The True Meaning of Memorial Day
Memorial Day 2010 - This is an extremely heart-felt rendition of "Amazing Grace". Please watch, I need not say any more.
A4 Driver
Monday, May 31, 2010
Friday, May 28, 2010
Krauthammer On the Oil Spill - Why No ANWR?
Charles Krauthammer comes through again. It's mind-boggling to realize that there has been a moratorium on drilling in ANWR for 30 years. How stupid can we be? Alternative energy is a pie in sky thing right now except for nuclear power and we have shot ourselves in the collective foot for not staying abreast by building more plants. The concept is great but the technology has not risen to the challenge on the scope that we need. The trucking, rail and aviation industries all depend on fossil fuel and that is not going to change soon. Obviously we need to wean ourselves off of foreign oil dependency but right now that is the only game in town and not drilling in our own back yard is killing us.
A4 Driver
A4 Driver
Here's my question: Why were we drilling in 5,000 feet of water in the first place? |
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Islamist Arms Build Up in Lebanon Continues Unabated
This is definitely a thought provoking article. The scenarios discussed are absolutely plausible but most Americans still just don't get it that these knuckleheads want to slit our throats. I think the fact that all of these weapons are in South Lebanon and could be brought to bear on Israel could easily distract the world from watching Iran's nuclear ambitions. This is scary stuff and, I'm afraid, gets more realistic by the day. Take particular note of the highlighted sentences.
A4 Driver
A4 Driver
Dysfunctions | Last Updated: May 16, 2010 - 8:45:24 AM |
| Rumors of Armageddon By Hollis Armstrong, Infidel Bloggers' Alliance 15/5/10 May 16, 2010 - 8:44:11 AM |
One of its most volatile centers is Lebanon, where the nexus of international terrorist activity is coming to a head so rapidly, that the leaders of mighty nations barely understand what is happening or how dramatically it will define their own futures. Under the banner of Hezbollah, Lebanon has turned into an armed camp, supplied largely by Iran and Syria. It is here that the next global war is most likely to begin.
This will be a battle between the most fundamental views of life. On one side, the modern Western view, based on the democratic principles of personal freedom and opportunity, and on the other, the archaic Islamist view, based on theocratic principles of cultural superiority and Islam's rightful domination over every other world view.
This is not your grandmother's Hezbollah. The systematic takeover of the Lebanese government through something considerably less than democratic process was designed and financed by the Iranian government. And while truck bombs and suicide bombers are not a thing of the past, they have been superseded by tens of thousands of sophisticated rockets and missiles, heavy weapons, WMD from Iran, and unmanned aircraft capable of deploying lethal payloads.
The recent acceleration of arms buildup in Lebanon was masterminded and fully supported by Iran, with the fawning complicity of Syria. Supply lines were developed under close Iranian supervision. Large trucks carrying tarp-covered missiles have been seen throughout southern Lebanon, delivered across the Syrian border to the heavily wooded valleys that dot the landscape. These valleys have been declared closed military zones by Hezbollah, who guard them with heavy weapons and stern warnings to any local residents who wander into their territory (see sidebar). The large Iranian Revolutionary Guard presence throughout Lebanon makes the source of these activities crystal clear.
Under the noses of UN peace-keeping teams, Hezbollah has hijacked Lebanon, from the national government to the smallest of villages. They have accelerated the acquisition of land holdings by offering property owners up to five times the real value of their homes in cash. In this way, there is scarcely any part of south Lebanon in which Hezbollah is not now firmly embedded, and their ubiquitous presence makes them difficult to find. In addition to providing a foothold in their expanding network of neighborhoods, their newly acquired property can be freely used for safe houses and the storage of weapons and materiel.
Arming Hezbollah for War
The weapons come to Lebanon by land and sea, according to eye-witness accounts. What this means to the rest of the world has been largely ignored, but the time is fast approaching when the West will need to take notice, because a third world war, sparked in this tiny corner of the world, will have a dramatic impact on us all.
Iran: Master Manipulator
A great deal of international attention has been given to Iran s nuclear program. Far less has followed the rogue nation s strides in ballistic missile development. As with its emerging nuclear program, Iran s goal in advancing its missile technology (often hinted at by Iran s raving President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) is to develop the capability for delivering nuclear warheads well beyond its borders.
Iran s development of the Ghadr-1 missile, for example, based on modifications of the North Korean No-dong missile, has resulted in the creation of a long range, two-stage, solid-fuel missile. According to the International Institute of Strategic Studies, Iran is also developing a new medium-range, solid propellant missile, the Sajjil-2, with a range of about 2,200 km and the potential capability of delivering a 750 kg warhead.
In Lebanon, Iran s goals are apparently more modest, but no less dangerous to the global community: to arm to the teeth its local surrogate Hezbollah and create a military force that will incite a new war with Israel, and distract global attention from Iran s own nuclear and military programs.
Toward that end, and working through its client-state Syria, Iran has, according to Israeli defense officials and other sources, delivered advanced M-600 rockets to Hezbollah. The M-600, a Syrian version of the Iranian Fateh-110, is a single-stage, solid-propellant, surface-to-surface missile with at 200 - 300 km range, and can carry a half-ton warhead. Fired from Lebanon, the M-600 is capable of hitting targets in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, both considerably less than 200 km from key points in south Lebanon, where the deployment and installation of large missile batteries has been recently accelerated.
The Unintended Consequences of a New War A Scary Scenario
The recent flight of a Hezbollah drone over Israel may have been a shot across Israel s bow and a warning of things to come. As Hezbollah continues to receive arms through its Syrian connection with Iran, it has been showing considerable restraint at the border, while engaging in other provocative activities, such as the drone flight. The question is whether the strategy of restraint is simply the imposed proverbial calm before the coming storm.
Hezbollah will strike or cause Israel to strike when it is ready (or, more to the point, when Iran decides it is time). This may be sooner than the experts think. The media have been predicting a war in July, but the best guess of this analyst is that it may well come sooner a surprise to everyone but Iran and its clients who will make it happen.
Here is one possible scenario: The storm that brings Israel into a war with its northern neighbor will not limit itself to the two states this time. The conflict between Israel and Lebanon will be perceived by the Muslim world as a battle between good and evil, between Islam and the West, and it is likely to spread rapidly, first to Gaza and then to Muslim nations around the world. It will then likely spill into the streets of Western cities with significant Muslim populations, first in Europe, and then in the US, Australia, and the Pacific Rim. The response is likely to begin like the cartoon riots of 2006, which were carefully planned and orchestrated in cities around the world. If governments get involved, however, the conflict will escalate, with nations taking sides and engaging the world in a conflict of global proportions. Given the nuclear capabilities of the nations involved, there may be no way to stop a nuclear disaster of unimaginable proportions, once the first shot is fired.
Foreign Policy Needs to Change and Time is Running Out
The misinformation currently circulating about events in Lebanon today is corrupting the diplomatic efforts of Western nations, turning good intentions into bad foreign policy. One cannot negotiate with any terrorists, because their motivations are diametrically opposed to our own, and because they ignore the "rules of war " that govern our own engagement. They perceive our willingness to negotiate as weakness, when they are more than willing to send their sons and daughters to die in the name of their ideology.
When the terrorists are Islamist terrorists, however, the risks are higher, because the driving force is more than ideology alone. It is a religious fervor that welcomes death, with its practitioners truly believing that "Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope " (Muslim Brotherhood credo). This is far more dangerous, because the end game for them is the destruction of Western values. Fighting against people who are eager to die for their burning faith changes the rules of the game.
We must not ignore the growing military threat emanating out of Lebanon by assuming that the threat is limited to Israel. This is not about Israel, which is only Iran's first target. It is about the future of the Western world, whose conquest in the name of Allah, and the dominance of Islam and shariah law over the world, is the ultimate target.
The time is long overdue for our leaders to wake up to the reality facing them today. How they meet this challenge will mark them as heroes if they succeed in defusing Lebanon and disarming Hezbollah. But history will brand them as consummate failures if they do not do all that is necessary to pre-empt the coming war.
This will be a battle between the most fundamental views of life. On one side, the modern Western view, based on the democratic principles of personal freedom and opportunity, and on the other, the archaic Islamist view, based on theocratic principles of cultural superiority and Islam's rightful domination over every other world view.
This is not your grandmother's Hezbollah. The systematic takeover of the Lebanese government through something considerably less than democratic process was designed and financed by the Iranian government. And while truck bombs and suicide bombers are not a thing of the past, they have been superseded by tens of thousands of sophisticated rockets and missiles, heavy weapons, WMD from Iran, and unmanned aircraft capable of deploying lethal payloads.
The recent acceleration of arms buildup in Lebanon was masterminded and fully supported by Iran, with the fawning complicity of Syria. Supply lines were developed under close Iranian supervision. Large trucks carrying tarp-covered missiles have been seen throughout southern Lebanon, delivered across the Syrian border to the heavily wooded valleys that dot the landscape. These valleys have been declared closed military zones by Hezbollah, who guard them with heavy weapons and stern warnings to any local residents who wander into their territory (see sidebar). The large Iranian Revolutionary Guard presence throughout Lebanon makes the source of these activities crystal clear.
Under the noses of UN peace-keeping teams, Hezbollah has hijacked Lebanon, from the national government to the smallest of villages. They have accelerated the acquisition of land holdings by offering property owners up to five times the real value of their homes in cash. In this way, there is scarcely any part of south Lebanon in which Hezbollah is not now firmly embedded, and their ubiquitous presence makes them difficult to find. In addition to providing a foothold in their expanding network of neighborhoods, their newly acquired property can be freely used for safe houses and the storage of weapons and materiel.
Arming Hezbollah for War
The weapons come to Lebanon by land and sea, according to eye-witness accounts. What this means to the rest of the world has been largely ignored, but the time is fast approaching when the West will need to take notice, because a third world war, sparked in this tiny corner of the world, will have a dramatic impact on us all.
Iran: Master Manipulator
A great deal of international attention has been given to Iran s nuclear program. Far less has followed the rogue nation s strides in ballistic missile development. As with its emerging nuclear program, Iran s goal in advancing its missile technology (often hinted at by Iran s raving President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) is to develop the capability for delivering nuclear warheads well beyond its borders.
Iran s development of the Ghadr-1 missile, for example, based on modifications of the North Korean No-dong missile, has resulted in the creation of a long range, two-stage, solid-fuel missile. According to the International Institute of Strategic Studies, Iran is also developing a new medium-range, solid propellant missile, the Sajjil-2, with a range of about 2,200 km and the potential capability of delivering a 750 kg warhead.
In Lebanon, Iran s goals are apparently more modest, but no less dangerous to the global community: to arm to the teeth its local surrogate Hezbollah and create a military force that will incite a new war with Israel, and distract global attention from Iran s own nuclear and military programs.
Toward that end, and working through its client-state Syria, Iran has, according to Israeli defense officials and other sources, delivered advanced M-600 rockets to Hezbollah. The M-600, a Syrian version of the Iranian Fateh-110, is a single-stage, solid-propellant, surface-to-surface missile with at 200 - 300 km range, and can carry a half-ton warhead. Fired from Lebanon, the M-600 is capable of hitting targets in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, both considerably less than 200 km from key points in south Lebanon, where the deployment and installation of large missile batteries has been recently accelerated.
The Unintended Consequences of a New War A Scary Scenario
The recent flight of a Hezbollah drone over Israel may have been a shot across Israel s bow and a warning of things to come. As Hezbollah continues to receive arms through its Syrian connection with Iran, it has been showing considerable restraint at the border, while engaging in other provocative activities, such as the drone flight. The question is whether the strategy of restraint is simply the imposed proverbial calm before the coming storm.
Hezbollah will strike or cause Israel to strike when it is ready (or, more to the point, when Iran decides it is time). This may be sooner than the experts think. The media have been predicting a war in July, but the best guess of this analyst is that it may well come sooner a surprise to everyone but Iran and its clients who will make it happen.
Here is one possible scenario: The storm that brings Israel into a war with its northern neighbor will not limit itself to the two states this time. The conflict between Israel and Lebanon will be perceived by the Muslim world as a battle between good and evil, between Islam and the West, and it is likely to spread rapidly, first to Gaza and then to Muslim nations around the world. It will then likely spill into the streets of Western cities with significant Muslim populations, first in Europe, and then in the US, Australia, and the Pacific Rim. The response is likely to begin like the cartoon riots of 2006, which were carefully planned and orchestrated in cities around the world. If governments get involved, however, the conflict will escalate, with nations taking sides and engaging the world in a conflict of global proportions. Given the nuclear capabilities of the nations involved, there may be no way to stop a nuclear disaster of unimaginable proportions, once the first shot is fired.
Foreign Policy Needs to Change and Time is Running Out
The misinformation currently circulating about events in Lebanon today is corrupting the diplomatic efforts of Western nations, turning good intentions into bad foreign policy. One cannot negotiate with any terrorists, because their motivations are diametrically opposed to our own, and because they ignore the "rules of war " that govern our own engagement. They perceive our willingness to negotiate as weakness, when they are more than willing to send their sons and daughters to die in the name of their ideology.
When the terrorists are Islamist terrorists, however, the risks are higher, because the driving force is more than ideology alone. It is a religious fervor that welcomes death, with its practitioners truly believing that "Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope " (Muslim Brotherhood credo). This is far more dangerous, because the end game for them is the destruction of Western values. Fighting against people who are eager to die for their burning faith changes the rules of the game.
We must not ignore the growing military threat emanating out of Lebanon by assuming that the threat is limited to Israel. This is not about Israel, which is only Iran's first target. It is about the future of the Western world, whose conquest in the name of Allah, and the dominance of Islam and shariah law over the world, is the ultimate target.
The time is long overdue for our leaders to wake up to the reality facing them today. How they meet this challenge will mark them as heroes if they succeed in defusing Lebanon and disarming Hezbollah. But history will brand them as consummate failures if they do not do all that is necessary to pre-empt the coming war.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
My 10% Rule
I am not sure of the origin of this but even if it is only 10% true, it's still bad. I have always used the 10% rule to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. If I can only believe 10% of what I have read/learned and it still sucks, then it really must be bad. As our great House Leader said, "we need to pass this bill so that the American people can learn what is in it". Isn't that stupendous logic. If they didn't read the 11 page Arizona immigration bill then it is quite obvious that few, if any, on the Blue side actually read the 2400+ page Zerocare bill--and these knuckleheads are lawyers to boot.
I'll try to find the origin. I think I received something similar recently that was attributed to Joan Pryde. I will research and write a follow on blog entry.
A4 Driver
I'll try to find the origin. I think I received something similar recently that was attributed to Joan Pryde. I will research and write a follow on blog entry.
A4 Driver
And here we go...aren't those people that thought this would be "FREE", going to be surprised.
This starts next year. It is supposed to be part of the new Health Care Bill. The originator of this notice contacted his Congressman about House bill HR3590, the health care bill, that just passed and asked for a summary of changes. An aid directed him to go to www.thomas.gov ; enter HR3590 in the search Box and look for summaries.
Starting in 2011 (next year folks) your W 2 tax form sent by your employer Will be increased to show the value of what ever health insurance you are Given by the company. It does not matter if that's a private concern or Governmental body of some sort. If you're retired ? So what; your gross Will go up by the amount of insurance you get.The dollar value (cost of what the company pays for your insurance) will be considered income and added to your gross pay. You will be taxed on the total.You will be required to pay taxes on a large sum of money that you have never seen.Take your tax form you just finished and see what $15,000 or $20,000 additional gross does to your tax debt. That's what you'll pay next year. For many it also puts you into a new higher bracket so it's even worse.This is how the government is going to buy insurance for 15 % that don't have insurance and it's only part of the tax increases.Not believing this I researched the summaries and here's what I read:On page 25 of 29 :TITLE IX REVENUE PROVISIONS- SUBTITLE A: REVENUE OFFSET PROVISIONS-(sec. 9001, as modified by sec. 10901)Sec.9002. "requires employers to include in the W-2 form of each employee the aggregate cost of applicable employer sponsored group health coverage that is excludable from the employees gross income."Joan Pryde is the senior tax editor for the Kiplinger Letters. Go toKiplingers and read about 13 tax changes that could affect you. Number 3 is what I just told you about.Why am I sending you this ?. The same reason I hope you forward this to every single person in your address book. People have the right to know the truth because an election is coming in November.
Alan Keyes Does Not Mince Any Words
Here is a video of Alan Keyes being interviewed and he does not hesitate in telling his feelings about Zero and his administration. Pretty hard core.
A4 Driver
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DlTgrMCxPg
A4 Driver
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DlTgrMCxPg
This Is Scarier Than Obamacare - Part Deux
On my previous post I thought I previewed it to show the last column, but it didn't. On the right hand side you can read a yellow highlighted TO which should read TOTAL and the combined amounts each individual country's tax rate and VAT.
UK 67.5%
Germany 64.0
France 59.6
Greece 65.0
Spain 61.0
Portugal 62.0
Sweden 70.0
Norway 79.3
Netherlands 71.0
Denmark 83.0
Finland 75.0
A4 Driver
UK 67.5%
Germany 64.0
France 59.6
Greece 65.0
Spain 61.0
Portugal 62.0
Sweden 70.0
Norway 79.3
Netherlands 71.0
Denmark 83.0
Finland 75.0
A4 Driver
Monday, May 24, 2010
This Is Scarier Than Obamacare
I wrote an earlier blog regarding the Value Added Tax (VAT). I just read a Charles Krauthammer article regarding VAT and another similar article by George Will. I'll try to find them and post them. George Will was hoping that the Income Tax would be repealed before the VAT was introduced but he didn't have a warm and fuzzy that that would happen. The structure of the VAT is insidious as most people don't see it as it is layered on production of an item through its various stages and distribution. The following table and discussion should wake everyone up on this terrible tax. As usual, the tax rate, as you can read in the article, becomes a politician's orgasm because it will pay for everything without having to make any painful cuts. But as Margaret Thatcher has said, "...and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them."
If anyone thinks that the current administration's plan is not to take us down the road to Socialism, you are so dead wrong. All I can say is they got what they voted for and is it ever scary.
A4 Driver
We are at a tipping point in America. We all know it. Turn this around right now or your grandchildren will be massing in the streets of this once-great country, just as the people of Greece now are. Economic slavery is slavery, just the same. Carefully and deeply consider what it takes to throw off the yoke of slavery, once it takes hold and settles over your neck.
If anyone thinks that the current administration's plan is not to take us down the road to Socialism, you are so dead wrong. All I can say is they got what they voted for and is it ever scary.
A4 Driver
The cost of "socialism"
| Current European tax rates: | Income Tax: 50% | VAT: 17.5% TOTAL: 67.5% | |
| Income Tax: 45% | VAT: 19% TOTAL: 64% | ||
| Income Tax: 40% | VAT: 19.6% TOTAL: 59.6% | ||
| Income Tax: 40% | VAT: 25% TOTAL: 65% | ||
| Income Tax: 45% | VAT: 16% TOTAL: 61% | ||
| Income Tax: 42% | VAT: 20% TOTAL: 62% | ||
| Income Tax: 55% | VAT: 25% TOTAL: 80% | ||
| Income Tax: 54.3% | VAT: 25% TOTAL: 79.3% | ||
| Income Tax: 52% | VAT: 19% TOTAL: 71% | ||
| Income Tax: 58% | VAT: 25% TOTAL: 83% | ||
| Income Tax: 53% | VAT: 22% TOTAL: 75% |
If you’ve started to wonder what the real costs of “socialism” are going to be, once the full program in these United States hits your wallet, take a look at the table. As you digest these mind-boggling figures, keep in mind that in spite of these astronomical tax rates, these countries are still not financing their social welfare programs exclusively from tax revenues! They are deeply mired in public debt of gargantuan proportions. Greece has reached the point where its debt is so huge it is in imminent danger of defaulting. That is the reason the European economic community has intervened to bail them out. If you’re following the financial news, you know Spain and Portugal are right behind Greece.
The United States is now heading right down the same path. The “VAT” tax in the table is the national sales tax that Europeans pay. Stay tuned because that is exactly what you can expect to see the administration proposing after the fall elections. The initial percentage in the United States isn’t going to be anywhere near the outrageous numbers you now see in Europe. Guess what, the current outrageous numbers in Europe didn’t start out as outrageous either. They started out as miniscule—right around the 1% or 2% where they will start out in the United States. Magically however, they ran up over the years to where they are now. Expect the same thing here.
It’s time to rethink the ‘American Dream’ idea: It is the notion that with hard work and perseverance, anybody can get ahead economically here. Do you think that can ever happen with tax rates between 60% and 80%? Think again. With the government taking that percentage of your money, your life will be exactly like life in Europe. You will never be able to buy a home. You will never buy a car. You will never send your children to college. Let’s not shuffle the battle cry of the socialists under the rug either. It’s always the same cry. “Equalize” income. “Spread the wealth” to the “poor” (whoever they are). “Level” the economic playing field. Accomplish that and everything will be rosy.
It’s time to take a really hard look at reality. Greece is a perfect example. Despite the “socialism” system that has ruled this country for decades, with a 65% tax rate, they are drowning in public debt, would have defaulted without hundreds of billions in bailout money, and still. . .20% of their population lives in “poverty.” What has all that “socialism” money bought, besides ultimate power for the politicians running the show? Do you think these people are "free"? They're not. They are slaves to their economic "system."
The Maverick Marine Corps
This is a good article and captures the essence of why the Marine Corps is loved and befuddling to the other services at the same time.
A4 Driver
Marinestan
by Victor Davis Hanson
HBO's 10-part series on the Pacific campaign of World War II just ended.
That story of island-hopping was mostly about how the old breed of U.S.
Marines fought diehard Japanese infantrymen face-to-face in places like
Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Saipan, Peleliu, Iwo Jima, Guam and Okinawa.
We still argue whether it was smart to storm those entrenched Japanese
positions or whether all those islands were strategically necessary. But no
one can question the Marine Corps' record of having defeating the most
savage infantrymen of the age, thereby shattering the myth of Japanese
military invincibility.
Since WWII, the Marines have turned up almost anywhere that America finds
itself in a jam against supposedly unconquerable enemies -- in bloody places
like Inchon and the Chosin Reservoir in Korea, at Hue and Khe Sanh during
the Vietnam War, at the two bloody sieges of Fallujah in Iraq, and now in
Afghanistan.
Over the last two centuries, two truths have emerged about the Marine Corps.
One, they defeat the toughest of America's adversaries under the worst of
conditions. And two, periodically their way of doing things -- and their
eccentric culture of self-regard -- so bothers our military planners that
some higher-ups try either to curb their independence or end the Corps
altogether.
After the Pacific fighting, Secretary of Defense Louis Johnson wanted to
disband the Marines Corps. What good were amphibious landings in the nuclear
age? Johnson asked. His boss, President Harry Truman, agreed and didn't like
the cocky Marines either.
Then came Korea -- and suddenly the Pentagon wanted more Marines. The
fighting against hard-core North Korean and Communist Chinese veterans was
as nasty as anything seen in three millennia of organized warfare. The
antiquated idea of landing on beaches proved once again a smart way of
outflanking the enemy.
The Marines survived Korea, Louis Johnson and Harry Truman -- and continued
to carve out their own logistics, air-support and tactical doctrine. Marine
self-sufficiency was due to lingering distrust of the other services dating
back to the lack of air and naval support in World War II, and to Marine
paranoia that the other services liked their combative spirit but not their
independence.
We are once again seeing one of those periodic re-examinations of the Corps.
This time, the old stereotype of the lone-ranger, gung-ho Marines supposedly
doesn't fit too well with fighting sophisticated urban counterinsurgency
under an integrated, international command.
After all, America is fighting wars in which we rarely hear of the number of
enemy dead, but a great deal about the need to rebuild cities and
infrastructure. In Afghanistan, there have been rumors about a new medal for
"courageous restraint" that would honor soldiers who hesitated pulling the
trigger against the enemy out of concern about harming civilians.
The Marines are now starting to redeploy to Afghanistan from Iraq and are
building a huge base in Delaram. They plan to win over southern
Afghanistan' s remote, wild Nimruz province that heretofore has been mostly a
no-go Taliban stronghold. While NATO forces concentrate on Afghanistan' s
major cities, the Marines think they can win over local populations their
way, take on and defeat the Taliban, and bring all of Nimruz back from the
brink -- with their trademark warning "no better friend, no worse enemy."
So once again, the Marines are convinced that their own ingenuity and
audacity can succeed where others have failed. And once again, not everyone
agrees.
The U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, retired three-star Army General Karl W.
Eikenberry, reportedly made a comment about there being 41 nations serving
in Afghanistan -- and a 42nd composed of the Marine Corps. One unnamed Obama
administration official was quoted by the Washington Post as saying, "We
have better operational coherence with virtually all of our NATO allies than
we have with the U.S. Marine Corps."
Some officials call the new Marine enclave in Nimruz Province "Marinestan"
-- as if, out of a Kipling or Conrad novel, the Marines have gone rogue to
set up their own independent province of operations.
Yet once again, it would be wise not to tamper with the independence of the
Marine Corps., given that its methods of training, deployment, fighting,
counterinsurgency and conventional warfare usually pay off in the end.
The technological and political face of war is always changing. But its
essence -- organized violence to achieve political ends -- is no different
from antiquity. Conflict will remain the same as long as human nature does
as well.
The Marines have always best understood that. And from the Marines' initial
mission against the Barbary Pirates to the battles in Fallujah, Americans
have wanted a maverick Marine Corps -- a sort of insurance policy that kept
them safe, just in case.
A4 Driver
Marinestan
by Victor Davis Hanson
HBO's 10-part series on the Pacific campaign of World War II just ended.
That story of island-hopping was mostly about how the old breed of U.S.
Marines fought diehard Japanese infantrymen face-to-face in places like
Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Saipan, Peleliu, Iwo Jima, Guam and Okinawa.
We still argue whether it was smart to storm those entrenched Japanese
positions or whether all those islands were strategically necessary. But no
one can question the Marine Corps' record of having defeating the most
savage infantrymen of the age, thereby shattering the myth of Japanese
military invincibility.
Since WWII, the Marines have turned up almost anywhere that America finds
itself in a jam against supposedly unconquerable enemies -- in bloody places
like Inchon and the Chosin Reservoir in Korea, at Hue and Khe Sanh during
the Vietnam War, at the two bloody sieges of Fallujah in Iraq, and now in
Afghanistan.
Over the last two centuries, two truths have emerged about the Marine Corps.
One, they defeat the toughest of America's adversaries under the worst of
conditions. And two, periodically their way of doing things -- and their
eccentric culture of self-regard -- so bothers our military planners that
some higher-ups try either to curb their independence or end the Corps
altogether.
After the Pacific fighting, Secretary of Defense Louis Johnson wanted to
disband the Marines Corps. What good were amphibious landings in the nuclear
age? Johnson asked. His boss, President Harry Truman, agreed and didn't like
the cocky Marines either.
Then came Korea -- and suddenly the Pentagon wanted more Marines. The
fighting against hard-core North Korean and Communist Chinese veterans was
as nasty as anything seen in three millennia of organized warfare. The
antiquated idea of landing on beaches proved once again a smart way of
outflanking the enemy.
The Marines survived Korea, Louis Johnson and Harry Truman -- and continued
to carve out their own logistics, air-support and tactical doctrine. Marine
self-sufficiency was due to lingering distrust of the other services dating
back to the lack of air and naval support in World War II, and to Marine
paranoia that the other services liked their combative spirit but not their
independence.
We are once again seeing one of those periodic re-examinations of the Corps.
This time, the old stereotype of the lone-ranger, gung-ho Marines supposedly
doesn't fit too well with fighting sophisticated urban counterinsurgency
under an integrated, international command.
After all, America is fighting wars in which we rarely hear of the number of
enemy dead, but a great deal about the need to rebuild cities and
infrastructure. In Afghanistan, there have been rumors about a new medal for
"courageous restraint" that would honor soldiers who hesitated pulling the
trigger against the enemy out of concern about harming civilians.
The Marines are now starting to redeploy to Afghanistan from Iraq and are
building a huge base in Delaram. They plan to win over southern
Afghanistan' s remote, wild Nimruz province that heretofore has been mostly a
no-go Taliban stronghold. While NATO forces concentrate on Afghanistan' s
major cities, the Marines think they can win over local populations their
way, take on and defeat the Taliban, and bring all of Nimruz back from the
brink -- with their trademark warning "no better friend, no worse enemy."
So once again, the Marines are convinced that their own ingenuity and
audacity can succeed where others have failed. And once again, not everyone
agrees.
The U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, retired three-star Army General Karl W.
Eikenberry, reportedly made a comment about there being 41 nations serving
in Afghanistan -- and a 42nd composed of the Marine Corps. One unnamed Obama
administration official was quoted by the Washington Post as saying, "We
have better operational coherence with virtually all of our NATO allies than
we have with the U.S. Marine Corps."
Some officials call the new Marine enclave in Nimruz Province "Marinestan"
-- as if, out of a Kipling or Conrad novel, the Marines have gone rogue to
set up their own independent province of operations.
Yet once again, it would be wise not to tamper with the independence of the
Marine Corps., given that its methods of training, deployment, fighting,
counterinsurgency and conventional warfare usually pay off in the end.
The technological and political face of war is always changing. But its
essence -- organized violence to achieve political ends -- is no different
from antiquity. Conflict will remain the same as long as human nature does
as well.
The Marines have always best understood that. And from the Marines' initial
mission against the Barbary Pirates to the battles in Fallujah, Americans
have wanted a maverick Marine Corps -- a sort of insurance policy that kept
them safe, just in case.
Another Vacuous Moment Without the Teleprompter
Mark Steyn has a great wit and a bite of sarcasm that I really like. He sits in for Rush periodically and I find myself listening to everything he says as he is always spot on for me. My favorite is still the analytical mind of Charles Krauthammer but Mark Steyn is absolutely right behind him. In this article, he nails Zero's cluelessness about Daniel Pearl, the unfortunate Jewish reporter that fell victim to the murderous ways of KSM. A very well-written article about how lame our current situation is. I particularly like the last paragraph.
A4 Driver
One of Those Moments
The president has become the latest Western liberal to try to hammer Daniel Pearl’s box into a round hole.
Barack Obama’s remarkable powers of oratory are well known: In support of Chicago’s Olympic bid, he flew into Copenhagen to give a heartwarming speech about himself, and they gave the games to Rio. He flew into Boston to support Martha Coakley’s bid for the U.S. Senate, and Massachusetts voters gave Ted Kennedy’s seat to a Republican. In the first year of his presidency, he gave a gazillion speeches on health-care “reform” and drove support for his proposals to basement level, leaving Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to ram it down the throats of the American people through sheer parliamentary muscle.
Like a lot of guys who’ve been told they’re brilliant one time too often, President Obama gets a little lazy, and doesn’t always choose his words with care. And so it was that he came to say a few words about Daniel Pearl, upon signing the “Daniel Pearl Press Freedom Act.”
Pearl was decapitated on video by jihadist Muslims in Karachi on Feb. 1, 2002. That’s how I’d put it.
This is what the president of the United States said: “Obviously, the loss of Daniel Pearl was one of those moments that captured the world’s imagination because it reminded us of how valuable a free press is.”
Now Obama’s off the prompter, when his silver-tongued rhetoric invariably turns to sludge. But he’s talking about a dead man here, a guy murdered in public for all the world to see. Furthermore, the deceased’s family is standing all around him. And, even for a busy president, it’s the work of moments to come up with a sentence that would be respectful, moving, and true. Indeed, for Obama, it’s the work of seconds, because he has a taxpayer-funded staff sitting around all day with nothing to do but provide him with that sentence.
Instead, he delivered the one above. Which, in its clumsiness and insipidness, is most revealing. First of all, note the passivity: “The loss of Daniel Pearl.” He wasn’t “lost.” He was kidnapped and beheaded. He was murdered on a snuff video. He was specifically targeted, seized as a trophy, a high-value scalp. And the circumstances of his “loss” merit some vigor in the prose. Yet Obama can muster none.
Even if Americans don’t get the message, the rest of the world does. This week’s pictures of the leaders of Brazil and Turkey clasping hands with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are also monuments to American passivity.
But what did the “loss” of Daniel Pearl mean? Well, says the president, it was “one of those moments that captured the world’s imagination.” Really? Evidently it never captured Obama’s imagination, because, if it had, he could never have uttered anything so fatuous. He seems literally unable to imagine Pearl’s fate, and so, cruising on autopilot, he reaches for the all-purpose bromides of therapeutic sedation: “one of those moments” — you know, like Princess Di’s wedding, Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction, whatever — “that captured the world’s imagination.”
Notice how reflexively Obama lapses into sentimental one-worldism: Despite our many zip codes, we are one people, with a single imagination. In fact, the murder of Daniel Pearl teaches just the opposite — that we are many worlds, and worlds within worlds. Some of them don’t even need an “imagination.” Across the planet, the video of an American getting his head sawed off did brisk business in the bazaars and madrassas and Internet downloads. Excited young men e-mailed it to friends, from cell phone to cell phone, from Karachi to Jakarta to Khartoum to London to Toronto to Falls Church, Va. In the old days, you needed an “imagination” to conjure the juicy bits of a distant victory over the Great Satan. But in an age of high-tech barbarism, the sight of Pearl’s severed head is a mere click away.
And the rest of “the world”? Most gave a shrug of indifference. And far too many found the reality of Pearl’s death too uncomfortable and chose to take refuge in the same kind of delusional pap as Obama. The president is only the latest Western liberal to try to hammer Daniel Pearl’s box into a round hole. Before him, it was Michael Winterbottom in his film A Mighty Heart: As Pearl’s longtime colleague Asra Nomani wrote, “Danny himself had been cut from his own story.” Or, as Paramount’s promotional department put it, “Nominate the most inspiring ordinary hero. Win a trip to the Bahamas!” Where you’re highly unlikely to be kidnapped and beheaded! (Although, in the event that you are, please check the liability-waiver box at the foot of the entry form.)
The latest appropriation is that his “loss” “reminded us of how valuable a free press is.” It was nothing to do with “freedom of the press.” By the standards of the Muslim world, Pakistan has a free-ish and very lively press. The problem is that some 80 percent of its people wish to live under the most extreme form of Sharia, and many of its youth are exported around the world in advance of that aim. The man convicted of Pearl’s murder was Omar Sheikh, a British subject, a London School of Economics student, and, like many jihadists from Osama to the Pantybomber, a monument to the peculiar burdens of a non-deprived childhood in the Muslim world. The man who actually did the deed was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who confessed in March 2007: “I decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew Daniel Pearl, in the city of Karachi.” But Obama’s not the kind to take “guilty” for an answer, so he’s arranging a hugely expensive trial for KSM amid the bright lights of Broadway.
Listen to his killer’s words: “The American Jew Daniel Pearl.” We hit the jackpot! And then we cut his head off. Before the body was found, The Independent’s Robert Fisk offered a familiar argument to Pearl’s kidnappers: Killing him would be “a major blunder . . . the best way of ensuring that the suffering” — of Kashmiris, Afghans, Palestinians — “goes unrecorded.” Other journalists peddled a similar line: If you release Danny, he’ll be able to tell your story, get your message out, “bridge the misconceptions.” But the story did get out; the severed head is the message; the only misconception is that that’s a misconception.
Daniel Pearl was the prototype for a new kind of terror. In his wake came other victims from Kenneth Bigley, whose last words were that “Tony Blair has not done enough for me,” to Fabrizzio Quattrocchi, who yanked off his hood, yelled “I will show you how an Italian dies!” and ruined the movie for his jihadist videographers. By that time, both men understood what it meant to be in a windowless room with a camera and a man holding a scimitar. But Daniel Pearl was the first, and in his calm, coherent final words understood why he was there:
“My name is Daniel Pearl. I am a Jewish American from Encino, California, U.S.A.”
He didn’t have a prompter. But he spoke the truth. That’s all President Obama owed him — to do the same.
I mentioned last week the attorney general’s peculiar insistence that “radical Islam” was nothing to do with the Times Square bomber, the Pantybomber, the Fort Hood killer. Just a lot of moments “capturing the world’s imagination.” For now, the jihadists seem to have ceased cutting our heads off. Listening to Obama and Eric Holder, perhaps they’ve figured out there’s nothing much up there anyway.
— Mark Steyn, a National Review columnist, is author of America Alone. © 2010 Mark Steyn.
A4 Driver
One of Those Moments
The president has become the latest Western liberal to try to hammer Daniel Pearl’s box into a round hole.
Barack Obama’s remarkable powers of oratory are well known: In support of Chicago’s Olympic bid, he flew into Copenhagen to give a heartwarming speech about himself, and they gave the games to Rio. He flew into Boston to support Martha Coakley’s bid for the U.S. Senate, and Massachusetts voters gave Ted Kennedy’s seat to a Republican. In the first year of his presidency, he gave a gazillion speeches on health-care “reform” and drove support for his proposals to basement level, leaving Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to ram it down the throats of the American people through sheer parliamentary muscle.
Like a lot of guys who’ve been told they’re brilliant one time too often, President Obama gets a little lazy, and doesn’t always choose his words with care. And so it was that he came to say a few words about Daniel Pearl, upon signing the “Daniel Pearl Press Freedom Act.”
Pearl was decapitated on video by jihadist Muslims in Karachi on Feb. 1, 2002. That’s how I’d put it.
This is what the president of the United States said: “Obviously, the loss of Daniel Pearl was one of those moments that captured the world’s imagination because it reminded us of how valuable a free press is.”
Now Obama’s off the prompter, when his silver-tongued rhetoric invariably turns to sludge. But he’s talking about a dead man here, a guy murdered in public for all the world to see. Furthermore, the deceased’s family is standing all around him. And, even for a busy president, it’s the work of moments to come up with a sentence that would be respectful, moving, and true. Indeed, for Obama, it’s the work of seconds, because he has a taxpayer-funded staff sitting around all day with nothing to do but provide him with that sentence.
Instead, he delivered the one above. Which, in its clumsiness and insipidness, is most revealing. First of all, note the passivity: “The loss of Daniel Pearl.” He wasn’t “lost.” He was kidnapped and beheaded. He was murdered on a snuff video. He was specifically targeted, seized as a trophy, a high-value scalp. And the circumstances of his “loss” merit some vigor in the prose. Yet Obama can muster none.
Even if Americans don’t get the message, the rest of the world does. This week’s pictures of the leaders of Brazil and Turkey clasping hands with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are also monuments to American passivity.
But what did the “loss” of Daniel Pearl mean? Well, says the president, it was “one of those moments that captured the world’s imagination.” Really? Evidently it never captured Obama’s imagination, because, if it had, he could never have uttered anything so fatuous. He seems literally unable to imagine Pearl’s fate, and so, cruising on autopilot, he reaches for the all-purpose bromides of therapeutic sedation: “one of those moments” — you know, like Princess Di’s wedding, Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction, whatever — “that captured the world’s imagination.”
Notice how reflexively Obama lapses into sentimental one-worldism: Despite our many zip codes, we are one people, with a single imagination. In fact, the murder of Daniel Pearl teaches just the opposite — that we are many worlds, and worlds within worlds. Some of them don’t even need an “imagination.” Across the planet, the video of an American getting his head sawed off did brisk business in the bazaars and madrassas and Internet downloads. Excited young men e-mailed it to friends, from cell phone to cell phone, from Karachi to Jakarta to Khartoum to London to Toronto to Falls Church, Va. In the old days, you needed an “imagination” to conjure the juicy bits of a distant victory over the Great Satan. But in an age of high-tech barbarism, the sight of Pearl’s severed head is a mere click away.
And the rest of “the world”? Most gave a shrug of indifference. And far too many found the reality of Pearl’s death too uncomfortable and chose to take refuge in the same kind of delusional pap as Obama. The president is only the latest Western liberal to try to hammer Daniel Pearl’s box into a round hole. Before him, it was Michael Winterbottom in his film A Mighty Heart: As Pearl’s longtime colleague Asra Nomani wrote, “Danny himself had been cut from his own story.” Or, as Paramount’s promotional department put it, “Nominate the most inspiring ordinary hero. Win a trip to the Bahamas!” Where you’re highly unlikely to be kidnapped and beheaded! (Although, in the event that you are, please check the liability-waiver box at the foot of the entry form.)
The latest appropriation is that his “loss” “reminded us of how valuable a free press is.” It was nothing to do with “freedom of the press.” By the standards of the Muslim world, Pakistan has a free-ish and very lively press. The problem is that some 80 percent of its people wish to live under the most extreme form of Sharia, and many of its youth are exported around the world in advance of that aim. The man convicted of Pearl’s murder was Omar Sheikh, a British subject, a London School of Economics student, and, like many jihadists from Osama to the Pantybomber, a monument to the peculiar burdens of a non-deprived childhood in the Muslim world. The man who actually did the deed was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who confessed in March 2007: “I decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew Daniel Pearl, in the city of Karachi.” But Obama’s not the kind to take “guilty” for an answer, so he’s arranging a hugely expensive trial for KSM amid the bright lights of Broadway.
Listen to his killer’s words: “The American Jew Daniel Pearl.” We hit the jackpot! And then we cut his head off. Before the body was found, The Independent’s Robert Fisk offered a familiar argument to Pearl’s kidnappers: Killing him would be “a major blunder . . . the best way of ensuring that the suffering” — of Kashmiris, Afghans, Palestinians — “goes unrecorded.” Other journalists peddled a similar line: If you release Danny, he’ll be able to tell your story, get your message out, “bridge the misconceptions.” But the story did get out; the severed head is the message; the only misconception is that that’s a misconception.
Daniel Pearl was the prototype for a new kind of terror. In his wake came other victims from Kenneth Bigley, whose last words were that “Tony Blair has not done enough for me,” to Fabrizzio Quattrocchi, who yanked off his hood, yelled “I will show you how an Italian dies!” and ruined the movie for his jihadist videographers. By that time, both men understood what it meant to be in a windowless room with a camera and a man holding a scimitar. But Daniel Pearl was the first, and in his calm, coherent final words understood why he was there:
“My name is Daniel Pearl. I am a Jewish American from Encino, California, U.S.A.”
He didn’t have a prompter. But he spoke the truth. That’s all President Obama owed him — to do the same.
I mentioned last week the attorney general’s peculiar insistence that “radical Islam” was nothing to do with the Times Square bomber, the Pantybomber, the Fort Hood killer. Just a lot of moments “capturing the world’s imagination.” For now, the jihadists seem to have ceased cutting our heads off. Listening to Obama and Eric Holder, perhaps they’ve figured out there’s nothing much up there anyway.
— Mark Steyn, a National Review columnist, is author of America Alone. © 2010 Mark Steyn.
He Knew Exactly What He Was Saying
If you are a combat veteran and you hear someone like Blumenthal say he served "in" Vietnam and then find out later that he had not, you feel disgusted and betrayed. Anyone who has NOT been in combat knows exactly what he is saying in any reference to that war. Any public figure with an ounce of honor would go out of his way to make sure that there was never a reference to having served in combat---if there was, an immediate and abject apology would be in order----post haste; not years later.
In the past few years I have read a couple of articles about people lying about their combat service. One article said that there are 2.5 million of us who served in Vietnam and there are 9.0 million who claim that they have. What makes a person do that? I know of one guy who has lied to every one in his life about his "combat service" ---which never happened ---and his family ardently believes him and thinks of him as a hero. I confronted him face to face and he begged for me to not say anything in front of his family. I easily could have done that but I didn't want to be the person to relate the ultimate embarrassment to his family; I wanted him to do it. After 10 years, I am still waiting for him to do that---imagine that; a liar and a pussy. I would like to be there when the family tries to arrange a hero's military burial for him. I am quite sure that he will go to the grave rather than have the guts to fess up.
The author of the below article puts it in great perspective.
A4 Driver
By Henry Allen
Thursday, May 20, 2010; A21
O,the stained souls, the small-hours doubts, the troubled manhood of so many American men who didn't go to Vietnam when they could have -- the strange guilt they seem to feel when they confront Vietnam veterans.
Strange: There were some cheaters and liars, but all that most of them did was exercise their legal rights, in the manner of Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut attorney general and Democratic Senate candidate -- five deferments, then a safe stateside slot in the Marine reserves.
They had a right to avoid the draft with academic deferments, occupational deferments and medical deferments obtained from doctors noted for their artistry in taking X-rays of dangerous deformities.
They were entitled to get married and sire a child that could bring them a 3-A hardship deferment. Couldn't these men argue that they had a moral obligation not to fight in an immoral, pointless war? Wasn't it true that "winners go to Harvard, losers go to Vietnam," as the wisecrack had it?
The case can be made that these men -- often upscale and educated, the sort of people who are supposed to lead this country -- acted legally and even honorably in using their social status and intelligence to stay out of Vietnam.
But the stains and doubts linger.
Vietnam veterans who don't care whether somebody served have had to sit through plaintive confessions.
"I got a high number in the draft lottery," the non-servers say in a tone of remorse.
"You lucked out," veterans say, but the lucky ones are not consoled.
To prove they couldn't have gone even if they'd wanted to, men have been known to pull up their shirts to show the scars from youthful back surgery. "They fused all those vertebrae."
So many confessions. Pathetic. It was 40 years ago. Forget about it.
"I was going into officer training but then I got a full scholarship to Oxford."
"Good for you," the veterans say. But the scholars are not consoled.
Of course, Blumenthal didn't get in trouble for confessing he had ducked Vietnam but for lying that he hadn't, for saying that he'd served there.
What demon haunts him and others like him? What inconsolable regret provoked these desperate lies?
He didn't have to claim he'd been in Vietnam. He already had the résumé to be a shoo-in candidate. Rich kid, Harvard (editor of the Crimson), reporter at The Washington Post, Yale Law School (editor of the law journal), almost two decades as attorney general, the perfect knowledge-class candidate of the kind favored by modern Democrats. (In looks, however, he does bear an unsettling resemblance to disgraced former New York governor Eliot Spitzer.)
Bill Clinton not only dodged the draft but lied to do it, and still we elected him president over a World War II combat flier -- though Clinton never lied about having been in Vietnam. George W. Bush spent his war flying fighters over Texas and still defeated Al Gore, who had served in Vietnam. Then Bush beat John Kerry, a wounded and be-medaled Vietnam veteran. Dick Cheney's military record -- he got five academic deferments -- didn't seem to hurt his political career, and he was bold enough to say to a Washington Post reporter: "I had other priorities in the '60s than military service."
Of course none of them lied about having been in Vietnam -- a catastrophically stupid thing to do, a fact that is easily checked. What would propel Blumenthal to do such a thing?
As a Marine (and Vietnam veteran of no distinction whatsoever), I've run into men who told me they'd been in the Marines, too. Always happy to meet a fellow Marine, I'd ask what unit they served in.
"Oh, I was in . . . the 173rd . . ." Except there is no 173rd in the Marine Corps. I've felt embarrassed for them and wondered how empty their lives were that they'd tell such a lie. Jim Lehrer, PBS anchorman and former Marine, wrote a pungent little novel, "The Phony Marine," about this quirk in the male ego.
Once I listened to a former war-zone correspondent who was eager to demonstrate that his time under fire was the same as a soldier's. He said: I'd get up in the morning and face the decision of whether I should head out where it was really dangerous.
But soldiers don't get to decide. They don't have choices. That's part of the hell of war.
The fact is that regardless of whether a war was moral, justified, won or meaningful, having served in one -- particularly in combat -- confers prestige. Harvard and Yale and social connections are nice, but at 3 o'clock in the morning you find yourself outranked by high school dropouts whose names are on the wall of the Vietnam Memorial. Not in the eyes of the world, but in your own eyes.
What a withering stare it must be for some men, that they'll shame themselves far worse than they were shamed before, by telling a lie.
Henry Allen, who won the Pulitzer Prize for criticism in 2000, was a Post editor and reporter for 39 years.
In the past few years I have read a couple of articles about people lying about their combat service. One article said that there are 2.5 million of us who served in Vietnam and there are 9.0 million who claim that they have. What makes a person do that? I know of one guy who has lied to every one in his life about his "combat service" ---which never happened ---and his family ardently believes him and thinks of him as a hero. I confronted him face to face and he begged for me to not say anything in front of his family. I easily could have done that but I didn't want to be the person to relate the ultimate embarrassment to his family; I wanted him to do it. After 10 years, I am still waiting for him to do that---imagine that; a liar and a pussy. I would like to be there when the family tries to arrange a hero's military burial for him. I am quite sure that he will go to the grave rather than have the guts to fess up.
The author of the below article puts it in great perspective.
A4 Driver
Why would anyone need to lie about having been in Vietnam?
Thursday, May 20, 2010; A21
O,the stained souls, the small-hours doubts, the troubled manhood of so many American men who didn't go to Vietnam when they could have -- the strange guilt they seem to feel when they confront Vietnam veterans.
Strange: There were some cheaters and liars, but all that most of them did was exercise their legal rights, in the manner of Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut attorney general and Democratic Senate candidate -- five deferments, then a safe stateside slot in the Marine reserves.
They had a right to avoid the draft with academic deferments, occupational deferments and medical deferments obtained from doctors noted for their artistry in taking X-rays of dangerous deformities.
They were entitled to get married and sire a child that could bring them a 3-A hardship deferment. Couldn't these men argue that they had a moral obligation not to fight in an immoral, pointless war? Wasn't it true that "winners go to Harvard, losers go to Vietnam," as the wisecrack had it?
The case can be made that these men -- often upscale and educated, the sort of people who are supposed to lead this country -- acted legally and even honorably in using their social status and intelligence to stay out of Vietnam.
But the stains and doubts linger.
Vietnam veterans who don't care whether somebody served have had to sit through plaintive confessions.
"I got a high number in the draft lottery," the non-servers say in a tone of remorse.
"You lucked out," veterans say, but the lucky ones are not consoled.
To prove they couldn't have gone even if they'd wanted to, men have been known to pull up their shirts to show the scars from youthful back surgery. "They fused all those vertebrae."
So many confessions. Pathetic. It was 40 years ago. Forget about it.
"I was going into officer training but then I got a full scholarship to Oxford."
"Good for you," the veterans say. But the scholars are not consoled.
Of course, Blumenthal didn't get in trouble for confessing he had ducked Vietnam but for lying that he hadn't, for saying that he'd served there.
What demon haunts him and others like him? What inconsolable regret provoked these desperate lies?
He didn't have to claim he'd been in Vietnam. He already had the résumé to be a shoo-in candidate. Rich kid, Harvard (editor of the Crimson), reporter at The Washington Post, Yale Law School (editor of the law journal), almost two decades as attorney general, the perfect knowledge-class candidate of the kind favored by modern Democrats. (In looks, however, he does bear an unsettling resemblance to disgraced former New York governor Eliot Spitzer.)
Bill Clinton not only dodged the draft but lied to do it, and still we elected him president over a World War II combat flier -- though Clinton never lied about having been in Vietnam. George W. Bush spent his war flying fighters over Texas and still defeated Al Gore, who had served in Vietnam. Then Bush beat John Kerry, a wounded and be-medaled Vietnam veteran. Dick Cheney's military record -- he got five academic deferments -- didn't seem to hurt his political career, and he was bold enough to say to a Washington Post reporter: "I had other priorities in the '60s than military service."
Of course none of them lied about having been in Vietnam -- a catastrophically stupid thing to do, a fact that is easily checked. What would propel Blumenthal to do such a thing?
As a Marine (and Vietnam veteran of no distinction whatsoever), I've run into men who told me they'd been in the Marines, too. Always happy to meet a fellow Marine, I'd ask what unit they served in.
"Oh, I was in . . . the 173rd . . ." Except there is no 173rd in the Marine Corps. I've felt embarrassed for them and wondered how empty their lives were that they'd tell such a lie. Jim Lehrer, PBS anchorman and former Marine, wrote a pungent little novel, "The Phony Marine," about this quirk in the male ego.
Once I listened to a former war-zone correspondent who was eager to demonstrate that his time under fire was the same as a soldier's. He said: I'd get up in the morning and face the decision of whether I should head out where it was really dangerous.
But soldiers don't get to decide. They don't have choices. That's part of the hell of war.
The fact is that regardless of whether a war was moral, justified, won or meaningful, having served in one -- particularly in combat -- confers prestige. Harvard and Yale and social connections are nice, but at 3 o'clock in the morning you find yourself outranked by high school dropouts whose names are on the wall of the Vietnam Memorial. Not in the eyes of the world, but in your own eyes.
What a withering stare it must be for some men, that they'll shame themselves far worse than they were shamed before, by telling a lie.
Henry Allen, who won the Pulitzer Prize for criticism in 2000, was a Post editor and reporter for 39 years.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Terror Threat----Crossing the Southern Border
As you watch these videos from a news report from an Atlanta TV station you have to ask yourself, "What in the world is going on here?" The first video clip is verification of what any normal person would presume has been happening for decades along the border. The second video clip is frightening because a member of the Homeland Security Committee claims to have never seen this report. The TV station folks didn't seem to have a problem getting the info but our inefficient, no one talks to anyone else (sound familiar? 9/11 Commission Report, Detroit Fruit of the Loom bomber) bureaucracy still can't get it right. This is a sham---the former Governor of Arizona HAD TO KNOW all of this info and now she is the head of Homeland Security and a nominee for the open Supreme Court position. Are you kidding me????? I am so frustrated with the whole political arena right now!
If heads don't roll because of this Atlanta TV report, then nothing will ever happen to any political appointee.
I tried to capture the clips so that I could just put embed them below but my software couldn't pick them up so I have linked the two below:
A4 Driver
If heads don't roll because of this Atlanta TV report, then nothing will ever happen to any political appointee.
I tried to capture the clips so that I could just put embed them below but my software couldn't pick them up so I have linked the two below:
A4 Driver
Monday, May 17, 2010
David Horowitz's Restoration Weekend - November 2009
A friend sent this to me and it is quite interesting. It's pretty long as it is a panel discussion but is well worth the time and effort. I had never seen this before but what is interesting is that the two panel members are a former '60's radical and a current Democrat. I was not familiar with the web site (kitmantv.blogspot.com) that has these discussions on it but it looks like it has a huge library of current political topics. I like their tag line; "Politically Incorrect Speeches and Documentaries Online".
To quote from my friend's e-mail:
"These open discussions are incredible in their review of what we currently face as a nation. I would hope that all of us start to become active in putting pressure on our local, regional, statewide and national politicians to become aware that accountability for their actions is forthcoming this November and through 2011 and 2012.
To quote from my friend's e-mail:
"These open discussions are incredible in their review of what we currently face as a nation. I would hope that all of us start to become active in putting pressure on our local, regional, statewide and national politicians to become aware that accountability for their actions is forthcoming this November and through 2011 and 2012.
Copy paste. Watch the videos From David. If you think this is important for others to hear pass it on. David was once a Radical, his parents were radicals. He knows the game from the inside. The other gentleman is a Democrat. These are not "Right Wing" nut jobs not "Tea Baggers". Time to wake someone up."
A4 Driver
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Reason Or Force, You Decide--Not the Government
Nice piece on the force equalizer argument for owning a hand gun.
A4 Driver
The Gun is Civilization
by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)