And many writers have imagined for themselves republics and principalities that have never been seen or known to exist in reality; for there is such a gap between how one lives and how one ought to live that anyone who abandons what is done for what ought to be done learns his ruin rather than his preservation: for a man who wishes to profess goodness at all times will come to ruin among so many who are not good. -- Niccolo Machiavelli
Unfortunately, I need to take a day off on Monday. Normally, on those sorts of days, I either put up some retro-RWN posts or just don't update RWN at all. However, this time around, I've decided to try something a little different: guest bloggers. On Monday, the following bloggers are scheduled to do a post or two on RWN:
Q&A Friday #23: The Korean War, Vietnam, & The Gulf War -- Were They Justified?
Question: "Something I have been wanting to do on my own blog is to write a paragraph or on each of America's wars and military engagements from the Rev. War to today and give my opinion as to the justification and necessity of each. This was inspired by a leftist on a web forum I read stating that WW2 was the last justified war we have fought.
I disagree of course.
I would love to see Hawkins tackle this one. It is sure to spark some interesting debate. (hell, we could even leave out the current conflict in Iraq to keep the thread from being hijacked..)" -- Trench Raider
Answer: Let's just cover the big ones from WW2 up to 9/10/01: The Korean War, Vietnam, & The Gulf War.
The Korean War: The Norks, with the support of the Soviets, started this one by launching a sneak attack against the South. The South Korean military, in part because we hadn't supplied them with heavy weaponry, completely collapsed. Without our help, they would have been doomed.
We jumped in partly to help save the South Koreans, but also because we feared the spread of Communism. We initially held on by the skin of our teeth, went on the offensive after McArthur's legendary invasion at Inchon, and would have conquered North Korea and reunified the country as a Democracy had China not jumped into the fray. The Chinese almost drove us into the sea, but as their supply lines stretched out, we managed to push them back, fought them to a stalemate, and after negotiations, we basically ended up right back where we started.
Was it justified? Well, North Korea is a communist hellhole, run by a lunatic, where the people eat grass and moss to try to keep from starving. On the other hand, with our help and support, South Korea became a prosperous Democracy. Had we not gotten involved, not only would South Korea look like North Korea today, our non-action might have encouraged the Commies to be even more aggressive. As far as I'm concerned, this is an easy call. Justified.
The Vietnam War: The roots of the conflict in Vietnam are long and complex, but our first enormous mistake was to let the French keep Vietnam as a colony after WW2. Had we insisted that they give it up, they would have had to do so. Had that happened, it's entirely possible that Ho Chi Minh would have never gotten into bed with the Communists and then there wouldn't have been a need for a Vietnam War.
However, once we became afraid that Vietnam would fall to Communism, we decided that we needed to get involved because of the Domino Theory. We feared that one nation falling to Communism would lead to other nations also going red. So, we gradually ramped up our forces & aid in Vietnam in order to prevent the country from being enslaved by the Communists. Through the Kennedy administration, we had decided to aid South Vietnam, but we had not committed to war.
But then Lyndon Johnson made enormous mistake #2: He decided to go to war in Vietnam without having the will to do what was necessary to win it. We poured troops into Vietnam, but back in Washington, the politicians handcuffed our military to the point where it was impossible to win. Had we been willing to do whatever it took, bombing key ports, destroying Russian supply ships, following enemy troops into foreign countries, etc., etc., we could have achieved victory. Since Johnson wasn't willing to do those things, he shouldn't have gotten into the war in the first place.
Unfortunately, because of Johnson's half-hearted approach, the war dragged on and on. When Nixon got into office, he got more aggressive, but by then it was essentially too late to really win and besides, the public wanted out. So, "Tricky Dick" did get us out of Vietnam and he did it in a more skillful manner than most people give him credit for today.
I say that because had we stuck to our agreement with South Vietnam and provided them with supplies and air support, I believe they could have held out indefinitely and would probably be a democratic nation today. Unfortunately, when Nixon went down in flames because of Watergate, the anti-war Democrats took advantage of the GOP's weakness to cut off supplies and air support to the South Vietnamese. For all intents and purposes, that guaranteed a victory for the Communists.
Was it justified? This is a hard question to answer.
Had we fought to win right from beginning, I think we would have won the war at a fraction of the cost in American life that we ultimately paid. That would have been a serious setback for Communism and it would have likely led to 80 million Vietnamese being free today. On the other hand, again, since we weren't willing to fight to win, we shouldn't have gone to war.
So, let me just split the difference and say that had we been willing to do what it took to win the war, I would say that it would have been justified and worth it.
The Gulf War: Saddam Hussein started this war by scarfing up Kuwait and it's likely that he would have continued on from there or invaded Saudi Arabia had we not chosen to intervene.
The reason we decided to get involved was ostensibly to guarantee the sovereignty of Kuwait, but in actuality, we feared the consequences of having a maniac like Saddam Hussein controlling such a large percentage of the world's oil.
So, after building up our troops, we rolled in and liberated Kuwait with a large coalition at our side. Unfortunately, we didn't finish the job for a number of reasons. Our "UN Coalition" would have shattered had we gone into Iraq, we feared weakening the Iraqis so much that Iran would move in, we didn't want to occupy the country for obvious reasons, and we believed it was likely Saddam would be toppled by a military coup after his humiliating defeat.
Unfortunately, Saddam managed to hold on to power and was a thorn in our sides for more than a decade before we removed him in 2003.
Was it justified? Absolutely. Imagine Saddam Hussein, an aggressive dictator with an eye towards conquest, controlling the oil fields in Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. He would have likely modernized his armies, built nuclear weapons, and could have used his control of such a large portion of the world's oil supply to blackmail the West into staying out of his affairs. It might have started with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, but it's doubtful that it would have ended there. At some point, you have to think that wars with Israel & Iran would have happened and who can say how far Hussein would have gone from there.
Given the state of the Middle-East today, maybe some people don't think that sounds too bad. But, a wealthy, Middle-Eastern, super state controlled by a fascistic madman would not be an improvement over what we have today in the region -- not by a long shot.
Q&A Friday #23: Any Second Thoughts About The "Gang Of 14" Compromise?
Question #1: "You were very critical of the "Gang of 14" filibuster deal that the Senate reached earlier this year. Has the subsequent confirmation of six judges and the impending confirmation of John Roberts changed your views on this deal at all?" -- maledicta
Answer: My opinion on the "Gang of 14 deal" hasn't changed at all. Look at the deal and ask yourself: what did we win exactly?
Yes, we got 6 judges through. Had we gone with the nuclear option, we would have gotten them all though. Yes, there have been no judicial filibusters since the deal. But, had we gone with the nuclear option, the Democrats would have been permanently blocked from doing judicial filibusters.
Yes, there are PROBABLY enough GOP votes to block the Dems from doing a filibuster on the next Supreme Court Justice. But, you can never really count on butter spined, rubber kneed Republicans like John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Mike DeWine, & John Warner. Because of that, it's more likely that Bush will make the mistake of selecting a less attractive nominee to conservatives in order to placate the Democrats. Had the GOP pulled the trigger nuclear option, Bush could have nominated anyone he so desired, from William Pryor to Janice Rogers Brown, while being absolutely confident that there was nothing of consequence the Democrats could do about it other than sputter with rage.
And what did we get in return for not pulling the trigger on the Nuclear Option? The Democrats agreed not to pitch an embarrassing public fit that would have cemented their status as "obstructionists" in the public's mind. Had the Democrats actually gone through with their plan, I personally believe that:
1) It would have made the public angry at the Democrats.
2) Bush's approval rating would be higher today because the public would figure no one could work with the Dems .
3) The godawful, pork laden Highway Bill may not have been pushed through.
Then, after a couple of months of pouting, the Democrats would have decided to cut their losses and get back to work -- well, if you call complaining about everything Bush does "work".
Again, I ask: what did we win exactly? Nothing! The Senate GOP got their clocks cleaned on the deal. It was a huge win for the Democrats and the only mild positive that came out of this for Republicans was that some of the "Radicals" on the left didn't realize what a victory the compromise was for Democrats given the margin that the GOP has in the Senate.
Q&A Friday #23: If Roe v. Wade Were Overturned, Would Republicans Use The Federal Gov't To Outlaw Abortion?
Question: "I have noticed that many Republicans are adopting the attitude of "it is a state's right issue" concerning abortion (and as a pro-choice libertarian, I am slowly coming around to this idea). However, my chief concern is that Republicans dont' REALLY believe this (if you view abortion as murder, how could you believe it is a state's rights issue???), and that once Roe is overturned they will attempt to take it out of the state's hands through a Constitutional Ammendment. Given our country's history on leaving major divisive issues up to the states (see Slavery and The Civil War), I am dubious about the long term prospects of how this would work concerning abortion.
So the second part of my question is this: Do you think most Republicans truly believe abortion is a state's rights issue, and if Roe is overturned, do you believe they will leave it at that?" -- President_Friedman
Answer: Well, if the GOP could actually pull off a Constitutional Amendment now, it would supersede Roe v. Wade. But of course, Constitutional Amendments are extremely difficult to push through, so it's not possible now and it seems extremely doubtful that it would be possible if Roe v. Wade were overturned.
As to whether you'd see a Federal law making abortion illegal if Roe v. Wade were struck down, I tend to think that's unlikely. Not that some conservatives wouldn't try to do it, they would, but I don't think they would succeed.
On an issue as controversial as abortion, you can be certain that there would be a filibuster and it's hard for me to see 60 Senators voting to ban abortion even if you had that many pro-life Senators. There have just been too many Republicans beating the, "It's a states issue," drum for too long for all of them to do a 180 at this point and so there would probably be a few hold-outs who would scuttle the whole thing.
That being said, you'll notice that what I'm listing here are the practical reasons why there wouldn't be a Federal law banning abortion. If you're talking about what people believe when it gets right down to it, unless you're talking about political junkies, the government is the government is the government to most people, Republican or Democrat. They're not particularly interested in state's right debates, they just want the "government" "to do something."
That's ultimately what would put pro-life Republicans who really do believe abortion is a state's rights issue in a huge pickle. These Republicans up on Capitol Hill would have this mass of agitated social conservatives telling them: "Either you vote to make abortion illegal or you're on the wrong side of the issue as far as we're concerned," they'd think real hard about the consequences of saying, "no," and most of them would cave.
So to sum it all up, I think it's unlikely we'd see a federal law banning abortion if Roe v. Wade were overturned, but I do think that there would be a push for one.
Q&A Friday #23: Why Does The Left Hate The Military?
Question: "Why does the left hate the military and its volunteers so much?" -- rpearso3
"Why does the left hate the military and its volunteers so much? Yeah, rpearso, I'd second that one for John's consideration. Either a discussion of why they feel that way or a discussion of how we've come to believe they feel that way." -- Grognard
Answer: Before I answer this, let me note that not all liberals hate the military. There are plenty of them who have as much genuine appreciation for the troops as you commonly see among conservatives. That being said, people who detest the military are almost universally on the left. It's not hard to figure out why if you actually listen to what liberals say on a day in and day out basis.
Think about it.
If you think Bush is another Hitler, what does that make the troops carrying out his orders?
If you think we're occupying and oppressing Iraq, how can you support the people carrying out the "oppression" and the "occupation?"
How can you support the troops when you think the mission they're on is morally repugnant? Why would you support people who are engaged in morally repugnant acts?
If you detest conservatives and think they're vile, rotten people, how can you love the troops who are notoriously for conservatism?
If you see no difference between a soldier accidentally killing a civilian and a terrorist deliberately killing a civilian -- and many liberals don't -- then why wouldn't you feel the same way about the soldier as the terrorist?
If the terrorists in Iraq are "freedom fighters" and "Minutemen," then doesn't that mean you should be rooting for our troops to lose?
Again, not all liberals feel this way, but the ones who do are just taking commonly used liberal rhetoric to its logical conclusion. Many of them just aren't very open about their reasoning, such as it is, because there are few things that turn-off non-liberals more than trashing the troops.
Q&A Friday #23: What If The Democrats Got Serious About Controlling Spending?
Question: "If the Democrats were to adopt serious fiscal conservatism as a key policy and the GOP were to continue big spending, where does that leave those of us who are social and fiscal conservatives?" -- Compiled
Answer: When expanding the power and size of the Federal government is your answer to almost every problem, it's just not possible to "adopt serious fiscal conservatism as a key policy".
So, in order for this to happen, the Democrats would have to change their core philosophy, convince their base to go along with it, and then resist the same political pressure that has led Republicans in Washington to spend money like it's going out of style DESPITE the disapproval of a large majority of their base.
Not going to happen. And it also doesn't look likely that we're going to have another situation like we had in the nineties anytime soon either, where a long economic boom and a penny pinching Republican Congress determined to block the President's new spending at every turn brought us into the black. There just aren't enough Republicans in Washington who are serious about cutting spending to make that happen anymore.
Q&A Friday #23: Could Patton Have Beaten Napoleon?
Question: "Do you think Patton could have beaten Napoleon?" -- nowingnut
Answer: Of course, Patton had tanks! =D
Actually, I probably should have skipped the question because I don't think it can truly be answered, but I couldn't resist the cheap joke!
But, here's a short answer anyway: As often as not, it's superior weaponry and supplies, a culture that has some sort of relative advantage in war making, or being the first to grasp a revolutionary new tactic that prepares the way for a great general. Take that same general and move him into the past or present and gifted though he may be at warfare, it's entirely possible that he'll no longer be effective.
You can compare generals from the same time period, but weapons, strategies, and situations change so dramatically from era to era that it's impossible to really know who would beat whom.
I've decided to expand my musical horizons a bit and so I have a question for you: can you suggest some classical music for me to check out in the comments section?
*** Update #1 ***: From the comments section:
"By classical do you mean Mozart, Bach, Beethoven... that sort of thing? Or do you mean instrumental music like Manheim Steamroller and the work of Howard Shore?
I (am) curious, because a lot of people don't make the distiction." -- Deuce
You're correct that I made no distinction. In fact, the only two songs that came to mind for me (because I like both of them) were the themes to "Conan" and "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly." To tell you the truth, I have no idea if either would be considered instrumental or classical.
So, if there's a subject you've been wanting me to tackle or an issue you want to hear my opinion on, just ask your question in the comments section. Your question can be about politics, ideology, history, blogging, RWN, from a liberal, conservative, or libertarian perspective; heck, it can even be about movies, music, literature, or TV. Then, I'll select some of the more interesting questions and answer them.
If you truly understand your political enemies, it's much easier to defeat them. Towards that end, here are the 4 main species of Democrats:
Old School: Although the Democrats have been the party of big government for a long time, much of the party used to be hawkish on defense & to the right of center on many social issues (at least by today's standards).
Although this wing of the party was once dominant, they started losing traction in the sixties, became a minority in the seventies, were largely limited to the South in the eighties, and are now a dying breed.
If you want to know why the Democratic party has collapsed in the South, it's because many of the rank and file "Old School" Democrats have gotten disgusted with the more radical elements of the Democratic Party and have switched sides.
Examples: Sam Nunn, Scoop Jackson, Zell Miller.
The DLC Crowd: Some of the members of this group are relatively moderate compared to their brethren in the Party and some of them are just politically savvy enough to understand that they need to compromise to win given the ideological make-up of the country. Whatever the case may be, this group of Democrats is to the left-of-center, but they are willing to sacrifice some of the left's ideological goals to get back into power.
This group represents a significant portion of Democratic Party, perhaps as large as the next two groups combined, but they are underrepresented in positions of power in the Party because they lack the energy and ability to drive the debate that comes with greater ideological purity.
Examples: Phil Bredesen, Mark Warner, Joe Lieberman.
The Stealth Dems: This is a very liberal group of Democrats, but in an effort to make themselves more palatable to moderate voters, they often take rhetorical positions completely unrelated to their actual stands on the issues. Although they usually can be counted on to vote liberally, they are willing to temporarily make 180% turns on certain issues if they think it will benefit them politically.
Examples: Tom Daschle, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton.
The Radicals: Ideologically, there isn't necessarily a large gulf between this group and the "Stealth Dems." The difference is that this group is more open about their views, largely unwilling to compromise on the issues, and particularly strident in their rhetoric. The ranks of the "Radicals" have swelled considerably in recent years because of the uniting power of the internet and because losing tends to radicalize political parties.
Unfortunately for the Democrats, even though this group is politically unappealing and has a knack for alienating large portions of the electorate, they also supply a significant amount of energy and fund-raising for the Party. This often puts "Stealth Dems" and the "DLC crowd" in the awkward position of having to choose between turning off moderates by being too "loud & proud" about their liberalism or turning off the radicals by not being brazen enough.
Examples: Ted Kennedy, Michael Moore, Markos Moulitsas Zúniga.
I keep going back and forth on this. On the one hand, I think this couple came up with a brilliant marketing idea and on the other hand, I think it's disgusting. That's how it has been for the last few minutes, disgusting -- brilliance -- disgusting -- brilliance -- disgusting -- brilliance.
"They're offering advertising space on their 4-month-old son, Gavin, until he is 1-year-old!
Their goal is to be able to have “mommy” Sadie be able to stay at home for Gavin’s first year.
The eBay auction winner can have their logo placed on Gavin’s clothes: a baby beanie cap, a onesie, on a T-shirt, on his stroller or even an upcoming Halloween costume, it is totally the bid winners choice.
The father, Jeremy Naylor, came up with the idea from seeing eBay ad bids from goldenpalace.com.
...Sadie was able to stay at home for Gavin's first month, but then they had a bad luck streak.
The unlucky streak started with Jeremy being in the hospital for the first week with a collapsed lung, then there was a failed business partnership, and most recently a car accident.
They say if they exceed their goal, 100% of the bid amount will go towards the little guy and not towards some silly frivolous spending."
On the one hand, this is a pretty nifty idea. I mean, the baby is going to probably have some kind of logo on his clothes anyway and he's not going to care what it is. Furthermore, the family has also said they won't allow anything obscene to be used and it would probably be good for the baby to have mom at home looking after him.
First of all, they titled it "Pimp My Baby" Till he is 1yo!" That's just cringe worthy. Then they have the kid looking at a beer can and title it "early product recognition." Then there's this:
Although it doesn't say so on the eBay page, in the article, the mother says they're not actually willing to put a logo on the baby's forehead. Still...
Maybe they're going to be laughing all the way to the bank; in fact, they're already up to $560 bucks, but in the end this comes across as a little too creepy and exploitive for my taste.
I am shaving all my hair off!!! I’m putting a tattoo on my shaved head and my Mom is too. I will Paint my entire body the color of your choice, with your AD painted all over me. Run in the City of your choice in nothing but a bikini! On any given day, even if it's Freezing!!!
...Speaking of stunts... We will be doing a stunt at the end of my run in the near buff!!! This stunt involves us eating earth worms,grub worms, & crickets followed by a BIG drink of????
Yes, My MOM is going to shave her head, and get a tattoo too!!! But only if the bidding reaches $35,000.00.
A SurveyUSA poll of all the state governors reveals that all of the governors whose states were directly hit by Hurricane Katrina had a major boom in job approval compared with the previous month, with the notable exception of Louisiana's Kathleen Blanco.
Haley Barbour (R, Mississippi) +26
Bob Riley (R, Alabama) +21
Mike Easley (D, North Carolina) +19
Sonny Perdue (R, Georgia) +18
Rick Perry (R, Texas) +17
Kathleen Blanco (D, Louisiana) -22
The gap between Barbour and Blanco, who lead the states most devastated by Katrina, could scarely be more stark.
Three reasons, seemingly. First, the labour model is terrible. They are saddled with pensions promises they made back when the industry was heavily regulated and airlines were basically allowed to operate on a cost-plus basis. They have multiple, militant unions, none of whom have any incentive to leave any value on the table at negotiating time because they justifiably fear that anything they leave at the negotiating table will simply be claimed by another union. And the unions, plagued by loss aversion, will generally not give up enough in downturns to make the airline profitable unless they are ordered to by a bankruptcy judge.
Second of all, the business model is terrible. Airlines have a very high fixed cost, which is the cost of flying even if you don't carry any passengers, and a very low marginal cost, which is the cost of carrying each additional passenger. The temptation for airlines to sell empty "extra" seats at a very low price is extremely high. But every time one airline does this, it makes it that much harder for competitors to operate at a profit. Because so many of the costs are fixed, companies seem to enter a competitive death spiral, where everyone is desperately trying to dig themselves out of the hole as best they can by selling their product below cost. Also, the "hub-and-spoke" model, which makes it easy to get connecting flights, is much less profitable than the point-to-point model competitors use, cherry-picking only the most lucrative routes. And the airlines are hugely vulnerable to swings in the price of fuel.
Third, the legal model sucks. Easy bankruptcy is a very fine thing for the economy as a whole, but for industries like airlines, which because of the high-fixed/low-marginal cost thing already tend to be plagued by overcapacity, it's a disaster. Creditors would almost always rather keep the hulk running in the hopes of getting some cash out down the road than liquidate, especially because most of an airline's major assets, like planes, tend to be secured, leaving precious little for hungry debtees. So they rehabilitate the business with radically reduced debt and labour obligations. But this doesn't remove the excess capacity that makes it hard for anyone to make a profit; in fact, it makes the rehabilitated business more competitive, which pushes other companies into bankruptcy.
Is there hope? Transportation seems to be an iffy business; railroads as an industry never made a dime for their owners. Certainly, if I were an airline employee, I'd be looking into acquiring some new skills.
If I have learned anything from "school bus" Ray Nagin in the last few weeks, it is that a man has to stand up and admit when he is wrong. To date, I had dismissed the global warming fanatics as clueless self-interested ideologues, pushing an agenda that has no scientific basis.
However, I was shocked to learn today that Mars is experiencing global warming as well! Something must be done! Not only have we screwed up our planet, we are now screwing up our interplanetary neighbors.
Therefore, I call on President Bush to immediately sign into law the Kyoto treaty and cut greenhouse emissions in the U.S. by 75% in the next 5 years. I am also calling on the volcanoes of the world to agree to a 25 year moratorium on eruptions. I think if we all work together we can save Mars!
You Have 15 Minutes To Leave Your House And Never Return: What Do You Take?
Ambra from Nykola had an interesting questions that's probably particularly relevant for those of us who live in areas that are vulnerable to hurricanes:
"So you have to leave your house. The situation is pretty serious and you're not quite sure the house will be there when you return. Let's just say hypothetically, you have about 15 minutes to decide what to take. You may be leaving on foot, loading up your car or even hopping on a plane. Either way,
What must absolutely come with you?"
I set a timer and gave myself 3 minutes to create a list. Here's what I came up with (assuming I'm leaving in a car):
A List
------ Patton
Box with all my important papers in it
Tower for my computer
Gun
My photo album
Wallet, keys
B-List
------
Clean clothes and toiletries that I could stuff in a trash bag
Digital camera
2 Tape recorders
2 or 3 of Patton's fave toys
2 books to read
Some things I thought about taking, but just wouldn't have time or room to cram them in my car. For example, I'd love to take my bed and 36 inch TV, but there just wouldn't be time and room. My TiVo, VCR, computer speakers & monitor? I probably wouldn't have time to unhook them and get them packed. I probably wouldn't have had a chance to get them packed.
Here's an interesting follow-up question: how much money would you have to be paid to sell all the furnishings in your home? Assume that you can keep photo albums, pets, clothes on your back, birth certificates, keys, wallets, etc and other key documents. Other than that, picture everything you own being stripped bare. What would be the absolute minimum you'd do that for?
I think I'd do it for $15k and for $17.5k, I'd throw in the photo album =D. Then, you give me 6 months of estate sales, Ebay, trips to the Salvation army, and post-Christmas shopping and I think I'd come out way ahead.
Apparently, I've been transported to some sort of alternative dimension or parallell universe because in the humdrum reality I've always known, nothing this wacky could possibly occur:
"Ice-T is to produce David Hasselhoff's first hip-hop album.
...Ice-T, who was one of the first real hip-hop stars in the late 1980s, said: "The man is a legend. And we are going to show a whole new side of him."
The rapper is said to be convinced that the 51-year-old for Knight Rider and Baywatch actor can take on the biggest names in rap, reports The Sun.
Ice-T added: "He's gonna come out as Hassle The Hoff - I promise you. The Hoff will surprise people with his rap skills and humour."
Hasselhoff & Ice-T are getting together to make music? What's next? Ruth Westheimer teaming up with LLCoolJ? William Shatner partnering with Ice Cube? Lee Iacocca & Snoop Dogg getting together to do Chrysler commercials? Oh wait....
This may sound like a disaster in the making, especially if Hasselhoff were to do a cover of Ice-T's Cop Killer, but you know what might help out? Building Hasselhoff's street cred by putting a picture like this on the cover:
Now that would be shizzly snizzly dizzly fizzly mah nizzle wizzle kerchizle fershizzlehizzle hajizzle my coulterlizzle!
Special Ice For Special People By Kymberly Swygert
Well, there's being indulgent, and then there's spoiling your kid rotten, and then there's this:
Calling the Orlins ice skating enthusiasts may be a bit of an understatement. The Stamford residents are spending $630,000 to build an indoor ice skating rink in the backyard of their 13-acre property just off the Merritt Parkway...
"Millions of people come down our road to see it because nobody can believe it's there," said neighbor Maria Fedele.
According to plans filed with the city, the 28-foot-tall building will have an ice surface about half the size of a regulation hockey rink. A concrete floor underneath will allow the Orlins to use the rink for roller hockey, basketball and tennis when it's not covered with ice. The building will also have a viewing balcony and wet bar.
The Orlins defy reality, but follow etiquette, by downplaying their little construction job:
City officials said they believe the Orlins are building the rink for their son, a Stamford Youth Hockey player.
The Orlins declined an interview with The Advocate of Stamford. "My husband and I want to keep it low-key," Julie Orlin said. "We don't want to make a fuss about it." She said the Orlins do not think the project is unusual, saying they know of four similar rinks in Greenwich.
I suppose if they've got $600K to spare to build a hockey playroom for their son, they might as well use it in building something that will last. And just think what it will do for the resale value! You know, in case Bill Gates or the Sultan of Brunei ever decides to move to Connecticut.
This content is being used with the permission of Number 2 Pencil.
The Top 8 Things Bush Can Do To Get His Approval Rating Going Back In The Right Direction
1) Get out in front of Republicans in Congress who are demanding spending cuts. Start slashing pork, put the Medicare bill back a year, make some actual cuts in the budgets of government departments. Go farther than anyone expects until the Democrats are screaming at the tops of their lungs that the cuts are too deep.
2) Wait a few months before moving on any new tax cuts and before trying to make the old tax cuts permanent, but don't give up on them. The tax cuts are still important, but given how strident the complaints about the deficit are right now, the President needs to prove that he can handle cutting spending before he moves forward on tax cuts.
3) Now would be a great time to get rid of any dead wood in the administration -- like Norm Mineta, Douglas Feith, & Michael Chertoff. Nothing says, "We've got a new attitude," like getting rid of incompetent &/or unpopular cabinet members.
4) Social Security reform is going nowhere. Bush should admit just that, blame the Democrats for obstructionism, and accuse them of putting seniors at risk by refusing to reform the program.
5) Select a staunchly conservative judge who'll excite the base -- someone like Priscilla Owen, Michael Luttig, or Janice Rogers Brown.
6) Come out now while gas prices are still extremely high and talk about how it's a top priority of the Bush administration to get gas prices down. Then make it clear that the strategic oil reserve will be tapped again if necessary and that the Clean Air Act Amendments will continue to be suspended until gas is $1.50 or less per gallon. Since gas prices will probably drop significantly over the next few months, this will help insure W. gets some credit for the drop (which seems fair since he has been blamed for the rise) and if we're lucky, the Democrats will be dumb enough to demand that the environmental standards be put back in place, which would mean that they were in effect lobbying for higher gas prices.
7) Split Bush's illegal immigration policy into two parts. The tough enforcement of our immigration laws and new proposals to beef them up? That's very popular and should be done now. The soft amnesty and guest worker programs? Those are not popular and should be packaged together and pushed much later after the other changes go into effect. Of course, that makes it much less likely that the 2nd package will pass, but it seems doubtful that they'll pass now and it would be detrimental to the GOP even if they did.
8) In Iraq, there is going to be an October election, a December election, Saddam's trial, and probably significant troop withdrawals all coming within the next 6-9 months. That's why it would be a good time to start bloodying the anti-war dems. Sharpen the distinctions a bit, get Iraq back in the public's mind, and then as each "big event" happens in Iraq, it will boost the public's mood.
My Favorite 30 Opinion Columnists For The 3rd Quarter Of 2005
It has been a little more than 3 months since I last ranked the best opinion columnists in the business, so I figured it was time to do it again. Here are my current faves in order...
When you finish with Right Wing News, make sure to check out my other blog, Conservative Grapevine.
Some of the articles linked to today include:
-- The benefits of chauvinism
-- It seems Fidel Castro still has some big fans
-- There's being indulgent, and then there's spoiling your kid rotten, and then there's this...
Conservative Grapevine: learn to love it because after RWN, it's the best thing going in the blogosphere today!
Poor Dan Rather! He's so upset about the pressures that the mainstream media is under that his lip is quivering! Let's tune in and see what Mr. Memogate has to say:
"Former CBS News anchor Dan Rather said Monday that there is a climate of fear running through newsrooms stronger than he has ever seen in his more than four-decade career.
...Addressing the Fordham University School of Law in Manhattan, occasionally forcing back tears, he said that in the intervening years, politicians "of every persuasion" had gotten better at applying pressure on the conglomerates that own the broadcast networks. He called it a "new journalism order."
He said this pressure — along with the "dumbed-down, tarted-up" coverage, the advent of 24-hour cable competition and the chase for ratings and demographics — has taken its toll on the news business. "All of this creates a bigger atmosphere of fear in newsrooms," Rather said.
Rather was accompanied by HBO Documentary and Family president Sheila Nevins, both of whom were due to receive lifetime achievement awards at the News and Documentary Emmy Awards on Monday evening.
...Nevin asked Rather if he felt the same type of repressive forces in the Nixon administration as in the current Bush administration.
"No, I do not," Rather said. That's not to say there weren't forces trying to remove him from the White House beat while reporting on Watergate; but Rather said he felt supported by everyone above him, from Washington bureau chief Bill Small to then-news president Dick Salant and CBS chief William S. Paley.
"There was a connection between the leadership and the led . . . a sense of, 'we're in this together,"' Rather said. It's not that the then-leadership of CBS wasn't interested in shareholder value and profits, Rather said, but they also saw news as a public service. Rather said he knew very little of the intense pressure to remove him in the early 1970s because of his bosses' support.
Nevins took up the cause for Rather, who was emotional several times during the event.
"When a man is close to tears discussing his work and his lip quivers, he deserves bosses who punch back. I feel I would punch back for Dan," Nevins said.
Rather praised the coverage of Hurricane Katrina by the new generation of TV journalists and acknowledged that he would have liked to have reported from the Gulf Coast. "Covering hurricanes is something I know something about," he said.
"It's been one of television news' finest moments," Rather said of the Katrina coverage. He likened it to the coverage of President Kennedy's assassination in 1963.
"They were willing to speak truth to power," Rather said of the coverage."
I absolutely love the idea of a "climate of fear running through newsrooms!" Know why? Because what they're afraid of losing is their customers and that's a good fear for any business to have.
It's an especially good fear for newsrooms to have because many journalists, like Dan Rather, have believed throughout their careers that they could be completely indifferent to what the customer wanted and for a long time, because they essentially had a "gentleman's monopoly" going, they got away with it.
Twenty years ago, if you didn't like the liberal bias of CBS and didn't trust them to be straight about the news, there wasn't much you could do about it. Sure, you could turn the channel to ABC or NBC and get the same slant on the same news or open up your local paper and read essentially the same thing in print, but consumers had no real options, no real alternative views.
Today you have Fox, talk radio, and the internet giving the public a different perspective on the news. They cover stories that the MSM ignores, point out "inconvenient facts" the MSM buries, and are fair to people the MSM treats with contempt.
Take the hurricane Katrina coverage Rather thinks was one of the MSM's "finest moments." Many people believe that in actuality, that was the mainstream at its worst, at its most partisan. It wasn't "speaking the truth to power," it was an attempt by liberals to blatantly exploit a natural disaster to stick it to the hated Bush administration.
20 years ago, very few people in the media would have said that and even if they did, no one would have ever heard it because the left so completely dominated the media. Today, it's being said in every medium across the board and hundreds of millions of Americans are hearing it.
Those Americans, after getting both sides of the issue, can now choose between a wide array of media sources. Maybe that means Dan Rather and some of his old media buddies are going to have to live in what they think of as a "climate of fear," but their "fear" is good news for the American public.
Before 9/11, our country was doing a miserable job of enforcing our immigration laws.
I can tell you this definitively because several years ago, I had a Turkish roommate. My roommate was here on a student visa, but he hadn't been going to school for years and wasn't planning to go back. Guess what? He still was able to get his student visa renewed, even though he was working at a restaurant and wasn't registered for classes anywhere. That tells you that either nobody was bothering to check up on him or they just didn't care.
Unfortunately, as Debbie Schlussel explains, it doesn't sound as if things have improved much since back then:
"Where's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) when it comes to checking visas of foreign students and whether they are continuing to pursue studies?
Nowhere to be seen.
A lot of your tax money was supposed to be spent to check up on those foreign students. An expensive ($36.8 million) computerized system called SEVIS (Student Exchange and Visitor Information Service) was supposed to be used by ICE as a basis for investigating foreign student visa violations.
But ICE "leadership" must have dyslexia. Apparently, they think SEVIS is supposed be SIEVE. That's how they've treated the system that was supposed to block illegal visitors, not welcome them in, unchecked, forever.
In the first year of SIEVE . . . er SEVIS, only 1,600 investigations and 155 arrests (and probably, much fewer convictions) have resulted out of over 36,000 student visa violations identified by the system. The rest got a get out of jail free card. Oops . . . they never went to jail. They're just roaming free."
Before you just shrug this off, it's worth noting that had our immigration laws been followed, 9/11 would likely have never occurred. Keep in mind that 15 of the 19 September 11 hijackers should have been denied visas." At least two of those terrorists who should have been rejected, Abdulaziz Alomari & Waleed al-Shehri, were claiming to be students. Here's Joel Mowbray from National Review with the details:
"Brothers Wail and Waleed al-Shehri applied together for travel visas on October 24, 2000. Wail claimed his occupation was "teater," while his brother wrote "student." Both listed the name and address of his respective employer or school as simply "South City." Each also declared a U.S. destination of "Wasantwn." But what should have further raised a consular officer's eyebrows is the fact that a student and his nominally employed brother were going to go on a four-to-six-month vacation, paid for by Wail's "teater" salary, which he presumably would be foregoing while in the United States. Even assuming very frugal accommodations, such a trip for two people would run north of $15,000, yet there is no indication that the consular officer even attempted to determine that Wail in fact had the financial means to fund the planned excursion. They appear to have received their visas the same day they applied.
...Abdulaziz Alomari filled out a simple, two-page application for a visa to come to the United States. Alomari was not exactly the ideal candidate for a visa. He claimed to be a student, though he left blank the space for the name and address of his school. He checked the box claiming he was married, yet he left blank the area where he should have put the name of his spouse. Although he claimed to be a student, he marked on his form that he would self-finance a two-month stay at the "JKK Whyndham Hotel" — and provided no proof, as required under law, that he could actually do so.
...When he arrived in the United States, he connected with his friend, Mohammed Atta. And less than three months later — on September 11 — he and Atta helped crash American Airlines Flight 11 into the North Tower of the World Trade Center."
What is it going to take to motivate the federal government to enforce our immigration laws? Let's hope the answer to that question doesn't turn out to be: "Another 9/11."
..."We think this construction is unique in the world. I myself witnessed two dead squirrels on the road in the space of two months and I felt we had to do something," Sokolov mayor Karel Jakobec told AFP Thursday.
At the moment the park is home to just three squirrels."
After reading story, should we be comforted that it's not just our government that throws money away hand over fist like this or should we be more worried that this will catch on here? I'm leaning towards the latter...
"It's shameful: Conservatives in Congress now compare Bush — unfavorably — to Bill Clinton. Staffers point out that when disaster triggered unanticipated spending on Clinton's watch, that government-loving liberal actually asked Americans to make some tradeoffs.
After the 1994 Los Angeles earthquake, Clinton asked for more than $3 billion to offset the new costs. The Democratic Congress gave it to him.
After the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, Clinton asked for more than $1 billion in cuts. The newly Republican Congress insisted on more than $15 billion in offsets. (Let's hear it for divided government!)
Since taking office, Bush has yet to ask for a single offset to disaster-related spending.
The point of the debate among the Republicans isn't about whether to spend the money needed to rebuild after Katrina — that's a given. The question is whether, even under the most extreme of circumstances, they can make even the most minor of cuts to the size of government." -- Ryan Sager
We're Spending Way Too Much Money To Rebuild After Katrina
According to Rasmussen polling, Republican voters are split over Bush's elphantine rebuilding package for New Orleans:
"Fifty percent (50%) of Americans favor the main proposal from that speech--a federal commitment of $200 billion to help rebuild New Orleans. Twenty-seven percent (27%) are opposed and 23% are not sure.
The spending plan has not been well received by conservative voters--just 43% favor the huge federal commitment partisan while 37% are opposed. This is especially striking given how supportive the President's base has remained throughout his Administration.
...Fifty-seven percent (57%) of black voters support the federal reconstruction spending while just 17% are opposed. Among white voters, 49% favor the spending and 29% are opposed. This is the first Bush Administration proposal hat has attracted more support from black Americans than from white Americans."
You can definitely count me among the people who are opposed to Bush's proposal. In fact, when I heard that number and saw that it was going to be spent on boondoggles like this, it became clear that the White House has gone beyond, "Money is no object," all the way to, "Money ='s caring, so the more we spend the better:"
"On the sprawling, dusty grounds of Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant and Red River Army Depot in Texarkana, Tex., the recreational vehicles and mobile homes are arriving at a rate of 100 a day before being shipped out to the fringes of Hurricane Katrina's disaster zone.
Those trailers, among 300,000 to be purchased with nearly $5 billion of federal money, have become a focal point of criticism of the Bush administration's early rebuilding efforts. Some conservatives blanch at the cost. And many critics fret that mobile homes will hardly protect their residents from the next storm.
...Edgar O. Olsen, a conservative housing economist at the University of Virginia, said he pestered the Federal Housing Administration and HUD with faxes, imploring them to scrap the mobile home contracts for rental vouchers.
After all, he noted, rental occupancy rates are at historic lows, as are rents. There are more than 1.1 million available units in the South, with an average rent of less than $700 a month. Houston's vacancy rate stands at 15.6 percent. But Olsen said he has received no response."
You know, I've been one of the people who has defended the federal government's performance after Katrina. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that Mike Brown's biggest flaw was being terrible on TV at a time when everyone was looking for a scapegoat.
But buying 300,000 trailers, which will end up costing one hell of a lot more than 5 billion by the time they're done, must be one of the biggest wastes of money in all of American history. Come on, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that you could give these 300,000 people rental vouchers that pay out, let's say, $4200 a family for 6 months, rather than spending -- real world, as opposed to government estimates -- $25,000, $30,000, $35,000 (if not more) per family to put these displaced people up in mobile homes.
On top of that, in Bush's speech last week he was talking about how spending $60 billion dollars proves our nations's "compassion," as if you can prove compassion by spending taxpayer money without their say so.
Then there's the $5,000 of "job training and education" for evacuees. So if you, as opposed to the victims of Katrina, get flooded out of your apartment, is it the government's responsibility to train you or send you to school? Since when? If your house burns down tomorrow because of an electrical fire, does that mean the government owes you $5k worth of job training, a $2k FEMA debit card, and a mobile home at the taxpayer's expense? Is that supposed to be the new standard for "compassion?" If so, count me out.
Just to make sure that no one misunderstands, I'm in favor of the federal government being involved in disaster relief. It makes sense for the federal government to help people, cities, and states that have caught the brunt of an "Act of God." That's just good common sense, especially in a case where the damage is on such a wide scale that charities and the states affected just don't have the capacity to help get everyone quickly back up on their feet.
That being said, the amount the federal government is spending on Katrina is completely out of proportion to any previous natural disaster in this country. For example, up until Katrina, the most expensive natural disaster in American history was Hurricane Andrew in 1992, which cost $25 billion dollars. Compare that to the estimated (Would anyone be surprised if it's higher?) $200 billion that is going to be spent on Katrina and you almost have to wonder if we're going to end up wasting somewhere between $50-$100 billion dollars for no other reason than because Bush got "dinged" by the press in the immediate aftermath of the storm.
This is exactly the sort of reaction I was afraid of back on September 2nd, when I defended Dennis Hastert for questioning whether New Orleans should be rebuilt at all:
"...(A)fter a big natural disaster, there is always enormous pressure on politicians to do something now, now, now! They're supposed to fly over the disaster zone, give reassuring speeches, and then appropriate gargantuan sums of money as fast as possible to prove they care. Any sort of delay in doing any of these things is treated as icy and nearly inhuman indifference to human suffering...and keep in mind, this is one of the biggest natural disasters in American history. That means the pressure is going to be ratcheted up that much higher.
...(T)he problem here is that in a very short period of time, maybe in just a matter of weeks, our legislators will likely be spending tens of billions of dollars more and making far reaching decisions about the future of New Orleans. Moreover, it's entirely possible that little critical thinking will be involved because of the aforementioned political pressure.
That would be an enormous mistake."
Unfortunately, the "enormous mistake" has already been made and Americans will pay countless billions in unneccessary taxes just so a bunch of puffed up Washington pols can run campaign commercials next year bragging about how much they spent to respond to Katrina. That's may be unsurprising, but it's still a shame.
Why Do They Hate Us? Apparently, It's The Ice Cream
"THE fast-food chain, Burger King, is withdrawing its ice-cream cones after the lid of the dessert offended a Muslim."
The man claimed the design resembled the Arabic inscription for Allah, and branded it sacrilegious, threatening a "jihad".
...The offending lid was spotted in a branch in Park Royal last week by business development manager Rashad Akhtar, 27, of High Wycombe.
He was not satisfied by the decision to withdraw the cones and has called on Muslims to boycott Burger King. He said: "This is my jihad. How can you say it is a spinning swirl? If you spin it one way to the right you are offending Muslims."
You have all these leftists who hyperventilate over why psychopathic Islamo-Fascists like Osama Bin Laden hate us, as if there must be some completely logical reason for it. Meanwhile, you have a loopy Isamist wacko in Britain threatening jihad because a lid on an ice cream cone bears an incredibly vague resemblance to the Arabic inscription for Allah.
That should be an eye opener for some people -- of course, people's eyes should have been opened a long time ago.
Why do I say that?
Because when it comes to home grown lunatics like Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, or Ted Kaczynski, almost no one ties themselves up in knots wondering if they were justified or had a point. But along comes Bin Laden, Zarqawi and their "splodey dope" army of Al-Qaeda malcontents and you suddenly have anti-war leftists trying to pin the blame on the United States for their endless list of grievances, some of which stretch back all the way to the Crusades.
The reality is that what we're doing in Iraq and Afghanistan is every bit as noble and right as what the Greatest Generation did in Germany, Japan, and Korea and the enemies we're fighting are every bit as wrong. Germany, Japan, and North Korea hated us, too, but back then, Americans didn't sit around wringing their hands with worry about the feelings of the enemies who wanted us dead. We'd be a better country today if more Americans looked at things that way.
As many of you know, I was caught up in hurricane Ophelia this week. Although it may have gotten the impression that I got off light from my posts, in truth it didn't go as well as it seemed.
I didn't really want to say anything, but the looting was terrible. I mean here's this great opportunity to get all this free stuff and I just came away with nothing. Maybe that was my fault, maybe I should have been that first person in my area to throw a brick through a window and start grabbing stuff, but however you break it down, it just didn't go well.
So, you're probably asking yourself: "Gee, how can I help you?"
Well, how about clicking on a few ads just to show you're a compassionate, caring person? Besides, if you don't click on any ads, I'm going to use my vast right wing conspiracy contacts to complain to the government and next thing you know there will be a $100 million dollars a year set aside to pay government employees to click on the ads of disaster victims. So, by clicking on a few ads now you'll be saving the taxpayers millions of dollars.
"According to Senate sources, Democratic Leader Harry Reid has informed Majority Leader Bill Frist that Federal Appeals Court Judge Priscilla Owen will be filibustered if President Bush names her to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court.
Republican senators are divided on whether former Texas Supreme Court Justice Owen is vulnerable because she underwent a filibuster for the appellate seat and was confirmed under the compromise agreement. Frist is known to believe Owen can be confirmed in the face of a filibuster.
Republican Senate strategists believe Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is the only possible Bush nominee to replace O'Connor who would not face a filibuster."
Could it be that the Democrats are just putting out the word that they'll filibuster Gonzales because they want to trick Bush into nominating his buddy, thereby betraying his base in an unforgivable way and committing political suicide? On the other hand, could it be that Reid is just trying to warn Republicans off of Owen because he knows she would be confirmed and the Democrats would look particularly treacherous if they tried to filibuster her since she was one of the judges explicitly passed through during the "gang of 14" compromise? In any case, I can't imagine a filibuster succeeding at this point because the nuclear option would shut it down.
To begin with, there would have been 48 Republican votes for the nuclear option last time and they should all still be there.
Some people have suggested that Arlen Specter, who was not part of the gang of 14, might vote against the nuclear option this time. However, given how desperately Specter campaigned to get that Judiciary Committee Chairmanship over strident conservative objections, it's hard to see him just throwing that away -- and make no mistake, that's exactly what he would be doing by voting against the nuclear option.
From there, we move on to the 7 Republican members of the gang of 14. DeWine, Graham, and McCain have all as much as said that they'd vote for the nuclear option if the Dems filibustered and John Warner has at least noted that he considers the nuclear option to still be on the table.
It's hard to be sure about Warner, but Graham has bent over backwards to give the impression that he'll vote for the nuclear option if need be. Mike DeWine is also highly likely to vote for the nuclear option because he was politically damaged by his previous vote and going the other way again would probably cost him enough Republican support to keep him from getting reelected in 2006. Same goes for McCain's presidential aspirations in 2008. Conservatives wouldn't even consider selecting a nominee in 2008 who teamed up with the Democrats to block a Priscilla Owen or Janice Rogers Brown.
Even Lincoln Chafee may be afraid of the consequences of going the wrong way this time. Chafee is going to be facing a tough primary challenge from Cranston, R.I., Mayor Stephen Laffey and voting with the Democrats this time around could cost the Senator his seat.
What this means is that there looks to be at least 51-53 votes for the nuclear option. Given that, Bush has the freedom to select anyone he wants without worrying too much about a filibuster, Owen included.
If W's smart, he will appease his grumbling base with a pick that will produce a lot of enthusiasm on the right. While Roberts was widely supported on the right, his short track record made some conservatives downright hostile to him and left many others less excited than they should have been.
This time around, Bush needs to select a nominee with an excellent conservative pedigree AND a long track record so there will be no doubts in anyone's mind about where he or she will stand. That may infuriate the Democrats (What else is new?), but it will also fire up a base that isn't particularly happy with Bush at the moment. Bush is going to have a big opportunity here and he will likely regret it for the rest of his tenure in the White House if he doesn't take full advantage of it.
As George Bush has said: "Our strategy can be summed up this way: As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down."
Put another way, our goal is to help the Iraqis get strong enough to police their own country. Once that happens, most of our troops will be able to come home. A few may stay put in military bases to make sure Iraq's neighbors don't get any funny ideas, but as long as our troops are not keeping the peace on the streets, American casualties should drop down to almost nothing.
That doesn't mean the violence will end, but if there's a strong Iraqi military and police force, the terrorists will never be able to takeover the country. Suicide bombers and car bombs can put people in the morgue, but they won't ever win a war or win over the population.
So, that's why it's so vitally important for Iraq to be able to handle its own internal security. Once that day comes, it means lasting liberty for the Iraqis, welcome home celebrations for Coalition troops, and the door closing permanently on Al-Qaeda's hopes of victory in Iraq.
Since that's the case, this column from the Wall Street Journal was welcome news. It shows that Iraqi troops are progressing, in fact, so much so that it makes predictions that significant numbers of our troops will be coming home in the first half of next year seem very plausible.
"There are good reasons to believe the current operation in Tal Afar--a largely Turkoman city near the Syrian border--will be a model of things to come. Previous attempts to clean the terrorists out of Tal Afar and other cities in northern and western Iraq have too often seen the insurgents melt away only to return when the U.S. spearhead withdrew. This time Iraqis are leading the fight and, most important, many will stay so the people of Tal Afar can begin to believe they can live free of terrorist intimidation.
A force of about 5,000 Iraqis and 3,800 Americans killed at least 157 terrorists, detained 440 suspects, and discovered 34 weapons caches, all while suffering minimal casualties. "The terrorists are losing their morale. They couldn't resist as they did in Fallujah," Iraqi President Jalal Talabani told us in an interview last week in New York, where he was attending the United Nations General Assembly.
The Tal Afar operation calls into question the contention of war critics like Senator Joe Biden that there are only a handful of Iraqi troops capable of meaningful operations. In fact, U.S. commanders classify about 40 battalions--roughly 750 soldiers in each--as "fully independent" or able to fight "in the lead."
...Similar Iraqi-led clean-and-garrison operations might well be performed in other problematic cities like Ramadi. This is a classic form of anti-insurgency warfare that has the potential to narrow the range of operations for the terrorists. President Talabani told us that about 50,000-60,000 Iraqi troops can be considered "well trained," and the number is growing. They will eventually replace Americans, though we hope not before more Tal Afar operations can be undertaken."
It's nice to see Iraqi forces outnumbering American troops during a big operation. And there are 30,000 Iraqi troops that are "fully independent" or capable of "fighting the lead?" There are 50,000-60,000 troops that are "well trained?" Given that we essentially started from scratch, the Iraqis have come a long way.
The numbers aren't where they need to be yet, but not only are we getting the Iraqis whipped into shape, our efforts seem to be picking up steam on the way. By June of next year, don't surprised if a lot of the people making Vietnam comparisons today are claiming that they knew it would work all along...
Excerpt Of The Day #1: Poverty Can't Be Fixed By The Federal Government
"Most poverty isn't caused by storms. Or even bad luck. Most poverty is caused by poor decision-making. Having children out of wedlock, abusing drugs and alcohol, or putting personal pleasure above responsible action are problems much too personal to be cured by politicians and bureaucrats. Or by more money, either.
Many of us have been poor at one time or another. But those truly stuck in poverty are usually suffering from a lack of character, something no government can provide.
Except perhaps by tough love. What's that? It's the love that dares not reward or excuse bad behavior, that does not blame productive people for the poverty of those who refuse to produce, and that steps back and lets human nature do its work. People have survived on the planet a long time, even before government programs to battle poverty.
One of America's biggest causes of poverty is fatherlessness. It is a problem that our society can discourage, but government can do little to solve. A government check certainly doesn't create a father.
...People's actions can be subsidized or taxed, they can preached at or ignored, but these choices cannot be legislated and the consequences of poor choices — namely poverty — cannot be solved by bureaucrats or politicians." -- Paul Jacob
Excerpt Of The Day #2: An Iraqi Explains Why Al-Qaeda Is Frightened Of The New Elections In Iraq
"Some of my friends made fun of Zarqawi and his declaration of war (on the Shias) "So? Now he forgot all about America and Israel, blah blah blah and the Sheat became his sole enemy! I don't think this was Al-Qaeda's original slogan a few years ago!" said one of them and actually the observation is correct but the point is why? Why is this change in priorities and in targets?
When Al-Qaeda first came to Iraq they claimed that they were fighting to liberate this part of "Islamic land" from the "infidels" and they appointed themselves as representatives and guardians of Iraq and its people.
But now, after the Kurds and the Sheat chose their representatives, Al-Qaeda was left with only one segment to represent; that is the Sunni whom Al-Qaeda is now pretending to be defending and avenging from the atrocities of the government but this is also a big lie no doubt because Al-Qaeda had also warned the Sunni from joining the elections and the political process as a whole. Why? Because more Sunni people are expressing their will to participate in the next elections and many observers, polls and surveys expect a 80% turnout among the Sunni in the coming steps of the process; these are the October referendum and the December elections.
Such a high turnout will eventually bring legitimate representatives for the Sunni population and that's what Al-Qeada doesn't want to see happen because there will be no one left to defend or fight for, no pretext for their war and Al-Qaeda will be farther apart from the Sunni militant groups that once were their close allies.
This war declared by Al-Qaeda is frankly a war on elections, and the plan is to stop the elections from taking place at any cost and since confronting the American military has not brought any significant success, Zarqawi is switching to plan B, that is to provoke civil war in Iraq between the Sunni and the Sheat." -- Omar from Iraq the Model
