There He Goes Again

He's doing it again--playing the future race card on himself:

"Nobody thinks that Bush and McCain have a real answer to the challenges we face. So what they're going to try to do is make you scared of me," Obama said. "You know, he's not patriotic enough, he's got a funny name, you know, he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills."

The way things are going Obama might be able to charge racial discrimination on himself before it's all over.

It's tempting to say this is a first in presidential politics but is there really any doubt Jackson or Sharpton would have used it had they come as far? The first here is that Obama's the first to effectively pull it off without sounding obvious. Actually the real first in this campaign is the media's overt bias towards one candidate, but that's another post.

As Obama says, they'll keep hitting him as "risky" because frankly, he is risky based on his experience and past associations and visions for losing wars. What team Obama is trying to do is remove the legitimate criticism by associating it with his name and skin color in an effort to immunize himself from all white opponents. He did likewise with Hillary and it worked.

It's tempting to suggest a bold strategy for McCain--perhaps a commercial showing Obama talking about fearmongering then flash to Jeremiah, Phleger and Moss, ending with Obama calling his own grandmother 'typical'. At the very end McCain would pop on and say "stop making this campaign about race and come out to debate me at some townhall meetings, you little snot". OK, maybe without the last part.

He could also make a commercial calling attention to the savior's own fearmongering by his attempts to tie McCain to Karl Rove while pointing out how a do-nothing Congress has ignored gas prices to focus on getting Rove on some trumped up charge to help prop up Obama's fearmongering. Too bad McCain can't use the biggest fearmongering card of all--global warming. C'est la vie. Or oops, Merci beaucoup.

There are of course pitfalls. Once McCain even utters the word race he runs the risk of making the whole thing about race because of his own race. So perhaps it's not time for action. McCain's true friend right now might be Obama's hubris and overconfidence fueled by a throng of adoring media snapping pictures. It's bound to be a house of 'cards'.

Takeways from the Hamdan Trial

Not many bombshells so far, other than learning that even drivers for bin Laden know McDonalds fries don't taste good cold. Hey, Saddam liked Doritos, perhaps we should adjust our interrogation methods by withholding fast food. Or would that be called torture, too?

The only thing approaching a serious headline has been the already-known impressions bin Laden had about America (paper tiger). But this is an important point and something even relevant to decision 08.

Andrew McCarthy, the government prosecutor who tried the Blind Sheikh for planning the "Landmarks" plot in New York City in the mid 90s, has a new book called Willful Blindness that deals with exactly what Hamdan reportedly attributed to UBL. But does he remain blind on the blindness? Some think so.

McCarthy wasn't very kind to private researcher/writer Peter Lance and he hasn't been much nicer to another critic, former Clinton Iraq adviser and writer Laurie Mylroie. Her book review sparked the followed retort:

Sometime in 1993 or 1994, a briefing at the Manhattan district attorney’s office was arranged for me and a few other federal prosecutors involved in the World Trade Center bombing cases. The briefer was Mylroie, then (if memory serves) a professor at Harvard, where she’d earned her doctorate in government. She was spouting a theory that the attack had been the work of Saddam Hussein and that we ignoramuses were completely missing the boat by charging Islamic terrorists, notwithstanding the overwhelming evidence that they had carried out the atrocity.

He continues the same snarl throughout the piece but his overall rebuttal isn't nearly as biting.

Mylroie has long been known for asserting that 93 WTC bomber Ramzi Yousef was an Iraqi agent--McCarthy basically thinks she's a nut. She defends:

Indeed, as Judge Mukasey stated, there was "no evidence" any defendant knew Ramzi Yousef, the plot's mastermind, let alone joined him in bombing the building.

Yep, that's the same Mukasey. Anyway, McCarthy actually supports this line of thought by depicting Yousef and several others as mysterious people "called in" from the outside without going into much detail about who they were and why they came (Mylroie essentially claims that was because they were tied to state intelligence apparatuses).

He talks extensively about 93 WTC participant Mohammed Salameh but completely ignores the following:

In June 1992, Salameh's phone bill went through the roof, rising from $128.41 in May to $1,401.00 in June. Indeed, on June 10, Salameh made the first of forty-six calls to Iraq, before his phone service was cut-off on July 9 for non-payment.8 The vast majority of these calls to Iraq were to his maternal uncle, Kadri Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr had been number two in the "Western Sector," a terrorist unit established within the PLO after the 1967 war, when the PLO was based in Jordan. It operated in the area west of the Jordan River. Abu Bakr was arrested by Israeli authorities for terrorism in 1968 and sentenced to twenty years in prison. He was released in 1986 and deported from the West Bank, whence he made his way to Iraq, where he came to work at the PLO office in Baghdad.

Yousef was a known Palestinian sympathizer, as was Saddam. Personally I found these omissions a little puzzling when reading the book as well.

Perhaps McCarthy thinks Mylroie is insinuating he was a dupe for U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White (and ergo, the administration) to allow the Blind Sheikh to be set up as a bogeyman to divert public attention off any state sponsorship, specifically from Sudan. As a political appointee White could hardly go after Sudanese diplomats without coordination from the top. That never happened. Instead, a higher wall went up.

But in supporting his "willful blindness" theory McCarthy didn't shy away from tying the Sudanese government officials to the Landmarks plot, mentioning their former jihadi-loving leader Hassan al-Turabi as perhaps linked to an assassination plot against Egypt's Mubarak. Yet this actually brings Saddam and others into the picture since according to Yossef Bodansky, al-Turabi was working hard in the 90s to bring Arab countries together to give jihad a chance against the west. McCarthy seems of the opinion these jihadies were acting as cliques without much state help, at least without Iraq's help, while admitting Sudan's involvement. Keep in mind Iraq sent Farouk Hijazi to meet bin Laden in Sudan during 1993, where an office in Baghdad was apparently discussed.

We do know that after the Gulf War Saddam reduced his love for Mubarak and we know from the recent Joint Forces report on Iraq that he was dabbling with Zawahiri's Egyptian Islamic Jihad group (all largely ignored by the MSM). These things favor Mylroie's view of state involvement.

It's notable the FBI's agent provocateur inside the Brooklyn Cell, Egyptian Emad Salem, was once affiliated with Egyptian intelligence. Mubarak had previously persecuted Zawahiri and other Islamists. Saddam had issues with Mubarak and was dabbling with terrorists along the Nile. Perhaps an "enemy of my enemy" thing?

We know Bill Clinton sent cruise missiles to Iraq and Sudan during his tenure, the former officially in reaction to the aborted hit on Bush 41 in Kuwait and the latter on a presumed pharmaceutical plant thought to be making VX gas for bin Laden with help from Iraqi scientists (another fact never mentioned by the MSM). Was the Khartoum attack actually more about revenge for the failed Landmarks plot (along with a message to Saddam) than anything else? If so, it didn't work. Hamdan's paper tiger was in full force and the rest is history.

So if the Jihadists took the US military as dressed up foo-foo dogs with bark but no bite, what did the states think? Scooter Libby once opined on that back in 2001, as relayed by Bob Woodward in "Bush at War":

"If we say it's al Qaeda, a state sponsor may feel safe and then hit us thinking they will have a bye because we'll blame it on al Qaeda."

The 9/11 Commission would later call al Qaeda a bunch of "rootless, non-state actors" yet it's indisputable that a state sponsor was involved in the Landmarks plot in 1993, using proxy terrorists, who probably also thought we were toothless. This seems to be lost on McCarthy.

As Mylroie says, had Americans been fully aware of the state involvement in the Landmarks plot they'd have surely demanded a pound of flesh in retribution, forcing Clinton into a war if he had any hope of regaining the White House. Clearly he wanted to spend the "peace dividend" instead, gained only by downsizing the loathsome military--which is hard to do while at war. He didn't know 9/11 would come, though.

The history of diversion actually goes back even further. The FBI characterized Meir Kahane's murderer Sayyid Nossair as a "lone wolf" in 1990 while knowing of his involvement with the Brooklyn Cell. Bush 41 was in office at the time, so it seems Clinton simply took up the baton.

Bottom line, while Mylroie might be an obstinate debater and probably dead wrong about Ramzi Yousef's identity she's unequivocally correct on this:

When it comes to the Shiites, we recognize Iran's role, but we refuse to consider that Sunni extremists might also receive crucial assistance from states.

McCarthy's discomfort in acknowledging the level of involvement from states despite his knowledge of Sudan's involvement gives Mylroie a win by technical knockout regards the book fight. Meanwhile down in the trenches, Bush has been working for years to change America's tiger image, unleashing the military to prove the point, which is something McCain seems eager to continue and preserve. Obama? Well, he's got his team for change in place.

Speaking of cracked

OK, so a large chunk of ice from the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf near Canada's Ellesmere Island has cracked off according to CNN, who says the ice researcher at Trent University who recognized it was careful not to blame global warming. And why not? That's probably what caused it.

After all, it was warming that caused the ice to break free from Ellesmere Island at the turn of last century. Yet this is news, not because Arctic temperatures might be warming but because the conventional wisdom says that man has caused this warming:

Ellesmere Island was once entirely ringed by a single enormous ice shelf that broke up in the early 1900s. At 170 square miles and 130-feet thick, the Ward Hunt shelf is the largest of those remnants. Mueller said it has been steadily declining since the 1930s.

Emphasis added.

No wonder the scientist was reluctant to mention 'global warming' since by doing so he'd be linking exhausts from SUVs and jet aircraft to an event that occurred 100 years ago and before the birth of Dick Cheney or Karl Rove.

Proof? Link? OK, from muzzled NASA scientist James Hansen's GISS site, here's the record from an actual weather station in the NW Territories, one of few with data back into the 1800s. Unfortunately it stops around 1980 but provides enough to get a feel for the warming that caused Ellesmere to begin losing its ice before McCain was even around.

So...does anyone really think Nancy Pelosi could have saved that precious ice were she alive and Speaker back then? Not rational folks, but it seems nutbars are now gaining more and more power, with others arriving soon if Obama sweeps in. To point out the ludicrousness, Jerry Brown is now harassing(and I pronounce that hur rass) a bottled water company for trying to bring jobs to an old lumber town in California called McCloud for having the audacity to suggest a plant there.

If bottled water is ripe for ridicule as an unnecessary climate change-causing luxury item then the door is wide open for anything depending on the whims of the nutbars. Consider California's recent ban of trans-fat and Los Angeles's ban on new fast food joints and it certainly looks like the hippies are making their final stand.

Just call it change.

MORE 7/30/08

Well, I guess McCain would not be happy with me for the above. It's a mad, mad, world, folks.

Apologies indeed

There's nothing necessarily wrong with the government issuing an apology. Even for slavery? Well, we fought a war over it then corrected the wrongs to the point a black man is the odds-on favorite to win the presidency. But if they really want to sincerely apologize for past wrongs, including Jim Crow, go for it. Just keep the word sincere in mind.

The man who floated this resolution was Rep Steve Cohen, a liberal Democrat from Memphis who apparently hates Jesus and is running for re-election in less than 10 days in a predominately black district against a fairly popular black woman. Surely just a coincidence. Perhaps a vote for Steve is a vote for reparations, hint, hint?

Who knows, maybe this can start a trend. How about weekly Congressional apologies for wasting the voters' time and money? Perhaps Speaker Pelosi could find time from the daunting task of single-handedly saving the planet during her four day workweek to get this program going.

But just wondering, how would a slavery apology affect Obama? Would he even qualify? For instance, are people with one typical white American parent and a black African parent formally included, even if their ancestors were perhaps part of the problem? Confusing.

Midhat Mursi killed...again

News outlets are saying the US Predator strike in Pakistan has killed AQ chem/bio expert Midhat Mursi. Good. Problem is, he's already dead, or so we were told.

Zombie or not, Midhat is/was yet another Egyptian involved with al Qaeda, going all the way back to the 1993 attack in New York. More later.

MORE 7/29/08

It's confirmed according to the Pakistanis but not us. If true this certainly cancels his scheduled torture session and subsequent habeas corpus petition.

For those who don't like to click, one of the above links contained the following tidbit:

Whether due to the frustrations of a stagnate nuclear weapons program or the aspiration to pursue other WMD for their unique capabilities, al-Qaeda, under the direction of Abu Hafs al-Masri and Midhat Mursi, aka Abu Khabab, established a biological weapons program around 1999 [6]. The program experimented and developed several biological agents including botulinum toxin, but al-Qaeda still seemed fixated on agents with mass casualty potential. Operating in laboratories scattered among al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan, the biological program began experiments in isolating a virulent strain of “Agent X,” most likely anthrax bacteria.

Mursi, aka Abu Khabab, was apparently one of Zawahiri's point men on the X issue, so if true this was a big score. Kudos are in store for the RC controllers at CIA and DoD for getting this creep off the streets and preventing him from someday killing innocent women and children, even if he wasn't able to constitute much of a chem/bio program for AQ. Hopefully the US will absolutely confirm soon.

By the way, a few bloggers fell for the mix up between photos of Mursi and Abu Hamza again. The same thing happened the last time he was killed.

The problem? Googling images of Midhat Mursi produces mainly versions of Hamza. As I found out with McCain's plane recently, paste and post doesn't always work.

The real photo is at left.

Qantas QF-30

The updates are trickling in on the strange explosion aboard Qantas QF-30. Scotland Yard wasted no time in proclaiming that the massive hole ripped in the side of flight QF-30 wasn't caused by a bomb (or even the mention of one).

The media didn't waste time either, grabbing the nearest experts to speculate wildly on non-bomb related causes:

Experts said the dramatic incident was most likely to have been caused by either corrosion to the inside of the plane, such as a liquid spilled in the cabin above that had lain undetected, or damage caused by freight or a maintenance vehicle that had been badly repaired.

Coffee drippings causing corrosion. Nice. But that was yesterday's theory, now debunked. Today's theory has moved to oxygen tanks.

Once upon a time authorities and experts were steadfast in refraining from premature speculation until the investigation was completed. Now they offer opinions before investigations even start. Tends to strain credibility.

But OK, it's certainly possible a bomb could have been ruled out due to a lack of visible scorching, etc. If the oxygen bottle theory is correct that brings to mind the Value Jet crash in 1996, blamed on a fire started by improperly sealed oxygen bottles. That possibility would seem to open the door for some litigation since there were mandates to install fire suppression systems in cargo holds, however with no injuries the lawsuits will probably be minimized.

Whether these oxygen tanks were loose or the ones used for the drop-down oxygen masks isn't clear yet, but nobody complained of a lack of oxygen on the video. This will become known soon. Still, it seems premature to rule out foul play so early especially since if it was involved here they'd need to rule out ramp personnel in London and Hong Kong first (as this explosion was obviously not within the passenger compartment). In the Value Jet crash a ramp contractor was partially blamed. How would the NTSB or anyone else know at this early juncture whether some form of sabotage was not involved?

But this seeming paradigm shift on premature speculation, sometimes even from authorities, is worth some discussion. Although Andrew McCarthy's book "Willful Blindness" was not about aviation terrorism the first sentence was: "imagine the liability!". He attributes those words to FBI agents when discussing the first known Islamic terror cell in America (the Blind Sheikh), giving readers an insight into the thought processes at the time. Does the notion still prevail? The answer almost certainly has to be yes.

After all, even after 9/11 (an attack designed to be seen by everyone and therefore immune from governmental obfuscation) things haven't changed regarding commercial aviation. We still know a disruption of confidence in air travel with fuel at such high rates could torpedo the industry, which is vital to western civilization and commerce. Such truth could explain a few things in the recent past.

For instance, Al Gore chaired an aviation safety commission in 1996 that made several recommendations for strengthening air safety. Few were put in place due to the enormous costs. For some strange reason the subsequent allegations of political payoffs didn't get the wall-to-wall coverage from the New York Times or 60 Minutes that the Abu Ghraib story garnered. Go figure.

That said, QF-30 may well have an innocent explanation but at the same time history compels us to take notice any time a 747 suffers an unforced explosion:

In 1982 a Jordanian named Mohammed Rashid, a member of the 15 May terrorist group supported by Iraq, placed a small seat bomb on Pan Am flight 830 from Tokyo to Honolulu. The bomb blew up and killed a Japanese teenager, but the plane landed safely.

In 1988 Pan Am 103 blew up over Lockerbie, Scotland killing 270 people.

In 1994 a small seat bomb was placed in a Philippine Airlines Boeing 747. Again the bomb exploded, killing a passenger, but the plane landed safely. This was the supposed test run for Yousef and Khalid's "Operation Bojinka".

Then, in 1996 another Boeing 747 exploded, this time with catastrophic results. We still don't have the entire suite of information on what happened that evening.

In a related vein, the FAA recently heralded their mandate for commercial carriers to retrofit nitrogen inerters in the fuel tanks of the Boeings and Airbuses to minimize chance explosions. What they didn't mention was the ignition sources, which are harder to mitigate. Nevertheless, inerted fuel vapors will make it harder for jihadists to blow up center wing tanks, something also accomplished by narco-terrorists.

As to QF-30, it may soon disappear down the same memory hole occupied by Speedbird 38. If so it won't be a great surprise. But come what may we can rest assured somebody will be learning from these mistakes, even if the public remains utterly oblivious. Let's hope those somebodies are on our side.

UPDATE 7/28/08

Tomorrow's news down under is out, and so is CEO Geoff Dixon. He announced his departure amidst the QF-30 incident and another involving a landing gear door that wouldn't retract. Dixon was in favor of a private consortium takeover bid for Qantas last year that included maverick airline rescue artist David Bonderman of Texas Pacific, which was later rejected:

Dixon had enthusiastically backed the buyout, which would have given him a $60 million payout. "If I had my time over again," he told Fortune in June in Sydney, "I don't think I'd do anything differently, except I would not want myself, or any of the senior management, to do a long-term contract deal with the bidders."

Guess it was time for him to fly.

Meanwhile, engineers are now saying the hole in the fuselage might have saved the aircraft from a disastrous fire by allowing outside air through the hole to mix out the pure oxygen environment, reducing the fire hazard. Aren't those areas equipped with fire suppression? Anyway, perhaps a stroke of luck. This still doesn't explain what caused the tank to fly off it's moorings, suggestive of a number of other causes besides mechanical failure. Usually we'd have to wait for the final report, but probably not.

Out of Africa

Is Obama a Muslim? A socialist? A Marxist? None of them really go hand in hand but logic hasn't stopped the sensationalism machine from saying yes to all of the above. Yet despite the wild eyed pushbacks from his followers whenever the above charges are mentioned we still don't have a definitive picture of what Barack Hussein Obama is truly all about.

Take for instance his 2006 African foray, taken at the behest of his fellow Kenyan tribesman and politician Raila Odingo. According to his Wiki site Odinga is a "social democrat", an kinder gentler offshoot of the pure socialism chosen by his late father, also a Kenyan politician. Odinga is formally affiliated with an outfit called "Liberal International", whose purpose appears to be aligned more with social liberals rather than Marxists or Communists. A factoid--Odinga named his first child "Fidel" in honor of the bearded tyrant in Cuba.

Odinga is officially an Anglican. He came under fire when running for president in 2007 when an agreement with Kenyan Muslim leaders was leaked that promised support for favors. Some controversy exists, since another version was distributed in the US suggesting that the agreement bound Odinga to push the country towards Sharia law if elected in return for their support at the polls.

There's no dispute an agreement was signed, as evidenced by this recent letter to now Prime Minister Odinga begging him to come through on the promises. It's hard to say which one was faked, since it doesn't seem out of the question for Muslims to ask for the moon if they believed the agreement to be secret. Snopes debunks some of the African myth but not all. Just remember, we've been told it's OK to lie for jihad but we've also seen (as Snopes points out) lies for Christianity, so the jury is still out.

An aside--the most famous al Qaeda suspect wanted for the East African Embassy bombings in 1998 is Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, a native of the Comoros Islands off the east African coast. It's interesting al Qaeda chose to target the embassy in Nairobi, and it's also interesting that Kenya was involved in the recent US military sweep in Somalia along with Ethiopia. It's even more interesting that the Muslims who lobbied Odinga (undisputed) are using western instruments like habeas corpus to lobby for the halt of some alleged renditions of Muslim terror suspects given the fact they'd choose Sharia if they could.

The question is whether any of this says anything about Obama or how he might run the country. All we can do is take an overview of his known friends and acquaintances, such as messers Odinga, Ayers, Dohrn, Wright, Pfleger, Moss and various others and paint a partial picture of a man who'll likely lean more left than middle. It'd be sweet if such unknowns could get sorted out in the debates but we're more likely to see Mitchell's aliens before that ever happens.

MORE 7/27/08

Right Truth has a story about some interesting requests the advocacy group "Muslim Americans for Obama 08" are making of the candidate. I can't help but notice the similarity with the requests made by the Kenyan Muslims to Odinga, whom Barack supported. For what it's worth.

MORE 7/27/08

Not the Kenyan school he once knew, or another smear? You decide.

Side tracks

Dedicated to those fighting the wars of politics and passion.

Bush impeachment hearings

It was a raucous day, filled with many protesters and much Congressional grandstanding. While not officially an impeachment hearing, the word impeachment was mentioned over and over. Perhaps the only shining moment for Republicans came in this exchange:



"Slightly demented" and "overwrought". Sorta defines the entire debate.

Indeed, Rep. King's office later released Joe Wilson's debriefing to the CIA after his trip to Niger, which suggested that an Iraqi delegation HAD tried to inquire as to a commercial deal with that country. This has been a fact in evidence for some time but has never been heralded by anyone in the mainstream media for some strange reason.

Perhaps that's because many in the mainstream media undoubtedly took sides in this debate long ago. Nicolas Kristof, the Times reporter that Joe and Val Wilson met with to start the whole "Bush lied, people died" campaign, has showed rather clearly which camp he resides in via his "Truth Commission" and lately his thoughts on Israel. No media bias there, of course.

YES, BUT 7/26/08

Mr. "Bush is guilty of murder" Bugliosi posed an interesting question. Bush is immune from prosecution outside of Congress right now, but what about after Jan 20th?
Will the Dem partisans sick the FBI or World Court on Bushco for the alleged war crimes? And if they do, what would a president Barack do?

Chances are he'd pardon before it got to a trial. Think of the PR coup, especially if the election's close. The headlines might read, "Barack the Benevolent" pardons Republican scoundrels, decries partisan divide..." etc. Chances are he'd only suffer mild damage from the far left while securing moderate brownie points for reelection. If he allowed it to go to trial there's a risk Bush would be proven not guilty, which would blow back in his face like a big pie.

And McCain? Would he be compelled to pardon with no political gain (only loss)? After all, everyone remembered Ford for pardoning and tripping, not much else. Seems he'd obviously have to grant a pardon since he voted for and advocated many of the same things Bush did.

The worse case scenario for Obama might be to let Bush languish in court only to have evidence come out justifying his actions, then have the US suffer another attack. The money's on pardon.

Governor Girly Man

What the hell happened to Arnold?

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has made it official: California will be the first trans-fat free state in the nation.

Message to the governator--if people are dumb enough to eat Krispy Kremes for breakfast and McDonalds for lunch every day it's their damn fault. The state has no business getting into our kitchens unless those kitchens are serving too many paint chips or roach legs. Men have fought and died for our freedom to stuff donuts, beer, and polish sausages down our pancake holes while smoking a cigarette. Arnold seems to think freedom of choice resides in his mansion.

Well, unless it's related to sexual freedom. After all, he signed SB777, which effectively removed the concept of mom and dad in California schools. He also signed a smoking ban that makes criminals out of people who light up in a car including someone under the age of 18. And don't even mention his stance on global warming (CO2 a pollutant, trans-fat a toxin, just nuts). He's been trending towards the mommy party for awhile now.

Actually, this is a fine example of why government-run health care is a disaster in the making. Think about it as it relates to food choices and premiums and risk. In the short-term these fast food joints and restaurants will simply switch to an oil not yet demonized--they've no choice if their product is to retain any taste:

"This is problematic," said Jot Condie, president of the CRA. "We fear that this is a potentially slippery slope where the list could go on and on & and basically restaurants would be criminalized for having an ingredient in one of their recipes."

The CRA recently sued the City and County of San Francisco and the city's public health department over a law requiring menus to list nutritional information.

"Consumers are smart and restaurants are very smart and know what consumers want," said Condie, who deems the law entirely unnecessary.

Yes, presuming the public is intelligent and can make their own choices--it's called the Republican way, a way in which Mr. Governator is apparently unfamiliar. And they accuse Bush of taking away our liberties.

There's another angle here. The story mentions record profits for the companies making the alternative oils, who stand to gain a lot from these bans if they spread to other states. Perhaps someone needs to start following the money. Surely Henry Waxman (D- California) has that one on his day planner.

Obama in France

The man of light has done everything but sign executive orders and pardon the Thanksgiving Turkey on this trip. Somebody better check on the nuclear football.

Here's a wild theory--he went to Afghanistan then Europe not only to look presidential by posing for pictures and proclaiming stuff nobody can argue with, but to pressure the Continentals into contributing more troops Afghanistan so he can take credit for it later. That makes him look effective while simultaneously highlighting the 'real' battle in Afghanistan.

That works because McCain has largely ignored Afghan while focusing on Iraq, other than saying he'd pursue UBL to the gates of hell. Obama can now say he's doing something about it, even though he's in no official position to do anything but campaign. But it's clear Obama would rather stress Afghanistan now that Iraq has settled down, and this trip helped.

Obamafest

Obama will deliver a campaign speech to Berlin voters today, preaching a sermon of hope and change that will roughly translate to "when George Bush steps down, the entire world is gonna breath a sigh of relief" or perhaps "anyone but Bush". Apparently they've banned hand-made signs, evidently to prevent photos of Obama speaking to cheering crowds holding Bushitler signs or somesuch.

The anticipation is palpable, both there and here. I happened to catch a short blurb on the radio this morning where a young German woman was interviewed about her impression of Obama and replied, "he knows something about Islam" (funny, he's been running from that over here).

Both Kerry and McCain must be secretly seething. Kerry also ran for president of Europe but got nowhere near this kind of reaction (they're expecting a million for the speech today). But to be fair, he didn't know much about Islam and probably seemed a little more militaristic than Barack. As for McCain, he's spent the last decade running from the image of typical Republican, trying to distance himself from Bush, and yet a typical German said,

"What do want, McCain to win?" that person asked. "It would be good if Obama won, and he can only do that if he convinces voters back home via the TV. So let the cameras show masses of people flocking to Obama through the Brandenburg Gate."

On with the show.

REACTION 7/24/08

Takeaways ..

Overall a good message, one even McCain could have delivered. Clearly aimed at moderates and those who think Obama lacks the international street cred to lead. Few can give a speech like the man of change but reality is something different. With that, here are my questions:

As we speak, cars in Boston and factories in Beijing are melting the ice caps in the Arctic, shrinking coastlines in the Atlantic, and bringing drought to farms from Kansas to Kenya.

Drought in Kansas? Not really, unless he was talking about the far western tip. But it's nice to know Beantown was responsible for melting the north pole. Now if professor Obama can only tell us which city is to blame for increasing the southern ice cap.

The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand.

He talked about walls several times. Here this seems to be a knock at border security and sovereignty, or perhaps Europe's lack of charity.

But my country and yours have a stake in seeing that NATO's first mission beyond Europe's borders is a success. For the people of Afghanistan, and for our shared security, the work must be done. America cannot do this alone. The Afghan people need our troops and your troops; our support and your support to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda, to develop their economy, and to help them rebuild their nation. We have too much at stake to turn back now.

Hard to argue this, since I've been saying it myself for some time.

This is the moment when we must build on the wealth that open markets have created, and share its benefits more equitably.

More code talk about wealth redistribution. UN-types must have been sexually aroused by this speech.

And despite past differences, this is the moment when the world should support the millions of Iraqis who seek to rebuild their lives, even as we pass responsibility to the Iraqi government and finally bring this war to a close.

This is both a good and bad statement, typical of Obama. He's clearly saying he's going to redeploy (end the war) but is suggesting that if chaos breaks out after we leave it won't be his fault altogether.

This is the moment when we must come together to save this planet.

He'll sign Kyoto, wink, wink. More largesse from America on the way.

Will we reject torture and stand for the rule of law? Will we welcome immigrants from different lands, and shun discrimination against those who don't look like us or worship like we do, and keep the promise of equality and opportunity for all of our people?

In other words, Bush is a war criminal and I'll give comprehensive immigration reform to illegals while chastising those concerned with terrorists waltzing across the border.

every point of view is expressed in our public squares..

Yes, usually in English so we can all understand.
Ironically, Barack himself was speaking English today, not German.

Time to change...the narrative

Really sad. CNN's Jack Cafferty is one among other netrooters questioning John McCain's command of the facts about Iraq and his judgment to lead based solely on his response to Katie Couric's suggestion that Obama has questioned the surge's effectiveness:

“I don’t know how you respond to something that is such a false depiction of what actually happened. Colonel McFarland was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that’s just a matter of history.”

Couric's interview can be viewed here.

Well OK, but the beginnings of the awakening did not equate to its success. The same Sheikh McCain mentioned was later KILLED, which some on the left tried to use as proof the surge was a failure. Indeed, Reid was saying the war was "lost" several months after the surge began. Sorry Dems, that dog won't hunt.

Meanwhile, Cafferty must have forgotten his own network's expose on snipers, provided to them by the snipers themselves, which aired in September and October 2006 before the elections.

And chaos was the general view supported by Democrats at the time, who were running on a Six Point Plan that harped on Bush's "wrong directions", such as:

failed to provide strategy to stabilize Iraq or begin the responsible redeployment of our troops

Now that a new strategy has pulled victory from the jaws of Reid's defeat it's time to change the narrative. But the bottom line is that while McCain might be wrong on a few small details he was right on what mattered, and Barack was wrong. Attempting to politicize it only tends to support McCain's earlier point.

Besides, it's possible this whole thing is just a clever smokescreen designed to gloss over Barack's inability to admit his mistakes, made evident by his recent stammering under the hot lights. And where have we seen that before?

MORE 7/23/08

Sam Stein at HuffPo has noticed that Sunni Sheikh Abdul Sattar Abu Risha was killed in September 2007 in the midst of the surge, and thinks this constitutes a gaffe because McCain mentioned him as the person the surge was designed to protect. Excuse me, but he just might be a moron.

The crux of this entire kerfuffle revolves around Obama's hint that the Anbar Awakening was mostly responsible for the recent reduction in violence, and that it began before the surge. McCain is saying it wouldn't have succeeded without the surge, as casualty rates have only recently come down this year. The loss of the man who championed the pushback against al Qaeda, during the middle of the surge, serves only as proof the increase was vital to protecting the movement, which later turned the tide. It can only bolster McCain's view.

The Mother of all Photo-ops

Mission accomplshed? The tour is almost over and certainly many of the goals were met. After all, Huffpo described his State and military greeters as a mob, quite appropriate for the arrival of a rock star.

Everyone's speculating, so here's mine. First, he was trying to associate himself positively with the military. McCain owns national defense (72 percent believe he's the CIC bomb) but generally struggles everywhere else. Perhaps team Obama figured it was worth the gamble if the tour could take a few chinks out of that armor and quiet McCain's criticism. At the same time it was a gamble they had to take because voters need to feel comfortable with the man holding the button, and right now they don't have warm fuzzies with Obama.

He probably also wanted to gain some control over the recent success in Iraq before it goes to McCain. His erroneous surge redeployment strategy figures to be a very difficult cat to walk backwards unless things return to worms. He needed some control of the message--no silly hat pictures--and the scripted nature of the first impact images was apparent enough to drop the jaw of at least one well-known journo. As soon as Terry Moran got an interview Obama immediately committed a gaffe, but the damage was done.

Finally, they got him as close to camouflage as humanly possible without him wearing it. As we know, every candidate must appear in camo at some point along the trail to win over the bitter clingers. Right now it's a bit too obvious but eventually they may try to slip him into a duck blind or deer stand if the race stays close. It's all about photo-ops.

But speaking of photo-ops, the irony of Moran framing his report in front of the Saddam swords brings to mind Barack's biggest card--the one that closed the deal--that he was the only candidate against the war from the start. It was a card Hillary just couldn't defend, even with the most banal lies and distortions, and even though a Democratic ticket with Hillary at the top and Obama second would have been unbeatable, almost ensuring DNC power for 12 to 16 years (not 8-10).

Of course nobody bothered to ask the man of diplomacy how it felt to be walking around Baghdad International without body armor, an airport whose name would still be Saddam Intl had we followed his 2002 advice.

And nobody asked him whether he'd consider meeting, without pre-conditions, one of the biggest leaders of the Baath-al Qaeda insurgency and number one man on Iraq' Most Wanted 41, Izzat al-Duri, who recently proclaimed:

Addouri sounded definitely confident of victory and reiterated that the U.S. -led occupation has already been defeated, and "in despair is looking for an exit." The resistance "has destroyed the alliance of evil, the parties of which are escaping one after another.

But never mind, how about that shot he dropped from 20 feet (or was it 35 feet)? It was almost a swish.

Near miss for Ron Paul

Look out:

A Continental Airlines flight carrying seven members of Congress from Houston to Washington was forced to make an emergency landing after it lost cabin pressure Tuesday afternoon. Flight 458 was bound for Reagan National Airport, but was diverted and landed safely in New Orleans, a spokeswoman for U.S. Rep. Ted Poe told 11 News.

Poe and fellow Congressmen Nick Lampson, Ron Paul..

The story also said the plane had an hour delay before takeoff in Houston due to an engine problem. Or should engine problem be in scare quotes? Somebody please start the official Alex Jones head explosion watch.

UPDATE 7/23/08

Hmmmm. Ron Paul was just peddling doom in Infowars a week ago, saying something big is coming soon. But the plane didn't crash. Guess the Illuminati were only trying to scare him.

HT Right Truth.

US flag removed from Barack's campaign jet?

So says World Net Daily. And while it would be tasty good to think that Obama would essentially remove an American flag lapel pin from the tail of his campaign plane, it doesn't appear to be the case.

Obama had been chartering a North American Airlines charter 757 through the primary season for his campaign plane. About a month ago that plane went into the shop to be refurbished and repainted after Obama won the nomination and he briefly used an American Airlines MD80. So, WND is correct in one sense, that the very same plane has been alterred to have the flag removed.

The problem is, Obama didn't put the flag there in the first place. Here's another NAA aircraft, a Boeing 767 (not Obama's plane):


There's the same flag. Now, here's the former Obama jet:


Here it is now, after the upgrade:


By the way, here's McCain's plane:


See any flags? (SEE UPDATE BELOW)

After the campaign Obama's plane will undoubtedly return to normal livery and service, with the flag re-added. There is no story here.

However, Obama can only blame himself for people thinking he'd remove a flag from his campaign jet before an important Middle Eastern tour after what we saw with the flag pin/national anthem flap and his friendliness with a flag-stomping domestic terrorist named William Ayers.

But the right wing needs to be careful lest they be labeled a bunch of yahoo reactionaries, knee-jerking to every little story. Once labeled it could act to diminish further legitimate bashing (and there's much to bash).

UPDATE 7/22/08

The McCain photo above might be photo-shopped, as mentioned by a commenter. There are very few pictures available on the net showing his aircraft, other than a Jet Blue A320. The photo above looks strikingly similar to the Airbus corporate livery. So, if the commenter provides a link or image, I'll post, but I am assuming it's a fake for now. It doesn't change the overall storyline, though, but an apology will follow if I'm wrong about McCain's display of the flag.

FLAG DAY 7/25/08

Commenter Mataharley has located the McCain plane and the aforementioned flag. This proves the posted pic was almost surely a photo-shop, and I apologize for posting without definitive proof it was really McCain's. Now, perhaps we can all move on?

Satirical retribution?

Although the New Yorker cover featuring Obama in a Muslim costume was portrayed as satire by the magazine, some did take a more literal view. Like team Obama, for instance. And team McCain. And some of the bitter clingers. And those who tend to view things through race-colored glasses. Still, most in the intelligentsia went to bat to protect satire.

But is there a price to pay for living on the satirical edge? According to Mike Allen at Politico, maybe so:

The campaign received 200 requests for press seats on the plane.

Among those for whom there was no room was Ryan Lizza, Washington correspondent of The New Yorker. The campaign, which was furious about the magazine’s satirical cover this week, cited space constraints in turning him away.

None other than Rachel Sklar at HuffPo was not very amused, suggesting:

Wow. So it's gonna be like that, is it? Retribution for unfavorable coverage is a chilling thing to contemplate — literally, as in, it carries with it the very real risk of chilling bold, outspoken coverage.

Speaking of robust debate, this topic has certainly produced it, dividing those who usually agree. McCain supporters such as Stormwarning (check out his latest post if you don't believe it) has been very outspoken about those who 'agreed' with the cartoon and other unnecessary methods of slamming Obama, suggesting he's plenty ripe enough for criticism above the Hussein level. Satire is a concept that needs nurturing, because it has a place in an open, free, and polite society.

So if Ryan Lizza is really important enough to qualify for being blackballed by team Obama then it's certainly a chilling message--"play by our rules or begone". In other words, a clever way to herd the press into the stalls Obama wants them via faux outrage over anything negative. Then again I can't help but wonder if some of these happenings aren't being organized by the 'keep Hillary alive' brigade. She still hasn't given up her delegates and some of her supporters are, shall we say, passionate.

Charmed, I'm sure

Obama sat down with the charming Lara Logan of CBS to discuss the war fight in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which he considers very critical. Watch the whole thing, otherwise you'll miss the highlights edited out of the short version:

• He said we need to take a "regional approach" and not be myopic about Iraq, meaning we have to engage Pakistan (as if we haven't yet). Apparently this is some kind of reverse regional approach that eliminates Iraq from the region, which is located in the source region for most of the "Afghan Arab" Mujihadeen who are now flowing into the region.
  
• He suggested we could have captured the leaders of al Qaeda and the Taliban had we not "taken our eyes off the ball". Obama supporters might argue this doesn't mean at Tora Bora but inclusive from the time they got away. OK, but the last time they were known to be in Afghanistan was at Tora Bora and we haven't had a fix since in Pakistan, so he seems to be saying we 'took our eye off the ball' BEFORE we went into Iraq. How?
• An Obama regime would be less unilateral and more involved in the interests of other countries. This despite his re-iterated policy from last year wherein he'd go after high value targets wherever they are, even if the host country said no, perhaps an even more draconian Bush doctrine than the real one.

Wonder if someone could pose this hypothetical to Obama--since Zarqawi and one of the WTC 1 bombers were in Iraq before the invasion; and since Saddam wasn't about to turn over anybody without significant concessions the west would surely consider to be deal-breakers that could undermine the UN sanction process; would Obama have veered from that policy with Saddam, even knowing he didn't have nukes?

At any rate, Logan seemed fully charmed.

MORE 7/20/08

Despite Obama's inconsistent logic on the war he's correct that the situation in Afghanistan is getting worse, thanks to Pakistan:

Afghanistan is replacing Iraq as the destination of choice for international jihadists, Western intelligence agencies claim. Analysts have monitored a surge in online recruitment of “lions of Islam” to join the war in Afghanistan through jihadist websites,

At the same time perhaps Obama's rhetoric gives Bush cover to get more aggressive with the Pakis and the tribal areas, which has independently declared war on NATO forces in Afghanistan, and hence that country itself. Perhaps the much-anticipated show of air power sometime before the end of the year will not come in Iran, but a little further east?

Whatever the case, something must be done soon to ebb the flow. AQ's overall plan is to wage a long war, which stretches western resolve and drains our treasuries, something western economies can't withstand forever.

Gore Nation

Al Gore's latest attempt to win friends and influence people occurred at the Netroots Nation conference:

“The defenders of the status quo are the ones who have dug us into this hole,” he said, commenting that Americans have been “so often fooled into finding a remedy for a problem" that has nothing to do with the problem at hand — pointing to the invasion of Iraq when America was attacked by terrorists in Afghanistan as an example.

Rational people could conclude Gore helped shovel that 'hole' as VP for eight years, which included the WARMEST YEAR in the past century, 1998, without changing the way we lived. Guess we had more than a decade back then, but a decade later we suddenly only have a decade left. Unless Obama is elected.

But change is indeed here with 4 buck a gallon gas, ironically close to the target goal in "Earth in the Balance". Gore's solution seems to be to punish the little man for driving his evil car instead of using our own resources because it punishes Gaia (that's where the climate thing really comes in handy). It's a castor oil approach to government except for those with enough get out of climate jail free offset cards to weather any disturbances on the way to energy Valhalla.

Strange, his always friendly audiences never seem curious about such punishment (are there any Gore hecklers?), often including the media (whenever they're not too busy hinting that Bush needlessly fearmongers over terror and takes away civil liberties--as we know, fearmongering over climate is patriotic and acceptable).

Pointing out the obvious, it wouldn't be a Netroots speech without the oft-repeated drivel about Iraq being a mistake because AQ was in Afghanistan, even used completely out of context as Gore did. It's like pablum. Disregard Gore's own State Department list of terrorist-sponsoring nations and his own 1992 speech--all now 'settled' and 'inconvenient', debate over.

But hey, the rhetoric works or he wouldn't use it. Some folks want to believe, like in aliens, unicorns and winning the lottery. It's better than believing in a world where religious extremists unafraid to die pursue hobbies like decapitation with steak knives, forcing airline passengers into unscheduled stops in buildings, or to exit such structures through the windows. To believe Bush and the Joooos are the culprits requires only a new president to fix things, backed by the occasional and justified Katyusha rocket attack from the keffiyah resistance, of course.

There's your change. Obama is running on it, and he's just Gore with a slicker delivery.

Shark Attack!

Good Lord, is that 53 year old Greg Norman leading the British Open after three rounds? Yep. Thank you Tiger for blowing out your knee while nipping 82 year old Rocco Mediate in the US Open so we could get one final Sunday with Greg in contention in a major.

I'll stay away from all that stuff about his divorce and remarriage to tennis great Chrissy Evert, I'm just enjoying the 70s flashback. Maybe the Little River Band will show up and play "Help is on the Way" with an appearance by Bjorn and Martina.

Anyway, if Norman melts down during the final round it won't matter (unlike the 1996 Masters) because he's clearly performing way above expectations at this point. Who knows, it's an advantage he never had before. And while he may be known more for not getting it done at clutch time I'll certainly remember the showman who won the 1997 Memphis Fed Ex tournament by sinking a long curling putt on the final hole. Good luck, Shark.

MORE 7/20/08

To be clear, the above wasn't meant to be gleeful about Tiger's injury. His performance against Mediate in the US Open was almost other worldly considering the nature of his at the time, hidden injuries. Almost certainly, if he were healthy then Norman's performance wouldn't be the main headline going into today.

JOLLY GOOD 7/20/08

If it were any other 53 year old golfer Norman's weekend story would be miraculous (well, perhaps until Tiger reaches his 50s). But it was Greg Norman, who had one more chance to exorcise the demons and change a legacy marred not only by his own failures but by several miracles pulled off by his competitors at the last minute. Alas, the story remains the same. Consolation prize--another return to Augusta.

As to the winner, a good-natured, unassuming Irishman named Paddy, he now has as many Claret Jugs as the Shark. Indeed it's a good day for the Irish, especially after a certain Englishman in the field bragged so much. Aye.

Side tracks

In light of McCain's recent funny on Conan..



Here's a song about the long struggle to get to the top..



Oddly enough, the words seem pertinent to politicians as well, especially those with the battle scars to prove it.

The Neverending Story

MSNewsweek recently reported on Attorney General Mukasey's denial of a subpoena requesting the FBI 302 interview form from Cheney's 2004 sit-down about the Plame matter, expressing frustration and disappointment for Henry Waxman and for all the wasted champagne and party hats.

If noting else the story drew Tom Maguire out of his self-imposed Plame moratorium, postulating correctly that due to the nature of this claim the champagne and party hats could return during an Obama administration if the man of consensus so desires. As to Darth Cheney:

And Fitzgerald introduced a copy of the Wilson op-ed marked up in Cheney's handwriting with a mention of Wilson's wife.

Which leaves me a question. If Cheney was focusing on Wilson's wife from early June and was supposedly the first one to tell Libby why did he mark up a newspaper column from July 6 as if it was something new? Did he forget? After all, he's old and kinda sickly (consistency is a virtue).

Team Newsweek was full of questions, such as why the White House allowed Rove's 302 to be given to the committee but not Cheney's. Their hired expert said it was nearly unprecedented. Well, I'm neither an expert, lawyer, or hired, but it seems possible that Cheney's FBI interview might have focused on his White House conversations with close advisors, the very core of any executive privilege claim. If Rove's 302 focused mainly on what he told reporters, or what others in the administration below level of prez had told him, then it makes some sense.

Yes, both Cheney and Bush submitted themselves to interviews yet after hearing those interviews Fitzgerald didn't go after either, suggesting there wasn't much there of an incriminating nature. That leaves a standard privilege argument.

And while Newsweek seemed to delight in leaving the sinister impression this was virgin territory it's not everyday Congress has access to a vice-presidential 302. Waxman was essentially attempting to make an end run around the White House, which is likely why Mukasey characterized it as such, and why he got the buzzer sound.

But back to Maguire's question--will Obama carry the torch if elected? He'll get pressure from some of the hardest nutrooters, like some rapid Republicans pressured Bush vis a vis the Clintons in 2001. But Bush wouldn't even go after Hillary for stealing the furniture or messing up the W keys. History and 50 bucks says Obama will take the same path.

Ashcroft on the Hill

The Congress finally found John Ashcroft. The former Attorney General came out of semi-hiding and testified before the full House Judiciary Committee Thursday about his role in the detainee interrogations memos, pretty much another collective yawn for the media despite some moments of candor and verve.

Mr. Ashcroft unsurprisingly declined to call waterboarding torture but he did say he wished he'd paid more attention to terrorism before 9/11, something the left has repeatedly bashed him about. They were also atwitter over this, but at the same time couldn't have been thrilled with one of the witnesses brought in to help the Congressmen nail Ashcroft.

Former Solicitor General Dellinger (Clinton 93-96) testified that presidents have a duty to sometimes ignore laws if they believe them to be unconstitutional but if faced with a ticking bomb scenario they should order the action then resign immediately if laws were broken.

Republicans countered by asking him if FDR should have resigned when he ordered mustard gas carried in Navy ships during WWII (in case the Germans used theirs) to which he generally said no, but was forced to accede that FDR was protecting America from the Axis while Bush was protecting America from AQ. Whoops.

But the only thing approaching a sound bite came from our illustrious Rep Steve Cohen, who after tossing out some boilerplate about blaming Bush for 9/11 managed to get a response from the former AG about that infamous hospital drama (towards the end of the clip):



All in all, John Ashcroft handled the questions well and wasn't prone to much squirming, meaning we basically learned nothing. Just another day in DC for the accomplish-nothing Dems. Ironically, while they were dickering around about the meaning of torture some real torture was proven across the other side of the world. That's the same place another lawyer, Barack Obama, will soon be heading. Wonder if he'll mention it?

Speaking ill of the dead

Did Jesse Jackson's recent hot mic slip on Fox count as speaking ill of the dead?

On Monday, July 9, 2007, during its 98th Annual National Convention in Detroit, Michigan, the NAACP will conduct a mock funeral to bury the N-Word.

Perhaps Jesse just buried himself, figuratively speaking. Al doesn't seem to mind very much. Not sure, does this mean Whoopi hates the NAACP or just loves free speech more? Or is speech only free for those who've paid their dues? All very confusing.

TWA 800, case closed?

Today is the 12th anniversary of the downing of TWA flight 800. In conjunction the FAA had a special announcement to "close the door on fuel tank explosions":

We’ve worked with Boeing to further develop the technology so that it will now be mandatory. Older aircraft will be required to retrofit their systems. New aircraft will have the technology built in.

Long time readers know I've got my own opinions on 800. Let's just say I'm surprised the 9/11 truthers aren't interested since 9/11 pales in comparison on the weirdness scale. Unlike twoofers I'm perfectly willing to admit a sparked wire caused the crash just as soon as the NTSB finds evidence of a spark. All they found was a fray. Actually, it was the way the authorities handled the investigation that caused some people to become skeptics.

The FAA appeared proud of themselves for finally issuing directives on the dangerous problem of exploding fuel tanks after all these years. The airlines weren't impressed, preferring to continue believing such events are so rare as to not be worth the cost of retrofit. Statistics would back them up--800 was the first in the modern jet age to blow up in midair and has been the last.

Don't get me wrong, this is a good thing. It will definitely make these rare explosions even more rare, regardless of the possible ignition sources. Matter of fact, the FAA was very careful to stipulate that retrofitting would only apply to airliners with Center Wing Tanks (under the fuselage), or about 2730 Airbus and Boeings (not nearly the entire fleet). According to the Washington Post the retrofit would not apply to cargo jets because as we all know, cargo jets never explode.

Interestingly, the FAA's union NATCA was first to ask the obvious question--why just retrofit CWTs and not wing tanks as well? After all, they're close to the jet engines. Part of the explanation comes from a so-called "warm days" provision relating to the center wing tanks' proximity to the tarmac, which was cited as a possible contributing factor in 800 even though the temperature at JFK that day only reached the upper 80s. All I can say is if 87 degree days are enough to cause explosions then Memphis and Phoenix have been unbelievably lucky all these years.

Nuances of that nature will keep the conspiracists going on this one for awhile longer. The bottom line is we still don't know what caused the spark, whether a missile, bomb or spark in a wire. But weird behavior by the authorities, including the CIA, doesn't automatically prove a terrorist attack or Navy shootdown. Matter of fact, a fear of rampant litigation against the airlines or aerospace industry can easily explain some of the weirdness all by itself. Lawyers sue, and we've got lots of 'em.

But amidst all the apparent closure perhaps it was fitting this story popped out yesterday. Kinda speaks for itself.

Feith on the Hill

Douglas Feith, commonly known to the left as the evil progenitor of torture and various myths tying Saddam and bin Laden, was in front of the House Judiciary Subcommittee yesterday. Who knew?

Apparently not too many. There is almost nothing in the news about this testimony, nor can much be found on You Tube. When David Addington and John Yoo testified before the subcommittee last month there was considerable interest, especially after Congressman Delahunt suggested that al Qaeda might be happy to see the guests on TV.

But no such frivolity took place with the Feith hearing, mainly because Feith didn't allow it. The testimony can be found on CSPAN with a warning, it's pretty long (2+ hours). Much of it stays close to his opening statement in tone, which was adamant about the care taken to remain within a humane framework in trying to glean critical information out of those who wanted to kill American civilians in the worst ways imaginable.

Highlights--

• Feith said he was subpoenaed but it wasn't necessary--he wanted to testify.
• Feith said General Hill of Southcom came to the administration looking for more latitude for interrogating the toughest nuts because the Field Manual wasn't working.
• Issa asked that Reps Harmon and Pelosi be brought before the committee because they were briefed on tactics (by Feith among others) in 2002.
• Under Geneva, category 2 methods were approved by Rummy but only one Category 3 method, "light shoving or poking with a finger" was approved.

The irony here is palpable--the Democrats are today operating in the sanguine climate of a 2008 devoid of attacks, made possible in part by the very same witnesses they continue to grill and allow others to characterize as torturting murderers. It's no surprise the President didn't want these bozos to have too much knowledge of the sensitive national security initiatives involved in fighting this war, which itself is a crying shame.

Post-mortems should be possible without creating a climate of condemnation and guilt strictly for political gain, something to should be remembered by the Republicans should Obama win and we see another attack.

Bush really did lie!

Addressing the assembled jackals of the press on Tuesday:

Bush expanded on this riff, however, with a strange movement vaguely reminiscent of a genie granting a wish: "You can't just say, 'low gas!'"

But apparently you can! Since Monday crude oil has cratered:

Light, sweet crude for August delivery fell $4.14 to settle at $134.60 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, after earlier sinking as low as $132. The drop follows a $6.44 sell-off Tuesday, crude's biggest since the Gulf War.

Maybe the magic words were not "low gas" but "executive order rescinded".

Of course, Pelosi holds the same magic wand and can wave it by simply acting to rescind the Congressional ban on drilling. But do they really want to lose a political talking point?

Hitchens versus Obama

Christopher Hitchens appears to be on a quest--make everyone in the world hate him before he takes leave.

First he supported the Iraq war, angering his lefty friends but gaining a strange new alliance of pro-war Bush-loving conservatives, most of whom probably weren't aware of his overall politics. Then he attacked God, leaving most of those new-found friends in a frenzied lerch, unsure how to take their new ally. Next he declared waterboarding to be "torture", which warmed him further to his former pals on the port side, who'd previously declared him a bigger Judas figure than Lieberman.

But his recent column should dispel any notion he's on anyone's side:

If there is one element of moral and political certainty that cements the liberal consensus more than any other, it is the complacent view that while Iraq is "a war of choice," it is really and only Afghanistan that is a war of necessity. The ritualistic solidity of this view is impressive. It survives all arguments and all evidence.

Indeed he's right, there are two exercises that can accompany any attempt to convince anti-war liberals of their failed logic in this arena, one is bashing one's head against a brick wall and the other is falling into a catatonic trance. All three seem to produce equal results. The anti-Bush crowd is so deeply invested in Iraq's failure that letting go might be a fate worse than 20 years of continual Reagan movies.

In reality, those folks should have collectively apologized to America when the WMDs weren't found. It was Bill Clinton who "fearmongered" about Saddam to justify his Mesopotamian bombing raids (and the one over Khartoum) in the name of stopping the maniac Butcher from one day raining terror across the world. Instead, most lefties decided the best defense was a good offensive and blamed everything on Heir Bush, and with selective help from some in the media they've largely succeeded.

Ah, but all roads now lead to the ultimate point of that offensive, regaining the White House. Hitchens' main focus was their presumptive candidate and his near scatological approach to the conflicts we face, made clear again today by the latest flop, which McCain jumped on like a cat on a crippled rat:

"Senator Obama is departing soon on a trip abroad that will include a fact-finding mission to Iraq and Afghanistan," McCain said in prepared remarks.

"And I note that he is speaking today about his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan before he has even left, before he has talked to General Petraeus, before he has seen the progress in Iraq, and before he has set foot in Afghanistan for the first time. In my experience, fact-finding missions usually work best the other way around: First you assess the facts on the ground, then you present a new strategy."

This dovetails well with Hitchens' reminder of this now almost forgotten golden moment, quite appropriate as Obama begins his mystery tour of the war zone:



For awhile those comments created a mini firestorm in the primary season, which translated into this classic exchange on an MSNBC debate:



Hitch also noticed something else Obama's rivals didn't at the time:

Did he mean to say that, come to think of it, we had enough troops to occupy three countries instead of the stipulated and solitary one? Or would he just exchange Iraq for Pakistan? At least we do know for sure that Pakistan has nuclear weapons acquired mainly by piracy and is the host and patron of the Taliban and al-Qaida.

Case in point, Obama calls the fight in Iraq a "war" while calling the war in Afghanistan a "fight". That's clearly designed to differentiate one from the other to appeal to those incapable of following the above logic.

But he can't even get Iraq right. Tom Maguire pointed out yesterday that simply saying he'll "stop the war" in Iraq won't act as some kind of magic wand if indeed there is really a civil war there now; if anything it'll be a worse civil war upon our departure. So the "war" will only be stopped as far as the US is concerned, despite the regional chaos we might leave behind.

Behold, the problem with politicizing a war. The more Obama tries to contort his views to anything but Bush, the more convoluted and illogical and inconsistent he becomes.

Bush's oil gambit

It might not help, but it sounds like a brilliant political move with only months to go before an election:

Putting pressure on congressional Democrats to back more exploration for oil, President Bush on Monday lifted an executive ban on offshore drilling that has stood since his father was president. But the move, by itself, will do nothing unless Congress acts as well.

No Karl Rove needed to figure this one out--Congress has some pesky options ahead.

They can try to shelve this issue while cloaking it with idiotic and childish rhetoric ("once again, the oilman in the White House is echoing the demands of Big Oil,"-- said the Speaker of the US House) something not likely to sit well with those paying 50+ bucks a fill-up, especially if oil continues to rise. Even with a friendly MSM at their sides to explain things such a course resembles a rowboat nearing the edge of Niagara Falls.

Or, they can vote against easing the ban and maintain their environmental stand, despite recent polls showing a 2-1 margin in favor of more domestic drilling. Again, not very popular, especially if oil prices continue to rise. It'll be particularly ticklish for the Reps and Senators going back to their districts and holding town hall meetings. There's only so far they can take "Bush is a mean oil man" before people start yelling "yeah? what are you morons doing to fix it?"

Forcing a vote also forces Senator Obama to take a stand. He will not be able to run away and hide when votes are cast on such a major issue knowing McCain will be there will bells on. But what to do? If he votes against the environmentalists and the party base he'll invite even more wrath from a faithful already mad as fire about FISA and the lack of an impeachment. Not only that, it will be a colossal flip-flop and something repeated like Groundhog Day in every GOP commercial down the stretch.

But, if he stays with principle and party he'll risk appearing an ineffectual elitist puffer, someone more concerned about Seagulls than the common man. Barack doesn't need any more setbacks with the Joe Sixpack crowd. Those very same people hold the key to his victory.

He may try to appear sympathetic while at the same time retreating into boilerplate, ie, having it both ways. This quote seems to suggest it:

"If offshore drilling would provide short-term relief at the pump or a long-term strategy for energy independence, it would be worthy of our consideration, regardless of the risks," spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement. "But most experts, even within the Bush administration, concede it would do neither. It would merely prolong the failed energy policies we have seen from Washington for thirty years."

In other words, opening up more land for drilling is a "failed policy" with oil at 150 dollars per barrel because the results won't come in for a few years, but counting on the technology fairy to deliver cheaper and cleaner technology overnight is brilliantly superior. Good luck with that before an election. But dang, if anyone can pull it off it might be Obama.

We're forgetting one wild card--the woman yet to release her delegates. The woman whose rapid supporters are calling for a floor vote at the Convention. The one who could step up and appear decisive here. That woman. Hmm, maybe it's time for team Obama to manufacture another diversion. Reverend Sharpton, you're up!

About that New Yorker cover...

Mike Allen of Politico doesn't quite have all the outrages down:

The Obama campaign is condemning as “tasteless and offensive” a New Yorker magazine cover that depicts Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) in a turban, fist-bumping his gun-slinging wife. An American flag burns in their fireplace.

First of all, it's not their fireplace, it appears to be the Oval Office fireplace (assuming there is one). And he missed the picture of Osama bin Laden on the wall.

But the outrage potential is understandable. In reading the very long New Yorker piece (click on pic for link) it's obvious Obama has long longed for high office and therefore long understood the value of making friends outside his own constituencies. That means the white community, absolutely necessary if a black man is to win the presidency.

Arguably his worst gaffe of the campaign so far was to mention the "bitter clingers" because of the damage that could inflict on the traditional white voters. No doubt his "fight the smears" website was set up to reassure white voters that 1) he wasn't a Muslim, or 2) didn't sympathize with terrorists. The drawing works against that effort, even if satire.

But at the same time, not everything in it was satire. Obama is shown wearing the same garb he wore during a trip to Africa some years ago, something he generally shouldn't desire to toss under the bus, unless he thinks Africa will fit.

As to the burning flag, their friend the former domestic terrorist did a tap dance on Old Glory in 2001. It's interesting the piece hardly mentioned Ayers (something sure to amuse Tom Maguire) other than to say he's been accepted back into polite Chicago society, suggesting his flag dance was perhaps acceptable to those folks, too.

So perhaps the cover could actually work in Obama's favor as yet another way to suggest that asking questions about his past associations actually represents a smear, with those doing so worthy of nothing but ridicule. Time will tell as the complaints come in and the general consensus is formed.

Perhaps the most interesting reaction might come from camp Clinton. Bill just got through speaking out against the troubling divisions in America so a comment seems in order. And perhaps we'll even get one from Hillary if she can manage to remove the duct tape.

Cash for access

Follow the money, that's the old saying. In this case the money was being dangled by an undercover reporter acting alongside a representative for the former president of Kyrgyzstan:

A lobbyist with close ties to the White House is offering access to key figures in George W Bush’s administration in return for six-figure donations to the private library being set up to commemorate Bush’s presidency.

Worldwide Strategic Partners is just one of many security companies specializing in well, getting stuff done. Access, media, recommendations, referrals, the stereo back scratch and so forth.

This tape mentions cash for access to several Bush officials with the intent on helping America improve it's image in Kyrgyzstan, a country recently in turmoil due to upheavals in its democratic process. According to the CIA factbook the former president is Askar Akayev. The blurred out guy in the video was apparently acting in his stead. Why, though? What's the motive for the former president to participate in a sting on the Bush administration?

Perhaps his daughter, interviewed in 2007 two years after her father's ouster, can shine some light on the matter:

EurasiaNet: Does Iran have any influence in Kyrgyzstan?
Akayeva: Iran is very popular here. It is the leading Islamic country in the world, I think. They are popular here because of their stance with the United States. Iranians are very clever people. There is a huge and clear division between the Shiite and Sunni, but not here. This is a bit strange. The Saudis don’t have any influence at all. They’re just financing things. Even the Kuwaitis have more influence than the Saudis. Nobody really cares (about the Saudis).

EurasiaNet: How is the United States viewed in Kyrgyzstan?
Akayeva: Screwed up (laughs). In the ’90s, there were such high hopes for the West in general and the United States in particular. People were very much pro-American. Maybe because America is seen as a stick, or whip. Also, because we see America though Russian eyes. Also, of course, there is Iraq, which is the major cause (of anti-American feeling). People don’t see any help from the United States. And they are not happy with all of the political meddling, through NGOs and the shooting (of a Kyrgyz national by an American serviceman in 2005). [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. I really doubt that [US President George W.] Bush or anyone in the Republican administration even knows where Kyrgyzstan is.

Her last statement might explain some things. It's evident the US, through the NGOs she mentioned, was instrumental in helping overturn her father's reign:

The arrangement highlights the delicate balance Washington must strike as democratic movements begin stirring across the former Soviet Union. To avoid provoking Russia and violating diplomatic norms, the U.S. can't directly back opposition political parties. But it underwrites a web of influential NGOs whose support of press freedom, the rule of law and clean elections almost inevitably pits them against the entrenched interests of the old autocratic regimes.

The stakes for the region are high. In 2003, peaceful demonstrators, some carrying roses, ousted Georgia's longtime president, former Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevarnadze, in what became known as the "Rose Revolution." Two months ago, thousands of Ukrainians wearing orange seized control of Kiev's main square to protest voting fraud, setting the stage for opposition candidate Viktor Yuschenko to win the presidency. Now, opposition figures hope to go three-for-three -- this time using yellow as their color -- in a bid to push Mr. Akayev from power.

So why would the Bush crew desire face time with the former president? Are they beginning to see the value of realpolitik on the way out the door or was Payne simply trying to scam these guys into giving Bush some library loot as a final in-your-face? Does radical Islam or oil have any bearing? Questions remain.

What is apparent is the smell--it doesn't smell good. Bush's library fund is now tainted from the get-go. Just add this to the GOP hit parade of late--it's rare to see such a total implosion with folks shooting off their feet with howitzers all over the place. Obviously some of this could rub off on McCain, who at last check still has an R by his name and who the left have busily been trying to paint as the lobbyists' best friend. Where have you gone, Newt Gingrich?

But.....in the midst of the inevitable Bushco bashing will anyone notice that Payne mentioned the name Joe Biden, along with "some Democrats"? Why did he specifically drop Biden's name? We know Joe has occasionally been mentioned as a possible running mate for Obama. It'll be interesting to see which way this goes. Maybe Pelosi has started to play around with Kucinich's impeachment resolution for a reason.

MORE 7/13/08

Hot Air is covering this story, but surprisingly few sites/blogs are making it a top story, including the left sites. Could that be because Joe Biden was mentioned on the tape or is it just scandal fatigue? Or the weekend?

Anyway, after more thought here's a few more questions.

1. The stated goal of the undercover ops were to get Bush officials to say some good things about the ex-prez, presumably because he might be interested in getting back into power. Yet, the comments from the ex-prez's own daughter suggest that anything coming from the Bush administration wouldn't be worth much anyway.

2. Bush (and perhaps Rice) needs to step forward and speak to this immediately, otherwise his library will be tainted before the first rock is turned. W was supposed to represent a return to responsible government, not a Texas version of Clinton. He owes it to those of us who've supported him on that vision through the years.

3. Unless some alternative explanations come soon this video certainly appears to be stark proof of the selling of American foreign policy. Unlike the liberal canard that our reputation was trashed for taking out Saddam Hussein, this kind of impression is much more harmful to the United States of America.

Side tracks

The passing of Tony Snow was the first story I read upon waking up this morning. He seemed like a good man, one with broad interests and possessing an open but principled mind. He was also a comforting voice to those about to undergo a colonoscopy--at one time including myself. He fought a good fight. May he rest in peace.

His musical hobby was no secret. Michelle Malkin included a compliation of some of his performances on her post, including a rendition of the song "Bouree" made famous by Ian Anderson. Looks like a lot of fun. With that, here's Mr. Anderson and friends..

Abort

According to CNN, reporting on a near-hit at JFK:

Delta Flight 123, a Boeing 757, missed a landing approach and had to "go around," the path of Comair Flight 1520, which was taking off on a perpendicular runway, according to Federal Aviation Administration spokeswoman Laura Brown.

Seems to be some confusion here. The term "go around" does not mean 'go around another aircraft', it means 'abort the landing, go around and get back in line for landing again'.

It's likely the cause of this go-around was the plane taking off on a perpendicular runway, but such things aren't entirely unheard of. Sometimes it's done to avoid a taxiing aircraft that botched ATC instructions or even a maintenance vehicle that hasn't quite cleared the runway. Go-arounds are specified in FAA regulations as to which way the aircraft should climb and turn after aborting, etc.

Not sure if CNN screwed up the wording or doesn't understand the concept, just wanted to chime in here. That doesn't mean this wasn't a scary event. Runway 'incursions' are a hot topic in safety talks these days. Here are some examples:



And here is video of an actual "go-around":

Here come da bus

Two stories this morning, one a rather devastating piece from the New York Post and a kinder, gentler version from their crosstown rival the Times, point to the big upside from Jesse Jackson's Obamaballs moment. The Post speculates he was aware the mic was hot. That seems correct.

It's simply hard to believe Jackson would make such a mistake in of all places, Fox News HQ. Since the news broke Wednesday the initial instinct was to think it was a tactical play to save Obama from having to explain his flip-around on FISA, but the comment was made on Sunday, making it more of a strategic move, if any.

The only rational explanation seems to be that Jackson threw himself under the bus.

But why? Discounting his fiasco with the Duke rape case and his involvement with the Jena Six, Jackson hasn't been on the radar much of late. It's a stretch to say he was perceived by whites as being attached enough to Obama (like a barnacle?) to warrant a castration (sorry). By throwing himself under the bus he also threw himself back into the spotlight.

Both the Times and Post mention how this might help Obama's image with the bitter, white gun-toting hillbilly autoworker Dems, which would make more sense if Obama were seen as tight with the Rev Jesse. He wasn't. The whole thing seems a tad unnecessary as a strategic move, other than for the benefit of Jesse.

Willful Blindness

Andrew McCarthy's new book "Willful Blindness" is a good read, bringing some needed light on the early jihad in America, a time marked by a bogeyman named Omar Abdel Rahman, aka the Blind Sheikh. Back in those days our current villain was just a measly unindicted co-conspirator.

Most of the book is a study of the Brooklyn cell players who bombed the Trade Towers and tried to pull off the 'Day of Terror' bombing targeting NYC landmarks. Here's a nice tidbit from page 262 where terrorist Tarig Elhassan discusses what has to happen:

"The people must understand America has to change...They have to understand American [sic] can break down, can come down. That's it."

This is really the point of the book, not to be lost in some sort of myopic fixation solely on Usama bin Laden--the messenger was different back then but the message was the same.

There are a few eyeopeners and omissions in the book. McCarthy downplays the role of Ali Mohammed, the mystery character some believe was a CIA agent responsible for a lot of our current mess. He also brings to light the FBI cover-your-butt mindset after the 93 Trade Center bomb, using the phrase "imagine the liability" several times to hammer his point across. McCarthy makes sure to note the FBI tried to paint the murderer of JDL leader Meir Kahane (Sayyid Nosair) as a "lone wolf" with no ties to any groups. Ironically the 9/11 Commission would later try to paint al Qaeda the same way in 2003, ie, as rootless and stateless.

That's why his coverage of supposed mastermind Ramzi Yousef was a little surprising based on the international reputation of Yousef and his relationship to his now more famous uncle, KSM. It would have been interesting to know what kind of relationship Yousef had to the Blind Sheikh, if any. McCarthy seems fine having him appear from nowhere and disappear. He does mention Abdul Yasin, but just barely. Both Laurie Mylroie and Simon Reeve provided much more detail of the two in their books on the subject, both mentioning the possible Iraq ties.

This aversion could be due to Peter Lance. McCarthy displays no lost love for Lance, calling into question his journalistic integrity, shall we say. Lance believes Yousef might have been involved in a few nefarious things not attributed to him, such as having an AQ operative plant one of his famous tiny seat bombs on TWA 800 (notice the source). Perhaps answering Lance and others, McCarthy does speculate on why Yousef might have used an Iraqi passport to enter America, something that has never made much sense--beginning on page 184:

When Yousef deplaned, costumed in a silk suit, muslin flounces, and slip-on cloth shoes, he stuck out like a sore thumb. He then did just what an Iraqi agent with skads of other false identification would never do: He presented an Iraqi passport...for which he didn't possess a required visa authorizing entry in the United States. In a word (well, actually two words), amateur hour.

Ergo--pretty much case closed for Andy. Sounds reasonable unless one assumes "amateur hour" itself was a ruse. The Iraqi passport he used had an effective date of 9/11/90, the same day Bush 41 gave the "New World Order" speech. How's that for coincidences? So while McCarthy might refer to him as an amateur he got past immigration (while Ajaj didn't); he got the bomb plot executed; and he got the heck outa Dodge (while others didn't). Are we to believe that was some sort of beginners' luck?

Finally, an interesting side note to ponder. In discussing terrorist Clement Hampton-EL, McCarthy mentioned the Feds were worried in 1993 they might lose him as he was planning to leave for jihad in the Philippines. He never made it, of course, because they rolled up the operation in time.

But Yousef and KSM both made it to the Philippines in 1994 and were there when Murrah Federal Building bomber/plotter Terry Nichols showed up. According to testimony Nichols was worried he might not return to the US, even making a pseudo will for his ex-wife to execute upon his death. What was he afraid of? No connection has ever been established between these men but Nichols' bomb certainly displayed similarities to some of the Islamic versions used during the 90s. Whatever the case, Nichols and Yousef have had plenty of time to discuss things together at the Supermax.

Speaking of nuts...

At least Obama was only figuratively castrated:

Sheriff’s officials say the 43-year-old woman pulled out her .44-caliber Magnum revolver after she saw the mice scurrying across the floor of her trailer on Highway 20 in Potter Valley.

But she accidentally dropped the gun, which went off as it struck the floor. The bullet went through the woman’s kneecap, bounced off the keys sitting on the belt loop of a 42-year-old man in the trailer and grazed the man’s groin before ending up in his coin pocket.

Awesome. Sort of like a real world Mouse Hunt, where the mouse ends up tearing down the entire house. But dang, a .44 magnum to shoot mice in a trailer? What are the odds alcohol wasn't involved in that one? Hell, what are the odds mice were involved?

Blinded with science

The story this morning on Drudge about the Dallas city councilman being called racist for using the term "black hole" to describe an inept bureaucratic office begs the question, what will they rename the term, now that it's offensive? Here are some suggestions:

• Light-challenged hole
• Blank hole
• Invisible hole
• Space hole
• Dark hole

African American hole is of course absurd--unless it can be proven these celestial oddities actually originate from Africa, which itself would be offensive. Dark hole is bordering on offensive if taken the offensive way, as everything is taken these days. I'm going with "space hole".

Come to think of it, they better fix "dark matter", too. And what about "light year"? It could be taken as offensive with some imagination. Might as well include the term "light" itself. And good Lord, what about "Red Giant", "White dwarf" and "Yellow dwarf"? And Uranus? The humanity!

MORE 7/10/08

Apparently the racial insensitivity has spread to pastries. And here we thought confection was safe!

Is our children learning Spanish?

Obama, trying hard to win friends and influence voters:

Now, I agree that immigrants should learn English. I agree with that. But understand this. Instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English -- they'll learn English -- you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish. You should be thinking about, how can your child become bilingual? We should have every child speaking more than one language.

Cap'n Ed and the Minuteman quickly pointed out that simply becoming bi-lingual in Espanol doesn't cover a variety of the other immigrants coming ashore or sneaking across the border daily. I'll add there is an overt pandering to the Latino voters with this, sort of a getting inside McCain's kitchen kind of thing.

So far Obama has not said he would force our children to learn another language but let's think about this a sec. Many people (like me) took several years of foreign language in high school and can't remember more than a few words. The only way to change that might be mandatory proficiency tests. With Obama's penchant for the national service it seems reasonable to assume.

But in reality it's impractical for Americans to be forced into learning alternate languages unless they so choose. Here's an excellent real-world example of how this bi-lingual lunacy can skid out of control. What would Obama suggest, that all Oklahoma Department of Safety examiners be fluent in 100 languages?

Loathe it or not America is still a melting pot, therefore it seems far more beneficial for immigrants to learn the common language rather than having native-born English speakers trying to acquiesce to a myriad of speakers. Teddy Roosevelt's take on this issue, uttered a century ago, is immortalized on the sidebar of this blog for posterity. It's about unity.

Think of how Obama could promote national unity by strongly encouraging all immigrants to quickly learn the common language, rather than looking down his elitist nose at one of the core concepts of our land, one more American than apple pie itself--the melting pot. His apparent failure to grasp this simple concept by demonizing those who desire less division through a national language (like Teddy Roosevelt a century ago) is yet another illustration of his dim vision for this country.

MORE OBAMA NEWS 7/9/08

Today Obama flip-flopped and voted in favor of the FISA bill, one which he originally indicated he might filibuster. Hillary voted against it after playing games on cloture vote. No doubt Obama's trying to pander to the middle-right security voters, but instead of taking heat on the evening cable shows the screaming headline is Jesse Jackson caught whispering about ripping the Messiah's nuts off. Good timing, eh?

A friend indeed

On Face the Nation Sunday Bob Scheiffer reminded John Kerry that he considered asking John McCain to be his running mate in 2004: "Has John McCain changed, or have you changed?" Kerry: "He is not the John McCain..." followed by a rasher of statements proving the Maverick is unfit for duty, like wanting to win the war rather than end the war.

Never mind that some of the comments now considered unpresidential had already been uttered back when Mac was deemed fit to serve a Kerry administration.



Perhaps the real question should be, "Senator Kerry, why are you such an jackass"? No matter, he's obviously clueless as to how those comments reflect on his own judgment. But perhaps we should also question McCain's judgment for ever defending this tool, since we know Kerry hasn't changed a bit since 2004. And dear God, can we please get someone other than Lindsay Graham to defend Mac?

Kristof's Truth Commission

As the truthers say, just asking questions:

The first step of accountability isn’t prosecutions. Rather, we need a national Truth Commission to lead a process of soul searching and national cleansing.

..today, we need a similar Truth Commission, with subpoena power, to investigate the abuses in the aftermath of 9/11.

Perhaps Mr. Kristof would like to start by having his independent body investigate his breakfast meeting with the Wilsons. But seriously,

There's no doubt that some in America wanted to "open a can" after 9/11. It's human nature to want to strike back in-kind. But it's not right, and most of us ARE collectively ashamed of things like Abu Ghraib. Evidently we waterboarded the top echelon of AQ detainees back when the system was blinking red about a possible WMD follow-on attack. It's likely most Americans don't have a warm fuzzy about that but just as many probably understand the conundrum. Others see it in black and white--waterboarding = war criminal, no excuses.

Actually, this sounds somewhat like the "I'm Sorry" websites that popped up a few years ago, all in the name of repairing some amorphous reputation presumably ruined by roughing up a few hardened terrorists after 9/11. Sorry indeed--if our world rep wasn't sullied by a president adulterizing a 21 year old office intern, lying to a Grand Jury, or blowing smoke while bin Laden issued fatwas declaring a war that led to 9/11, then it's not possible.

Krisfof gives some examples of his GWoT heroes that might testify in such a proceeding:

..the Immigration and Naturalization Service commissioner, James Ziglar, pushed back against plans for door-to-door sweeps of Arab-American neighborhoods. The book recounts that in one meeting, Mr. Ziglar bluntly declared, “We do have this thing called the Constitution,” adding that such sweeps would be illegal and “I’m not going to be part of it.”

Amazingly, nothing like that actually occurred in America, which seems to dispel the notion that Bush never takes advice. Here's a few more heroes:

But OK, some of these people men were heroes, including civil liberties groups and lawyers for detainees.

His hero lawyers would have demanded top secret intelligence information in the discovery process, which if denied would have freed their terrorist clients, and if allowed would have made networks and sources vulnerable. Ask Andy McCarthy about what happened in 1993 with the Blind Sheikh. Or better yet, ask John Yoo.

But OK, granted it takes some nads to speak out and they're heroes, just like the ones who shot Abu Zubaydah trying to escape justice or those who splattered Mohammed Atef all over the desert (without trial). So far Kristof's industry has done very little to identify heroes in this war--now he's finally found some, not surprisingly ones fighting against the administration. All part of the narrative, which if expanded through a formal commission could perhaps ensure Democrat rule for decades, especially with help from Mr. Kristof's guilt-ridden compatriots.

Far-fetched? Liberal fantasy? Maybe. Republicans are certainly not guiltless saints and post-mortems can be useful. If anyone actually committed a war crime--intentionally--then they should face charges. It's just hard to believe such a commission would ever find anyone it subpoenaed as "not guilty". They would be considered guilty by just showing up.

And, while Obama might not relish the idea of rehashing the past through some kangaroo court, his government will be run entirely by the likes of Henry Waxman and Harry Reid--with a cheering section of Kristofs in the media--so literally anything is possible.

But shouldn't we really be trying to bring the world together to respond to these threats? Imagine if one were identified tomorrow, just how things might change overnight. The ultimate WMD, so to speak. Of course, everyone would expect America to do something about it, unilaterally if necessary.

Clinton's comment in Aspen

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air seems to agree with Jeffrey Goldberg that a comment Bill Clinton made at the Aspen Ideas Festival was a jab at John McCain. Here's the comment in question:

“Every living soul on this planet has some highly-justified anger. Everyone. If you know anybody who was a P.O.W. for any time, they can be going on for years and all of a sudden something will happen that will trigger all those bad memories.”

But in watching the video in context, it seems unlikely. Matter of fact, if anything he's explaining McCain's temper and nullifying it by comparing him to Nelson Mandela.

After Hillary lost there was a notion that Slick might secretly work to get McCain elected so wifey (and him) would have another shot at the White House in 2012. If anything this quip might prove it's still be in play.

There goes trouble

Regards the AP story about Saddam's yellowcake being spirited out of the region (sold to an energy company in Canada) the writer just couldn't resist dropping the Plame card, twice:

A CIA officer, Valerie Plame, [etc, etc]

History should record that Wilson's method of shopping himself to the press, while secretly working for the Kerry campaign (unbeknowst to viewers), along with the mysterious manner in which he was dispatched to Africa, were just as much to blame for the White House pushback than his column. But narratives are hard to change.

The AP goes on to state that no additional uranium was found beyond 1991 levels, which is supposed to shine a light of truth on the Wilson assertion. Yet with everything we know about Iraq it's flat amazing to think anyone would be stupid enough to think Saddam, after going to the trouble of illegally acquiring yellowcake, would then store it at Tuwaitha where the UN had the stockpiles measured and under seal. He was a lot of things, but he wasn't an idiot.

But he's dead now and his uranium is sitting in Canada. And that's a good thing based on what our government had been telling us for years about just how dangerous that capability was in his hands. Now, if the place falls to hell at least we can comfort ourselves with the knowledge that his pile is gone, taken out NOT by IAEA inspectors or UN resolutions, but by US forces acting unilaterally.

MORE 7/6/08

I'm reminded that today is the five year anniversary of Wilson's op-ed, the true beginning of the "Bush lied, people died" narrative. So happy anniversary.

Mission accomplished?

Wes Clark is moving on. He expressed regrets:

“Obviously I wish we hadn't had the big brouhaha about this,” Clark said, choosing to begin a Tuesday CNN interview with contrition. “It has taken away from the message of the man that I’m supporting to be president.”

The obvious question is whether he was sent out on a mission or was just shooting from the hip. There seem to be several possibilities:

1. Obama cannot attack his opponent's biggest advantage himself, therefore he's trying to use surrogates (as Bush was accused of during the 2000 and 2004 elections). Non-military hacks can't get away with it and Kerry was unavailable based on his purple heart campaign of 2004. Clark was seen as someone with enough military cred to git r done.

2. The real goal was to provoke McCain into a pissing contest on his military experience and Clark was used because he had more military experience, with the ultimate goal being a display of temper the Democrats could use in commercials.

3. Clark was actually an undercover operative for Team Hillary sent out to make Obama look bad by trashing a POW war hero. She still hasn't given up her delegates.

4. He's a failed presidential wannabe who can't stand the thoughts of someone with less military experience becoming president based mainly on military experience. When the camera came on he couldn't resist making the point, speaking for himself.

One of the above almost certainly has to be true, right? Number 4 seems most likely based on what we know but if 1 or 2 are true then they failed miserably. That leaves number 3, which would seem to be a success at this point based on what Democratic strategist Jim Jordan was attributed as saying:

“But Gen. Clark’s remarks were both clumsy and badly timed and, really, a gift to McCain,” Jordan continued.

In retrospect it seems silly to goad McCain into an eruption (number 2) because the public might forgive that and turn on those causing the outburst. Risky, to some degree. It makes more sense these guys were trying to diminish his main advantage, but it didn't work. And that should make us all wonder why they did it.

Bush heckler

Same ole same old, except the protesters appear clueless that they disrupted a swearing-in ceremony, not a Bush event. According to the LA Times report Bush responded to the crowd by saying, "we believe in free speech in the United States of America."

The Times then felt compelled to explain more about one of the protesters:

"one of the protesters, David Swanson, has gone online to explain his behavior, saying"

And of course, they felt compelled to hyperlink his URL, to which I felt compelled to click.

Shockingly, David Swansen is a Democrat activist, affiliated with sites like AfterDowningStreet, impeachCheney, MeetwithCindy, etc. The Times description makes it sound rather innocuous, like perhaps the protester popped up a Blogspot site to explain his antics while in reality they knew he was the purveyor of those sites and the Washington director of Democrats.com. They knew because they linked the site.

Can we imagine the Times quietly linking to any similar right wing site without prior warning to the reader? No we can't!

Brave souls venturing deeper into his array of sites will come across his personal blog, whereupon he triumphantly explains his heroic stunt and promises video, etc. But for those wanting to exercise their own free speech rights and heckle Mr. Swansen online for his boorish behavior they must first register. Yeah, freedom baby.

The Rocket's Red Glare

Here's the last paragraph from the Declaration:

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Happy Birthday America, and happy Independence Day to all.

Parsing Obama on FISA

Obama has decided to take Thursday evening before July 4th to explain his filibuster-less position on the FISA bill. Permit some reading between the lines..

Off the bat there was a statement some might call arrogant, especially coming from a less than one full term Senator with no House experience:

I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power.

Well, perhaps Obama's concern with executive power is that there's not enough--he needs the ability to re-write bills when they don't meet his specs. Reid's gonna love that comment.

He went on to dream outloud about something that will never matter:

That's why I support striking Title II from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate.

When he's not busy campaigning, that is. Obama opposed retro immunity the first time the bill hit the Senate in February then didn't bother to vote when the final version arrived (the Protect America Act he voted against was the 2007 bill). This is just pure political jujitsu--the telco immunity will remain.

Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise.

Just unbelievable doubletalk. After saying he'll work to stop the bill in present form--when he didn't vote nay on a previous version of the bill with less restrictions--he then says the intelligence tools are far too important to oppose it. Good Lord, does this mean he agrees with the president on protecting America? Obush!

Oh well, politicians will be politicians, right? The fun continues as the partisan promises begin:

..a White House that takes the Constitution seriously..

And so far all of them have, including the current one.

..conducts the peoples' business out in the open..

Yes, except for the TSP bill he's now supporting and all the other stuff, like private conversations between him and his advisers and pretty much everything done by the NSA and CIA and military intelligence.

..welcomes and listens to dissenting views..

Which Bush has indeed done--he just hasn't taken all the advice.

And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That's ok

i.e., where else are ya gonna go, sucker?

..my opponent has embraced the failed course of the last eight years..

Except for opposing tax cuts, opposing Rummy and the lack of troop strength until the troop strength was finally increased (something man-o-hope opposed) and being against the earmarks everyone else abused. Other than that, just call him McSame.

..while I want to take this country in a new direction

A direction nobody can really decipher, although at the moment it appears circular. His entire column was a slick con-job on why he's supporting Bush's TSP program complete with telcom immunity, something he'll fight hard to oppose. Or something. Change!

Divided We Fall

A top Lord in England has blessed the use of Sharia Law:

The most senior judge in England tonight gave his blessing to the use of sharia law to resolve disputes among Muslims.

What happens when Muslims have to deal with non-Muslims? Or Christians? Or atheists? After precedent is set of using Sharia the Islamic lobby will next demand that ANY proceeding involving a Muslim be done their way. That WILL happen, whether they allow it to or not. Obviously that technicolor dream coat the Lord is wearing was made of multicultural fabrics safe for the planet but unable to withstand the never-ending Islamic lobby.

The basic foundation of western civilization is secular law, so good bye, Britain. It was nice having you as an ally. Maybe they'll be nice enough to allow your history books to record that fact.

WHEW 7/3/08

Looks like it was an overreaction to speculate on the demise of merry old England, at least with respect to Sharia courts.

Britain's most senior judge declared last night that there was no place for Sharia courts in this country and insisted that all residents were governed by the laws of England and Wales.

No worries, he was only referring to family disputes and civil dispute resolution and such via Sharia. To me it's still the proverbial camel's nose under the tent thing, or perhaps a foot in the door, to be more politically correct.

McCain in Colombia

Let's see, McCain goes to Colombia of all places, to discuss free trade and support for the non-revolutionary government.

Then today we learn the Colombian military rescued 15 hostages held by FARC terrorists for six years, something they'd briefed the US on in advance. Was the Maverick a diversion, involved, or just a good luck charm?

MORE 7/2/08

Perhaps the rescue story will stifle this Huffpo hit piece. Confusing--unless I'm misreading this, the Democrats seem to be against free trade in that region, ie, in favor of a continuation of terrorist groups brokering the deals.

MORE 7/3/08

That was one awesome rescue operation. And nice touch with the Colombian troops fooling the FARC captors by wearing Che! shirts. Mention of those shirts brings to mind the campaign volunteers in Texas and their banner. While it's likely most of Obama's supporters are glad about this rescue outcome can that safely be said for all of them?

[ht Poli-yy]

MORE 7/3/08

Some must have been wondering what the big deal was about McCain being in South Carolina. Or Missouri. Or a host of other Columbia's. Sorry, brain fart--spelling corrected.

As to questioning the timing--still think it was strange. Accuse me of engaging in McCain Derangement Syndrome or being part of the lefty conspiracy galaxy if you like, but had Obama showed up down there and FARC released all the hostages as a some kind of good will gesture I'd be questioning the timing as well. It's hardly tinfoil hat territory when dealing with political campaigns.

But Buchanan's analysis makes sense--staging it would have required a payoff of FARC to ensure success. Any bloodshed or failure would have made McCain's presence look worse, much too high a risk for him to be taking for no reason. So I'm going with "good luck charm" as posed in the initial post. The important thing is that it worked, the good guys won, nobody got killed and it embarrassed a bunch of thugs while pointing out that McCain's on the right side of the issue.

Steve Cohen: oil profiteer

The Hill has it:

More than a dozen Democratic members of Congress critical of oil companies have investments in the industry, according to a review of lawmakers’ financial assets.

At least 14 Democratic members of the House and one senator have holdings ranging from several thousand dollars to hundreds of thousands of dollars in companies such as Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp. or partnerships such as Schlumberger and Hornbeck Offshore Services.

Another straw man bites the dust. Our local Congressman, Steve "Barnacle" Cohen (D), has several investments in big oil at the moment:

Cohen owns $15,000-$50,000 of stock in Chevron, $50,000-$100,000 in Exxon Mobil, and $15,000-$50,000 in Schlumberger, a highly profitable oil-services company that provides technical expertise and equipment.

Rep. Cohen claims he always votes against them in damning fashion (whatever voting against them means).

Which, if true, seems rather silly since so many Americans, including average Joes and Janes and constituents of his also have 401Ks/mutual funds that are invested in oil company stocks. Cohen himself earned up to $3900 in dividends last year alone (good for him). But if he's worried about conflicts he should simply not vote (and if he's confused on that he can see Obama).

Gritting his teeth?

Not that we can entirely trust the leftist McClatchy News Service but they are reporting something that seems like it could have occurred:

John McCain engaged in a physical confrontation in 1987 with a left-wing Sandinista leader during a diplomatic meeting in Nicaragua, according to one of his colleagues, Sen. Thad Cochran, a Mississippi Republican.

Cochran made headlines earlier in the year by saying the thoughts of McCain as president "sent a cold chill down my spine."

Ironically (or not) Virginia Senator Jim Webb, one whose name keeps floating around as a possible VP choice for Obama, said this about McCain today:

"And John McCain's my long-time friend, if that is one area that I would ask him to calm down on, it`s that, don't be standing up and uttering your political views and implying that all the people in the military support them because they don't, any more than when the Democrats have political issues during the Vietnam War. Let's get the politics out of the military, take care of our military people, or have our political arguments in other areas."

This is beyond absurd considering how the Democrats played Kerry's military background when he was their nominee and how Webb himself wasn't in the least bit shy in letting folks promote his military background to help win in a conservative state. Now suddenly it's off limits.

As to the GI Bill legislation, like Webb, McCain also had a son who served in Iraq so the bill they're trying to paint McCain and Bush as opposing would have directly benefited a family member, just as it will with Webb. Which one would have been accused of feathering his own nest? And speaking of temper Webb has his own anger management issues--he was once accused of getting testy with Bush during an event at the White House.

Now within 3 days we've seen Wes Clark, Rand Beers, and Jim Webb all trying to sneakily diminish McCain's military service. It's almost incomprehensible these events aren't somehow coordinated. Perhaps they're trying to accomplish two things--laying a seed of doubt about McCain's background while at the same time trying to get him so mad he'll display some of that spine-chilling temper. Any flareups or angry talk will be immediately used to paint him as too hot-tempered to serve--someone who might launch nukes at the drop of a hat.

Notice the men taking potshots are not liberal flower children, they're among the toughest ex-military democrats around. If indeed this is a call-out McCain has wisely not taken the bait so far but one has to wonder how long he can resist.

MORE 7/2/08

Now Clark seems to be saying the difference between Kerry's service and McCain's was not in the military itself but afterwards, when JFK displayed moral conviction by throwing his (or someone's) medals; secretly meeting the North Vietnamese in Paris while still in the Navy; and testifying before Congress where he called our troops' actions reminiscent of Ghengis Khan.

Unbelievable. Yet so believable.

Obviously he's either nuts or is still trying desperately to get McCain out in the street for a high-noon showdown.

A curious caveat

Drudge linked to a New York Observer story this morning about actor Stephen Baldwin's threat to leave the country if Obama wins.

Here's a direct link to the video (won't embed here).

And here's how the Observer described it:

Stephen Baldwin, a born-again Christian and brother of Alec, whose most recent "role" was an apprearance on Donald Trump's Celebrity Apprentice, told Fox News' Laura Ingraham that he will leave the country if Barack Obama becomes the next president, yet another reason for Hollywood to keep making campaign donations to the Senator.

Emphasis added. Aside from the cheap shot about his career was there any reason to tell the reader he's a born again Christian in the very first sentence? Per Obama, we must effort to fight the smears!

It's doubtful they'd say, for example, "actor Joseph Smith, noted atheist, will leave the country if McCain is elected". Or "actress Mary Jones, a convert to Islam, will leave the country if McCain is elected", or "actor Paul Pot, a life-long Presbyterian, will leave the country if McCain is elected". Sounds like they tossed that little born-again morsel in the first sentence as a warning (religious nut) before proceeding with a story they don't like.

Interesting irony here, though. Obama has also professed to have a personal relationship with Christ. At least he did back in 2004:

At the time, Obama said he was a Christian, that he has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, that he reads the Bible regularly and prays constantly. He described his conversion experience in his mid-20s, how he walked the aisle at Trinity United Church of Christ one Sunday in a public affirmation of his private change of heart. But we didn't talk labels, I didn't ask him for one, and he didn't offer.

The reverend must've been behaving himself that day. But when the same reporter asked Obama about faith in 2007 he noticed a slight change:

"Gosh, I'm not sure if labels are helpful here because the definition of an evangelical is so loose and subject to so many different interpretations. I came to Christianity through the black church tradition where the line between evangelical and non-evangelical is completely blurred. Nobody knows exactly what it means.

"Does it mean that you feel you've got a personal relationship with Christ the savior? Then that's directly part of the black church experience. Does it mean you're born-again in a classic sense, with all the accoutrements that go along with that, as it's understood by some other tradition? I'm not sure."

He continued his answer: "My faith is complicated by the fact that I didn't grow up in a particular religious tradition. And so what that means is when you come at it as an adult, your brain mediates a lot, and you ask a lot of questions.

"There are aspects of Christian tradition that I'm comfortable with and aspects that I'm not. There are passages of the Bible that make perfect sense to me and others that I go, 'Ya know, I'm not sure about that,'" he said, shrugging and stammering slightly.

Indeed he won't answer the born-again question. Maybe he's afraid of falling into the same trap that befell Carter and especially Bush 43 when they admitted their status. Or maybe he's not really there yet. Or maybe he's close enough to snag a few votes without going any further. But since he doesn't like labels surely he'd be outraged by the labeling used on Mr. Baldwin, even in the context of his comments.

LO AND BEHOLD 7/1/08

No clue Obama was planning a religious speech today. Here's a quote:

Now, I didn't grow up in a particularly religious household. But my experience in Chicago showed me how faith and values could be an anchor in my life. And in time, I came to see my faith as being both a personal commitment to Christ and a commitment to my community; that while I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work.

There are millions of Americans who share a similar view of their faith, who feel they have an obligation to help others.

Despite the similarities between Bush's much-maligned faith-based programs and the pandering aspect towards those he once dissed for "clinging" to their religion due to economics and fear, this smacks somewhat of a distinction. By saying "millions who share a similar view", ie, doing what he did in Chicago by hitting the streets and organizing the community rather than just sitting in church on Sunday, is this a veiling jab at some conservatives who've criticized him and profess to be "born-again" yet never take it to the streets?

Nothing wrong with the premise, just wondering why he felt the need to make the clarification. I agree with him that government works best when it's closest to the people, but am always concerned about what the government might want to teach at the grassroots.

Another interesting aspect is the charities he mentioned, including the CDF, which once featured Hillary Clinton and Susan Thomases, and Donna Shalala, among others. He was careful to say he'd watch to make sure federal monies didn't go to charities violating the SOCAS but it was also a way of showing how he'd get federal dollars to the neighborhoods with this program as an instrument. BTW, I can't but wonder how the NEA will take his assertion that kids aren't learning to read and write in school (part of his rationale for these programs).