31
Oct
There’s a lot being said over waterboarding. Michael Mukasey’s nomination is said to be “drowning” over this one single issue. Joe Biden and Patrick Leahy, who are prone to oppose just about anything for the sake of politics, are “concerned” that Mukasey, rather than completely cowering and denouncing PC-torture-procedure-of-the-day, stated he’d rather look at each instance as it occurs to see what laws were broken. Imagine that, a lawyer who’d rather look at the facts as opposed to publicly pinning himself in a corner. How stupid can he be? Leahy and Biden could care less about circumstances, they want to define what the military can or can not do in a way that strikes back to the days of “the wall“. It was the pandering of the CIA director to a political flunky to the Attorney General that led to the events of 9/11. Biden and Leahy were here then. They should know as well or better than anyone what happens when politicians wank security and defense issues.
But that’s exactly what they are doing now. And no one is calling their bluff. They are trying to micro-manage our ability to collect information by pinning this entire nomination on one issue that is probably never used and very few people even know what it is. The next nomination, if Mukasey fails, will know they have to pander to Biden and Leahy in order to get the nomination. That scares me folks.
Even if we never do waterboarding ( whatever the hell that is ), I’d like for our enemies to at least think we did on a very regular basis. Biden and Leahy would like them to think that if they do get caught, they’ll get a vacation where they’re well-fed, rested, and primed and ready to go at it again.
That’s just stupid.
I’d be more concerned if I thought Biden had a ghost chance in hell of winning.
When Jose Padilla was arrested in 2002, every conspiracy theorist and Bush-hater went ballistic. Big Brother had finally arrived according to them. This particular post sums it up best to me:
Needless to say, Padilla became the shining symbol of what is wrong with our government to a lot of people.
However, to a lot of other people, Padilla became a symbol of what our government was finally doing right. Now, to people like me, Padilla ceded his civil liberties when he decided to plan to kill indiscrimantly. The other people would have us wait until he HAD killed, then you would have had a crime. I could have been one of those people that HAD been killed, so I don’t like their plan. The process changed with Padilla. If the government had strong evidence you were a terrorist, they removed said terrorist from the general public ( protecting the welfare of the population ), and THEN figured out what to do with them, slowly. In 2005 the Supreme Court decided the government had to do something with him. So, they charged him with several terrorist crimes that had been passed between 2002 and 2005. Things had changed y’see. Liberal types kept saying Padilla was innocent and Bush/Cheney/Rove were guilty. On and on it went. And the trial kept going on. The defense asked for dismissals, they went nowhere. They made accusations, they wound up unsupported and unproven. And, then, today, they found Jose Padilla guilty of what he had been arrested for. The “dirty bomb” part got dropped, and a lot of people are making a big deal of that. But, in my opinion, if a terrorist is wanting to kill people, it’s irrelevant how they do it. Stop them before they do it, not after. Set the bar a LOT lower than it was in 2000. What, me worried? Not at all. I’ll never sign a document declaring allegiance to Al Qaeda. Just ain’t gonna happen. So, set that bar pretty low. If someone truly is that stupid, and truly has an intent to associate with terrorists, for WHATEVER reason, lock them up. Sort them out later.
Not too terribly long ago, we had a major todo over warrantless wiretaps. First there was a lot of rhetoric circling around this “abuse of the Constitution”. In March, 2006, Russ Feingold decided to make it political. He offered a bill to the Senate to censure the President over the use of warrantless wiretaps. Only two people would sign on to it, Tom Harkin and Barbara Boxer. It got tossed around rhetorically and went no where. Then, in August, 2006, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled the program illegal and ordered it stopped immediately. Needless to say, it didn’t. I wasn’t too pleased with her decision as it seemed to be based in a very distorted view of the US Constitution. And, I knew her decision would be tossed around like a hot potato. It was. The November elections came and the Democrats used the warrantless wiretaps as a shining example of the Republican contempt for human rights and some people claim it got them control of Congress. Specifically, the argument was whether or not President Bush had the authority to order the wiretaps in the first place. I never understood that argument. Apparently the courts didn’t either. It was eventually ruled perfectly legal and continued even while Russ Feingold and the DNC were telling everyone it was completely unconstitutional. So, the Dems took over Congress in January 2007 with promises to end all these abuses of the Constitution. The people believed them. So, what did they do with the warrantless wiretaps? After promising a censure or impeachment over the issue, they did this:
The vote was approved 60-28. Both parties had agreed to require 60 votes for passage.
I love how MSNBC is pandering to the Democrats by calling it “reluctant”. You’re either fer it or agin it. “Reluctant” doesn’t mean squat. They gave us four years of saying it was illegal as hell, then passed it. Anyone ready to call their hands on it?
I’ve always believed that terrorists are not going to go out of the way to properly notify authorities before targeting innocent women, children, and men. So, we’ve got to go get that info. If they wanna wiretap me, go right ahead. I have nothing to hide and nothing to fear.
( I’d love to tear into the actual votes, but that information was not available at this time. )
Michael Chertoff created a buzz, and has done a weak job dealing with it. Basically he insinuated there’s a growing threat from Al Qaeda due to increased chatter. What he has not done is say there is an increased threat from Al Qaeda due to increased chatter. He upped that concern by saying it’s something like pre-9/11. That’s pretty serious. What he won’t do is say what we’re doing on a preemptive measure to deal with all that chatter.
I have an idea.
The general assumption ( yeah, I know what assuming does ), is that Osama Bin Laden is in northern Pakistan. The US military and Pakistani military both claim that area is dominated by tribal chiefs and such and are so dangerous even the US military can’t go in to deal with it. Along the same lines, the US and Russia have agreed to lower their nuclear arsenal levels by eliminating some outdated missiles and warheads. Well, I got a suggestion:
Let’s put all those unnecessary nukes right about here:
To be civilized about it, we create a bunch of chatter telling people who do not belong to Al Qaeda to get out first. Then, just turn those rocky craggy hills and mountains filled with Al Qaeda and other too-dangerous-for-civilized-man types into rocky craggy hills and mountains with no man at all. Nothing lost in doing that. Then, in a few years, we can try again and see if we can do better this time.
I’m welcome to hear the downside of this plan. But, at this time, I see none.
And, if nothing else, at the very least we’d be creating some chatter of our own other than the chatter we’re sending out now that we’re too scared to say anything that might deter them in the from place.
UPDATE: July 13, 2007: Ed Morrissey does an excellent post on this topic over at Captain’s Quarters. Not so much on the topic I made in this post, but the underlying causes of why I made this post that have been elaborated on in the comments. A must read if you have any interest in this topic ( Pakistan and Al Qaeda, not nukes. )
The new, kinder, gentler, Nancy Pelosi led Congress.
When the new Democrat controlled Congress took over in January, they got a reprieve, with about a 15% jump in approval ratings just for being there. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid of the Senate came in with guns firing. They passed all kinds of major legislation including raising the minimum wage. The approval rating increased. Things were looking good. However, starting a month or so ago, they got hung up on Iraq. They started inserting all kinds of pork into the military bill, which got it killed. They started setting deadlines for Iraq, which got the legislation killed. The result? A nearly 10% drop in favorability since they started their attack on the war in Iraq. The result on the President during this same time?
Largely unchanged.
Now, if the person supporting the war remains largely unchanged, and the people opposing the war are dropping like flies, that should tell ya something. What it tells me is that since the people opposing the war are living and dieing on that one issue right now, and they’re ratings have dropped BELOW the person supporting it, the answer is obvious. A couple of days ago I did a thingy on how I felt media was mis-representing the US sentiment by how they presented their polls. I think this is more evidence that I’m right.
A clue here to Nancy, Harry, and the Dems. Most people don’t like the war. However, they understand what’s going on. The more the Dems undermine our soldiers, and that’s what it LOOKS like, the worse it’s gonna get and the very apparent take-over of the White House in 2008 will be squandered exactly the same as it was by Kerry in 2004. They’ve read this situation totally wrong by relying on the extreme left caucus within their party and basically nothing but push polls in the media. And unless they start looking at the situation realistically instead of personally political, they’ll lose the White House in 2008 and probably Congress as well. You heard it here first. ( Well, maybe, I haven’t seen anyone else going out on this limb yet. )
On CNN:
I don’t really get an anti-war impression from what she says here. However, a lot of people are reading that into it. Some are trashing her for it, others using it as a rallying cry. She’s a prominent Democrat, so she’s gonna get it regardless of whether she meant anything by it or not. It is what it is. However, She then goes on to basically contradict that statement:
SEBELIUS: So we’re borrowing equipment from around, but National Guard are our first responders. They don’t have the equipment they need to come in. And it will just make it that much slower.
ROBERTS: Have you asked for help from other states?
SEBELIUS: We are reaching out to other states, and a lot of offers are coming in. What we are going to establish is sort of a virtual inventory, so that people can put on our inventory what they have. And as we need it, we’ll put it down.
If she needs firetrucks, Humvees wont’ solve that problem. Secondly, unless there’s looting and rioting going on, I really don’t see a need for the National Guard here at all. As hard as CNN tried to push her into making this a political football, I think she did OK in trying to be civil. What she did do IMO is illustrate, as what happened in Louisiana, that governors seem in general to be completely ignorant of what resources they have in the event of a catastrophe and who is responsible for providing those resources. And, in light of that ignorance of what they have available, every single time, blame it on “someone else”. It’s her job to know what resources she did have at her disposal. If she doesn’t have the National Guard at her ready disposal, then she should have the state police. If she needs a firetruck, she should know where to find a firetruck. The National Guard doesn’t normally have firetrucks.
UPDATE: The Next Day.
Her spokeswoman, Nicole Corcoran, said the governor didn’t mean to imply that the state was ill-equipped to deal with this storm. Sebelius’ comments about National Guard equipment were, instead, meant as a warning about the state’s inability to handle additional disasters, such as another tornado or severe flooding, she said.
“We are doing absolutely fine right now,” Corcoran said. “What the governor is talking about is down the road.”
Sebelius has long spoken out about the fallout from sending National Guard units and equipment overseas. She says the war in Iraq is damaging domestic disaster readiness, because needed manpower is drained from states and the Pentagon is not replacing equipment at a fast enough rate.
Ohhh kayy.
I am getting sick and tired of politicians who use the devastation of others as opportunities to promote their own personal political philosphies.
Here’s their message:
Letter to House Committee on Agriculture Subcommittee on Specialty Crops, Rural Development, and Foreign Agriculture
Dear Member,
Tomorrow you will have a hearing on the nations current rural broadband programs. The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) is responsible for the Rural Broadband Loan Program, which subsidizes broadband service in rural areas. RUS has spent more than $871 million to provide this service since 2003. A report released this month by the Organization for Economic Co-Operation & Development entitled Broadband Statistics to December 2006 found that, while the U.S. has the most total broadband subscribers of the 30 countries it researched, our nation ranked 15th in broadband deployment penetration. On behalf of the more than 1.2 million members and supports of the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW), I ask that you abolish the Rural Broadband Loan Program.
Besides the more than $30 million in broadband loans that have gone into default, the program has lost its focus on serving rural America. A 2005 audit conducted by the United States Department of Agriculture Office of the Inspector General stated RUS has not exclusively served those rural communities most requiring Federal assistance to obtain access to broadband technologies. Because RUS definition of rural area is too broad to distinguish usefully between suburban and rural communities, the agency has issued over $103.4 million in grants and loans (nearly 12 percent of $895 million in total program funds) to communities near metropolitan areas Though the law does not explicitly forbid issuing loans to communities with preexisting service, we question whether the Rural Broadband Loan Program should be providing funds for competition in many of the communities served, while other communities go entirely without service.
Instead of allowing the free market to flourish, RUS has been subsidizing private companies to provide broadband in neighborhoods that already have this service. The government should no longer be allowed to waste the taxpayers money in bringing broadband to rural areas. This goal should be left entirely to the private technology sector. CCAGW asks that you support the abolition of the Rural Broadband Loan Program.
I am completely opposed to their opinion. Completely.
First of all, they liken the broadband services as basically all being the same. They are not. Not even close. Just because a community has dial-up does not mean they have the resources to provide adequate bandwidth to lure industry. A typical DSL connection will not support an internet based company. In order to do this, you have to have huge chunks of bandwidth. The local cable company or DSL company doesn’t need that type of overhead to provide typical home-based internet browsing. As such, although most of the rural United States may have broadband penetration as CAGW states, they are at a disadvantage to attracting industries to most third world nations at this time. Given the financial and technological resources available in the United States, that is quite embarrassing to me.
On a national security level, clustering all our communications assets in very localized urban areas is the exact opposite of what we need to be doing. There is no need to all of our critical data to be in Washington, DC. Put some in rural Kentucky. Put some in rural Nebraska. Hell, put some in Kansas. Spreading those resources out makes things a lot more complicated for enemies.
Now, on a bigger picture that Tom Schatz is missing, some people feel that urban areas are the main problem in global warming. There’s a phenomena called urban warming named specifically for that effect. It’s not much of an issue in rural areas. I have pondered several times on my blogs that it seems to me that de-urbanizing the United States would do the US, and the world, good. We no longer need to cluster a million people in a small area thereby overwhelming the Earth’s ability to provide. We don’t need huge expanses of concrete and asphalt. We just need to spread out a little. We need to live amongst the trees so those trees can counter our CO2 emissions a little more efficiently. We just don’t need cities in this day and age and they are doing more harm than good. A big part of the reason we don’t need cities any more is because of remarkably improved communications. It is no longer expected of a person to meet face-to-face every single time you have an important message. We don’t have to hand deliver documents. We don’t have to assemble 100 people in the same room to coordinate a message. The internet has solved all those issues. So, to say broadband is not worth the government investing in it is ludicrous and extremely short-sighted.
CAGW does a lot of good things and tackles a lot of truly wasteful spending. However, in this case, they’re 100% wrong.
Yesterday Bush vetoed the Iraqi pullout bill. In that bill, it had emergency spending for the military as well. That was both expected politically, and I expected it for bigger reasons. Spending will be done one way or another until a proper funding bill is presented. The war won’t stop just because a few loonies sabotaged it. The bigger issue in my opinion is Bush kept Congress from meddling in a military operation. The very last thing this country needs is 535 people with no real military experience or commitment trying to micromanage our troops in harm’s way. They have the right to examine what’s going on, to give guidance to the President, and pass laws affecting it’s funding etc.. What they do not have the right, per the Constitution, is to usurp the authority of the Commander and Chief as defined by the Constitution they promised to uphold. Every single person that voted for that bill IMO has voted to violate the US Constitution and should be forced to explain how it does NOT violate the separation of powers. Here’s the list of people who felt compelled to totally toss the Constitution aside and take over the military:
|
|
|
Now, I am curious, although I KNOW they would all flip completely out if I question the patriotism, which I’m not, I think they think they’re doing what’s best for the US, but, they’re letting their politics outweigh their logic. Now, treason is defined as aiding and abetting an enemy of the United States. If these people feel it’s best to surrender and walk away at a very defined date, then they have made the enemy’s job profoundly simple. Just hide and wait it out. That folks, is aiding and abetting an enemy of the United States. It’s a harsh word to use, but it’s a fact. I don’t question their patriotism, but I do question their priorities. Before I wrap it all up, think about the plight of another gallant US citizen from way back when:
….distinguished himself as a hero of revolution early in the war through acts of cunning and bravery in the Capture of Fort Ticonderoga, the Invasion of Canada (1775), the Battle of Valcour Island in Lake Champlain in 1776, the battles of Danbury and Ridgefield in Connecticut (after which he was promoted to Major General), and the Battle of Saratoga in 1777. He was wounded several times.
At the time, this guy was one of the most heralded patriots in the United States. No one would DARE question his patriotism. However, due to later commitments to other issues (namely a loyalist wife and bitterness over a missed promotion), Benedict Arnold would set a defined timeline for the US to withdraw troops from a contested location.
The only difference between what he did and what these people did is the location.
Additionally, what disturbs me about this vote is three of the people who voted for it are running for President. I really think people need to think twice about a potential President who does not understand, respect, or honor the very basic philosophy of the United States Constitution. That being the separation of powers. If they don’t respect it now, you can’t make the argument they’ll suddenly respect it if elected.
|
Opinion Polls & Market Research |
Opinion Polls & Market Research |
Opinion Polls & Market Research |
I think everyone that comes here knows who George Tenet is.? I sort of doubt those who come here a lot have a clear idea of what I think of Tenet.? My feelings on George Tenet, in case you don’t want to look at the other posts, is quite simple.? Jamie Gorelick and Janet Reno were the principals behind the failures that led to 9/11, George Tenet is the primary failure that led to our involvement in Iraq.? I won’t belabor the point again, you can read my other posts to see why I state that so strongly.? However, Tenet’s in the news again.? He, ( drum roll please ), wrote a book: At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA
Now, the reason I came to the conclusion about Tenet that I did long ago is that my take on things is George Tenet was only concerned about one thing when he was director of the CIA.? That one thing was George Tenet.? I haven’t read his book.? I won’t read his book ( lack of time moreso than some political statement ).? But, from what I have gathered, he pretty much lays the blame for Iraq right in Bush’s lap.?
That’s what I expected him to do.? So, this doesn’t surprise me in the least bit.
Not one single atom of my soul is even curious as to why he would say what he is saying now.
Not one.
It is that predictable.? And, it proves what I’ve always felt about the man.? There has probably not been a more self-serving butthead in Washington in my lifetime.? And that, folks, is saying a LOT.
The claim he makes that has everyone talking right now is that there was very little debate within the Bush administration about going to war with Iraq.? At the time, I’m sure there wasn’t.? They relied on a ton of evidence to support their argument that Hussein had WMD’s.? They had a ton of evidence that Hussein was a military aggressor.? They had a tone of evidence that terrorist organizations existed in Iraq that were planning the US harm.? They had a ton of evidence that Iraq had violated just about every term of the United Nations imposed cease-fire.? They had a ton of evidence that the United States was at war with terrorist organizations sponsored by some unknown entity that had deep pockets ( a government perhaps? ).? In other words, the evidence was overwhelming that Iraq, in many ways, was a threat to the well-being of the United States.
All of that evidence was presented by George Tenet.
Now, he wants you to forget that and point your fingers at someone else for not doubting him at the time.
I’m not.? I hope others don’t as well.
If you want to point fingers at who was responsible for this Iraq mess right now, point it where the blame lies.? Point it at George Tenet for giving Bush everything he needed to justify it.? The reason George Tenet has remained at The Center of the Storm is because he created the storm.
Got this from Milblogs:
BASH: The phrase “the war is lost” really touched a nerve.
Do you stand by that — that — that comment?
REID: General Petraeus has said that only 20 percent of the war can be won militarily. He’s the man on the ground there now. He said 80 percent of the war has to be won diplomatically, economically and politically. I agree with General Petraeus.
Now, that is clear and I certainly believe that.
BASH: But, sir, General Petraeus has not said the war is lost.
I just want to ask you again…
REID: General — General Petraeus has said the war cannot be won militarily. He said that.
<…>
BASH: Is there something to that, an 18- and 19-year-old person in the service in Iraq who is serving, risking their lives, in some cases losing their life, hearing somebody like you back in Washington saying that they’re fighting for a lost cause?REID: General Petraeus has told them that.
BASH: How has he said that?
REID: He said the war can’t be won militarily. He said that. I mean he said it. He’s the commander on the ground there.
BASH: But, sir, there’s a difference…
REID: Are they critical of him?
BASH: … between that and saying the war is lost, don’t you think?
REID: Well, I — as I said, maybe it’s a choice of words. I mean General Petraeus has said the war cannot be won militarily.
Doesn’t every soldier going there know that he’s said that?
I think so.
<…>
BASH: He also said that General Petraeus is going to come to the Hill and make it clear to you that there is progress going on in Iraq, that the so-called surge is working. Will you believe him when he says that?REID: No, I don’t believe him, because it’s not happening.
That’s your majority leader for ya. He’s not some average flake, he controls the United States Senate. He’s made his mind up, obviously. If you say anything remotely close to not asserted a complete and total victory, he’s going to put words in your mouth and flat out re-define what you said so that it means what he wants. And, if you DARE contradict him, then he’ll accuse you of lying.
Yeah buddy, there’s your kinder, gentler Congress you all voted for in 2006.
And yeah, Reid’s right. With his attitude and leadership we could never win any war and may as well surrender to anyone that threatens us.
But, I’m not EVEN going to question his patriotism.
