Shameless plug

Mick Wright of Fishkite has graciously invited me to do some postings over at Mainstreet Journal. I'm very appreciative, but actually I fear the man might be suffering from temporary insanity. So far I've done one post and their hit count immediately tanked. Doh!

Anyway, MSJ is a great new site focusing on Tennessee and Mid South politics and current events. They've got a full plate with all the political shenanigans going on round west Tennessee.

Oh yeah. Over there I'm known as AC 'McCloud'. One blog pseudonym was just not enough. Anyway, McCloud actually provides some important clues as to my real identity, for those few who might be scoring at home.

God and country

Tony Blair is being pilloried for suggesting he might have prayed for guidance when considering his Iraq war decision:

Last night, news of Mr Blair's comments provoked strong reactions. Rose Gentle, whose son Gordon was killed in Basra in 2004, said she was "quite disgusted" at the comments made by the Prime Minister. The Military Families Against the War campaigner said: "How can he say he is a Christian? A Christian would never put people out there to be killed."

It's hard to criticize a mother who's lost her son, but Ms. Gentle's statement is historically without merit. Being a Christian has never implied being a pacifist.

However, while it's quite refreshing to see Mr. Blair is not ashamed of his faith, such comments unfortunately have the potential to do great damage to the UK's GWoT efforts. First, Bin Laden will surely rack those comments into his next tape as evidence that we really ARE crusaders. Second, such a confession might lead folks to believe he's completely run out of reasonable excuses for his decision and has turned to the unimpeachable Almighty as a source of last resort. In other words, he's using God as his 'exit strategy'.

But things don't quite add up. Blair has shown remarkable resolve through his Prime Ministerial career towards Saddam, extending a bipartisan helping hand to two American presidents back through the first Clinton administration. That hardly sounds like the actions of a poll checker. Bailing out on Bush would have been remarkably easy and politically advantageous.

So why did he stay? Some might say it's that fierce loyalty going back to World War II, solidified by 9/11. Others might say he was snookered. There's yet another scenario to consider. Being the head of state of our closest ally, it's possible he was made privy to sensitive information about Saddam not suitable for public ears. If true, perhaps he feels that knowledge, whatever it might be, is better taken to the grave.

Will the real Zarqawi please stand up

The old television show "What's My Line?" might be appropriate for the current situation in Iraq. We've been told from the beginning that we're fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. At the onset he was presented as THE resistance, but his dominance has been allowed to slip of late.

Austin Bay recently posted a letter he received from StrategyPage contributor Harold Hutchison wherein he postulates the Z-man is likely to get lousy marks on his annual performance review:

Zarqawi’s only saving grace would be a solid staff (to wit, people to handle details like planning, finances, and other matters) that would at least be able to restrain his indiscriminate impulses. The problem is, his antagonizing of the local populations means that too many people are willing to tip off American or Iraqi forces. That means Zarqawi’s support structure is being rolled up - not good news for Zarqawi

As to the last part, aside from several erroneous reports of his death, we've been told he's but a gnat's eyelash away from capture for awhile now. Yet despite one stupid attack after the next, nobody seems eager to collect any rewards.

But I'm more intrigued with the first part. Mr. Hutchison believes Z-man maintains a "solid staff to handle details". That's pretty impressive for a guy that Jordanian King Abdullah called a "street thug". Conversely, the 'dead enders' and 'Saddamists' were pretty good in handling details.

Surely you remember those guys, the ones printed on the deck of cards? We've heard nary a whimper about them of late. Matter of fact, the MSM talking heads didn't even consider them when discussing possible perpetrators of the Golden Shrine bombing. So, if they're still players in this game they've effectively cloaked themselves.

Personally I'd feel much better if they could tell us the whereabouts of the remaining most wanted "card guys", specifically the King of Clubs. I understand he used to be pretty good with details, himself.

MORE 3/4/06

This site has updated information on the deck of cards, dated February 2006. Notice a few are still on the lam, notably former intelligence officials involved with the SSO and IIS intelligence services or Mukhabarat.

INTELLIGENCE PRODIGY? 3/6/06

Front Page magazine has run several interviews with a young man who claims extraordinary knowledge of world affairs pertaining to the GWoT. His name is Ryan Mauro, and he's 19. Here's the latest, and here's one previous. Is he for real? Well, read his opinions and decide for yourself.

Here are some of his contentions. Similar to a few bloggers or lone wolf authors, he debunks the relative importance of AQ in Iraq and instead places the blame for the insurgency on Ba'athists operating from Syria, believing the whole thing is being run by our dead friend Izzat al-Douri. Such an assertion, if independently verified, might change the public perception of the entire war.

As to the WMD musical chairs saga, he believes Russia was involved in helping Saddam move them to Syria before the war. It's a compelling story also being currently bolstered by several former regime defectors and a few retired American officials. A caveat--all of them seem to be writing books. Heck, Ryan has already written one.

But a glaring question jumps out. Why would this type of blockbuster information be carried to the American public by a 19 year old volunteer at a think tank? Using Occam's Razor alone would suggest discounting any intelligence blockbusters coming the likes of a 19 year old kid. If nothing more it's a bad idea considering what the Bush bashers would do with such fodder.

Yet, if those same ideas were put forth by David Kay, Charles Duelfer or James Woolsey, the weight of their reputations would instantly lend credit to the story and preclude the MSM from easy ridicule. They remain silent.

Young Ryan recently spoke at the somewhat tainted Intelligence Summit held in DC a few weeks ago. This much-anticipated event was clouded early by a funding scandal resulting in the resignations of two of its most influential members. That left Bill Tierney to lead the charge, who just might be a tad "out there" based on his media interviews and seminar speech. Perhaps knowledge of this is why our two former DCIs bailed out. I guess credibility is sometimes worth more than loyalty.

But perhaps that's the answer. For example, if Russia were involved in the moving of Saddam's WMDs logic would follow they would end up on Bush's terrorist supporter state hit list. Does anyone really think we're ready to engage Putin or Assad?

Yet I tend to believe Ryan's thesis. Not because I want to but because it makes the most sense. Let's quickly go over some plausible possibilities:

1. Saddam thought he had a WMD program, but his scientists and minions were fudging all along because they couldn't actually deliver one.

This one sounds possible on the surface, but Saddam's thugocracy was Soviet-style-- the kind where poeple tend to rat on each other to keep themselves from being killed. I find it hard to believe such a ruse could have been maintained.

2. Saddam knew he didn't have programs, but didn't want anyone else to know.

This is more likely, since deterrence is what WMD weapons do best, even when they're of the phantom variety. As long as others believe they exist, they're effective. Yet we know he had the materials at some point and had used them, so this also has some holes.

3. Saddam destroyed the weapons in the 90s or before the invasion, but didn't tell the UN.

Fine, but if he destroyed them anytime near the war startup the world was watching. It would have been risky and difficult, since being caught would have proven he was not in compliance. We did notice the convoys of trucks heading across the border to Assad-land, though.

4. Saddam moved weapons systems and material before the invasion using pre-arranged agreements with other nations.

Since we know he actively tried to hide programs that were later discovered, and that he'd already used WMDs, and that he still had dreams of uniting Pan-Arabia, this seems the most likely fit. And this is what Ryan is suggesting. Now, step back and let the bashing commence.

Not enough outrage over the Duke

The Randy 'Duke' Cunningham bribery probe is apparently widening. The CIA Inspector General has announced an investigation into the number three man in the agency, who ABC tells us is connected to friends of Cunningham. Frankly speaking, there just hasn't been enough outrage about Cunningham from conservatives. Consider this my contribution.

Let's get these excuses out of the way upfront: "everyone does it, he might as well get his share", or "he was a decorated fighter pilot". Pretty lame. The Duke's so-called bribery menu was one of the finest examples of creative arrogance you'll ever see, but it's just a microcosm of the greed our society tolerates. Capitalism unrestrained by morals is a disaster. America is a very rich nation and we all know that money corrupts completely. The glaring irony is while all this was transpiring private parties were busy filing lawsuits to remove the 10 Commandments from government buildings.

Of course that's not all. The Cunningham mess should raise another big ole red flag--the cozy relationship between contractors and government agencies. We've all heard about 300 dollar hammers before, so it's nothing new, but we're at war. That makes what Cunningham did worse.

But let's be fair here. While ABC describes the Duke's corruption as breathtaking and unprecedented, such actions are common throughout all levels of government, including state and local levels. Case in point, there are currently similar bribery allegations swirling about the Mayor of Memphis.

Better oversight of ALL government-private contracts is clearly needed, but until the public is sufficiently outraged it ain't gonna change. Tell me, is there really any difference between Cunningham's actions and Joe Sixpack paying a contractor 500 bucks less when he knows they're using illegal aliens, or accepting payment for a job under the table?

THE VERDICT IS IN 3/3/06

Eight years and four months. A bit more than Trafficant got for doing less. Hopefully this sends a loud message, but I can't help feeling sad for this man's downfall, and for his family.

Welcome to Bush-bash nostalgia week

The National Journal's Murray Waas has a long article about Bush, the NIE and the aluminum tubes. Remember them? Guess it's nostalgia week in the MSM. One might think they have a plan--undermine Bush's big summit with Pakistan and India by rehashing Katrina and the pre-war intelligence. Or maybe it's just business as usual.

Waas details the dissent within State and DOE about the tubes, and makes a fresh effort to prove that Bush lied and people died. It's been tried before, but every time it's tried the pundits make the mistake of failing to understand that a president is a decision-maker. Whomever occupies the top spot must digest the intelligence along with the intangibles in order to make a complete judgment. Based on Saddam's past actions and the spectre of 9/11, Bush made his choice.

Waas even includes a statement from the administration describing that rationale:

Senior Bush administration officials say they had good reason to disbelieve the intelligence that was provided to them by the CIA, noting that the intelligence the agency had provided earlier regarding Iraq was flawed.

Yes indeedy, quite a bit of it was flawed, as was evidenced throughout the 90s. This has all been rehashed over and over. Shall we bring up the Oil for Food Program as well? Bush chose to believe the worse case, which was presented to him in the NIE, rather than the dissenting view. But that's his job, to make the decisions he thinks will protect the American public. Covering butt is more of a bureaucratic sport.

The language of world geography

Ward Churchill has some competition! And here I thought Colorado was full of rancher republicans. If you haven't heard the unhinged geography teacher caught on tape in the classroom, give it a listen. It's available over at LGF. I like maps, but apparently a lot has changed since I attended high school.

This guy is clearly an angry, disaffected farleftwingmoonbat. He's hardly the social studies teacher in Beavis and Butthead - the laid-back aging hippie. Rather, he represents the new aggressive democrat underground version. By the way, expect the left to accuse this kid of being an NSA prospect, since he likes to cladestinely record people.

But, the nutty perfessor's rant does bring up some good talking points. For instance, how does America win the war on terror, regardless of who occupies the White House? Such a thing calls for a big-picture strategy, not just tactical mole-whacking.

In essence, everyone would probably agree we need to remove the underlying root causes that foster the al Qaedas of the world before having any chance at success. More suscinctly, we need to overturn the economic and social conditions that give rise to strongman leaders ruling via pack mentality, and one way is by raising the standard of living in the third world.

Bush's big picture answer is pretty simple--spread freedom and give the peoples of the world the chance at self-governance, whereupon they might decide to divest themselves of said thuggery. We'll still have to kill the hard-core Wahabbis since they leave us no choice, but the goal is making it harder for them to recruit from the moderate ranks.

The alternative seems to be never-ending capitulation to dictators or terrorists by simply handing over part of yearly GNP. Problem is, any short term good from that would probably evaporate into long term extortion, and most of the money would simply disappear into the pockets of the corrupt leaders for nest-feathering or more WMDs. We've already had some experience with this sort of fix, and we've seen first hand that throwing money at problems doesn't always work well.

Not to say America is perfect, but we alone did not create all the ills of this world. That's something the far left fails to understand. Try rewriting history without America and see where it leaves the planet. Our "moonbat of the moment" teacher can only see the CIA stations and exploding bombs while totally ignoring the greater good we've accomplished, and it's considerable. It's a short-sighted view, but it supports a Lennon-ist idealism--imagine all the people, living life in peace with no religion, etc, etc. Utopia doesn't exist here and never will.

Don't get me wrong I'm a fan of open debate in the classroom, but what this tax-payer funded public servant did went beyond that. His thin rationale was basically, "let's look at both sides of the issue so I can ram mine down your throat", none of which had to do with the capital of Peru.

Finally, lots of folks will be yelling to fire the man. I like giving people second chances, so my suggestion would be to allow him the opportunity to get back to teaching geography without his personal diatribes. He probably has a mortgage just like me. If he refuses, then it's time for him to "move on". Maybe Churchill has an opening.

THE LONG VIEW 3/3/06

Bush provided a glimpse of his long view strategy of winning the GWoT prior to his security-cloaked visit to Pakistan:

"I will meet with President Musharraf to discuss Pakistan's vital cooperation in the war on terror and our efforts to foster economic and political development so that we can reduce the appeal of radical Islam," Bush said. "I believe that a prosperous, democratic Pakistan will be a steadfast partner for America, a peaceful neighbor for India and a force for freedom and moderation in the Arab world."

The battle involves more than bombs.

Fun with hindsight

The press is once again trying to beat Bush over the head with his Katrina failures following release of some new information. It's like a sport.

Such criticism operates under the charming and humorous notion that government bureaucracies will operate perfectly during disasters, especially one of Katrina's magnitude, leaving critics utterly flabbergasted when they don't. Actually, the storm was an object lesson in the failure of big government when handling local problems.

It's pointless to waste more time rehashing all the errors, so I'll only tinker with a couple. First, the decision makers needed to trust the Hurricane Center. They probably thought Max Mayfield was going a little overboard, especially after the end-of-the-world hurricane statement was issued (which turned out correct).

Perhaps there is a gray area deserving further sociological study, as most politicians tend to be optimists while most scientists are pessimists. The tendency is to disbelieve the worst-case forecast, since it's common knowledge weather forecasters tend to get it wrong from time to time.

Second, regarding the levees:

The National Hurricane Center's Mayfield told the final briefing before Katrina struck that storm models predicted minimal flooding inside New Orleans during the hurricane but he expressed concerns that counterclockwise winds and storm surges afterward could cause the levees at Lake Pontchartrain to be overrun.

The fact the press is still harping on this proves they don't have the mental capacity to understand the difference between "breach" and "overtop". The storm surge forecast by the Hurricane Center DID NOT MATERIALIZE. Bush was told this Monday morning when it intially appeared the city had escaped major damage.

Indeed, the NWS later reclassified the storm's winds to Cat 3, which placed more blame on the levees themselves:

To some local analysts, the report was further evidence that human error was primarily to blame for New Orleans's flooding. ''We had a catastrophic structural failure," Ivor Van Heerden, an LSU professor and leader of a team of Louisiana investigators probing the cause of the levee breaches. ''This is a further indication that the levees' design was flawed, given the soil conditions," Van Heerden said.

From all we've been told, Mayfield never predicted the levees would simply fall over if the surge didn't materialize.

Bottom line, unless criminal negligence can be proven by these post mortems (as opposed to errors in judgment) their main usefulness continues to be helping us learn from our mistakes. And that's it.

MORE 3/2/06

Via Instapundit, Patterico comes up with the same argument made here (and by many others during the height of the storm), concluding this latest story is just an attempt to lower Bush's already dismal poll numbers using a tried and true method.

Since I've chosen to remain anonymous I can't very well offer readers a good reason to put anymore stock in my opinion of this compared to others. That's the obvious drawback, but being anonymous allows me an unfettered voice in blogland without causing unwanted side effects. Let's just say I'm known in other circles as "McCloud".

MORE

In the final analysis, even if the COE or others told Bush the levees might fail due to compression of water by hurricane force west winds on the backside of the storm, the actual surge and winds WERE RATED CATEGORY 3. The levees were designed to withstand a Cat 3, no matter which wind direction they sustained.

Therefore the press should be directing its investigatory howitzers towards the bureaucrats who were apparently sold a bill of goods on the levee guarantees, or the politicians who took money from lobbyists to get the contracts, or the contractors themselves who didn't build the walls to spec.

MEA CULPA? 3/3

Drudge is flashing an AP blurb which seems to correct earlier stories that suggested Bush lied about the levees during Katrina. It reads in part:

The Army Corps of Engineers considers a breach a hole developing in a levee rather than an overrun. The story should have made clear that Bush was warned about floodwaters overrunning the levees, rather than the levees breaking.

Finally! Geez, it only took em six months, but better late than never. The blogosphere had it straightened out almost from the get-go, a feather in the cap no doubt. But, if most Americans get their news from the mainstreams, even on the internet, what difference does it make? As Drudge points out, the AP issued the correction on Friday evening, a notorious time for burying things.

MORE 3/4/06

Powerline has an excellent wrap-up here.

YEAH, BUT WHAT ABOUT MISSISSIPPI? 3/7/06

C R Mountjoy asks the question, and it's a good one. We've heard no reports that anyone accurately predicted the level of devastation from Mobile to Slidell. For instance, I don't recall angry reporters frothing that Bush ignored Mayfield's warning that "the Casinos in Biloxi would be free floating up and down Highway 90", inferring that IF ONLY Bush would have acted, someone could have dropped a bigger anchor.