Roger L. Simon over at Pajamas Media the other day mentioned that our Secretary of State has now assumed the Presidency solely because she was able to help influence President Obama to join the coalition enforcing a no fly zone over Libya. Personally, I don't see it. Mrs. Clinton has previously not really shown very much influence in the administration, which is actually a pretty good thing, considering her job performance up through last Thursday could not be described as successful. I see this as a temporary situation; she will not be seen as one of the more trusted members of the cabinet for very long.
When Hillary was first selected to be the Secretary of State, I did not think that she would be in office very long. I thought that the very reason she was hired was so she could be fired. Not just fired, but fired in a way that would ruin her as a politician forevermore. I have really been expecting it for about a year now. Obama must have known, given her level of competence creating Hillarycare in the 90s, that she would sooner or later, (and much more likely sooner,) do something worthy of getting the heave.
How much of a political force would Hillary be in the future after Obama held a press conference, more in sorrow than in anger, announcing that he was forced to make a change at Foggy Bottom, because there is only so much ineptitude that he can put up with. He could then read a list of her faults and errors in judgment (that could take longer than a typical State of the Union address) and mention that when he first chose her to lead the State Department, he thought he was getting a first rate person to fill the position. “Unfortunately, events have proven that my optimism about her ability was regretfully misguided. Now let me be clear, I think that Mrs. Clinton is a wonderful person and I thank her for her years of service to the country, but America’s diplomacy is so important that it must be placed in the care of somebody whose judgment and temperament are better suited to the position.”
I thought that he had most of that speech already written before her confirmation hearings were done. Yes, subjugate her as a member of the administration early in the term when criticism from a former rival would be exponentially damaging, but throw her under the bus (Obama has Olympic level ability at that event) as soon as it is politically feasible. Now that the narrative is that Hillary influenced Barrack to intervene in Libya, Obama is probably stuck with Hillary for the rest of his term. Unfortunately, that means that we are, too.
2011-03-21
2007-09-01
Gunnery in the Desert
We just completed a very nice couple of weeks testing out the new equipment in the desert of New Mexico. Things generally went well for us, and we are looking forward to more opportunities to go out and play.
2007-03-03
Why I like big guns
If the link works, a rather violent demonstration of some of our gadgets in action.
2007-02-24
A new APC Imp
My stepdaughter gave birth on Tuesday, 20 Feb. The new imp was generally healthy, albeit small and a bit jaundiced, but what does one expect when coming from the nether regions. The little girl was 6 pounds five ounces, which, for those who use the metric system, is about 2.8 kilograms. She arrived home from the hospital today, but being that home for her is over 1200 miles away (about 2000 kilometers) it is going to be a while before I get a chance to hold her and start influencing her political beliefs.
2007-02-11
Home Sweet Home
Ladies and gentlemen, it has been a while since my last posting. This is because I have been in transit from KY to TX. It did not help my blogging life much that the POS ancient computer I had been using did not exactly survive the trip and I had to get a replacement. Though I am loathe to make endorsements on this sight, I will say that the people at Circuit City were incredibly helpful throughout the ordeal of trying to revive my comatose computer and in providing a replacement. I am slightly disappointed this weekend because I have just been informed that I will not get to be on a tank full time in my new battalion, but will be in charge of the headquartes platoon of my company because my expirience in that type of environment. I would much prefer to be tinkering on the tank and slamming through open terrain in a tank commander's hatch than in a command vehicle, but a soldier is expected to make personal sacrifices for the good of the unit.
Judging by the number of hits that this site actually gets, I am not going to assume that anybody really missed me, but it is nice to be back.
Judging by the number of hits that this site actually gets, I am not going to assume that anybody really missed me, but it is nice to be back.
2006-10-23
Kick 'em when they're down...
Four years ago at about this time, the Democrats were looking forward to making gains in Congress. Sure, they didn't have a platform and much of their leadership was grating on the ear, but tbey were against Bush in every politically safe way they could be.
Lo and behold, the first Tuesday after the First Monday in November came along and the gains that they were expecting somehow failed to materialize. What lesson did they gleam from this situation? Well, in the House, they did get rid of the Minority Leader, Dick Gephardt, blaming his ineffective leadershipp as the reason that they had such a disappointing election. After this bloodless coup dispensing of their leader, the House Democrats were left with a choice to fill the void of leadership- they could get a mock-moderate who could actually be reasonable in the guise of Harold Ford of Tennessee, or go for the loony leftists by picking Nancy Pelosi for their top position. Choosing Pelosi just seemed to be a sign that the Democrats weren't a mainstream party any longer, and that they did not feel the need to bring alternative ideas to the table.
Two years later, after a close presidential election, the Democrats still did not have control of the Senate. (This is probably as good a place as any to point out that one of the front-runners in the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination was Dick Gephardt. What kind of thought process leads a person who was forced out of his leadership position because he was ineffective at motivating a group that was at least nominally in agreement with him into believing that he was the man to ascend to the Presidency, a job that requires the cobbling together of coalitions with those whose interests are usually at odds with your own? When Gephardt was replaced as House Minoity Leader, most rational societies would have seen that as a big-time signal that a run at the Presidency should be out of the question, but Gephardt, and many Democrat pundits, took the fact that he was found incompetant as a leader to be a great good fortune because it meant he could take more time to campaign.)
Back on topic- Here we find ourselves in the autumn of 2006, and the Democrats are looking forward to taking over control of the House and possibly the Senate too. The word on the street all summer has been that the Democrats would be taking over in December, and the buzz is all around the internet to talk radio to cable news that the Dems are going to have a good year. James Carville, the Democrat pundit and campaigner, has said that if the Dems don't take over Congress in this current environment, then they might as well fold up their tent as a party. (I guess that he forgot the stupid phrase he coined about the economy.) Charles Rangall of New York has stated that he would resign if the Dems don't take the House. But what if...
What happens if the Democrats don't take over? Who gets to be the scapegoat this time? Will the Democrats throw Pelosi under the bus? Who would take over for her? Will the Democrats learn their lesson and get an actual moderate to take her place, or would they find another moonbat like Murtha to fill the bill? Some conservative columnists, such as John Derbyshire of the National Review, have stated that a Republican loss on election day could actually force them to re-evaluate and more closely adhere to their core conservative principles. Does anybody think that a Democrat failure in November would force them to reconsider their outlook and bring them away from the far left leanings that are hurting the country as much as they are hurting their party?
Lo and behold, the first Tuesday after the First Monday in November came along and the gains that they were expecting somehow failed to materialize. What lesson did they gleam from this situation? Well, in the House, they did get rid of the Minority Leader, Dick Gephardt, blaming his ineffective leadershipp as the reason that they had such a disappointing election. After this bloodless coup dispensing of their leader, the House Democrats were left with a choice to fill the void of leadership- they could get a mock-moderate who could actually be reasonable in the guise of Harold Ford of Tennessee, or go for the loony leftists by picking Nancy Pelosi for their top position. Choosing Pelosi just seemed to be a sign that the Democrats weren't a mainstream party any longer, and that they did not feel the need to bring alternative ideas to the table.
Two years later, after a close presidential election, the Democrats still did not have control of the Senate. (This is probably as good a place as any to point out that one of the front-runners in the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination was Dick Gephardt. What kind of thought process leads a person who was forced out of his leadership position because he was ineffective at motivating a group that was at least nominally in agreement with him into believing that he was the man to ascend to the Presidency, a job that requires the cobbling together of coalitions with those whose interests are usually at odds with your own? When Gephardt was replaced as House Minoity Leader, most rational societies would have seen that as a big-time signal that a run at the Presidency should be out of the question, but Gephardt, and many Democrat pundits, took the fact that he was found incompetant as a leader to be a great good fortune because it meant he could take more time to campaign.)
Back on topic- Here we find ourselves in the autumn of 2006, and the Democrats are looking forward to taking over control of the House and possibly the Senate too. The word on the street all summer has been that the Democrats would be taking over in December, and the buzz is all around the internet to talk radio to cable news that the Dems are going to have a good year. James Carville, the Democrat pundit and campaigner, has said that if the Dems don't take over Congress in this current environment, then they might as well fold up their tent as a party. (I guess that he forgot the stupid phrase he coined about the economy.) Charles Rangall of New York has stated that he would resign if the Dems don't take the House. But what if...
What happens if the Democrats don't take over? Who gets to be the scapegoat this time? Will the Democrats throw Pelosi under the bus? Who would take over for her? Will the Democrats learn their lesson and get an actual moderate to take her place, or would they find another moonbat like Murtha to fill the bill? Some conservative columnists, such as John Derbyshire of the National Review, have stated that a Republican loss on election day could actually force them to re-evaluate and more closely adhere to their core conservative principles. Does anybody think that a Democrat failure in November would force them to reconsider their outlook and bring them away from the far left leanings that are hurting the country as much as they are hurting their party?
2006-09-15
Torture
From Taranto's Best of the Web:
If the restrictions on interrogations that Powell and McCain advocate
result
in another 9/11, then they will have sacrificed the lives of women and
children in order to protect soldiers. Isn't it supposed to be the other way around?Yes, James, it is supposed to be the other way around. And, btw, the restrictive provisions that they want to place on our interrogators are not going to do a damned thing to protect any American POW's from being tortured anyway. If I become a POW when they eventually get around to deploying me to Iraq, I sure as hell don't expect to get treated as well as Centanni and Wiig. Hell, if al Qaeada believed in the Geneva Convention, there wouldn't even be a need for Gitmo in the first place.
Ladies and gentlemen, there is a defininte need to get information from those we take on the battlefield. While I do not subscribe to a "by any means necessary" philosophy, there are harsh methods that can be effectively employed that we must have the option of using that do not equal torture. The House Republicans should stand firm and give the president what he wants in this instance.
2006-09-07
The Path to 9-11
Does anybody else get the feeling that if Clinton had spent as much effort in wiping out terrorism as he has in trying to get a re-edit of the ABC miniseries, that the twin towers would still be standing?
UPDATE 9 SEP; I, for some unknown reason, am going to make an attempt to see this from the Democrat side. I will counter-argue the Democrat side immediately, so I don't know how effective an advocate I will be, but what the heck, let's go.
Democrats are saying that the miniseries will not be an accurate depiction of what really happened. This is, unfortunately, correct. The Path to 9-11 is a movie, and though based on the 9-11 commission report it is still just a movie. The producers have admitted that they have condensed and combined scenes and characters and have, for the sake of the drama, put words in people's mouths that had not actually come out of them before.
Is this sufficient reason to pull the miniseries off the air? I would have to answer that with a resounding "No!" I am sorry, Mr. Clinton, and the DNC, but I think that the citizens of the US are sophisticated enough to realize that even the "true life" entertainment that they watch isn't really what happened. I think that the Democrats are just bringing ridicule upon themselves for acting so petulantly on the matter, especially when they can presumably point to other bits of the movie that might show that Republicans in embarassing circumstances.
I don't think that most critics have seen the movie, but I have seen Tom Kean (by the way, that is pronounced "cane" as in sugar or walking, not "keen" as in razor or peachy), the chairman of the 9-11 Commission, attest to the general veracity of the film. So, what is truly my take on the film? I will probably watch it, because I am not really that interested in the Manning Bowl, but I am not going to delude myself into thinking that anything that the characters in the movie say are actual quotes of the historic figures the characters represent. I will know that the film is probably about 95% true to history, but since I didn't do any additional research into the subject, I don't know which 5% isn't true, so I will have to take the whole thing as speculation. I will think that the events depicted are all possibly what occured, but I will not think of anything on screen as carved in stone "HISTORY". Who knows, it might motivate me to actually peruse the 9-11 Commission report and other source materials to figure out for myself what really went on.
UPDATE 9 SEP; I, for some unknown reason, am going to make an attempt to see this from the Democrat side. I will counter-argue the Democrat side immediately, so I don't know how effective an advocate I will be, but what the heck, let's go.
Democrats are saying that the miniseries will not be an accurate depiction of what really happened. This is, unfortunately, correct. The Path to 9-11 is a movie, and though based on the 9-11 commission report it is still just a movie. The producers have admitted that they have condensed and combined scenes and characters and have, for the sake of the drama, put words in people's mouths that had not actually come out of them before.
Is this sufficient reason to pull the miniseries off the air? I would have to answer that with a resounding "No!" I am sorry, Mr. Clinton, and the DNC, but I think that the citizens of the US are sophisticated enough to realize that even the "true life" entertainment that they watch isn't really what happened. I think that the Democrats are just bringing ridicule upon themselves for acting so petulantly on the matter, especially when they can presumably point to other bits of the movie that might show that Republicans in embarassing circumstances.
I don't think that most critics have seen the movie, but I have seen Tom Kean (by the way, that is pronounced "cane" as in sugar or walking, not "keen" as in razor or peachy), the chairman of the 9-11 Commission, attest to the general veracity of the film. So, what is truly my take on the film? I will probably watch it, because I am not really that interested in the Manning Bowl, but I am not going to delude myself into thinking that anything that the characters in the movie say are actual quotes of the historic figures the characters represent. I will know that the film is probably about 95% true to history, but since I didn't do any additional research into the subject, I don't know which 5% isn't true, so I will have to take the whole thing as speculation. I will think that the events depicted are all possibly what occured, but I will not think of anything on screen as carved in stone "HISTORY". Who knows, it might motivate me to actually peruse the 9-11 Commission report and other source materials to figure out for myself what really went on.
2006-09-06
What Cost, Iraq?
It seems that the discussion about our efforts in Iraq can only be thought of in a single way by the media. Everybody likes to mention the "costs." The billions of dollars poured into the desert, and the number of soldiers who have lost their lives.
I am not an accountant, but I can see that this discussion is missing a great big part of the "cost/benefit analysis" process. Nobody ever wants to bring up the benefits. It is easy to understand why- the benefits are in many ways intangible and aren't that easy to put into a five minute video montage, but they do exist. It is a lot easier to point to the amount of money spent on a project than to show how much money didn't have to be spent on others as a result. So, I will try to temper the rhetoric about Iraq by adding to the "benefit" side of the analysis, hopefully without turning this thing into a cheap David Letterman top ten list.
First, Ghaddaffi has turned in his mass destruction programs. Any time that a dictator relinquishes a part of his arsenal like that is a good thing, and it came about directly as a result of the US leading a coalition into Iraq.
The old saw "We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here." What does that really mean? Allow me to personalize this for you- Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, aka Zarky, was, until his all to recent demise, the leader of al Quaeda in Iraq. This came about because he was being treated for an injury he received in Afghanistan in the Islamic Republic of Iraq (oh, by the way, if you don't believe this establishes that Iraq was a haven for terrorists before we invaaded, get your logic circuits checked) when France was unable to keep its promises to Saddam. So, if the US doesn't inundate the local area with soldiers how many people think that Zarky is going to sit around idly and sip tea for the next three years? Everybody who thinks that Zarky would have lived peacefully in the mid-East and not planned attcks on the US mainland, please raise your hands. Now, since you have your hands up already, use them to slap some sense into yourselves.
It is very likely that, even without the benefit of ridding the world of Saddam, the invasion of Iraq has prevented the deaths of American citizenbs in the US. But how many? It is impossible to know. I am guessing that it is somewhere between 2,000 and 7,000, but that is truly conjecture that I have no real way of defending logically. It would be just as valid to argue that the number is zero or 25,000, but I would think that just the sheer number of al Quaeda and other terrorist operatives that were too busy messing around in Iraq to plan anything in the US means that there were at least a few attacks that didn't materialize that very well might have if we were not in Iraq.
Preventing these attacks also means that soem of our industries, like travel, are much better off than they would have been without Operation Iraqi Freedom. True, I am not a follower of the oil industry, so I don't know if gas prices are higher or lower as a result of our actions. It copuld be that Iraq is actually able to export more becuase sanctions have been lifted, but I am not sure if oil production there is up to the same level that it was prior to the liberation.
There are other benefits that I have not even touched on, to include the goodwill we have received from many of the Iraqi people for their liberation. Many who claim that our actions have caused a great number of Muslims to become terrorists seem to forget that there are also those who see opportunity in their future, thus don't think that their best option is to splodeydope themselves sooner rather than later to get to meet Allah and the 72 virgins.
I am not an accountant, but I can see that this discussion is missing a great big part of the "cost/benefit analysis" process. Nobody ever wants to bring up the benefits. It is easy to understand why- the benefits are in many ways intangible and aren't that easy to put into a five minute video montage, but they do exist. It is a lot easier to point to the amount of money spent on a project than to show how much money didn't have to be spent on others as a result. So, I will try to temper the rhetoric about Iraq by adding to the "benefit" side of the analysis, hopefully without turning this thing into a cheap David Letterman top ten list.
First, Ghaddaffi has turned in his mass destruction programs. Any time that a dictator relinquishes a part of his arsenal like that is a good thing, and it came about directly as a result of the US leading a coalition into Iraq.
The old saw "We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here." What does that really mean? Allow me to personalize this for you- Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, aka Zarky, was, until his all to recent demise, the leader of al Quaeda in Iraq. This came about because he was being treated for an injury he received in Afghanistan in the Islamic Republic of Iraq (oh, by the way, if you don't believe this establishes that Iraq was a haven for terrorists before we invaaded, get your logic circuits checked) when France was unable to keep its promises to Saddam. So, if the US doesn't inundate the local area with soldiers how many people think that Zarky is going to sit around idly and sip tea for the next three years? Everybody who thinks that Zarky would have lived peacefully in the mid-East and not planned attcks on the US mainland, please raise your hands. Now, since you have your hands up already, use them to slap some sense into yourselves.
It is very likely that, even without the benefit of ridding the world of Saddam, the invasion of Iraq has prevented the deaths of American citizenbs in the US. But how many? It is impossible to know. I am guessing that it is somewhere between 2,000 and 7,000, but that is truly conjecture that I have no real way of defending logically. It would be just as valid to argue that the number is zero or 25,000, but I would think that just the sheer number of al Quaeda and other terrorist operatives that were too busy messing around in Iraq to plan anything in the US means that there were at least a few attacks that didn't materialize that very well might have if we were not in Iraq.
Preventing these attacks also means that soem of our industries, like travel, are much better off than they would have been without Operation Iraqi Freedom. True, I am not a follower of the oil industry, so I don't know if gas prices are higher or lower as a result of our actions. It copuld be that Iraq is actually able to export more becuase sanctions have been lifted, but I am not sure if oil production there is up to the same level that it was prior to the liberation.
There are other benefits that I have not even touched on, to include the goodwill we have received from many of the Iraqi people for their liberation. Many who claim that our actions have caused a great number of Muslims to become terrorists seem to forget that there are also those who see opportunity in their future, thus don't think that their best option is to splodeydope themselves sooner rather than later to get to meet Allah and the 72 virgins.
2006-09-05
Securing the Border
We all realize that trying to secure the border is truly a pipe dream, if only because our government for some reason seems dead set against the idea. It's bad enough that the feds refuse to keep out the smugglers, killers and thugs that cross the border with the hundreds of thousands of otherwise "law-abiding illegal aliens," but now the State Department is giving visas to animal leaders of terrorist states. Or, former leaders of terrorist states.
Mohammed Khatami has been granted a visa to make a swing throught the United States, giving speeches at various forums. It is an outrage that the former president of Iran is able to walk freely about the U. S. without shackles on his hands and feet. I know that in Iran the president is really secondary to the grand ayatollah in terms of power, but to allow the former president of Iran to be given the celebrity treatment in this country is an outrage. The man is responsible for the represion of millions of Iranian people, despite his alleged "reformer" image. The man should be arrested and placed on trial for crimes against humanity for his "leadership" of Iran.
Mohammed Khatami has been granted a visa to make a swing throught the United States, giving speeches at various forums. It is an outrage that the former president of Iran is able to walk freely about the U. S. without shackles on his hands and feet. I know that in Iran the president is really secondary to the grand ayatollah in terms of power, but to allow the former president of Iran to be given the celebrity treatment in this country is an outrage. The man is responsible for the represion of millions of Iranian people, despite his alleged "reformer" image. The man should be arrested and placed on trial for crimes against humanity for his "leadership" of Iran.
2006-04-28
Billion Dollar Buggy Whips
I don't know about most of you, but the cost of fueling my car is starting to cut into other priorities for me recently, and it would appear that things will get worse before they get better. Just today, George W. Bush was speaking about the oil "'crisis" and the rising gasoline prices. He sounded like a man powerless to stop the situation, but at least he didn't seem to have the Chicken Little attitude that seems to emenate from the Capitol Dome. One point that he made was that the American people expect oil companies to put a lot of their profits back into building new refineries, searching for more sources of oil and developing alternate sources of energy.
I agree with these points, and the big oil companies will do well to take heed, especially on that last point that I mentioned, not just out of civic duty, but as a matter of Corporate survival.
Why do I say this? Let's gaze into the crystal ball as we spread the tarot cards.
Then again, let's not. Let's just analyze the situation. Over the past century, there has been an almost explosive increase in technological innovation, and I don't see that trend reversing itself any time soon. One or more of the innovations we can expect to see will involve energy sources, and techniques of putting those sources to use. We might be a long way from using anti-matter to power the warp drive, but in the interim, we will develop something, and more likely sooner than later. Whoever does develop this source is in for a huge payday.
This leaves the oil companies either developing the next source of energy or all but ceasing to exist. Five billion dollars in research and development may sound like a huge amount of money, but considering their alternatives, I don't see BP, Exxon/Mobil or Standard Oil as really having much of a choice. Without the need to refine oil into fuel, there is not much need for all the oil companies, except to provide the source of plastics and other petrochemical products, which won't do much for their bottom lines.
So, I say that we shouldn't be too concerned about the current oil company profits. They should enjoy the market they have while it still exists, because it won't be too long before they are selling off their assets to try to make payroll, unless they develop the next phase of powering the American Industrial Machine.
I agree with these points, and the big oil companies will do well to take heed, especially on that last point that I mentioned, not just out of civic duty, but as a matter of Corporate survival.
Why do I say this? Let's gaze into the crystal ball as we spread the tarot cards.
Then again, let's not. Let's just analyze the situation. Over the past century, there has been an almost explosive increase in technological innovation, and I don't see that trend reversing itself any time soon. One or more of the innovations we can expect to see will involve energy sources, and techniques of putting those sources to use. We might be a long way from using anti-matter to power the warp drive, but in the interim, we will develop something, and more likely sooner than later. Whoever does develop this source is in for a huge payday.
This leaves the oil companies either developing the next source of energy or all but ceasing to exist. Five billion dollars in research and development may sound like a huge amount of money, but considering their alternatives, I don't see BP, Exxon/Mobil or Standard Oil as really having much of a choice. Without the need to refine oil into fuel, there is not much need for all the oil companies, except to provide the source of plastics and other petrochemical products, which won't do much for their bottom lines.
So, I say that we shouldn't be too concerned about the current oil company profits. They should enjoy the market they have while it still exists, because it won't be too long before they are selling off their assets to try to make payroll, unless they develop the next phase of powering the American Industrial Machine.
2006-04-22
Plumbing
So, the CIA has fired Mary McCarthy for leaking information about the "secret CIA prisons" in Europe. This is a bit confusing to me, becaue just a couple of days ago I heard that the EU had found that there was no substantial evidence that these secret prisons exist. If these prisons don't exist, then what information did McCarthy reveal that led to the firing? I can only surmise that the EU roport is wrong, and that the "secret prisons" were (or might still be) just a well hidden secret. Besides, I think that the EU report was just about the program being conducted in member countries. I don't know whether it also covered non-EU countries in Eastern Europe.
I really don't care either way. If you take terrorists alive, you have to keep them somewhere, so it may as well be on foriegn soil as domestic, if the host country gives permission, and it really makes very little sense to advertise the capture of possible intelligence sources. Better for the enemy to think that the disappearence of one of their agents means that said agent is dead rather than giving away all of their secrets. And still better to have the facility controlled by an agency of the United States, where we can be reasonably assured that the inmates are at least moderately well taken care of than they be victims of that Clinton administration invention, the practice of rendition.
Should McCarthy have been fired? If she did give away information about secret holding areas, yes, though from news reports it seems that she has admitted that she has done so. She gave away information to the enemy about our tactics that obviously would hurt our ability to use the prisoners as intelligence sources, and also hurt our relationships with some countries that had been helping in the War on Terror. Should she be tried for her the crimes? I qould have to give a qualified yes to that question. She should only be prosecuted if it can be done in such a way that other classified information is not made public as a result. If the prosecutors need to reveal too much to get a conviction, then I would argue that it would be the lesser of two evils to let her get away with her alleged crimes than to put the public at risk by revealing our tactics.
I really don't care either way. If you take terrorists alive, you have to keep them somewhere, so it may as well be on foriegn soil as domestic, if the host country gives permission, and it really makes very little sense to advertise the capture of possible intelligence sources. Better for the enemy to think that the disappearence of one of their agents means that said agent is dead rather than giving away all of their secrets. And still better to have the facility controlled by an agency of the United States, where we can be reasonably assured that the inmates are at least moderately well taken care of than they be victims of that Clinton administration invention, the practice of rendition.
Should McCarthy have been fired? If she did give away information about secret holding areas, yes, though from news reports it seems that she has admitted that she has done so. She gave away information to the enemy about our tactics that obviously would hurt our ability to use the prisoners as intelligence sources, and also hurt our relationships with some countries that had been helping in the War on Terror. Should she be tried for her the crimes? I qould have to give a qualified yes to that question. She should only be prosecuted if it can be done in such a way that other classified information is not made public as a result. If the prosecutors need to reveal too much to get a conviction, then I would argue that it would be the lesser of two evils to let her get away with her alleged crimes than to put the public at risk by revealing our tactics.
2006-04-16
2006-01-22
NSA Wiretapping
Question- Does anybody really think that our spy agencies require warrants to eavesdrop on foriegn nationals in their home countries?
If there is a warrant to tap a phone line, does the agency doing the wiretapping need another warrant to authorize listening in on the other party to those conversations?
The answer to both of those questions is no.
Since there is no necessity to obtain a warrant on foriegn calls, and no necessity to obtain a warrant on second parties to authorized eavesdropping operations, it is pretty clear that there is nothing wrong with the NSA wiretapping operations that are ongoing. Not only is this policy fully within the framework of the Constitution, it is all but mandated in the President's oath of office. The Democrats need to get off their hatred of everything this administration does and get their priorities in order.
The ACLU has brought a lawsuit against the government for this operation, hoping to stop it immediately. This is not just misguided, but genuinely evil. If they are successful, I know squarely where to place the blame for the next terrorist attack on American soil.
If there is a warrant to tap a phone line, does the agency doing the wiretapping need another warrant to authorize listening in on the other party to those conversations?
The answer to both of those questions is no.
Since there is no necessity to obtain a warrant on foriegn calls, and no necessity to obtain a warrant on second parties to authorized eavesdropping operations, it is pretty clear that there is nothing wrong with the NSA wiretapping operations that are ongoing. Not only is this policy fully within the framework of the Constitution, it is all but mandated in the President's oath of office. The Democrats need to get off their hatred of everything this administration does and get their priorities in order.
The ACLU has brought a lawsuit against the government for this operation, hoping to stop it immediately. This is not just misguided, but genuinely evil. If they are successful, I know squarely where to place the blame for the next terrorist attack on American soil.
2005-11-02
Expecting a lot from Alito
Harriet didn't last too long, but stayed around much longer than many conservatives would have liked. President Bush has made a new nomination, choosing an appellate court judge with a history of constitutional decisions to his record as his replacement nominee.
The name Alito was not on the list most pundits used when suggesting a replacement for Justice O'Connor, but still seems to have the jusicial philosophy that most of the conservative movement thought that they would be getting from a Bush appointee. Now, instead of an intra-party fracas, we can finally get down to business of embarassing the Donky Party for their maleable document mentality when it comes to the Constitution.
I am actually looking forward to the judiciary hearings. Though I believe that Sen Specter should not have been made chairman of the committee, I still think that he will do what he can to keep the democrats on topic, which is about as easy as herding cats through a dog show. Look to the democrats to waste most of their time making long speeches that lead to a particular response from the nominee. Also expect the Republicans to throw nice fluffy softball questions that allow the nominee to elucidite his opinions. Expect a lot of little battles over certain decisions that Alito has made during his tenure as a judge. In the end, it doesn't really matter.
The democrats can't risk a floor fight with the Republicans over a fillibuster. They seem to think that they have a chance at retaking the Senate and maybe the House of Representatives in the 2006 elections, but to be seen as holding up the business of Congress and the judiciary with a losing fight will only weaken them. The more people see the Democrats as the party of the hissy fit, the less appealing they will be to most voters.
The name Alito was not on the list most pundits used when suggesting a replacement for Justice O'Connor, but still seems to have the jusicial philosophy that most of the conservative movement thought that they would be getting from a Bush appointee. Now, instead of an intra-party fracas, we can finally get down to business of embarassing the Donky Party for their maleable document mentality when it comes to the Constitution.
I am actually looking forward to the judiciary hearings. Though I believe that Sen Specter should not have been made chairman of the committee, I still think that he will do what he can to keep the democrats on topic, which is about as easy as herding cats through a dog show. Look to the democrats to waste most of their time making long speeches that lead to a particular response from the nominee. Also expect the Republicans to throw nice fluffy softball questions that allow the nominee to elucidite his opinions. Expect a lot of little battles over certain decisions that Alito has made during his tenure as a judge. In the end, it doesn't really matter.
The democrats can't risk a floor fight with the Republicans over a fillibuster. They seem to think that they have a chance at retaking the Senate and maybe the House of Representatives in the 2006 elections, but to be seen as holding up the business of Congress and the judiciary with a losing fight will only weaken them. The more people see the Democrats as the party of the hissy fit, the less appealing they will be to most voters.
2005-10-29
Lying in State
Rosa Parks' body will lie in state at the Capitol Rotunda.
I think that this is a fitting tribute for the woman who sparked the Civil Rights movement, though not everybody agrees.
Some peopole complain that htis is setting the bar too low for precedent for such an honor, though this is doesn't seem too much of a problem to me. I don't expect to see Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton or or John Kerry given the same honor. This is a rare event, and will remain reserved for true heroes of the republic and for presidents.
Rosa Parks might not have done an extraordinary thing by keeping her seat on the front of the buys, but that simple act sparked a great movement. She might have been exploited by the NAACP and others to become a symbol of oppression, but she remained dignified in the situation and throughout her life. She was an unassuming person and accepted the notoriety heaped upon her humbly. She is a true example of what Americans can do when they grasp at the opportunities afforded them. She helped others to a better life, and I don't know whether she was able to parlay the fame of the movement into a pile of money, but I get the sense that she didn't. (I think I would have preferred if she had.) Once the goals of the movement were accomplished, she went back to her private life and lived quietly outside of the limelight.
The only regret I have about Rosa Parks lying in state in the Capitol Rotunda is that I will not have an opportunity to show my respects there.
I think that this is a fitting tribute for the woman who sparked the Civil Rights movement, though not everybody agrees.
Some peopole complain that htis is setting the bar too low for precedent for such an honor, though this is doesn't seem too much of a problem to me. I don't expect to see Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton or or John Kerry given the same honor. This is a rare event, and will remain reserved for true heroes of the republic and for presidents.
Rosa Parks might not have done an extraordinary thing by keeping her seat on the front of the buys, but that simple act sparked a great movement. She might have been exploited by the NAACP and others to become a symbol of oppression, but she remained dignified in the situation and throughout her life. She was an unassuming person and accepted the notoriety heaped upon her humbly. She is a true example of what Americans can do when they grasp at the opportunities afforded them. She helped others to a better life, and I don't know whether she was able to parlay the fame of the movement into a pile of money, but I get the sense that she didn't. (I think I would have preferred if she had.) Once the goals of the movement were accomplished, she went back to her private life and lived quietly outside of the limelight.
The only regret I have about Rosa Parks lying in state in the Capitol Rotunda is that I will not have an opportunity to show my respects there.
Lie to Me
Lewis "Scooter" Libby was indicted for perjury and lying to investigators.
The point of the investigation was to find out if any laws were broken in revealing a covert CIA agent's name to the press. Apparently the answer to that question was no, because there were no indictments for that. But they were able to indict Libby.
I don't know what evidence they have against Libby, but I do hope that the charges are false. The fact that he was possibly covering up something that wasn't even a crime is very sad. One would think that he would have been able to take the 5th or get thorough testimony without having to lie about anything.
It has been pretty clear from the start that although outing a CIA agent is a terrible thing, it was not illegal in that instance, and it actually did help to put straight misinformation that the woman's husband was spreading. But that is not an excuse for revealing her identity. Not knowing that she was supposed to be covert does mitigate the incident, and definitely keeps all parties on the right side of at least the law.
But this much was already known when the grand jury was seated, so one is wondering why Libby thought it necessary to lie (if he really did.) Who was he trying to protect and what else is going on that we don't know about. If he was actually lying during his grand jury testimony, then he does desrve to be punished for that. I am not sure about ther obstruction of justice, since the grand jury presumably already knows the truth or they would not have known what Libby was lying about, and they still didn't get any other idictments. This pretty much tells me that even if Libby had been truthful the entire time, there would not have been any other indictments, which means that Libby did not really obstruct justice.
Libby's lawyer has already stated that he is totally innocent of all charges and will fight them, but I see a plea bargain in the future. If that happens, it will be really difficult to find out what really happened in the imroglio.
The point of the investigation was to find out if any laws were broken in revealing a covert CIA agent's name to the press. Apparently the answer to that question was no, because there were no indictments for that. But they were able to indict Libby.
I don't know what evidence they have against Libby, but I do hope that the charges are false. The fact that he was possibly covering up something that wasn't even a crime is very sad. One would think that he would have been able to take the 5th or get thorough testimony without having to lie about anything.
It has been pretty clear from the start that although outing a CIA agent is a terrible thing, it was not illegal in that instance, and it actually did help to put straight misinformation that the woman's husband was spreading. But that is not an excuse for revealing her identity. Not knowing that she was supposed to be covert does mitigate the incident, and definitely keeps all parties on the right side of at least the law.
But this much was already known when the grand jury was seated, so one is wondering why Libby thought it necessary to lie (if he really did.) Who was he trying to protect and what else is going on that we don't know about. If he was actually lying during his grand jury testimony, then he does desrve to be punished for that. I am not sure about ther obstruction of justice, since the grand jury presumably already knows the truth or they would not have known what Libby was lying about, and they still didn't get any other idictments. This pretty much tells me that even if Libby had been truthful the entire time, there would not have been any other indictments, which means that Libby did not really obstruct justice.
Libby's lawyer has already stated that he is totally innocent of all charges and will fight them, but I see a plea bargain in the future. If that happens, it will be really difficult to find out what really happened in the imroglio.
2005-10-28
2000 OR SO
It was officially announced on Tuesday.
The vote count for the nationwide referendum on ratifying the Iraqi Coinstitution is complete, and the measure has passed. The citizens of Iraq now have a structure for their democracy, and a vote to replace their interim government with a pemanent one will take place in December. Once that vote is complete, the first item of business will ber to amend the Constitution they just approved.
This might seem laughable but it is not unprecedented that a new constitution won its ratification only because of promises to make immediate changes if it were passed. A good example of this can be found by looking to New York City circa 1789.
The new Iraqi constitution has its problems. Though it does sy many of the right things about religious and other freedoms, it also pays too much homage to sharia law. It sets up a democratic government for the Iraqi people, but this is probably not a Constitution I would prefer to live under. The point of the matter is that I don't have to live under it. The people who do have voted overwhelmingly to pass it, and that is another milepost along Iraq's road to freedom.
I am truly amazed at how muich Iraq has progresses in such a short time. That country could have a very bright future, and might just halp democracy illuminate the entire region.
Rarely, however, is progress acheived withyout a cost. On the same day that the Iraqi Constitutions ratificatrion was announced, the AP reported that the number of U. S. servicemembers to die in Iraq had reached 2,000. The Department of Defense puts the number slightly lower, but this did not sop many opponents of the war to bemoan the cost in human life. The problem with them is that the number is their only argument that the operation is a failure.
Too many Iraqis now have their freedom, and we continue to advance democracy in the country. We cannot pull out of there now without the strong possibility of a breakdown in the area, which would have much more dire consequences for the U. S. than continuing the work until we are certain that the new way for Iraq has taken root and the country can take care of itself without our assistance.
The vote count for the nationwide referendum on ratifying the Iraqi Coinstitution is complete, and the measure has passed. The citizens of Iraq now have a structure for their democracy, and a vote to replace their interim government with a pemanent one will take place in December. Once that vote is complete, the first item of business will ber to amend the Constitution they just approved.
This might seem laughable but it is not unprecedented that a new constitution won its ratification only because of promises to make immediate changes if it were passed. A good example of this can be found by looking to New York City circa 1789.
The new Iraqi constitution has its problems. Though it does sy many of the right things about religious and other freedoms, it also pays too much homage to sharia law. It sets up a democratic government for the Iraqi people, but this is probably not a Constitution I would prefer to live under. The point of the matter is that I don't have to live under it. The people who do have voted overwhelmingly to pass it, and that is another milepost along Iraq's road to freedom.
I am truly amazed at how muich Iraq has progresses in such a short time. That country could have a very bright future, and might just halp democracy illuminate the entire region.
Rarely, however, is progress acheived withyout a cost. On the same day that the Iraqi Constitutions ratificatrion was announced, the AP reported that the number of U. S. servicemembers to die in Iraq had reached 2,000. The Department of Defense puts the number slightly lower, but this did not sop many opponents of the war to bemoan the cost in human life. The problem with them is that the number is their only argument that the operation is a failure.
Too many Iraqis now have their freedom, and we continue to advance democracy in the country. We cannot pull out of there now without the strong possibility of a breakdown in the area, which would have much more dire consequences for the U. S. than continuing the work until we are certain that the new way for Iraq has taken root and the country can take care of itself without our assistance.
2005-10-23
Tips on Happiness part IV
Last time that I delved into this topic, I tried to establish that you will be much happier if you don't take offense too easily. This time we will flip that coin over.
If you want to be happy, you should try not to give offense to others. I am not saying that you should be all PC all the time, but you should treat others with a certain modicum of respect. Don't use offensive language, don't use racial epithets, don't use ethnic slurs. Do speak your mind honestly, but defend your thoughts with at least a little bit of logic and try not to belittle people who are attempting the same.
How does treating others respectfully make you happier? It helps you to avoid conflict, and assists in your relations with others. It makes life a lot easier to navigate if you don't go out of your way to find trouble, and you will find that others are a lot more likely to be helpful if you treat them nicely, and God knows that we all have times when we can use all the help we can get.
A couple of caveats here. Respect means treating other people as they should be treated, which doesn't necessarily mean how they want to be treated. As an old platoon sergeant used to be fond of saying, (paraphrased to avoid vulgar language) If a guy is an excrement bucket, I'm gonna treat him like an excrement bucket. Some people are deserving of derision and contempt, but these people are much better left ignored if possible.
Yes, people, the Golden Rule is a good starting point on the road to happiness.
If you want to be happy, you should try not to give offense to others. I am not saying that you should be all PC all the time, but you should treat others with a certain modicum of respect. Don't use offensive language, don't use racial epithets, don't use ethnic slurs. Do speak your mind honestly, but defend your thoughts with at least a little bit of logic and try not to belittle people who are attempting the same.
How does treating others respectfully make you happier? It helps you to avoid conflict, and assists in your relations with others. It makes life a lot easier to navigate if you don't go out of your way to find trouble, and you will find that others are a lot more likely to be helpful if you treat them nicely, and God knows that we all have times when we can use all the help we can get.
A couple of caveats here. Respect means treating other people as they should be treated, which doesn't necessarily mean how they want to be treated. As an old platoon sergeant used to be fond of saying, (paraphrased to avoid vulgar language) If a guy is an excrement bucket, I'm gonna treat him like an excrement bucket. Some people are deserving of derision and contempt, but these people are much better left ignored if possible.
Yes, people, the Golden Rule is a good starting point on the road to happiness.
2005-10-21
Warranted? I Think Not
Spanish Judge Santiago Pedraz issued warrants for the arrests of three US soldiers on Tuesday. SGT Shawn Gibson, CPT Philip Wolford and LTC Philip de Camp are under investigation for returning fire at an enemy combatant firing from the Hotel Palestine in Baghdad during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Their response to this enemy action resulted in the death of two cameramen, Spaniard Jose Couso of Telecino and Ukranian Taras Protsyuk of Reuters.
So far, the soldiers have been cleared of any wrongdoing by two seperate Pentagon investigations, and one conducted by an organization called the Committee to Protect Jounalists. The Spanish National Court has claimed jurisdiction in the case despite the fact that the incident took place in Iraq during military operations conducted by an international coalition because one of those killed was a Spaniard.
The soldiers could be investigated for murder, which could carry a sentance of 15-20 years in prison. I have seen some reports that the three soldiers were members of the same tank crew, but I believe the reports that state that Gibson was the commander of the tank that actually fired the round, Wolford his company commander and de Camp their battalion commander. This seems more in line with normal manning procedures.
I have also seen reports that stated it is very highly unlikely that the soldiers would ever be extradited. The warrant could only be served in Spain, not the greater European Union.
The fact of the matter is that these were soldiers in battle. They got shot at by people in the Hotel Palestine, and they returned fire. It is the the policy of the United States and an integral part of its military operating procedures and training to do all that is possible to avoid harm to non-combatants, but sometimes that is not possible. Especially when the non-combatants purposely insinuate themselves into the battle. The fact that Jose Couso and Taras Protsyuk were killed is unfortunate, but it is a reality of war that civilians somtimes are are regretably victimized.
That does not make it criminal.
But pressure on the Spanish National Court by the family of Jose Couso have instigated the investigation, and kept pressure on the Pedraz, who is an investigative magistrate, to come up with something. In Europe, an investigative magistrate acts more like a a grand jury would in the U.S. than what we would envision when we use the word "judge." He said that he issued the warrants because of a lack of cooperation from authorities in the U.S.
It is my belief that there should be absolutely no cooperation from any agency of the U.S. government of any kind in this investigation. There are several reasons for this. The United States must protect its own sovereignty, and to subject its citizens to justice from other governments would violate that. We cannot consider ourselves an independant nation if we accede to the whims of foreign powers. We also should not encourage other countries to overstep their rightful powers. If a Spanish tourist gets mugged in New York City, are we to send his assailant to Barcelona for trial? No. It is also vital that we protect the soldiers who are fighting our wars. This does not mean that we are to ignore true malfeasance, but we do need to allow members of our military to do their job without worrying that every time they pull the trigger at a muzzle flash could result in rotting away in a foreign jail.
The State Department needs to make a strong statement of support for the United States by demanding that these baseless warrants be rescinded immediately.
So far, the soldiers have been cleared of any wrongdoing by two seperate Pentagon investigations, and one conducted by an organization called the Committee to Protect Jounalists. The Spanish National Court has claimed jurisdiction in the case despite the fact that the incident took place in Iraq during military operations conducted by an international coalition because one of those killed was a Spaniard.
The soldiers could be investigated for murder, which could carry a sentance of 15-20 years in prison. I have seen some reports that the three soldiers were members of the same tank crew, but I believe the reports that state that Gibson was the commander of the tank that actually fired the round, Wolford his company commander and de Camp their battalion commander. This seems more in line with normal manning procedures.
I have also seen reports that stated it is very highly unlikely that the soldiers would ever be extradited. The warrant could only be served in Spain, not the greater European Union.
The fact of the matter is that these were soldiers in battle. They got shot at by people in the Hotel Palestine, and they returned fire. It is the the policy of the United States and an integral part of its military operating procedures and training to do all that is possible to avoid harm to non-combatants, but sometimes that is not possible. Especially when the non-combatants purposely insinuate themselves into the battle. The fact that Jose Couso and Taras Protsyuk were killed is unfortunate, but it is a reality of war that civilians somtimes are are regretably victimized.
That does not make it criminal.
But pressure on the Spanish National Court by the family of Jose Couso have instigated the investigation, and kept pressure on the Pedraz, who is an investigative magistrate, to come up with something. In Europe, an investigative magistrate acts more like a a grand jury would in the U.S. than what we would envision when we use the word "judge." He said that he issued the warrants because of a lack of cooperation from authorities in the U.S.
It is my belief that there should be absolutely no cooperation from any agency of the U.S. government of any kind in this investigation. There are several reasons for this. The United States must protect its own sovereignty, and to subject its citizens to justice from other governments would violate that. We cannot consider ourselves an independant nation if we accede to the whims of foreign powers. We also should not encourage other countries to overstep their rightful powers. If a Spanish tourist gets mugged in New York City, are we to send his assailant to Barcelona for trial? No. It is also vital that we protect the soldiers who are fighting our wars. This does not mean that we are to ignore true malfeasance, but we do need to allow members of our military to do their job without worrying that every time they pull the trigger at a muzzle flash could result in rotting away in a foreign jail.
The State Department needs to make a strong statement of support for the United States by demanding that these baseless warrants be rescinded immediately.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)