Just a slide rule...

Because I'm just that kind of guy!

Have we learned the lesson of history.

Taken from RedState.

It's a quagmire.

It's an untennable mess.

It's a civil war.

We should have never gotten involved.

I'm speaking, of course, about Somalia.

For those who subscribe to the 3-Step Democrat Plan for "Victory" in Iraq® - which is, to recep:

1. Cut


2. Run


3. Blame Bush

Somaila is in fact an object lesson of what happens to a country in which we have involved ourselves and then fail to "finish the job". Among the latest in a long string of nightmares:

Fighting surged in Mogadishu on Monday between Islamist militias and fighters loyal to the city's last warlords, pushing the death toll over two days to at least 60 and pounding a key hospital with artillery and gunfire.

Let us parse that sentence a bit.

• Islamist militias - well, we've certainly seen their type before, no?


• The city's last warlords - I suppose like this guy, though he is certainly not comming down for breakfast any time soon


• Death toll over two days to at least 60 - sounds like the NY Times definition of a civil war to me


• Pounding a key hospital with artillery and gunfire - oh, you mean to say these folks don't follow the Geneva Conventions? Shocked, am I.

My thesis is simple: if you want to know what Iraq will look like if we leave "before the job is done" - as in, before we've established a stable, functioning, reasonably secular representative government - just take a quick peak at Somalia.

Or, get used to Iraq becoming Talibanistan 2.0 - complete with large quantities of black gold, the sale of which can be used to fund their operations.

But what do we need to fear from that? After all, we all know Islam is a Religion of Peace™, right?

The Islamists want to impose sharia law across the country and oppose the deployment of foreign peacekeepers, which interim President Abdullahi Yusuf says is essential to get his government on its feet and pacify the Horn of Africa country.

Right.

What does it mean...

... that March 2006 was among the least deadly months for US and Coalition troops in Iraq since the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom?

While April is not necesarily off to a great start (the 8 listed at icasualties includes 5 dead from a truck roll-over in Anbar), I'm left to wonder why the relatively low number of casualties in March (33) - by far the lowest since March 2005 (39) and not a great deal more than the all time low of 23 from way-back in February 2004 - isn't much of a news story.

I mean, don't you think it would be a major news story were March 2006 one of the deadliest of recent months?

So why is this not news?

Well, we all know the answers. Right?

...

So, casualties are down - substantially - in March and we get almost nothing from the MSM. A couple of folks are on the case, noting that March 2006 is well in-line with the overall trend (multiple h/t to Austin Bay), and could, among other things, point to the yet another corner being rounded.

And still, not a peep from the MSM. Strange.

Strange also that our casualties would be going down at a time when Iraq, if certain people are to be believed, is presently in a state of Civil War.

Could it be some people have been wrong about OIF all along?

Pity that reality often doesn't exactly jive with the All Is Lost™, Redeploy™, and Quagmire™ rhetoric we get from the Tough and Strong party, does it.

Can we cut to the chase?

Had this elevated to the front-page at RedState - so I figured I'd put it here, too.

I have previously admitted that I cannot follow the whole FISA/Domestic Spying™ kerfuffle without my head exploding, but I've truly reached the boiling point. So, for those of you ready to impeach George Bush for "spying", I present two scenarios:

Scenario A: A known or suspected terrorist (meaning that said scumbag is on some watch-list somewhere that I assume is updated and reviewed periodically), while outside the borders of the United States places a phone call to another sentient being located somewhere inside the borders of the United States.

Scenario B: The reverse of Scenario A - A sentient being located inside the borders of the United States places a phone call to a known or suspected scumbag located outside the borders of the United States.

Everyone with me?

Good. Read on...

Here's what we know about these two Scenarios:

1. They are international calls.
2. They involve a sentient being located inside the United States
3. They further involve a known or suspected scumbag located outside the United States.

Still with me? Good. Moving on.

So, here it is. For the people who are ready to jump on the Feingold/Conyers Grand Impeachment Bandwagon, please answer me these questions:

1. Is it your interpretation of the FISA that, in either or both of the scenarios laid-out above the fold, the NSA should have to go play "Mother May I" with a judge somewhere before they get to listen-in on that conversation?
2. Regardless of your interpretation of the FISA, should the NSA have to go play "Mother May I" with a judge somewhere before they get to listen-in on that conversation?

For the record, my answers to these are "No - and if it does mean that the law needs to be changed, immediately" and "Shoot No". If my neighbor is having a phone conversation with a known or suspected terrorist overseas then I darn-well want someone else to be in on that conversation.

The Constitution is not a Suicide Pact.

Thanks for playing.

Behold! The "Loyal Opposition"

Cross posted at RedState.

The Iraq War came home yesterday to our tiny little corner of the globe when the news spread, and was finally confirmed, that a recent graduate of our local high school was KIA in Iraq this past week. This hero is the first casualty of open conflict in our town since Vietnam, and while it has not hit the public in noticeable fashion it is known to all who are active in affairs of my Town and beyond.

Below is the commentary from a charter member of the Loyal Opposition, relaying the news to people with whom I happen to share an address on a mailing list (names and other information redacted to protect the innocent and the damned, but otherwise verbatim):

Don't know how many of you are from (Town), but my grandsons have told me something hideous: this insane war , this pea-brained president has executed one more victim of his war-for-lies-and-greed: a (Town) boy.

mr. XXX (I don't know his rank) was one of those 6 American children bombed by the roadside bomb last week. He graduated from (Town) High (a small number of) years ago and lives on (Something) St. My grandson says he saw the military guys go into the home as I took him to . I hope that's not true, but if so, it's even more of a reason NOT to keep our children there any longer.

I haven't seen his death in any of the local papers, but it could be one reason (local Veteran's Agent - a Town employee) wrote that blistering attack on Bush that's in this week's (Local Newspaper).

I tried to send YYY a thank you note, but got this censoring note from Big Brother instead. Do any of you know who'se attached to that action? Not a word of profanity or obscenity in it. But it might be 'inappropriate' in someone's eyes, who was a slavish robot, a peasant before the king whom he worships. We're turning into medeival Europe.

Earlier this morning I sent this thank you note to our Veterans' Agent in (Town). for speaking out against this illegally seated president and his needless war that is killing thousands:

While part of me does NOT understand how Christians can stand for a war based on lies, when we are sacrificing our OWN children (much less the Iraqi thousands).....I must respect anyone who DOES speak out. And that's what you did in this week's (Local Newspaper).

As a mother of a Iraqi Invasion /Occupation vet, Lt. Col. ZZZ, I thank you. Many of our soldiers are beginning to speak out. The organization 'Iraq Veterans Against the War" is encouraging those kids who listened to the Pied Pipers of Death, the recruiters, and believed their lies, to speak out as well.

While the corrupt Bush administration snuck in a way of stealing your children's names and personal data in the "Leave No Child Behind" (as a victim of this war) law, parents are allowed to write their schools and notify them that their child's name is not to be given to the recruiters. Wonder how many know that. A well-kept secret by the mainstream media. And so, the peasants still go out to die for the king, who suffers nothing from a loss and gains untold riches from a victory. Medieval Europe had nothing on us, when superstition is gaining hold, as the federal 'leadership' outlawing stem cell research and encouraging creationism (aka 'intelligent design'). And with a deteriorating public school system, our children are seldom taught analytical skills, so they remain gullible to the lies told them by the Bush junta.. So sad.

(Signature)

Behold! The mindset of the Loyal Opposition.

I will leave it up to you, fair reader, to comment on the particulars: the outrageous condescension, the mind-numbing spewing of Talking Points™ and Known Facts™, the not-so subtle attempts to blame George Bush, personally, for the work of terrorists, the town employee (Veteran's Agent, of all things) using his paid office to electioneer on behalf of the Cindy Sheehan's of the world.

I will however offer the following in response: that Hell cannot be deep enough, dark enough, or painful enough for this woman and those of like mind - people who wrap themselves in the flags which drape the coffins of our hero dead; who desecrate and mock the sacrifice of those living and deceased who are involved with an enterprise for which they have volunteered to fight and die; who are willing to use heroes, even (as is the case with this woman) their own flesh and blood, to further a suicidal, Blame-America-First (whenever there is a Republican in the White House) agenda of surrender and shame.

This woman is no patriot - she is a coward and a traitor.

God help us for the 5th column in our midst.

FTR, and because I'm sure someone will ask, the Town does not censor incoming email. However, all email sent from this woman's domain is assumed to be SPAM and thus rejected at the server level.

A Matter of Leadership

Note: This post was originally written as a diary entry at RedState and was promoted to the front page, where it stayed for about 5-days. Since it has dropped of the front page, I've decided to re-post it here. To see the original entry, complete with comments, feel free to go here.

I find myself over-and-over again – in person, in email, over the phone, on the web (though not as much here in the last couple of months) – having to defend my support for George Bush and the War in Iraq, specifically how Bush has handled and managed the war and it’s aftermath. I’ve taken this task a bit reluctantly at times and at others with gusto - but have always felt a bit awkward, regardless of my personal enthusiasm, at the prospect of having to defend the President of the United States time-and-again on the war over the last two years. I’ve done so mostly because I believe in the cause, in part because I’m a Bush loyalist, but also in no small part because I understand the costs of failure in this venture. Yet, that apprehension has always been there.

Over the last couple of days, amidst the backdrop of the pathetic spectacle of a grieving mother (and lunatic moonbat, who just happens to be surrounded by dozens of the Usual Suspects who must think it’s still 1969) requesting – nay, demanding – an second audience with the President of the United States over the death of her 24-year old “child”, I have found that my desire to continue to defend Mr. Bush has declined notably. It has not been a conscious decision on my part to “stand-down” some of my support – and, in fact, my support for the war has only grown since I wrote a rather pessimistic-sounding diary entry some time ago. So why the loss of “fire” to defend the CinC?

Finally, it dawned on me this morning – why am I defending the President when he does not seem interested in doing it himself?

And in this I have found the source of my apprehension – I’m spending more time defending George Bush than he (and is Administration) is spending defending himself. This is unfair to me, a supporter of the President and his policies, and demonstrates gross negligence of his responsibilities as the leader of our Nation and (indeed) the Free World. It is, I believe, the source of many of his troubles with sagging poll numbers, the loss of support for the war, and his failure to be credited with the rather superb state of the economy (as shown by all objective measures).

In short, if the President of the United State does not care to defend himself, why in Heaven’s Name should I do it for him?

First, let me briefly elaborate. I do not mean to suggest that Bush needs necessarily to go out every day and justify to the great unwashed why we 1) went into Iraq in the first place, 2) are still there today, and 3) need to stay until the nation is stabilized. In fact, re-arguing why we went into Iraq in the first place is rather unhelpful at this point – we’re there, deal with it. Rather, what I mean to suggest is that, while the Press-Democrat is busy playing-up all the negatives (the death-toll, the car bombings), the Administration seems to be relying almost entirely on talk-radio and bloggers to do the job of getting-out the good news and spreading the word on the progress being made in developing a civil society where only two years ago there was a hostile dictatorship.

The Administration has made little attempt, other than the President’s continued insistence that we “Stay the Coarse” (and on that subject, could someone please suggest to his speech-writers that he never, ever, use that phrase again?), to make the case why it’s important for us to be there, and no one - and I mean no one – in the Administration is making even a half-hearted attempt to get ahead of the lazy, partisan press and their never-ending stream of doom and woe.

That is the fault of the Man at the Top – George W. Bush.

As I say in the subject line of this piece, it’s a matter of Leadership.

Now, I’ve been accused from time to time of spending too much time listening to the MSM and (by extension) allowing that to cloud my thinking (just read the responsed to some of my comments - easy enough to do on your own). Well guess what boys and girls, that’s where most of America gets their news and the data upon which most of our fellow voters form their opinions. We can all wait around for the MSM to complete it’s process of self-immolation, but that’s not going to happen in time to pull us out of the Iraq nosedive. The MSM are the only reason 1) the World knows the name of the Moonbat Mourner and 2) why she is getting airtime and column-space everywhere from Cambridge, MA to Tehran. Bluntly, the Press-Democrat are not going to let this story die when it’s such an effective weapon against the biggest terrorist in the world, are they.

Still, Sheehan is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. She is a story because the Administration has done a God-awful horrible job of getting in front of the stories coming out of Iraq. “Quagmire: Iraq” is all we get from the MSM, 24/7/365, consistently for the last 2-years. And here’s a newsflash: that’s all were going to get until someone in the Administration - and it has to start with the Man at the Top - gets it through his head that they are losing control of the situation – perhaps on the ground (certainly many Americans, even those who support the war, believe we’ve lost control of Iraq), but certainly back on the home front.

There is no point at continued Monday-morning quarterbacking, and I’m certain there are thousands of us who could come up with a million intelligent and well thought-out things that we could have, should have, done differently over the last 2-years. What I believe we need to do is look for a way to move forward from here, a way that starts to re-focus the country on what we’re doing there, why we should stay there, and why we’re going to stay there – and is has to start with the President.

Clearly, there are those among us who cannot be persuaded – this strategy is not for them and I do not believe the President needs to waste his time on partisans and peacnics. Many of those protesting today are protesting simply because there is a war going on and there is a Republican in the White House – it’s not more complicated than that. Peel away the lovely-sounding “No blood for Oil!” and “Bring them home, NOW!” rhetoric and what you have (more often than not) is an America-loathing, Israel-loathing, leftist pacifist who opposes not just the War in Iraq, but the War in Afghanistan, the War on Terror, or any armed conflict involving the U.S. – so long as there is a Republican in the White House, of course. These people see a Zionist in every corner of the Government – they are not serious people and should not be treated as such.

Frankly, it would not hurt if someone in the Administration would point this out – and I’m sure there is someone (Hello? Karl Rove?) smart enough to figure out a way to do this tactfully.

Still, no war is unanimously supported – never has been, never will be. The focus should be on the broad middle of the country that supported the war in the beginning but have lost sight of the fact that progress is made in small bunches while setbacks seem to come in big chunks. Still, if the sum of the small bunches outweighs the occasional (even if daily) big chunk, that message will start to break through. (As an aside, if they are not, then it probably means that we need to re-think what we’re doing, eh?)

But if we think that the lazy, partisan Press-Democrat is going to dig that message out and willingly present it to the people so long as there is a Republican calling the shots, we’re deluding ourselves. Further, if we think that blogs and talk-radio is going to be enough to counter the daily grind from the MSM and the left-blogosphere, then we’re beyond delusional. Certainly, that strategy ain't working to well at the moment, is it?

No, the President of the United States needs to get back in control of this situation and personally demonstrate the leadership that is required to bring the American people back. This is leadership we have seen before from George Bush, we all know it’s there. We need straight talk. Highlight the progress without sugarcoating the costs. Give the lazy media a daily spoon-feeding of the news, good and bad, and dare them to continue to cover it as lopsidedly as they have.

Our opponents have no problem asking on a daily basis why we’re there – it’s time for the Administration to answer them, on a daily basis if necessary, to the point that it demonstrates to all fair-minded people that the other side has nothing to offer but complaint. Constant complaint, when left continually unanswered, becomes Known Fact™ – and we’ve all seen far too many of them in the last two years. Finally, people need to understand, is stark terms, what the costs of failure in this war are – and make no mistake, capitulating to the wishes of Dr. Dean, Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore and the rest of the “Get out NOW!” crowd is nothing if not an admission of abject failure. Yet, that is the path we’re running down presently and will continue to sprint down until the Man and the Top gets in front and turns us away.

It is not about “spin” - “spin” is precisely what we’ve been getting from the Press-Democrat and the DNC. The fact of the matter is that there is plenty of good news out there that is not being reported for a variety of reasons (be it Iraq, the economy, whatever) and therefore no need for “spin” on our side. What has been lacking is perspective and balance. It’s long past time for the Administration to get in-front of the public relations battle – assuming they’re fully in charge of the military aspects, as well.

Mr. President, your legacy will be Iraq - not Social Security reform, not the Supreme Court – Iraq. Those (and many other) issues are certainly important, but you will be forever defined, rightly or wrongly, by the War in Iraq. It is your legacy to win our lose. Win, and these other initiatives will instantly become a whole-bunch easier to get done. Lose, and there is a very real possibility, perhaps even a likelihood, that the Republic will be in grave danger as a result. The outcome is very much in the balance – and will remain so until you assert your leadership, spare us the canned speeches, lay-out the progress, assure us of the justness of our cause, and do it every, single, stinking day, if necessary.

Lead, Mr. President. A nation is waiting for you.

Update [0915 - 24082005]: It appears that I'm not the only person who has pondered this very point - see for example, here and here.

Federalism is dead - Film at 11

It has been a hoot watching the Democrats and other socialists getting their frilly, pink panties in a bunch over the death of Federalism - after all, these are the same folks who danced gleefully when the SCOTUS rammed a schiv into the back of the 10th Amendment only a week-or-so ago with regard to the "juvenile" death penalty, right? Oh, and on the subject of federal court intervention into state affairs - can anyone say "Roe v. Wade"? Funny, I don't seem to recall the leftists being too upset over that little piece of federal activism - must have missed that.

Seriously, I (being both a process and social conservative) am distressed at the actions taken by Congress and GWB in the Schiavo case, but I'm equally distressed at the fact that my side seems to be getting our Constitutional teeth kicked-in by an out-of-control judiciary and a left-wing in the US that has very successfully turned everything into a (pun intended) federal case.

So, if Federalism is indeed dead (a loss that I would greatly mourn), should we unilaterally disarm and turn the future of our country over to an emboldened leftist fringe and leave ourselves entirely at the tender mercies of an out-of-control court system? If every issue is indeed going to become a "federal case", then isn't it best that our elected representatives, and not a cotillion of unelected, lifetime appointees, be the ones driving that bus?

Granted, it gives me no joy to think along these lines - but with the Senate GOP not demonstrating the stones required to even get Bush's qualified appellate nominees a simple up-or-down vote, I don't see the composition of the courts changing greatly in the near future.

I suppose what I'm saying is that the GOP abandoning their Federalist traditions scares me less, much less in fact, than leaving every issue in society in the hands of a leftist judiciary.

What a God-awful horrible choice.

For the record on the Schiavo case...

I am very sympathetic to the arguments made on behalf of Terry's parents. If an error is going to be made, I would much prefer to err on the side of caution and keep the feeding tube in place - I hardly consider provision of water and food to be an "extraordinary means" for survival.
Michael Schiavo looks like pond-scum - he is a wholly unlikable, unctuous piece of filth who has changed his story repeatedly (how come it took him 7-years to recall that Terry would never want to be kept alive this way?) and clearly does not seem to have the best interests of his estranged wife at heart.

That said, I have a hard time understanding how the original ruling of the Florida trial court (Judge Greer, is it?) was wrong on the law. For better or worse, the spouse is the "family" in the eyes of the court and the spouse in this case said that the patient's wishes would be for the tube to be removed. As I understand it, this was the only court that stated this as a "finding of fact" - a ruling that has now been sustained on appeal several times.

The solution seems to me to be - you don't like the law, change the law. It would appear that Gov. Jeb Bush and the FL legislature are doing just that, but I fail to see why this couldn't have all been done months if not years ago.

I will not speculate on the politics of this other than to say that I think it's a wash. The American electorate has the attention span of a flea on crack - there is every reason to believe that this will be long forgotten come November 2006 by all but the activists on both sides - and they already know who they're voting for.