January 27, 2006

Jack Bauer On NSA Surveillance

jack_bauer.jpg

Had to lift this from Van Helsing, who lifted it from Right Wing Nation, who lifted it from Strange Cosmos...

Damn, that's a lot of heavy lifting. Need beer.

Posted by: Gary at 05:02 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 39 words, total size 1 kb.

January 26, 2006

Iraqi General: WMD's To Syria

Rick Moran has pulled together a lot of resources that support this breaking story. According to Saddam's number 2 in command of the Iraqi Air Force, the Iraqi stockpile of WMDs was ordered to be transported to Syria via commercial jets in 2002 - 56 trips in all - as the U.S. and its coalition allies made preparations to remove Saddam from power.

His post, "Oh Those Pesky Iraqi WMDs!", scratches that "nagging itch" that has been at the back of his mind (and mine as well) over what happened to all these weapons that everybody knew he had.

Despite the Old Media's attempts to ignore this, this really needs to be verified and Syria must be investigated. Yeah, sure. I'd really love to tell those on the Left "told ya so", but more importantly if there is a possibility that these WMDs still exist they pose a huge threat not only to the region but to the United States.

Posted by: Gary at 02:10 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 170 words, total size 1 kb.

January 25, 2006

The Interview From Hell

Hugh Hewitt absolutely eviscerated LA Times columnist Joel Stein in an interview on his radio show yesterday. Stein, who penned an appalling essay published in the Times that starts off with the statement "I don't support our troops", seem to squirm while attempting to more fully articulate his moonbat positions on the military as the transcript shows Hewitt grilling him like a porterhouse steak.

Here's a portion:

Hugh Hewitt (HH): I want to make sure I quote it correctly. "I don't support our troops. This is a particularly difficult opinion to have, especially if you are the kind of person who likes to put bumper stickers on his car." Evidently, supporting the troops is a bumper sticker position?

Joel Stein (JS): It's not. Supporting the troops is. I think a lot of people have bumper stickers, and really don't do anything else, and are against the war, and have the bumper sticker anyway.

HH: "And at the end, I'm not advocating that we spit on returning veterans like they did after Vietnam." That's big of you. "But we shouldn't be celebrating people for doing something we don't think was a good idea." What I'm trying to figure out is what do you think is a good idea for the military to do?

JS: Well, again, that's not what my column was about, and that's something that people talk about constantly, and people give opinions on. There's a lot of Americans who are against this war and still think we should have a military.

HH: Now wait. This is the last...well, let me give you the two last paragraphs of your column. "I'm not advocating that we spit on returning veterans like they did after the Vietnam War. But we shouldn't be celebrating people for doing something we don't think was a good idea. All I'm asking is that we give our returning soldiers what they need: hospitals, pensions, mental health, and a safe and immediate return. But please no parades. Seriously, the traffic is insufferable." So you obviously do not honor their service?

JS: I don't honor their service? The people serving in Iraq right now?

HH: Yeah.

JS: I honor them as human beings, and I want them home safe.

HH: But you don't honor their service?

JS: And honestly, I think that all these...for people who don't believe in the war and are putting up these stickers saying they support the troops anyway, my fear is that it's prolonging the war and putting them in further danger they don't need to be in.

HH: But Joel, I'm talking about you. I'm talking about what you honor, and you obviously don't honor military service.

JS: I honor police service. I honor military service. Any...I just think that...

HH: You do honor military service?

JS: Yeah. No, I'm grateful for people that serve in the military.

HH: But you don't support our troops?

JS: I don't...I don't believe in supporting the troops in an action that you don't believe in.

HH: And so, that would be everything I've named thus far. So I guess...did you support and honor the troops in the Pentagon on 9/11?

JS: Sure, yeah.

HH: All right.

JS: All the troops that are here to defend our country, I'm very, very grateful for. I'm grateful for the police...

HH: Provided they don't leave the country?

JS: Yeah, provided they don't fight in wars that I think are endangering them for no reason.

HH: And the moment they do, you stop honoring them?

JS: The moment I do, I think it's a poor idea to show support for them and prolong that engagement.

So Stein is pretty adamant about how he feels about our military and their various deployments overseas when he sits down and craps out what he undoubtably believes is a masterpiece. But when asked for clarification, he doesn't have the sack to say what he really means - that deep-down he really would like to spit on returning Veterans they way people like him used to do back in the good old days. But the most he's comfortable advocating these days is "no parades please".

Reading through the transcript, I can't help but recall a quote from the movie "Goodfellas" when Joe Pesci's Tommy DeVito says "You know Spider, you're a f*****' mumbling stuttering little prick. You know that?"

UPDATE: From around the 'sphere:
Captain Ed:

Supporting the troops really just means that you appreciate that they stand ready to carry out the policies of the United States in defense of our freedom and liberty, as expressed in the policies of our elected government. That has no bearing on any particular mission or enterprise, but instead comes from the sacrifice offered by our fellow citizens in uniform to give their lives so that we may remain free -- free to select our own leaders, free to write blogs, free to disagree with each other ... and in Stein's case, free to make an ass of himself by writing one of the most ill-conceived pieces of tripe published in a major media outlet.

JunkYardBlog:
Let’s break this down. Patriotism means “love and devotion to one’s country.” Dissent means “to withhold assent or approval.” Showing love can include disagreeing, but most often is an expression of approval and acceptance. Unless you’re a bumper sticker lefty, in which case according to the one on who’s car I spotted the ratty sticker, the highest form of love of country that it’s possible to show is one that constantly withholds approval of that country. Period. Being a bumper sticker, there weren’t any qualifiers like “when it’s clearly, unambiguously wrong” or “when it’s run by totalitarians like Stalin and Hitler and freedom has to be won back.” Just any old time, the best thing you can do for your country is to disapprove of it.

Very nice. I guess that makes me a very patriotic Frenchman.

What’s most disturbing is that the same person who thinks that bumper sticker is true enough to make it a part of their car is actually allowed to operate that car on the same roads as the rest of us.

In the final breakdown, the sticker really is an exercise in self-flattery. “I disagree with this country. And that makes me better than you and all those deluded fools sent off on that war and stuff.”


Dr. Rusty Shackleford:
The underlying assumption of [Stein's column] is that wars are fought by Administrations, not by nations. By joining the military a soldier is volunteering as an extension of the Bush Administration. Hence, the soldier is complicit in Bush's alleged crimes.

While Administrations may start wars, they do not fight them. Nations fight wars.

There was no war against the Nazis. We fought Germany. And the Roosevelt Administration did not fight in WWII, America did. America is at war. When did the Left stop being part of America?

This is why the antiwar position is unpatriotic. This is America's war, and to be against it is to be against America.

There is a time to be against a war, and that time is before the war begins. Strategies for victory are legitimate debate, but as long as troops are on the ground then that is where debate should end.

In past wars an article like this would have landed the author in jail. Encouraging troops in battle to disobey commands is worse than the kind of defeatism that FDR would have arrested you for--it is inciting to treason.

UPDATE II: Another article by the unfunny Stein that shows how he really feels about the military.

h/t: The Corner, via Michelle Malkin

Posted by: Gary at 10:15 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 1276 words, total size 8 kb.

January 24, 2006

A Brief History Of Enemy Surveillance In Wartime

Courtesy of Attorney General Gonzales:

This Nation has a long tradition of wartime enemy surveillance—a tradition that can be traced to George Washington, who made frequent and effective use of secret intelligence, including the interception of mail between the British and Americans.

And for as long as electronic communications have existed, the United States has conducted surveillance of those communications during wartime—all without judicial warrant. In the Civil War, for example, telegraph wiretapping was common, and provided important intelligence for both sides. In World War I, President Wilson ordered the interception of all cable communications between the United States and Europe; he inferred the authority to do so from the Constitution and from a general congressional authorization to use military force that did not mention anything about such surveillance. So too in World War II; the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt authorized the interception of all communications traffic into and out of the United States. The terrorist surveillance program, of course, is far more focused, since it involves only the interception of international communications that are linked to al Qaeda or its allies.

But here's exactly why a majority of the American people fully support the NSA's current surveillance program against Al Qaeda:
The conflict against al Qaeda is, in fundamental respects, a war of information. We cannot build walls thick enough, fences high enough, or systems strong enough to keep our enemies out of our open and welcoming country. Instead, as the bipartisan 9/11 and WMD Commissions have urged, we must understand better who they are and what they’re doing – we have to collect more dots, if you will, before we can “connect the dots.” This program to surveil al Qaeda is a necessary weapon as we fight to detect and prevent another attack before it happens.
Remember back during the 911 hearings when Democrats were shrieking about the administration's inability to "connect the dots"? The phrase "connect the dots" was like a mantra from the Left.

Well, that's what were doing. And it couldn't be simpler to understand. Which is why I hope Democrats keep attacking on this issue. And why I hope they keep screaming "impeachment". If a majority of Americans didn't support impeaching a President for lying about sex with an intern, they sure as heck aren't going to look kindly at a call for impeachment for protecting their lives. Bring it on, I say. The backlash will be so hard, LBJ will feel it.

Posted by: Gary at 04:50 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 426 words, total size 3 kb.

January 22, 2006

All The News That's Fit To Ignore

By the MSM, that is.

Spc. Phil Van Treuren has a new feature at Camp Katrina - the Weapens Cache Databank.

Updated daily, it keeps a current tally of every weapon, bomb and gun that our military takes out of the hands of the terrorist insurgency in Iraq. You'll have to go here to check it out because you won't hear about it from the Old Media.

Excellent work, Phil!

Posted by: Gary at 03:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 84 words, total size 1 kb.

January 20, 2006

Why Does Bin Laden Keep Helping Bush?

Another perspective on the latest tape from OBL over at Froggy Ruminations:

It is unexpected events such as these that demonstrate the ineffectiveness of a Party whose only policy contribution is capitulation and obstruction. For the President, having your arch enemy admit his weakness while making vague threats is a tremendous political opportunity. Bush is already leaving no stone unturned as far as repelling AQ attacks, and this reminder that our enemy continues to resist us will likely go a long way to shoring up support for the electronic surveillance programs that have drawn liberal ire of late. That is not to say that the moonbats will cease and desist- far from it- but their vocal objections from here on out will ring even more hollow in the ears of the American people. As usual, the hard left will turn out to be their own worst enemies as the 70% of non suicidal Americans will quickly grow weary of hearing that the President is an evil dictator for having protected us so effectively thus far.
Could it be actually Karl Rove on the tape faking an Arab accent?

Posted by: Gary at 03:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 200 words, total size 1 kb.

January 19, 2006

Bin Laden Offers A Truce

I'm not making this up. Al-Jazeera aired a tape that is supposedly Osama Bin Laden. In it, he is offering a deal:

"Based on what I have said, it is better not to fight the Muslims on their land," he said. "We do not mind offering you a truce that is fair and long-term. ... So we can build Iraq and Afghanistan ... there is no shame in this solution because it prevents wasting of billions of dollars ... to merchants of war."
To this, I say: F*** You, ass-wipe!

Oh please, please, please let the Democrats suggest accepting this offer. Oh, please, please, please!

h/t: Ankle-Biting Pundits

UPDATE: Rick Moran thinks that tempting Democrats is exactly Bin Laden's strategy. I tend to agree.

Posted by: Gary at 11:00 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 132 words, total size 1 kb.

January 03, 2006

The Damage That Has Been Done

AJ Strata explains how he thinks Al Qaeda will likely use the knowledge of recently leaked NSA programs against us:

For the terrorists to use the leak of the NSA spy program against us they simply have to start contact innocent Americans at random. That way their communications with their agents here in the US will be one contact within numerous fake contactsl. But it doesn’t stop there. If these terrorists target liberals and well known leftists, then it will become clear the Feds will be detecting calls to these anti-war types. And if that news were to break, then the left would go more hysterical than they are now and we would have a real problem in the country trying to stay focused on protecting ourselves. And that would give Al Qaeda the distraction they need to get a WMD in place.

There it is. A simple counter exploitation scenario. I have posted this because I realized the only possible way to pre-empt this scenario is to predict it before the next round of news stories come out with Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi being identified as targets of the NSA because terrorists were contacting them to disrupt us politically.

Thank you, NY Times. A-holes!

Posted by: Gary at 03:12 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 216 words, total size 1 kb.

<< Page 1 of 1 >>
46kb generated in CPU 0.06, elapsed 0.1349 seconds.
122 queries taking 0.1006 seconds, 255 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.