April 26, 2004
Medals Schmedals
It all depends on what the definition of 'medals' is.
i don't really give a rat's ass what Kerry threw over the fence. It's the fact that he threw anything over, and the lies he told about the men serving in Vietnam, which he has yet to apologize for, that disqualifies him from the presidency, in my opinion. Not that you asked for my opinion.
Posted by: annika at
11:11 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 69 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Of course we asked for your opinion; it is important, especialy when it is on all fours with ours!
Posted by: shelly s. at April 26, 2004 11:16 AM (rZmE1)
2
For me his present day "full grown and should be wiser" adult character is even more important of an issue than mistakes and deceptions he committed in 1971. He continues to lie in the present day on his website, and in an L.A. Times interview in Friday's edition, saying "I never mislead anybody." Also, his claims of a Republican plot are a stretch, as no Republican ads or campaign personnel have publically touched the "medals controversy," at least as far as I know.
Posted by: gcotharn in Texas at April 26, 2004 03:39 PM (AaBEz)
Posted by: PoliticalBlogger at April 27, 2004 12:11 PM (SfBQW)
4
For the love of... PB, you do understand that all of Bush's military records have been released, don't you?
What other proof is required, I don't know.
Posted by: Jon at April 30, 2004 11:46 AM (B9rRW)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 23, 2004
Pat Tillman
There's so much to say about
the death of Pat Tillman, and i know i can't say it all. i knew about his story before he went into the Army because i listen to
Jim Rome's show. i can remember the glowing praise Rome had for Tillman and his decision to give up his pro career to join the Army and enter Ranger training. Like Rome, i always thought he'd come back to us.
It's true that Tillman's sacrifice is equal to the sacrifice of all the brave men and women we've lost in Iraq and Afghanistan. But if there is a difference, it's that we civilians who have not been touched by any personal loss, have now been given a face to put on the sacrifice of those heroes who are over there protecting us. i feel Tillman's loss because i knew him as a fan, however remotely, and it brings home to me the sacrifices of all the men and women who have died or been injured to protect me.
Here's a very poignant salute to Pvt. Tillman written before he went overseas, which reminds us that Tillman joins the ranks of other great patriots like Ted Williams.
Here are some of the tributes coming in now.
And i want to note that Tillman was killed in action, on a mission to hunt Al Qaeda. He was literally killed in the act of protecting you and me.
Pat Tillman was my age. When 9/11 happened i, like many people i know, thought about enlisting in the armed forces. i also thought about the FBI or the CIA. But i didn't follow up on anything. There were others who joined and would join. i had my life and my plans, and my patriotic fervor subsided in time. Not that i ever became un-patriotic, but let's just say i chose not to make the personal sacrifice.
Pat Tillman did. And not only did he give up the comfy bed and the new wife and the safety of life in the U.S., he gave up millions of dollars too. Not only that, he was in the NFL. It's not just money. It's fame, too. He gave up the adoration that anybody who's ever played the game of football knows is one of the great perks of the sport. Chicks dig football players. i was a cheerleader, i know. Even a married guy like Tillman must have appreciated the rare power to turn heads in any bar or restaurant simply because they are in the NFL.
If somebody offered me three mil to join the Army, i would have done it in a heartbeat. But Tillman did just the opposite. He gave up an NFL contract for the opportunity to risk his life. Why? Because he loved America, and he had a sense of duty so great that i can't even comprehend it. And he not only risked his life, he gave it.
i know that somewhere up there this morning, Ted Williams is buying a beer for Pat Tillman and saying "good job soldier." God bless him.
More: i've been somber and teary-eyed all day, because of the news. Today being casual Friday, i took my usual Friday lunchtime power walk around Century City. i listened to Sean Hannity on my walkman. Of course he was talking about Pat Tillman, and saying the nicest things about our people serving in the military. That made me even sadder. Then he played Toby Keith's beautiful song "American Soldier" and i totally lost it.
Oh, and I don't want to die for you,
But if dyin's asked of me,
I'll bear that cross with honor,
'Cause freedom don't come free.
There i was, sitting on the curb in front of the mall, with tears streaming down my face. i looked like a mess. The poor valet guy had to ask me if i needed help. It was embarrassing; i'm not normally an emotional person. But all i could think about was how much i love and appreciate the people serving in our armed forces. i really do, i love them all. If it takes Pat Tillman's death to really bring that home to me, there's one good thing that comes out of his loss.
Posted by: annika at
11:01 AM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 712 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Well said, Annika. The best I've read about it today so I won't even try to to express my feelings here.
Posted by: Blake at April 23, 2004 11:41 AM (AKSiu)
2
He was always a class act during the usually ugly UofAz/ASU rivalry games. He lived a great life and will be missed. I've been thinking of joining up for a while now, I'm for the war, might as well walk the walk...we'll see, but I'm seeing things each week that are pointing me in that direction.
Posted by: Scof at April 23, 2004 12:17 PM (XCqS+)
3
As a Christian pacifist,I cannot support the use of force in the cause for which Pat Tillman died.
But I can honor the example of placing duty before personal gain, of placing simplicity before luxury. As a Mennonite football fan, I really dug the way he lived so at odds with typical NFL stars. I grieve the loss of a man who played a violent game and died a violent death, but who was always willing to embrace such a humble lifestyle.
Posted by: Hugo at April 23, 2004 01:48 PM (We/wN)
4
You've put this better than I probably ever could, Annika, so thanks. Words fail.
If you want to put your own particular talents and education to work in the service of the country, there's always JAG after law school. God knows if I could ever get myself back into decent shape, I'd still probably do it.
Posted by: Dave J at April 23, 2004 03:01 PM (VThvo)
5
That was wonderfully written and expresses why the nation is reacting so strongly.
Posted by: Jane at April 23, 2004 05:07 PM (0GNJF)
Posted by: Brent at April 23, 2004 07:49 PM (w+y2e)
7
I am a big guy. I am NFL Noseguard sized. And I am a rugged guy. You'd be pretty happy to walk into the dark alley with me by your side. And I'm pretty much a guy's guy. I'm not a patient listener when the women begin chitchatting about who is dating who and who might get a divorce, and I flatly refuse to enter a department store in the company of my girlfriend or, for that matter, any woman whatsoever.
And since 9/11 I have had, I don't know, maybe a dozen spontaneous crying jags like you experienced outside Century City. Probably more, I haven't counted. Triggered by a song; or a photograph; or a story; in which almost anyone displays selflessness or courage or devoted love for a family member. I've halfway got tears in my eyes now typing this and just thinking about it.
When I saw the citizens of Comfort, TX standing by roads and waving flags during the funeral procession their fallen neighbor, I cried enough to wet an entire bath towel. I love my country, and I love my fellow citizens, and I love you guys on this blog.
Heck of it is, I'm only working on my first beer of the night. You'd think this was a 4 beer post b/c it's so sappy!
Posted by: gcotharn in Texas at April 23, 2004 09:50 PM (rZmE1)
8
Guys like Pat Tillman only come along once in a while. In a world full of ersatz bullshit, he was the real deal, and in death will transcend. He's a good face for all those folks who pull the wagon in this world. May God bless him and his. He will be missed.
Posted by: Casca at April 24, 2004 03:16 AM (DGeKw)
9
A very touching and personal remembrance, both in the essay and reader comments. It's truly remarkable how Tillman's death has stirred our country. I've put up an essay as well -- as have many others, I'm sure -- but I'm sure moved by the compelling, thoughtful writing here at annika's.
Posted by: robofrost at April 25, 2004 04:09 PM (rywVr)
Posted by: glenn at April 26, 2004 09:27 AM (1oqLe)
11
Wow, what a great thing to read. I went to high school with Pat and Kevin and I am so honored tohave known them. I heard the news the morning of when I got a call from a friend of ours in high school and that day all I could do was what News and hear all I could. The news doesn't tellus anything I was so sad so I turned to home videos from high school..Pat wasn't on them but Kevin was and it helped ease the pain and brought back good memories so ever since I have found sites like this to help get through my day. Reality has hit home and it hurts. the service is still to come so we will see how that goes! Keep up the great support even if you disagreee with war we are there, there's nothin we can to to stop it so stand united and get our guys and gals home safe!!!!!
Posted by: Janae at April 28, 2004 04:21 PM (s6c4t)
12
When I served in the US Army during the first Bush War, almost every single soldier I knew and served with joined the US Army for the exact same reason: to make a better life for themselves and their family.
Truth betold, for many soldiers enlistment is their last option to make a good life.
But Pat Tillman didn't join to make a better life for himself or his family. He enlisted to make a better life for the rest of us. And that sets him apart...a hero that even other heroes look up to.
Posted by: Robbie at April 29, 2004 06:16 AM (NTEY5)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 21, 2004
The Magnificent Bastards
The "Magnificent Bastards" is the moniker of the historic Second Battalion of the Fourth Marine Regiment.
Rush Limbaugh read this message at the end of his show today. It was written by the 2/4's CO and upon hearing it, i was filled with pride and gratitude at the power and sacrifice of these wonderful Marines:
Early in the morning we exchanged gunfire with a group of insurgents without significant loss. As morning progressed, the enemy fed more men into the fight and we responded with stronger force. Unfortunately, this led to injuries as our Marines and sailors started clearing the city block by block. The enemy did not run; they fought us like soldiers. And we destroyed the enemy like only Marines can. By the end of the evening the local hospital was so full of their dead and wounded that they ran out of space to put them. Your husbands were awesome all night they stayed at the job of securing the streets and nobody challenged them as the hours wore on. They did not surrender an inch nor did flinch from the next potential threat. Previous to yesterday the terrorist thought that we were soft enough to challenge. As of tonight the message is loud and clear that the Marines will not be beaten.
Today the enemy started all over again, although with far fewer numbers, only now the rest of the battalion joined the fight. Without elaborating to much, weapons company and Golf crushed their attackers with the vengeance of the righteous. They filled up the hospitals again and we suffered only a few injuries. Echo company dominated the previous day's battlefield. Fox company patrolled with confidence and authority; nobody challenged them. Even Headquarters Company manned their stations and counted far fewer people openly watching us with disdain. If the enemy is foolish enough to try to take your men again they will not survive contact. We are here to win.
What kind of enemy is it who thinks they can fuck with the Marines and win? If you ask me, i think the enemy is fully aware that they are going to their death when they attack the Marines, and that's why they attack.
i found another article about the 2/4 in Iraq, which is interesting because of the contrast in tone. Where the piece written by an actual participant is filled with resolute pride, the piece filtered by media bias exhibits a more somber, defeatist tone.
'I didn't sleep. I lay in the bed,' Oety recalled, sitting alone with a cigarette after a Marine memorial service Sunday.
The American deaths fell most heavily on Oety's 2nd Battalion, 4th Marines Regiment, a storied unit known as 'the Magnificent Bastards' that hardly needed another infamous battle on its resume.
Five died from just one 13-man squad ambushed on a road they patrolled every day.
'I can't stand that area,' said Oety, 24, of Louisville, Ky. But Oety did what his battalion is known for: plunging back in.
The contrast between the two perspectives is striking to me. Journalists, for the most part, are gutless, ignorant hacks. It doesn't surprise me that a journalist would focus on casualties, rather than accomplishments. Journalists don't understand what our soldiers, marines and sailors are doing, nor do they want to. It frightens them.
Update: Blackfive contrasts AP and Reuters coverage of the so-called cease fire.
Posted by: annika at
01:45 PM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 566 words, total size 4 kb.
Posted by: Tim at April 21, 2004 01:50 PM (jYU4N)
2
I'll tell you why the journalists reporting are such gutless, clueless, hacks. Their templete is the Viet Nam War. Not to mention their editors are refugees from that era who've never grown up. Hey, I lived it. Was college student during the mid-70's.
What they're not getting is this--different times, different enemy, who wants you and I dead. Period. End of story.
Eloquence means nothing.
Posted by: joe at April 21, 2004 03:19 PM (3kULp)
3
I remember the day in al-jubayl, saudi arabia in Feb of '91 when a reporter stopped by weapons repair shop I ran to see if anyone wanted to give an interview.
One PFC offered to go in front of the camera the reporter's side-kick was carrying. The first five or so questions related to who he was, where he was from, and what he did.
The best part came shortly thereafter when the reporter asked if the PFC felt guilty that his job might help inflict death and injury on a kid his age in the Iraqi army. The PFC replied, "I count on it because that is my job.
If I could shoot the f**kers myself I would. It would get me home quicker."
I gave the PFC the day off after the reporter and his side-kick ran from our shop in disgust.
Semper Fi, Marines. Semper Fi.
Posted by: jcrue at April 21, 2004 03:48 PM (G9kk0)
4
I'll tell you something about our USMC. A friend of mine signed up to be a marine six years ago, but when he couldn't pass the physical tests the first time, they almost deferred him to the army corps. Not the kind of person to relent to anyhthing, he worked his butt off and got buffed up. Then he went through and passed the physical. I was there with him in the gym, and was wondering why he was working himself almost overexerting himself sometimes.
"It's the marines."
I didn't know what that meant until what I heard from the Iraqi commanders. When it was told the Americans were coming, they weren't surprised, but not too scared.
That changed very quickly when they heard the MARINES were coming too! They went to near panic upon hearing that.
Sure, I might never be buff enough to join the Marines (or have the nerve to join the armed forces much less. I know, I'm a coward, but I know who's brave and who's not, and I do salute them!) but after hearing that from my friends and recent events, I have thought twice.
Always Faithful.
Semper Fidelis
Posted by: Charles Hammond Jr. at April 22, 2004 03:49 PM (/FXjU)
5
I was there in Ramadi, with the best. And I will tell you this. We are not war monging killers. We are marines and we do as ordered in our countries service so that the American people can wake up day by day and live their lives with the freedoms that we have today. And what does it take to have this you might ask. Marines and other branches of the service to go out day by day and put our lives on the line for what we love and care about most in life. Our families and our friends, and it takes a stable country to have this, I have been to Iraq so I know how good we have it here and what we all as americans take for granted. We take our freedoms for granted and we forget how the strength of our military has brought us what we have today.
Remember those who we lost over there, many were my buddies, and let their legends go on as heroes as that is what they are, heroes.
Semper Fidelis
Posted by: Lcpl grunt FOX CO 2/4 at December 13, 2004 11:47 PM (/hs21)
6
I served with Fox co.2/4 in Vietnam Fox relieved Echo co at the groucho marx battle near Cam-lo that is where Capt Howard V Lee earned his congressionl medal of honor.I have never seen a braver outfit than 2/4 I am proud to have served Semper Fi
Posted by: Philip L Hickman at January 04, 2005 10:40 PM (lVR1d)
7
I have a real problem with Keith william Nolans book the magnificent bastards.Mr.Nolan is a good writer but,the cover of the book tells of a marine and army operation and they became known as the magnificent bastards,and I'm quite sure that the uninformed readers will come away thinking that the combined Army and Marine unit are the magnificent bastards.I am sure that the Army unit is a brave and noble group but 2/4and 2/4 alone are the magnificent bastards.Col.Joe (Bull)Fisher a veteran of Iwo jima gave us that name and we are most assuredly proud bastards.
Posted by: Philip L. Hickman at January 07, 2005 11:27 PM (lVR1d)
8
I am proud to say that I have been to war with those Magnificent Bastards. I served as Golf Company's Police Sergeant for the 7 months we spent in Iraq. These men are my brothers and America would do well to remember that they are also thier brothers, husbands and sons. These men lived and died by the power of thier wills and the support of thier brothers. I will go to the ends of hell with these men, and make no mistake, hell would be for the taking if you put the Marines of 2/4 on the task.
Posted by: AKH GUNS-UP!! at April 18, 2005 09:17 PM (cYPBD)
9
I am proud to claim the title as "Marine", just as I am proud to have been a member of the "Magnificent Bastards", these titles have been earned not given. People may look in disgust at my tatoo of the eagle,globe,and anchor with "Magnificent Bastards" wrapped around it. But those that know only offer thanks and praise. "Semper Fi" to all Marines, and especially those of Echo Co 2ndBtn 4th Marines
Posted by: J Smith at May 09, 2005 10:05 AM (VIEln)
10
I'm am proud to say I served in the greatest branch of the armed forces, The United States Marine Corps, and am the son of a career Marine who served with the Magnificent Bastards in Vietnam. They deserve all the praise and admiration we as a country can give them, because as Marines the 2/4 were hard charges that never gave up on a fight, and many stayed to the bitter end to fight along side of their brothers knowing full well the consiquences of their actions. Marines never leave their own and never back down from any challenge! Semper Fi!
Posted by: Mike Hudson at June 09, 2005 02:07 PM (65OVX)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 19, 2004
You're Not Even Safe After They Kill You
Even after they kill you,
the terrorists want to find your body and desecrate it. This is the type of people we should appease? i don't think so.
The body of a Spanish police officer who was killed in a raid on suspected Islamic terrorists was removed from its tomb Sunday night, dragged across a cemetery, doused with gasoline and burned, a Spanish police official told CNN.
i don't want to hear anyone saying that we need to understand why the hate us, that they're just fighting for their own freedom, or that we are in any way responsible for what these demons are trying to do to the civilized world. They are evil, plain and simple. In fact evil isn't a strong enough word.
Link via LGF.
Posted by: annika at
02:45 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 143 words, total size 1 kb.
1
We know why they hate us. Anyone who doesn't get that must own the rosiest rose-colored glasses in the world.
I'm thinking it's a matter of time until the civilized world--the coalition--will not stand for any more of this kind of stuff and will take decisive action in its own inimitable way.
There's no way we'll tolerate 10th Century totalitarianism, 'cause that's what were talking about.
Eloquence means nothing.
Posted by: joe at April 19, 2004 04:51 PM (aTqdX)
2
I have always believed that there were two sides to every story, but I am not too sure I can see the other side of this one. But then my sister sent me something today that was intended to be humorous, that actually does shed some light onto the mind process of these Islamic terrorists. Their fanatical religious leaders have robbed them of everything that makes life enjoyable and promise them everything they could ever wish for should they die in an effort to promote the religious ideology of their leaders. By making death more attractive than life, they have created an Army of fanatical martyrs. However, I have yet to see the Islamic text that promises 72 virgins for desecrating the graves of your enemy.
Posted by: Tiger at April 19, 2004 08:40 PM (XiOlO)
3
Two sides to every story has the hidden message that both sides are of comparable validity and are equally deserving of a hearing. Ain't necessarily so.
Posted by: Lee at April 19, 2004 09:22 PM (X2b6R)
4
You folks have it all wrong; there is a way to stop the killing and the terrorism. We all just need to convert to Islam.
Annika, go get fitted for your burka, be sure to get shoes to match. Forget the education; stay home unless escorted by a male. Be examined and treated by doctors using a mirror, so they don't look directly upon you. Blogging gets you flogging.
The rest of us get the 72 virgins.
Unfortunately, they all look like Janet Reno.
Posted by: shelly s. at April 20, 2004 05:49 AM (rZmE1)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 16, 2004
Google Bomb
Maybe you've heard about
this:
waffles
Posted by: annika at
05:09 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 10 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I added you to my list of participants. Let me know if this is a problem, if it is I can take you down. If you would like, you may add the following to your site as a permanent feature (at least until election day... a lot of participants have thrown this on their site) (A HREF="http://www.johnkerry.com/" target="_blank") (img alt="Esoteric Diatribe" src="http://home.comcast.net/~nosboca2/waffles2.gif"/) (/br) Waffles(/A). All you need to do is replace the ()'s with these -> >
Posted by: Ken at April 16, 2004 07:41 PM (u/Tc2)
2
A,
I've got my own Kerry tribute going, but you'll have to scroll down below the Alien Zen cartoon.
Enjoy,
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at April 18, 2004 09:27 AM (w2ALR)
3
the < QUOTATION of b>REICH WHING DUMBASS of DAY:
> Bob Tarantino was simply exceeded in the department of dumbassery today. < the better i>"You listen upwards? Howzabout you listen to the top, and you return account that after partnering upwards with the fascistic dictatorship of Saddam to stripe their own pockets, UNO does not deserve to have other drew to ruin the lives of Iraqis."> what can I says. Even while the situation in disintigrates of Iraq and the account of body goes up on the level of the invasion and colonization initial, of the lucky finds of this rube it in with the refuse UNO (which does not colonize to steal oil for rich rubes of Whing de Reich) with a package of lies are blatent. At least the major part of other Reich Whingers timidly looks at their laces while Iraq goes down in chaos, but not this rube. It entered overwork throwing the crap to no matter whom and each one which it can find to pin the blame above for this still another astonishing failure of bush of Whing de Reich. Stomp out of vermin of Whing de Reich!
Posted by: Robert McClelland at April 18, 2004 10:25 AM (br4tr)
4
Robert I can not understand what you are saying.
"situation in disintigrates of Iraq and the account of body goes up on the level of the invasion and colonization initial, of the lucky finds of this rube it in with the refuse UNO"
Seriously man, that makes no sense. And I'm not talking politics, that's just incredibly bad english. You should be ashamed and consider sterilization. Maybe somebody's pulling my chain but that's just horrible...
Posted by: Scof at April 18, 2004 12:05 PM (XCqS+)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
An Analogy
i'm into short blog entries today for some reason. Here's an analogy i thought up today:
Libertarians are to Republicans as Orange County is to Los Angeles.
Most people around the country think of Orange County as part of the Los Angeles area. Most people in Los Angeles think of Orange County as if it were part of Los Angeles. However, if you mention this to anyone from O.C., they'll insist adamantly that they're not from L.A., they don't like L.A., and they never go to L.A. unless it's absolutely unavoidable.
In the same way, Republicans like to think of Libertarians as kindred spirits. Non-Republicans also seem to lump the two together. But Libertarians usually get pissed if you call them conservative and they're often just as likely to rip Bush as any Democrat.
Posted by: annika at
04:50 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 138 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Yes Yes Yes. Republicans and Democrats are different sides of the same coin.
And the O.C. is not L.A. much worse, they should hang out with the No Cals.
Most of the people from L.A. have other concerns and don't realize the amount of time and energy spent on L.A. bashing up north.
Posted by: Steve S, at April 17, 2004 12:39 AM (qyZe/)
2
Having grown up in the Bay Area, i do.
Posted by: annika at April 17, 2004 10:56 AM (wMcqX)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 15, 2004
Okay, i Got One Too
Courtesy
Kevin's Wizbang and his fabulous
Kerry Sloganator, here's my attempt:
Posted by: annika at
01:03 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 21 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Shouldn't that be in in the "Huh? files" rubric? Anyway, I'm sure it's good but I can't figure out what the Demoid is trying to say yet. I'll get back to ya later, after I have my coffee.
Posted by: d-rod at April 15, 2004 07:15 AM (1Rvfx)
Posted by: Capt. Poopdeck at April 15, 2004 07:59 AM (+xC6N)
3
There's an PM drivetime radio show in Boston hosted by a priceless guy named Howie Carr who knows where about 90% of the bodies are buried, literally and figuratively.
He has a contest where they play 30 seconds of Ted answering a question...if you can count the number of times he says "ahh" you win...even if you listen intently it's almost impossible to do it...it's hilarious.
Posted by: Jason O. at April 15, 2004 10:29 AM (loMDg)
4
Jason, you're SO making miss Boston. How I wound up in Florida I will never know.
Posted by: Dave J at April 15, 2004 02:29 PM (VThvo)
5
D-Rod, youre absolutely right. Rubric added.
Posted by: annika! at April 15, 2004 04:47 PM (fYCyV)
6
DUMBASS REICH WHING QUOTE OF THE DAY:
Today's quote comes from Matt Shifrin, a first lieutenant in the US Military Dumbass Corps.
"I don't know if we were fighting terrorism directly by invading Iraq and ousting Saddam [Hussein], but I do know that as long as these extremist groups are planning and expending resources by attacking soldiers in Iraq, they are less capable of attacking helpless civilians in the U.S., Israel and other civilized nations."
Ah, such a nice sentiment that Iraq has been turned into a slaughter ground so that the rest of us can be safe and sound from attacks on our soil by terrorists. Following that same logic, I hope Canada remains safe from attacks because terrorists are too busy blowing up American skyscrapers. You stupid, mindless Reich Whingers never learn. I just wish you were too stupid to breed!
Kerry will win 40 states!
Posted by: Robert McClelland at April 15, 2004 05:48 PM (tyrEY)
7
You Reich Whing perverts will now have to get real jobs!
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040415/en_nm/leisure_porn_dc_2
Posted by: Robert McClelland at April 15, 2004 06:22 PM (tyrEY)
8
It's somehow comforting to know that you're your own worst enemy, McClelland. Please, rant away to your heart's content.
Posted by: Dave J at April 16, 2004 06:17 AM (VThvo)
9
Gee, hostile little fella ain't he?
I guess I would be too if I had to delude myself as often as he apparently does. On the bright side, with an active imagination like his, he can always create a world where SOMEONE might agree with him...
Posted by: John at April 16, 2004 07:48 AM (7UPKM)
10
"Jon Bon Jovi and I have a lot in common. He was one of the 50 most beautiful people in
People magazine. I read
People magazine." - John F. Kerry, 4/16/04
Posted by: d-rod at April 16, 2004 04:10 PM (CSRmO)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 14, 2004
annika's Own Political Artwork
i made these, but they sure would look good on your sidebar, i think.
(If you do take one, please copy it and load it on your own server so Pixy doesn't get mad at me for using up his bandwidth. Also, a link back here would be appreciated, but not required.)
Posted by: annika at
02:57 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 60 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I absolutely love the picture of Kerry with Michael Jackson's nose.
Posted by: Bird Brain at April 14, 2004 04:33 PM (JCxVY)
2
You forgot to add Bob Byrd's sheet.
Posted by: Dave J at April 14, 2004 09:13 PM (+MjkF)
3
Thanks Annie, I sent the Long John pic to hundreds of my pals..It really is the "Picture of the Week".
Posted by: shelly s. at April 17, 2004 05:47 AM (AaBEz)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 13, 2004
Ashcroft Testimony: First Impressions
i'm listening to Attorney General Ashcroft's testimony as i type this. It's clear to me, after his opening statement, exactly why people hate and fear him so much. He's very good. The AG landed a number of effective shots in his statement, and i can't wait to hear how the opposition tries to deflect them. It's also clear that Dick Clark and Dr. Rice were the undercard and Ashcroft's is the heavyweight title match. i was
that impressed.
Gotta go, Ben Vineste is on now, yakking about the PDB again.
. . .
WTF? Ben is asking about Ashcroft using a chartered jet? Slimeball. Why doesn't he ask if Ashcroft was the one who warned all the jews to stay out of the WTC on 9/11? Why doesn't he ask who planted the bomb in the Pentagon and made it look like a plane crash? Aaack!
. . .
Now the idiot commenter at NPR cuts in to assure his audience that they will "have a look at" Ascrofts answer to the sleazy chartered jet question after his testimony is over. Whaaat? Why the hell don't they "have a look at" Ashcroft's more serious and relevant accusations about Clinton's and Reno's eight year incompetence spree? Aaaack!
. . .
Why do the commisioners keep calling him General? He's not a general, he's an attorney general. The word "general" modifies the noun "attorney."
. . .
i'm unable to listen that closely because i am annoyingly distracted by the need to create a false impression of diligence in completing my job tasks.
. . .
It's now over, i didn't notice any effective counter-punches by the commisioners. Now the spinning begins.
Posted by: annika at
01:34 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 288 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I forgot that Ashcroft was testifying today. I've got to listen to it.
Posted by: La Shawn Barber at April 13, 2004 03:04 PM (tW8zw)
2
Annika,
Go to Instapundit for what appears to be a conflict of interest involving one of the commission members--Jamie Gorelick, former deputy attorney general.
This is the kind of shit--Gorelick's--is what will distract us from what's important--winning the terrorism war now. The Monday morning quarterbacking/after the fact analysis is an exercise in politicizing 9/11.
Watch for further spin. And watch for dizzy spells.
Posted by: joe at April 13, 2004 03:53 PM (dprmZ)
3
"the need to create a false impression of diligence in completing my job tasks." When I've got a post to finish or a great article to read, well over the past 18 months of bloggin I've gotten pretty good at creating that false impression
Posted by: Scof at April 13, 2004 04:27 PM (XCqS+)
4
People very frequently address Attorneys General (both state and federal) as "General." It's one of my pet peeves, but such longstanding usage isn't going to change.
Posted by: Dave J at April 13, 2004 04:43 PM (VThvo)
5
Annika, the bombshell was that after a long build up about the "wall' that was built between criminal and terrorist investigations (to "preserve" testimony for prosecutions), the Clinton folks overdid it with memos that totally handcuffed terrorism investigators from getting info on real potential terrorism plots.
Gorelick was mouthing denials to her fellow Commissioners, then, in a moment of high drama, Ashcroft stated that he had declassified the Memo and released it on the spot. Needless to say, Gorelick was both the author and her initials appeared on the document.
There is now a building pressure for her to resign and testify to the Commission.
The Memo cause Ben-Veniste to change course and ask Ashcroft about his refusing to fly regular commercial flights, to which Ashcroft replied that both he and his wife always fly regular commercial flights.
Goelick was trying to get under the table, reminiscent of Teddy Kennedy during the Impeachment Hearings when Arlen Spector asked him "If the Senator from Massachusetts wishes to engage...?"
Posted by: shelly s. at April 17, 2004 05:57 AM (AaBEz)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 12, 2004
One Difference Between Us And Them
The
troll comment i got this morning reminded me about something i've been thinking about since my visit to the State Capitol last weekend. It's an example to illustrate one difference between people on the left and people on the right.
i know i'm gonna be generalizing here, so save your breath. i'm aware that the majority of people on the left are not freakazoids who need to be locked up. There's some very decent and thoughtful lefties on my own blogroll, for instance. i also know there's some real whack-jobs on the right too, and in fact some of them actually have been locked up. (Right wing crazies tend to stay in jail though, instead of being offered tenure.)
Anyways, here's my observation. The great state of California has had thirty-eight governors in its history. Many are unknown. Some, however, are perhaps more famous:
- Hiram Johnson (the great reformer, who gave us the recall election);
- Leland Stanford (who gave us Stanford University, boooo);
- Earl Warren (later Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, disliked by liberals as well as conservatives);
- Ronald Reagan;
- Jerry Brown (Known as "governor moonbeam," he once dated Linda Rondstadt, wouldn't dare to swat a medfly, and appointed his former chauffer as Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court.* He's now the mayor of Oakland.
- Jerry's father Pat Brown (who gave us our freeways);
- Pete Wilson;
- Gray Davis;
- and of course, Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Inside the California State Capitol building are portraits of most of the governors in our state's history. (i looked for, but couldn't find Davis' portrait, and Arnold's is not yet finished.) One thing seemed odd to me as i got to the top of the stairs at the front of the capitol, where the portraits of our latest governors hang. Out of all the paintings in the building, only one is encased in plexiglass.
Can you guess which one?
No, it's not left leaning Jerry Brown's.
No, it's not that great judicial activist, Earl Warren's.
That's right, it's Ronald Reagan's.
Can you guess why his portrait, out of all thirty-eight governors, has to be protected by a layer of plexiglass? No, it's not UV light. Notice that Reagan's is hanging next to three other non-plexiglassed portaits.
The reason is that some asshole slashed Reagan's picture a few years ago. A left-wing-hater-nut-case. Some liberal fuck, with a head so filled with bitterness and so empty of common sense, that he or she thought vandalizing the portrait of one of our greatest presidents might be a good way to "raise people's consciousness."
Well, one might ask, if one of the governors' portraits was slashed why don't they encase all of them in plexiglass? Why not protect Jerry Brown's ugly abstract, or Earl Warren's distinguished visage on the second floor landing? Surely they're at risk of being slashed too?
No, you see only a conservative icon like Ronald Reagan can inspire such hatred and vitriol. Because he was, and still is, so loved, his portrait remains a target for the haters. And unfortunately, there seem to be a large number of lefties who have no problem being violent and destructive when they want to send their little hate messages. Conservatives might dislike Jerry Brown (especially conservatives living in Oakland these days), but they're not going to slash his picture.
Lefties like the one who vandalized Reagan's portrait, and the one who blew up all those SUV's in L.A. last year, and the professor who vandalized her own car, and the ones who screamed in my face as i walked to class during last year's anti-war demonstrations, and the ones who carry signs saying New York looks better without the World Trade Center, and the ones who smash the windows of Starbucks Coffee because it's a successful business, and the one's who go around saying that the terrorists in Iraq should kill more Americans, etc. etc.
Those are the ones you have to watch out for. Yah, maybe just as much as the far right wackos. They're both liable to blow something up, but only the left wing crazies will have the ACLU and the newspaper op-ed pages on their side after they get caught.
So when an idiot like this morning's troll says that he thinks conservatives should be "exterminated like vermin" and "need to be snuffed out of existence," how am i supposed to take that? Is it rhetorical hyperbole, or is the guy a real nutjob who needs to be monitored closely?
My point is this: in the cultural war that's been going on in this country for the last forty years, one side always seems to be more violent than the other, if not in deed then in rhetoric. i'm sure there's some psychological or sociological reason for that phenomenon, but i have no clue what it might be, nor at this point do i give a shit. i just think it's worth noting.
* In 1986, the late Justice Rose Bird became the first California Chief Justice to be voted out of office for being too liberal. Sounds familiar?
Update: Thanks to Blake for pointing out this example reported by Drudge, which further butresses my argument:
Campaign 2004 turns extreme in Florida with the placement of a newspaper ad calling for physical retribution against Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld!
"We should put this S.O.B. up against a wall and say 'This is one of our bad days,' and pull the trigger," the ad reads.
i might also add as examples, the many angry liberal callers to the Michael Medved show, one of whom i heard say that he wished Medved would just commit suicide and "save us the trouble" of killing him. Or the time Alex Baldwin screamed on and on about "stoning Henry Hyde to death."
Posted by: annika at
06:04 PM
| Comments (20)
| Add Comment
Post contains 974 words, total size 8 kb.
1
It may well be because they are cut from the same cloth as the Lenins and Stalins and Maos and Hitlers and Mussolinis of the world--political descendents of Jean Jacques Rosseau, who once wrote:
"... every malefactor, by attacking social rights, becomes on forfeit a rebel and a traitor to his country; by violating its laws he ceases to be a member of it; he even makes war upon it. In such a case the preservation of the State is inconsistent with his own, and one or the other must perish; in putting the guilty to death, we slay not so much the citizen as an enemy."
The "social rights" referred to here are the "rights" of the collective, not individual rights. In other words, those of us who stand astride the path of the relentless march of creeping socialism, who insist on the preservation of individual rights against their violation by an increasingly intrusive state, have made ourselves enemies of the state, and deserving of death.
Rousseau is their founding father. Is it any surprise that his children espouse the same?
Posted by: Desert Cat at April 12, 2004 09:12 PM (c8BHE)
2
Regarding conservatives in Oakland, I don't think many dislike Jerry Brown. The far right (if they exist) and the far left probably dislike him equally, he is pro-business, pro-growth, tough on crime and high-profile. Generally I think people feel fairly lucky to have an ex-governor as a mayor and some (slow) progress is being made although his hands are tied in lots of ways.
Posted by: d-rod at April 12, 2004 09:27 PM (YKu7i)
Posted by: ginger at April 13, 2004 05:15 AM (eYQ9U)
4
D-Rod, check the crime statistics for Oakland, and see it they began to spike upward around the time of Jerry's first term. i believe they do. i'm not saying there's any correlation. (Okay, maybe i am.)
Posted by: annika at April 13, 2004 09:14 AM (zAOEU)
5
Great timing on this, Annika! Check out the headline on Drudge for another example to back up your observation.
Posted by: Blake at April 13, 2004 09:40 AM (AKSiu)
6
Annie, you're probably right that the overall crime rate went up early on. Murder rates went up - then down a lot, then back up (a lot). It would be interesting to chart that against some other variables. Didn't seem like the city sponsored "anti-war seminar" last year with Robert Sheer and various anti-Israeli speakers had much effect in educating the public about "peace".
Posted by: d-rod at April 13, 2004 10:18 AM (CSRmO)
7
I wish someone would put all Reich Whing scum-sucking vermin against walls and pull the trigger - repeatedly! All Reich Whing, bottom feeding, Hate Mongering, lowlifes should be squashed.
Here are TRUE AMERICAN HEROES!
http://users.lmi.net/zombie/sf_rally_april_10_2004/signs/
Posted by: Robert McClelland at April 13, 2004 10:48 AM (WwSqc)
8
Speaking of "bottom feeding hate mongers", McClelland, you're making a parody of yourself.
Posted by: Desert Cat at April 13, 2004 11:56 AM (sGeYL)
9
As a 6th generation Californian (on mom's side; Dad is from Austria, like Arnold), I share your appreciation for California history. I am sorry that Reagan's portrait requires protection; as a man of the left, I have no truck with those who attack symbols, unless they are Byzantine iconoclasts.
But you know full well the right is capable of tough tactics. Think the violent halting of the recount in Miami in 2000. Forgot it? Go here:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/nov2000/riot-n29.shtml
And/or here:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,89450,00.html
Just one example of the fact that bad behavior is found among those who hold a variety of ideological views. Something that any student of history already, surely, knows, but something that we all conveniently ignore when we are structuring our arguments!
Posted by: Hugo at April 13, 2004 12:48 PM (LNc8S)
10
Robert McClelland,
I'm not necessarily a right winger or conservative, but odds are you'd find my views more disturbing. In any case you'd probably lump me in with the right wingers because of a few shared views. So with that being said...
Your shit talking is childish & impractical. First of all I doubt you have the intestinal fortitude to follow through with the actions you claim you desire. So instead you'll hope to inspire others with an actual backbone to do what you would have done.
But your lack of courage aside, how exactly are you gonna crush people like me? How are you gonna place me up against a wall? Do you honestly think I'll just come along quietly because the arguments you use are so compelling? Think I'll submit myself to you & your mob for the good of the state?
See you seem to forget that while people on the left/socialist side of the political spectrum tend to dislike firearms & push for prohibitions on them, people such as myself & a good portion of right wingers as you'd classify them tend to support not only the possession of firearms but practice with them.
So in short if you or anyone else attempted to bust in my door or otherwise tried to place me up against a wall you'd discover a whole new connotation to the phrase "disproportionate force".
It always cracks me up when the side of the political spectrum that usually preaches the need for gun control turns around & starts calling for violent retaliation against those with dissimilar views. Perhaps that's why gun control is such a priority for leftist/socialists - it's so hard to impress your view on people by force when those people are better armed & more proficient with said arms than you are.
But please think about what you're saying. I know you're just talking shit & even if you had the means you'd lack the balls to follow through with it, but could you at least make your threats a bit more credible?
BTW, with all your comparisons of the right wingers to that much reviled national socialist party of late, did you ever recall that it was the Nazi's (& the communists)who disarmed people & executed them for their political views? In essence your comparison is lacking & you make that more obvious (in addition to showing your hypocrisy) by advocating the same methods the Nazi's (& communists) used to stiffle & crush dissent.
But should you ever feel the urge to start following through on your threats, feel free to make me the first one you attempt this on. I'm sure everything will get sorted out right then.
Posted by: Publicola at April 13, 2004 01:09 PM (Aao25)
11
Annika, Glad to help and thanks for the mention on your blog.
Hugo, True, there is a lot of stupidity on both sides (especially with the heated 2000 election) but ask yourself something. Why is it that large protests are always from leftist groups and why do so many of them turn violent (anti-war protests, anti-globalization protests, etc.)? Do a little research and let me know how many "conservative" protests turn violent and compare the number to the leftist side. I'd bet anything the contrast is enormous.
Annika's argument happens to be one of the reasons I moved from left to right about eight years ago.
In fact, Annika, I think another good argument to make about the differences is the concept of trade-offs. Rather than go into it in detail, I'll just ask you if understand what I mean by this?
Posted by: Blake at April 13, 2004 01:26 PM (AKSiu)
12
Publicola, Since McClelland linked to the SF "remember Falluja" demonstration, he probably suscribes advocating domestic acts of terrorism similar to one of the speakkkers:
"It's about time that we have an intifada in this country that change
fundamentally the political dynamics in here. And we know every-- They're gonna say some Palestinian being too radical -- well, you haven't seen radicalism yet!"
They aren't talking about targeting people who can defend themselves with guns. Some of these little bomb brats think taking out grandma and the kids would do just fine.
Posted by: d-rod at April 13, 2004 01:35 PM (CSRmO)
Posted by: annika! at April 13, 2004 03:37 PM (zAOEU)
14
Well written Publicola! And should he manage to get past you, which I HIGHLY doubt, you will have a long list of people to help you out.
Posted by: budly at April 14, 2004 12:44 PM (6/1Z7)
15
Don't mess with Publicola or his good friend Garand!
Posted by: annika! at April 14, 2004 02:45 PM (zAOEU)
16
D-Rod, check the crime statistics for Oakland
Okay sweetie, I did my homework assignment, not by googling but by talking to "sources close to the Man". First, he asked me if I wanted the "political" answer - I responded that I'd rather just hear the truth... So in general according to him then, dividing crime stats into violent vs. non-violent (the definitions of which may be questionable), the former has gone down while non-violent (theft,etc.)has gone up. He also said that when looking at a map, there is an "extremely high" correlation between
where parolees are "located" and the areas where most crimes occur.
I doubt that is the official "political" position one might hear about in the news. Can I have a gold star now?
Posted by: d-rod at April 15, 2004 09:54 AM (CSRmO)
17
Very intresting post. Amazing how liberal simpletons continually pine for differences and respect for "diversity" but get rather violent if (!)you DIAGREE with them on anything.
Posted by: Mark at April 16, 2004 05:26 PM (Vg0tt)
18
Just wanted to point out that Leland Stanford also drove in the golden spike that was the final bit of the connection of the trans-continental railroad. Other than that, I pretty much agree with you. Nothing like a far left wing fascist that thinks that everyone that does not agree with them is evil. That's a pretty fascit concept to me.
Posted by: Ben Skott at June 10, 2004 11:25 AM (ogcAP)
19
There are some nutcase left-wingers out there, but most of the anti-business people aren't left-wingers; they're anarchists. They get associated with the left because they have socialist economic leanings, but they are actually in favor of totalitarian governmental functions (though they really don't understand that.) Now they might be Leftists...But that is a different discussion entirely...
Posted by: flaime at June 10, 2004 03:18 PM (uKXhE)
20
A correction to the above: They are self-described anarchists.
Posted by: flaime at June 11, 2004 12:37 PM (Bax1+)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Question
Where are all those assholes who, just a few months ago, were complaining that Halliburton was paying its employees too much for working in Iraq? Was
Thomas Hamill getting paid too much?
Posted by: annika at
11:56 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.
1
So because of him the entire argument is invalidated. I think not.
Posted by: glenn at April 12, 2004 12:56 PM (1oqLe)
2
Yes Glen, the argument is invalidated. In order to get civilian workers to risk their lives the pay must be increased. It's simple risk versus reward. One must only take a high school economics class to understand the concept.
Posted by: Jonathan at April 12, 2004 01:54 PM (+wzD6)
3
Hey Jonathan you clown. It always cracks me up when someone brings up an opposing political viewpoint and out comes the "you're dumb" comments.
How about this? It would only take the common sense usually possesed by 8 year old schoolgirls to know not to question someone's intelligence just because they disagree with you.
Retard.
Posted by: glenn at April 13, 2004 07:35 AM (1oqLe)
4
Glenn,
Please do a little reading before you perpetuate myths:
Halliburton made $46 million in operating profit on $1 billion in revenue from Iraq operations in 2003. That's a 5% gross margin.
Then when you add interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization net profit is a lot less, around a 1%-2% net margin.
Would the evil "profiteer" liberal Halliburton myth put up with an avalanche of BS from people like you and the NYT, etc. AND its employees being killed for a 1%-2% net profit margin?
Please shut the fuck up about Halliburton and move on the the liberal criticism du jour about Bush...you're about 8 weeks behind.
Posted by: Jason O. at April 13, 2004 01:12 PM (loMDg)
5
Jason, I think you need to tell Annika to "shut the fuck up" considering that she was the one that posted this just yesterday.
Uh-uh-uh-duh!
What's that? Nothing to say? Annika brought up the discussion? I'm painted into a corner now so I better think of something witty to say?
Posted by: glenn at April 13, 2004 01:57 PM (JWs/7)
6
Sorry, i'm lost. i agree with what
he said, but i disagree with
him.
Posted by: annika at April 13, 2004 05:30 PM (zAOEU)
7
A poor try to dodge the issue you brought up: You posted that the "argument" against Halliburton is not "invalidated" by Thomas Hamill.
The point (made by KBR's 2003 Iraq income statement) is there was never an "argument" to begin with: The Halliburton squealing is an appeal to the emotions of antiglobalization, anticorporation and anticapitalist liberals.
You want a real Iraq scandal? check out the UN oil-for-food billions being casually thrown around during the 90's...although I doubt you'll be interested in that because it involves sacred cows like Kofi Annan's son, France and other parties who were "profiteering" with Saddam to starve the Iraqi people.
Posted by: Jason O. at April 14, 2004 08:11 AM (loMDg)
8
So I am a “retard” and a “clown” because Glenn claims I called him dumb because he has an opposing viewpoint? Interesting…
I was simply trying to explain basic economic principles.
Posted by: Jonathan at April 14, 2004 08:44 AM (+wzD6)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 06, 2004
Advice For President Bush With References To George S. Patton And The Prince
i'm upset about the recent escalation of casualties and violence in Iraq. You know i supported the war and i still do. But we must win. i'm not ready to jump ship and start agreeing with Teddy Kennedy, but i'm starting to worry.
Kennedy compared Iraq to Vietnam. It was a foolish statement, and i hope to never see the day when Kennedy could be described as prescient. But i know all too well that we lost Vietnam because our politicians tried to fight a limited war against an enemy that used our reticence against us.
To me, there is one commandment of warfare and it is this: Thou must kick ass all the time. Americans like me do not want to see our side get hit like they did today. We're willing to go along with this war, but we don't want our best men losing any fights.
Patton said:
Americans love a winner. Americans will not tolerate a loser. Americans despise cowards. Americans play to win all of the time. I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost nor will ever lose a war; for the very idea of losing is hateful to an American.
. . .
is hateful. No, we don't like to lose. Vietnam affected our national psyche for decades. That's why Mogadishu, even though we killed a ton of bad guys, sticks in our collective craw. And so will Fallujah, if we don't get some serious payback.
Patton again:
We'll win this war, but we'll win it only by fighting and by showing the [enemy] that we've got more guts than they have; or ever will have. We're not going to just shoot the sons-of-bitches, we're going to rip out their living Goddamned guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We're going to murder those lousy . . . cocksuckers by the bushel-fucking-basket. War is a bloody, killing business. You've got to spill their blood, or they will spill yours. Rip them up the belly. Shoot them in the guts. . . .
. . . [W]e are not interested in holding onto anything, except the enemy's balls. We are going to twist his balls and kick the living shit out of him all of the time. . . . We are going to go through him like crap through a goose; like shit through a tin horn!
This is my point: we can pussyfoot around some more, trying to get these assholes in the Sunni Triangle to
like us, or we can start killing them. Yes, i said fucking
kill them. Now lest you think i've gone off my rocker, here's
what Niccolo Machiavelli had to say on the subject back in the sixteenth century:
When a newly acquired State has been accustomed . . . to live under its own laws and in freedom, there are three methods whereby it may be held. The first is to destroy it; the second, to go and reside there in person; the third, to suffer it to live on under its own laws, subjecting it to a tribute, and entrusting its government to a few of the inhabitants who will keep the rest your friends. . . .
We have examples of all these methods in the histories of the Spartans and the Romans. The Spartans held Athens and Thebes by creating oligarchies in these cities, yet lost them in the end. The Romans, to retain Capua, Carthage, and Numantia, destroyed them and never lost them. On the other hand, when they thought to hold Greece as the Spartans had held it, leaving it its freedom and allowing it to be governed by its own laws, they failed, and had to destroy many cities of that Province before they could secure it. For, in truth, there is no sure way of holding other than by destroying, and whoever becomes master of a City accustomed to live in freedom and does not destroy it, may reckon on being destroyed by it.
i'm not advocating the flattening of Fallujah (although if that were to happen, i'd not lose a wink of sleep over it), or bombing it back into the stone age, as some would say. i simply think we need to be a lot more heavy handed than we have been. In those areas where the yokels are jumping around in the street and taking potshots at our guys, it seems obvious that they haven't developed a healthy fear of the United States.
Machiavelli would have advised against trying to make those scumbags our friends.
And here comes in the question whether it is better to be loved rather than feared, or feared rather than loved. It might perhaps be answered that we should wish to be both; but since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved. For of men it may generally be affirmed, that they are thankless, fickle, false studious to avoid danger, greedy of gain, devoted to you while you are able to confer benefits upon them, and ready, as I said before, while danger is distant, to shed their blood, and sacrifice their property, their lives, and their children for you; but in the hour of need they turn against you. . . .
Moreover, men are less careful how they offend him who makes himself loved than him who makes himself feared. For love is held by the tie of obligation, which, because men are a sorry breed, is broken on every whisper of private interest; but fear is bound by the apprehension of punishment which never relaxes its grasp.
We will never win the love of the people who hate us by anything we do. Nor will we win the support of the pansies in Europe by being gentle with our enemies. We need to instill fear into them, by killing them. And, in my opinion, we need more troops over there until the crazies in the Triangle understand the score. This Rumsfeld idea of doing things on the cheap is not looking too good right about now.
Machiavelli cautioned that fear should be distinct from hate. i don't know what he'd say about a people who already hate the new prince, but haven't learned to fear him yet. But Machiavelli's formula for instilling fear while staying clear of hatred is a do-able one, in Iraq.
[A] Prince should inspire fear in such a fashion that if he do not win love he may escape hate. For a man may very well be feared and yet not hated, and this will be the case so long as he does not meddle with the property or with the women of his citizens and subjects. And if constrained to put any to death, he should do so only when there is manifest cause or reasonable justification. But, above all, he must abstain from the property of others. For men will sooner forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony. Moreover, pretexts for confiscation are never to seek, and he who has once begun to live by rapine always finds reasons for taking what is not his; whereas reasons for shedding blood are fewer, and sooner exhausted.
Don't mess with their property, don't mess with their women. We're not doing either of those things. So far so good. In fact we're fixing their property and soon they should be on their way to creating more of their own property and wealth, thanks to us.
But the final step of my Machiavellian advice to Bush is one that i'm worried about. Bush has shown an incredible amount of strength and leadership getting us this far, and changing the Middle East in such a fundamental way. i hope he's got the guts to start really kicking ass now, when it's necessary. Because unless the regime holdouts and terrorist assholes start fearing massive retaliation, i'm afraid they're not going to stop killing our guys. And if we don't stop them, they win.
Update: Guess i spoke too soon about messing with their property. Oops! LMAO.
Posted by: annika at
06:32 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1389 words, total size 8 kb.
1
I suspect that comments may be few and far between for this particular post. So, lemme just say: great work Anni!!
Posted by: Tuning Spork at April 06, 2004 08:21 PM (H7OBy)
2
Annie,
First of all the last thing Bush or any other damn Pres of this country needs to be thinking is, "What would Machiavelli do?"
There is a difference between being an occupying force & a liberating one. The goals of each are different as are the methods ideal for the achievement of those goals. The first step is to decide which one we are * then move accordingly.
Now for all practical purposes we seem to be in the occupying force role. This is akward 'cause we started out as a liberating force but that's another subject. So as an occupying force that is under increasing attack from the locals we can do a few things. The most pressing is to increase the size of our patrols over there. It won't stop the attacks but it'll give us a better chance of taking as many losses & an even better chance of capturing or killing the attackers. The next thing we need to do is start weening the locals on doing whatever it is we're doing there. Increase the numbers of Iraqi's involved in the patrols. Hell I'd be all for setting up a militia system over there if it wouldn't freak "no guns for the people" Bremer out. If you make the people understand they're being attacked as well as the occupying force then you stand a chance of cutting popular support for the attackers.
But as it relates to Iraq specifically we need to speed up the process we're supposed to be working on, which is handing things back to the locals. Now personally I think it's a bad idea to liberate people who won't liberate themselves (yes, I know Hussein had opposition in some regions, but not much to speak of) which is why I've always been opposed to invading California or Chicago or NYC or Boulder. But the fact is we're there & there will be some people who are violently opposed to it. What we should do is leave the Iraqi's to handle their own business. Get Bremer & the Corps & the Army & all other troops out of the country the second we can. Now yes we should hang around until the Iraqi's are able to handle things themselves, but if we use attacks by people & groups opposed to Hussein's downfall as a justification we'll be there for the next 50 years. & the longer we do stay the more we look like an occupying force than a liberating force to many people.
If the Iraqi's want freedom then they can have it. If they want another Hussein they can have that too. Yes, the latter would suck for them but freedom includes making bad choices as well as good.
Oh & about Viet-nam... it wasn't just that we didn't give the troops over there enough support or a clear direction (althought those were big problems) it was that the politics at home affected the way the troops acted abroad. Little thought was given to the way to achieve the objectives in the beginning. It was just assumed that Americans will kick their asses & that'll strike fear in commie hearts worldwide. Hey - looked good on paper at the time, so why not? & you have to remember these were the people who thought giving front line troops a mickey mouse looking piece of shit that won't humanely kill deer was a good idea.
Now we could have won the war itself eventually but again I question the wisdom of getting involved in other people's affairs. That aside we lost Vietnam because domestic political conerns outweighed the foreign political concerns we were supposed to be fighting for. If they understood what was going on in Viet-Nam they didn't care.
which lead to the reasons you state. You weren't wrong by any means, it's just I'd much rather examine the cause instead of merely changing the effect.
But please - no more Machiavelli for Bush. From where I sit he's had too much Machiavellian advice already. Tell him about Chief Joseph or Jefferson or any one of the Adams boys. Tell him about George Mason or Locke or Cesare Beccaria. Tell him about Tacitus or Mencken. Tell him about Paine & Andrew Fletcher. You know, people he could & should learn from.
& just for me, tell him what Patton would think of the M16/M4.
Posted by: Publicola at April 06, 2004 09:23 PM (Aao25)
3
The Roman Army would have killed all the malesand sold the women and children into salvery. Maybe they had a good point.
Posted by: Chuck at April 06, 2004 10:07 PM (s6c4t)
4
Like so much else you write, Annika, I nearly swoon.
As for liberating and occupying. Look, we were stupid for making such an emphasis on liberation. Moreover we were there not to liberate Saddam's Sunni cronies, but everyone else. The "hearts and minds" campaingn must be aimed at the undecided, who are now few, not our arch-enemies.
Posted by: roach at April 06, 2004 10:21 PM (DHoAQ)
5
As always, Annika dear, I disagree but am impressed -- best thing since your Pepys evening a while back! Here is the ONE thing that had me saying "amen":
This Rumsfeld idea of doing things on the cheap is not looking too good right about now.
Posted by: Hugo at April 07, 2004 09:02 AM (LNc8S)
6
Fallujah Delenda Est
http://www.newsmax.com/cgi-bin/printer_friendly.pl?page=http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/4/2/100042.shtml
The above is a wonderful reference to Cato's problem with the Cathaginians, and his solution.
Each day of this uprising leads me to believe that the author, Jack Wheeler (and Cato) were right on the money.
Posted by: Shelly S. at April 07, 2004 10:49 AM (AaBEz)
7
Is it just me, or is it suddenly getting hot in here???
Excellent job - it's good to remember we are discussing the military, not a police force.
Beauty and Brains - maybe that cloning stuff isn't such a bad idea after all...
Posted by: John at April 07, 2004 02:32 PM (7UPKM)
8
George Mason and Co. were either Christians, which Islamists are NOT, or Greeks, which got swallowed up by Islamists when the Byzantine Empire died. The religion of Islam is convert or die.
Well, then, we show them we understand the message. LOUD AND CLEAR.
Posted by: Cricket at April 07, 2004 03:31 PM (Ie8+U)
9
Prescient? Sent me to the dictionary couldnÂ’t find it. Anyway, Ted Kennedy is wrong to call this war a Vietnam. You should never give suicidal enemies a reason to kill our soldiers in the hopes that we will retreat. Ted Kennedy just prolonged the war and increased the body count on both sides
Posted by: steve at April 07, 2004 04:02 PM (ifByZ)
Posted by: annika! at April 07, 2004 05:03 PM (zAOEU)
11
And wasn't it Harry S. Truman who said "Drop that damn A bomb on 'em, and if them Japs don't surrender, keep droppin' one on 'em every day or so until they
do surrender, dammit!"?
Oops, I think that one might not have made the papers, yet. I guess I just blew my
Top Secret Clearance all to Hell, huh? Sorry Condoleezza*, but he
was a Democrat afterall.
*
Don't ya really hate it when ya have to look up a news story just to find the correct spellin' of a name of someone?
Posted by: notGeorge at April 08, 2004 05:03 PM (G5PGV)
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 09, 2004 10:43 PM (SYwua)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 01, 2004
Air America
i'm leaving for lunch in a few minutes and i intend to get into my car and see if i can pick up
Air America Radio. i haven't been able to tune them in at work because AM reception is sketchy inside our building.
i checked out the website. What a loser line up. Jeannine Garofalo? Al Franklin might be amusing, but Garofalo has always been so inarticulate whenever i've heard her on talk shows. She displays all the rhetorical problems of amateur leftist pundits. Dodge, change the subject, ad hominem, change the subject, say something idiotic, when challenged on it, claim you were joking, change the subject, talk over your opponent, change the subject, claim your opponent won't let you speak then refuse to answer their question, change the subject, etc., etc. . . .
And Chuck D? That's the best they could do? Two comedians and a rapper?
Some say that the liberal network is bound to fail. i disagree. The liberal media have a vested interest in propping it up. They won't let it fail, even if it sucks and no one listens. An analogous example is the WNBA. Even though WNBA games play in empty arenas, and nobody watches it on TV because it's boring basketball, the league just won't die. Nobody wants to pull the plug because it wouldn't be PC. So they keep trying to ram womens pro ball down our throats, long after sports fans have rejected it.
Update: Well, i listened to part of Al Franklin's show and i was so impressed, i can't tell you. The man is brilliant. Even though he focused solely on bashing Bush and the administration along with conservative talk show hosts, and he never mentioned Kerry, Franklin inspired me to change my way of thinking totally. i now plan to vote for John Kerry and i am re-registering as a Democrat. i am now a liberal. Thank you, Al Franklin!
more...
Posted by: annika at
11:59 AM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 346 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Shouldn't April Fool's jokes be at least somewhat believable? ;-)
Posted by: Dave J at April 01, 2004 01:41 PM (VThvo)
2
Happy b-day.
I have to agree with Dave J; you going Dem would be as believable as me blogging for stricter gun control laws, or favoring the M16 over the Garand.
But it was a nice try though.
Posted by: Publicola at April 01, 2004 02:52 PM (Aao25)
3
HaHa.. Next thing you be telling us that you and Frank J. just got hitched at McDonalds or something. Happy birthday!
Posted by: d-rod at April 01, 2004 03:34 PM (CSRmO)
4
Saeng-il ch'uk-ha heyo!
Happy Birthday!
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at April 01, 2004 07:47 PM (w2ALR)
5
How miserable a cause they have when they are using Janeane Garofalo as mouth piece. A more uninformed idiot would be hard to find.
(Well, no. Hollywood is full of 'em.)
Posted by: Mark at April 01, 2004 08:59 PM (oC8m2)
6
LMAO!!! Janeane Garofalo had potential to be a human being. About eight years ago. Pity.
And, please accept my humble apologies for missing your birthday. I hope it was a blast!
Posted by: emma at April 02, 2004 12:45 AM (kpNlZ)
7
Garofalo's career peak was the Sheriff's deputy in Cop Land....great movie, BTW.
But not the best looking plant in the store...I'd probably sleep with Chuck D before Garofalo.
Remember the Al Franken heckler bodyslam? Does anyone know why he was not prosecuted for assault and battery?
Posted by: Jason O. at April 02, 2004 09:24 AM (QyDeG)
8
is it me or do Courtney Love and Garofalo get their hair done at the same car wash?
Posted by: jcrue at April 02, 2004 04:32 PM (G9kk0)
9
Who is sexier - Franken or Garofalo? Never a better example of faces made for radio. Buon Compleanno!
Posted by: Rich at April 02, 2004 05:44 PM (PRH1C)
10
My hand hurts like Hell™ from spanking you! All that rollerblading sure paid off!
Posted by: Radical Redneck at April 02, 2004 07:01 PM (lRL15)
11
Oh! Happy Belated Birthday!
And your sarcastic AF joke...you're silly.
Posted by: serenity at April 03, 2004 02:53 PM (3g7Ch)
12
Liberal talk show radio has not existed for a reason; no one is listening.
All of us who do listen to the radio are in our cars going to or coming from work, or in the middle of our work days traveling.
The non-working, sponging part of our society is home watching their plasma color HDTV's. The only time they move their Cadillacs from in front of their houses is to go pick up the checks we provide them each week/month at what we used to call "Club 55".
I predict a long life for Franken and Garafolo (they deserve to marry each other); about as long as the recent Donahue Show lasted on MSNBC.
Posted by: shelly s. at April 04, 2004 06:18 AM (AaBEz)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
117kb generated in CPU 0.0277, elapsed 0.1029 seconds.
72 queries taking 0.0842 seconds, 287 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.