That *had* to hurt...

On the O'Reilly show LTC Ralph Peters (ret.) smacks down the lying POS Chuck Schumer for his vile, dishonest smear of US troops in Iraq during a speech in the Senate this week:



Ouch.

Back to BSing (Blog Stuff, that is)

My apologies for the lack of posting lo these many months; it's been a busy summer (which included a summer teaching gig - my hats off to all you teachers out there, it's one of the hardest jobs I've ever had...but also one of the most rewarding). But now I have time to get back to blogging - try to contain your excitement.

We'll start off with some quick hits on current events:

Barack Obama continues to threaten to unilaterally attack a US ally (and a nuclear-armed one at that). Hillary should just stand back and let this fool bury himself.

With the US military's surge in Iraq working, it's time for a political surge: "one that comes from all directions, both from within Iraq and from the international community".

Is Korean reunification possible? Sure it's possible - but not desired by either side. In the North the Workers' Party of Korea will never willingly give up their stranglehold on the DPRK, and the South fears a post-reunification influx of economic refugees from the North that would overwhelm public services, with staggering economic costs that would make the expensive East/West German reunification look like a picnic in comparison.

Russia has been violating international airspace, assassinating dissidents abroad, blackmailing weak neighbors....ah, makes me nostalgic for the old Cold War days.

"the old definition of a nanosecond was the gap between a New York traffic light changing to green and the first honk of a driver behind you. Today, the definition of a nanosecond is the gap between a Western terrorist incident and the press release of a Muslim lobby group warning of an impending outbreak of Islamophobia," the wit Mark Steyn wrote last year. Now the definition of a nanosecond needs to be updated again: the gap between the occurence of any natural or man-made disaster in America and the Democrats hysterically blaming President Bush for it.

Well, ya basta for now. It's good to be back BSing.

Out of Africa

Yesterday, while responding to my co-blogger Jeff about the dishonesty of MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, the subject of President Bush's infamous "16 words" from the 2003 State of the Union speech came up (Bush had said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"). Among other things, I noted this from the UK's Butler Report on Britain's pre-war intelligence, about how Iraq had sought uranium from the Congo:

There was further and separate intelligence that in 1999 the Iraqi regime had also made inquiries about the purchase of uranium ore in the Democratic Republic of Congo. In this case, there was some evidence that by 2002 an agreement for a sale had been reached.

Serendipitously, today the Instapundit shares a relevant BBC news story - "DR Congo uranium ring smashed" (empahsis mine):

Authorities in the Democratic Republic of Congo say they have dismantled an international network set up to illegally use uranium mined there.
...
DR Congo's daily newspaper Le Phare on Wednesday reported that more than 100 bars of uranium, as well as an unknown quantity of uranium contained in helmet-shaped cases, had disappeared from the centre as part of a vast trafficking of the material going back years.

In his post on the story, Glenn Reynolds notes some are speculating that the black market uranium went to Iran or North Korea. I don't think it's stretching the imagination too much to add Saddam Hussein's Iraq to that mix...

UPDATE: Chad at the KURU Lounge notes some further relevant information from the BBC on uranium smuggling from the Congo (so far the American news media is MIA on this story). Emphasis his:

Officially, no uranium at all should now be leaving the country. But the United Nations has reported that in the past six years more than 50 cases of smuggled uranium have been seized in Congo.

The last six years would cover 2002, the year that the Butler Report said Iraq had reached "an agreement for a sale" with the DRC. I'm sure that Keith Olbermann will make this news the lead item on Countdown tomorrow. NOT!

Civil War?

It seems we could be at a turning point here, given that the country's weak and unstable central government is under intense public pressure because of mounting terrorist attacks by Muslim insurgents. Large areas of the country are becoming a breeding ground for terrorists as the attacks grow bolder, with police officers as well as army troops regularly targeted by roadside bombs.

Thousands of civilians have been killed or wounded by the Islamic militants since the insurgency began (and some of their victims have been beheaded), with the terrorists demonstrating increasingly sophisticated organization in conducting coordinated simultaneous attacks. Car bombings, such as the one pictured here from Sept. '06, indiscriminantly maim locals and foreigners alike. In addition, international Jihadists linked to al-Qaeda are helping the insurgents carry out these terror attacks.

A majority of the local Muslim population does not support this terrorism, but fear of reprisals by the insurgents prevents them from assisting authorities. Meanwhile sectarian clashes grow increasingly violent, leading to concerns that the nation will become embroiled in an all-out civil war.

Oh, by the way, the country in question is not Iraq - it's Thailand.

Run, you cowards

Bill Roggio, reporting from Iraq, has posted an item regarding today's news that Muqtada al-Sadr, Iran's murderous proxy in the country, has fled Iraq and is now under the protection of his Iranian sponsors. In addition, Roggio writes that "Sadr's underlings have been reported to be fleeing Iraq to Iran in January" - fleeing out of fear:

Sadr's departure from Iraq indcates he takes the Baghdad security plan seriously, and fears for his direct safety.

The US troop surge and the new security strategy by Iraq's government have barely begun to be put into place, and already our enemies are retreating. But Sadr and his masters in Tehran should take heart: Democrats are still relentlessly attempting to implement an unconditional surrender.

Hollow Posturing

Sen. Joe Lieberman was eloquent as ever when speaking on the Senate floor earlier this week against the putrid piece of moral exhibitionism known as the Warner-Levin resolution (which, thankfully, is stalled in the Senate at the moment):

What we say here is being heard in Baghdad by Iraqi moderates, trying to decide whether the Americans will stand with them.

We are being heard by our men and women in uniform, who will be interested to know whether we support the plan they have begun to carry out.

We are being heard by the leaders of the thuggish regimes in Iran and Syria, and by Al Qaeda terrorists, eager for evidence that America’s will is breaking.

And we are being heard across America by our constituents, who are wondering if their Congress is capable of serious action, not just hollow posturing.This resolution is not about Congress taking responsibility.

It is the opposite. It is a resolution of irresolution.

Irresolution, indeed. Sen. Lieberman goes on to point out the inherent contradictions of the Senate's position, should it pass Warner-Levin:

We cannot have it both ways. We cannot vote full confidence in General Petraeus, but no confidence in his strategy. We cannot say that the troops have our full support, but disavow their mission on the eve of battle.

This is what happens when you try to wage war by committee. That is why the Constitution gave that authority to the President as Commander in Chief.

Yes, one Commander in Chief, not 535 of them. If some members of Congress want to vote to defund the war, then have a binding vote on defunding the war. Anything else is "hollow posturing" that undermines our troops, our allies, and our credibility.

Kudos to CBS

Michelle Malkin had a nice post yesterday about the Baghdad Bowl, a CBS-sponsored flag football game in which two 15-man teams composed of troopers from the 2nd "Black Jack" Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division put on Indianapolis Colts and Chicago Bears jerseys, serving as a "preview" to last night's Super Bowl. The Baghdad Bowl was the brain-child of All-Pro NFL veteran Randy Cross, who hoped the event would "to bring some degree of normalcy to the troops". The game was played on Feb. 3rd, and the event was indeed a nice boost to the morale of our combat soldiers:

I think it's a really great thing," said Staff Sgt. Michael Rathbun, 1st Battalion, 18th Infantry Regiment, who played for Team Falcon. "Many of us are living out on combat outposts, so it's the first time we've been on a FOB for a while."

During the game, t-shirts and hats provided by CBS were passed out to the crowd by Team Falcon cheerleaders, Spc. Erin Braun and Spc. Shaunette Buntain, both medics with the 15th Brigade Support Battalion....

After the game, the players once again gathered midfield, where Cross presented both team captains with a game ball. Another ball autographed by CBS' entire NFL Today crew, to include NFL greats Dan Marino, Boomer Esiason and Shannon Sharpe, was accepted by Black Jack Brigade Commander Col. Bryan Roberts on behalf of the entire brigade.

Cross himself went to Iraq for the game, and served as the referee. The Colts were represented by troops based in the International Zone, while the Bears were represented by a team from FOB Falcon, which is located in southern Baghdad. And the result? The "Colts" won the Baghdad Bowl, downing the "Bears" 32-25 - not too far off the actual result from last night of 29-17.

"It's not about us or CBS," Cross said, "It's about you guys and getting a chance to come out here and do this for you. We appreciate everything you guys do." Kudos to CBS Sports for sponsoring this event and bringing some fun and normalcy to our soldiers in harm's way.

An Apology

You may have recently heard that Robert Redford is demanding an apology. Very well, I'll be glad to give him one:

~ I am so very sorry, Mr. Redford, that you think being a Hollywood star makes your facile views on national defense worth listening to.

~ I deeply regret you are moronic enough to believe that "political diversity has been attempted to be thwarted", when every left-wing moonbat in the country has been spewing their bile unabated and at high volume during the last six years (including your own peers, Mr. Redford - Barbara Streisand ring a bell, Bob ol' chum? Michael Moore? Alec Baldwin? Susan Sarandon?).

~ I also sincerely regret you are arrogant enough to imply that people who disagree with you must not possess "a rational mind" or "a sense of decency", even as your own Sundance festival makes a mockery of the concept of decency.

~ And finally, Mr. Redford, I am sincerely sorry that you still cling to sad old '60s rallying cries like "truth to power", and that you are deluded enough to think that such bromides are still cutting edge.

So there's your apology, Mr. Redford. And no need to thank me, I was happy to help.

A Travesty

An AP story lists the "major players" in Scooter Libby's perjury trial. By Richard Armitage's name we see this:

The judge wants to avoid bogging the trial down on who was responsible for leaking Plame's identity.

Say waaaa?? Finding out who was responsible for leaking Plame's name was how this whole fiasco started. Lefties like my friend Jeff considered the leak to be one of the most damaging security breaches in the annals of espionage, and any number of moonbats out there claimed the leak was nothing less than an act of treason. But now the only criminal prosecution to arise from the investigation of the leak is not going to focus on the leaker in any way?

President Bush should end this travesty and pardon Libby. Right. Frigging. Now.

"They want a chance"

We've often seen a disconnect between mainstream media coverage of the Iraq war, and the accounts of military people who, you know, are actually there. We had another example yesterday, when Hugh Hewitt spoke on his radio show with a Chief Warrant Officer who's a three-tour veteran of Iraq. The Chief, who's with Army intel, described how the vast majority of Kurds, Sunni, and Shi'a get along together in Iraq, how there are "a lot of relations, marriages, between Sunni and Shia, Kurd and Sunni, Kurd and Shia, interrelations between the different groups".

HH: And Baghdad itself is a network of warrens that sometimes overlap, but are often…you just can’t separate them.

Chris: It’s impossible to separate them. It quite literally is impossible.

HH: All right.

Chris: And in most instances, those people get along quite well.

HH: Yup.

Chris: But we don’t see it in mainstream media, because it’s not popular, it doesn’t sell news. So those are the things that would like to be seen more by us.

The Warrant Officer also describes his strong feelings on the idea of prematurely withdrawing from Iraq:

HH: When you hear people talk about withdrawing and let the chips fall, does that strike you…

Chris: It infuriates me.

HH: Tell me why.

Chris: Because just as in America, Iraq has their bad seeds, their bad eggs, whatever you want to call them. But it’s a minority. It’s a very small percentage, but just like anywhere else, that very small percentage makes the most noise, and therefore, they’re the most noticeable. Most of the Iraqi people that I’ve dealt with would give you the shirt off their back if you ask for it, not even needed it, not wanted it. If you just ask for it, it’s yours. You show interest in something of theirs, it’s yours. They’re very giving, they’re very kind, they’re very smart, and they just, just like us, they want a chance. I’m biased, because I have spent one heck of a lot of time with the Iraqi people. And by and large, they are one heck of a good group of people.

A mixed bag

I heard some of what I wanted to hear in the President's speech last night regarding Iraq - it wasn't everything I'd hoped for, but it was adequate on the whole. I was especially glad to hear this bit (emphasis mine):

Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

I only hope that deeds will follow these words...a couple of B-52 Arclight strikes against terrorist staging areas in Syria and Iran would be a good start. The following should also have been done a long time ago:

To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis.

About. Frigging. Time.

I was also pleased with the sobriety of his statements regarding the impact of the changes:

This new strategy will not yield an immediate end to suicide bombings, assassinations, or IED attacks. Our enemies in Iraq will make every effort to ensure that our television screens are filled with images of death and suffering. Yet over time, we can expect to see Iraqi troops chasing down murderers, fewer brazen acts of terror, and growing trust and cooperation from Baghdad's residents.

However, I'd hoped for about double the announced increase in troop levels, but this is better than nothing. Moreover, he actually mentioned the very thing I was calling for a couple of days ago:

We can begin by working together to increase the size of the active Army and Marine Corps, so that America has the Armed Forces we need for the 21st century.

But when SecDef Gates announced the proposed increases, he put the number at a paltry 92,000. We need to increase the active duty strength by about 5 times that level, I'd say - but again it's better than nothing. This, by the way, is an issue wholly separate from Iraq, and if the Dems balk at this modest increase then they are even more stupid and irresponsible on national security than I'd feared.

A "moral catastrophe"

In the comments of my last post below, my friend Jeff implies that the 2006 election was some kind of referendum against the Iraq war. Certainly Iraq was a major issue in the election, but myriad other issues were at play as well, including conservative dissatisfaction with the big-spending Republican Congress. To the assertion that the last election was primarily a rebuke to the Bush Administration on the war, I have two words: Joe Lieberman.

Running as an independent, the pro-war Lieberman thrashed a liberal Democrat in a liberal Democratic state who was running on a strong anti-war platform. If Americans were so intensely anti-war, Lieberman would not be returning to the Senate this month.

Speaking of Lieberman, the good Senator had an eloquent op-ed in the WaPo recently about the calamity that a premature U.S. withdrawl from Iraq would bring:

As the hostile regimes in Iran and Syria appreciate -- at times, it seems, more keenly than we do -- failure in Iraq would be a strategic and moral catastrophe for the United States and its allies. Radical Islamist terrorist groups, both Sunni and Shiite, would reap victories simultaneously symbolic and tangible, as Iraq became a safe haven in which to train and strengthen their foot soldiers and Iran's terrorist agents. Hezbollah and Hamas would be greatly strengthened against their moderate opponents. One moderate Palestinian leader told me that a premature U.S. exit from Iraq would be a victory for Iran and the groups it is supporting in the region. Meanwhile, the tens of thousands of Iraqis who have bravely stood with us in the hope of a democratic future would face the killing fields.

More troops needed...across the board

At our monthy drill over the weekend I was able to meet with my friend Captain Jim, who has recently returned from a stint working with the J2 at CENTCOM in Iraq. Capt. Jim says that additional combat soldiers are definitely needed in Iraq (and President Bush is apparently going to announce a troop increase this evening). More than that, however, he noted there is an urgent need to bolster manpower across all the armed forces. Today we have less than 1.5 million men and women in active duty service; during the 1980s the U.S. had over 3.5 million uniformed active duty servicepeople.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, foolish politicans from both parties proclaimed a "peace dividend", and the military was gutted during the 1990s. Today we are still paying the price for this "holiday from history", and the present overall active duty strength (or lack thereof) has made President Bush reluctant to increase the occupation force in Iraq, since it will mean sending units for a third tour of duty in Iraq.

Tonight Bush will announce more troop deployments to Iraq, but will he call for a major increase in personnel authorizations overall? Doubtfull; he has shown no sign of doing this in the past six years, and with the Democrats holding Congress it's now even less likely to happen. Our long "holiday from history" continues...

UPDATE: Got my dates confused; Bush's address will be Wednesday evening. This afternoon I had the displeasure of catching that execrable asshat Ted Kennedy yammering on about the bill he's introducing to deny funds for any troop increase in Iraq. Well good, let's get the members of Congress on record - who is in favor of winning the war, and who is not?