mental construct of reality. One of the admirably remarkable virtues of this site and Wretchard's work are their insistence on forcing us out of our limited perspective and comfort-zone, if we wish to be taken seriously by others here.

Thanks.

5/06/2006 06:56:00 AM  
Blogger allen said...

pork rinds for allah,

Your 8:20 PM - remember if you kill us, you destroy your OWN beliefs

Please accept my apology for having failed to respond to your comment on an earlier, now dead thread. Real life can be such a drag. I also beg pardon of others on this thread for the intrusion.

I really wish you had made your case more forcefully. Ha! Ha!

Although I would have taken a more oblige tack, you are onto something that viscerally has affected both Christians and Muslims, leading to Jewish persecution, segregation, discrimination, banishment and murder. You see “jealousy” as causative. While I claim no ready label to describe the malady, I believe it existential.

For centuries, Jews have been accused by the Roman Church, Luther and the Reformers, and by Muslims of having maliciously expurgated, expunged, forged and altered the ancient Jewish texts. Say the antagonists, the rabbis did so to combat the newer revelations claimed by the other faiths. In short, for millennia the rabbis conspired and lied in order to protect a deficient faith. Then came 1948 and with it the discovery of the oldest yet known Jewish texts.

For decades, the world patiently awaited the publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls et al. The more time that passed without publication, the more the rumors and conspiracy theories grew to explain the translators’ tardiness. No matter who was faulted, it was always implicitly understood that the cause was the fear of revealing some newly discovered, earth shattering truths or revelations, long hidden from view in the Judean desert. The controversial atmosphere, throughout, was much like that now seen with the publication of the Coptic “Book of Judas.”

So, what great secret had long lain dormant in the caves of Qumran? As it turns, none – the texts proved that the Jews had been extremely conscientious preservationist of original Bible texts. Such scribal errors as had occurred during the millennia were trivial and inconsequential. Succinctly, after fifty plus years of meticulous work, modern scholars were able to confidently say that the received Jewish Tanakh had never been corrupted by Jewish scholars in reaction to the threats of Christianity or Islam. In a word, the Jewish “Bible” had always been and remained uncorrupted and true to its original formulation.

Was the authentication of the Tanakh revelatory? Oh, yes, and to a degree not entirely appreciated. You see, with the validation of the Jewish account of theology, the other faiths, reliant upon incorrect interpretations and, thereby, faulty exegeses, have some splan’n to do. You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

Pork rinds, Jews always have been and remain a threat, simply by their existence and their custodianship of sacred writ. So long as Jews exist, they serve as a living indictment of the ever evolving, ever young, fall of man. But, take heart, because ultimately all will be right. Recount the words of John Adams (a man awestruck by Jews), “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

Shalom!

5/06/2006 07:09:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

I think you're right--the Jews make the godless and the godly-pretenders so uncomfortable that any power such men accrue turns to expression. Thus antisemitism has always been a very reliable reverse indicator of general psycho-spiritual health.

5/06/2006 07:48:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

WSJ sez to put Negroponte in @ CIA and Rudy G to DNI!

5/06/2006 08:16:00 AM  
Blogger Boghie said...

Wretchard's main point was stated in his comments. The first of which contains:


"Intel didn't see 9/11 coming. It didn't forsee Turkey would reject the 4ID; it couldn't find the WMDs in Iraq; it has not, to this day, found Zarqawi. In a way it would be more comforting if Rumsfeld did lie. It would mean we actually knew the truth and chose to lie about it. What seems more likely is that intelligence knows comparatively little that was definite. And that is a far more dangerous indicator operationally, than a commander's willingness to lie. It goes to a deficiency in capability, not intent."


What Wretchard at the Belmont Club is stating – in part – is that we Americans can resolve a lie. We can fire people, force people out of office, elect other politicians, and impeach the President. We can do these things and more!!!

But, what can we do if we have no capability of resolving the problem?

5/06/2006 08:29:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

Fox just announced Negroponte's top deputy Michael Hayden will be named CIA chief, come monday.

Also, next item after the Hayden announcement, came the announcement that Valerie Plame is signing a 7-figure book deal with her publisher.

5/06/2006 08:37:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

As well she should, buddy.

Ms Plame is not to blame for all the flame,
or is it Mrs Wilson?

Where's Dennis the Menace?

Another series of lies dealt as truths. Mr Wilson reported that Iraqi had attempted to purchase yellowcake.

Another manufactured crisis.
And to what end...
Scooter was not indicted for passing information, but perjury.

So whom ever "outed" Ms Plame is secondary, at best.
Indeed the entire Plame Affair is a much ado about nothing.
Unless you're Scooter
or Ms Plame

Maybe someone would buy the autobiography of a desert rat for that kind of cash, a movie as well
Who's her agent?

5/06/2006 08:51:00 AM  
Blogger Jamie Irons said...

Allen (7:09 AM):

Wonderful post!

(However OT it may be! ;-)

You would be interested in a most fascinating piece in The Claremont Review of Books (Spring 2006) on Harold Bloom's Jesus and Jahweh: The Names Divine by Benjamin Balint.

(Bloom was one of my professors at Yale; he seemed to like me after I told him my dad had been born in Hart Crane's house! ;-)

Bloom, who in my view is more a poet than a critic, has had one magnificent idea: his "anxiety of influence."

(How many of us have had even one magnificent idea!?)

According to Balint:

Bloom interprets the Trinity as an essentially polytheistic "structure of anxiety" in which God the Father--whom Bloom finds "lacking in personality"--is a mere shade of Yahweh"...

(!!!)

Jamie Irons

5/06/2006 09:07:00 AM  
Blogger Pierre said...

Desert Rat 6:21 great article.

Here is my somewhat less authoritative view of that same issue from June 2005.

War with rules, the new fun way to try and lose.

5/06/2006 09:43:00 AM  
Blogger Jamie Irons said...

Pierre Legrand:

I enjoyed your piece.

'Rat (6:21 AM):

What a find! In the style section of WaPo yet!

I think the author's thought that our leaders may not know that they don't know how to win is the probable reason for our difficulties.

Thanks!

Jamie Irons

5/06/2006 10:11:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

The LA Times has an Editorial about Mr Morales and the continued Energy War.
Now the LA Times does not call it an Energy War, nor even a Socialist War.
Really they do not even call it a War, except to say
But sending in the army to take over the gas fields isn't the answer to Bolivia's problems.

except of course that the fields are in Bolivia, so it's another "Nationalization".

The LA Times then remarks on Boliva's current course

Morales instead is running into the arms of Cuba's Fidel Castro and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, a direction likely to impose a heavy cost on his impoverished nation of 9 million

But Mr Morales's constituents have never benefited from the Energy Sales, so for them the "Unnatural Disaster" will have no effect.

Only the "Internationalists" in Bolivia will be effected, not the subsistance farmers.

It's another hit on the
New World Order

5/06/2006 10:31:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

Columbia's just granted ability to buy soybeans in the US means that American farmers have gained another market, while Bolivian will see sales of their higher priced product plummet.

These are Mr Morales's folk and he has a new Trade Agreement with Mr Chavez that guarentees the soybean price supports.
High oil prices will support Mr Morales's move, even if Bolivia's direct energy sales drop to nada.

5/06/2006 10:42:00 AM  
Blogger rhhardin said...

Stanley Cavell has a couple of nice turns of phrase in explaining ``knowing in an instant,'' to draw out what knowing is, and hence a little what lying might be. It's not what the left wants to claim.

``Knowing in a moment, like suddenly claiming to remember a tune, does not claim to be right : the only thing it could be right about is what it claims to know or to be able to produce on the spot, in the moment, which preempts the room for claiming, for justifying. It is not a claim to be justified by evidence or reasoning, but a sally of conviction; its failure is no surprise and no threat to the powers of human knowledge. Given the complexity of our powers, this sort of thing is bound to happen, not the failure but the sally, failing or succeeding. The response to this failure is not like, ``So I didn't know [...] after all,'' but just, in full, roughtly, ``Damn!''

_Conditions Handsome and Unhandsome_ p.74

Partly knowing of WMD's seems to me to have been putting together a pattern, and knowing from the accumulation. Being wrong about that would be a ``Damn!'' sort of result, not a lie.

5/06/2006 10:55:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

The AP's Fiona Smith puffs the Castro system (tho she does mention the taking of names, and USA aid to Bolivia (that it's long-running and considerable, and dwarfs the Castro/Chavez effort, you'll have to figure out for yourself). Newsweek leans in, too.

rat is right, that the marriage of the deluge of new oil revenues to the needs of the poorest, is above criticism. Methodology aside, the overarching truth is right there.

5/06/2006 11:01:00 AM  
Blogger Starling said...

2164th,

first thank you for your kind words. Secondly, your point about knowing what the audience is hearing is very well-taken. A leader bears responsibility not only for what he says but also for what is said in his name by his surrogates and, of course, what people understood him to say.

It's been 3-1/2 years now since the Joint resolution. I can't recall whether my impression at the time was that all people were hearing was WMD or whether the impression was developed post hoc as the President's detractors pushed the "Where's the WMD" meme harder and harder, with every passing day (hour, actually) that WMD were not found.

5/06/2006 11:05:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

Note that Ms. Smith of the AP finds the fact that the cocaine growers have taken a national government--and more or less de-criminalized (if not made patriotic) narcoterrorism de-facto--hardly worth mention.

One wonders how USA will be able to keep up the hundreds of millions of foreign aid to Bolivia, once we're all coked-up and worthless.

5/06/2006 11:18:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

We for sure the Daddy country, with a houseful of delinquent kids, and Momma (our Dems) eggin' 'em on. I want a dee-vorce.

5/06/2006 11:25:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

You can always join the piRats of the Caribe, buddy, better than the French Foreign Legend.
Lousy pay, good fringe benifits.

Just a moderate investment of time and money and you to could be in Paradise. Now with Sirius Satellite, Jimmy Buffett owns the air waves, piRat music without CDs.
Heck, you could stay in Texas and join up.

Freedom's more than a state of mind.
Or nothin' else to lose

5/06/2006 11:35:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

Haw--send me a brochure from margaritaville, rat--I used to stomp around down there, and must admit the cobalt water, azure air, fine white sand, and green mountains running to the sea, will be so much finer if not flying over to some damn drilling rig in the jungle.

5/06/2006 11:44:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

No Elvis, but Wretchard gets a nice mention (ht instap) in this topical essay:

5/06/2006 12:25:00 PM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

You left out the Chinook that went down in Afghanistan with ten soldiers, C4. Better get "busy" and keep "up to date" on the "bad news" "items", you "don't" want to "miss" any "opportunities", do "you"?

5/06/2006 12:41:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Our top spy agent was a womanizer.
Kicked out of Yemen by oh so politically correct hippie Ambassador Barbara Bodine, fellow graduate at UCSB with her Buddy, the honorable Ambassador of Dope and false hope, Mr. Wilson.
Top spy agent went on to die in 9-11.
Thanks Babs.
Mr. Goss will go back to his Organic garden, leaving DC to the Politically Correct, Feminized, and oh so Compassionate Warriors.
Spies and their masters only associate with proper folks these days.
And their Boss is so pure that he hangs out with the devout.
(Including Devout Wahhabists, of course, wouldn't want to discriminate.)
Meanwhile, Sandy, Gorelick et al walk.

5/06/2006 12:50:00 PM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

Fox is reporting from Athens, what are being called "anti-globalization" rioters are in the streets, and have torched four banks and a McDonalds. They're carrying signs and shouting "Hands off Iran!" and "Bush is the #1 terrorist!"

There, C4--some more grim news. But, at least they're inserting the "#1" into the chant--meaning that they won't deny that Iran is at least a terrorist. Right?

Who are these rioters? They look like western college kids. Do they want Iranian nukes aimed at Athens?

Man this flood of new iol revenue is showing up all over the globe. The Russian birthrate has turned up, Venezuela has resuscitated Castro, cocaine has a new government shield, UK is stepping away from GWB, Cheney is having to make Cold War speeches, and the US deputy ambassador to Pakistan has just announced publicly that the Paki gov't is underperforming the war. The quick jump from $50 to $70 has set the dogs loose, and we STILL can't drill ANWAR or the outer shelf. I think we need to wall off DC and set up a provisional.

5/06/2006 01:02:00 PM  
Blogger PeterBoston said...

Is there anybody not sick and tired of these ankle-biting assholes?

5/06/2006 01:35:00 PM  
Blogger blert said...

1:10 PM Habu_1 said...

“i can't say it enough times..before Russia and China sign a mutual defense treaty with Iran we MUST wipe them out. After that it'll be too late.

Stone age 'em NOW.”

Hey now!

Iran is already working point!

She’s already protecting them.

Of course, crushing Russia and China makes sense on its own terms.

5/06/2006 01:45:00 PM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

Welcome to the Oil Wars. Build 8 more carrier battle groups, for an even 20. And that new hunter/killer sub--the replacement for the Los Angeles Class, get a move on--double the order.

5/06/2006 01:56:00 PM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

F-22 starting to make a little more sense, suddenly?

5/06/2006 01:59:00 PM  
Blogger Alexis said...

habu 1 (3:04):

The new emphasis on preventing terrorist attacks worries me. That's because prevention allows al-Qaeda and its allies to constantly improve their internal security against infiltration. Remember what happened when somebody leaked how the NSA monitored Osama bin Laden's cell phone!

Let's say that some intelligence agency knew that a terrorist group had a nuke and was in the process of bringing it to Philadelphia. Let's also assume that taking any extraordinary measures to stop the nuke shipment would "burn" our sources of information and kill off our big chance to wipe out that terrorist organization. So, the choice is to either let an American city get nuked while destroying the enemy organization or prevent the attack by "burning" our source of information.

Question for the era: how can we thwart terrorist attacks while protecting our sources?

5/06/2006 02:04:00 PM  
Blogger desert rat said...

In Havana, in October.
Even up bet that the Ruskies show up, not Mr Putin, but his agents.

The bad guys are as ready as they'll ever be, across the board.
Push will come to shove, but on whose inititive?

Do not believe that we have the momentuem, 'cause we surely don't.

Unless the Son of Shah is on the money. Best he get alot, even if it's good money after bad, it is after all, only money.

5/06/2006 02:05:00 PM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

By Jupiter, habu--that's the ticket!

well, the meeting is over at the UN--the Monday vote has been postponed, due to "deadlock" over the text.

5/06/2006 02:07:00 PM  
Blogger blert said...

12:30 PM C4

The other defenses of the "true believers:

A. "We have found plenty of bianary shells, but we're keeping it secret from the public." Why?

ANSWER:

It’s impossible to disclose such a truth while these weapons are still in the possession of an enemy in the field. All aspects of such discoveries must remain hush-hush even though the administration would love to go public.

Overwhelming military need demands that politics take a back seat. More generally, this will ALWAYS be true. In a world war against unlawful combatants it is IMPOSSIBLE to publicize any NBC ordnance specifics. We’ve found the munitions, not the factories.

A single binary nerve gas round could kill thousands. The FBI and CIA have to be going nuts trying to keep this stuff out of America.

You seem to have lost any comprehension of the gravity of this problem. The nation is trying to stop mass murder on a 9/11 scale.

Proving up Saddam’s BC capability simply comes at too high a cost. Much in the manner of exposing ULTRA – are you mad?

5/06/2006 02:08:00 PM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

EZ, the "Ovary Office"--

5/06/2006 02:13:00 PM  
Blogger blert said...

2:09 PM Habu_1

“since the Oval office was designed as a Freudian tribute to the male testcle, what will it be called when a dame gets in office? ***”

Fallopian Terminus

5/06/2006 02:16:00 PM  
Blogger desert rat said...

I don't get it, blert.
I'm not mad, either.

If we do not have the factories, if the dual use facilities were not the source, what of it?
Thet factories are where ever they are. If the bad guts have them, they know it.
If we said we found 5,000 active binary rounds, or not, will not effect control of the binary agent factory, where ever it may be.

To announce we can prove the factory exists would only make maintaining the War Effort possible.

Unless the Admin is goin' all in on the Son of Shah, the Bush's do appreciate old family ties.
Bush 41 was DCI when the Shah Sr was in charge, no?
The Sauds would give that move a big thumbs up.
Bitch slap ol' Jimma too.

5/06/2006 02:18:00 PM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

Churchill let Atlantic convoys fight it out of surprise wolf-pack attacks--attacks that Ultra decrypts had alerted him were likely. He had to protect the secret. He had a war-winner, didn't want to trade it for a battle-winner.

5/06/2006 02:21:00 PM  
Blogger blert said...

DR

Here’s one factory: VX from Sudan

http://yarchive.net/mil/nerve_gas_sudan.html

I expect that we will find that Saddam was getting his binary agents from Chinese, Nork and Sudanese dual use chemical plants.

It was the quickest, cheapest way to go. Further, it’s totally deniable.

All that we have is loose chemical munitions that were expressly designed to look no different than standard base-bleed (extended range counter battery) rounds.

This last property was to permit binary rounds to be fired even under French observation. Never forget that the French Army supplied Saddam with his officer corps during 1981-1988.

BTW, the record shows that France and Germany supplied many dual use chemicals during this period. Ever trustworthy Saddam insisted only benign usage. Somehow, Iraq’s need for pesticides declined with the remission of the war.

5/06/2006 02:35:00 PM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

The last time I called a dame a broad I walked around with my ass between my shoulder blades for a coupla weeks.

5/06/2006 02:36:00 PM  
Blogger Pierre said...

Sorry, 2164th, but anyone who judges Richard Nixon "one of the greatest American presidents" isn't much of a judge of presidents or presidencies. I wanted to be gentle about that error. Exactly how can a President who brought forth such marvelous ideas like...here lets allow Jonah Goldberg to disassemble Nixon:

The truth is, Nixon was the last of the New Deal-era liberal presidents. He sponsored and signed the legislation creating the Environmental Protection Agency, the Water Quality Improvement Act and the Endangered Species Act. He oversaw the establishment of Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Nixon created the Philadelphia Plan, the springboard for racial quotas; pushed for Title IX (the women's "equality" law); and hired Leon Panetta (later Bill Clinton's chief of staff) as his director of the office of civil rights.

Nixon pushed aggressively for national health insurance that would cover 100 percent of the nation's poor children. He increased federal spending on health and education programs by more than 50 percent and massively boosted spending on the National Endowment for Humanities. He tried to increase welfare with his Family Assistance Plan and Child Development Act.


Jonah being quite the funny guy did a comparison between Bush and Nixon that wasn't terribly flattering to either.

5/06/2006 02:42:00 PM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

Jeez, how can you leave out the Wage & Price Controls?

5/06/2006 02:45:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Has your Woman Had her Licking?

5/06/2006 02:47:00 PM  
Blogger Pierre said...

Proving up Saddam’s BC capability simply comes at too high a cost. Much in the manner of exposing ULTRA – are you mad?

Which is another reason why the Administration should have driven the point home regarding Saddams extensive Terrorist connections.

5/06/2006 02:47:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

""Lord have mercy! He's never had any problems before," said his mother, Jeranda Weir, who described him as a hardworking man who suffers from a speech impediment.
Weir had worked as an escort on a Manhattan helipad, but he lost the job several months ago, his mom said.

"He was a hardworking boy until he got laid off last year," she added. "We can't deal with this right now."

---
What's a Helipad Escort do?
If it's a cathouse, he must lick their pads, I guess.

5/06/2006 02:54:00 PM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

...my baby, i rotor a letter....

5/06/2006 03:02:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Rotor Rooter

5/06/2006 03:04:00 PM  
Blogger blert said...

Foot Loose Foot Louse

5/06/2006 03:09:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

"a hardworking man who suffers from a speech impediment"
---
"Ah, aah, ah want you to be my partner."

5/06/2006 03:14:00 PM  
Blogger Deuce ☂ said...

Kyda Sylvester said...

“Sorry, 2164th, but anyone who judges Richard Nixon "one of the greatest American presidents" isn't much of a judge of presidents or presidencies.”

Thank you for your doctrinaire evaluation. It is usually pointless to debate someone that uses a fatuous declaration as an opening argument. For that reason I will not waste time and argue why Nixon was a great president in great detail. I will say that I can make a reasoned credible argument to support my statement and will take the risk that I may annoy you with a few points.

I could also make a very acceptable argument as to why JFK was a great president and get yours and most other heads nodding yes. The problem is that I would be lying because even though JFK appears on every list of Great US Presidents, he was not great and in many ways exceedingly flawed. His contemporary, Richard M. Nixon was also flawed, very unpopular with all his enemies and I am sure most of your friends. Nixon was a man of courage, decisiveness, a brilliant tactician, a great cold warrior, a man willing to put aside personal ambition for the greater good, in fact a man of rare abilities. He was a man left with an extraordinary mess caused by the Democrats, liberals and many people probably in your company. Richard M. Nixon was a man held in contempt of his enemies and that suits me just fine. Have a nice day.

5/06/2006 03:22:00 PM  
Blogger blert said...

Nixon's the only president to serve 6.5 years having been elected to 12.

Deathbed testimony establishes without a doubt that Joe bought 1960 from the mob in Chicago.

As Nixon aptly put it: " They stole it fair and square."

Most all of Nixon's troubles flowed as a consequence: press relations, victimosis and over-compensation.

5/06/2006 03:35:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

3:35 PM
NEVER Forgive an Anti-Communist!

5/06/2006 03:41:00 PM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

C4, yes. we are in the middle of a shitty war and shitty things are happening everywhere. I can't argue that. But we had to do something after 911, and if you would balance what is with what might have been, you know, had we done more Clinton, then your posts would be more accessible to me, anyway. You know what I mean, a laundry list reads better in "context". I'd hate to've seen what you'd've written in say 1942.

5/06/2006 03:42:00 PM  
Blogger desert rat said...

Bet on the Son of Shah, C4, the Bush's are goin' all in on the new Shah. Old family friend, has lived in the US, says he can git er done.

Internalize that Iranian problem, yeah, that's the ticket.
If the Mullahs were ousted, SCIRI could be moderated and we'd have no need to physically occuppy the Region.
The Son of Shah, on CNN & FOX, come late summer, early fall.

Daddy would be so proud.

5/06/2006 03:43:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Who wouldn't be?

5/06/2006 03:45:00 PM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

rat, if if if--you could be right, it's the key to the whole damn mess--all of it, everywhere. the winds of war would shift the other way.

5/06/2006 03:48:00 PM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

Aq is a pissant gnat, it's the alternate reality being projected by point man Achmadinijade that is rallying the old Reds everywhere.

5/06/2006 03:51:00 PM  
Blogger desert rat said...

That would be a hell of a September Surprise for Mr Bush to pull out of his hat.

Cigars all around.

remember where you read it, first.

Yes Mr Watson, the Game is on, our reserve Players are just now entering the field.

Have you ever seen such a Peacock?

5/06/2006 03:51:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

(course he'd have to restart the enforcement that they stopped 2 years ago to git my vote for a third term)
As Bud says,
"They're tightening up the Border,"
But when they STOPPED all hearland enforcement, and started talkin Amnesty II the magnet was ENERGIZED!
Free Everything for the poor of the World.
Demean the proud Mexican Heritage here of the past by equating it with the Welfare Breeders, Gang Bangers, and Drug Smugglers of the present.
(I'll link of movie of GWB doin just that soon)
Like Bud's Dallar Fed Doll sez, 1970's wages for carpenters is just swell, and as Bud says, it's "cause of the Global Economy"?

5/06/2006 03:52:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

"Dallas Fed Doll"

5/06/2006 03:53:00 PM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

Sorry, not up for more economics, doug--have at it on your own today.

5/06/2006 04:01:00 PM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

having too much fun with the Peacock thought.

5/06/2006 04:03:00 PM  
Blogger desert rat said...

All those homes imported from China, doug, by Wal-Mart.
Just drove the US builders right out of business.

But it sure has kept the prices down, those imports.
Home prices and construction costs have stagnated since the '70's, too?

buddy's economist lady was puzzled and could not figure out why there had been the wage stagflation, but KNEW it was not caused by immigrants.
That was just an unacceptable answer.
Racist, you know.

Clean toilets, that what this is Border Security issue is really all about, who has to clean a toilet.

5/06/2006 04:05:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

In which our Elite Teacher Gives us an American History Lesson
(who woulda known this wasn't Gringoland since Adam?)
---
---
Site's slow sometimes: Best to right click and download. It's only 3 megs, but VERY Romantic

5/06/2006 04:07:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

'Rat,
Neither me nor my wife has ever paid someone to clean our toilet.
Should we pay extra taxes?

Same for the lawns, etc.
But in LA Basin, 100,000 are employed by patriotic Liberals and Conservatives alike.

For emergencies, retirement, extended families, and etc.
Good Old Uncle Sam steps in with FREE DOLLARS!
---
Such a Deal!

5/06/2006 04:10:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Buddy hates it when he's confronted with unpleasant realities.

Best git back to Happy Talk, 'Rat.
All's Well on the Southern Front!
Stay the Course!
---
Latest Label:
"Hysterical"
I guess VDH had a 2 year bout with "Hysteria" when he wrote that MEXIFORNIA Book.
---
Probly just Hormones.
---
...anyway, be thankful:
Beats xenophobe, racist, and etc!

5/06/2006 04:16:00 PM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

But C4, Baghdad *is* Moscow, in your analogy. besides, my point was that we had to do *something* about the mideast after 911.

Doug, Rat, don't blame the Dallas Fed report on me--I didn't write it. If you want to think it's baloney, go ahead, have at it. Call it "stupid".

5/06/2006 04:25:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

We read your stuff, do you ever read ours?

5/06/2006 04:29:00 PM  
Blogger Deuce ☂ said...

As a public service to help you enjoy your Saturday evening check this out. I sh*t you not.

"The weapon in question is complicated to master, and American soldiers and marines undergo many days of training to achieve the most basic competence with it. Moreover, the weapon in Mr. Zarqawi’s hands was an older variant, which makes its malfunctioning unsurprising. The veterans said Mr. Zarqawi, who had spent his years as a terrorist surrounded by simpler weapons of Soviet design, could hardly have been expected to know how to handle it."
http://www.dartblog.com/

5/06/2006 04:32:00 PM  
Blogger desert rat said...

I did not say "stupid" buddy.

I said Govermental and Scholastic PC
Something you are usually one of the first to see.

Regardless of the merits, though, this Issue will not "go away".

Without a "September Surprise" the Republicans will lose the House, which historicly, only happens when the Senate is also lost.

Here's to Hope, Elections & Son of Shah.

5/06/2006 04:32:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Dallas Fed Baloney?

No matter how you slice it, folks are fed up.

5/06/2006 04:36:00 PM  
Blogger Arthur Dent said...

Why again is Andrew Sullivan EVER quoted? I cannot think of anything he has that makes me want to call and ask his opinion.

I can think of 50 mainstream people I would appreciate hearing from who I never do hear from.

My only guess, no insult intended or implied, is that it shines a light on prior connections.

5/06/2006 05:27:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

I've asked that question myself, Arthur, and I'm for Vouchers!
...must have "Widespread Support!"

5/06/2006 05:29:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

That "mainstream" comment's gonna cost you 10 hours of training, and some work w/"the community."

5/06/2006 05:31:00 PM  
Blogger blert said...

3:51 PM Cedarford ranted...

“ Blert sounding like the "rigged Ohio voting machines blocked Monsieur Kerry from being Prez" Lefty whacko counterparts to Blert:
Explaining why his "vast quantities of bianary nerve gas shells discovered and used on US and Iraqis are being lied about by every Bushie to keep the truth from the US public that might turn and support the Iraq war or going in and eliminating Blert's "vast stockpiles in Syria:”


This is a totally fabricated ‘quote’ aka falsehood. And next, a false choice:


Better to have the "Coalition of the Willing" collapse and take major global damage than admit our Causus Belli was true!..


“Ah hah! So the thousands of Islamoids found with suitcase nuclear bombs and driving tankers full of liquified nerve gas must never be revealed and all our government must lie about it!!!

Another fabricated quote or inference.

“Otherwise, we would have allies and support for Bush's war course and even invasion of Syria or Iran would skyrocket. And we can't have that!”

More pure rant.




“And why haven't we learned of any attacks inside Iraq of thousands killed by insurgents using nerve gas? Oh - aside from the "hush hush"...”

Either we’re doing something right – or their sappers are doing something wrong. Based on the record it appears that the unlawful combatants are screwing up: and I’m not going to educate them here.

And finally a totally fabricated ‘quote’ – this last takes the explosive C4 out of his straw man grow room and places him deep the company of loons and snarks. Pathetic:


[Just because I found no snipe birds on my snipe hunt with a pillowcase only shows the snipe poultry farms are Ultra-Secret factories of the missing snipe we must find! "Blert"]

5/06/2006 07:45:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

They said it was about WMD's, and everyone with a brain knew it was about Iraqi oil, Kuwaiti oil, Possible Nukes, leading to Saudi oil, Iranian oil, Qutari oil, leading to "Lots" and "Lots" of Nukes, leading to $500.00/bbl oil, leading to starving American and European children, leading to "Nuclear War," leading to ....

well, you get the picture.

Now, the children are tired, and whiney. Daddy's stuck with them. That's okay. "Mommy" Hillary will be here, soon. She'll kiss it, and make it ALL go away.

5/06/2006 08:07:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Iraq the Model is saying that the New Government will be up and running next week.

We just cancelled the deployment of a Brigade to Iraq.

The Iraqi's are running more operations than we are.

We've won the War. The Insurgency is in shambles. A "Real" Government is taking over. We'll spend another year or so, training Iraqi's and drawing down troops.

If we have to hit Iran, we've got some great airbases. Next door. Oh, and 130,000 troops. The Straits of Hormuz and the Middle East oil is safe. We've "free'd" 50,000.000 people, discredited Al Queda, and turned the Middle East on it's head. Libya gave up it's nuke program, and the Syrians are out of Lebanon.

People in the ME are looking at a Democracy taking shape. Satellite TV, cell phones, internet, and 150 "Free" Newspapers, tens of TV stations, and hundreds of radio stations.

Women are voting, and running for office in Kuwait. Musharraf is walking the straight and narrow, and India is wanting to do business.

On and on. And what do I hear?

Whine, whine, whine. It's not perfect. Sheesh

5/06/2006 08:23:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Eggplant 10:47 PM
I hear Ms P is getting a Brain-Lift.
Don't count eggs until that's hatched!
(Think how smooth she'll be if she gets some of Ms Terraaaza's Botulinum BENEATH that furrowed Brow in addition to upon it.)
You ain't seen Nuthin Yet! tm Algore

5/06/2006 11:12:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

What if Akmeninut has Vast Secret Stockpiles of Snipe
w/BIRD FLU???

5/06/2006 11:15:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Little does C-4 know:

"Length: 9 inches
Stocky, short-legged, pointed-winged shorebird
*Explosive* takeoff when flushed, rapid zigzag flight
"

5/06/2006 11:21:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

"There are 10 kinds of people in the world—those who understand binary, and those who don't."

5/06/2006 11:39:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

The neatest thing in Aristide's CNN Video was a woman holding a cloth banner and screaming at Rummy.
Some guy seated there got tired of it, and reached up and grabbed the banner.
The b.... wouldn't let go and just about got shook and pulled to the floor!
A true visceral pleasure to watch.
Then the Gendarmes intervened.

5/07/2006 01:27:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

For Arthur:
---
Jonah! How Dare You!
[John Podhoretz]
How on earth could Andrew Sullivan find the time actually to read Ramesh's book, what with all the torture going on in the world?

The weight of that inestimable horror rests heavily on Andrew's shoulders, don't you know that?

Not to mention he has sleep apnea! I demand you apologize to him immediately.
Oh — and resign.

5/07/2006 01:47:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

5/07/2006 06:02:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

I agree, blert, that the Dems may have peaked a bit soon, but then again maybe the Repub have not completely cratered, yet.

This little oiece, from RealClearPolitics tells the truth.

"... On immigration, this suggestion may reflect a shift in public opinion after the May 1 marches, away from the belief that the pro-illegals lobby had decisively altered public opinion, toward the realization that the marches may have created a powerful backlash.

Citing Arizona's new anti-smuggling law, the sheriff of Maricopa County (Phoenix) announced that a posse of a hundred deputies and volunteers would begin patrolling the desert. This appears to be an act of official frustration, not one of those cosmetic attempts to placate the right. The Minutemen, denounced as vigilantes by President Bush but greatly respected in the state, are now building a fence on private land along the Mexican border. They are going national too, with chapters popping up in Virginia and elsewhere.

The frustration level in Arizona is so high that a local prosecutor, Andrew Thomas of Maricopa County, organized a national immigration conference and gave a fiery speech on the chaos, crime and cost of the tide of illegals. Last spring, I managed to get lost in one of the rugged canyons of southeast Arizona, and stumbled on two camping areas for illegals, each with about as much debris as you might expect from an airliner crash.

Mercedes Maharis, who lives near that canyon, has just released a documentary on DVD, "Cochise County, USA: Cries From the Border." The eeriest footage is infrared photography of illegals, maybe a hundred or more, swarming across the border at night. The turning point for one woman came when she set up a tepee in her back yard and noticed one morning that a group of illegals was living in it. The withering remarks in the film are not aimed at the illegals, but at Washington for abandoning its constitutional duty to guard the border. ...

... Political scientist Samuel Huntington argues that this amounts to a deconstruction of American identity that has been "gradually created over three centuries." In his book "Mexifornia," Victor Davis Hanson says California is not quite Mexico, but not quite the United States either.

The political culture of Washington, focused on cheap labor and Latino votes, is nowhere near recognizing what is happening. ..."


John Leo is a contributing columnist for RealClearPolitics.

There is a huge backlash, poised to vote, out here. Those in Washington are either blind or willfully ignorant.

I'm shocked but I find myself with Mr Dean, secure the Border now, worry about the "guests" later.
Mr Bush, he represents the status que, which is no longer acceptable, nor Conservative.

5/07/2006 06:07:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

"... Beltway pundits who casually throw aside the concern of the conservative base on this issue make a mistake and underestimate voter intensity on the illegal immigration problem. For a conservative base already demoralized by a Republican-led Congress incapable of cutting spending and frustrated by a war that is either portrayed as floundering (or actually is floundering), abdication of responsibility on the illegal immigration mess may be the last straw that compels many conservatives to sit on their hands this November. ...

... So right now Republicans have managed to create a political environment on immigration that further demoralizes their base while at the same time angers the largest growing electoral demographic critical to a long-term GOP majority. Is it any wonder Senator Schumer implored Harry Reid to scuttle the Senate "compromise"? The last thing the Democrats want, from a political standpoint, is to resolve the immigration issue.

Even though Schumer and many Democrats don't want an immigration bill, Republicans should be happy the Senate compromise went down in flames. If something like the Senate bill were to become law it would be a disaster for Republicans because the conservative base will revolt if a Republican President and Congress attempts a rerun of the Simpson-Mazzoli amnesty of 20 years ago. When you strip it all down, that is essentially what the Senate compromise McCain and Kennedy were crowing about last week would be. ...

...So right now Republicans have managed to create a political environment on immigration that further demoralizes their base while at the same time angers the largest growing electoral demographic critical to a long-term GOP majority. Is it any wonder Senator Schumer implored Harry Reid to scuttle the Senate "compromise"? The last thing the Democrats want, from a political standpoint, is to resolve the immigration issue.

Even though Schumer and many Democrats don't want an immigration bill, Republicans should be happy the Senate compromise went down in flames. If something like the Senate bill were to become law it would be a disaster for Republicans because the conservative base will revolt if a Republican President and Congress attempts a rerun of the Simpson-Mazzoli amnesty of 20 years ago. When you strip it all down, that is essentially what the Senate compromise McCain and Kennedy were crowing about last week would be. ...

... - it needs to be made clear (particularly to the Hispanic community) that the problem is illegal immigration not legal immigration.

-the flow of illegal immigrants has to be stopped. This is not about hiring x thousand more border agents or throwing more money at the problem. First, this means building a fence and securing the border. And second, fines and prison for employers and business owners that hire illegals. Law enforcement needs to be focused at the border and then within the country on employers, not the workers. The fact that you will not stop the illegal flow 100% misses the point and ignores the 90%-99% you will stop.

-the number of legal immigration slots needs to dramatically be increased. (Again, it has to be emphasized over and over that the problem is with illegal immigration, not legal immigration.) ...

... The left is going to balk at a real fence and shutting down the border. But liberals who say they are for enforcement and securing the border are going to have a hard time opposing the only real way to secure the border. And the only way conservatives will stomach what is effectively a 2nd amnesty is if they know a fence will go up and the illegal flow will grind to a halt.

With the President's leadership a compromise along these lines is possible. However, right now Bush and the GOP Congress appear rudderless; hoping gerrymandered House districts and not quite enough Republican Senate seats in play will keep them in power. ..."


Senator Kyl, one of my favorites, is going to be coming home. If this situation is not remedied. gerrymandered Districts will not be enough to save the Senate.
The pundits have Mr Kyl safe, word from the street, don't count on that chicken being in the flock come January '07.

5/07/2006 06:28:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

the above quoted piece is Immigration Debate Is Killing GOP by John McIntyre.

5/07/2006 06:30:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

If one thinks back to Mr Newt's "takeover" of the House, it was not just those Dems that had been tainted by the House Check Kiting scandal that were defeated.

There was an across the board repudiation of the Democrats, based on feelings, not new facts or revelations, about the individual Democrats.
Their combined "Style" as it were.

Mr Bush's attempt at "style" & "triangulation" on the Border Security Issue will kill his Party, in the West.

The Democrats will seperate the Issues, Border Security and Immigration Policy. As those issues should be seperated. Mr Pederson is campaigning that way, Mr Dean already has shifted.

The Republicans will hold for "Comprehensive Reform" and have their hats handed to 'em, as they leave Washington DC, on their long drives home.

5/07/2006 06:40:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

"Mr Bush, he represents the status que, which is no longer acceptable, nor Conservative. "
---
The REALITY is he has created the New New Status Quo, many times worse than a decade ago, with a wink and a nod, a lie here, cessation of Heartland Enforcement there, and while DC and MSM true believers can't see it, Campesinos in Mexico sure can, and so can, increasingly "The American Public."
(minus some of our resident Govt. Statistically blinded members and Dogmatic True Believers, not to mention the Romantic Feelgooders, aka White Guilt Paralyzed Lemmings.)
---
Gov. Blasts Congress on Borders
By Peter Nicholas
Schwarzenegger says lawmakers and the White House are to blame for immigration protests.

5/07/2006 07:34:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

"Comprehensive Reform"
Says honest George:
Patriotic Americans Should Bend Over and get "Fooled" (fueled?) Again.
Mazzoli, Smazolli:
Shoot the Juice to me Bruce!

5/07/2006 07:38:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Reality be damned, 'Rat,
Full Speed Astern!
Stay the Course!

5/07/2006 07:48:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

"Assturned" Patriotically to Accept
"Comprehensive Reform"

5/07/2006 07:49:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

doug,
cool thing, Arnie.
Remember how revered he was post Republican Convention. Gave the "best" speach. A true American, admend the Constitution, let Arnie run!

Those were the days.
Now he says
"..."I think that all of this comes down to one thing: The federal government has failed the people of America in a terrible way, in a disastrous way, when it comes to this immigration situation."

Schwarzenegger, who emigrated from Europe in 1968, called for better ways to police U.S. borders ...

...Speaking at a middle school here, Schwarzenegger said that "to have a border that is not secure is to me staggering."

He scolded Congress for leaving Washington last month for spring recess, after a proposed deal to revamp the nation's immigration laws collapsed.

"For them to go home for spring break and not really take care of it when they know this was boiling here in this country is also irresponsible," he said.

Schwarzenegger called for "putting the pressure on the federal government [to] let them know they're responsible." ...

...Dana Perino, a spokeswoman for the White House, said Friday that the Bush administration ... ..."We do acknowledge that we need to do more, and the president has been very clear that he is for a comprehensive immigration bill that will improve border security, improve interior enforcement and include a guest worker program." ..."

5/07/2006 07:51:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

"comprehensive immigration bill that will improve border security, improve interior enforcement and include a guest worker program"
---
More, MORE!, the hurt feels so good!
---
PS
That "Guest Worker" program is like a good Cigarette.

5/07/2006 07:57:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

And now Arthur knows Why Andy is so Entertaining to some!

5/07/2006 07:59:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

The Terminator speaks
"...The federal government has failed the people of America in a terrible way, in a disastrous way, when it comes to this immigration situation." ..."

Stands up to Uncle Teddy!

5/07/2006 08:00:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

Those Yale elitests, keeping their secrets from the Skull & Bones days. It is typical of the likes of that JFKerry, to support a compassionate agenda, while the fish rots from the head.

5/07/2006 08:05:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Gives a whole new meaning to:
"Onward Christian Soldiers"
...GWB Acolytes, Ankles Grabbed, Advancing Backwards Toward the Precipice.
(precipice?)

5/07/2006 08:05:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

More like:
Toward the Totum of
"Comprehensive Reform."

5/07/2006 08:07:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

"Bushtail"
Animal Totem

5/07/2006 08:16:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

We all have power animals which can be accessed by meditation. Below are a list of animals and their symbology.
I'm feeling like part of the Ant Group, now.
(lemmings aren't listed)

5/07/2006 08:21:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

"We often unconsciously recognize the Power Animal affecting someone, and use terms which give away our unconscious recognition."
---
Like when Bush Gives us Social Security True Believers a Cuddly Teddy Bear to keep us safe at nite.
"More Guest Workers/Citizens/Voters!"

5/07/2006 08:25:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

Now you're talkin' like Carlos did in the Tales of Power, where's the crow, now?

5/07/2006 08:29:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Russel?

5/07/2006 08:33:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

Schwarzenegger said that "to have a border that is not secure is to me staggering."

5/07/2006 08:35:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

"Tails of Power"
The "American Public"
SUBMITS to,
"Comprehensive Reform"
...again.

5/07/2006 08:36:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Hate to bring up THAT Tail again.

5/07/2006 08:36:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

but I'd bet he said it;

"to have a border that is not secure, is to me, staggering."

5/07/2006 08:38:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Everybody staggers a bit when they grab their ankles.
No Biggie.
(so to speak)

5/07/2006 08:38:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

Or perhaps Mr Schwarzenegger said it like

"to have a border that is not secure is, to me, staggering."

5/07/2006 08:43:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Just so.

5/07/2006 08:46:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

For those skipping to the bitter end:
---
In which our Elite Teacher Gives us an American History Lesson
(who woulda known this wasn't Gringoland since Adam?)
---
---
Site's slow sometimes: Best to right click and download. It's only 3 megs, but VERY Romantic

5/07/2006 08:50:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

How many takes would Arnie need?
'fore it was perfect?

"...The federal government has failed the people of America in a terrible way, in a disastrous way, when it comes to this immigration situation." ...

... "to have a border that is not secure is, to me, staggering."


No one understands America, quite like Arnie.

Box office reciepts tell the tale of Arnies ability to understand where people's heads are at and how not only to be ahead of, but create a curve, wholecloth.

5/07/2006 08:51:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

5/07/2006 09:37:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for your 8:23 PM non-pessimistic assessment, Rufus. I have to laugh when the Right rails against the relentless negativity of the MSM and their agenda to pull down the Repubs, no matter the greater war, since we seem to be doing a pretty good job of it ourselves these days.

Yet another thread on the Iraq War, reportage and perception gets diverted to the gravest threat we face as a nation- illegal Mexicans and their amigo Bush. Some of us are beginning to realize that angry Repubs don't want to be the majority party, anymore, nor to follow through on our fight against Islamist terror and dangerous global re-alignments. They seem to want to retreat and build walls, polemicize and polarize, and certainly not settle for imperfect. For them, their principals trump logistical and political considerations, black and white is clearer than gray, and projection is truer than reality (Dubaian control of our ports! Mexican illegal invasion! Dems will secure us! Third Party is the answer!) When the Pelosi Dems take over in '06 and we get another President Clinton '08, the reactionary Repub wing will keep blaming Bush and enjoy being apoplectic over the ensuing disaster. Nothing will be their fault, of course, except for trusting this Prez in the first place.

Uncompromising righteousness and emotionalism that cloud perspective and priorities are going to smack down the Right and lose the long war more effectively than all the vapidity and venality of the Left. Imo.

C.

5/07/2006 09:48:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

no, blank, the answer is easy, it is to secure the border.
All other issues guest worker, etc would fade.

The President, is the one that is responsible, not those that are affected by this Asymetric Invasion or have the nerve to mention it.

The King is naked, rejoice in his Wardrobe

Mr Bush could end the Issue tommorrow with an Executive Order and a redeployment of troops, to defend US borders.

He chooses not to, as is within his power.
He has chosen his priorities, as regards what is important to secure America.

I think securing Arizona from foreign invasion more important than securing Baghdad for Mr Maliki, sorry if that upsets you.

15% of the people on the street, here, are "undocumented, uninsured & unlicensed but driving".

Not a condition for US to be living in, sorry if you think that's misguided, blank.

But the Mohammedans are so much yesterday's threat

Sorry, but my street come first, before the "Green Zone" of Baghdad

5/07/2006 09:54:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

The answer to Iraq and Iran lies, as it always has, in the Peacock Throne. Just ask Mr Carter

Reestablishment of that Kingdom would lead to stability and reality, personified.

Then the General President will, someday, maybe, defeat the aQ & Taliban.

5/07/2006 10:02:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

Explain to me, blank, how turning over the ISF to the Generals from Mr al-Sadr's Mahdi Army or the Generals from the Badr Brigades, as per the "militia integration program" of Mr Maliki, will enhance "Peace & Security" of the Region?

I just do not see it.

Does Mr al-Sadr really need an armored brigade of T-72s?

5/07/2006 10:16:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

5/07/2006 10:32:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

blank said...
My intrusion on your private discussion, doug and desert rat, is only an attempt to remind important voices in the center-right blogosphere about the big picture and global threat they used to focus on and deride others for not prioritizing. Except for you, DR, who believes the threat is at your door and esta hablando espanol. Fine.

Was Osama right about America's short attention span and self-destructive urges, or do you really think Bush had the political capital and economic leeway to deport millions of Mexicans and wall off our border while fighting hot wars, proxy wars, terrorists, the Russians, Iranians, Chinese, Europeans, Chavez, the UN, US Democrats, 90% of the press media and entertainment, the CIA, leaks, false scandals, etc., and all while keeping our economy afloat? I forgot- he's supposed to fix Africa, too. Even some here have argued for that.

By all means, debate the illegal immigration situation and reject the President's and other Congressional proposals, if you so choose. But to elevate the issue to 'do or die' so rancorously is to die, I think.

5/07/2006 10:35:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

Again you confuse the issues,
you state, blank:

"really think Bush had the political capital and economic leeway to deport millions of Mexicans ..."

That has nothing to do with Securing the Border.
The two issues are related, assuredly, but not the same.

That is the distinction the Democrats are making, that is what the Repubs ignore, at their own risk.

There will be neither be "comprehensive" reform, nor Security.
The Repubs lose in the Fall.

Allah Akbar, blank.

The say fore warned is fore armed,
but there are none so blind,
as those that will not see.

5/07/2006 10:48:00 AM  
Blogger geoffgo said...

Blank,

I take from Rat's argument that not fixing the border immediately, will end up destroying the Republican's chances for decades. I agree.

As Rat suggests, the Pres could order 50K National Guard to the southern border on Monday, and stem the flood of illegals, which increases daily. While we build the wall.

Not securing the border ASAP will guarantee the Dems a win, and thereby cause a cessation of hostilities in the "long" war; at least on our part.

I'm with Rat and others, at this point, Phoenix before Baghdad.

5/07/2006 10:57:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

desert rat, you truncate my quote as "really think Bush had the political capital and economic leeway to deport millions of Mexicans ..." and then say "That has nothing to do with Securing the Border."

What I wrote was "do you really think Bush had the political capital and economic leeway to deport millions of Mexicans and wall off our border while..."

Are you saying you're one of the few angry men not wanting to build a wall but to redeploy our troops from overseas to the Rio Grande? Because in your words,
"the Mohammedans are so much yesterday's threat

Sorry, but my street come first"?

Blind C.

5/07/2006 10:57:00 AM  
Blogger geoffgo said...

If the Dems claim it to be stupid to fight a war abroad, while ignoring the invasion of the homeland, it will be tough to argue against.

5/07/2006 11:01:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

geoffgo
Exactly, or decide to not build a wall, letting milions more in, if we so decide.

But let the Congress's past decisions be enforced, at least in part, until we decide, anew.

The Federals duty is to defend the Frontier, even Austrian immigrants know that.

5/07/2006 11:01:00 AM  
Blogger geoffgo said...

What is the aversion to building a real wall, with gates and checkpoints?

5/07/2006 11:04:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

The two issues, blank, Border Security & the Guests, are not the one and the same

So the Political Capital is not needed for both. Mr Bush, pushing for a "Comprehensive Package" is spending Political Capital, not conseving it.
Securing the Border would add to his accounts, not deplete them.
It is his insistence of putting the cart before the horse that is going to bite Mr Kyl in the ass.

5/07/2006 11:06:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

blank,
we have an Force of one point five million men.
One hundred thirty eight thousand are in Iraq, twentyfive thousand in Korea.
I am sure that some where in the balance we could find a few thousand tod patrol the frontier.

So no, I would just retask troops already at Fort Sam Houston or Fort Hood or Fort Huachuka or the Marine Proving Grounds, Yuma.

Not much more than that.

There is a reason so many of the Military Bases are near the frontier, you know.

5/07/2006 11:14:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Desert rat: "we have an Force of one point five million men.
One hundred thirty eight thousand are in Iraq, twentyfive thousand in Korea.
I am sure that some where in the balance we could find a few thousand tod patrol the frontier."

Not so very long ago you were citing our "ample" forces numbers to encourage an intervention in Africa. Now it's the American frontier. My husband works on force restructuring/generation issues and would you tell himself how facile your take on force strength and missions is, but he's deep-sea fishing and out of action when America really needs him.

:) C.

5/07/2006 11:23:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

there you go, blank, so many other, foreign, taskings for our troops.
Not enough for US.

I do not set troop strength nor taskings.

If the US still needs to defend Germany from Russia, so it goes.

Jr did three deployments in four years in the Corps, his 1st Sgt said the kid "did it all", I tend to agree.

But Okinawa and Fallujah are both so far from the Asymetric Invasion, so WWII or 'Nam.

But the boy's a two diget midget and Paradise awaits.

5/07/2006 11:36:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

Yes, blank, I believe that Army Brigades, modeled after the 193rd Inf., in the old Canal Zone, could project US force effectively around the World.

I think that in most locales a realitivly small numer, a Brigade or two, would tip the scales.

In Darfur an old style Division might be required, initially, but could be downsized rather quickly.
Mr Kofi, on Mr Bolton's urging asked for 10,000 troops with CAS.

As shown in Afghanistan it is the "death from above" capacity that will turn the tide.

5/07/2006 11:48:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Will forward your advice to FORSCOM, CENTCOM and the Pentagon, desert rat. I'm off to a humor site now and will give you the last word. Or two or three.

5/07/2006 11:50:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

BUSH LIES !
A report last year by the Government Accountability Office, Congress' auditing arm, criticized the lack of emphasis on prosecuting employers of illegal immigrants;
it found that investigators issued just three citations for hiring illegal workers in 2004.

President Bush's 2007 budget seeks funding for an additional 200 investigators to focus on employers who hire illegal aliens; that would bring the number of people investigating employers to about 525 — still far fewer than the number guarding the border.

5/07/2006 01:49:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

"As shown in Afghanistan it is the "death from above" capacity that will turn the tide. "
---
Don't know it's accuracy, but my memory is that the tide turned immediately after we started seeing the B-52's laying down fields of bombs.
Seemed to effect the enemy's
"Will to Fight"
When they started noticing random folk around them becoming Airborn.
The Great Roulette Wheel in the sky.

5/07/2006 01:54:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Doesn't 10:57 AM indicate someone's MIND is blank?
Or maybe just can't see, hear, read?
---
I think not:
An Obvious Case of Willful Blindness.

5/07/2006 02:03:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

11:06 AM "Comprehensive Reform"

"I'm Lieing Now,
But if you vote for me,
I won't Lie in the Future
"

...see_11:49 PM

5/07/2006 02:12:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Anybody Know why POTUS's history lesson in my movie link (8:50 AM) only goes back a few hundred years?
---
REMEMBER The CHUMASH!
I do.
Truncated, revisionist, deceptive, "History."
---
Or why he equates the proud Mexican Heritage of the past with the present Multicultural, Guilt Ridden, Victimology Centered, Special Rights for Illegals, Cultural Cesspool Policies/Politics he endorses today?

5/07/2006 02:18:00 PM  
Blogger AST said...

This whole "Bush lied!" meme has never made sense to me. The only explanation I have for it is that a lot of Clinton supporters are unable to confront his dishonesty and have a need to prove that Bush is a liar too.

That's not logical, but it's definitely human. The fact that they cling to it in the face of quotations from their own leadership before Bush came to office which say essentially the same thing as Bush did in his 2002 SOTU speech shows how deeply felt it is. It remains the primary reason they can't be taken seriously by people who are both honest and sentient.

Another thing this incident calls to mind is the penchant for the left to think that a demonstration equal proof. Ray McGovern seems to think that standing and making such out-of-order accusations, somehow makes them more true.

First of all, of course, I doubt that the reason we moved to overthrow Saddam was only that he had WMD, or only that he had sought to buy yellowcake. That diminishes his history of brutality, aggression and support for terrorism. In this age, knowledge of how to make chemical weapons is tantamount to having them.

We now know that A. Q. Khan was busy spreading knowledge plans and even equipment throughout the Muslim world for building nuclear weapons prior to 9/11. Who would doubt that Saddam would have been a client?

McGovern, et al., are straining at gnats and swallowing camels, but they have most of the media and the Democratic Party on board. I suppose someone has to keep refuting them, but it's pretty boring and seems to be futile and convincing people who have their egos wrapped up in the lie is certainly thankless.

I'm glad I don't have to do it.

5/07/2006 04:03:00 PM  
Blogger sam said...

German Reporter Visits the Oval Office:

THE PRESIDENT: Have you ever been in the Oval Office before?

Q Once, a long time ago --

THE PRESIDENT: I'll give you a quick tour before our interview. So, the first thing that a President does, which I didn't realize, was pick a rug. I've have no idea about rugs. And so in this job you've got to delegate. The American President is in a position where there's just unbelievable complexities to the job -- Darfur, Iran -- a whole lot of issues. So I delegated the decision about the rug to my wife.

Isn't it beautiful?

Q Yes, it is very beautiful.

THE PRESIDENT: There's a sense of optimism when you come in here. And there's a reason why. You cannot lead people unless you're optimistic about what you're doing. You've got to believe it in your very soul. One of the interesting things about the presidency is people watch me like a hawk. They're looking at my moves. And if I'm going to be ringing my hands and if I'm all worried about the decisions I make are not going to lead to a better tomorrow, they'll figure it out.

Finally, the desk, where we'll have our picture taken in front of -- is nine other Presidents used it. This was given to us by Queen Victoria in the 1870s, I think it was. President Roosevelt put the door in so people would not know he was in a wheelchair. John Kennedy put his head out the door.

Q Yes, the very famous picture --

THE PRESIDENT: That's it -- the most famous picture. And then Reagan, interestingly enough, put the bottom on there. He was a big guy, he didn't want to bump his knees under the desk.

German Newspaper

5/07/2006 06:27:00 PM  
Blogger Tony said...

It still cracks me up that the SecDef who ran our military when we defeated Afghanistan in a few weeks, within a couple of months of 9/11, and then defeated Iraq in three weeks - is somehow deficient.

It's the same "logic" that says the country's largest, fastest rescue in history in response to Katrina is a "failure."

These people are sick, and there's nothing wrong with that, execept they have the right to vote within the republican government of the world's only superpower, the world's only hope.

They specifically cling to delusion and falsehood.

I feel like I'm turning into the guys who wrote the Vedas - all is Maya - and I ain't talkin' Cinco de Mayo!

5/07/2006 07:13:00 PM  
Blogger sam said...

Face to face with terror:

When he was picked for a secret mission one evening in early 2005, Ahmed Bakr felt no fear. He had been on many life-threatening assignments for al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Al-Zarqawi is no religious scholar. A high school dropout, he memorized the Koran while in prison and acquired his religious ideas from extremist preachers and thinkers in Afghanistan and Jordan.

Face to Face

5/07/2006 07:55:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The problem with America is we imported everyone's Type A's from all over the world. If the American Citizen isn't in charge during a time of trouble, or, if he can't, at the very least, pick up a gun and kill someone, he goes Nutz.

George Washington (you know, the Father of our Country) was so incrediby unpopular (as a result of kow-towing to England) that he not only couldn't get elected to a third term, which he wanted; he would probably been impeached if he'd had another couple of years left in his term.

Abraham Lincoln would have certainly been voted out of office in the middle of the Civil War if Sherman hadn't taken Atlanta.

Type A's; they're great for conquering a continent, and building a Great Country, but they're hard to work for. Ain't they, W?

5/07/2006 11:00:00 PM  
Blogger sam said...

Liberty, Slavery or Death?:

Republicans will not flee the theaters of war in Iraq, Afghanistan or Iran. They still have a semblance of who they are.

Unfortunately, the same can’t be said for the neo-leftist Democrats. For the sake of civilization, the Republican Party must retain control of the U.S. Congress.

Liberty or Slavery?

5/08/2006 12:07:00 AM  
Blogger Charles said...

I used to work in the Ronald Reagan Building downtown DC at the HQ of US Customs & Border Patrol. It was generally understood that we could stop the flow of illegals in a heartbeat but the white house wouldn't allow it.

the business never made any sense to me. so I looked into the matter. What I've found is that american elites of the highest caste--ie the type that go the davos and bilderburger conferences in europe for about the last 20 years have bought into a political quid pro quo by which the europeans would incorporate turkey into the eu and the USA would incorporate mexico (as well as canada) into a greater north american superstate. the europeans would accomplish their superstate by a top down means by fiat through eu regulations and the usa would accomplish north american integration from the bottom up by illegal immigration.

Both policies have hit a snag. Last years vote down by the french and dutch of the eu constitution was a major smack down by the people of the plans of the ruling elites there. and it portends that turkey will not make the final cut.

every so often you'll hear bush making apocolyptic statements about the europeans not letting turkey into the eu. the reason for this is that this would make the USA a-holes for dropping the border with mexico. bush doesn't like being played for a fool.

9/11/01 signaled that the open borders policy of the USA has severe consequences. the consequences are so severe that they are not too dissimiliar to those faced by the people on flight 93. for the republicans analogy is pretty exact. the choice is between certain death for the repbublicans if they don't close the borders and near certain death if they do.

5/08/2006 01:12:00 AM  
Blogger Redneck Publius said...

I guess my since my comment is so far down the line, it is almost pointless, but here goes:

QUESTION: You said you knew where they were Tikrit, Baghdad, northeast, south, west of there. Those are your words.

Yes, those were his words. If you read them in the original context, it is clear to me (and I am in the military and was privvy to the same info) he was talking about the known locations of Saddam's special weapons storage sites. He knew where they were and said so.

Did he know at the time he made that statement that the weapons may have been moved? Probably not.

This story about "Rummy lied" is another dishonest attempt to portray Secretary Rumsfeld as a charlatan. Have Mr. CIA analyst/heckler talk to some of the folks at LIWA or DIA; I can even introduce you to several of his fellow Agency analysts who would testify that intelligence leaned towards Saddam having WMD. I'm sure he could find at least 100 analysts who would say they thought Saddam had WMD prior to the war.

5/08/2006 05:09:00 AM  
Blogger allen said...

jamie irons,

Your 9:07 AM - Harold Bloom's Jesus and Jahweh: The Names Divine

Thank you for your kind words and for pointing me in the direction of Professor Bloom’s latest masterpiece. While I have not yet had the chance to read the book, such reviews as have come my way have proven themselves both enlightening and entertaining.

When I posted to Pork-rinds, I too was concerned about being off topic. However, in short order I came to the conclusion that I was, in fact, well within Wretchard’s lede, i.e. “Rummy lied.”

Both Professor Bloom and Mr. Rumsfeld have as their respective antagonists “True Believers (TBs).” As an article of faith, TBs cannot (as opposed to will not) conceive of any other reality than their own parochial one. Those heckling and harassing Mr. Rumsfeld, just as those who indicted the ancient rabbis, have constructed an edifice of faith wholly reliant upon a fallacious, monolithic foundation: the rabbis and Mr. Rumsfeld have to be liars. They will never question this cardinal assumption. To do so would risk psychic catastrophe. You see, if Mr. Rumsfeld did not lie, then, these particular critics of the war in Iraq would find themselves explicitly allied with Islamofascists, as opposed merely to being implicitly so.

At the end of the day, truth again finds itself under attack by irrational adolescents, incapable of constructive logic. Unfortunately, the MSM is likewise impaired. Moreover, we live in a democratic republic where occasionally even the dead vote. We may be in for a long, bumpy and ultimately tragic journey into the Dark Age.

5/08/2006 06:16:00 AM  
Blogger Charles said...

Jamie Irons said...
Bloom interprets the Trinity as an essentially polytheistic "structure of anxiety" in which God the Father--whom Bloom finds "lacking in personality"--is a mere shade of Yahweh"...

allen said...

Those heckling and harassing Mr. Rumsfeld, just as those who indicted the ancient rabbis, have constructed an edifice of faith wholly reliant upon a fallacious, monolithic foundation:

/////////////
trinitarians will generally point to the name Elohim which is plural and is the first name for God in hebrew versions of the bible. According to Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim
Elohim (אֱלוֹהִים , אלהים) is a Hebrew word which expresses concepts of divinity. It is apparently related to the Hebrew word ēl, though morphologically it consists of the Hebrew word Eloah (אלוה) with a plural suffix. Elohim is the third word in the Hebrew text of Genesis and occurs frequently throughout the Hebrew Bible. Its exact significance is often disputed.

In some cases (e.g. Ex. 3:4 ...Elohim called unto him out of the midst of the bush...), it acts as a singular noun in Hebrew grammar (see next section), and is then generally understood to denote the single God of Israel. In other cases, Elohim acts as an ordinary plural of the word Eloah (אלוה), and refers to the polytheistic notion of multiple gods (for example, Ex. 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.). This may reflect the use of the word "Elohim" found in the late Bronze Age texts of Canaanite Ugarit, where Elohim ('lhm) was found to be a word denoting the entire Canaanite pantheon (the family of El אל, the patriarchal creator god).

In still other cases, the meaning is not clear from the text, but may refer to powerful beings (e.g. Gen. 6:2 the sons of Elohim saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them for wives..., Ex. 4:16 and you [Moses] will be as Elohim to him [Aaron], Ex. 22:28 Thou shalt not curse Elohim, or curse a ruler of your people, where the parallelism suggests that Elohim may refer to human rulers).

5/08/2006 06:37:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

...for ideology-driven darkness, here's a modern prototype (ht A&L).

5/08/2006 06:40:00 AM  
Blogger buddy larsen said...

Oops. I meant this one--as a light-shedder on modern times.

5/08/2006 06:56:00 AM  
Blogger Charles said...

Buddy Larsen said...

Oops. I meant this one--as a light-shedder on modern times.

6:56 AM
////////////////
I have read one scholarly piece from an Oxford Don by the name of Alister McGrath called the Twilight of Atheism. He says the glory days of atheism can be traced from the fall of the Bastille to the fall of the Berlin wall. But those glory days are over.

5/08/2006 07:10:00 AM  
Blogger Charles said...

Hayden is a sigint guy, chosen to lead the agency at a time when when a humint guy is desperately needed as DCI. Whatever other knowledge,
capabilites, and qualities the man brings with him, it's a jarring choice.
///////////
imho judging from anecdotal evidence there is a big push on now for better faster smarter able danger datamining type software. people buried by info want better tools to sort it.

5/08/2006 07:49:00 AM  
Blogger Charles said...

trish said...

charles,

Hayden is not being appointed to sell anyone datamining software.
////////////
true. likely he's being appointed to smooth out the chain of command between his current boss and the cia.

5/08/2006 09:32:00 AM  
Blogger Charles said...

trish said...

What effect will he have in the field, charles?

That's what matters now.
///////////
if you're talking about able danger -- then the answer is more better faster.

5/08/2006 10:00:00 AM  
Blogger Charles said...

if you're talking about able danger -- then the answer is more better faster.

10:00 AM

smarter too.

5/08/2006 10:03:00 AM  
Blogger Brian said...

Dont know if anyone else pointed this out. But, McGovern's got a bit of a timeline problem if the quote he is referencing is the one Wretchard indentified. How could Rumsfeld lie this country into a war if he only told the "lie" after the major combat operations were effectively over? It seems to me that the "lie" would have had to occur before the war began. Indeed Rumsfeld's statement indicates that he really belived it since he made it long after he needed to.

5/08/2006 10:07:00 AM  
Blogger Moqui said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

5/08/2006 02:05:00 PM  
Blogger allen said...

buddy larsen,

Your 6:56 AM - Why Robespierre Chose Terror

An absolutely captivating article. Another of your habitually useful keepers. Thanks.

A round trip to Atlanta prevented my reading until now. This is a story of amorality (pure evil) that cannot be often enough told. By the way, I distinguish between immorality and amorality; with the former representative of redeemable human error, while the latter is purely and irredeemably diabolic.

Thanks again.

5/08/2006 08:34:00 PM  
Blogger allen said...

charles,

Your 6:37 AM - trinitarians

Yes, the defenders of the trinity (a word, by the way, found in neither the Hebrew nor Christian texts) have often used the device you reference.

Consider, “Victoria, By the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Queen, Defender of the Faith, Empress of India.” A simple enough title, to be sure, one that would show, by any reasonable standard, that the Queen had three distinct monarchial functions. Succinctly, Queen Victoria was an individual, exercising a plurality of roles. Now, to the majority of bishops assembled at Nicaea in 325 C.E. by Constantine the Great, this would not have been the case, if one substitutes G-d for Queen Victoria. To these gentlemen, Victoria would, in fact, have been three wholly unique, indeed sui generis, consubstantial persons. Had Queen Victoria believed herself thus, we might consider her circumstance pathologic. Suffice to say, the controversy has never been entirely resolved, hence, among other things, several schisms within the Christian faith.

Jewish atheism was the cause of frequent criticism and persecution at the hands of the Greeks and the Romans. Today, we might shake our heads in disbelief, but the Jews were certainly the atheists, without peer, of the ancient world. Jewish disbelief in the pagan pantheons made it so.

Of course, Isaiah (8th C. B.C.E.) set out in almost mind numbing repetitions the singularity of the Deity. Obviously, Isaiah was profoundly disturbed by the assimilationist, polytheist proclivities of his era. However, due to a lack of verifiable contemporaneous documentation from that period, I leave it to you to accept this as demonstrative.

Despite the polytheism of the ancient world, and the so-called polytheism of the Greco-Roman Christian world, Hebrews/Jews have remained officially, monotheistically orthodox and consistent. As a matter of fact, the greatest prayer of Judaism, the Shema (recited repeatedly throughout the day), sets forth in no uncertain terms the singular personhood of the Deity. Indeed, when Jesus was asked to pronounce the greatest commandment, it was the Shema that he recited verbatim, albeit in Aramaic.

In conclusion, whatever the take of the various religions with whom the Jews have rubbed elbows over the millennia, the Jews have never tolerated any interpretation of the holy writ that contemplated anything other than strict monotheism, in its plainest sense. To wit, “Hear, oh Israel, the Lord our God: the Lord is one.”

5/08/2006 10:56:00 PM  
Blogger Redneck Publius said...

Trish,

Apparently Charles doesn't know much about the IC or he would know that Able Danger and "datamining" have no relevance concerning the nomination of the DCI.

---

I believe Hayden is a SIGINT weenie who will destroy morale in the DO, and further degrade our capability. He might be okay in the DI, but I even doubt that. He doesn't believe in tac-SIGINT and is too reliant on platforms, and that attitude hamstrings his own discipline; imagine what he would do to HUMINT. Hayden is a poor choice IMHO.

5/09/2006 01:33:00 AM  
Blogger Charles said...

allen said...

charles,

Your 6:37 AM - trinitarians

Yes, the defenders of the trinity (a word, by the way, found in neither the Hebrew nor Christian texts) have often used the device you reference.
/////////////////
Its not appropriate to say for Jews that--since Elohym is a plural form of God meaning more than two -- God is not One. Neither is it appropriate to say that for Christians who believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit --that God is not One.

The drift in the west since the enlightenment has been toward unitarianism/arianism/islam ie that Jesus is fully man but not fully God. The church of england today believes that Jesus is pretty much the same kind of guy as do the muhhamedans. (The effect of this been to strip the church in Europe of any defense against atheism. And strip the christian churches in Europe of their congregations. The consequence is that europeans are essentially as spiritually defenseless against the encroachment of the moslems as african animists.)

In 2004 When the Knesset created the "Christian Allies Caucus" they were not referring to unitarian/liberal/arian christians.

Knesset Members (MK) created the "Christian Allies Caucus" on January 5th, 2004, in recognition of the importance to Israel's security of the international pro-Israel Christian community. The caucus is the first of its kind in Knesset history. Its purpose is to streamline communications and coordinate activities between the Knesset and Israel's Christian allies.
http://www.changingworldviews.com/GuestCommentaries/victormordicaiarticle1.htm

I like and agree with your stuff on Isaiah. I think most conservatives today think that bad morals and weak boundaries are two sides of the same coin.

5/09/2006 09:39:00 PM  
Blogger allen said...

charles,

Your 9:39 PM - "Christian Allies Caucus"

You may recall the great flurry of activity within the Jewish religious establishment following a survey conducted 10-15 years ago, showing a rapid decline in practicing Jews and an accelerating trend in assimilation. ZOA fielded teams to address these concerns through publication and a lecture circuit through American synagogues of all stripes.

At that time there was a strong move toward isolationism as the answer to the concerted proselytizing efforts of Christian Evangelical organizations. In fact, the passage of laws limiting proselytizing within Israel was seriously considered and, indeed, some such were instituted.

I argued against isolationism. While there was the danger of Christian missionaries to be considered, that risk paled by comparison to the benefits to Israel to be derived from creating an alliance with the Evangelicals. It was my opinion that Evangelical Christians were, above all else, staunch Zionists, more so than the vast majority of non-Israeli Jews. Their growing numbers and pro-Israeli sentiments offered Jews a political action committee of tens of millions, gratis. These opinions were formally presented to ZOA and a former Israeli Prime Minister. Consequently, I fully support the alliances you reference.

5/10/2006 05:25:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home


Powered by Blogger