caught via Real Clear Politics link
Sen. John Kerry's appearance last Sunday on "Face the Nation" suggests he's mastered the nuanced finesse of betraying his contempt for American soldiers without accusing them of behaving in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan.
The Massachusetts Democrat has come a long way since 1971.
Back then, Mr. Kerry had the starring role as the principled and decorated Vietnam War veteran testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about supposed war atrocities committed not by the Viet Cong but by his fellow vets.
Kerry earnestly testified that other American soldiers said they had raped, cut off ears and heads, randomly shot at civilians and razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of the marauding mass murderer of Mongolia. They must have been remarkably discreet; Kerry never actually saw any of it.
Speaking with host Bob Schieffer about Iraq, Kerry said, "There is no reason ... that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the ... of ... the historical customs, religious customs."
Kerry has not come such a long way from 1971 after all.
Chief Petty Officer Greg Frazho at the Combined Press Information Center in Baghdad told me he had no idea what Kerry was talking about. "I don't know without more specificity to a specific operation or mission," Mr. Frazho said.
Even after sending the press center an e-mail with Kerry's comments, Frazho wrote back: "We've got nothing to release on this issue. We simply can't and won't get involved in political matters, sir. We're not going to comment any further than that."
So how did Kerry know that bands of brothers in Iraq were terrorizing kids, children and women in the dead of night?
David Wade, Kerry's communications director, responded promptly after we spoke.
Mr. Wade's e-mail message attempted to summarize the information in the four attachments. It also referenced an accusation by the virulent anti-American scold the International Committee of the Red Cross, which demands terrorists be treated as prisoners of war.
Three attachments were very old newspaper stories from The Sun of Baltimore (June 18, 2003), The New York Times (Aug. 7, 2003) and The Washington Post (Jan. 23, 2005). The fourth, a U.S. Institute of Peace report, stated that even creating a profile of the "insurgents" is "a daunting task."
The Sun story states "someone or something" struck a retired Iraqi high school teacher who walked into the street and died, and "Just who or what caused his death is a mystery." Then the story all but blames our soldiers.
The Times wrote that "The American military ... has decided to limit the scope of its raids in Iraq after receiving warnings from Iraqi leaders that the raids were alienating the public." That was just a few months after the invasion.
The Post article "is the story of how the U.S. military made an enemy of one man during a 20-minute encounter" -- a man who hates Jews and felt so violated when his stash of girlie magazines was discovered that he started to slap his own mother.
And Genghis Khan thought he knew how to terrorize kids and children, and, you know, women, in the dead of night.
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/11/2005 16:02 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
But Kerry spent several months fighting the Viet Cong, and ... and, he even KILLEd one!
And he supports the troops!
A real leader of a dead party.
Disgusting.
Posted by: Bobby ||
12/11/2005 17:40 Comments ||
Top||
"Diplomatic" language is one of the last holdovers of the pre-democratic age. It belongs to a time when international relations were conducted exclusively between a handful of eminent representatives of European dynasties. Today it's all out in the open -- President Ahmaddasanatta proposed his not-quite-final solution for Israel on TV. McLellan and Ereli likewise gave their response on TV. So the language of international relations is no longer merely the private code of diplomats but part of the public discourse -- and, if the government of the United States learns anything from the last four years, it surely ought to be that there's a price to be paid for not waging the war as effectively in the psychological arenas as in the military one. What does it mean when one party can talk repeatedly about the liquidation of an entire nation and the other party responds that this further "underscores our concerns," as if he'd been listening to an EU trade representative propose increasing some tariff by half a percent?
Well, it emboldens the bully. It gives him an advantage, like the punk who swears and sprawls over half the seats in the subway car while the other riders try not to catch his eye. The political thugs certainly understand the power of psychological intimidation. Look at Saddam Hussein in court, so confident in his sneering dismissal of judge and witnesses that he's generating big pro-Baathist demonstrations in Tikrit. I was struck by his complaint that the real terrorism was that he hadn't been given a change in underpants in three days. I hope that's true. It requires enormous strength of will on the part of free societies to bring blustering cocksure thugs down to size, even after we've overthrown them and kicked them out of the presidential palace. In Iran, President Ahmaddamytree figures that half the world likes his Jew proposals and the rest isn't prepared to do more than offer a few objections phrased in the usual thin diplo-pabulum.
We assume, as Neville Chamberlain, Lord Halifax and other civilized men did 70 years ago, that these chaps may be a little excitable, but come on, old boy, they can't possibly mean it, can they? Wrong. They mean it but they can't quite do it yet. Like Hitler, when they can do it, they will -- or at the very least the weedy diplo-speak tells them they can force the world into big concessions on the fear that they can.
Look at the broader picture. The State Department's Ereli noted that President Ahmageddon's comments appear "to be a consistent pattern of rhetoric that is both hostile and out of touch with values that the rest of us in the international community live by."
Is that even true? That the Iranian president is "out of touch" with the "values" of the "international community?" The Hudson Institute's lively "Eye On The U.N." Web site had an interesting photograph of how the "international community" marked Nov. 29 -- the annual "International Day Of Solidarity With The Palestinian People." Kofi Annan and other bigwigs sat on a platform with a map flanked by the "Palestinian" and U.N. flags. The map showed Palestine but no Israel. The U.N., in other words, has done cartographically what Iran wants to do in more incendiary fashion: It's wiped Israel off the map.
There has always been a slightly post-modern quality to sovereignty in the transnational age: We pretend the Syrian foreign minister is no different from the New Zealand foreign minister, and in so doing we vastly inflate the status of the former at the expense of the latter. But with Ahmadinejad we're going way beyond that. If a genocidal fantasist is acceptable in polite society, we'll soon find ourselves dealing with a genocidal realist.
On Aug. 2, Dafna Linzer of the Washington Post reported that "a major U.S. intelligence review has projected that Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years."
On Dec. 5, the Jerusalem Post reported that Mohammed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, "confirmed Israel's assessment that Iran is only a few months away from creating an atomic bomb."
My, how time flies. It hasn't seemed as if 10 years have elapsed since last summer.
The CIA could be right, and the Israeli intelligence service Mossad and the IAEA could be wrong. But given the CIA's forecasting record -- it missed the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Islamic revolution in Iran, the warning signs of 9/11 and Saddam's WMD -- that's not the way to bet.
Intelligence analysis isn't the only thing the CIA does sloppily. The Bush administration suffered major embarrassment when it was disclosed that the United States was holding top al-Qaida suspects in "secret prisons" in eastern Europe and North Africa.
A Swedish journalist who prepared one of the first stories on the CIA flights that transported al-Qaida captives told Josh Gerstein of The New York Sun the CIA did a poor job of covering its tracks.
"I would say they didn't give a damn," Fredrik Laurin told Mr. Gerstein. "If I was an American taxpayer, I'd be upset."
For a show broadcast in May of last year, Mr. Laurin traced the tail number of a Gulfstream jet used to transport captives to a clearly phony company in Massachusetts.
"You weren't able to trace the name to any living individual," Mr. Laurin said. "They were all living in post office boxes in Virginia.
"If that's all the imagination they can drum up at Langley, I'd fire the bunch," Mr. Laurin added.
But if the CIA hasn't been very good at ferreting out the secrets of our enemies, or keeping our own, it has shown a talent for playing politics.
"The CIA's war against the Bush administration is one of the great untold stories of the past three years," wrote lawyer and Web logger John Hinderaker in The Weekly Standard.
The CIA has used its budget to fund criticism of the Bush administration by former Democratic officeholders, and permitted a serving analyst, Michael Scheuer, to publish and promote a book bashing the president.
The principal CIA weapon has been the leak. Reporters for ABC, The New York Times and The Washington Post didn't have to do even the minimal legwork Mr. Laurin did to out the CIA's clandestine "rendition" program. It was handed to them by "current and former intelligence officials."
"So the CIA established policies that it knew would be controversial and would damage American interests if revealed, and then leaked the existence of those policies to The Washington Post for the purpose of damaging the Bush administration," Mr. Hinderaker wrote.
A rogue CIA that subverts American democracy has long been a staple of moonbat mythology. How ironic that the rogues in the CIA should turn out to be leftists who harm America to benefit Democrats.
Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA operative in the Middle East, sees little hope the agency can be reformed:
The CIA's "muscle-bound bureaucratization, combined with the failure of the press to accurately represent to the public the Agency's actual problems ... holds out little hope that we will see the innovation needed to combat bin-Ladenism," he wrote last year.
"For almost a decade now the CIA put a low priority on recruiting human sources abroad," agreed Robert Baer, another former CIA Middle East operative and author of "See No Evil." "The CIA was more concerned about being politically correct."
"The problem with the CIA is that the senior executives responsible for production of intelligence just aren't good enough," said Herbert Meyer, assistant to legendary CIA Director William Casey.
In the 1990s, the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan proposed abolishing the CIA. That seemed far out then. It doesn't seem so far out now. It might be easier to start from scratch than to clean up the mess the CIA has become.
"The CIA is in deep crisis," Mr. Hinderaker said. "It is not at all clear that its survival is in the national interest."
#1
it missed the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Islamic revolution in Iran, the warning signs of 9/11 and Saddam's WMD -- that's not the way to bet.
#2
Reporters for ABC, The New York Times and The Washington Post didn't have to do even the minimal legwork Mr. Laurin did to out the CIA's clandestine "rendition" program. It was handed to them by "current and former intelligence officials."
Maybe Alberto Gonzales can shift some of his underlings from the porn detail to something a little more important....
#3
"muscle-bound bureaucratization, combined with the failure of the press ...
"For almost a decade now the CIA put a low priority on recruiting human sources abroad,... CIA was more concerned about being politically correct."
Nothing new to Rantburger's readers. You've been hearing this from me for quite some time.
About time the traditional press started looking HARD at this - and their complete failure to be the "fourth branch" of government. Instead the press were too busy bashing Bush and fighting conservatives and pushing their own leftist views, to the detriment of the nation.
Interesting quote from Nobel Laureate VS Naipaul: ââIslam is in its origins an Arab religion. Everyone not an Arab who is a Muslim is a convert. Islam is not simply a matter of conscience or private belief. It makes imperial demands. A convertâs world view alters. His holy places are in Arab lands; his sacred language is Arabic. His idea of history alters. He rejects his own; he becomes, whether he likes it or not, a part of the Arab story.ââ
By Tavleen Singh
Often on my travels, these days, I meet Muslims who complain about being misunderstood by the world. Islam is a religion of peace, they say, it can never condone violence and yet on account of a handful of bad people, the world labels all Muslims terrorists. Generally, this leads to someone or other saying that the problem is that the jehadis have distorted the message of the Prophet of Islam and the world chooses to use this as an excuse to hate all Muslims. Why is this happening? Why should Islam be blamed for the activities of a handful of fanatics? Conclusion? It must be because of the âevilâ propaganda of Jews, Hindus and Christians.
The problem, alas, is more complicated. It is not just suicide bombers and mad mullahs who are giving Islam a bad name, it is the fact that in so many ways the religion seems out of touch with the world as it is today. The most recent example of this disconnect came last week when a court in Saudi Arabia ordered that the eye of an Indian worker, Abdul Lateef Naushad, be gouged out in the interests of justice because in a physical fight with a Saudi he caused him to lose the vision in one of his eyes. This was three years ago and Naushad has been in prison ever since which would be punishment enough (for a fight) in most countries but not in Saudi Arabia which as the crucible of the Islamic faith believes that justice means âan eye for an eyeâ just as it did in the days of the Prophet. Islamic justice also ordains that thieves pay by having their hands chopped off and adulterous couples be stoned to death. These may have been progressive measures 1,400 years ago but in todayâs world they are acts of barbarism and this is where the disconnect begins between Islam and the rest of us.
What most of us see as barbaric behaviour Muslims are ordered to accept as justice because that is how it was when the Prophet was still with us. It goes beyond criminal justice to culture, education, social behaviour and the attire of women. The Prophet thought idol worship a bad thing so when Allahâs most devoted warriors took charge of Afghanistan they blew Bamiyanâs magnificent Buddhas to smithereens. The world saw it as an act of unspeakable vandalism but there are Muslims who saw what the Taliban did as Godâs work or at least something we should try and understand. A Muslim diplomat I talked to at the time said, ââYou see they were not all bad. They stopped poppy cultivation and drug trafficking to gain the acceptance of the world but when this did not happen they may have resorted to this to draw attention to themselves.ââ He did not see that in the eyes of non-Muslims their treatment of women alone would have been reason enough for them to be treated as untouchables.
Closer to home we have the story of Imrana who had the courage to declare publicly that she had been raped by her father-in-law and was ordered by local mullahs to immediately stop living with her husband because she was now âharaamâ for him. Panchayats and village priests in India are notorious for this kind of twisted justice but the difference between Hindus and Muslims is that there is no sacred Hindu book that can be used to sanction this sort of thing.
Hinduism has its own long list of horrific practices. Sati, untouchability, child marriage and the caste system are barbaric practices but none can claim religious sanction. Priests who try to attach them to sacred texts usually fail.
Christianity had its very bad moments when missionaries roamed the world shoving Bibles into unsuspecting hands and ordering subjugated peoples to convert to the âtrueâ faith. But, that was a long time ago.
The problem with Islam is that it has remained unchanged for centuries and continues to try and impose an Arab idea of religion, social behaviour and culture on the world. This causes alienation. V.S. Naipaul described it this way. ââIslam is in its origins an Arab religion. Everyone not an Arab who is a Muslim is a convert. Islam is not simply a matter of conscience or private belief. It makes imperial demands. A convertâs world view alters. His holy places are in Arab lands; his sacred language is Arabic. His idea of history alters. He rejects his own; he becomes, whether he likes it or not, a part of the Arab story.ââ
In Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and in India you see signs of Muslims becoming party of the âArab storyâ in recent years in a way that they were not before and therein lies the problem.
Posted by: john ||
12/11/2005 14:33 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
That is a quote from Naipul's extremely fine book Beyond Belief. As I have mentioned before her on the 'Burg, it is well worth reading.
How do our guys and gals feel about their time in Iraq?
Notice the victory sign in the middle! What a welcome home! These guys entered Baylor staduim like football players and were welcomed home like the heroes they are!
WACO, Texas â About 3,000 troops from a Texas National Guard unit returned home Saturday after nearly a year in Iraq, rushing into the arms of family members after the largest deployment of state guardsmen since World War II.
Members of the Fort Worth-based 56th Brigade lined up in formation at Baylor University's Floyd Casey Stadium. As they were introduced over the loudspeaker, soldiers ran onto the field like football stars while loud music and applause filled the air.
"Texas just hasn't been the same without you," Gov. Rick Perry said.
The troops were welcomed by an estimated 20,000 family members, friends and other well-wishers. Many of them had been in Iraq since January and initially were not scheduled to return for several more weeks.
"We didn't expect to see you until early next month," said Maj. Gen. Michael Taylor, who commands the 36th Infantry Division, which includes the returning brigade. "Well, Santa Claus came early this year."
The welcome rally also included a naturalization ceremony for 29 soldiers from seven countries who were not U.S. citizens when they deployed to the Middle East.
The brigade was headquartered in southern Iraq, but its units saw duty in Baghdad, Fallujah and other hot spots. Six soldiers from the brigade died in Iraq, three in combat and three in accidents. Don't tell me America isn't behind it's soldiers. Those pollsters are just asking the WRONG questions!
#1
I've been telling you all: The left is running scared about Iraq. The worst possible outcome in the GWoT is a catastrophe ( to a liberal )decline in bombings and US deaths.
The left senses what will happen if Bush would happen to deliver a military victory in Iraq. It is the worst possible outcome juxtaposed to their nearly five years of carping, moaning, groaning and seditious statements. It would cripple them for, IMO, at least a decade.
#2
Yes, Bad. I take it you have read the article posted on page 4 yesterday? The Panic Over Iraq, by Norman Podhoretz?
Posted by: Bobby ||
12/11/2005 9:42 Comments ||
Top||
#3
What'd Murtha say? The army is broken, worn out and living hand to mouth? That must have been some other army.
Posted by: Matt ||
12/11/2005 11:35 Comments ||
Top||
#4
#3 What'd Murtha say? The army is broken, worn out and living hand to mouth? That must have been some other army.
you left off the Pelosi/Murtha context:
"we'd prefer..."
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/11/2005 13:01 Comments ||
Top||
#5
It's spreading though...
I live in Antioch, CA - a fairly conservative essentially bedroom community about 50 miltes east of San Francisco.
Today in the parking lot of Best Buy I was a approached by a pollster asking if I'd like to sign a petition to bring the National Guards troops home from Iraq. I said "Absolutely not" and the young woman quickly went on her way.
I ran as a Republican in the 2000 Primary and never invisioned this kind of crap might be happening in my town.
I gotta' renew my contacts with the city fathers because this kinda' crap will only steamroll out of control.
The Dems don't want an experienced, battle-tested, blooded military force loose in the citizenry. That'd be a threat to their efforts at controlling us and everything we do.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
