Friday, September 14, 2007
Prisoners in pink: Deterrent or scarlet mark of danger?
Punishing prisoners for sexual misconduct by making them wear pink places them in peril, a South Carolina inmate says in a lawsuit against the state's penal system.
The suit is the latest development in a nationwide effort by prison and jail officials to tap the power of pink to subdue criminals.
In the South Carolina case, Sherone Nealous claims that forcing inmates to wear pink is discriminatory and makes them more likely to be assaulted by other inmates. Nealous is serving time at the Allendale Correctional Institution for assault and battery with intent to kill, aggravated assault and assault and battery on a police officer.
Ok, so maybe I'm an asshole, but if you color coordinate what an inmate wears, I don't see a problem. It allows guards to quickly identify offenders who're likely to commit another crime against the staff. For example, dark green for the death row inmates allows a guard to quickly determine where he is as well as what he is at great distances. It also allows the staff to treat that inmate accordingly.
It's very difficult for me to feel sorry for people who've committed crimes against society as well as police officers and jail staff members.
Want to solve the problem and quickly get the inmate population under control? Make them all wear pink. Make jail/prison a miserable place to be. Take away everything except the news on TV and no radios. Take away weight lifting equipment. A lot of people don't have access to a gym and they are law abiding citizens. If the inmate wants to stay in shape, they can do pushups in their cells. Take away coffee, cigarettes, and other items that they enjoy. Sooner or later you'll notice people don't like jail/prison and don't want to come back.
Travis
Iraq Sunni tribes vow to avenge Qaeda foe's killing
Well it appears that the Anbar province folks aren't going to be intimidated by the recent assassination of their leader.
This is an important event that I don't think a lot of people realize. The local Iraqi people are starting to say "enough" and even in the face of death, they won't be deterred. This may be the point where things start to turn around in Iraq according to getting rid of terrorists.
Not a lot of people are even suggesting this possibility. Folks over at Huffington post are calling for playing politics with our troops in Iraq while these people's lives hang in the balance.
Angry and grieving mourners carried the slain leader's body to a local cemetery in Ramadi, capital of the western desert province, in a procession amid tight security by Iraqi and US forces.
"Revenge, revenge on Al-Qaeda," mourners shouted.
"There is no God but Allah and Al-Qaeda is the enemy of Allah. Abdul Sattar is the pride of Ramadi."
Now they have a focus. Now they have something that they can take on that they know will better their lives. Repeat that success everywhere else in Iraq and you'll see deaths tumble below even US cities. It's entirely possible, but only if you give these people enough slack and protection for them to stand on their own two feet.
Don't give them that, and they'll fall within a year tops.
Travis
'Turkey gave Israel intel on Syria' | Jerusalem Post
Turkey provided Israel with intelligence on Syria prior to last week's alleged IAF flyover into the country, Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Jarida claimed on Thursday.
According to the report, the country had a central role in delivering precise information regarding targets in Syria that were to be hit by Israeli planes. Further, the report claimed that the Israeli pilots were given authorization by the Turkish army to use its airspace in order to carry out the operation.
If this true, it throws a whole new level onto the recent Israeli/Syrian airstrikes a few days ago. It would mean that Syria may have to fight two nations instead of just one. It means that Turkey is leaning towards showing the Syrians that they aren't going to allow them a potential nuclear weapon/weapons caravan to Hezbollah, depending on which report you want to believe.
I'd really be curious on if North Korea has indeed sold it's nuclear material and equipment to Syria and Iran as reported in a few places.
If so, North Korea HAS to be held accountable for such actions. I'm quite sure that the US or the UN would have gladly purchased the items from North Korea simply to keep it out of the hands of idiots in power in those two respective countries.
But alas, it seems like the only country willing to stand up for what's right and take action against known threats are Israel and the US on occasion.
Everyone screams about diplomacy. Going through the UN, etc. But when we DO go through the UN, sanctions are ignored, harshly worded letters are ignored. Only after a nation does something extremely serious does the UN even BEGIN to want to do something. They are the most toothless organization on the planet.
Travis
Iran leader: Bush will be tried - Yahoo! News
Well let's take a look at what Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has to say:
"A day will come that the current U.S. president and officials will be tried in an international supreme court for the catastrophes they caused in Iraq," he said.
Doubtful. What about your complicity in the murder of US troops and Iraqi civilians with your ongoing support of the insurgents? But do go on:
"Americans will have to answer for why they don't end occupation of Iraq and why waves of terrorism and insurgency have overwhelmed the country," he added. "It will not be like this forever and some day they will be stopped as happened to Hitler, Saddam and certain other European leaders."
We actually DO have an answer. It's because YOU and Al-Qaeda in Iraq are supporting the insurgency there. If you and your country weren't supplying arms and explosives, Iraq would be a much more peaceful country and countless lives would be saved.
But you chose to go a different way, and now your country will suffer accordingly.
However, it's the next part that's REALLY interesting:
A nation like ours, without an atomic bomb and not as wealthy as these other powerful governments, has foiled a whole series of their conspiracies and forced them to give up and withdraw," he added.
Here he basically admits that Iran is supporting the insurgency. Otherwise how else can you explain that they have "foiled a whole series...and forced them to give up and withdraw"? How precisely did you "force us to give up and withdraw"? The only reason why people are calling for withdrawal in America is because of the deaths of people.
There's no two ways about it. It's not "we're supporting the insurgents and giving them weapons", but that's about as close as you're going to get.
Personally, I think it's an act of war to support a group of people who go out and murder Iraqi civilians and US troops. My only hope is that the CIA is working overtime to undermine the Iranian government and make them pay dearly.
Travis
OPEC chief says 80-dollar oil won't last
OPEC chief Abdalla Salem El-Badri said Friday the current oil price of 80 dollars did not reflect fundamentals and was unlikely to last long.
"I don't think 80 dollars (per barrel) will last," El-Badri told journalists here. "The fundamentals do not support the price."
El-Badri said that the current price of oil was "too high."
Of course you like to say that. However, you COULD say "we'll sell our oil at $50 a barrel", but you won't do it.
But OPEC did not have a target for the oil price, he said.
"We're not in favor a high price or in favor of a low price," the cartel chief said.
The price of oil surged to record highs this week even after the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries announced it would pump an extra 500,000 barrels per day from the start of November as a signal of the cartel's willingness to respond to supply fears in consumer countries.
One-off factors such as the hurricane season were behind that, El-Badri argued.
But still the cartel was scratching its head over the exact reasons.
"We're all asking ourselves why. Perhaps you (the markets) know something we don't."
Asked whether OPEC at its next meeting in December would discuss further raising output if the oil price persisted at current levels, El-Badri was tight-lipped.
"Of course, we will discuss supply, demand and inventories, as usual," he said.
"We don't enjoy seeing a very high price."
Well that's true and false. It's false because anyone likes to the price of their product go up because it gives greater profits.
However, it's true because it's pushing away customers. People are looking more and more towards alternative fuels, higher mpg cars and trucks and even electric vehicles.
If they don't do something quickly about the price, you'll soon find yourself looking at an electric car from many auto manufacturers.
What really bothers me though is that auto makers have taken this long to actually try to get an electric vehicle to market. Sure, there were some prototypes out there from Honda and GM, but the cars went no where fast.
Now that the cost of fuel has gotten out of hand, there's a demand for electric and electric hybrid cars. The minute there's a vehicle from a reputable manufacturer that allows me to do my daily commute (around 50 miles both ways) and not have to use a drop of gasoline, that's the minute I pull out my Visa and purchase that car. The first one to do it wins my business, so hurry up auto makers!
Travis
Bay County rapist to be castrated - Northwest Florida Daily News
To tell you the truth, I prefer voluntary castration of sex offenders. But that's only because I have dozens of children in my own life. Speaking as an uncle, cousin, and Godfather, I support any kind of suffering that sex offenders get to feel.
However, the problem remains as to what do we do about this issue? Sure, it's a feel good idea and it may actually help this man not have urges anymore.
However, there is a troubling thought about all this. What if it doesn't work? What if this guy gets out early because of castration and then attacks someone else?
On the other hand, what about other crimes? It's a "slippery slope" when you start offering people to mutilate themselves in order to get a lighter sentence. Are we going to cut off fingers of thieves? Are we going to pull out the eyes of peeping toms?
It sounds dramatic, and it probably is, but just a few years ago castration was unheard of as well. We need to be careful about the things we allow in the criminal justice system. Otherwise we may find ourselves becoming more and more like backwards Middle Eastern countries.
Travis
Failed suicide bomber turns on al Qaeda - CNN.com
Oh let's feel sorry for the guy. Sure, he may be legit, but who knowingly works with Al-Qaeda and expects to deliver a tanker truck? I smell something fishy.
His face is scarred for life though. Take a look at the photos. They aren't pretty. His right hand fingers have all melted away. His nose looks like it's been reconstructed.
He even admits that he went to Iraq to kill Americans, so why is this guy free? Why is he not in jail? There's just too many things wrong with this story for me to take it at face value.
Travis
White House report shows meager gains in Iraq - CNN.com
The White House report to U.S. lawmakers on progress in Iraq showed meager gains on benchmarks that Congress established for the Iraqi government.
President Bush's report, which was released Friday, grades Iraq as showing satisfactory progress on nine of the 18 benchmarks set for the Iraqi government.
The report said Iraqi leaders have shown unsatisfactory progress on seven benchmarks, including four "with progress on some aspects while not on others."
Two benchmarks "are not rated because the necessary preconditions are not yet present," the report said.
That's where you'll see the real push in Iraq over the coming months. Diplomatic and political pushes will dominate the headlines for the foreseeable future as the security situation becomes better and better.
Watch for a push against al-Maliki and the Iraqi parliament to get laws passed, Iraqi security forces on their feet quicker, and Iranian influence to diminish.
Of course, according to the article: "Democrats vowed to fight for a change of course in Iraq."
The problem is that Democrats idea of "change" is get the hell out as quickly as possible and damn the consequences of said action. That's not "change", that's leaving people to the wolves.
I watched the President's speech and while there were things I disagreed with him on (such as leaving troops in Iraq for significant periods of time), he is right on many levels. The recent assassination of an Anbar leader shows that Al-Qaeda wants to come back and wreak havoc onto the populace. If our guys aren't there to protect them until they are enough on their own feet, Al-Qaeda could easily slaughter them all and the blood of innocent civilians will be on Democratic hands.
Of course they won't see it that way. They'll see it as "we got out because we lost" and other defeatist attitudes like that. Our men and women on the ground see it, President Bush sees it, hell even regional leaders see it, so why can't Democrats see it? Because they love nothing more than an American defeat.
Travis
Labels: iraq
TheHill.com - Giuliani demands MoveOn’s New York Times ad rate
Well it's only fair right? If Rudy Guiliani wants to run an ad in the New York Times, he should get the same discount right? The NYT's wouldn't want to appear to be BIASED or anything right?
The former mayor said his ad “will obviously take the opposite view” from MoveOn.org, which argued in its ad that Gen. David Petraeus is “cooking the books” on Iraq and cherry-picking facts that support his recommendation to keep a large number of troops in Iraq for some time.
Giuliani continued to include Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) in his criticisms for her comments that it would take “a willing suspension of disbelief” to accept at face value Petraeus’s report on the situation in Iraq. Giuliani interpreted Clinton’s remarks at a hearing earlier this week as questioning the general’s integrity.
“We think that her attack on Gen. Petraeus was a follow-up to the MoveOn.org/Times attack,” Giuliani told reporters in Atlanta.
I disagree with Rudy on a lot of issues, but on this one, he's dead right.
Travis
Labels: Bias, General Petraeus, Hillary Clinton, rudy giuliani
Thursday, September 13, 2007
President's Speech On Iraq Tonight
Since most Democrats and some Republicans have already made up their mind on Iraq, I don't see how this is going to sway too many people. However, with President Bush giving a speech tonight on the direction of Iraq, I'd be very interested in what he highlights and what he dismisses.
Stay tuned!
Travis
A Vote For Hillary Is A Vote For Treason
Oh you have GOT to be kidding me. Hillary Clinton is working with former national security advisor Sandy Berger on foreign policy.
The more experienced Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, has relied largely on her husband and a triumvirate of senior officials from his presidency—former secretary of state Madeleine Albright, former U.N. ambassador Richard Holbrooke and former national-security adviser Sandy Berger (who tries to keep a low profile after pleading guilty in 2005 to misdemeanor charges of taking classified material without authorization).
This is the guy who STOLE classified documents and some of them have not been found to this day. If Hillary thinks that she can get away with this, she's deeply mistaken.
What the hell is she thinking? You know she's going to get called out over this. First it's the illegal campaign contributions from Hsu now it's working with her husbands failed national security advisor who's stolen classified documents AND was convicted for it.
We all know how well Sandy did with his previous national security experience (Osama, 9/11, etc), so it boggles the mind why Hillary would be within miles of this guy.
I certainly hope she's not working with Aldrich Ames over CIA matters.
Travis
Labels: Hillary Clinton, idiocy
Korea may be Bush's model for Iraq, officials say - CNN.com
This is a bad idea. George Bush is looking at the 38,000 troops we have in South Korea as a model for Iraq. In other words, keeping around 40k troops, equipment, and other things stationed in Iraq indefinitely.
I understand the need for a Middle East base since the Saudis and us basically took one to the chin and closed the base there. If Iraq does turn around nationally like the Anbar province has, then I say we have a vote within the Iraqi parliament to see if they really want us to have a permanent base there.
That is, however, WAY after we've removed most of our troops and we're headed out the door. Sort of a "hey, we're leaving, but if you'd like, we can stay a bit longer with a lot less guys if you'd like some protection....your choice".
And if they say no, then that's it, no. If they say yes, then fine, we'll build another base and hire a ton of Iraqi's to give the local economy jobs and security. But it MUST be after the war is over, our guys are coming home and the Iraqi government votes publicly on it.
But my gut feeling is that this is a bad idea.
Travis
Clinton to Reveal Healthcare Plan - News Desk (usnews.com)
Oh boy here we go. On Monday, Hillary Clinton is going to unveil her new health care plan that she plans to put forth if she wins the Presidency.
Care to take any bets on if it's going to completely screw doctors and insurance companies and make your taxes skyrocket or put this country further into debt?
I await her plan in order to watch the financial destruction she's about to try to unleash upon the American public.
Travis
Labels: health care, Hillary Clinton
I got a bit of a man-crush
Normally, I don't get a chance to catch Glenn Beck's CNN news show, but in the past six weeks, I've been hitting the gym and while on the treadmill, I've been able to see Glenn Beck's show. This guy is dead on about a ton of issues, especially those near and dear to my heart.
Here's just an example of one of his better interviews. It's with admitted pedophile Jack McClellan.
Travis
Labels: Glenn Beck
The Denver Post - Hsu leaves hospital for jail
From the hospital to jail. It didn't take long for police to track down the fugitive fund raiser. Although I do hope that we get to hear all sorts of gritty details. It seems like criminal types are trying to buy their way into the Clinton's and this appears to be no different.
If he were a regular criminal, then why did he donate such a large amount of money? Why did he skip bail?
Although the article does go into detail, it does make one glaring omission:
Hsu has contributed more than $600,000 in the past three years and did fund-raising for federal, state and municipal candidates, including U.S. Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, as well as U.S. Rep. Mark Udall, candidate for a Colorado Senate seat.
Those candidates have since given Hsu's contributions to charities.
They don't mention Representative Kennedy's donations as well as his refusal to refund or donate the money.
Very telling indeed.
Travis
Labels: campaign contributions, Hillary Clinton, Illegal
The Associated Press: Report: Lab Not Tracking All Plutonium
Ok, if you can't be trusted with the nations nuclear secrets and materials, maybe you should all be fired and replaced with competent people? Maybe you should revamp your security? Maybe you should turn it all over to people who actually TAKE THIS STUFF SERIOUSLY!
A stockpile of plutonium and other nuclear weapons materials stored at Los Alamos National Laboratory hasn't been fully accounted for in 13 years or more, a government audit has found.
The northern New Mexico lab's workers have done regular, partial inventories of the material, which the government considers to be at high risk of theft, the audit by the Energy Department's inspector general, Gregory Friedman, found.
Yet an inventory of all the material hasn't been done in "perhaps 13 years or more," Friedman wrote. It wasn't even done when the lab's management contract changed last year, investigators noted in the report made public Wednesday.
Friedman said he is concerned because the lack of complete inventories means that lab workers likely haven't physically accounted for all of the material in more than a decade.
Granted the chances of inventory actually being missing is pretty low, but if they don't understand how crucial the material and documents are, then maybe a good firing is in order? At my job, if network security is breached, I'm the one responsible for it. Well if it happens enough times, guess what happens? I'm looking for another job.
And that's with relatively minor confidential information. This is stuff that in the wrong hands, can kill thousands of people.
That's something I don't want on my conscience, so I would take security of that as serious as you could get.
In an area that stores less sensitive nuclear material — containing smaller amounts of plutonium and uranium — a new shipment of nuclear material wasn't documented for eight days. Auditors noted that it was supposed to have been entered into the system within four hours.
"Under the circumstances, the nuclear material could have been diverted without any record showing that it had ever existed," Friedman wrote.
That's how serious this type of thing is.
Some lab employees don't follow instructions for how to develop identification numbers for the materials so they are easily identified. For example, auditors said one system was based on characters in a movie that a technician had just seen.
Well if he's not following the rules, fire him, demote him, reprimand him. Make sure it doesn't happen again. Am I the only one who sees this as a major problem??
Travis
Labels: idiocy, nuclear program, Nuclear Weapons, Security
Indonesia rocked by another quake - CNN.com
I want to point out the recent back to back to back earthquakes in Indonesia.
When something bad happens in America like Hurricane Katrina, many Muslims around the world get on TV and the internet and say "This is Allah's will! He is punishing the great Satan!" And yet we sit back and take it.
However, with 4 earthquakes hitting Indonesia now, all of them pretty severe, you don't hear Americans saying "Indonesia, as the most populated Muslim country in the world deserved this! This is for all the terror attacks and blasphemy that they've caused!"
Do you know why? Because deep down, American's love to help people. I'm willing to bet that there's relief planes heading to Indonesia from us as we speak. Yet, what do we get for our troubles? We get protests about us. They tell us how evil we are and how much they're suffering.
They have no problems asking for aid from us, but once we stop giving them aid, they turn on us like a rabid animal. This is the same thing that I spoke about yesterday about Pakistan.
So if we can't seem to get along, why are we helping these people? Why not let their government and citizens see what it's like when American relief planes don't come to help? You can bet that after even one natural disaster that they'd be singing a different tune.
We even got the same response when Iran had their earthquake that killed 90,000 people. We offered help, we GAVE help, and we now have an Iranian government who wants to support people who shoot at our soldiers.
Travis
Labels: hypocrisy
Key Sunni ally of U.S. assassinated - CNN.com
A setback, absolutely, however I don't think that the locals are going to take this lying down. Sure, it's very intimidating, but they have a tendency to remember things and when you murder someone who's trying to make his city better, you're making him into a martyr in their eyes.
Abu Reesha, 39, was head of the Anbar Salvation Council -- also known as the Anbar Awakening -- a coalition of tribes that has been working with the U.S. military to counter al Qaeda in Sunni-dominated Anbar province.
Al-Maliki blamed al Qaeda in Iraq for the killing, but said it would backfire against the insurgent group by further isolating it across the country.
Al-Maliki is right. They are seeing Al-Qaeda try to muscle their way back in and everyone remembers the brutality that they showed and they don't want to have any of it. They were forced from their homes, forced to grow beards, had fingers cut off for smoking, even children were murdered for their parents cooperation with the US.
Tragically when one of them stood up to them, he lost his life along with two of his bodyguards. However, it's only going to strengthen the resolve of the local folks in Anbar province.
However, there is one thing that must be remembered:
It is unclear if the bomb was remotely detonated or triggered by the convoy. Al-Hayyes said he suspects al Qaeda may be behind the attack, but could not rule out a rival political group.
So it's entirely possible that the bomb was set there for US soldiers way back when and either forgotten about or what have you and then the bomb was triggered by this man's convoy accidentally. Just a thought.
Travis
Kucinich: I Wouldn't Assassinate Bin Laden - Politics on The Huffington Post
I knew this guy was a nutjob, but WOW. He has said that he wouldn't order the death of Osama Bin Laden. He starts talking about "stopping the deaths of innocents".
Really Dennis? How is Osama Bin Laden an "innocent"? Hell even Bill Maher, whom I disagree with about 90-95% of his views is taken aback by Kucinich's idiocy.
"How can you expect liberals such as myself to support you, when you don't even want the head of the man, who in the name of righting Muslim persecution, murdered 3,000 fellow citizens who's immediate complicity in the plight of Muslims is non existent"
Couldn't have said it better myself Bill.
Even readers are noticing the idiotic nature of Kucinich's ideas:
1will
You sound like Bill Clinton. He wanted to capture him instead of killing him too. That was a very successful policy as we've all seen.
Keep talking Dennis, you're furthering your failure even within your own party.
Travis
Labels: 9-11, Dennis Kucinich, idiocy, Osama Bin Laden
Talking to al Qaeda? Don't rule it out, some say - Yahoo! News
Let me put it to you this way: If ANY American leader (Congress, President, etc) tries to negotiate with Al-Qaeda in a serious way (instead of just luring them into a trap), I want that person charged with treason and executed.
But proponents say al Qaeda has established itself as a de facto power, whether the West likes it or not, and history shows militant movements are best neutralized by negotiation, not war.
Well, we're America. We've done things that no one else has done in history, both good and bad.
Al-Qaeda lost all negotiating abilities when they started attacking and killing Americans. Khobar Towers, Embassy Bombings, USS Cole, 9/11, etc. You simply don't get to kill your way into power. Hamas is only lucky to be in power because the Palestinians actively support terrorist groups by voting for them. You see what happens when that happens. Massive sanctions, refusal to listen to them, complete shut down of public services, etc.
I cannot stress this enough. If any leader of our nation tries to negotiate with Al-Qaeda, you are treading on some very dangerous territory.
Travis
Labels: al-qaeda
Researcher: Bin Laden's beard is real, video is not | Tech news blog - CNET News.com
Well if the video's been tampered with many times that begs a LOT of very important questions:
Is Bin Laden still alive?
When was this tape really made?
Was it made years ago and just his voice dubbed in to help throw off people as to what he currently looks like?
The September 7 video shows bin Laden dressed in a white hat, white shirt and yellow sweater. Krawetz notes "this is the same clothing he wore in the 2004-10-29 video. In 2004 he had it unzipped, but in 2007 he zipped up the bottom half. Besides the clothing, it appears to be the same background, same lighting, and same desk. Even the camera angle is almost identical." Krawetz also notes that "if you overlay the 2007 video with the 2004 video, his face has not changed in three years--only his beard is darker and the contrast on the picture has been adjusted."
So was this video really made in 2004 instead of 2007? It certainly is a distinct possibility.
More important though are the edits. At roughly a minute and a half into the video there is a splice; bin Laden shifts from looking at the camera to looking down in less than 1/25th of a second. At 13:13 there is a second, less obvious splice. In all, Krawetz says there are at least six splices in the video. Of these, there are only two live bin Laden segments, the rest of the video composed of still images. The first live section opens the video and ends at 1:56. The second section begins at 12:29 and continues until 14:01. The two live sections appear to be from different recordings "because the desk is closer to the camera in the second section."
Sounds to me like perhaps the video is older, but the audio is newer. It certainly would explain a lot. It would be much harder for people to find Bin Laden, especially if he shaves his beard and then regrows it for whenever he needs to make an appearance.
Travis
Labels: al-qaeda, Osama Bin Laden
Young Muslims begin dangerous fight for the right to abandon faith - Times Online
These folks have to be commended for their bravery. With most religious nutjobs, renouncing one's faith is up there in terms of blasphemy that is punishable by death.
I don't particularly care what religion someone is, however, I do care when a large minority starts talking about massacring innocent people, something we're seeing with the Muslim faith in the past several years.
A group of young Muslim apostates launches a campaign today, the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on America, to make it easier to renounce Islam.
The provocative move reflects a growing rift between traditionalists and a younger generation raised on a diet of Dutch tolerance.
The Committee for Ex-Muslims promises to campaign for freedom of religion but has already upset the Islamic and political Establishments for stirring tensions among the million-strong Muslim community in the Netherlands.
Ehsan Jami, the committee’s founder, who rejected Islam after the attack on the twin towers in 2001, has become the most talked-about public figure in the Netherlands. He has been forced into hiding after a series of death threats and a recent attack.
See what I mean? It's not enough for people to have a "live and let live" attitude towards their fellow human being. It's "you must be like us or we will kill you" that I have a problem with.
Travis
Template Changes
All,
I am going to be working on the template for the site today, so you may notice some odd looks from time to time. Just give it a bit and refresh your browser and things should look like normal again soon.
Travis
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
FOXNews.com - U.S. Officials Begin Crafting Iran Bombing Plan - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum
A recent decision by German officials to withhold support for any new sanctions against Iran has pushed a broad spectrum of officials in Washington to develop potential scenarios for a military attack on the Islamic regime, FOX News confirmed Tuesday.
Germany — a pivotal player among three European nations to rein in Iran's nuclear program over the last two-and-a-half years through a mixture of diplomacy and sanctions supported by the United States — notified its allies last week that the government of Chancellor Angela Merkel refuses to support the imposition of any further sanctions against Iran that could be imposed by the U.N. Security Council.
The Germans voiced concern about the damaging effects any further sanctions on Iran would have on the German economy — and also, according to diplomats from other countries, gave the distinct impression that they would privately welcome, while publicly protesting, an American bombing campaign against Iran's nuclear facilities.
Well we tried the diplomatic route. Unfortunately, the Germans, Russians, and the Chinese are all too concerned about their economy to worry about a known terrorist nation getting a hold of a nuclear weapon.
Consequently, according to a well-placed Bush administration source, "everyone in town" is now participating in a broad discussion about the costs and benefits of military action against Iran, with the likely timeframe for any such course of action being over the next eight to 10 months, after the presidential primaries have probably been decided, but well before the November 2008 elections.
The discussions are now focused on two basic options: less invasive scenarios under which the U.S. might blockade Iranian imports of gasoline or exports of oil, actions generally thought to exact too high a cost on the Iranian people but not enough on the regime in Tehran; and full-scale aerial bombardment.
I think the blockade idea might work very well. The Iranian government is very wobbly right now and if the populace gets uppity, they certainly will have a major problem on their hands. Added financial sanctions against Iran might work well in our favor as well.
That being said, the time for diplomacy is certainly running out fast. The Israeli's certainly aren't going to take this on the chin. They have rumored to have hit nuclear facilities in Syria, so what do you think they'll do about a nation that's directly threatening them?
Iran certainly has to know that the situation in Iraq isn't going to be the same as the Iranian one. I'm willing to bet that there are people inside of Iran who think that simply because we're "bogged down" in Iraq that they can get away with this kind of thing, but there's got to be at least one or two higher up guys who say "guys, they don't have to rebuild our nation. If Americans want our nuclear program dead, it's almost a done deal".
That's what people don't seem to realize. They think that if we attack Iran, that all of a sudden we have to invade with ground forces and such. That's not the case. We don't care about anything other than their nuclear programs.
If Germany, Russia and China aren't willing to stand up and be responsible world players in the UN, then what's the point of even HAVING the UN? They all voted for sanctions against Iran and gave them X amount of time to stop enriching Uranium. That time has passed because Iran knows that they only have to convince one country to back them. Well if the time has passed, then those three countries have an obligation to go through with further measures because the previous ones were ignored. That's how it's SUPPOSED to work.
And of course, they'll gladly welcome any military attack on Iran. They don't have to get their hands dirty. They don't have to take the Iranian backlash. They only have to have big, bad America spend more money and more lives on deal with the problem and they all benefit.
That's bullshit and they should be called to carpet on it.
Travis
Labels: China, Germany, iran, nuclear program, Nuclear Weapons, Russia, un
FOXNews.com - Putin Dissolves Government, Nominates Viktor Zubkov as New Prime Minister - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News
Russian President Putin has removed Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov and dissolved his cabinet. So let's see: He's fired a ton of important people, is flying "missions" very close to the British border, laid claim to the Arctic, and has now shown off a very large bomb.
Anyone else nervous on what the hell this idiot is thinking?
Travis
Labels: Russia
MoveOn.org Gets Discount Rate for ‘Betray Us’ Advocacy Ad | NewsBusters.org
What ever happened to a news organization just reporting the news and selling advertisement as the same rate to everyone? I guess that simply isn't the case with the New York Times. They gave moveon.org a more than $100,000 discount on the infamous "General Betray Us" ad.
Jake Tapper at ABC News reported that MoveOn.org paid $65,000 for its full page anti-war advocacy sliming of General David Petraeus. This figure raised the suspicions of attentive blogger Confederate Yankee whose intuition appears to be correct. (h/t Michelle Malkin) While looking up the current New York Times rate book he discovered that MoveOn.org received a $102,000 discount on the standard political advocacy rate that is advertised at $167,157.
Of course moveon.org isn't taking the controversy lying down:
In an e-mail to supporters, the group said Petraeus “misled the country” in his testimony before the House on Monday. MoveOn wants its members to write letters to the editors of local and national newspapers and question the findings Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker presented to Congress. The group provides talking points to support its view that Petraeus “used faulty statistics and cherry-picked intelligence to argue that American troops should stay in Iraq for the foreseeable future.”
Now, that would have been fine, but they ran the ad BEFORE he gave testimony and it takes a LONG time to put together an ad of that magnitude.
Simply put, once they knew that Petraeus would deliver at least a bit of positive news out of Iraq, they took it upon themselves to smear General Petraeus' good name without knowing a single thing that he was going to say.
However, the group appears undeterred. It compares the testimony of Petraeus to that of then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, who made the case for an invasion of Iraq before the United Nations in 2003. MoveOn said that, had it run a similar ad back then, Republicans “would have done the same thing — but sometimes it’s important to set the facts straight.”
Kind of ironic that they say "it's important to set the facts straight" when they don't even have the facts before they open their mouth.
Labels: General Petraeus, moveon.org
Sunni insurgents side with U.S. against al Qaeda - CNN.com
I guess this is what Harry Reid meant when he said
"This is unacceptable to me, it's unacceptable to the American people," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
Reid said the recommendation by Gen. David Petraeus, expected to be embraced on Thursday by President Bush in a speech to the nation, "is neither a drawdown or a change in mission that we need. His plan is just more of the same."
"I call on the Senate Republicans to not walk lockstep as they have with the president for years in this war. It's time to change. It's the president's war. At this point it also appears clear it's also the Senate Republicans' war," Reid told a Capitol Hill news conference.
Kershaw now greets his former enemies with kisses, hears their grievances, spends time in their homes and even shares meals with them. He is surprised at how far relations have progressed.
"Our hope a year ago was to establish very basic inroads down here," Kershaw said. "We thought the insurgency was far too deep for us to be able to effectively root it out and develop the relationship with the locals."
As happened in Anbar province to the west, local Sunni leaders from this town south of Baghdad finally turned on the al Qaeda extremists in their midst when the death and destruction became too much to bear.
"Killing people, stealing goats, everything, you name it," said Sheik Hamid Karbouli, when asked why he and his men now oppose al Qaeda. Karbouli has recruited some 150 volunteers to man checkpoints and carry guns.
You can bet your ass I'd be very weary about teaming up with former enemies. However, if it's progress that can be made and it moves Iraq closer to getting back on it's feet, I say a reluctant "ok".
That being said, if we're double crossed by these people and it's all a giant ambush, I say let all hell break loose.
Travis
Labels: insurgent, iraq, Reconciliation
We've got a rebuttal
Normally I leave the comments in the comments section, but with my story about Bin Laden topping the Pakistani polls, an anonymous person saw fit to rebut. His viewpoints are....scattered. However, I'll print them below so you can see. His comments are in bold, mine are not.
You below means US Govt.
mr right wing lunatic: you got it right musharraf is worst than bin laden for pakistanis .why he is a dictator, he thinks whatever he does is right, he doesnt bother about courts, because of him or his cronies 50 people died in karachi just to stop a rally and muchhh more.
No argument here. You'd know more about your leader than I would. I simply want the leader of Pakistan to help the US in capturing or killing Osama Bin Laden and the rest of Al-Qaeda. Failure to do so would mean to me that you're harboring terrorists. We all saw what that accomplished for the Taliban.
and yes we donot approve suicide bombings, hopelessness is prohibited in ISLAM, thats another case you see it in muslim world.
Well at least we can agree on that, if that's truly what you feel.
yes we think US aid may improve american govt image in pakistan, no body hates who helps in good will, you are giving money now and before not to the people but selected few and your govt knew very well.
We helped out tremendously with the earthquake in 2005, including giving money, food, and medical supplies to people directly. Yet, here we are two years later and the US STILL has a tarnished image in Pakistan? That's unacceptable in my book. 90,000 were killed in Iran during their earthquake and see where it has brought us?
they were right in saying, if there were schools colleges built with your money surely your image would imporve not if your money goes into generals bank account people would not like that.
So are we to automatically throw money into every country that doesn't like us? Are we to pay for everything on the entire planet? Why don't you ask the Chinese or the Russians for their aid? You don't because you know you won't get it. It's a double edged sword with Pakistani's and Arabs in general. They want our help, our money, our military aid. But once we start asking for friendly relations or something in return, we get "Death to America!".
yes during earthquake we got tremendous US support and every body appreciated that but what came after that was IRAQ, afgahistan atttacks in pakistan etc. people change so their opinions.
The earthquake happened in 2005. Well after the Iraq war. How much of the "attacks" that you see do you think the US is responsible for? Do you think it might be that Pakistani's are staging these? I'm not saying that we're totally absolved of anything, but let's take a look at the whole picture. And if we have actionable intelligence that a known Al-Qaeda member is in Pakistan, sorry to tell you, but we're going in there. They've already killed over 3,000 people and have shown that they want to kill more. If that means they are on your home turf, sorry.
you know my take on BIN laden,, he is with CIA like saddam was.
you know what happened on sept 11 was deliberate act by your government.
people like bin laden, saddam and musharraf are cancers in our society planted and made monster by US govt...
Actually, no I DON'T know your take on any of these people. Where is your evidence that September 11th was a US government conspiracy? If there was evidence, I think that we would have heard more about it from one of the conspirators by now. Do you have any idea on how many people would have to be involved in an operation such as this one? You're telling me that all these people (I'm talking hundreds of people to pull this off) and not one has let it slip or had his/her conscience get to them?
We're talking about the murder of 3,000 innocent people.
If these people are cancers in your eyes, how does that justify the 9/11 attacks? Every expert from around the world has said that the official story is pretty accurate. Yes, there are "unknowns", but there are "unknowns" in the Lincoln assassination. That doesn't prove anything.
How are the three people you named been made "monsters" by the US government? Sure, we supported Saddam when he was at war with Iran. But there was nothing the US government did that made him invade Kuwait, attempt to assassinate George H.W. Bush, or plan terrorist attacks on US soil after 9/11.
The same can be said about Osama. Sure, we supported the Muslim fighters during the Soviet's invasion of Afghanistan, but did we deserve to have those we helped knife us in the back for our troubles?
although most of the respondents didnt had any idea about the larger picture as many may not have travelled out of their villages also i dont know their sampling aswell , you know many of us belived that long ago that it was a deliberate act by some body/dept in US govt.
So let me ask you this, if you don't have proof of a US government conspiracy, wouldn't that lead you to believe that Bin Laden may have actually had a hand in it? It's not difficult to imagine. He admitted the attacks. We've caught Al-Qaeda members who admitted it was a plot. Bin Laden has publicly praise the attacks. He has the "last will and testament" of many of the hijackers. There's witnesses on the planes that phoned home before impact saying it was 5 Arab guys. It was all on video all over the place.
How much more evidence do you need?
You bring me hard evidence that it was the US government that did this and I'll be on your side. Until then, I really have a hard time wanting to offer Pakistan aid and investments while they support a known terrorist organization and it's leader.
yes these kinds of things had happened here.
Maybe so, but I don't think this is one of those times.
Travis
Labels: Rebuttal
Whiners
Everyone knows I hate a whiner. But I ran across this video that's sweeping the internet and I simply must post it.
LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!
No Democratic censure for MoveOn ad - - The Washington Times, America's Newspaper
Well it appears that Democrats LIKED the ad that was taken out against General Petraeus. The infamous "General Betray Us" ad. They aren't speaking out against it, only giving token statements. Let's take a peek:
Nadeam Elshami, a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the California Democrat "wished [MoveOn.org] wouldn't have done that ad," but declined to comment further.
A spokeswoman for House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, Maryland Democrat, also declined to comment on the ad.
Even Presidential candidate John Edwards won't denounce the obviously below the belt tactic done by his political masters:
A spokesman for former Sen. John Edwards, a Democratic presidential candidate who has benefited from full-page ads MoveOn.org ran on his behalf, said Mr. Edwards "honors General Petraeus' service and patriotism," but he did not disavow the MoveOn.org ad.
"The general is wrong to believe that the American people or Congress should give President Bush's failed Iraq strategy more time," said Edwards spokesman Eric Schultz.
In July, MoveOn.org ran newspaper ads for Mr. Edwards in Iowa and New Hampshire after their members chose him as the winner of an online forum about global warming.
Is Barack Obama any different? Nope.
Sen. Barack Obama's spokeswoman Jen Psaki noted that the candidate is not questioning the general's patriotism but rather his "logic," because the Illinois Democrat sees "no evidence that this surge is producing the political progress needed to resolve the civil war in Iraq, or that it will be accomplished through more of the same."
After Mr. Obama won an online MoveOn.org forum about Iraq, the group set up a page directing its members to make direct financial contributions to whichever candidate they felt gave the strongest performance.
Of course, even Hillary won't denounce it.
Phil Singer, a spokesman for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, said his boss would "keep her focus where it should be, on ending the war."
So she can't be bothered to make a two sentence statement?
But do you know who actually denounced the ad on the Democratic side of things? John Kerry. Stop laughing, I'm not kidding:
Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, a decorated Vietnam War veteran and the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, who on Monday called the ad "over the top."
But they are all saying that it's being used as a distraction. This coming from the party of distractions. Republicans aren't asking for this to be the main topic, they are asking for a bit of humanity from Democrats and they aren't getting it.
Travis
Labels: Democrats, General Petraeus, iraq, Politics, Republicans
Michael J. Totten: Anbar Awakens Part I: The Battle of Ramadi
If you want to get a good feel of how things are REALLY going in Iraq, there's no one better to ask then someone who's actually there. Check this out from Michael J. Totten. I've written about him before.
Sheikh Jassim’s experience was typical.
“Jassim was pissed off because American artillery fire was landing in his area,” Colonel Holmes said. “But he wasn’t pissed off at us. He was pissed off at Al Qaeda because he knew they always shot first and we were just shooting back.”
“He said he would prevent Al Qaeda from firing mortars from his area if we would help him,” Lieutenant Hightower said. “Al Qaeda said they would mess him up if he got in their way. He called their bluff and they seriously fucked him up. They launched a massive attack on his area. All hell broke loose. They set houses on fire. They dragged people through the streets behind pickup trucks. A kid from his area went into town and Al Qaeda kidnapped him, tortured him, and delivered his head to the outpost in a box. The dead kid was only sixteen years old. The Iraqis then sent out even nine year old kids to act as neighborhood watchmen. They painted their faces and everything.”
“Sheikh Jassim came to us after that,” Colonel Holmes told me, “and said I need your help.”
“One night,” Lieutenant Markham said, “after several young people were beheaded by Al Qaeda, the mosques in the city went crazy. The imams screamed jihad from the loudspeakers. We went to the roof of the outpost and braced for a major assault. Our interpreter joined us. Hold on, he said. They aren’t screaming jihad against us. They are screaming jihad against the insurgents."
“A massive anti-Al Qaeda convulsion ripped through the city,” said Captain McGee. “The locals rose up and began killing the terrorists on their own. They reached the tipping point where they just could not take any more. They told us where the weapon caches were. They pointed out IEDs under the road.”
“In mid-March,” Lieutenant Hightower said, “a sniper operating out of a house was shooting Americans and Iraqis. Civilians broke into his house, beat the hell out of him, and turned him over to us.”
Still want out of Iraq? This is concrete proof that we're making progress in Iraq.
Travis
Labels: iraq
Hirsh: Rating Petraeus’s Report to the Hill - Newsweek Michael Hirsh - MSNBC.com
There's reports that the Pentagon's internal report will "differ substantially" from what General Petraeus is telling America.
John Arquilla, an intelligence and counterinsurgency expert at the Naval Postgraduate School, is even harsher in his assessment of Petraeus. “I think Colin Powell used dodgy information to get us into the war, and Petraeus is using dodgy information to keep us there,” he said.
You think or you know?
“His political talking points are all very clear: the continued references he made to the danger of Al Qaeda in Iraq, for example, even though it represents only somewhere between 2 and 5 percent of the total insurgency.
How do you know it's only between 2 and 5%? Where do you get these figures?
The continued references to Iran, when in fact the Iranians have had a lot to do with stability in the Shiite portion of the country.
Yes, the insurgency isn't happening at all. The Shiite's aren't bombing markets full of people. If that's the Iranian's "help", I don't think anyone wants it.
And it's not at all clear why things are a little better now. Is it because there are more troops, or is it because we're negotiating with the insurgents and have moved to small operating outposts?
Well we'll all find that out once troops start coming home won't we? If things continue to go at the same pace and there are less troops, I think that would answer your question.
On any given day we don't have more than 20,000 troops operating.
How do you know this?
The glacial pace of reductions beggars the imagination.”
Well moving 30,000 troops out of Iraq is a big deal. Would you like it if we moved our guys out and had to bring them back because things hadn't quite settled down?
I'm not saying this guy is wrong. However, I want examples and hard data before I accept someone's opinion on matters.
Travis
Labels: General Petraeus, iraq
Poll: Bin Laden tops Musharraf in Pakistan - CNN.com
Osama Bin Laden has a 46% approval rating and Musharraf has a 38% approval
rating inside of Pakistan.
Seventy-four percent said they oppose U.S. military action against al Qaeda and the Taliban inside Pakistan.
Asked their opinion on the real purpose of the U.S.-led war on terror, 66 percent of poll respondents said they believe the United States is acting against Islam or has anti-Muslim motivation. Others refused to answer the question or said they did not know.
There were a few bright spots in the poll results, however. Opposition leader Benazir Bhutto -- a relatively moderate and progressive figure, as well as a woman -- had a 63 percent approval rating.
Seventy-five percent of poll respondents said suicide bombings are rarely or never justified.
Ok, so 75% of the people say suicide bombings are rarely or never justified, but they seem to think that the 9/11 attacks were ok? The nerve of these "people" really chaps my ass. But wait, it gets better.
And a majority of Pakistanis said their opinion of the United States would improve if, among other things, there were increases in American aid to Pakistan, American business investments and the number of visas issued for Pakistanis to work in the United States.
They must be out of their minds if they think that's ever going to happen. First off, they seem to have quickly forgotten our help in the 2005 earthquake that they had that killed upwards of 90,000 people. If they are so quick to forget that unconditional help and their views on us is so poor, why should we even BEGIN to bother to help them out or invest in their country?
It's the same bullshit you hear from Palestinians. "Death to America! Death to Israel!.....hey, can you spare a few bucks?" You wouldn't give money to someone like that who threatened you and talked crap about you all day long, so how is Pakistan any different?
Pakistan should thank it's lucky stars that we're not going in there now. They like to think America is hated around the world universally, but everyone is still on board to get Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden.
Labels: al-qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, Pakistan, Palestinians, Pervez Musharraf, Report
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Dennis Kucinich has lost his mind
I am at a complete loss for words on the insane amount of bullshit that this guy is spewing out.
Here is Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich talking about reparations for Iraqis, exaggerating the amount of Iraqi dead, and calling the war in Iraq an "illegal occupation". He talks about "American showing it's goodness again". Yet, he doesn't seem to get it that Iran isn't going to show us the same respect that the proposes to us. They burn our flag and chant "death to America" LONG before the Iraq war started. But of course, once we "show our goodness again", the "world can love America again". Sorry Dennis, but your deluding yourself and America if you think that's ever going to happen. If the world loved us BEFORE Iraq, why did 9/11 happen? Why did Palestinians cheer in the streets? Why did Iran hang an Army Colonel in the late 80's and show his death video around the world? Why were we attacked in Beruit? According to you, we were "loved" during that time.
This guy is bordering on being traitorous. He's feeding right into the hands of our enemies and he's looking like an idiot doing it. I'm just glad he has zero chance of winning the presidency, otherwise I'd be a lot more furious then I am now.
Travis
Labels: Dennis Kucinich, iraq, Syria
'IAF and ground troops targeted Iranian weapons in Syria' | Jerusalem Post
It's always nice to see the Israeli's standing up against Hezbollah militants, especially when it comes to other nations in their support for the terrorist organization.
It makes me all fuzzy inside to see Syria and Iran blink twice when they see Israeli jets flying overhead because they know if they continue down this path, they don't have just the American's to worry about.
Travis
Pelosi: President's Policy is a Path to 10 More Years of War in Iraq - Yahoo! News
"President Bush's policy announced by General Petraeus is a path to 10 more years of war in Iraq. General Petraeus' testimony to Congress drew a bright line: redeployment is not an option; endless war in Iraq is the Administration's only option.
"Under the Bush plan, 130,000 Americans will remain in harm's way in Iraq at a cost of hundreds of billions of additional taxpayer dollars. This status quo policy was rejected by General James Jones, whose recent report stated that significant force reductions are possible and that we must reduce our military footprint in Iraq.
"The Bush-Petraeus plan of 130,000 Americans in Iraq for 10 more years is not a reduction in our footprint; it is an insult to the intelligence of the American people to call that a new direction. It is a status quo plan that tells the Iraqi government that they do not need to change.
"The American people long ago rejected the President's plan to stay in Iraq, which is why they voted for a New Direction in 2006. Yet, with his veto pen and the 60-vote hurdle in the Senate, the President is preventing the redeployment of our troops, the rebuilding of our military, and the refocusing of our nation's efforts on fighting terrorism."
10 more years eh Nancy? Have any proof of that? Redeployment is NOT an option because there is progress being made and you simply don't like it.
"The Bush-Petraeus plan of 130,000 Americans in Iraq for 10 more years is not a reduction in our footprint" You assume too much. Petraeus never said that we would have to remain at war in Iraq for 10 years.
"will be in Iraq in some way for 9 or 10 years" could mean anything. Hell, even one soldier in Iraq could mean "some way". We certainly aren't going to have 130,000 troops in Iraq in 9 or 10 years. It simply isn't possible. You're stretching the truth to fit your own personal agenda.
And finally, Americans voted in Democrats in 2006 for a variety of reasons, including Iraq. But you assume that's the ONLY reason you were voted in. If you truly believe that, you're in some deep trouble come election time.
Travis
Labels: idiocy, iraq, Nancy Pelosi
Surge a failure, Democrats tell general
Democrats, no matter how much you say it, that doesn't make it true. You'd like to believe that the surge has failed, but cold, hard numbers don't lie. Hell, most of you haven't even BEEN to Iraq.
Anti-war Senate Democrats bluntly told Iraq commander General David Petraeus Tuesday his troop surge strategy was an abject failure in its prime objective -- forging an Iraqi political settlement.
Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer rebuked Petraeus for past optimism. "I ask you to take off your rosy glasses."
Petraeus replied: "my responsibility as I see it is not to give a good picture, it is to give an accurate picture."
So who do you believe more? A guy who's got a PhD in international relations, who wrote the Army's counterinsurgency handbook and who's right in the trenches of it?
Or are you going to believe a career politician who's only concern is the way the wind blows and in getting more votes to stay in power?
Would you trust the cop or the mayor on what's going on about crime in a city?
The simple fact of the matter is that General Petraeus told the truth and Democrats didn't like it. So they've resorted to calling him a liar, a