Saturday, November 12, 2005

Apparently, we're "winning."

So says a recommended diary on RedState, apparently on the basis of the success of Operation Steel Curtain.

I have no doubt that Operation Steel Curtain is indeed a success. We have made many military operations that have been successes. The problem is that these military operations are like a game of whack-a-mole. We do it, but then they come back, and then when we think it's bad enough, we go on another clean sweep.

It's kind of like the machines destroying Zion in the Matrix. Sure, the operation may have been successful, but they keep on leaving the humans alive to rebuild. Of course, in the case of the Matrix that's an intentional choice to maintain the status quo; in our case, it's because we don't have a choice.

The Veterans' Day speech

I just read the full text of the President's speech. You know what? It's a damn good speech against Islamic extremism--except when he sets up fallacious arguments like this:

Some have also argued that extremism has been strengthened by the actions in Iraq -- claiming that our presence in that country has somehow caused or triggered the rage of radicals. I would remind them that we were not in Iraq on September the 11th, 2001.

You see that word STRENGTHENED? It's there for a reason. It means that, yes, it existed before, but it's WORSE NOW because of your war.

Or this:

The government of Russia did not support Operation Iraqi Freedom -- and, yet, the militants killed more than 150 Russian schoolchildren in Beslan.

The logical implication is that terrorism never existed before Bush invaded Iraq, and current terrorism has no other causes besides Iraq. What a total piece of idiocy.

This complete denial of logic, as well as the partisan attack on Democrats I wrote on earlier, ruined a perfectly good speech. A damn shame too--because about 75% is worth hanging on to.

Remember the good old days

And what our government could have been doing for the past five years.

It makes me depressed.

Is Bush toast?

It's really beginning to look that way.

The fact that Bush used a Veteran's Day speech to conduct a partisan attack on Democrats who are raising questions about the origins of the war in Iraq would seem to suggest it, at any rate. Think about it: Bush used his yearly opportunity to solidify his stance as a tough, rugged war president to defend himself against accusations that his administration pressured the CIA--something which the L.A. Times article, following administration talking points, says didn't happen--but we bloggers who actually remember history know and can document according to the official reports that it did.

Will the Democrats capitalize? Will they stay on the offensive? As a Republican friend of mine told me a couple of days ago: the Democrats never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. It's time to correct that.

This administration is flailing, stung by electoral defeats, horrible poll numbers, dissention in the ranks, and constant confrontation with the devastating results of its failed policies. 2006 is the time to deliver a killing stroke--without sacrificing our footing.

Wednesday, November 09, 2005


Right in an Army Military magazine.

So who goes to the hague for war crimes now?

California's not a red state--it's the Golden State.

So said my hometown mayor Antonio Villaraigosa at the victory party tonight. We were a little nervous early on, but soon began to put our minds at ease as the returns came in. I also got the chance to chat even more with Russ Warner and even got the chance to talk with Phil Angelides for a few minutes. I'm really looking forward to helping on those campaigns as well.

So there you have it--tens of millions of dollars spent on a special election that accomplished absolutely nothing and dealt the Republicans a stinging defeat at the polls, to go along with Democratic retention of the New Jersey and Virginia statehouses.

Still, I was hoping for at least one state issue in Ohio to pass, but I guess they love their machinery just as much as we in California love ours.

Now that I think about it, Arnold's failure here really opens the door wide for Angelides (or Westly) to seize the governorship in 2006. At this point, Arnold has pretty much been disgraced and is seen as completely ineffective and misguided.

Tuesday, November 08, 2005


Kaine will be the new Governor of Virginia.

Corzine will be the new Governor of New Jersey.

And Ohioans apparently like corrupt elections.

I'll be heading to Alliance for a Better California's victory party tonight. The California returns should be exciting.

Monday, November 07, 2005

Did we use chemical weapons in Fallujah?

The Italian media certainly seems to think so.

Isn't it ironic. We take out Saddam because he had WMD--scratch that--because he had previously used the chemical weapons we gave him against civilian populations.

So we take him out and then what do we do to try to control the ensuing insurgency? Use "Willie Pete" and new, improved napalm against insurgent hotbeds.

Are we really trying to say that Iraq can only be controlled through use of unconventional weaponry? Would call me un-american for blogging about this?

Damn foreign media. How dare they report our use of WMD on Iraqi civilians.

This whole war is a sick joke.

Selective Enforcement

Via the L.A. Times

I didn't realize the IRS was into selective enforcement. I wonder if the Republican leadership will come to the defense of this church. After all, they're the ones that want to remove political limitations on church groups. Or was that only because they don't really care about freedom of speech and they just want to enhance their political power?

How dare they report our un-American atrocities.

You gotta love the stuff you see on RedState sometimes. I know that my blog is becoming increasingly fixated on ridiculing the stuff I see there, but sometimes the material is too rich to pass up.

Take this diary, which was frontpaged by the admins. In a nutshell, it comes to the conclusion that the MSM is harming our efforts in the "war on terror"--or was that a "global struggle against extremism", I really can't remember--by reporting the existence of CIA-operated secret prisons in foreign countries. Given our history of extraordinary rendition, as well as the administration request that the CIA be exempted from anti-torture legislation desired by congress, it seems almost certain when you put two and two together that the CIA was using these facilities to extract information from detainees through the most unscrupulous means possible--something the general public would most certainly not approve of.

The diary argues that exposure of our agreements with foreign governments to use their sovereign territory for secret prisons will lead to decreased co-operation with allies in anti-terror intelligence-gathering because they'll be afraid that their information will appear on the frontpage of the American MSM, and that it will hurt our war on terror by detracting from America's image abroad. That argument, however, just goes to show how absolutely illogical at best and deluded at worst the right wing is on the issue of torture and intelligence-gathering.

First and foremost, we see a clear difference in methodology concerning America's image. My methodology for improving America's image is to stop doing all the stuff that would harm America's image, while their methodology is to silence the press from accurately reporting all the stuff we do that harms America's image. Just like the American south: just keep on preaching morality while you sweep all the divorce, illiteracy and teen pregnancy under the rug. Same seedy idea.

But the next concept--the one about such reporting making foreign governments less likely to share intelligence because of reaction from their citizens or terrorist retaliation--is even more bogus. There is a strong difference between a) sharing intelligence, and b) allowing a foreign intelligence service to build a torture prison on your nation's soil. One would be a move that would be expected and approved of by your citizenry, and the other is something that you can expect your citizenry to be extremely unhappy about. One is completely normal and usual, and the other represents a complete lack of ethics on the part of your government. One is something that almost every free nation on earth does without significant reprisal from terrorist organizations, and the other is something you could expect some terrorist retaliation for BECAUSE YOU'RE ALLOWING THE YANKEES TO TORTURE THEIR OPERATIVES ON YOUR SOIL.

Furthermore, the supposed fear that will now be imparted to other nations concerning their intelligence being splashed above the fold of major MSM papers is also bogus. If you can name a single time that the American MSM endangered multinational cooperation to capture terrorists by revealing sensitive information relevant to an ongoing investigation, you let me know when that was. I can't recall such an activity. I can, however, name a couple of times in which the administration has done something similar to justify a purely political agenda. One was the public acknowledgment that Noor Khan was a mole--an admission made to justify raising the terror alert level during the Democratic Convention. Another was the leak of Valerie Plame's covert status to punish Joe Wilson for telling the truth about Iraq's ties to African uranium.

If I were a foreign government and I had to choose between trusting an American MSM newspaper or trusting this administration, I'd take the MSM any day of the week.