Travelling Shoes

Saturday, May 22, 2004

 

Undeclared

Here's something the Big Media missed in its rush to desperately avoid the news that a Sarin-filled artillery shell had been found in Iraq.

Iraq never declared any binary 155mm artillery shells. In fact, they never claimed any filled with sarin at all in the UNSCOM Final report (Find on "Munitions declared by Iraq as remaining"). Not declared as existing at the end of the Gulf War, not having been destroyed in the Gulf War, not having been destroyed unilaterally. The only binary munitions claimed by the Iraqis were aerial bombs and missile warheads. Not in an artillery shell.

Or as Mike at Cold Fury says about this.

In other words, it’s all true, it always was, there were undeclared WMDs in Iraq, and Saddam was in material breach of 1441, among many others. The war was just for this and many other reasons, and Bush (and the rest of us - ahem) was right all along. Not that that matters to the noble and courageous “international community,” and especially not to the mainstream press here at home; you can expect a loud silence on this one from the last group especially. After all, it doesn’t help Kerry and the Dems much, now does it? Not that they’re biased or anything, mind. It’s just that their “errors” and “omissions” only ever seem to be ones that could harm Bush and the Repubs. Say it with me now: how very odd.

Yep.

Once again, for any members of the fourth estate who might reading this, Saddam had undeclared WMDs in Iraq right up until the war started, and was in material breach of U.N. Resolution 1441.

posted by H.D. Miller on 11:38 PM. . .Link. . .

 

Pocket Litter

Of course it wasn't a wedding. Since the last time we mistakenly blew up a wedding, the Pentagon has gotten a lot smarter and a lot more cautious about these sorts of things.

But, even better than the news that we didn't attack a wedding, was the evidence of what we did attack.

Kimmitt said troops did not find anything -- such as a wedding tent, gifts, musical instruments, decorations or leftover food -- that would indicate a wedding had been held.

Most of the men there were of military age, and there were no elders present to indicate a family event, he said.

What was found, he said, indicated the building was used as a way station for foreign fighters crossing into Iraq from Syria to battle the coalition.

"The building seemed to be somewhat of a dormitory," Kimmitt said. "You had over 300 sets of bedding gear in it. You had a tremendous number of pre-packaged clothing -- apparently about a hundred sets of pre-packaged clothing.

"[It is] expected that when foreign fighters come in from other countries, they come to this location, they change their clothes into typical Iraqi clothing sets."

At Saturday's briefing for reporters in Baghdad, Kimmitt showed photos of what he said were binoculars designed for adjusting artillery fire, battery packs suitable for makeshift bombs, several terrorist training manuals, medical gear, fake ID cards and ID card-making machines, passports and telephone numbers to other countries, including Afghanistan and Sudan.

None of the men killed in the raid carried ID cards or wallets, he said.

"We feel that that was an indicator that this was a high risk meeting of high-level anti-coalition forces," Kimmitt said.

"There was a tremendous number of incriminating pocket litter, a lot of telephone numbers to foreign countries, Afghanistan, Sudan and a number of others."

"Incriminating pocket litter"... I love that phrase. It's so descriptive.

Turn out your own pockets and see what you've got in the way of incriminating evidence. Who's fingered by the scraps of paper in your pockets? Whose business card? Whose phone numbers? Whose pictures?

Let's hope all that incriminating pocket litter helps us roll up some of the people who are helping the Islamo-nuts make their way to Iraq.


posted by H.D. Miller on 9:03 PM. . .Link. . .

 

Why I Became an American

There's an excellent article in this month's Yale Alumni Magazine by Farid Laroussi, an assistant professor of French at Yale. Laroussi, a North African Muslim who was raised by immigrant parents in France, makes is clear that he and most other Muslims have never felt either welcomed or at home in that country.

And there is a question that will not go away: how can young girls who wear Muslim head scarves be considered a threat to the democratic and Republican order? Isn't their determination to go to school proof enough of their desire for integration? Aren't their good grades a sign that they hope for executive positions in a multicultural France? I wonder whether, at the end of the day, French society sees any other alternative for us besides torching cars or becoming religious fanatics. After denying our past, after trying to undermine our present, they want to define us by, and confine us in, delinquency or the international anti-Western conspiracy.

Like our parents, we are vilified, but for different reasons. They were stigmatized by being born under colonial rule; we are stigmatized because we have refused to bear the yoke of monoculturalism, to accept the dogma of uniformity. CEOs, state executives, lawyers, or engineers, we learn to believe we are in the wrong without ever knowing where our guilt lies. Some feel so much self-hatred that they change their surnames, repudiating the names of their ancestors. For the Frenchmen and Frenchwomen of Maghreb origin, integration is the setting for betrayal.

America, alone, says Laroussi, offered him the opportunity to integrate while maintaining his religion and heritage unmolested.

I chose the United States. It was moving to find that I was given a second chance without having to recite my family tree. My name, my religion, and my ethnic background were not obstacles. The police leave me alone. There are no national identity cards here, no spot ID checks. My friends do not feel compelled to tell me their favorite Arab jokes.

Diaspora probably marks for me, as for others who have decided to leave France, the moment when one comes closest to being the person one has dreamed of being. You will argue that being uprooted was merely part of my identity. Wrong. I was already American when the first of my ancestors left his village on the Saharan border, leaving behind a world where he had no future.

Farid Laroussi gets it!

He understands that being an American is an attitude, a state of mind, not a pre-determined set of ethnic, social, or religious characteristics.

You can be from Timbuktu, or Tibet, or Taipei and still be an American, as long as you adopt and hold the attitudes and beliefs that seperate Americans from the rest of the world.

These American attitudes aren't political beliefs, so much as personal. They're the way most Americans think about work, and opportunity, and ability, and the willingness to try new things. You've got to believe you're free to pursue your individual happiness wherever it may lie, and you've got to be prepared to let the other guy be free puruse his.

We're not perfect, that's not possible, but we are willing to accept newcomers who work hard, play by the rules, and adopt enough of the ostensible culture to function. Within those parameters you can fashion whatever sort of hybrid identity you want. Farid Laroussi understands that.

posted by H.D. Miller on 1:26 PM. . .Link. . .

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Friday, May 21, 2004

 

The Lone Shell

Scott Ritter is now saying that discovery of an artillery shell containg nerve agent in Iraq weren't nothing but a thing.

If the 155-mm shell was a "dud" fired long ago - which is highly likely - then it would not be evidence of the secret stockpile of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that the Bush administration used as justification to invade Iraq.

So maybe Ritter's right and the shell was a dud, which as Citizen Smash points out would be easy enough to verify (although as Smash also points out the discover of a second shell, this one containing mustard gas, makes it more likely that we're confronting a hidden stockpile).

But even if Ritter's right, why should we ever listen to him again? Just to remind you, Scott Ritter was the recipient (through indirect means) of nearly $400,000 of Saddam's funny money.

And what did that money apparently buy? Nothing less than one of the most spectacular flip-flops on the issue of WMDs in recent memeory. And now Ritter is asking us to take his opinion on this issue seriously? Moron.

posted by H.D. Miller on 3:19 PM. . .Link. . .

 

Over

So, so, completely over it hurts.

-- IF you were shocked by Madonna's lesbian lip-lock with Britney Spears during the MTV awards, don't go within spitting distance of her Madison Square Garden dates next month.

Madonna - who opens the tour on Monday in L.A. - doesn't skip a beat in making sure the $1 million-plus production is her most outrageous yet, complete with an electric chair, nearly nude pregnant women and plenty of lesbian love, according to reports out of London yesterday.

The show reportedly opens with a frisky Madonna simulating sex with a female tango dancer - which is quaint compared with other segments of the "Re-Invention" show.

When she sings "Papa Don't Preach," she'll be backed by a chorus line of scantily clad, heavily pregnant babes.

That ought to provide comic relief from the setup for "American Life," when the audience gets to hear the sounds of bombs dropping and watch a video montage of troops battling in Iraq.

A video of sickly, starving children will reportedly unspool while Madonna delivers her cover of the John Lennon classic "Imagine."

But the kicker to the provocative production promises to be the sizzling finale.

After she wraps her rendition of "Lament," the lights will go down and, following a flash-storm of fireworks, Madonna will reappear strapped into an electric chair and writhing to escape, according to reports.

She rises from the dead and sings her sentimental, Kabbalah-inspired lullaby, "Bedtime Story."

Madonna, baby, this is 2004, not 1984. This crap isn't even mildly shocking anymore, not with videos of beheadings and bombings available on the internet to anyone who wants to look for them.

You know what would really be shocking? Acting like an adult, instead of a snotty teenager. That would shock the hell out of all of us.

posted by H.D. Miller on 3:10 PM. . .Link. . .

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Wednesday, May 19, 2004

 

Media Victory

Robert at Alphabet City shows how Arab media outlets are shamlessly spinning the heroic bayonet charge of the the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders into an atrocity.

What Jazeera and Arabiya and would have us believe is that Iraqi Shiites loyal to Sadr simply wanted to demonstrate and, despite being armed, were ruthlessly attacked by the British with cluster bombs. Perhaps in retaliation for the murder of Nick Berg, perhaps not. The wounds on the corpses were inflicted by mutilation after death, not by bayonets during close quarter fighting.

Read it all.

posted by H.D. Miller on 5:53 PM. . .Link. . .

 

Who Says There a War On?

Certainly not John Kerry's official campaign blog. As I pointed out last week, Kerry's campaign blog is a microcosm of a larger campaign strategy, one designed to avoid the single biggest issue currently facing this nation. Here are the Kerry campaign blog posts for the past seven days:

Who really wants to raise gas taxes?

Grand Old Petroleum

Renominating Alan Greenspan

A Fantastic Night at Headquarters

We're Almost There! [fundraising--ed.]

Time for Real Leadership on Global AIDS

A Letter from Howard Dean:The Bat is Back!

One Floor at a Time

Bush’s Pay-To-Play White House

A Step Forward for Americans with Disabilities

Providing Needed Health Care

Gas Prices Over $2--1st Time Ever

Creating a Ladder of Opportunity: Kerry on Brown v. Board of Education

Building a Stronger America [Hooray for labor unions!--ed.]

Yucca Mountain - Not On My Watch

Why I Love Grassroots Politics

One Floor At a Time

Sunday Show Lineup

Greetings from Minnesota's 3rd CD

Marathon Madness winners!

Kerry Radio Address: Armed Forces Day

When Is Bush Going to GetIntelligence Sharing Right?

International Brotherhood of Police Officers Endorse John Kerry

Kerry on the Highway

Taking the Pulse in Wisconsin

A Broken Health Care System

Rapping for Kerry

One Floor at a Time

Kerry Supports $25 Billion Emergency Funding Request

Of the 29 posts to the Kerry campaign blog over the past week only a single one mentions the war on terror. (And for that, I must liberally interpret Kerry's slam of Bush on the issue of intelligence sharing). And word "Iraq" only appears four times, three of which are contained in Howard Dean's letter to Democrats.

Even more ridiculous, if you read what looks to be a comment on the war, Kerry's Armed Forces Day radio address, you'll see the man doesn't mention Iraq, or our fight against terrorism, or any sort of acknowledgement, other than in the most general way, that our service men and women are currently in engaged in combat. The piece could have just as easily been delivered in peace time. (By the way, Kerry does of course manage to mention his own service in Vietnam, and that of his father in WWII.)

Once again, it's obvious that John Kerry is avoiding the most important issue currently facing America.

posted by H.D. Miller on 3:53 PM. . .Link. . .

 

Bushworld

Saints Preserve Us! The Countess of Crap has decided to grace us with a book.

Maureen Dowd, the Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times columnist, has agreed to partner with G.P. Putnam's Sons for her first foray into the book publishing world. Her debut, entitled BUSHWORLD, is a powerful look at the current administration.

"Powerful"?!? Oh, please, Dowd's columns are anything but powerful. Snippy, or shallow, or stupid, or superficial, but certainly not powerful.

I don't know what I'm more stunned by, that this is her FIRST book, or that Putnam thinks there's anyone left outside of Manhattan or the Beltway who still cares what Maureen Dowd thinks about anything.

Take a look at this recent Dowd drivel if you'd like to get a taste of what awaits the reader in Bushworld.

posted by H.D. Miller on 3:42 PM. . .Link. . .

 

Dodgeball!

From the Possum comes great good news that the much maligned sport of dodgeball is making a come back among adults. Just in time for the movie.

posted by H.D. Miller on 12:58 PM. . .Link. . .

 

Semper Europa

The more America changes, the more European views of America as warmonger stay the same. Talk about your old Europe.

posted by H.D. Miller on 12:02 PM. . .Link. . .

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Tuesday, May 18, 2004

 

Denial is Not a River in Iraq

Ace o'Spades has a nice long discussion about the waves of denial that are sweeping the media pundiocracy following the announcement that Sarin was found in a roadside bomb in Iraq.

That's what we'd call a clumsy shift in argument. For months, [Chris] Matthews and the rest of the liberal media has been arguing strenuously that, of all the regimes in the world, Hussein's was one of the few not producing or maintaining WMD stocks.

It only takes the discovery of a single sarin shell to abruptly throw the spin into a squealing reverse and begin claiming that of course Saddam had sarin, everyone did. After all, aren't these mere "tactical weapons of war"?

Well, yes, Chris, they are. Any weapon which is not a strategic weapon is a "tactical weapon of war."

And if it's sarin, it's also prohibited WMD. A WMD "tactical weapon of war."

The left is forever raising the bar for evidence, and forever engaging in childish semantic games. The presence of sarin in Iraq doesn't prove the presence of sarin in Iraq. Furthermore, this was merely a "tactical weapon of war;" apparently the new sematic game will be that we went to war to stop Hussein's manufacture and retention of only strategic WMD's.

Tactical WMD's? Nothing to sweat about, apparently.

This is another one of those developments that you could have seen coming from a great distance: that we'd find some WMDs and that those who've been crowing loudly about our not doing so prior to this, would either deny it was important, or seek to misdirect the discussion away from their own politically-induced blindness.

It is interesting to note that John Kerry (always willing to hedge his bets) had just a month ago laid the ground work for what he believed to be a credible position if WMD's did eventually show up. Here he is answering a question on Chris Matthews odious show.

It appears, as they peel away the weapons of mass destruction issue, and--we may yet find them, Chris. Look, I want to make it clear: Who knows if a month from now, you find some weapons. You may. But you certainly didn't find them where they said they were, and you certainly didn't find them in the quantities that they said they were.

Kerry, as usual wants to have it both ways. It's not enough to find a single shell full of sarin, or even a truckload of shells full of sarin. It'll only apparently be enough for John F. Kerry when we find the WMDs "where they said were" and in "the quantities that they said they were".

Both of these, of course, are ridiculous standards, the sort quibbling, legalistic standards small children employ in complex games of tag. ("Those WMDs aren't IT because you didn't announce which WMDs you'd find before you found them.")

As more information comes out of Iraq in the next few weeks, and as more of this WMD material is located (as it inevitably will be), look for Kerry and the left to go silent, or to desperately change the topic.


posted by H.D. Miller on 1:16 PM. . .Link. . .

 

Zarqawi's End

Andrew McCarthy reminds us that only a few months ago terrorist mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was complaining about how badly things were going for the terrorists in Iraq.

He also makes a convincing case, using Zarqawi's own words, that what the Islamists fear the most are a resolute America and Iraqi sovereignty.

Five months ago, Zarqawi starkly described his anxiety: although numerous successful terror attacks had been executed by his militant Islamists — amiably labeled "the insurgency" by the press, but called "the mujahedeen" by Zarqawi — the United States was standing firm. "America," he wrote, "has no intention of leaving, no matter how many wounded nor how bloody it becomes."

This, he bemoaned, set the stage for the jihadists' crushing defeat, for it meant not only that "our field of movement is shrinking and the grip around the throat of the mujahedeen has begun to tighten," but also that soon the U.S. would turn over control of Iraq to an indigenous government whose security forces would be "intimately linked to the people of this region." That could not be allowed to happen, for it would leave the militants with only two choices, both unacceptable: to fight the Iraqi people or to skulk away in defeat.

Once again, our only option in Iraq is to win; to restore some semblance of order and peace, transfer sovereignty to a functioning, autonomous Iraqi government, and then to guide this new Iraq to prosperity and freedom.

We've just got to tough it out until these things can be accomplished.

posted by H.D. Miller on 1:02 PM. . .Link. . .

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Monday, May 17, 2004

 

Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho

Ted Kennedy's got to go:

Edward Kennedy ought to resign from the U.S. Senate.

Likewise, Sen. Kennedy's protegé John Kerry ought to publicly disassociate himself from, and denounce in no uncertain terms, his mentor's latest inflammatory remarks.

Sen. Kennedy has made a career of verbal attacks so vicious that few other politicians could get away with them. But the frequency and outrageousness of his cheap shots have increased in recent years -- and this past Monday he outdid himself.

His remarks on the Senate floor were so obnoxious, so inexcusable, that no apology can make amends for them. In them, Sen. Kennedy had the gall to assert a moral equivalence between the routine brutality of Saddam Hussein's regime and the humiliating, but exceptional, treatment of some Iraqi prisoners by their American guards.

Consider Mr. Kennedy's statement: "Protection of the Iraqi people from the cruelty of Saddam had become one of the administration's last remaining rationalizations for going to war. All of the other trumped-up rationalizations have collapsed. ... On Dec. 24, 2003 -- the day Saddam was captured -- President Bush said, 'For the vast majority of Iraqi citizens who wish to live as free men and women, this event brings further assurance that the torture chambers and the secret police are gone forever.' On March 19, 2004, President Bush asked: 'Who would prefer that Saddam's torture chambers still be open?' Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management -- U.S. management."

This comes on top of Mr. Kennedy saying last year that the entire war effort was a "fraud" undertaken for political advantage, while accusing President Bush of using "bribery" to secure the support of foreign leaders.

It comes on top of him calling judicial nominees "Neanderthals." And on and on go the examples of his calumnies, including, most famously, when he slandered Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork in 1987 thusly: "Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens."

This is all hate speech, pure and simple, coming from a man whose own moral compass has time and again been notoriously skewed.

Testify, brother, testify!

Kennedy's a lout, a buffoon, a political opportunist of the first order, and a blithering incompetent. He should have been voted out of the Senate a generation ago.

posted by H.D. Miller on 1:16 PM. . .Link. . .

 

Grasping at Straws

A couple days back I pointed out a ridiculous piece by Eric Konigsberg in the New Yorker's Talk of the Town, one that was supposed show that some Republicans are so disgruntled as to become supporters of John F. Kerry.

Take a look at this piece posted by Tara McKelvey at the American Prospect's blog, Tapped, under the headline "Disgruntlement Watch."

Republicans for Kerry. Well, there's no official organization -- yet. But, as Eric Konigsberg reports in a Talk of the Town piece in this week's New Yorker, there are quite a few of them out there.

Exhibit A is Grant Winthrop, who works for an investment advisory firm in New York. He had been a "party loyalist" for years, donating money to Rick Lazio's Senate campaign against Hillary Clinton and supporting the Republican cause. But last year, he started getting concerned about "the Republican Party’s rightward turn," writes Konigsberg. And now he's serving on the finance committee of Kerry's campaign in New York. Recently, he gave a fundraiser at the Sheraton in New York. One of his guests was Theodore Roosevelt IV, "one of Bush's more vocal Republican critics," writes Konigsberg. It's a start.

Talk about withholding important facts!

McKelvey fails to mention that Grant Winthrop is John F. Kerry's first cousin! A fact that even writer Eric Konigsberg had included, even though it rendered the entire article silly.

As for putative "Republican" Theordore Roosevelt IV, he's the honorary chairman of the League of Conservation Voters, a liberal enviromental organization that has been the recipient of Theresa Heinz's largess (to the tune of 2.3 million dollars) and one that has predictably endorsed John Kerry for president. He's also a personal friend of Theresa Heinz, sitting with her on more than one charity board.

These sorts of omissions are just sad, and do little to buttress a case for a growing "disgruntlement" among Republicans.

Indeed, they suggest a growing desperation among Democrats.

posted by H.D. Miller on 12:34 PM. . .Link. . .

 

Knife to a Gunfight, Part Two

Yet another story about the superiority of the blade.

OUTNUMBERED British soldiers killed 35 Iraqi attackers in the Army’s first bayonet charge since the Falklands War 22 years ago. The fearless Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders stormed rebel positions after being ambushed and pinned down.

Despite being outnumbered five to one, they suffered only three minor wounds in the hand-to-hand fighting near the city of Amara.

The battle erupted after Land Rovers carrying 20 Argylls came under attack on a highway. After radioing for back-up, they fixed bayonets and charged at 100 rebels using tactics learned in drills.

When the fighting ended bodies lay all over the highway — and more were floating in a nearby river. Nine rebels were captured.

An Army spokesman said: “This was an intense engagement.”

If I were running the Iraqi insurgency I'd be sure to spend a little less time on the brandishing of weapons and a little more time on the aiming of weapons.

posted by H.D. Miller on 12:13 PM. . .Link. . .

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Sunday, May 16, 2004

 

Luke 6:41

I nearly spit out my soup this afternoon when I heard Bill Nelson, Democratic Senator from Florida, speaking on NPR say the following about the Senate Armes Services Committee investigation into prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison:

We always try to ask the hard questions. And, you know, the system itself is set up that it's very difficult when the chairman of the committee gives you five or six minutes to ask your questions. And, of course, the witnesses drag out the answers, palavering around, often going off the subject. You're trying to be polite, but you try to interrupt and bring'em back..."

I nearly spit out my soup because anyone who spent even five minutes listening to the committee hearings knows that it was a prime example of what happens when congressmen conduct their investigations in the full glare of the national media: their questions become nothing more than partisan political speeches.

Take a look at the transcripts of Donald Rumsfeld's recent appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Here's giant, red-faced blowhard, Teddy Kennedy asking a "question" of Donald Rumsfeld, together with Rummy's answer:

KENNEDY: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To the people in the Middle East, and too often today, the symbol of America is not the Statue of Liberty, it's the prisoner standing on a box wearing a dark cape and a dark hood on his head, wires attached to his body, afraid that he's going to be electrocuted.

These incidents of torture and abuse resulted in a catastrophic crisis of credibility for our nation.

Now, since the beginning of the war, the International Committee of the Red Cross provided the Pentagon officials with reports of abuses at this prison, saying that some of them were tantamount to torture. They issued serious complaints during an inspection of the prison in October of 2003 and at several other times.

The State Department and the Coalition Provisional Authority appealed to you to stop the mistreatment of the military detainees. Secretary Powell raised this issue at Cabinet meeting and elsewhere, pleading with officials from your department, Mr. Secretary, to see that detainees were properly cared for and treated, and your department failed to act.

The military leadership put the troops in charge of the prison who weren't trained to do the job, and they assigned far too prisoners (sic) to the prison than were required to do the job right, and they relied on the civilian contractors to perform military duties, as I understand, including the interrogation of Iraqi prisoners.

And as Senator Levin pointed out, the top-level Defense officials directed guards at the prison to set physical and mental conditions for favorable interrogation of the detainees, a decision that directly resulted in the abuses.

And the military leadership failed to respond in a systematic way even after it initiated the 35 criminal investigations into alleged mistreatment of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan, 25 of these investigations involving a death.

I know that Secretary Brownlee referred to this.

In particular, in December of 2002, military doctors at the Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan ruled that two Afghan men in U.S. custody died from blunt force injuries. No one in the military has been held accountable for those homicides.

You and your senior leadership have shown, I believe, a disregard for the protection of the Geneva Conventions in detainee operations. In January, 2002, you were asked why you believe the Geneva Conventions do not apply to detainees in Guantanamo. You replied that you did not have the slightest concern about their treatment, in light of what has occurred in 9/11.

According to the New York Times, you have known about the graphic photographs, evidence of abuse in the Abu Ghraib prison since mid- January. You told President Bush about these reports of abuse shortly thereafter. And yet, rather than work with Congress to deal with the problem together, you and other top Defense Department officials have apparently spent the last three weeks in preparing the public relations plan.

Can you tell us what exactly did you tell the president about these reports of abuse in late January, and what did he say, and what did you do about it, and why month after month after month had to pass before anything has happened and then we find out that the pictures came out and that the president is indeed angry?

RUMSFELD: First, Senator Kennedy, your statement that other agencies of government were concerned about detainees and the Department of Defense failed to act is simply not correct.

Kennedy's "question" clocks in a 546 words, while Rumsfeld's reply is terse 26.

Other senators who are equally prolix in their "questioning" are (ex)Klansman Robert Byrd, who, suffering a bout of laryngitis, can manage only a 399 word question, Republican John Cornyn of Texas who begins with 423 words, Hilary Clinton who shrills out 553, and the worst of all, Republican Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, who starts with five minute peroration of 782 words.

To Nelson's ridiculous charge that witnesses "drag out the answers, palavering around, often going off the subject," I offer Senator Evan Bayh, Democrat of Indiana, who begins with a 423 word "question", to which Rumsfeld replies "That's possible", eliciting a 285 word follow-up from Bayh.

Senator Nelson needs to examine the beam in his own eye before he starts to complain about the mote in Donald Rumsfeld's eye.


posted by H.D. Miller on 6:19 PM. . .Link. . .

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Saturday, May 15, 2004

 

Hey, Hey, Hey

It's Fat Ali!



Talk about your slow moving target, this one looks like he's been bellying up to same all-you-can-eat buffet as Muqtada al-Sadr.

And who says the global obesity plague is all bad?

posted by H.D. Miller on 10:46 PM. . .Link. . .

 

Winning Ugly

Judith Apter Klinghoffer gives us ten reasons to be optimistic about how things are going in the Middle East.

Watching the amazing ugliness and incoherence of the Iraqi battlefront of the war on terror, it is easy to understand Otto Von Bismark’s comment that a special providence watches out for drunks, fools and the United States of America. Why? Because America is winning the war on terror. How? By slowly but surely making the Middle East safe for democracy. Indeed, it is even possible to argue that the American stumbling in Iraq is providing a cover under which reform can be presented as an alternative, even a rebuke, to American military power. In other words, the U.S. is winning the way it has often won, ugly.

Read the whole list.

posted by H.D. Miller on 10:06 PM. . .Link. . .

 

University of Minnesota Spankological Protocol

From the Seattle Times: Cop who spanked boy gets punished himself

By the time Seattle police officer Richard Roberson met him, the 8-year-old boy was known around West Seattle as a real troublemaker. He ran away from home so often his mother sometimes had to handcuff her wrist to his.

The boy would hop on Metro buses without paying and take off to places such as Enumclaw, Everett, Issaquah and Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. One time, he tried to get to Mount Rainier. Another time, after his mother hid his shoes, he was found wandering downtown Seattle — in roller skates.

"For some reason," Roberson would say later, "I felt after seeing this child, I felt there was some reason I needed to step in." So the officer became a father figure, helping the boy with homework, taking him to movies and even giving him his work cellphone number.

And when the boy kept running, Roberson did one more thing.

He spanked him.

Roberson's actions raise a question that isn't easily answered: How far can an officer go in doing his or her job?

Roberson is appealing a recent five-day suspension without pay for spanking the boy on at least five occasions, arguing that he was trying to solve a long-term community problem with good, independent police work.

The boy's mother said she gave Roberson permission each time to spank her child. To protect the boy's identity, neither the boy nor his mother is being named.

She said that before the spankings began, she and Roberson agreed he would take on the role of big brother and mentor to her son, who has been diagnosed with emotional and mental problems. The boy's biological father lives in another state.

"Both prior to and after (each spanking), he explained to my son what was going on, what he was doing wrong, like any parent would," the mother said last month.

"Yes, I thought it was having a positive effect on my child because there was a male figure monitoring him. He was trying to shape up; he had somebody interested in him."

Roberson, 50, is a 20-year veteran of the U.S. Army who is married, has three grown children and helped run a day-care center with his wife. He said he chose police work as a second career because he thought he could "make a difference."

Roberson and the mother say that because of their agreement, Roberson did not violate state law when he spanked the boy.

Specifically, state law says: "Physical discipline of a child is not unlawful when it is reasonable and moderate and is inflicted by a parent, teacher or guardian for purposes of restraining or correcting the child. Any use of force on a child by any other person is unlawful unless it is reasonable and moderate and is authorized in advance by the child's parent or guardian for purpose of restraining or correcting the child."

Of course, Officer Roberson's version of the University of Minnisota Spankological Protocal worked like a charm.

The spankings started May 13, 2002, when the boy was 8, and continued through June 2003. The boy is now 10. His mother said he has matured and his behavior has improved in the past two years. [...]

"I really admire the man (Roberson), because he came forward when no one else would," the mother said last week. [...]

On May 13, 2002, the boy ran. The call went out over the police radio, and Roberson was dispatched to find the boy. He rounded him up, returned him home, and "I put him over my knee and I gave him four swats on the rear," he told the public-safety commission.

The mother and [Police Officer Shawn] Swanson were both in the room. Roberson told his sergeant, [Cindy] Granard, about what had happened. But Granard didn't tell anybody else and was eventually disciplined for it.

On May 16, 2002, the boy ran away again. Roberson was working an off-duty security job at a nearby Safeway. He told the dispatchers that he knew the boy and said he'd take care of the situation.

He testified that he drove the boy home in his personal vehicle, sat him down and explained that when he ran away, dangerous people might harm him.

Then he spanked the boy again, five times, hard enough to make the boy cry.

"Then I stood him up and told him, 'Now, do you understand why this happened? Is this gonna happen in the future?' " Roberson testified.

To paraphrase Ned Flanders parents, the child welfare authorites in Seattle "tried nothing and were all out of ideas."

Thank goodness that people like Officer Roberson remember that a good old-fashioned butt-whuppin, especially when delivered by a male role model, works.

The man's a hero and deserves to be recognized as such.

(Hat tip to the Brothers Judd.)

posted by H.D. Miller on 9:35 PM. . .Link. . .

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The Archives