Section 31 ABC Learns a Lesson

2005-02-25T16:12:00.000-05:00

Now this is what I call progress: after two years of almost nonstop excoriation of Bush and the Iraq conflict, ABC decides to run a two hour special on...wait for it...UFOs!

Flying saucers and strange beings who have visited Earth aren't the typical topics reported by Peter Jennings, anchor of ABC's World News Tonight. Jennings, whose new two-hour special tackles the subject of UFOs, admits he and his production team began the project with doubts and a dose of curiosity.

"We have a lot of skeptics -- I am very skeptical -- but we seriously investigated something a lot of people are serious about," he said. "And when we come to the end, this is wonderfully interesting.

Executive producer Tom Yellin said the UFO field is "a risky thing to report since it doesn't go with the conventional wisdom that this stuff is kind of silly, and the whole subject has been tainted by the brush of wackiness."

Like Jennings, Yellin initially had reservations about devoting a program to UFOs. "I thought it was all a bunch of baloney. Even though it has public appeal, you don't want to do something that subjects you to ridicule just to get a rating."

Unless, of course, you are Dan Rather and Andrew Hayward. But then, in their case CBS wasn't after ratings, they were after Bush's presidency. Perhaps ABC has learned a lesson from Rather and CBS: better to stick to safe stories like UFO sightings, than fake stories like the National Guard memos.

Now they've done it...

2005-02-24T09:37:00.000-05:00

Now we discover that the terrorists have made a HUGE mistake:

BAGHDAD -- Iraqi state television aired a video yesterday showing what the U.S.-funded channel said was the confession of a captured Syrian officer, who said he trained Iraqi terrorists to behead people and build car bombs to attack American and Iraqi troops.

He also said the terrorists practiced beheading animals to train for decapitating hostages.

Oh, it's on now. Someone call PETA! I mean, I can understand the need to practice your jihad skills in order to butcher Western infidels, but those poor animals were innocent! This is immoral! This inhumane treatment must cease! This kind of brutality cannot be tolerated! The terrorists will rue the day that they crossed the Left like this!

*crickets chirping*

Or perhaps not. But the terrorists better watch their step...the first time they test skincare products on those animals, it's on! Just wait and see!

Site Traffic and the Real Section 31

2005-02-23T20:58:00.000-05:00

As some of you may know, I have been less than prolific in posting recently, due to real life issues. Imagine my surprise then, when over the past week my daily site traffic has doubled. I have been getting a whole slew of Google refers from searches for "Section 31," enough to where this blog is now the number 2 Google site referred by those search terms. I suspect that this may have something to do with the recent cancellation of UPN's Enterprise, the most recent series in the Star Trek franchise. Unfortunately, I haven't followed the series as closely as I would have liked, due to the lack of a local UPN station, but apparently the series in its waning episodes is going to establish the very beginnings of Section 31 in the Star Trek timeline. A detailed history of Section 31 can be found here.

The concept of Section 31 has intrigued me ever since it was introduced. There is a fascinating dichotomy at work here; an organization that exists to protect a set of noble ideals does so by means that at times violate those same ideals. For some in the Star Trek universe, the idea is unacceptable. For them, the existence of Section 31 is repugnant to the most basic principles of Federation culture.

But the members of Section 31 see things a little differently. They are committed to the same noble principles as the rest of the Federation. However, they realize that against some dangers more extreme measures must be taken than their principles would normally allow. In effect, Section 31 sacrifices the thing it is sworn to protect, in order to safeguard it for others.

Will the United States ever find itself in a similar situation? Are there dangers in this world great enough to require the bending, or even the breaking of our ideals in the short term, to ensure that those ideals survive in the long term? I have asked variations of this question previously regarding the issue of torturing terrorists. The North Korean declaration of its nuclear capabilities, the Iranian rush to nuclear status, and the recent assassination plot against President Bush have all caused me to ponder once again the dangers facing our country, and the lengths to which our people are prepared to go in order to defend against them.

It may be that the dangers we face will in fact require action that many will condemn, perhaps action that even I will condemn. If that day comes, I may not be able to disagree with those who cry out against the violation of sacred national principles. But even if I join in the outcry against "extreme measures," I suspect that deep inside, there will be a part of me that is thankful that someone else has sacrificed to keep me safe while I condemn them for their methods. Could it be that our culture needs both groups of people, one to protect against external threats, the other to protect against the first group itself? Food for thought.

Terrorists in America

2005-02-22T15:51:00.000-05:00

They are here, and they want to kill us. I can't wait to see the details from this case :

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) - A former Virginia high school valedictorian who had been detained in Saudi Arabia as a suspected terrorist was charged Tuesday with conspiring to assassinate President Bush and with supporting the al-Qaida terrorist network.

Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, 23, a U.S. citizen, made an initial appearance Tuesday in U.S. District Court but did not enter a plea. He claimed that he was tortured while detained in Saudi Arabia since June of 2003 and offered through his lawyer to show the judge his scars.

The federal indictment said that in 2002 and 2003 Abu Ali and an unidentified co-conspirator discussed plans for Abu Ali to assassinate Bush. They discussed two scenarios, the indictment said, one in which Abu Ali "would get close enough to the president to shoot him on the street" and, alternatively, "an operation in which Abu Ali would detonate a car bomb."

According to the indictment, Abu Ali obtained a religious blessing from another unidentified co-conspirator to assassinate the president.

More than 100 supporters of Abu Ali crowded the courtroom and laughed when the charge was read aloud alleging that he conspired to assassinate Bush.

The indictment means that federal grand jury thinks that there is probable cause that the defendant committed the crimes he is charged with. The fact that he is actually being charged, and not just held for questioning, suggests to me that investigators have rounded up as many "unidentified co-conspirators" as they will be able to. Hopefully some useful intelligence was gleaned from the defendants before their arrest. Look for defense counsel to try to create a media circus over the torture issue, which should be absolutely irrelevant with respect to a plot concocted in Virginia to assassinate the President.

I wonder if Bush will continue to mouth the stale old "Religion of Peace" platitudes. Probably. It really has reached the morbidly humorous stage at this point. Muslims plot murder and mayhem in the name of Allah, but we are told time and again to overlook the behavior of "a radical minority." Sorry, but I refuse to overlook the consistent religious sanction of indiscriminate (and in this case, discriminate) murder. Sell crazy someplace else, we're all stocked up here.

Washington's Birthday

2005-02-22T15:33:00.000-05:00

Powerline has this great post on the occasion of Washington's Birthday (now known as President's Day). It bears remembering how critical Washington's unifying presence was during the formation of our country. The correspondence between Washington and the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, Rhode Island is a wonderful example of the near universal esteem and admiration that Washington had from his countrymen. It's unfortunate that most children today will never learn of Washington's true character, but will instead read only that he was just another oppressive white male slaveowner.

Positive Developments

2005-02-16T10:51:00.000-05:00

I had a very good interview yesterday with a local firm. It is currently a three-person firm, with two partners and one associate. The firm is a general civil litigation firm working for primarily private and individual clients. That would be a nice change from working for insurance companies. They also seemed much more accepting of my salary requirements than I thought a smaller firm would be. The senior partner will get back with me, so hopefully something good will come of the interview.

There are also some other options that may be popping up involving independent contracting and consulting. All in all, I feel much better about life today than I did a week ago. Isn't that usually how it goes though?

Blown Cover

2005-02-12T15:37:00.000-05:00

Well, the Director's cover job has been blown, so my efforts now have to focus on developing a new cover. If I can, I'll continue with the attorney cover, but I am considering other alternatives as well. I'll report in with any developments along those lines.

New Linkage

2005-02-01T20:07:00.000-05:00

I have added a number of new sites to the Section 31 sidebar, some of them well-known, others not. Fellow Tennessean Donald Sensing makes the list of Field Operatives with One Hand Clapping, while The Counterterrorism Blog joins the Raw Intel Processing department. American Online proves to be a fascinating new Informant, while Section 31's New Assets nearly double, adding to their ranks Dennis' Ramblings, Long Time Gone, Macaroni Penguin (she gets two plugs this month!), Mover Mike, Ravings of a Mad Tech, and Varifrank. I would especially like to direct your attention to Varifrank's post regarding the Iraqi elections. This piece really resonated with me, providing a wonderful historical context to the momentous occasion that the Iraqi election really was. Highly recommended!

Just because the Director is quiet doesn't mean he isn't out there in the shadows working for his readers! Enjoy the new sites.

To the Iraqi People...

2005-01-31T01:19:00.000-05:00

Breathe the free air. Welcome to democracy. Some said you couldn't handle it. Some said you didn't want it. Some tried to kill you to prevent your taking it. You proved them all wrong. Remember this election, this day, this time in history. There will be hard times ahead, but if you keep your course steady, you will weather all storms. Godspeed.

Personal Matters

2005-01-26T10:15:00.000-05:00

There are many different types of blogs out there. Probably the most common type is the "personal" blog, where individuals post about what goes on in their day-to-day life. When I created this blog, I never wanted it to become a "personal" blog. As befits my position as Director of Section 31, I am a very private individual. I rarely air personal problems even to close friends, much less to anonymous readers on the internet. However, I do feel some obligation to those who read this site regularly, to let them know why they haven't seen much new material recently.

The short version is that I feel emotionally and mentally drained right now. I've been feeling this way for the past three months or so. I have some pre-existing high blood pressure issues that may be affecting this, in conjunction with some of the medicine I take to control it. There may be some other physiological factors involved as well, and I am following up with my cardiologist to find out. These physical issues are interacting with my very high-stress job, leaving me drained at the end of every day.

The result has been that I haven't been capable of posting anything that would meet my personal standards. I've had some ideas about posts I would like to make, but I haven't had the will or concentration to make them. I don't like this situation, and I want it to change, but for now, it is what it is. This is why I look with amazement at someone like Patrick, who makes so many very detailed and thoughtful posts every day, and wonder how he does it when I can't even muster enough creative juice for more than a couple of posts a week.

So this post is for those of you who stop by regularly and wonder when exactly you are going to read something new or interesting from me. At this point, I really don't know. If the mood strikes me, I'll post. But I wanted you to know why the mood hasn't struck me in quite some time. Hopefully, there will be changes in the next month or so that improve the situation. I am optimistic that the doctor will help me with the physical issues, and there are some potential changes on the job front that could improve things as well. Until then, I still plan to visit and comment on other websites regularly. I hope that most of you will still be around when I find my voice again. Thanks for reading!

Patrick Graduates

2005-01-20T15:10:00.000-05:00

Congratulations to Patrick of Clarity and Resolve, whose hard work and constant posting on events in the Islamofascist world have earned him a promotion from New Asset to full-fledged Field Operative. This man has so many detailed reports on enemy movements on his blog that I suspect he is either, a) a highly advanced android, b) from a pocket dimension that has 32 hours in a day, c) in big trouble at work for excessive internet use, or d) all of the above. Go ye, therefore, to read and be informed.

Four More Years

2005-01-20T13:46:00.000-05:00

The left can commence with its collective heart attack, right about... now.

A New Noodle

2005-01-17T17:16:00.000-05:00

A warm welcome to Noodles' better half, the Macaroni Penguin. Since she is looking for new topics to blog about, I humbly propose that she address the burning question going on over at Ruth's place: Why are nice guys unlucky at love? Given her relationship to the aforementioned Noodles, perhaps she can put the lie to that myth once and for all. Good luck to you on your new venture!

The next battle in WW IV

2005-01-13T22:37:00.000-05:00

Norman Podhoretz wrote what I consider to be the seminal explanation of the current conflict between America and the forces of Islamic fundamentalism, calling it World War IV . He has now written a followup essay on the next phase in the war. Take an hour or so out of your day and read the whole thing. Podhoretz argues that the primary enemy in this phase of the war is not the Islamists, but their intellectual and elitist allies here in America:

But the most important thing the insurgents and their backers in the neighboring despotisms know is that the battle for Iraq will not be won or lost in Iraq; it will be won or lost in the United States of America. On this they agree entirely with General John Abizaid, the commander of the U.S. Central Command, who recently told reporters touring Iraq: "It is all about staying the course. No military effort that anyone can make against us is going to be able to throw us out of this region." Is it any wonder, then, that the insurgents were praying for the victory of John F. Kerry—which they all assumed would mean an American withdrawal—or that the reelection of Bush—which they were not fooled by any exit polls into interpreting as anything other than a ratification of the Bush Doctrine—came as such a great blow to them?
But too much is at stake in Iraq for them to give up now, especially as they are confident that they still have an excellent shot at getting the American public to conclude that the game is not worth the candle. General Abizaid again: "We have nothing to fear from this enemy except its ability to create panic . . . and gain a media victory." To achieve this species of victory—and perhaps inspired by the strategy that worked so well for the North Vietnamese—they are counting on the forces opposing the Bush Doctrine at home. These forces comprise just as motley a coalition as the one fighting in Iraq, and they are, after their own fashion, just as desperate. For they too understand how much they for their own part stand to lose if the Bush Doctrine is ever generally judged to have passed the great test to which it has been put in Iraq.

Our ability to win this coming phase of the war will depend on the will and perseverence of the American people. Are we resolved to win this war, no matter the cost? Podhoretz looks at the 61 million votes cast for Bush in the election, and opines in the affirmative:

Before we entered World War II, serious doubts were raised as to whether we were a match for such disciplined and fanatical enemies as Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. And in World War III, leading anti-Communists like Whittaker Chambers and James Burnham were sure that we lacked the stomach, the heart, the will, and the wit to stand effectively against the Soviet Union and its allies and sympathizers: to Chambers we were "the losing side," and to Burnham we were veritably suicidal in our weakness and folly. They turned out to be wrong because, as Charles Horner of the Hudson Institute once put it in speaking of Chambers, they, and not they alone, failed "to anticipate the resiliency of the American citizenry and its leadership." Today similar doubts and fears are once again all over the place, with even some of my fellow supporters of the Bush Doctrine murmuring that we have all grown too soft, too self-indulgent, and too self-absorbed to meet yet another daunting challenge.

Except for an occasional twinge brought on by paying too much attention to the antiwar forces, and to certain aspects of our culture, both low and high, I did not share these doubts and fears before the verdict of November 2, and they have been quite banished by what I am persuaded the American people were saying when they voted to keep George W. Bush in the White House for another four years.

I tend to agree. Bush is waiting for the Iraqi elections on January 30. I predict within 30-45 days of the elections there will be an aggressive new policy stated regarding either Syria or Iran, more likely Syria. Watch for implementation of the so-called "Salvador Plan" of targeted assassinations of terrorist leaders in Syria. For those who think Bush is going to go soft in his second term, I suspect you will have a rude surprise in store for you.

UPDATE: Noodles pulls off a hat trick by referencing this post, giving a salient example of how the STrib is performing exactly as Podhoretz predicted, and giving me a chance to test my trackbacks, all at the same time. What a guy!

The Rathergate Report

2005-01-10T18:25:00.000-05:00

Months, not days or weeks after the scandal broke, the "Independent Review Panel" report on Rathergate has been issued. The full text of the document may be found in PDF form here. Four CBS execs have lost their jobs as a result of the report. These four are sacrificial lambs. There are only two things you need to take away from the 224 page report. First, as to the authenticity of the forged documents (from page 18 of the report):

F. Authenticity of the Killian Documents

The Panel was not able to reach a definitive conclusion as to the authenticity of the Killian documents. However, Mapes made oral and written presentations to the Panel during its investigation in an effort to demonstrate that the content of the Killian documents was in fact authentic. These presentations were done primarily by comparing the Killian documents with official Bush records to show how well she believed that the Killian documents “meshed” with the official Bush records.

The Panel finds that the meshing analysis submitted by Mapes does not withstand scrutiny for two reasons. First, in many instances, the content of the Killian documents does not mesh well substantively with the official Bush records. Second, the Killian documents vary in significant ways from the standard format and jargon of documents issued by the 147 th Fighter Interceptor Group in the early 1970s. Thus, the Panel believes that there remain substantial questions regarding the authenticity of the Killian documents. The Panel believes that careful reporting prior to airing the Segment should have identified these questions and, at a minimum, should have delayed the broadcast so that more reporting could be conducted.

Translation: The documents are fake but accurate. Mapes should have spent more time making sure that the forgeries wouldn't be detected.

Second, on CBS's political agenda (from page 28 of the report):

H. Political Agenda

The Panel is aware that some have ascribed political motivations to 60 Minutes Wednesday’s decision to air the September 8 Segment just two months before the presidential election, while others further found political bias in the program itself. The Panel reviewed this issue and found certain actions that could support such charges. However, the Panel cannot conclude that a political agenda at 60 Minutes Wednesday drove either the timing of the airing of the Segment or its content.

Given that the Panel does not believe that political motivations drove the September 8 Segment, questions likely will be raised as to why these massive breakdowns occurred on this story at an organization like CBS News with its heritage and stated commitment to the highest standards of journalism. The Panel heard from many that the Rather/Mapes team was a formidable force at 60 Minutes Wednesday. Great trust was placed in Mapes, a highly respected producer who had just produced a widely acclaimed segment on the Abu Ghraib prison abuses, and vast deference was given to Rather, the “face” of CBS News. These factors, along with the “crash” of the production, contributed greatly to the failures of the September 8 Segment and the Aftermath.

Translation: Everyone we talked to at CBS assured us they didn't have a political agenda, and that's good enough for us.

This result is unsurprising, but still disappointing. Glenn Reynolds says "Indeed" to Soxblog's comment that "The Report lays out the facts and those alone are damning enough." Sure, the facts are plenty damning, but we already HAD the facts. Based on my admittedly Mapes-like review of the Report (I've only skimmed it at this point), there's nothing in these 224 pages that we haven't already heard from the Powerline boys or RatherBiased. So what good IS the report if it tells us nothing new and refuses to say what everyone already knows?

Answer: Not much. CBS has made its token firings, Dan Rather continues to vouch for the documents, the Panel tells CBS to "be more careful next time." Business as usual.

In my opinion, the biggest impact of the Report will be to only increase the derision that has already been rightfully heaped upon that moribund organization. What the American people needed was an acknowledgment of what they already knew was wrong. What they got was 224 additional pages of denial. Just one more bad move in a whole litany of bad moves.

Increased Traffic Strategy

2005-01-10T17:43:00.000-05:00

Ruth over at Freudian Slippers seems to get a never-ending stream of traffic all based on the lovely picture at the top of her site. Newsflash: that's actress Vivien Leigh, who's been dead since 1967. However, since Ruth seems to get a goodly amount of traffic because of that picture, I'm making the following post:

I'm not claiming this is my picture, and I can't confirm it's actually actor Cary Grant, but then again, neither will I deny those claims. Let the traffic hits commence!

Killing Terrorism from 1,000 Yards

2005-01-07T14:23:00.000-05:00

Now this is some very nice shooting (hat tip to The Corner).

How Tied Are Our Hands?

2005-01-07T13:24:00.000-05:00

This article by Heather MacDonald is a must read on the torture debate. In light of the media and liberal blather regarding our supposedly inhumane treatment of terrorist prisoners, you will be surprised at how restrained our interrogators actually are:

Around the first anniversary of 9/11, urgency to get information on al-Qaida grew. Finally, army officials at Guantánamo prepared a legal analysis of their interrogation options and requested permission from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to use various stress techniques on Kahtani. Their memo, sent up the bureaucratic chain on October 11, 2002, triggered a fierce six-month struggle in Washington among military lawyers, administration officials, and Pentagon chiefs about interrogation in the war on terror.
To read the techniques requested is to understand how restrained the military has been in its approach to terror detainees—and how utterly false the torture narrative has been. Here’s what the interrogators assumed they could not do without clearance from the secretary of defense: yell at detainees (though never in their ears), use deception (such as posing as Saudi intelligence agents), and put detainees on MREs (meals ready to eat—vacuum-sealed food pouches eaten by millions of soldiers, as well as vacationing backpackers) instead of hot rations. The interrogators promised that this dangerous dietary measure would be used only in extremis, pending local approval and special training.

The most controversial technique approved was “mild, non-injurious physical contact such as grabbing, poking in the chest with the finger, and light pushing,” to be reserved only for a “very small percentage of the most uncooperative detainees” believed to possess critical intelligence. A detainee could be poked only after review by Gitmo’s commanding general of intelligence and the commander of the U.S. Southern Command in Miami, and only pursuant to “careful coordination” and monitoring.

Read the entire article. This situation is ridiculous and untenable. We do not retain the moral high ground when we allow murdering butchers to laugh in our faces while American lives are at stake. In fact, we cede the moral high ground when we refuse to effectively respond to the actions of our enemies.

If we want to get serious about obtaining critical intelligence from terrorist prisoners, we have got to give our interrogators the ability to make these people talk. If the terrorists know that our interrogators have no credible threat of coercion, then our ability to collect actionable intelligence is completely hamstrung.

The Ends and the Means

2005-01-06T23:08:00.000-05:00

The Senate confirmation hearings on Attorney General nominee Alberto Gonzales have brought to the forefront the question of what the American position on interrogation and even torture of terrorist detainees should be. I would paint the question even more broadly: what means are justified by the end, namely, decisively defeating Islamic terrorism? Can the United States achieve this end using the limited means we have imposed on ourselves since Vietnam?

Wretchard has a very insightful post on the nature of the debate. He concludes with this observation:

We ought to be manly enough to authorize the use of a certain amount force on terrorist suspects, but only to the degree consistent with our deepest national values. To strike a balance between the need to maintain certain principles without paying too much for it in terms of military advantage; remembering what cost in blood must be paid for keeping the national conscience clean. It is a cup that will not pass away. We will be called to account not only for our management of captives but also for whether we allowed them to kill the innocent while they grinned insolently before us. Both the tortured prisoner and the child blown to pieces by a terrorist bomb will accuse us on the Last Day. About the only thing we can do is our best. But there is no weaseling out, no escape from choice.

So what means can we use against terrorists while at the same time keeping our national conscience clean? What if the means required for victory cannot keep our national conscience clean? Can our country live with a guilty national conscience?

Deep Space Nine is by far my favorite of the Star Trek franchises. The stories were bigger, with more meaning than the average TOS or TNG episode (TOS = The Original Series, TNG = The Next Generation). The characters were more real, responding to serious situations more like actual people and not cardboard cutouts. And in retrospect, DS9 had many episodes within its classic Dominion War storyline that appear startlingly prescient today during the war against the Islamists.

For your consideration: the season 6 episode In the Pale Moonlight. I highly recommend reading this review of the episode by Jamahl Epsicokhan to appreciate the context of the discussion. In brief, Captain Benjamin Sisko is faced with an untenable situation. The Federation is losing the war against the Dominion. As one character tells Sisko,

Time is definitely not on your side. The Dominion shipyards are operating at one hundred percent capacity. Yours are still being rebuilt. The Dominion is breeding legions of Jem'Hadar soldiers every day. You are experiencing manpower shortage. But most important, the Dominion is resolved, to win the war at any cost. You and I both know the Federation has already put out peace feelers.

Sisko proceeds to resolve himself and set in motion a chain of events that brings the Romulan Empire into the war against the Dominion, turning the tide of imminent defeat. But along the way, he makes choices and takes actions that he finds morally unacceptable. He lies, cheats, bribes men to cover the crimes of other men, and is even an accessory to murder. When he confronts the Cardassian tailor/spy Garak about these events, Garak puts things in perspective:

Well, it worked. And you'll get what you want, a war between the Romulans and the Dominion. And if your conscience is bothering you, you should soothe it with the knowledge that you may have just saved the entire Alpha Quadrant, and all it cost was the life of one Romulan senator, one criminal, and the self-respect of one Starfleet officer. I don't know about you, but I'd call that a bargain.

The very harsh and unpleasant fact is that in this world of ours we are occasionally faced with the choice between the lesser of two evils. The question is whether we are resolved to make the choice that results in the lesser evil, even if we don't like that choice.

For my part, I do not believe we are at the juncture where we must choose the lesser of two evils. You may hear much from the media and the talking heads about how torture and interrogation are anathema to the American national character. This is absolutely not true. America does not torture or abuse its enemies in war, unless our enemies do so first. This is one of the essential elements of the Jacksonian heritage of our country. We fight by the rules when our opponents do, and we treat them with dignity so long as they do the same to us. However, when the rules of battle are violated, the gloves come off. One of the rules of battle which is central to the American idea of honorable combat is the targeting and brutal treatment and murder of civilians. The last group I can think of who purposely attacked and brutalized American civilians were the American Indian tribes. In response, their entire civilization was just short of exterminated.

I am not arguing here that we should exterminate Arab or Islamic culture. But it is important to recognize the true nature of American character and its historical response when faced with enemies who do not "play by the rules." In this context, torture and extreme interrogation methods are not inconsistent with the American character. If anything, our extremely measured response to the savagery exhibited by the Islamists has been out of character for America. And, I submit, as long as America continues to act out of its character, the behavior of the enemy will continue, and grow even more savage.

So it's time for the Director to go on record: what do I think is acceptable conduct towards terrorist prisoners? Assuming the terrorists are not American citizens, here is what I think:

1. Terrorists are not entitled to the protections of the U.S. Constitution.
2. Terrorists are not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention.
3. The goal of interrogation should be obtaining useful intelligence, and any means of interrogation should be used with this in mind.
4. Sexual assault or abuse of terrorists should not be permitted.
4. Subject to 3 and 4, any form of indirect non-physical coercion may be used (eg, loud music).
5. Subject to 3 and 4, any form of indirect physical coercion may be used (eg, standing for long periods of time).
6. Subject to 3 and 4, direct physical coercion may be used so long as permanent injury is not inflicted.

Given our enemy's conduct up to this point in WWIV, I believe that they have earned this response, at the very least. As Wretchard pointed out, "torture is the act of substituting the torment of one person for another; the suffering of a suspect to prevent the suffering of the presumed victim." If loud music, small spaces, humiliation, and a beating or two can save the life of an American soldier or civilian, I believe the American national conscience can live with that.

More importantly, I believe the American national conscience should live with that. I'd call it a bargain.

Return to Active Duty

2005-01-04T22:44:00.000-05:00

The logic board is replaced, and the G5 Command Center is back up and running. Thanks to all who dropped by in the interim. I hope a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year was had by all. It's nice to be back online again, here in 2005!

Structural Integrity Fields are Collapsing!

2004-12-21T17:12:00.000-05:00

Well, it turns out that the Section 31 iMac G5 command center needs a logic board replacement, so I'm back in the old Powerbook G3. The one good thing is that DSL makes posting tenable, if not quite as efficient. Repairs should be effected by January 5 (knock on wood), but I will try to stay active on the antique. Carry on!

Reality Check

2004-12-17T01:03:00.000-05:00

Have you ever noticed how liberals and leftists just can't accept reality when reality conflicts with their own warped worldview? Here's another great example, from Ohio:

The Ohio Supreme Court's chief justice on Thursday threw out a challenge to the state's presidential election results.

Chief Justice Thomas Moyer ruled that the request improperly challenged two separate election results. Ohio law only allows one race to be challenged in a single complaint, he said.

The challenge was backed by the Rev. Jesse Jackson and Cliff Arnebeck, a Columbus attorney for the Massachusetts-based Alliance for Democracy, who accused Bush's campaign of "high-tech vote stealing."

Claiming fraud, the voters cited reports of voting-machine errors, double-counting of ballots and a shortage of voting machines in predominantly minority precincts as reasons to throw out the results.

The complaint questioned how the actual results could show Bush winning when exit-poll interview findings on election night indicated that Kerry would win 52 percent of Ohio's presidential vote.

Without listing specific evidence, the complaint alleges that 130,656 votes for Kerry and John Edwards in 36 counties were somehow switched to count for the Bush-Cheney ticket.

It's all so simple! The actual results can't be right, because the exit polls had John Kerry winning! So the obvious course of action is to take the actual votes for Bush and grant them to Kerry! Because the exit polls are what our elections are decided by! At least when they show the liberal candidate ahead. Really, I do not know why there even needs to be a lawsuit, it should all be so clear to everyone!

I would suggest that someone please find a bucket of cold water and wake these liberals up, but I don't think they make a bucket that big. And besides, why stop the Democrats from driving themselves further and further into the political wilderness?

2,000 hits

2004-12-16T14:15:00.000-05:00

A small milestone for my inconspicuous little corner of the blogosphere, reached at 1:36:24 P.M., EDT. Thanks to all! I hope you are still around for 5,000 (that is, if I ever get there!).

Vox Blogoli VI

2004-12-15T20:26:00.000-05:00

Hugh Hewitt asks the blogosphere to comment on the MSM's credibility with regard to matters of faith and history, specifically in response to this Newsweek article about the birth of Christ. Hugh ponders whether this article represents the Rathergate of religion reporting, and marvels at the bias in the piece.

Why so shocked, Hugh? The anti-Christian bias in the Newsweek piece is nothing new to the MSM. In fact, it is pretty much a re-hash of Jesus Seminar talking points from the past thirty years. Is it bias? Of course it is, but it is just more of the same, and not at all unexpected from a notoriously liberal source like Newsweek.

While the liberal bias is clear, I don't believe that the comparison to Rathergate is entirely accurate. Jon Meacham uses real people as his sources, even though these people are all liberals with an agenda. That's not the same thing as fabricating a story out of wholecloth. This article doesn't surprise me at all, it's just one more biased article from a source that I expect to be biased.

Peterson to Die

2004-12-13T22:57:00.000-05:00

The jury came back with the death penalty for convicted wife and child murderer Scott Peterson. It will probably be decades before the penalty is carried out, if ever, but at least the ordeal is over, for Laci Peterson's family, and for the rest of us who had to sit through the endless media coverage. The sad fact is that murders like these happen all the time. In my mind, only one thing made this case worthy of note, when all was said and done: the humanization of Connor Peterson, Scott and Laci's unborn child. After 30 years of legalized abortion in America, of endless efforts to turn an unborn baby into "a choice", a murdered unborn child was given a name, and the "what ifs" of the life that could have been were explored and discussed across the country. I hope that the process sparked more than just a passing thought. If Connor deserved more than a passing thought, what about the rest of the unborn children whose names we don't hear day in and day out?

Technical Update

2004-12-13T20:44:00.000-05:00

Well, after trying this three times previously, and destroying my blog template each time, I think the Section 31 engineering crew has finally succeeded in adding Haloscan commenting and trackback to the command center. Naturally, all of the previous comments have been lost in the upgrade. We'll see if this new technology is all it's cracked up to be.

UPDATE: I am using Noodles at People's Republic of Minnesota as my guinea pig to test whether trackbacks are working, since he also recently installed Haloscan. Unfortunately, each time I try to use his trackback link my browser crashes, so this experiment may be doomed to failure.

UPDATE: After a couple hours of messing with the Haloscan comments and trackback, I have decided that I hate their implementation of both, and am switching back to standard Blogger comments. I'll hope that Blogger comes out with its own trackback system, otherwise I'll wait until I can upgrade the command center to a real blog client.

Christmas Spirit

2004-12-13T20:28:00.000-05:00

I love the days leading up to Christmas. The tree is up and decorated, Christmas music is spinning on iTunes, and spiced cider is going down nicely. Oh, and the U.S. Armed Forces are helping to establish peace on Earth, one terrorist at a time (salute to Martinipundit for sending me to RightWingNews).

The Director is very happy.

Reporter makes himself famous

2004-12-10T01:19:00.000-05:00

The editor and publisher of my hometown newspaper, the Chattanooga Times/Free-Press, has come out in support of the embedded reporter who gamed the Rumsfeld/military town hall meeting (via Drudge):

"I think he was doing what he felt he was embedded to do: tell the stories of the soldiers of this unit," said Tom Griscom, editor and publisher of the paper. But he criticized the embed's story about the incident, which did not mention the reporter's connection to the soldier who asked the question.

"He is there to write stories, not make news himself," Griscom said of Pitts. The editor added that the recipient of the e-mail, whom he would not identify, should not have passed it along.

This response sounds about right to me. I don't think the question is necessarily a bad one, as I recall the Times/Free-Press doing previous stories on the vehicle armor issue. However, I have a big problem with the lengths to which the reporter went to make a name for himself by essentially ambushing Rumsfeld with a question that may not have been asked otherwise. By injecting himself into the issue, this reporter raises questions in my mind about the legitimacy of the problem. We will probably see quite a bit of followup in the next few days that will answer whether or not vehicle armor is indeed a pressing issue for our troops.

A Presbyterian by any other name

2004-12-09T15:58:00.000-05:00

Patrick at Clarity and Resolve notes the decision of the Presbyterian Church (USA) to divest its $8 billion portfolio from companies that do business with Israel. This decision is indeed disgraceful, but to be expected from the PC-USA, one of the most liberal Christian denominations in the country. I do feel the need to point out that while the PC-USA is by far the largest Presbyterian denomination in the country with over 2.5 million members, it does not speak for all Presbyterians.

The Presbyterian Church in America broke away from the PC-USA in the early 70's, in opposition to the larger denomination's growing liberalism. As of 2000, the PCA had over 300,000 members, and was growing rapidly. The PCA has not joined with the PC-USA in its Israel bashing, and many of its leaders have signed petitions requesting that the PC-USA rethink its decisions. These PCA leaders have been joined by many PC-USA ministers who do not share the liberal views of their governing assembly.

In short, the PC-USA is indeed shameless in its blind anti-Israel bias, but there are significant numbers of other Presbyterians who are completely steadfast in their support of the nation of Israel. When discussing Presbyterians, it is always important to distinguish between PC-USA and PCA.

Reading Material

2004-12-08T23:55:00.000-05:00

If you are looking for informative and intelligent writing and commentary from sources other than the Big Bloggers, there are three blogs I think you should check out. I read these sites several times a day, just to see if they have posted something new. They are that good. Go read Noodles at People's Republic of Minnesota, Ruth at Freudian Slippers, and Patrick at Clarity and Resolve. In addition to quality posts, these bloggers read and respond swiftly to comments, so their sites are also great places for discussion. Enjoy!

Remember December 7th

2004-12-07T14:42:00.000-05:00

It seems that in recent years, the American national memory has grown shorter and shorter. Even after the attacks of 9/11, three years without a terrorist attack on our soil has left our country complacent, struggling to remember just what it was that got us all so worked up on that fall day.

It wasn't always this way. Time was, the American people forced each other to remember national tragedy. It was acceptable in times past to keep the memory of attack and death close at hand, as a reminder of the dangers our nation faced, and an exhortation to victory.

On December 7, 1941, our country suffered in some ways an even more shocking and devastating blow than on 9/11. The American battleship was not just a symbol of American power, it was the literal vehicle of that power. In a matter of hours, not only had the symbols of our strength been demolished, but the actual means of projecting strength were sunk or burning off the coast of Oahu. That the American aircraft carriers were spared was significant in the long run, but at the time appeared to be poor consolation. Carrier warfare had yet assume the importance that it would in short order. All that Americans knew at the time was that our big ships were gone, and the entire west coast was vulnerable to attack and possibly even invasion.

The America of that age did not allow itself to forget this attack. There was no compunction about showing the photographs of our sunken fleet, no worries over whether citizens would be offended at the site of our mighty navy burning in port. There was only the immediate and overwhelming need to rally against the enemy, swiftly and without hesitation.

On December 7, 1941, here are a few of the images you might have seen had you been a participant in the events of that day (These photographs and others can be viewed at the Naval Historical Center website).

Battleship Row, as seen from a Japanese torpedo plane, as the attack begins. Note the white lines in the water on the left side of the photograph, as the torpedoes streak towards their targets.

Battleship Row, from a different angle, as a Japanese dive bomber begins its attack. The splashes around several of the ships indicate the attack is already underway.

A color frame from a motion picture camera running at the moment the forward magazine of the U.S.S. Arizona explodes.

A Japanese dive bomber again, above the Arizona immediately after the forward magazine exploded.

The destroyer U.S.S. Shaw exploding during the second wave of the Japanese attack.

The U.S.S. Oklahoma capsized after being struck by 9 Japanese torpedoes. The explosions opened a 250 foot hole in her port side. Survivors tapped out SOS in Morse code on the inside of the hull, but only 32 were rescued the following day. The Oklahoma remained capsized until 1943, when she was rolled back over in a massive salvage operation.

Perhaps the most famous photograph from Pearl Harbor, the U.S.S. West Virginia billows smoke after being struck by several torpedoes, while a launch rescues survivors.

I believe that remembering the past is important. I believe that national tragedy is not something to be shoved into a closet or swept under the rug. What has happened to us that we have become so comfortable and sanguine and easily offended that we dare not recall or display the images of 9/11 as generations before did with Pearl Harbor? Why do our people allow themselves to forget the horror, fear, and the just anger that we experienced that day? The Pearl harbor generation will soon be gone forever, but they have not forgotten their day of infamy. What does that say about our generation, when so many seem to have so swiftly forgotten our own?

The Glorious Battle of Jeddah

2004-12-06T16:39:00.000-05:00

Or at least that's what "expert" Diaa Rashwan would have you believe:

Militants lobbing explosives forced their way into the heavily guarded U.S. consulate in Jiddah on Monday before Saudi security forces stormed the compound and fought a gunbattle to end a four-hour standoff. Eight people, none American, were killed.

Five consulate employees were killed, said a U.S. Embassy spokeswoman in Riyadh. Three of the five attackers also died in the shootout, the Saudi Interior Ministry said. One American was slightly injured.

"This was a very hard target to attack, and they pulled it off," said Diaa Rashwan, a Cairo-based expert on Muslim militants, predicting the attack would boost morale among extremists. "For the government, this was a security failure. For the militants, this was a military victory."

A number of comments spring to mind. Let's seek a little perspective, shall we?

First of all, from an operational standpoint the bad guys lost this one. I don't just say that because three of the attackers were killed (although that's three less we have to worry about). Two of the group were captured, which means we have warm bodies to interrogate. Any intelligence is good intelligence. In addition, it is apparent that the terrorists were targeting the U.S., but in a consular district with over 9,000 Americans in residence, there were zero American casualties. Instead, the terrorists shot up a few of their brother Muslims. Not entirely helpful for them, certainly not as satisfying as shooting innocent Americans would have been. One wonders why these wannabe splodey-dopes didn't opt for a straight up car bombing or a long-distance IED-type bombing. Answer: because this was a poorly planned operation.

Second, the spin from this so-called "expert" has me so dizzy it's hard to decide where to begin. This was NOT a hard target to attack. Any terrorist worth his weight in C4 can chuck grenades and shoot surprised security officers. And on the list of U.S. targets in Saudi Arabia, the Consulate at Jeddah, while a notable target, is not the highest on the list of critical U.S. facilities in Saudi Arabia. The Islamofascists didn't attack the Embassy in Riyadh, or any of our air bases. They chose a relatively less-protected target, and they still ended up dead and captured.

As for Diaa Rashwan, I wonder if he doesn't have a little Frog in his family tree...who else would describe the annihilation and capture of your entire unit a "military victory"? Military competence aside, a little peep into Mr. Rashwan's background proved enlightening. My admittedly limited investigation into his educational history turned up no indication of where Mr. Rashwan was educated or what degrees he holds, if any, that would qualify him as an "expert" in anything. So until someone shows me a curriculum vitae for Diaa Rashwan, I'll have to dispute his "expertise" as unproven.

What I did find on Mr. Rashwan was his place of employment and a body of written work. Apparently, he works at the Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies. A few of the articles you may find on their website include Israel: Between political crisis and civil war, Israel's aggression on Rafah: war crimes under US protection, Torture and the moral collapse of the Bush administration, and Trampling due process. These articles are not exactly supportive of America.

As for our friend Mr. Rashwan, here are a few of his own writings: The Western connection, Feeding terror, Inconclusive evidence, Flawed vision, and Americans as sitting ducks. My personal favorite is Inconclusive evidence, in which Mr. Rashwan argues against the conclusion that al-Qaeda was involved in the 9/11 attacks, and ends with the insinuation that slow reactions by American was due to deliberate decision.

So my friends, ask yourselves what we have. We have three dead terrorists, two captured terrorists, zero dead Americans, and an al-Qaeda apologist who says the attacks today were a "military victory" for the terrorists. I don't know about you, but I'd be perfectly happy to take a few more terrorist victories along those lines.

Thanks so much to AP writer Tarek Al-Issawi in Dubai for searching so diligently for such a distinguished and objective analyst to puff his news story with a little Islamofascist propaganda. If it wasn't for people like him, I wouldn't have much to write about, would I?

The Question

2004-12-03T16:49:00.000-05:00

A friend recently told me that her family was adopting a U.S. soldier for Christmas. In thinking about all that our military does for us, I was reminded of this poem by Rudyard Kipling, called The Question.

Brethren, how shall it fare with me
When the war is laid aside,
If it be proven that I am he
For whom a world has died?

If it be proven that all my good,
And the greater good I will make,
Were purchased me by a multitude
Who suffered for my sake?

That I was delivered by mere mankind
Vowed to one sacrifice,
And not, as I hold them, battle-blind,
But dying with open eyes?

That they did not ask me to draw the sword
When they stood to endure their lot --
That they only looked to me for a word,
And I answered I knew them not?

If it be found, when the battle clears,
Their death has set me free,
Then how shall I live with myself through the years
Which they have bought for me?

Brethren, how must it fare with me,
Or how am I justified,
If it be proven that I am he
For whom mankind has died --
If it be proven that I am he
Who, being questioned, denied?

Blogging Hiccup

2004-12-01T16:55:00.000-05:00

One would think that with the long weekend, I would find time to blog just a little post. Unfortunately, end of the month is a hectic time at the Director's cover job, and at least the appearance of productivity has to be maintained. And quite frankly, when I haven't been working, I've been extremely tired and unable to muster the requisite energy to post anything resembling coherent thought. I have noticed that more than a few bloggers write posts in pure stream-of-consciousness mode. To paraphrase Calvin Coolidge, I do not choose to write in that manner. I much prefer a more polished end product, for several reasons.

For one, I want to develop and maintain my own standards of what good writing should be. If I can't construct a decent sentence, then I'd rather not construct one at all. But in addition to satisfying my own demands for what I want this site to be, I want to attract a certain kind of reader as well. I want readers who are capable of both rational thought and clear expression. Toward that end, I attempt to put out a product that appeals to that type of person. It's too soon to tell whether I am succeeding in this regard. However, I have been very pleased with the consistent readers I have attracted thus far.

All of this to say, thanks to those of you who drop by consistently, even when I haven't put anything new up in several days. I know who you are, and your readership is very much appreciated. And to those of you who may just be dropping by, welcome to you as well. Please feel free to wander through Section 31 Document Storage for samples of previous writing. And as always, any and all comments of a non-trollish nature are welcomed!

What I Give Thanks For

2004-11-25T13:36:00.000-05:00

Here is my own small list of things for which I am thankful, depicted by the most prolific American artist of the 20th century, Norman Rockwell. I am thankful for...

ancestors...

baseball...

utility workers...

home-cooked meals...

parents...

policemen...

military families...

coal miners...

significant others...

the American Soldier...

music...

prayer...

safe homecomings...

and the presence of family and friends. Have a safe and wonderful Thanksgiving!

Thankfulness

2004-11-24T19:37:00.000-05:00

I might give it a try a bit later on, but right now I really can't say it much better than this.

From the Sublime to the Ridiculous

2004-11-24T10:34:00.000-05:00

This may be anti-climactic after my previous post, but I really wish my car could do this. (Via Boortz)

Bitterness and Tears

2004-11-24T01:26:00.000-05:00

The recent incident in Fallujah involving the Marine who shot a terrorist playing possum provoked widespread outcry among the Left. The young Marine was accused of committing a war crime and his actions were attributed all the way up the chain of command to the war-monger Bush. But for anyone possessing a passing familiarity with American history, this event appears utterly unremarkable by comparison. Some have said we are by and large a Jacksonian nation, fighting a Jacksonian war. In this context I think it would be appropriate to consider exactly what that means.

Andrew Jackson was one of the most colorful and complex individuals in our nation's already colorful and complex history. Perhaps the most famous description of Jackson was also the most accurate:

[Jackson was] a patriot and a traitor. He was one of the greatest of generals, and wholly ignorant of the art of war. A writer brilliant, elegant, eloquent, without being able to compose a correct sentence, or spell words of four syllables. The first of statesmen, he never devised, he never framed a measure. He was the most candid of men, and was capable of the profoundest dissimulation. A most law-defying, law-obeying citizen. A stickler for discipline, he never hesitated to disobey his superior. A democratic autocrat. An urbane savage. An atrocious saint.

If the modern media is incensed by the so-called imperious nature of the Bush presidency, they would likely have all perished of a massive stroke had they known Jackson. Likewise, the "dissent" so common among liberals today would have driven Jackson himself into a frenzy. At one point during the war of 1812, Jackson was forced to quarter his men in Nashville during a bitterly cold winter. Jackson walked among his troops from dusk until dawn to ensure that his men received sufficient firewood to guard against the cold. When all were provided for, he entered a tavern to warm himself and overheard a civilian commenting on the poor military organization that would leave the troops exposed to such harsh weather. Jackson was not amused:

You damned infernal scoundrel, sowing disaffection among the troops. Why, the quarter-master and I have been up all night, making the men comfortable. Let me hear no more such talk, or I'm damned if I don't ram that red hot hand iron down your throat.

While Jackson's words instilled fear, it was his deeds that truly defined what we understand today as "Jacksonian war." In the summer of 1813, the Creek Indian tribe attacked Fort Mims in Alabama, killing and scalping over 400 American settlers, including women and children. The attack prompted Tennessee governor Willie Blount to give Jackson command of a force to pursue and destroy the Creek. Jackson himself urged his men on to catch those responsible for the Fort Mims massacre and punish them so that they would remember it always "in bitterness and tears."

Leading his force of volunteers into Indian territory, Jackson killed all those Creek he could find, burned numerous villages to the ground, and ravaged their food supplies. He encountered a large number of Creek warriors at their village of Talluschatches, and decimated the entire village. In the midst of the carnage, Jackson showed a somewhat surprising element of compassion. A Creek mother was discovered dead in the village, holding her still living child. Jackson asked the surviving Creek women to care for the child, but they refused, telling Jackson that the child's whole family was dead, and that he should kill the child as well. Instead, Jackson took the child back to his home at the Hermitage, and raised the boy himself.

Following the destruction of Talluschatches, remaining Indian towns publicly declared their submission to Jackson, in order to avoid the same fate. The Creek chief Red Eagle attacked one of these towns, Talladega, and threatened the rest with destruction if they aided Jackson. Realizing the importance of protecting the allied Creek villages, Jackson immediately moved his forces to the aid of Talladega and attacked Red Eagle's warriors. Nearly three hundred Creek died, compared to 15 dead American volunteers. Red Eagle, however, had escaped.

Determined to force an end to the Creek uprisings, Jackson marched on Red Eagle's main force of about 900 braves at Horseshoe Bend along the Tallapoosa River. The Creek had fortified a position at the aptly-named Horseshoe Bend and were dug in behind a series of log breastworks, along with roughly 300 women and children. Jackson began his assault at around 10:30 A.M. on March 27, 1814. After barraging the rampart with cannon, Jackson's infantry stormed the rampart and scaled it. From this position, they began shooting every Indian in sight, men, women, and children alike. Trapped, the Creek panicked and ran in circles inside the compound, all the while taking fire from Jackson's soldiers on the rampart. The withering fire continued until darkness prevented Jackson's men from sighting their targets.

The following day, 557 Creek bodies were found inside the compound. Another 200 bodies were counted floating in the river. Many others were killed in the woods attempting to escape. Jackson's forces suffered 55 killed, 146 wounded. Soon after the battle, Red Eagle, who had been away from Horseshoe Bend at the time of the attack, rode into Jackson's camp and surrendered.

The lessons of Jackson's Creek campaign is applicable to the fight against terrorists today. There is a place for mercy granted to non-combatants, and there is a place for lenience granted to a truly surrendered enemy. However, for those who do not "play by the rules," who would use our mercy and compassion as a weapon to kill us, there is only one real response. That response is the cold, relentless, and complete extermination of the enemy, until those who are left recall their butchery and treacherous acts "in bitterness and tears."

Courage, Dan

2004-11-23T18:11:00.000-05:00

Dan Rather will be signing off as anchor of the CBS Evening News for the final time next March:

Dan Rather announced today he will step down as anchor and managing editor of the "CBS Evening News" on March 9 — 24 years to the day after his first broadcast as the network's anchor.

Rather will stay with CBS News, working full time as a correspondent for both editions of "60 Minutes," and taking on other assignments as well.

"I have been lucky and blessed over these years to have what is, to me, the best job in the world and to have it at CBS News," Rather said. "Along the way, I've had the honor of working with some of the most talented, dedicated professionals in the world, and I'm appreciative of the opportunity to continue doing so in the years ahead."

He and the network began discussing his future during the summer, he said, adding that he looks forward to getting back to working as an investigative reporter full time.

Of course, this was a "mutual decision" by Rather and CBS, and has absolutely nothing to do with either Rather's pathetic ratings or his use and dogged defense of obviously forged documents in the Bush Air National Guard story.

Goodbye, Dan. You won't be missed.

Distractions

2004-11-22T16:21:00.000-05:00

You know, I might have time to write more on my own blog if i stopped writing huge comments on other blogs.

On a lighter note, Instapundit, Vodkapundit, Martinipundit, and other alcoholic alcohol-appreciative bloggers can heave a big sigh of relief: the rats have the answers!

Hmm...on second thought, I'm not so sure about this article. I'm supposed to believe that 10% of our population is gay, but only 8% are alcoholics???

The clock is ticking

2004-11-19T16:48:00.000-05:00

Readers familiar with Michael Ledeen over at National Review Online know that he has been calling for a confrontation with the terror masters in Iran since soon after 9/11. After each column, he ends with the request "Faster, please." Well, it appears someone was listening, just not who we thought:

Raising doubts about its commitment to dispel international distrust, Iran is producing significant quantities of a gas that can be used to make nuclear arms just days before it must stop all work related to uranium enrichment, diplomats said Friday.

Iran recently started producing uranium hexafluoride at its gas-processing facilities in the central city of Isfahan, the diplomats told The Associated Press.

When introduced into centrifuges and spun, the substance can be enriched to varying degrees. Low-grade enriched uranium is used in nuclear power plants. Highly enriched uranium forms the core of nuclear warheads.

How much uranium hexafluoride are we dealing with? Enough:

Asked about quantities being processed at Isfahan, one of the diplomats said, "It's not little," but he declined to elaborate.

But another diplomat familiar with the International Atomic Energy Agency - the U.N. nuclear watchdog - said the Iranians apparently were in the process of converting 22 tons of uranium into gas, either as a precursor to uranium hexafluoride or as the finished product.

Iran has huge reserves of raw uranium and has announced plans to extract more than 40 tons a year.

That amount, if converted to uranium hexafluoride and repeatedly spun in centrifuges, could theoretically yield more than 200 pounds of weapons-grade highly enriched uranium, enough for about five crude nuclear weapons.

Iranian officials say the Isfahan plant can convert more than 300 tons of uranium ore a year.

In the legal field we have a term for when a witness makes an inadmissible statement in front of the jury: "You can't unring the bell." Once the jury hears the statement, the judge may instruct them to disregard it, but the damage is done. We are dealing with a similar situation here. The Iranians are burning the candle at both ends in order to create a nuclear device. They will lie, dissemble, mislead, delay, deceive, and do whatever it takes to buy time for their scientists to get the job done. That's why these European negotiations are a boon for the mad mullahs. Talk takes time, and that's exactly what the mullahs need.

And if they are successful in making their weapon, the bell cannot be unrung.

The Evil Genius Returns

2004-11-19T15:19:00.000-05:00

As part of my duties in identifying dangers to America, sometimes my attention narrows to more regional dangers. Like this:

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) - Lou Holtz wanted his South Carolina players to focus on their game against Clemson. They suddenly have a lot more on their minds.

Holtz will retire as coach at South Carolina after the season, The Associated Press learned Thursday night, apparently paving the way for Steve Spurrier to replace him.

Holtz told his players before the team's final regular-season practice, according to a source close to the program who spoke on condition of anonymity. All season, the 67-year-old Holtz said he was worn out, and even said Spurrier would be a good choice to succeed him.

On Wednesday, South Carolina cornerback Fred Bennett said Holtz promised the players he would tell them first when he decided about next year. "So I respect him for that," Bennett said.

A report in The Tennessean of Nashville had Spurrier taking over and the announcement coming next week. Other reports said Spurrier and South Carolina agreed to a contract between $1.5 million and $2 million.

If Spurrier decides to coach the Gamecocks, he would face his old team next season on Nov. 12, when Florida comes to Williams-Brice Stadium.

An announcement regarding Spurrier, who won a national championship at Florida, is expected next week, the newspaper said, citing an anonymous source close to the situation.

Of course, Spurrier had to come back to the Eastern Division of the SEC. Here's hoping he lost whatever talent he had when he indulged his ego in the NFL for two seasons. Holtz is a class act and a prolific coach, and I'm sorry to see him leave Carolina. One thing is for certain: the SEC will be a lot more...colorful with Spurrier back in the game.

Use Blog Catalog!

2004-11-19T11:29:00.000-05:00

For what it's worth, I need to give a big plug here for the new blog directory service I just joined, Blog Catalog, and especially their Big Kahuna, Brad Jasper. Your humble Director is by no means an HTML professional, and when I tried to install this cool new button on my sidebar (It lets you rate my site! Go rate me!), I couldn't get the darned thing to align to the right like all my other buttons.

Being a perfectionist (of sorts...some might say anal retentive), I couldn't just let that button stay there out of alignment. I tinkered around with it for maybe an hour, but nothing I tried worked. So I removed the button code entirely and emailed Brad Jasper at Blog Catalog for help. I've received less than sterling response rates from other site managers, so I was not really anticipating much help. I figured I might as well roll the dice and see what happened. I figured that a busy web dude like Brad probably had his email filters set to scan out stupid HTML questions from users.

Less than 24 hours later, I had an email with new button code that Brad said would work on my site. Not only did Brad send me the code, he explained what it did and why, and then commented that he had actually read my site and enjoyed it! Now if that kind of response doesn't deserve a HUGE plug, then I don't know what does!

SO: If you have a blog, I HIGHLY recommend hooking up with Blog Catalog! Cool rating button, nice directory, and fantastic support from Brad Jasper! What more could you ask for?

The Right Stuff

2004-11-16T23:19:00.000-05:00

NASA set an impressive new air speed record today:

LOS ANGELES (AP) - A tiny unmanned NASA "scramjet" soared above the Pacific Ocean Tuesday at nearly 10 times the speed of sound, or almost 7,000 mph, in a successful demonstration of a radical new engine technology.

The 12-foot-long X-43A supersonic combustion ramjet reached about Mach 9.7, said Leslie Williams, a spokeswoman at NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center at Edwards Air Force Base.

The exotic aircraft was designed to fly under its own power for about 10 seconds after separating from a booster rocket at 110,000 feet, then glide to a splash landing.

Details of the craft's exact performance were to be announced later from Dryden, but mission officials were jubilant immediately after the brief flight.

"Once again we made aviation history. We did that in March when we went seven times the speed of sound and now we've done it right around 10 times the speed of sound," said Vince Rausch, Hyper-X program manager from NASA's Langley Research Center in Virginia.

The X-43A, mounted on a Pegasus rocket used to boost it to flight speed, was carried under the wing of a B-52 aircraft and released at an altitude of 40,000 feet over a test range off the Southern California coast. The rocket motor then fired for a 90-second ascent.

Like its predecessors, the X-43A will not be recovered from the ocean.

The flight was the last in a $230 million-plus effort to test technology most likely to be initially used in military aircraft, such as a bomber that could reach any target on Earth within two hours of takeoff from the United States, or to power missiles.

Scramjets may also provide an alternative to rockets for space launches.

Unlike conventional jet engines which use rotating fan blades to compress air for combustion, the X-43A has no rotating engine parts. Instead it uses the underside of the aircraft's forebody to "scoop" up and compress air for mixing with hydrogen fuel.

Both the technology and the record are impressive. Scramjet technology, when refined, could revolutionize the aerospace industry. However, one aspect of this record-setting flight does leave me a bit saddened. The X-43A, for all it's glorious speed, is an unmanned jet. Something just doesn't feel right to me about setting a speed record in an airplane without a human being at the stick. Call me old-fashioned.

In case you're interested, the air speed record for a manned jet-powered aircraft is still held after 28 years by one of the most beautiful aircraft ever built, the Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird:

On July 28, 1976, an SR-71A flew at a speed of 2,193 mph, or Mach 3.3. That official record for a manned jet-powered flight still stands, although there are rumours that the SR-71 surpassed that mark on unofficial occasions. What is so remarkable is that the SR-71A set this record after entering service in 1966! The SR-71A's first flight was two years before that, in 1964, and its immediate predecessor, the A-12 first flew in 1962. It is a remarkable testament to the engineering prowess of the famous Lockheed "Skunk Works" division that a plane designed when Jack Kennedy was president held the air speed record until 2004. In my book, the Blackbird still holds that record...an unmanned flight just seems a bit hollow to me.

There is tons of information on the Blackbird, as well as other classic aircraft, at the superb website SR-71 Online, from whence comes the above picture.

Condi replaces Powell

2004-11-15T19:40:00.000-05:00

Bush has reportedly tapped National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice to be the next Secretary of State. This strikes me as an excellent trade. Dr. Rice has the political savvy, intelligence, and calm personality to reassure and foster good relationships with other heads of state. More importantly, Dr. Rice is absolutely committed to Bush's war strategy and will not send mixed messages about U.S. intent to either friend or foe. Powell, and the entire State Department under his watch, had a troublesome tendency to allow discordant leaks and to muddle Administration policy with his own public statements.

On a related note, I hope that Rice is under orders from Bush to clean house at the State Department. There are too many career diplomats and bureucrats over there dedicated to their own career advancement and not committed, or even in opposition to fighting the War. Rice is committed, and she needs to make sure that the establishment at State is committed as well.

The question now becomes, who does Bush name to replace Rice as NSA? Personally, I would love to see Paul Wolfowitz in that position, but he would probably be too much of a political lightning rod. Someone like former CIA Director James Woolsey would also be an excellent choice. We'll see what the buzz is by the end of the week.

Go read Geochem

2004-11-15T19:33:00.000-05:00

If you haven't already, I highly recommend that you check out Geochem over at Environmentalist Wackos. He has some interesting info on the political situation inside Iraq, as well as his own professional analysis of the search for chemical weapons there. A very good read.

We're Sorry, So Sorry

2004-11-15T15:11:00.001-05:00

You may have heard or seen some of the "I'm Sorry" websites and photos out and about the internet. Basically, sorry excuses for Americans have photos taken of their sorry selves holding notes and cards with messages about how sorry they all are for the actions of America vis-a-vis Iraq/Afghanistan/Palestine/Europe/Women/Children/Small Furry Animals/Etc. Tim Blair posts this wonderful rejoinder to those sorry losers:

In case you can't read the text of this note, it says: "Dear Afghanis, I'm sorry we helped to free you from the Taliban." The head tilt and the pouty lip action makes this photo a true Kodak moment to be treasured.

You know, they do say that no good deed goes unpunished, at least if you are American. For my part, I'm not sorry we liberated Afghanistan, and I'm not sorry we took out Saddam in Iraq. I am sorry that our armed forces are fighting a more restrained war than I would like. I am sorry that we haven't ticked off more internationalist liberal bleeding-hearts and liberated more repressed people by invading Iran or Syria. And I am sorry that so many of our own citizens refuse to see the good that America does in the world, and even slanders that good.

UPDATE: Flickr, the online image hosting service I used to host the above picture, is currently experiencing technical difficulties. Until they resolve their issues, I suggest you click the link over to Tim Blair's post to see the photo. The soldier's facial expression really is priceless.

UPDATE: Flickr is apparently back online.

Fallen Heroes

2004-11-11T11:36:00.000-05:00

Hugh Hewitt provides this moving email from the girlfriend of 1st Lt. Joshua Michael Palmer, who was killed by enemy fire in Fallujah back in April of this year. Read the entire email, including the account of how Lt. Palmer died.

The photo is the one referred to by Hugh, posted online by Rick Brady at Stones Will Cry Out.

On this veteran's day, pray for our soldiers specifically in Fallujah, who are fighting with the kind of uncommon valor and selflessness that is so remarkably common in our armed forces. It is because of their courage and sacrifice that we can, in the words of Winston Churchill, "sleep the sleep of the saved and thankful."

It's been One Week

2004-11-11T09:44:00.000-05:00

My apologies to those faithful few who have stopped by since the election looking for new material and finding none. The creative juice just seemed to leave me completely around election time, and I haven't fully recovered it yet. I just found myself simply uninterested in blogging, and unwilling to make the time for even a cursory update. On the upside, I did engage in some productive technological updates here at Section 31 headquarters, which should make posting faster and a whole lot easier.

Really though, the news since the Bush victory has been mostly uninspiring. John Ashcroft resigns? Expected. Yasser Arafat is dead--then alive--then dead--then alive--and now he's dead again? Great, it's about time. Arlen Specter is a spineless RINO? Yawn, we knew that already. Liberals don't understand why they lost? Double yawn, they are as predictable as ever.

Really, the only thing that has captivated my attention has been the U.S. battle for the city of Fallujah. But what with so much other petty "news" going on, the importance of this fight has been diluted. I recommend that you visit the superb Belmont Club to find out everything you ever wanted to know about this battle. For the reports in chronological order, start here and then just scroll up through the posts that follow. Wretchard's reporting and analysis is so good, there really isn't much for me to add. Here's hoping our troops are allowed to deal the fatal blow to the terrorist insurgency in Iraq.

For real, this time.

Savoring the moment

2004-11-04T20:56:00.000-05:00

I'd like to post thoughts on the election and what I think it means for the country. Unfortunately, I feel rather drained at the moment. Perhaps a combination of early mornings and long drives, perhaps simply because of the natural sense of mental exhaustion after such a tense campaign and election. Hopefully I will feel more like pontificating tomorrow. Until then, I plan on taking Peggy Noonan's advice. I suggest you do the same.

It's over

2004-11-03T11:23:00.000-05:00

Kerry has called Bush to concede Ohio. Why the networks have held off from calling New Mexico, Nevada, and Iowa for Bush is beyond me. Maybe they just can't bring themselves to admit it.

Check that...as I type, Fox calls Nevada for Bush and declares him the official winner of the 2004 Presidential election.

It's all over but the shouting

2004-11-03T01:45:00.000-05:00

Fox just called Ohio for Bush. That puts him at 266 EV. Add 3 for Alaska and you get 269, worst case. If Bush loses every remaining state (not going to happen), the House of Representatives breaks the tie and sends it for Bush.

Wherever he is lurking, I hope Osama bin Laden is watching.

2004-11-03T01:13:00.000-05:00

Jim Angle with Fox says that he spoke to an "authoritative" source inside Bush-Cheney '04, and that the source says "We will win Ohio, it's just a question of how much." If so, this would likely nail the election down for Bush. Kerry spinners are now more frequently referring to lawsuits instead of actual voting leads.

My personal feeling right now is that Bush will be declared the winner sometime around 2-3 AM, EST. We shall see!

2004-11-02T23:25:00.000-05:00

Bill Kristol just said what I've been thinking for a couple hours now: It appears that Bush is going to carry Florida tonight, and we won't have to wait a week for the call. Bush is too far ahead at this point with 94% of the precincts reporting. It all comes down to Ohio now for Kerry. If it goes for Bush, it is over for Kerry. And if Kerry wins Ohio, he will still have to defend Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, and Hawaii in order to win.

In other words, the candidate who is facing elimination here is Kerry, not Bush.

2004-11-02T21:20:00.000-05:00

State initiatives to define marriage as between a man and a woman appear to be winning by 60-75% nationwide. Hopefully this is a sign of big evangelical turnout, and will results in vote increases for Bush as well.

2004-11-02T21:05:00.000-05:00

Michael Barone is on Fox running down a long list of Florida counties where Bush has made significant gains in both registration and in the vote returns. VERY encouraging. The Horserace Blog has percentages on most of these. I love Barone's closing line: "This data indicates President Bush COULD win Florida."

Liveblogging starts here

2004-11-02T20:45:00.000-05:00

This may be a hairy venture, as I am running my poor little home dialup connection while trying to keep about 30 browser windows open and make timely posts as well. I'll do my best with what I got...

The Fox roundtable makes the point that the hard data coming from key states simply does not jive with the early exit polls. For example, Bush is up by 10 points right now in Orange county, Florida, which he lost to Al Gore in 2000 by 2 points. If Bush is performing that well in a Democratic county, then the rest of the state is likely trending to Bush.

Bogus exit polls

2004-11-02T16:48:00.000-05:00

Some of you may have seen exit poll numbers on the Drudge Report indicating Kerry advantages. The short answer is: these numbers are bogus. For the long answer, see the Mystery Pollster and PoliPundit. The Horserace Blog had a good post on the worthless exit poll numbers, but high traffic appears to have overloaded his server. Check back there later in the day.

The best thing to do is take a deep breath, vote if you haven't already, and wait for the actual returns to come in this evening.

Be of good cheer

2004-11-02T13:25:00.000-05:00

When John Kerry's own campaign pollster is this gloomy, you know things can't be all that great for Kerry's chances:

We often point to the fact that a majority of Americans say the country is seriously off on the wrong track. Fifty-two percent hold that view. But when Bush Sr. was defeated, 72 percent thought the country was seriously off on the wrong track.

Only 39 percent give the economy a positive rating, a problem for the incumbent.

Yet in 1992, only about 10 percent were positive about the economy.

Taking all that and more into account, an expert forecasting model suggests that Bush will get 51.6 percent of the two-party vote.

So while Bush faces formidable obstacles, not the least of which is Kerry himself, the senator also faces a strong candidate. Bush is weaker than some other incumbents but much stronger than those who have been defeated.

Read the whole thing, and be encouraged. This assessment is from the man who knows the true state of John Kerry's campaign better than any other person. If he were any more depressed, he'd be openly predicting a Bush win. A good sign, if you ask me.

A simple choice

2004-11-01T22:39:00.000-05:00

November 2nd is just over an hour away. If you are still undecided at this point, you are a moron and you need to stay in bed tomorrow.

For the rest of you, the bottom line is very simple. If you don't believe that Islamic terrorists want to kill as many Americans as possible, then see my recommendation in the first paragraph. For the remainder of you, ask yourself this question, and try to be honest. Which of the two candidates do you think will not only take killing terrorists more seriously, but will kill as many of them as he possibly can?

This is the only question that really and truly matters. Every other issue fades into insignificance in comparison. How you vote tomorrow will determine whether we continue to fight this war or capitulate. Put the other partisan issues aside and be honest with yourself tomorrow. George Bush has proven he will take the fight to the terrorists. John Kerry has proven that he will ask the world's permission first.

If preserving and defending America against those who would slaughter us means anything at all to you, vote for Bush. We can resume the partisan bickering after the war is over.

2004 Election Aids

2004-11-01T16:12:00.000-05:00

For those of you who will be following the election returns closely tomorrow, I have added a new set of links on my sidebar to assist you in your endeavor. I have posted links to the election results pages of the states I believe will be important battlegrounds: Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Most if not all of these pages will start posting their returns at 8 P.M., EST.

Of the other websites who will be providing live coverage of the returns, I plan on watching the excellent Horserace Blog the closest. Jay's analysis and data-crunching to date has been outstanding, and he will have a network of poll watchers in key states sending him data throughout the evening. I also recommend you follow RealClearPolitics, Powerline, PoliPundit, and Kerry Spot.

Kerry's clear stand on removing Sadaam

2004-10-29T15:13:00.000-05:00

From Tom Brokaw's interview with the Senator:

Brokaw: The flip side of that is that if you had been president, Saddam Hussein would still be in power. Because you...

Kerry: Not necessarily at all.

Brokaw: But you have said you wouldn't go to war against him...

Kerry: That's not true. Because under the inspection process, Saddam Hussein was required to destroy those kinds of materials and weapons.

Brokaw: But he wasn't destroying them...

Kerry: But that's what you have inspectors for. And that's why I voted for the threat of force. Because he only does things when you have a legitimate threat of force. It's absolutely impossible and irresponsible to suggest that if I were president, he wouldn't necessarily be gone. He might be gone. Because if he hadn't complied, we might have had to go to war. And we might have gone to war. But if we did, I'll tell you this, Tom. We'd have gone to war with allies in a way that the American people weren't carrying the burden. And the entire world would have understood why we were doing it.

How can anyone who hasn't beenliving under a rock on the far side of Mars for the past three years believe that this man has even the faintest hint of a clear stand on this, or any other issue? The mind boggles at the utter futility of Kerry's attempts to appear decisive on Iraq. Does he realize how he sounds? He can't even come out and flatly deny that Saddam would be in power if he were president. The best he can manage is "Not necessarily at all." What kind of an answer is that? It's like saying "Absolutely probably not", the sentence is meaningless.

Boy, and doesn't Kerry get definitive in that last paragraph? "He wouldn't necessarily be gone. He might be gone....we might have had to go to war. And we might have gone to war." Elitist snobs mock Bush's mangling of the English language, but Kerry, in his own way, mangles it just as badly. I suppose they didn't use William Strunk, Jr.'s The Elements of Style in his Swiss boarding school. John Kerry really needs to memorize and apply Rule 12:

12. Put statements in positive form. Make definite assertions. Avoid tame, colorless, hesitating, non-committal language. Use the word not as a means of denial or in antithesis, never as a means of evasion.

Whether consciously or subconsciously, I believe people pick up on the inherent weakness in Kerry's language. John Kerry simply can't hide his weakness of character. Sure, he can speak with large, impressive words in a deep, sonorous voice. But his very language betrays a man who, at his core, is deeply unsure of himself, his beliefs, and his place in the world. It takes more to lead and inspire than a cheaply won medal and a European education. Leadership demands the kind of confidence that is so deeply rooted in one's character that it expresses itself not only in the words one uses, but how they are used.

John Kerry is not a leader.

Harkin hears from God too!

2004-10-29T14:08:00.000-05:00

In what some are calling "the REAL October surprise", the Almighty has switched from supporting George Bush to John Kerry, according to Iowa Senator Tom Harkin (D):

Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin says John Kerry has been gaining in the polls every day since Oct. 21, and George Bush has been going down every day.
"That's how God wants it to be," Harkin told a group of about 25 people at the Benton County Headquarters in Vinton on Thursday afternoon.

Sounds like Harkin and Pat Robertson need to have a chat. It reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Homer and Ned Flanders pit their sons against each other in a contest of miniature golf:

(While the Flanders family prays) Homer: Hey Flanders, it's no use praying. I already did the same thing, and we can't BOTH win!

I guess one of these two men is going to have a crisis of faith next Wednesday morning.

Who'da thunk it?

2004-10-29T09:27:00.000-05:00

BILD, the largest newspaper in Germany, endorses...BUSH? Via Davids Medienkritik, who provides the translation for the 10 reasons that BILD backs Bush:

1. Bush has clear priorities. He sees the inhuman Islamic fundamentalism and the murderous mullahs as the largest danger for the Western world.
2. Bush has learned the lessons of history. Military strength, not pleasant talk, is the only thing that helps against violent fanatics. And with Bush -- unlike with Kerry -- there is no doubt about this.
3. Under Bush, the US, as a superpower, will continue to bear the financial, military and casualty burden in the fight against terrorism in a "holy war" which Islamic fanatics unilaterally declared.
4. Along with fighting terror and the terrorists, a re-elected Bush will do everything he can to prevent nuclear proliferation. That is especially true with regard to the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea.
5. Bush has learned that America can defeat every country in war, but needs allies in peace. Thus, his second term will be characterized by cooperation with international partners. But he will not depend on how Syria or Libya vote at the UN.
6. Bush knows that Europe and Germany don’t have the military at their disposal to become involved in any further foreign military engagements. Therefore he won't ask them for help. Kerry will do exactly that – and will further burden already damaged German-American relations.
7. Under Bush, America will remain a reliable partner for Israel in its fight for survival. That must especially be in our German interest.
8. Republicans have always been stronger supporters of free trade than Democrats. That is also true of Bush when compared to Kerry. And that is good for Germany as an export nation.
9. Every new American administration makes mistakes. Bush has already made his. Kerry, on the other hand, has of yet held no (executive) position in the government. He would be worse prepared than most Presidents preceding him.
10. With Bush, we know what to expect. With Kerry, nobody knows what he stands for and where he wants to lead America – and the world.

This is certainly a surprise, but a welcome one. Finally, a European newspaper that takes the threat from Islamic terrorists seriously. I found reasons 3 and 10 particularly interesting. Number 3 is all about German self-interest: they want us to bear the burden of prosecuting this war as long as we are willing, because they realize that no one else has the ability to do it. And by first recognizing that the threat is real, BILD progresses naturally to the conclusion that if we don't fight this war, there will be no protection for Germany against the terrorists.

Number 10 is particularly damning of John Kerry. If his sophisticated European friends can't figure out what he stands for, how can he expect the less nuanced, overly simplistic, average American voter to figure it out?

I offer my applause and my sympathy to BILD. They made what must have been a tough call to endorse Bush, and will likely suffer some blowback from their virulently anti-American readership in payment.

Section 31 EEI

2004-10-28T13:54:00.000-05:00

EEI, for new readers, stands for Essential Elements of Information. In case you have recently started reading this website, I thought I would provide an EEI outline for what Section 31 is about.

PERSONNEL

That would be me, the Director of Section 31, ______________. If I actually told you my name, of course, I'd have to kill you.

PURPOSE

The primary purpose is right up there at the top of the screen: to search out and identify potential threats to America...quietly. Right now the two biggest threats to America are Islamic terrorism and Western liberalism, and so at this point in time the bulk of this website discusses these topics.

The secondary purpose is for me to write about whatever I find interesting or worthy of discussion. Right now, the main things I find interesting and worthy of discussion are limited in number, but I hope to be able to branch out more post-11/2/04.

SITE ORGANIZATION

My cover occupation as an attorney keeps me quite busy, so I do not post Intel Reports as frequently as some. However, I believe in quality of writing as opposed to mere quantity. Whether the Intel Reports are of high quality or not, you can find them in the main area of the site. Comments are welcomed and encouraged. Trolls will be eliminated quite painfully.

The sidebar of the website contains key information and communication channels to Section 31 operatives and other sources. They include:

Display Info-- go here to update the display technology of your screen to match optimum Section 31 display specifications.

Subspace Transmissions-- click here to initiate direct communication with me.

About Me-- What little public informationn is available on me can be found there.

Previous Intel Reports-- A running list of my most recent reports.

Section 31 Document Storage-- archived Intel Reports.

Key Operatives-- these are agents from whom I receive daily, sometimes hourly intel . One, the U.S.S. Clueless, is a retired agent, but his own intel archives are well worth your attention.

Allied Organizations-- these are assorted groups of intel operatives who are all more or less working towards the same goals as Section 31. Their collective data collection abilities are most impressive.

Intel Analysts-- this is where I go to get analysis about current events and new intelligence.

Field Operatives-- these individuals are proven and experienced agents who may not have the exposure of the Key Operatives, but do a lot of the grunt work that the big boys sometimes skip over.

Raw Intel Processing-- if you want lots of raw data on breaking intelligence, go here.

New Assets-- these people are relatively new agents who are still in the process of proving themselves, but are showing a great deal of promise. Some of these may one day move on to become Field Operatives.

Informants-- just like it says, these agents are deeply embedded inside enemy territory, but nevertheless provide excellent insight on how the enemy thinks and operates. Finding credible informants is difficult, and so this list is very short at this time, but will hopefully be expanded in the future.

Finally, there are several links to miscellaneous support services which assist in the operation of Section 31. Go there if you are curious about how the nuts and bolts come together.

Hopefully this gives you an idea of what this website is about. The agent list is subject to change at any time, so stop in now and again to see what's new. Hopefully you will become a regular reader, and perhaps if you are lucky, you may get recruited into Section 31 yourself someday...we are always on the lookout for promising new agents.

The Curse is over!

2004-10-27T22:41:00.000-05:00

'Nuff said.

Will the curse be lifted?

2004-10-27T18:26:00.000-05:00

I won't jinx anyone by speculating as to whether the curse will be lifted, but I will say that I hope it happens this year. Even though I was born and raised a Southern boy, I have been a Red Sox fan ever since I started collecting baseball cards as a kid. I remember one of the first cards I had was of Carl Yastrzemski, the last player in MLB to win the Triple Crown. When I had all the statistics on the card explained to me, I was so impressed, I figured that any team with such a great hitter on it had to be the best. I just KNEW in 1986 that they were going to win the World Series, and I cried when the ball went through Buckner's legs. It just wasn't fair, or right, or just.

And now the Red Sox are a game away. If it were any team but the Red Sox, I would be cheering the Cards on, but since it isn't...GO SOX!!!

Good news in Florida for Bush

2004-10-25T17:09:00.000-05:00

Jay over at The Horserace Blog has a very detailed and compelling analysis of the current state of the campaign in Florida. Based on current registration data compared against the results in the 2000 election, Jay feel safe predicting a Bush win in Florida. For those worried about the tight polling data, the last paragraph is for you:

Note for all of you poll watchers, if Kerry loses Florida by 100,000 -- he will lose it by about 2%. This means that you will see pro-Kerry polls between now and election day. It is a statistical inevitability. Roughly one in every six polls, actually, will be pro-Kerry. So, don't worry about the polls! Just keep your eyes on my rolling, unweighted average (which currently shows the likelihood of a Bush FL victory at >90%).

If you are a Bush supporter, read the whole thing for maximum feel-good effect. For Kerry supporters I suggest a good antacid.

Last gasp of the Boomer Left

2004-10-24T18:13:00.002-05:00

Why are the leftist baby boomers so frothing-at-the-mouth desperate to win this election? Bill Quick hits the nail squarely on the head:

This election is the last shot. They know, in their hearts, that John Kerry is not John Kennedy, no matter how much the Senator tries to assure the comparison. But they are older, and much more tired, and are willing to settle for half a loaf. Just to beat the damnable Bush, the damnable Republicans, to get a little of their own back, to hold their heads up and taste the sweet drafts of hope one last time.

Maybe Kerry can reverse the fall. (They know he can't, but still...)

Bill is exactly right here. The plain fact is that the baby boomer generation was largely converted to socialism in its infancy and as a result has produced no good ideas since. For all its preening about intellectualism, it is surprising that more liberals don't recognize the devastation this idealogy has wrought upon the group politically.

For today's left to become once again competitive with the right politically, it must abandon its communist heritage. This won't happen until the left has been driven into the electoral and political wilderness for a substantial period of time. Hopefully the wandering in the wilderness will begin next Tuesday.

What is courage?

2004-10-22T17:09:00.000-05:00

cour·age (kûrj, kr-) n. Middle English corage, from Old French, from cuer heart, from Latin cor. The state or quality of mind or spirit that enables one to face danger, fear, or vicissitudes with self-possession, confidence, and resolution; bravery.

By its nature, courage is something of a dormant virtue. That is, it is generally not visible under ordinary circumstances. Notwithstanding contrary opinion on the Left, courage is not required to "dissent" in America. Sean Penn, Michael Moore, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry face no danger, fear, or vicissitude when they mock, degrade, and slander George W. Bush and other conservatives. If they call Bush the demonspawn of Satan and Adolph Hitler, John Ashcroft's wild-eyed, ultra-conservative, Christian thought police will not show up at their mansions, drag them to torture rooms, lop off ears and tongues, and rape their family members before running them all through a wood chipper.

True courage is only revealed in the face of true danger, trials, and tribulations. What liberals call "courage" is a vile sham of the true article. The plain fact is, in 9/10 America, we faced so little real danger that we substituted increasingly mundane challenges and fears as the catalysts of courage. However, 9/11 presented our nation with a real and truly frightening test of our collective ability to face danger with confidence and resolution. For a time, at least, our country remembered what true courage looked like: firefighters and police officers rushing into the World Trade Center, certain that their death was before them, but resolute in their determination to dare every chance to save and preserve the lives of their countrymen inside.

Courage, I believe, is a virtue which is either nurtured or suppressed by the culture in which one is reared. Courage is more likely to be found in a nation which, as a whole, prefers confidence, boldness, and self-determination over acquiescence, timidity, and reliance on others. This is why democracies tend to engender courage in their citizens.

Courage is a virtue which we may not even realize we have until we are tested. I do not scorn the man who, when faced with true danger, finds that it is more than he can bear. However, I mourn a culture that so dilutes and weakens the notion of courage in its people that, when push comes to shove, what was thought to be courage is revealed, in the worst possible circumstances, as cheap fakery. I revile the man who boasts of his courage when he has faced no danger or fear worthy of the virtue. And I laud those who, when faced with the darkest and most hopeless terror, respond with steeled determination and will.

I ruminate on the topic of courage because of this story, which is receiving extensive media coverage:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Margaret Hassan, the kidnapped director of CARE International in Iraq, wept and pleaded for Britain to act to save her life in a video aired Friday. "Please help me. This might be my last hours," the gaunt Hassan begged, shaking with fear and burying her face in a tissue.....
"Please help me. Please help me," Hassan said, trembling. "This might be my last hours. Please help me. Please, the British people, ask Mr. Blair to take the troops out of Iraq, and not to bring them here to Baghdad. That's why people like Mr. Bigley and myself are being caught. And maybe we will die like Mr. Bigley."

I do not mock this poor woman or condemn her pleas. Given the modus operandi of her Islamic captors, she is likely already dead, or soon will be. She knows that the same fate likely awaits her as awaited Americans Danny Pearl, Nicholas Berg, Jack Armstrong, Jack Hensley, and fellow Briton Kenneth Bigley. The guillotine of the French Revolution was merciful compared to the slow, manual sawing-off of a head with a dull blade, the preferred method of the jihadists. I cannot say that I would respond differently in her place. I've never been placed in that sort of immediate, life-or-grisly-death situation. I hope I never am. What I do say about this situation is that Margaret Hassan has faced a true test of courage, and was not able to face it with self-possession and confidence. Nor did Kenneth Bigley, only a few short weeks ago:

"Here I am again, Mr Blair," Mr Bigley added. "Very, very close to the end of my life, you do not appear to have done anything at all to help me." Mr Bigley said his captors patience was "wearing thin, and they are very very serious people."
In a calm voice, he continued: "I beg you ... British people, more then ever I need your help, more than ever I need your voices, to go out in the street and to demand a better life for the females and the women who are imprisoned in the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad."

As Mark Steyn put it in a column which was spiked by The Daily Telegraph:

None of us can know for certain how we would behave in his circumstances, and very few of us will ever face them. But, if I had to choose in advance the very last words I’d utter in this life, “Tony Blair has not done enough for me” would not be high up on the list. First, because it’s the all but official slogan of modern Britain, the dull rote whine of the churlish citizen invited to opine on waiting lists or public transport, and thus unworthy of the uniquely grisly situation in which Mr Bigley found himself. And, secondly, because those words are so at odds with the spirit of a life spent, for the most part, far from these islands. Ken Bigley seems to have found contemporary Britain a dreary, insufficient place and I doubt he cared about who was Prime Minister from one decade to the next.

This from the island which spawned such and women of courage and determination as Wycliffe, Richard the Lionhearted, Henry V, Elizabeth I, Victoria, Churchill, and Thatcher. Steyn hits on the precise reason for such a change: "the dull rote whine of the churlish citizen invited to opine on waiting lists or public transport." True courage is apparently something that is less frequently tested now, across the pond, as well as at home.

Which leads me to an example of courage from the most unlikely of places. We've all heard the one about the shortest book in the world: the book of Italian war heroes. Well, that book needs a new page in my opinion, for Italian baker-turned-security guard Fabrizio Quattrocchi. Never heard of him you say? Not surprising. Quattrocchi's kidnapping and demise at the hands of Islamic butchers back in April of 2004 does not fit the pattern that most other such stories followed. In fact, the key portion of his story received only a few words from the BBC:

The Italian hostage killed by kidnappers in Iraq was a defiant "hero" in his final moments, Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini says.
The dead man was identified as Fabrizio Quattrocchi, 36, a security guard.
As the gunman's pistol was pointing at him the hostage "tried to take off his hood and shouted: 'now I'll show you how an Italian dies,'" he said.

Fabrizio Quattrocchi was faced with the same danger, the same fear as Margaret Hassan and Kenneth Bigley. He knew that his life was at an end, and likely a gruesome one. But he refused to be mastered by fear and the certain knowledge of imminent death. Quattrocchi responded to this dire situation with total self-possession, supreme confidence, and utter contempt for his murderers. He refused to let the jihadists use his murder as a propaganda tool to stoke terrorist fervor. How interesting that the al-Jazeera network declined to air the footage of his valiant death, while they gleefully play every second of cowed and defeated Western captives. And how interesting that more people are not aware of the Fabrizio Quattrocchis of the world.

Did 9/11 rekindle the embers of America's latent national courage? Or has our safety, our freedom from apparent danger, and our obsession with the banal drained our collective national courage? I certainly hope and pray for the former, and not the latter. The results of this election will prove telling on this question.To those who have doubts about our national courage and whether we can (or should) face the dangers of our times head-on, I suggest you read again the story of Fabrizio Quattrocchi. And I commend you to a certain other Briton, who never, never, never, never gave in:

"One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half." --Sir Winston Churchill

Pat Robertson is a fool

2004-10-22T09:45:00.000-05:00

During a conversation with Paula Zahn, Pat Robertson had this to say about the President and Iraq:

He was just sitting there, like, I'm on top of the world, and I warned him about this war. I had deep misgivings about this war, deep misgivings. And I was trying to say, Mr. President, you better prepare the American people for casualties.
Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties. Well, I said, it's the way it's going to be. And so, it was messy. The lord told me it was going to be, A, a disaster and, B, messy. And before that, I had deep, in my spirit, I had deep misgivings about going into Iraq.

I commend to Robertson's attention Proverbs 17. There's a lot there concerning fools and their words. I especially recommend verses 16 and 28: "Why is there a price in the hand of a fool to buy wisdom, When he has no sense?"; "Even a fool, when he keeps silent, is considered wise; When he closes his lips, he is considered prudent."

Where to begin? As RealClearPolitics points out, the notion that Bush told Pat Robertson that we would have no casualties in Iraq is so ludicrous as to suggest to me that Robertson is lying. Proverbs has some things to say about liars as well as fools.

Furthermore, if the Lord told Robertson that Iraq would be a disaster, maybe Robertson should have asked, for whom, us or the terrorists? Perhaps Robertson should read Arthur Chrenkoff's excellent blog, starting with this post on all of the good news in Iraq that it appears the Lord didn't know about when He told Pat that Iraq would be a disaster.

Come to think of it, this isnt the first time Pat Robertson has claimed to hear from the Lord. I certainly hope for Robertson's sake that the Lord really is telling him all these things. I don't think that the Lord would approve of someone attributing statements to His name which aren't true. Seems like I read something about that in the Bible too...

"You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain." --Deuteronomy 5:11

What does America mean to the Jews?

2004-10-18T18:19:00.000-05:00

Powerline has this post with a very moving account of a meeting between the president and 18 rabbis from around the nation. The account closes with this paragraph:

When I left I went across the street to the park and cried. I had so much emotion about being there. After all we have gone through as a people for 4000 years, so many tyrants under whom we have lived who have brutally mistreated us, to live in an an age when the leaders of the most powerful nation of the world care so deeply for this small people, as many presidents have, is amazing. It had a feeling of holiness to it -- of feeling God's words that "those that bless the childen of Israel will be blessed."

Read the whole thing.

Why I voted for Bush

2004-10-18T10:31:00.000-05:00

Last Friday I fulfilled one of my duties as a citizen of the United States of America and the sovereign state of Tennessee by voting early in the presidential and state elections. I voted for George W. Bush for president because of a single issue: America's involvement in World War IV. Of the candidates for president, Bush is the only one who, 1) recognizes we are at war, 2) has a long-term strategy for ultimate victory in this war, and 3) is committed to executing that strategy until our victory over the enemy is achieved. Whether the issue is taxes, government spending, healthcare, jobs, gay marriage, or faith-based initiatives, all of them are secondary in importance to fighting and winning WW IV. All of these other issues can be ranked in importance based on how and whether they fit into the overall strategy for conducting the war.

Fighting and winning WW IV is the only issue our enemies have as well. It has been said that in deciding who to vote for, one should determine who the terrorists want to win, and then vote for the other man. The terrorists have made it clear who they want to win. What does that say about a candidate when he is endorsed by a terrorist organization?

John Kerry does not recognize that we are in WW IV, stating that we need to get back to the time when terrorists were a "nuisance." John Kerry has no strategy for victory in the war, only a strategy for withdrawal and effective surrender. And the most frightening thing about John Kerry is that I believe he is committed to that strategy. Such a man cannot protect and defend this country. George Bush, like him or not, has proven that he can, and will.

UPDATE: Welcome to readers referred over from Hugh Hewitt's online symposium. I hope your stay is worthwhile. If you haven't come from Hewitt's site, I suggest you go to the symposium and start reading for 1001 excellent reasons to vote for Bush.

UPDATE 2: Left-leaning readers and other Kerry supporters are encouraged to comment on this post. Why vote for Kerry? Do you agree/disagree with my reasons? Please note, while rational discussion is welcomed, trolls will be dispatched via Varon-T disruptor.

So who won the debates?

2004-10-18T10:15:00.000-05:00

The question, of course, is how you define a win. Going into the debates, I thought that for Kerry to "win" the debates, he had to seize the momentum from Bush by either pushing Bush into making a serious gaffe or by scoring a knockout on the issue of Iraq. Anything else would not be sufficient to halt or reverse Bush's momentum. So while the mainstream media was all agog with how well Kerry performed during the three debates, the fact remained that Bush committed no gaffes and Kerry was revealed as the inconsistent weakling on Iraq and terrorism that he truly is. After the third debate, I said that the election polls in the week following would show you who truly won the debates.

These results tell the tale. And this longterm trend is even more telling. Complacency should definitely be avoided like the plague, but I feel rather comfortable in predicting that Bush will be re-elected in 15 days. Kerry's best hope now is the DNC's planned election-day chicanery. While I am concerned about the high possibility of fraud, it is reassuring to know that the Democrats have nothing else to rely on.

Final thoughts on the Final Debate

2004-10-13T21:34:00.000-05:00

In 10 words, George Bush was John Kerry's daddy, but who was watching?

In more than 10 words, I think that Bush decisively defeated Kerry in this debate, but the victory may not help the president as much as he might hope, thanks to the baseball playoffs. I would predict that at worst, the current poll average of a 2 point Bush lead will stay put, and at best, the president gets a 2 point bump. Bush was in command of his facts, had better facts, and really kept Kerry on the defensive for most of the night. It has been my belief since the debates started that the pressure was on Kerry to land huge blows to Bush in order to change the momentum of this race. Tonight we saw Kerry "in defeat and retreat", to borrow Bush's line. Not only did Kerry score no significant hits on Bush, the president on several occasions had Kerry completely flummoxed. Key examples were the health care question, and every single time taxes were discusssed. And I breathed a HUGE sigh of relief when Bush finally hung the albatross of Kerry's 1991 Gulf War vote around his neck. Too bad he didn't do it in the other debates.

In addition, I think Kerry made a huge mistake bringing up Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter during the question about gay marriage. I think most people will consider this over the line and a low blow.

All in all, Kerry has not only failed to swing the momentum his way, I think that Bush will come out of this debate with increased momentum. I believe Kerry now has two last hopes to pull the election out. The first is some sort of major scandal about Bush, a la the drunk driving charges in 2000. The second is massive voter fraud in key swing states such as Florida, Pennsylvania, and especially Ohio. The good news for Bush is that there are probably no further skeletons to be dragged out of the closet, and, to paraphrase the title of Hugh Hewitt's book, "If it isn't close, they can't cheat."

I think Bush sealed the deal tonight. If the polls next week stay the same or bump for Bush, then it's over.

2004-10-13T21:27:00.000-05:00

Kerry's close: "I believe I offer proven, tested leadership, to calm the waters of a troubled world." Sorry Senator, every poll disagrees, and gives Bush a 2 to 1 advantage on leadership.

Bush's close: Hope, freedom, and liberty. I've enjoyed every one of his closing statements, and this one was no different.

2004-10-13T21:23:00.000-05:00

Bush hits the last question completely out of the park. "What have you learned from the strong women in your life?" "To listen to 'em!" Lots of laughs from the audience on this, and a couple of other one liners. Kerry's response on "mmarrying up" got a few laughs, but does he really want to remind the voters that he married a billionaire?

2004-10-13T21:14:00.000-05:00

Kerry plays the race card, saying that Bush is the first president ever not to meet with the NAACP.

And that's a bad thing?

Seriously though, Kerry's sanctimonious line that he will "reach out" to minority and civil rights groups like the NAACP, as if that was a courageous thing for a Democrat to do, was laughable. The fact is, the NAACP has whored itself out to the Democratic party, and there was absolutely no reason for Bush to meet with a group that is actively dedicated to smearing him with false accusations (ie, the Byrd lynching in Texas). Meanwhile, Robert KKK. Byrd, the dottery old senator from West Virginia, is lauded by the NAACP and other civil rights groups, in spite of a past civil rights record that would make Strom Thurmond blush, were he still here. It's a shame that the modern civil rights movement has sold its soul to the Democratic party in exchange for political influence.

2004-10-13T21:08:00.000-05:00

FINALLY. Two thirds of the way through the final debate, Bush brings up Kerry's vote against the 1991 Gulf War. And he did it in his final rebuttal, so Kerry couldn't respond. I'd say it was brilliant, if he hadn't missed this point in the previous debates. But it needed to be said, and better late than never, I always say.

2004-10-13T20:59:00.000-05:00

Bush misses a trick responding to the minimum wage question. Kerry promises to help middle class families by raising the minimum wage. Instead of responding to the issue, Bush talks about No Child Left Behind. Why couldn't he have said what needed saying? "Middle class families aren't working for minimum wage, and if we raise minimum wages, employers will lay people off. Raising the minimum wage to $7/hour will cost American jobs!"

Oh well.

2004-10-13T20:46:00.000-05:00

I think Kerry just shot himself in the foot on privatization of Social Security. He said that for young people to take their money out of Social Security and to put it in a private account "would be a disaster." A lot of young people would disagree with you, Mr. Kerry.

Kerry also says that he wouldn't change Social Security, and Bob Schieffer, to his credit, calls him on it. "Are you saying Senator that you wouldn't change the current system, you would just leave it as it is?"

"No Bob, not at all." Does Kerry not realize how apparent his inconsistencies are?

2004-10-13T20:42:00.000-05:00

For the first time in these debates I can remember, Kerry gives specifics to one of his plans. His answer on how he plans to provide health care for all Americans is fairly detailed and will probably sound reasonable to the average citizen. Surprisingly, Bush's response is detailed and cuts Kerry's answer to pieces. "There is a fundamental difference of opinion between my opponent and I. He wants government controlled health care, I want private health care." Nice distinction, and nice counter on the costs of Kerry's plan.

2004-10-13T20:26:00.000-05:00

"My opponent's rhetoric doesn't match his record." We will probably hear that more than a couple times from Bush tonight.

Big surprise, Kerry responds to the question about gay marriage by bringing up Dick Cheney's daughter. His answer seemed a little too nuanced for me: "Yes marriage is between a man and a woman, but I want gays to have the same rights as married couples." So what does that mean?

2004-10-13T20:10:00.000-05:00

Bush gives a reasonable answer on the flu vaccine shortage, and Kerry ignores that and talks about his plan to cover all Americans with health insurance. I fail to see how that would make more flu vaccines.

Bush then knocks this out of the park with a comment he should have made in the second debate: "A plan is not a list of complaints." This hits Kerry right between the eyes, as he always has a "plan" for everything, but never says what it is.

Debate Finale

2004-10-13T20:02:00.000-05:00

First question lets both men recap their positions on terrorism, which is good for Bush. Glad he got to mention the Afghan elections. I wonder if other Americans are as tired of hearing that we "outsourced" the hunt for Osama to others. Bush does good pointing out that this war is not a matter of law enforcement.

Will we give them work permits?

2004-10-13T17:11:00.000-05:00

Bill Gertz, in my opinion the best investigative journalist around when it comes to national security issues, has this frightening report in the Washington Times:

U.S. security officials are investigating a recent intelligence report that a group of 25 Chechen terrorists illegally entered the United States from Mexico in July. The Chechen group is suspected of having links to Islamist terrorists seeking to separate the southern enclave of Chechnya from Russia, according to officials familiar with intelligence reports.
Members of the group, said to be wearing backpacks, secretly traveled to northern Mexico and crossed into a mountainous part of Arizona that is difficult for U.S. border security agents to monitor, said officials speaking on the condition of anonymity.

Gertz is not known for being an alarmist, so the fact that he felt comfortable running this story tells me that it should be taken seriously. Kerry could hammer Bush with this story in tonight's debate, as Bush's border policy has been tepid in my opinion. In the meantime, think back to the days and weeks after 9/11, when we all had just a little bit more caution and awareness of what was going on around us. It would behoove all of us to continue to maintain that sense of vigilance. The bad guys are still out there, and they still want to kill us.

"He is most free from danger, who, even when safe, is on his guard."
--Publilius Syrus

Iwo Jima, Take 2

2004-10-13T10:12:00.000-05:00

Senator Zell Miller of Georgia shows once again why he is one of the only Democrats in the nation who truly understands the world we live in. Excerpt:

What if today's reporters had covered the Marines landing on Iwo Jima, a small island in the far away Pacific Ocean, in the same way they're covering the war in Iraq? Here's how it might have looked:
DAY 1 With the aid of satellite technology, Cutie Cudley interviews Marine Pfc. John Doe, who earlier came ashore with 30,000 other Marines.
Cutie: "John, we have been told by the administration that this island has great strategic importance because if you're successful, it could become a fueling stop for our bombers on the way to Japan. But, as you know, we can't be sure this is the truth. What do you think?"
Pfc. Doe: "Well, I've been pinned down by enemy fire almost ever since I got here and have had a couple of buddies killed right beside me. I'm a Marine and I go where they send me. One thing's for sure, they are putting up a fight not to give up this island."
Cutie: "Our military analysts tell us that the Japanese are holed up in caves and miles of connecting tunnels they've built over the years. How will you ever get them out?"
Pfc. Doe: "With flame throwers, ma'am."
Cutie (incredulously): "Flame throwers? You'll burn them alive?"
Pfc. Doe: "Yes ma'am, we'll fry their asses. Excuse me, I shouldn't have said that on TV."
Cutie (audible gasp): "How horrible!"
Pfc. Doe (obviously wanting to move on): "We're at war ma'am."

Read the rest.

Debate Preview

2004-10-08T16:44:00.000-05:00

I wait with great anticipation to see whether these rumours of DNC ringers in the debate audience will pan out (hat tip to Allah). Regardless of the audience composition, I think Bush needs to focus on two objectives in order to build on Dick Cheney's great performance on Tuesday. Both objectives require Bush to stay on offense tonight.

First, Bush needs to attack Kerry on the so-called "Global Test." Kerry has tried to spin this gaffe away, but it needs to be hammered again and again by Bush. The idea of submitting U.S. defense interests to ANY sort of international approval is a clearcut loser with most voters. Bush must ignore Kerry's spin about how the comment was out of context and Kerry's accusations of distortion and misleading. Bush need only quote Kerry's own words:

No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.
But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

Bush should tie the "Global Test" in with the Duelfer Report findings which clearly state that the very nations Kerry would have in charge of administering his test were totally complicit in enabling Saddam and violating the U.N. sanctions on Iraq in exchange for lucrative oil vouchers.

The second objective Bush should have in the debate tonight is to attack Kerry's twenty year Senate record. This was also done quite effectively by Cheney, and Bush started in as well on Wednesday. Much as Kerry cannot hide or obscure his "Global Test" comments, he cannot obscure the fact that his record shows him to be lazy (poor attendance at committee meetings, especially post-9/11), unproductive (no major legislation with his name as sponsor), and dangerously naive regarding national security (votes against major weapons systems). Especially damning is Kerry's vote against the Gulf War in 1991, which puts the lie to his requirement of needing a "broad" coalition before using military force.

Bush should not spend much time responding to Kerry's barbs tonight. He needs to build on the strong performance by Cheney and give his campaign more momentum heading into the final weeks before the election. He should also keep in mind the advice of General George S. Patton: "A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week."

For Kerry to come out of this debate with a win, two things need to happen. First, George Bush must have a repeat of his primarily defensive performance from last week, allowing Kerry to control the direction of the debate. Second, Kerry must not make any new gaffes along the line of his "Global Test" comment. I suspect that the first will not happen because Bush will not allow it to happen. I suspect that Kerry will fail in the second instance, because I don't believe that Kerry truly believes he committed a gaffe, but that his actual core belief (if you can believe he has any) is that the United States should submit itself to international approval on matters of national security. To paraphrase Cheney, tough talk in a debate cannot obscure a 30 year record.

For these reasons, and against conventional wisdom, I give the edge going into the debate tonight to Bush. More to come during and after the debate.

WWOE: Who Would Osama Elect?

2004-10-08T10:25:00.000-05:00

Charles Krauthammer pens this excellent article in the Washington Post today. The key portion:

It is still prudent to be on high alert at home, because it is not wise to bank on the political sophistication of the enemy. The enemy is nonetheless far more likely to understand that the way to bring down Bush is not by attack at home but by debilitating guerrilla war abroad, namely in Iraq. Hence the escalation of bloodshed by Zarqawi and Co. It is not just aimed at intimidating Iraqis and preventing the Iraqi election. It is aimed at demoralizing Americans and affecting the American election.
The Islamists and Baathists in Iraq are conducting their own Tet Offensive with the same objective as the one in 1968: to demoralize the American citizenry, convince it that the war cannot be won, and ultimately encourage it to reject the administration that brought the war upon them and that is the more unequivocal about seeing it through.

This analysis is spot-on. This is the reason I don't worry so much about a terrorist attack before or during the election. The enemy is aware of the political discord in America (thanks in no small part to the ambivalent message of the Kerry campaign). Now they are doing whatever they can to give legs to the anti-war argument Kerry is hammering day in and day out on the campaign trail. Americans need to honestly and objectively ask themselves: who would Osama vote for? Can anyone with a straight face say that Osama would not vote for Anybody But Bush? And once you admit that point, what does that say about those in America who scream for Anybody But Bush?

What wonderful company they keep.

Thoughts on the debate

2004-10-01T06:52:00.000-05:00

For those who did not sit through the debate last night and wish to inform yourselves, here is the transcript, along with video. In my posting last night I tried to jot down what I thought were any key lines from the candidates, but I didn't analyze the debate too closely. I really wanted to sleep on it and have fresher comments this morning.

The current trend of opinion seems to be that Kerry came out on top by a small margin. After reflection, my own opinion is that this debate was a tactical draw (according to Drudge, Joe Lockhart agrees with this), but a strategic Kerry defeat. Neither side committed any significant gaffes or scored any massive take-down blows against their opponent. Kerry was smoother in his presentation than Bush, although I felt that his statements were often rushed and sounded like he was reading a checklist. Bush had a number of rather pregnant pauses when responding to questions. I've had the same kinds of pauses myself, almost always when my mind was not focused. I think that Bush was tired, in part because he spent part of the day visiting hurricane victims in Florida, and in part because he is normally in bed by 9 PM.

As I expected, Kerry spent the bulk of his time on the attack, while Bush concentrated on defense. I was surprised that Bush did not counterattack more often than he did. Kerry offered his flank to Bush several times, but the president failed to follow up. I was disappointed in this, as Bush could have taken these opportunities to try and score a knockout punch, but opted to either ignore the openings or settle for rehashing his talking points.

Unfortunately for Kerry, while he was consistently on the attack, none of his attacks really hurt Bush. I thought Bush had a number of very good counters to Kerry's charges which largely negated them. As I wrote in my pre-debate analysis, Kerry really needed to score big in order for this debate to help him in the election. It didn't happen. Kerry may have eked out a small victory on style points, but I think that substantively, he did not accomplish what he needed to do.

What effect will this debate have on the campaign? I think that John McIntyre at RealClearPolitics hit the nail on the head when he said that Kerry has to get the polling gap between him and the president down to 3% by the first debate, otherwise the current gap of 5%-8% will harden. Though Bush did not put the nail in Kerry's coffin himself last night, Kerry's failure to land any solid blows on Bush may have done it for him.

The First Debate

2004-09-30T19:55:00.000-05:00

It's about 5 minutes until 9, and the debate is about to start. I'll be liveblogging as it happens, providing my thoughts and comments as the event unfolds.

I'm watching Fox News Channel at the moment, and Michael Barone is explaining the significance of the "light" controversy to Bill O'Reilly. All the other talking heads agree that Kerry will be "unrelenting" in his attacks on Bush.

And here we go, it's on like Donkey Kong!

9:02-- I think Jim Lehrer needs to be traded in for a younger, harder hitting model.

9:04-- A quick handshake, and the men are now at the podiums. First question to Kerry: "Could you do a better job than Bush at making us safer after 9/11?" He is emphasizing alliances, which he says are "shattered." No veto to other countries though. Reaching out to the Muslim world? He wants a summit with all our allies in Iraq. Lovely, lets all get together to talk!

--Bush's response seems to be slower and more relaxed than Kerry's question, which was a quick laundry list of what he wanted to do different.

9:09-- Will a Kerry presidency make us more likely to be hit by terrorists? "It's not gonna happen because I'm gonna win." It's tough in Iraq because "the enemy understands the stakes."

"This president has made a colossal error in judgment." There's the first real jab from Kerry. "$200 billion dollars in Iraq that could have been used on health care, prescription drugs." Bush's response: Kerry's statements in 2002 and 2003 in favor of war. Nice riposte. 16 failed UN resolutions which Saddam flaunted.

9:16-- We can go after Saddam Hussein AND Osama bin Laden. I'm glad he made this point, that we don't have only a single focus in the war on terror. Nice use of PM Allawi, "He doesn't want US leadership to send mixed signals."

Kerry feints, "President called Iraq a center on the war on terror." Actually, he didn't, he said there were many fronts in that war, and Iraq was one. Kerry is talking about the lack of funding for body armor, BAD move, if Bush can bring up the $87 billion vote. Bush swings back, with Kerry's vote in favor of war.

Kerry is going to try and work in as many domestic policy points as he can during this debate. He's complaining now about no cops, no firemen, and tax cuts for the rich. "We didn't need that tax cut."

"I wake up every day thinking about how to protect America. That's my job." Good line from Bush.

9:27-- "When the generals on the ground tell me the Iraqis are ready to take over their security, then we'll be ready to bring our men home." Glad to hear him put some responsibility on the Iraqis. "A free Iraq is essential for the security of this country."

Kerry's message to the troops: "Help is on the way." Now Kerry says American troops are occupiers, and that the only facilities we are guarding are oil facilities. Again, he wants a summit and renewed alliances.

Here's the $87 billion comment from Bush, nice comeback to the "Help is on the way" comment.

Kerry says he made a mistake on the $87 billion, but the president's mistake on Iraq was worse. Then mentions Vietnam. Sounded slightly childish.

Kerry admits he believed the intelligence on Iraq. Now he quotes Richard Clarke...not sure that's the best person to be quoting in light of the fact that he is a proven liar.

Do any of you remember Kofi Annan offering the UN's help? Bush's response: "That's totally absurd." Now he is naming our allies by name, Blair and the PM of Poland (can't recall his name at the moment).

Great hit by Bush on Kerry's "coalition of the coerced and the bribed" comment. "You can't lead other nations when you insult them." Powerful lines regarding the torture and executions in Iraq.

Kerry is emphasizing troop numbers for his position that we don't have an alliance. Is he saying France and Germany will send troops? Now he brings up the Nigerian yellowcake statement in Bush's state of the union address.

9:40-- Kerry is going on a laundry list of how we rushed to war, so I'll just comment right now, Kerry is attacking consistently here, but I don't think he has landed any serious punches yet. All of his points so far are old news and rehashed talking points which I don't believe most swing voters will be swayed by. He needs to come up with something that Bush can't effectively rebut, because so far every attack has been nicely parried by the president.

Kerry: "I've had one position, one consistent position." I can't believe Kerry said this...expect to see this line in NUMEROUS subsequent Republican commercials.

Very heartfelt moment, with Bush describing his conversations with a widow whose husband died in Iraq. It's this kind of topic that Bush is most effective at, where he shares his emotions with the American people.

Does Kerry really think that a summit is going to win the peace in Iraq? I don't think that summits are what American voters are looking for.

9:58-- Can Kerry give specifics on his plan for getting us out of Iraq? Jim Lehrer wants to know! Kerry actually tries to flank Bush on the right, saying we should have gone in and cleared out Fallujah, as well as closed up Iraq's borders. I happen to agree with him on the Fallujah point, and I'd love to see the borders closed as well (it's not feasible).

Bush's now standard counter to the Kerry alliances position is to bring up every time Kerry has insulted our allies, this time mentioning the insulting comments Kerry made about Allawi.

The tone of this debate is shaking out pretty much as predicted, with Bush presenting the optimistic view and Kerry focusing on the pessimistic.

Bush needs to address Kerry's repeated hits on Osama supposedly getting away in Tora Bora, as well as the charge that Bush allowed North Korea to obtain nuclear weapons.

10:04-- finally, Bush gets into the North Korea issue.

Did John Kerry just say "nucular"?????

Nice clear distinctive moment here, Bush wants multilateral talks, and Kerry wants bilateral talks.

Jim Lehrer brings up the Darfur tragedy, since neither candidate has addressed it. Kerry starts off talking AGAIN about Iran. Says that we are overextended and says Bush is using a "back door draft." Calls for two additional active duty divisions in the U.S., but he doesn't say how he's going to get those divisions. Maybe he would institute a draft himself?

10:17-- Does Bush think Kerry has character flaws preventing him from being president? Bush goes on a very gracious list of character traits that he thinks are commendable, including Vietnam service and devotion to his daughters. He then zeroes back in on Kerry's inability to be decisive and his tendency to denigrate our coalition partners.

Kerry does score some points here where he says "You can be certain and be wrong." This line is one that swing voters could easily identify with. Kerry then goes and dilutes the impact of that line by saying again that his position on Iraq has been consistent. Another byte for the attack ads.

10:25-- Almost into the home stretch now. Both candidates are essentially agreeing over non-proliferation, which does not help Kerry.

10:27-- Last question: does Bush agree with Putin's consolidation of power in Russia? No, but it's important to keep a good personal relationship with Putin. Kerry agrees, then swiftly jumps back to bilateral talks with North Korea. Then Bush brings it back to Iraq.

Kerry's closing statement: Basically a summary of all his main points during the debate, ie building alliances and reaching out to other countries. Oh, and he served in Vietnam

Bush's closing statement: Key phrase, "the transformational power of liberty," "a free Iraq is essential to American security," "we have climbed the mountain, and can see below us the valley of peace."

And that does it. My overall impression: Kerry made only one real gaffe, stating twice that his position on Iraq has been clear and consistent. But unfortunately for him, he did no real damage that I could see to the president. He had to take Bush down in this debate, and I believe he failed in that regard. I'll sleep on it and try to provide some more detailed analysis tomorrow.

Pre-Debate Thoughts

2004-09-30T19:28:00.000-05:00

The debate begins in half an hour. At this stage, Bush clearly has the momentum coming in, and is in a much better position than Kerry. All Bush really has to do tonight is reiterate his well-known positions on Iraq and terrorism. Bush can afford to be relaxed and allow simply play keep-away with Kerry. In other words, Bush comes into the debate ahead on points, and just has to keep Kerry from landing any knockout punches. However, Bush has shown himself over and over to be a risk-taker, and I fully expect him to go after Kerry on his multitude of positions on Iraq. Bush will attempt to keep the initiative and stay on offense in order to prevent Kerry from mustering any momentum of his own.

Kerry, on the other hand, MUST score a knockout during this debate. For better or worse, Kerry has ceded the domestic agenda to Bush and is zeroing in on Iraq and the war on terror. He will not get another chance between now and the election to seize momentum. This puts him in the unenviable position of having to attack Bush on the president's favorite terrain. Not only must he constantly attack, he must inflict serious damage in order to win this debate. His plan of attack is therefore one-dimensional at the time he can least afford it. I expect that Kerry will be so locked into attack mode that he either a) commits a serious gaffe, b) does not defend against Bush's counterattacks, and/or c) turns off voters in much the same manner as Al Gore did with his huffing and sighing in 2000.

Personally, I'm looking forward to a real slobberknocker.

Bush v. Kerry, Round 1

2004-09-30T15:16:00.000-05:00

The first presidential debate takes place tonight at 9 P.M. EST. I will be attempting to blog the debate live, depending on whether I can find a long enough modem cord (a WiFi connection, a WiFi connection, my kingdom for a WiFi connection!). Regardless, I will have the Debate Facts news feed running at the top of the page while the debate is in progress. All the talking heads are saying that this will be the critical debate to watch, and I am looking forward to it.

O'Reilly's Bush Interview, Pt. 3

2004-09-30T10:58:00.000-05:00

I watched the final section of the Bush interview, and I have conflicting feelings about it. First, my quibbles. Whoever cut the interview on O'Reilly's end did a poor job in my opinion. This final segment struck me as much shorter than the first two. I would surmise that the goal was to divide the segments by topic (foreign policy, domestic policy, personal reflections), but this had the effect of making the final segment seem less weighty than the first two. Quite frankly, this final portion of the interview left me wanting more than I got. This nit is a problem with the editors at Fox though, and not an issue with the president's answers.

On the other hand, I think that Bush's final answers revealed him at his most human, giving a true glimpse into the man's character. O'Reilly essentially asked three questions: 1) What were you thinking in the Florida classroom on 9/11/01, 2) Why do people get upset over your faith, and 3) What don't Americans know about you? The first two questions were the most personal questions of Bush over the course of the entire three-part interview, and the answers were sincere and compelling. The final question made me chuckle out loud, but Bush's response struck me as profound. He really didn't know what to say. O'Reilly had just given him the chance to plug himself and his character one last time for the audience, and the man just didn't have an answer for him.

I think the reason is that the American people know this president in a way that few presidents have been known by the public, certainly since FDR and his fireside chats. Bush, love him or hate him, is a very transparent person. His feelings and his passions are not hidden or masked. He laughs when he is amused, he becomes short and terse when he is angered, his eyes tear up when he is sad. And for all the blather about "Bush lied," most honest liberals will admit that Bush makes his intentions known, and then follows them through. Since 9/11, this man has experienced the breadth of human emotion, and his responses to these emotions have been public for all to see. What don't we know about George W. Bush? Not much, in my opinion. Even those who hate the man will tell you that his character flaws are plain to see. So when the president halted, thought, and stammered a bit to think of an answer that never came, I suspect that many Americans had the exact same response. And I think that just such a moment of shared emotion and experience is what John Kerry is totally lacking.

Grade for the third interview segment: A, despite its brevity.
Grade for entire interview: A-

As for the impact of the interview as a whole, that remains to be seen. However, I believe it will be quite positive for Bush, and I look forward to seeing this week's polls to track whether there was any noticeable change in his numbers. All in all, the interview was a good campaign decision for Bush. Let's see if Kerry follows suit (I'll bet he doesn't).

Sacre bleu! The Expos are moving!

2004-09-29T16:26:00.000-05:00

In a long anticipated move, the Montreal Expos will be playing in Washington D.C. next season. My condolences to the loyal Canadian fans who are losing their team. However, it will be nice to have a baseball team playing out of the capitol again. I just hope they don't go with the idea of calling them the "Grays" (an homage to a 1930s Negro League team of the same name). At least the Reds have an attention-grabbing color as a team name. Kinda hard to get excited about Gray, in my opinion. Why not call them the Senators after the previous D.C. team of that name? For some reason I can't put my finger on, I suspect that the new team name will be neither of these. I just hope they can pick a name that fits with the local history without being lame.

I knew him when he was young!

2004-09-29T10:26:00.000-05:00

Matthew Downer makes it big, getting this article in the Harvard Crimson linked to by the good people at RealClearPolitics. Comparing both the form and the substance of his article with this anti-Bush piece by Princeton grad student Kai Chan, I think that Matthew's piece is the better article both stylistically and rhetorically. I am not compelled when a non-citizen (Chan is apparently Canadian) tells me why the rest of the world loves Kerry and hates Bush, and that America's problem is just that we can't see the plank in our eye. We just need our wonderful international friends to point it out to us.

But hey, in the interest of full disclosure, I will admit that I am predisposed to support Mr. Downer. He is one of a group of extremely bright young homeschooled students who I had the honor and privilege of coaching at the National High School Mock Trial competition for two years in a row. Incidentally, those two teams were the only back-to-back national champions in the history of the competition. Matthew, when you are elected President of the United States twenty years down the road, all I ask is for a nice cabinet position. Defense would be nice. Or maybe I could be your own personal Dick Cheney. I'm still working on those Big Oil ties.

O'Reilly's Bush Interview, Pt. 2

2004-09-29T10:21:00.000-05:00

Unfortunately, due to an unexpectedly late office boating party, I missed the second part of the three part interview. Too beat to wait up for the re-run, I will have to try to find a transcript or online video of the interview in order to comment. I don't foresee any reason why I should miss tonight's final interview, so hopefully I will come out of this batting .667.

UPDATE: I have now reviewed the second part of the O'Reilly interview with Bush, and I think the result was slightly better than the first portion of the interview. While the substance of Bush's answers was slightly leaner than on Monday, I believe that he became more relaxed and comfortable as the interview progressed. As we have seen before, this is a president who has a sense of humour and is not embarrased to show it.

His comments on the growth of government spending left something to be desired. I was disappointed that he passed the buck on to Congress as far as controlling spending. It would have been nice to hear him pledge to send a leaner budget to Congress, but I understand that he wants to be free to increase spending as necessary for the ongoing war effort. Bush's answers regarding health care, while less than satisfactory for me, will probably go over well with undecided and independent voters. He did work in a plug for private health savings accounts, so there was some consolation for the conservative base.

I think Bush quite emphatically and effectively put the National Guard question to bed once and for all. This story will get no further traction as a means of damaging Bush. His comments on media bias, while subtle, should probably ring true with most people.

Overall, I think that this second portion of the interview built quite nicely on the first. I would grade it as an A-.

O'Reilly's Bush Interview, Pt. 1

2004-09-27T21:21:00.000-05:00

The first part of Bill O'Reilly's interview with President Bush aired tonight on Fox News Channel. The interview is being shown in three parts, Monday through Wednesday, completely unedited. Before commenting on the details of the interview, some general thoughts.

I think that sitting down for this interview was an incredibly smart move for Bush to take, for several reasons. First, the interview gives Bush great exposure. O'Reilly has the number one prime time cable news show on the air, regularly attracting over 3 million viewers each night. Furthermore, many of these viewers are "independent" voters, who remain in the undecided category for the presidential election. Bush will essentially get three days of free publicity with a key voter demographic.

Second, the format of the interview plays to Bush's strengths. Say what you will about O'Reilly from the left or the right, but the man is an old-school journalist who makes his living asking tough questions. Bush's direct, determined personality is tailor-made for O'Reilly's "no-spin" questioning. Whether you agree with his answers is almost beside the point. When quick, confident answers are provided to pointed questions, it reinforces Bush's decisive nature with the viewers. Also, the unedited airing lends the whole interview an aura of credibility to swing voters.

Third, timing. The interviews lead directly into Thursday's first presidential debate. I don't know if the Bush team planned the interview this way, or if O'Reilly decided when to air the interview. What I do know is the timing of the interviews essentially allows Bush to define the terrain of his first battle with Kerry. Bush's responses in the interview will most likely sow seeds in the minds of voters which will be harvested during the first debate.

Fourth, campaign initiative. The O'Reilly interview is the most serious question/answer session that either candidate has had with any journalist so far in this campaign. By making the first move and interviewing with a hard-hitter like O'Reilly (as opposed to Jon Stewart of The Daily Show), Bush has upped the ante for Kerry. He is practically daring Kerry to follow suit and put his own record up for tough scrutiny. The assumption is that Kerry is so "nuanced" that he will fare poorly in a real no-holds-barred interview. And if Kerry declines to take the bait, Bush can crow about how he is confident enough in his positions to put them to the test. While O'Reilly claims he would be fair to Kerry, the fact is simply that with the number of different positions Kerry has taken on so many issues, an O'Reilly interview would likely make him come out looking worse for wear.

Now, for some specific thoughts on tonight's interview, in no particular order:

-- Bush appeared relaxed and confident, as expected.

-- He could have answered better on the WMD issue--he may have no idea where they are, but I'll bet he has suspicions. Why not say so, without getting into too many specifics? Plenty of people have commented on the Syria connection, couldn't that have been alluded to?

-- I think he gave a good explanation on the "Mission: Accomplished" carrier landing, essentially saying it was a morale-booster.

-- Started weakly on Iran, with emphasis on diplomacy, but then said the key words I was waiting for: "All options are on the table." Translation: military intervention is possible. I wish he had been a bit more forceful, but I suspect that we will see a harder line on Iran taken in a second Bush term, should he win.

-- Illegal immigration was I think the weakest part of this first chunk of interview. He tried to emphasize his temporary work permit plan (which I dislike), which avoided the real issue of how we can make our borders more secure. While I disagree with O'Reilly's stance that we should militarize the borders, I do think that we need both a drastic overhaul of INS rules and regulations for immigration, as well as major increases in Border Patrol funding and staffing. Temporary work permits, like restrictive gun laws, will be a problem only for those on the right side of the law, and not for any terrorist who tries to enter the country. O'Reilly rightly called Bush on the somewhat unresponsiveness of his answer.

Overall grade for Bush: B. I think he started the interview fairly well, and maintained his confidence and directness throughout. A more forceful response on Iran would have earned him a B+, while a better answer on the immigration issue would get him into the A range. I think overall a good first night. I think the cumulative effect of the three interviews will be very positive for Bush, even if answers to individual questions leave something to be desired.

Back tomorrow night with thoughts on the second interview.

Kerry reaches out to key Mideast ally

2004-09-24T16:16:00.000-05:00

John Kerry shows us all how to reach out to other nations:

"The prime minister and the president are here obviously to put their best face on the policy, but the fact is that the CIA estimates, the reporting, the ground operations and the troops all tell a different story."

In case PM Allawi didn't understand that Kerry was accusing him of lying, Kerry advisor Joe Lockhart spelled things out in greater detail:
While Kerry was relatively restrained in disputing Allawi's upbeat portrayal, some of his aides suggested that the Iraqi leader was simply doing the bidding of the Bush administration, which helped arrange his appointment in June.

"The last thing you want to be seen as is a puppet of the United States, and you can almost see the hand underneath the shirt today moving the lips," said Joe Lockhart, a senior Kerry adviser.

Welcome to the Kerry Administration's foreign policy. Oppose us, take every opportunity to thwart us, and we will grovel before you. Stand with us, support us, and you're a coerced, bribed puppet. John Kerry must not have read Thucydides when he was being educated in Europe: "We secure our friends not by accepting favors but by doing them."

As crass and insulting as the Democratic response to Allawi is, I think this strategy is not only destined to be a ballot-box loser, I think it was designed to be exactly that. Joe Lockhart, along with fellow Kerry advisors Paul Begala, James Carville, John Podesta, and Mike McCurry are all former aides to Bill Clinton. Early in the campaign liberals scoffed at claims by conservatives that Hillary and Bill were plotting to sabotage John Kerry's candidacy in order to pave the way for Hillary 2008. Lo and behold, a team of Clintonites swoops in to "invigorate" the Kerry campaign, and what happens? The wheels completely fall off.

The pathetic thing is, I doubt Kerry even realizes what is going on. He is surrounded by people who have a vested interest in making sure that an incumbent will not be on the ticket in 2008, and he doesn't have any core beliefs or ideas which he can stake out and claim for his own. If his advisors tell him one demographic wants to hear one thing, he will say it. If they tell him another group wants to hear something else, no problem, he'll take that position too. I think the Clintons knew this fatal flaw in Kerry's character, which is exactly why they sent in their old advisors. Kerry will do whatever he is told if he thinks it will help him win, regardless of any prior statement or position he has taken. I can just imagine Carville and Lockhart huddled up and giggling to themselves, "Let's see what we can get him to say next!"

You can almost see the hand underneath the shirt moving the lips. Ah, sweet irony....

Homeschoolers are terrorists?

2004-09-23T10:06:00.000-05:00

The lovely and gracious Michelle Malkin writes a column about this story from the Muskegon Chronicle, detailing how middle and high school students conducted a mock terror drill in response to a bombing attack perpetrated by Islamic fundamentalists. Well, that's what the drill SHOULD have been about:

The exercise will simulate an attack by a fictitious radical group called Wackos Against Schools and Education who believe everyone should be homeschooled. Under the scenario, a bomb is placed on the bus and is detonated while the bus is traveling on Durham, causing the bus to land on its side and fill with smoke.

Malkin dissects the ridiculousness of this scenario with her usual precision:

This is not a joke. A taxpayer-funded drill is using public school students to enforce anti-homeschooling bigotry under the guise of preparing for terrorism. Terrorism by whom? By Islamic jihadists who hijack planes and incinerate kids headed to Disneyworld. Islamic terrorists who take hundreds of children hostage in Beslan, force them to drink their own urine and shoot babies in the back. Islamic terrorists who groom toddlers as suicide bombers.

Our enemies are Islamic extremist murderers. Except if you happen to attend the Muskegon County, Mich., schools, where the menacing faces of terrorism belong to parents who make untold sacrifices to give their children the best education they know how by schooling them in the loving environment of their own homes.

The mock drill apparently provoked a huge response from homeschoolers nationwide, as the Muskegon Area Intermediate School District tried to backpedal from the wording of the drill scenario:

The Muskegon Area Intermediate School District Tuesday issued a statement saying the areawide organization was not aware of the scenario, but nevertheless apologized.

The statement said the MAISD "shared the disappointment of others when we learned the emergency preparedness drill referenced home-schoolers as the fictitious group responsible for a mock disaster. We apologize."

It said the MAISD and local school districts "were not aware of the scenario, and it was not shared with students or parents who took part in the exercise." "We sincerely regret offending home-school educators. We believe that all parents are educators and do important work at home with their children," the statement said.

I was homeschooled myself and I can verify that this type of bias and stereotyping of the homeschool movement is both common and laughably false. Homeschooled students as a group are just as well socialized (if not better, in my opinion) than their public school counterparts. Academically, homeschooled students are consistently head and shoulders above public school students. This success threatens the dominance of the public education establishment, as embodied chiefly by the National Education Association. This is why the stereotypes persist in the face of all the contradictory evidence: The NEA can't afford for homeschooling to erode its stranglehold on the education of America's youth.

This depiction of homeschoolers as crazed "Wackos Against Schools and Education," while insulting, is not that surprising to me. What concerns me more is that this incident is yet another example of the willful failure to identify the true perpetrators of terrorism: radical Islamofascists. Not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is becoming increasingly apparent that substantially all of the world's terrorist activities are not carried out by Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists, or Agnostics, but by jihadist Muslims. Homeschoolers do not kill innocent children with bombs. Radical Muslims do.

The establishment is so paralyzed by political correctness, that they have lost all connection with Reality. Unfortunately, for far too many Americans, the insidious disease of political correctness has already hampered their ability to face the truth about the dangers facing our nation. One of Sun Tzu's axioms for waging war is to "Know thy enemy." When we refuse to apply this most basic of principles, we effectively tie one hand behind our back in a struggle against an enemy who will take every advantage, exploit every weakness, and land as many blows below the belt as possible.

When will we untie ourselves?