AP Lawyers Down Snapped Shot

Snapped Shot a photojournalism criticism site run by Brian Ledbetter, has gone dark due to legal threats from the Associated Press for copyright infringement for reproducing their images in order to critique them:

It's Been Fun We have been informed that the Associated Press takes issue with our use of their images on this website, and until I'm able to resolve this matter with them amicably, I'm going to have to take the site offline.

Please feel free to e-mail me if you know more about this kinda thing. I'm posting a copy of the AP's letter below, for full disclosure.

Background
Snapped Shot is a site that deals with the criticism of photojournalism. The industry is inaccurate in its reporting, it falls for terrorist propaganda too easily, and in general, the photos that you see presented as "news" on a daily basis are nothing more than fluff. This site has, from the beginning, intended to correct that by presenting specific instances of bias or inaccuracy along with commentary as to why said photographs are inaccurate. I have never drawn a profit from this website, and have never received compensation for any of the "copyrighted" works that are owned by the AP. Furthermore, I have always been careful to give full credit to the wire photographers who have taken the pictures, and have even interacted cordially with a handful of them.

What The?
So why is the AP seeking action against me? I am not making any money off of their work. I am not a mainstream "news" site ala Yahoo, Google, or Breitbart. So what's the deal? Is the Associated Press uncomfortable with the content of this website? Have I struck a nerve too close to home? No idea, but if you're a lawyer that deals in intellectual property, I'm ready to become your new best friend...

Ledbetter includes a scanned copy of the letter from the Associated Press at the link above.

I've long been under the impression—perhaps wrongly—that reproducing photographs for the purpose of criticism was within "fair use" guidelines.

I am familiar with Snapped Shot and have worked with Mr. Ledbetter on occasion and his site, the best I can recall, did seem to satisfy the general guidelines of fair use as many of us understand them.

If the Associated Press has determined that it is in their best interests to sue to keep from being criticized by bloggers, this will be a very unsettling development. I certainly hope that is not the case.

I've just sent an email to Paul Colford of the Associated Press asking for specifics of why Ledbetter's site came to their attention, and hopefully he can shed some light on their motivations as this story develops.

Update:

Colford responds:

I have nothing to add beyond the letter from AP, except to underscore that this is a copyright matter.

Questions on Obama's Views of Gun Rights

I sent the following to the Barack Obama campaign's media contact page earlier today. I'll be very interested in their response, providing of course that they do respond.

There seems to be so ambiguity on Senator Obama's stance on various aspects of the ownership of firearms that I would like to get cleared up.

According to the campaign web site, his view on firearms ownership is as follows:

"Millions of hunters own and use guns each year. Millions more participate in a variety of shooting sports such as sporting clays, skeet, target and trap shooting that may not necessarily involve hunting. As a former constitutional law professor, Barack Obama understands and believes in the constitutional right of Americans to bear arms. He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns for the purposes of hunting and target shooting."

This statement does not address a key reason that literally millions of Americans say they own firearms, which is for self defense.

What is Senator Obama's position on Americans owning firearms for legal self defense?

Related to that question, what is Senator Obama's position on the licensing of Americans to carry concealed handguns, which is now a legal option in 40 states?

The campaign statement does not address literally tens of millions of firearms legally owned by Americans at this present time for reasons other than hunting and sport shooting, including handguns, which at one point in the Illinois legislature Mr. Obama said he would like to see banned.

Does Senator Obama still feel that handguns should be banned in America? If he does not still support a ban on handguns, why has his position changed?

Also on his Illinois legislative record are statements that he would like to see all semi-automatic weapons banned.

Does Senator Obama still feel that all semi-automatic firearms should be banned in America? If not, what semi-automatic weapons does he view as being acceptable for civilian use, and why has his position changed? Please explain his views in as much detail as possible.

Thank you very much for your time.

I'll be very interested to see if Obama maintains his previously held and rather absolutist positions on the subject, or if he has, as was speculated this morning, flip-flopped on the subject to pander for votes.

I suspect that if Texans knew of his previous record, they may want their hat back.

AT PJM: Barack Obama and the Politics of Personal Distraction

Is Barack Obama black enough to be president of the United States? Is he too black? Does he belong to a church that is too radical? Is he too unpatriotic? Too Muslim? Is he too … Somali?

My latest article is up at Pajamas Media.

Who Benefits? Iraqis to Trade AKs for M16s

An iffy idea in the making, as published in Military.com:

In a move that could be the most enduring imprint of U.S. influence in the Arab world, American military officials in Baghdad have begun a crash program to outfit the entire Iraqi army with M-16 rifles.

The initiative marks a sharp break for a culture steeped in the traditions of the Soviet-era AK-47 Kalashnikov assault rifle, a symbol of revolutionary zeal and third-world simplicity that is ubiquitous among the militaries of the Middle East.

"We in the U.S. know that the M-16 is superior to the AK ... it's more durable," said Army Col. Stephen Scott, who's in charge of helping the Iraqi army get all the equipment it needs to outfit its forces.

"The Iraqis have embraced that ... and the fact that it is U.S. manufactured and supplied. They are very big on U.S.-produced [foreign military sales] materials," he said in an interview with military bloggers this month.

So far, the U.S. military has helped the Iraqi army purchase 43,000 rifles - a mix of full-stock M-16A2s and compact M-4 carbines. Another 50,000 rifles are currently on order, and the objective is to outfit the entire Iraqi army with 165,000 American rifles in a one-for-one replacement of the AK-47.

"Our goal is to give every Iraqi soldier an M-16A2 or an M-4," Scott said. "And as the Iraqi army grows, we will adjust."

My immediate response upon reading this is simple: which defense contractor most benefits from this deal, and how much did they pay to make it happen?

I don't know if that is a fair question to ask, but I'm being as honest as I know how: transitioning the Iraqi military to the M16/M4 family of weapons has all the hallmarks of creating or exacerbating a problem, not solving one.

Why?

While I hate to disagree with Col. Scott, stating that the M16 is a more "durable" weapons system than the AK verges upon being an outright lie.

As a matter of fact, the M4 variant of the M16 finished dead last in a recent U.S. Army Small Arms reliability test in an environment that was designed to test the weapons in a heavy dust environment... an environment very much like Iraq. The M4 finished behind the XM8, Mk16 SCAR-L, and HK416—weapons systems developed precisely because the U.S. military want a more reliable weapons system than the M16/M4.

The M16/M4 that the military is passing on to the Iraqis has a hard time functioning even when in the hands of American soldiers who are trained to practice rigorous weapons maintenance. The Iraqi military and police forces, which have come to trust the AK's ability to function in almost any environment and despite shoddy maintenance, are going to be in for a rude, and for some, unfortunately fatal learning experience as a result.

While the M16/M4 has some benefits over the AK, such as accuracy, and weapons commonality between U.S. and Iraqi forces would ease logistical concerns, this sounds like a political move as much as anything, which brings me back to my initial question—who benefits from this, financially?

Did Colt or FN (our primary M16/M4 suppliers) do any lobbying for this arrangement?

I hate to be suspicious over motivations, but the pros of going for shared small arms commonality and logistics doesn't quite seem to be as strong or stronger than staying with a weapons system that the Iraqis already know and understand, and is proven to work in their environment.

If aging AKs are the issue, it would seem to make far more sense to simply supply them with new AKs... would it not?

Tell me I'm wrong, folks. I want to believe this is more than a backroom deal.

Update: Uh-oh:

Colt had relied on a series of lobbyists in Washington, but now Keys, a decorated veteran who played an important role in the 1991 Gulf War, has taken on more of those responsibilities himself.

"I knew a lot of guys up on the Hill," he said, referring to Congress. Among those is Rep. John Murtha, the powerful Pennsylvanian who is the highest-ranking Democrat on the House defense appropriations subcommittee.

Keys' uncle, Thomas Morgan, also represented western Pennsylvania in the House and served as mentor to Murtha when he first arrived in Congress in 1974.

"You couldn't have a better guy than him, with his experience," Murtha said of Keys. "When he tells you something, you can take it to the bank. No matter how good a lobbyist is, talking to the president of the company means more."

Rep. John B. Larson, D-1st District, recently brought Murtha to the Hartford area to meet with local defense contractors. Keys and Murtha clearly had a strong rapport, he said.

Since 1994, Colt Defense has had a series of contracts with the U.S. military for its M4 carbine rifle, a version of the venerable M16 with a shorter barrel that advocates say has proven useful in urban fighting in Iraq.

Colt has been pushing to supply more for American troops at war, homeland security operations and U.S. allies around the globe.

"Right now, Colt is in a better position that they were a year or two ago," said Dean Lockwood, an industry analyst with Forecast International in Newtown. "They seem a lot more focused on what their goals are."

A "smoking gun" by no means, this relationship between M16/M4 manufacturer Colt's President and John Murtha is at least enough to raise eyebrows.

60 Minutes At It Again?

Gateway Pundit's Jim Hoft shares the news of another possible election year meltdown at CBS News.

60 Minutes recently aired the claim that former Alabama governor Don Siegelman went to jail not for corruption, but because he belong to the wrong political party, and that the investigations that landed him in jail for bribery were politically motivated.

One of the most explosive claims made was that Karl Rove was involved in an attempt to entrap Siegelman:

Now a Republican lawyer from Alabama, Jill Simpson, has come forward to claim that the Siegelman prosecution was part of a five-year secret campaign to ruin the governor. Simpson told 60 Minutes she did what's called "opposition research" for the Republican party. She says during a meeting in 2001, Karl Rove, President Bush's senior political advisor, asked her to try to catch Siegelman cheating on his wife.

"Karl Rove asked you to take pictures of Siegelman?" Pelley asks.

"Yes," Simpson replies.

"In a compromising, sexual position with one of his aides," Pelley clarifies.

"Yes, if I could," Simpson says.

She says she spied on Siegelman for months but saw nothing. Even though she was working as a Republican campaign operative, Simpson says she wanted to talk to 60 Minutes because Siegelman's prison sentence bothers her conscience.

Simpson says she wasn't surprised that Rove made this request. Asked why not, she tells Pelley, "I had had other requests for intelligence before."

"From Karl Rove?" Pelley asks.

"Yes," Simpson says.

Today's Birmingham News has Rep. Mike Hubbard, R-Auburn, the chairman of the Alabama Republican Party, asking CBS News to either provide evidence of the charges, or publish a retraction.

"Only the most committed anti-Rove/Bush activist could swallow such a tale," party chairman Rep. Mike Hubbard, R-Auburn, wrote in the letter to "60 Minutes."

"If you are unable to publicly produce hard and convincing evidence that backs the outrageous charges you aired to millions of viewers across the nation, I ask that you publicly retract the story on your next broadcast."

Gateway Pundit has posted the full contents of Hubbard's letter.

Rove has specifically denied the story, stating:

"It never happened," Rove said in a telephone interview. "Seeing where I was working at the time, a reasonable person could ask why I would even take an interest in that case."

CBS News seems to have a lot to prove in this case to avoid a retraction, including:

• Proof that Jill Simpson ever worked with the Alabama Republican Party beyond simply being a volunteer, seemingly the easiest fact to verify or disprove.
• Proof that Simpson ever did "opposition research" for the Alabama Republican Party and Karl Rove.
• Proof that Simpson had been in contact with Rove.
• Proof that Rove asked Simpson to take compromising photographs of Don Siegelman

If CBS News can substantiate these charges, then the long-held liberal dream of bring Karl Rove up on charges for something could possibly occur.

If CBS News and 60 Minutes cannot substantiate the claim, then they are in the position of now having published a second false presidential election year story (Rathergate's forged documents prior to the 2004 election being the first), and the network's reputation in general and 60 Minutes reputation in specific will be heavily tarnished.

Frankly, I doubt that 60 Minutes would risk running this story without having vetted Simpson to the best of their ability, so I would be surprised if they cannot quickly prove some sort of involvement by Simpson in the Alabama Republican Party beyond volunteer level. If they can't do that, they are toast—fully discredited as a news organization, in my opinion.

The stickier point is proving her explosive charge that Rove told her that he wanted her to catch Siegelman having an affair. That seems like it will be very difficult to prove, and if she cannot prove it, then the 60 Minutes story never should have run.

Stay tuned, folks... however it breaks it promise to be very interesting.

The O-Bambi Surrender Video

I first saw this damning Barack Obama video last night at Powerline, which also provides a rough transcript of Obama's radical plan to disarm America's military.

It's bizarrely, almost suicidally pacifist in nature. Watch for yourself.

This was obvious not a polished video prepared by the Obama campaign for release. Teh video quality stinks, and the message can only hurt him among moderates of both parties, leaving us to ask the obvious questions of, why was this filmed, when was this filmed, and where did it come from?

The person who posted the video to YouTube is jcjcd, an apparent Hillary Clinton supporter and Celine Dion fan, but that is all we know at this time.

Waiting to Die

Growing a new culture of victims.

An armed man who burst into a classroom at Elizabeth City State University was role-playing in an emergency response drill, but neither the students nor assistant professor Jingbin Wang knew that.

"I was prepared to die at that moment," Wang said Tuesday.

The Friday drill, in which a mock gunman threatened panicked students in the American foreign policy class with death, prompted university officials to apologize this week to Wang and offer counseling to faculty and students.

Anthony Brown, vice chancellor for student affairs, said the university was testing its response to shootings of the sort that have shaken campuses around the country. "The intent was not to frighten them but to test our system and also to test the response of the security that was on campus and the people that were notified," Brown said.

The mock assailant—a campus police officer—quickly established control over the classroom, and the students did exactly as he demanded until the drill was over and police rushed in to "subdue" the attacker.

After the ordeal, some students stated that they were prepared to jump out classroom windows. The instructor said he was "prepared to die."

And yet, even after the recent slaughters at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University, none of the students reported that they were preparing to fight for survival, or that they had thoughts of actively defending themselves and their classmates.

Have we completely breed the violence of self-preservation out of this generation?

Saint Cindy of al Jazeera

"Peace Mom" Cindy Sheehan, who plans to campaign for Nancy Pelosi's House seat, is presently in Egypt protesting military trials in Egypt of members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

In an interview with al Jazeera, Sheehan proclaims that the Muslims Brotherhood are "the moderate voice here and they are the ones who are actually working for democracy."

The Brotherhood qualifies as "moderate" as any group that espouses:

• forming a global caliphate based upon fundamentalist sharia law
• the forced segregation of men and women
• second-class citizenship for all non-Muslims
• supports suicide bombings against civilians
• actively preaches Holocaust denial

Sheehan is now back doing relatively newsworthy things after a short self-imposed exile, but it now seems that the same mainstream media that once seemed to hang on her every word and tear would rather now treat her as an invisible woman.

I can only surmise that she represents a change they no longer believe in.

Dishonoring JFK

In his inaugural address in 1961, facing possibility of a war that could end life on earth, John F. Kennedy refused to back down and concede the liberty of free peoples to communists behind the Iron Curtain, stating memorably:

Vice President Johnson, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chief Justice, President Eisenhower, Vice President Nixon, President Truman, reverend clergy, fellow citizens, we observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom—symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning—signifying renewal, as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago.

The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.

We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans—born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage—and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge—and more.

The Center for American Progress, USAction, MoveOn.org, VoteVets.org, Service Employees International Union, Americans United for Change, and MoveOn.Org, led by John Edwards, have decided that they will not honor the pledge of John F. Kennedy, and that they will spend $20 million in order to prove JFK's words hollow.

These chocolate bunny Democrats—sugary and smooth on the surface, melting under the slightest heat and pressure to expose a void inside—will spend this money trying convince Americans that we are not noble, that we are selfish, shallow, weak and untrustworthy, and that we should turn our backs on Kennedy's famous pledge:

...that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

They want you to be like them: without honor, without substance, and without hope.

John Edwards and Barack Obama want you to know that they will not pay any price, bear any burden, meet the slightest hardship, support new democracies, or oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

Perhaps Barack Obama can explain how the generation-defining call-to-action of John F. Kennedy was "just words."

And that he can put a price on liberty.

Update: Did Senator Joe Lieberman drop by today before speaking in the Senate?

"I have thought a lot about this war, and I cannot help but wonder at a moment like this what some of the political heroes of my youth who are Democrats would think if they were here and could see and listen to this debate and read this resolution.

"I think of President Kennedy who declared: 'We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.'

"In my opinion, that is exactly what we are doing in Iraq today.

"I ask my colleagues: Do these words have meaning, have significance? Or are these just words?

Uh, No

Photo caption incompetence from the Associated Press (and here and here):

A Turkish army Super Cobra helicopter flies over an artillery unit and its crew after taking off from a military base in Cukurca in Hakkari province at the Turkey-Iraq border, Sunday, Feb. 24, 2008, Turkish F-16 fighters and helicopters flew into northern Iraq on Sunday as elite commandos shake Kurdish rebels in a major ground operation across the border that has drawn criticism from the U.S.-backed-Iraqi government and Iraqi Kurdish leaders. (AP Photo/Burhan Ozbilici)

Not even close. The helicopter in the photo is a unmistakably a variation of the UH-60 transport helicopter, with a four-bladed rotor and slick sides. That any self-respecting photo editor covering a military beat could mistake that helicopter for the distinctive, menacing shape of the twin-seater Super Cobra attack helicopter boggles the imagination.

Bonus: Soldier, hold your fire and clear your muzzle. Kabooms are not fun, however they are caused.

Update from the Associated Press: Paul Colford, Director of Media Relations for the Associated Press writes via email:

The photo captions you have challenged on your site were corrected (to Black Hawk) at 5:21 p.m. yesterday, such as this one:

Caption

** CORRECTS HELICOPTER TYPE ** A Turkish army Black Hawk helicopter flies over an artillery unit and its crew after taking off from a military base in Cukurca in Hakkari province at the Turkey-Iraq border, Sunday, Feb. 24, 2008, Turkish F-16 fighters and helicopters flew into northern Iraq on Sunday as elite commandos shake Kurdish rebels in a major ground operation across the border that has drawn criticism from the U.S.-backed-Iraqi government and Iraqi Kurdish leaders. (AP Photo/Burhan Ozbilici)

Credit where credit is due, the erroneous captions were replaced later the same afternoon, though it still boggles the mind that such a mistake was made in the first place.

Unappreciated Innovation

Something is missing from this CNN story.

The story now begins:

A man in a wheelchair blew himself up Monday in a northern Iraqi police station, killing three National Police officers, including a commander, police said.

The attack also wounded nine officers on the police force, which the Iraqi Interior Ministry operates.

The bombing in Samarra raises concern about the recent tactics employed by insurgents in Iraq. Bombs have been placed inside dead animals and hidden in carts. And in recent days, vagrants have been involved in bombings.

"As a sign of desperation, some of those terrorists resorted to some new methods and techniques," said Maj. Gen. Qassim Atta, spokesman for Baghdad's security plan.

The lede as it now reads is one of how desperate the terrorists in Iraq are becoming, and the lengths to which they must now go to stage a successful attack.

An earlier version of the story had a slightly different take, but now seems to only exist as a ghost in Google's cache.

"Innovative tactics " versus "signs of desperation."

A journalist's point of view can be quite illuminating from time to time, can't it?

The Audacity of Hope

Despite no publicly-reported plots or arrests related to threats against the life of Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama, the media keeps hoping to make his possible assassination an issue:

There is a hushed worry on the minds of many supporters of Senator Barack Obama, echoing in conversations from state to state, rally to rally: Will he be safe?

In Colorado, two sisters say they pray daily for his safety. In New Mexico, a daughter says she persuaded her mother to still vote for Mr. Obama, even though the mother feared that winning would put him in danger. And at a rally here, a woman expressed worries that a message of hope and change, in addition to his race, made him more vulnerable to violence.

"I've got the best protection in the world," Mr. Obama, of Illinois, said in an interview, reprising a line he tells supporters who raise the issue with him. "So stop worrying."

Yet worry they do, with the spring of 1968 seared into their memories, when the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Senator Robert F. Kennedy were assassinated in a span of two months.

We've covered this ground before. An Obama assassination fantasy seems to primarily be a media construct.

Spreading paranoid assassination fantasies has become something of a cottage industry among certain segments of the media and far left blogosphere, where at least one unhinged blogger has already determined that Halliburton and Blackwater are guilty of the crime.

The people who write these assassination fantasies are not worried that Obama will be targeted. There are far more worried that he will not be assassinated, and thus live to not meet to the impossibly high expectations he and his supporters have built for his campaign and his candidacy.

Obama the candidate is far more a myth than a man, and as he takes a commanding lead in the Democratic nominating process, his actual positions, record, and experience show him to be a strawman of good intentions and precious little substance. Even his cult-like followers know deep-down that no one person can live up to the fantasy they have constructed around his name, and so in dark places they do not publicly want to address, they want want an escape from the inevitable and all-too-human let-down that he, as a real flesh-and-blood man, will be.

For some, an assassination fantasy is that escape mechanism.

It is far easier for people to live with a memory of what might have been, than face the bitter truth of a candidate that has remarkable communicative abilities, but a radical political philosophy that will wilt under the scrutiny of the moderate middle in a general election.

A martyred ideal is far more useful to some than a flawed candidate, and so be prepared to see more such "trigger" stories as we get closer the the election, but don't expect to see him fall or to even be targeted for his ideas. Obama is an unlikely target for a political assassination precisely because he promises so little in substance. He can be beaten by ballot far more easily than by bullet, a political calculus even radical fringe groups easily recognize.

If he is targeted, it will be by another John Hinckley, Jr, someone unhinged, and perhaps driven to the crime by delusions of fame and the media's own dark "audacity of hope."

If such a tragic happening should come to pass, the media will only need to look in the mirror to find the culprit.

Obama Lies

A few points:

• Lieutenants command platoons. Captains command companies.
• The U.S. Army would not, under any circumstance, split up a rifle platoon and ship half of them to Iraq and the other half to Afghanistan. They train to work as a team. This simply would not occur, ever.
• There has never been a shortage of weapons or ammunition for U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan. On occasion, American forces (especially Special Forces) have used Soviet weapon designs, but they have done so by choice, not necessity.

In the clip above, everything Barack Obama said was a lie... probably including the part where he said he spoke with an Army Captain (has anyone checked to seek if Deval Patrick spoke with Jesse McBeth?).

This leaves us with two possibilities.

Barack Obama is a liar. He (or someone he plagiarized) simply made the tale up out of the whole cloth.

Barack Obama is a rube. Anyone with any sense of how the military works at all would immediately sniff this out as a series of false stories. Perhaps Barack Obama, the man who would be Commander in Cheif, is so ignorant of all matters military that he could be easily fooled by a fraud.

Neither possibility says anything good about Obama.

Update: Over at ABC News Blog , Political Punch, Jake Tapper gets in touch with the officer in question and states that Obama's claim was therefore true.

Uh, no.

Obama claimed:

"You know, I've heard from an Army captain who was the head of a rifle platoon -- supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon," he said. "Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq. And as a consequence, they didn't have enough ammunition, they didn't have enough humvees. They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief."

The captain confirmed that he was then a lieutenant when he took command of a rifle platoon of 39 men, and that 15 men that platoon were assigned to other units. While many of them ended up being deployed to Iraq as part of other units, that does not equate Obama's assertion that the unit was divided.

We then find out that when this officer "didn't have enough ammunition, they didn't have enough humvees," he was referring to practice ammunition for two kinds of heavy weapons while in Fort Drum, New York.

As for having to capture Taliban weapons he stated, "The purpose of going after the Taliban was not to get their weapons," he said, but on occasion they used Taliban weapons. Sometimes AK-47s, and they also mounted a Soviet-model DShK (or "Dishka") on one of their humvees instead of their 50 cal."

Obama's most crucial, explosive claim, that ": They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief" remains utterly and completely false.

And that part, it seems, he made up by himself.

Obama Off Target

Obama Shooting Himself in the Foot with Anti-Gun Stance, at Pajamas Media.

His long-held desire to ban entire classes of firearms won't play well in "flyover country," and could cost him the 2008 election.

Not Even Blog-Worthy

It seems like everyone is talking this morning about this New York Times article about John McCain.

The heart of the Times article states only:

A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client's corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman's access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.

Why were these staffers "convinced the relationship had become romantic"?

Did they see McCain and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, in a sexually-suggestive or compromising position?

Was there any physical evidence of a "romantic" relationship?

Did either McCain or Iseman tell anyone that they were involved in such a relationship?

The four NY Times journalists that share the byline on this story—Jim Rutenberg, Marilyn W. Thompson, David D. Kirkpatrick, and Stephen Lebaton— do not provide answers to any of these basic journalistic questions. They failed to do their jobs.

This is not a news story, it is an extended insinuation. At best, it is half-formed journalism. At worst, it is naked, partisan advocacy.

If presented with the thin claims published in this Times story, many of the more credible bloggers, regardless of political affiliation, would have passed on publishing this story. They've worked too hard and too long to build their reader base and establish their credibility as citizen-journalists.

Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr, publisher of the Times, apparently has no such qualms about risking the reputation of the newspaper grown to prominence by previous generations of his family. It is easy for him to squander what he himself did not earn, but then, we knew that a MoveOn.org discount ago.

The Media's Newest Manufactured Gun Controversy

Back in 1986, Time and other news organizations attempted to whip up hysteria about a new firearm on the market, the Glock 17, attempting to state that it could pass easily though airport metal detectors, and therefore become a favored weapon for terrorists or hijackers:

Noel Koch, a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, recently left his Pentagon office toting an overnight bag and rode to Washington's National Airport. Koch breezed through three airport metal detectors and into the departure lounge. That was as far as he planned to go. Inside his carry-on bag, Koch had concealed a 9-mm handgun that weighs only 23 oz. and is made partly of superhardened plastic. When disassembled, the Austrian-made weapon, known as the Glock 17, does not look like a firearm. Only its barrel, slide and springs, which are metal, show up on airport scanners. The polymer handgrip, trigger guard and ammunition clip that complete its profile as a gun do not set off the security devices.

High-technology weapons have created a terrifying dilemma for airport officials in their war against terrorists. Already, new guns made entirely of plastic are being developed. Easily concealable handguns like the Glock, along with hard-to-detect components for putty-like explosives that are also readily available, give air pirates an edge that officials are finding increasingly difficult to counter.

The manufactured Glock hysteria was of course false; the barrel, slide, sights, and of course the pistol cartridges themselves are made of dense metals, and the promised "new guns made entirely of plastic" have never materialized on the consumer market.

Yesterday I ran across another attempt to create a false hysteria, this time about painted guns.

Yes, really.

The CNN.com video story from affiliate KPNX reporter Brahim Resnik in Phoenix warns about the evils of painted guns, specifically firearms they state are painted like children's toys. The reporter gets support from Bryan Soller of the Arizona Fraternal Order of Police.

"Somebody points it at an officer, and he hesitates, at which point he could get shot, or worse, the officer could react and take the life of a child..."

The reporter then keys in on Jims Gun Supply, one of dozens, if not hundreds, of retailers that offers Duracoat a firearms refinishing paint that comes in almost any color, and is typically used to refinish firearms, providing a self-lubricating, durable finish that provides rust-protection, camouflage and/or a custom look.

The story opens by focusing on a "Hello Kitty" themed AK-pattern rifle in pink and black, and then shows a picture of the company web site's photo page, and then going on to assert that "But the larger worry is that children being drawn to candy-cane colors..."

The story then transitions to a teacher, who states, "Just being a teacher, any child would think that was a toy..."

The story, just 63 seconds long, ends with a voiceover by what appears to be the same AZFOP official featured earlier in the report.

"Apparently it is legal. It's frightening to law enforcement."

The obvious point of the story is to frighten parents into thinking that their children could easily come across a real weapon that they think is a toy, and that law enforcement officers could either kill a child carrying a Durocoated firearm, or be shot by a criminal armed with one. Is is a story that manufactures a controversy out of a nonexistent problem.

Duracoat is primarily purchased by law enforcement and military customers, but it has a growing following among hunters (who typically prefer matte or camouflage) and sport shooters (who sometimes select bold color schemes) and others that want a unique look for their firearms.

This manufactured controversy is not new. New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg gave it a go in 2006, and the newspapers treated him like the idiot he was (PDF).

Common sense goes a long way towards debunking this story, but as we know, that is all too often in short supply in our country's media. Let's take this story apart, focusing on the two main claims.

Brightly-painted Durocoated firearms are a threat to children.
If you bother to Google Durocoat and have any knowledge of the kinds of firearms you'll typically see receiving a professionally applied Durocoat finish, you'll quickly note that while any firearm can be Durocoated, the overwhelming majority of those featured are firearms that cost hundreds or thousands of dollars even before being Durocoated.

People who care that much about their firearms are not going to leave them laying around for children to find as the story falsely implies. After that much of an investment in the base firearm and the additional cost of having ti professionally refinished, owners will typically secured these firearms in gun safes or make sure they are otherwise protected, as would be any expensive investment.

There are precisely zero documented incidents of a child finding a Durocoated firearm and playing with one, or of law enforcement officers firing up a child carry a Durocoated weapon.

A far more common and realistic threat
We do know, though, that parents buy their children hundreds of thousands of airsoft guns every year, firearms that often are to the naked eye nearly exact copies of real firearms.

Can you spot the difference?

Other than a plastic or painted orange tip on many models, these firearms found commonly at retail outlets and sold by the dozens to suburban children are the same size, weight, and shape of real firearms, have realistic actions and moving parts, and can be had as cheaply as $25, or less.

In far wider circulation that Durocoated firearms, these fake weapons are far more likely to be encountered by police, or used by criminals without easy access to real firearms, but who can purchase a plastic copy and a can of black spray paint to cover the orange cover without any problems at all.

And yes they have been used in crime... by children and adults as well. Both of these linked incidents came with in the past two weeks, but the reporter would rather focus on an unlikely potential tragedy that has never apparently occurred.

Brightly-painted Durocoated firearms are a threat to police.
If realistic airsoft guns—one of the most sought-after Christmas gifts in 2007— aren't filling our nation's morgues with the bodies of children mistaken for thugs by our law enforcement agencies, why are Durocoated firearms—even those with bright colors and odd color schemes—a greater threat?

When I was a child (and going back generations), cap guns that looked and sounded almost exactly like real firearms were commonplace as a staple of a young man's toy box.

Likewise, criminals have been modifying firearms for years for various reasons, including spray painting them to look like children's toys, for many years. I even recall seeing an episode of COPS (or perhaps a show like it) where a pump shotgun recovered in a gang raid had been spray-painted to look like a SuperSoaker water gun, complete with an empty soda bottle on top faking the water tank.

There are millions of fake guns that look real, and it is easy for a criminal to conceal a weapon, make a real gun look fake, or even disguise it as another object entirely.

How do law enforcement officers deal with such an issue? Despite the hysteria assisted by Bryan Soller of the Arizona Fraternal Order of Police (who apparently doesn't trust Arizona police officers not to shoot citizens with concealed carry permits, either), it comes down to the elements of proper training, situational awareness, and common sense.

Its sad how often those elements are absent when incompetently researched or flatly biased firearms-related stories hit the media, all too often scaring the public with false controversies and unrealistic threats. Sadly, like nearly ubiquitous airsoft guns, this incompetence and bias in the media is something we've become accustomed to over time.

Update: Say Uncle has more.

Stepping In It

Oy vey.

So what did Michelle Obama think of the United States before her husband decided he wanted to run the place?

"For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country," she told a Milwaukee crowd today, "and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change."

I saw this quote yesterday, but with more pressing concerns at hand, I let it pass. In the blogosphere, others weighed in.

As it turns out, the Boston.com quote wasn't entirely fair, leaving out the context of the quote.

Here is the more accurate quote:

"What we have learned over this year is that hope is making a comeback. It is making a comeback. And let me tell you something -- for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. And I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction and just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment. I've seen people who are hungry to be unified around some basic common issues, and it's made me proud."

James Joyner has a nice round-up of reaction to the story.

The differences between the boston.com quote and the Breitbart quote are that the Breitbart quote provides fuller context, quoting the sentences immediately preceding and following the inflammatory statement that "for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country."

At ABC News blog Political Punch Jake Tapper gets a "clarification" from Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton:

"Of course Michelle is proud of her country, which is why she and Barack talk constantly about how their story wouldn't be possible in any other nation on Earth. What she meant is that she's really proud at this moment because for the first time in a long time, thousands of Americans who've never participated in politics before are coming out in record numbers to build a grassroots movement for change."

I certainly hope that is the idea that Mrs. Obama meant to convey, as it would be unseemly to have a potential First Lady say that she has never been proud of her country until her husband ran for it's highest office, not to mention more than a little arrogant and self-centered.

This is not Mrs. Obama's first controversial statement, and almost certainly will not be her last as the race for the Democratic nomination continues.

Barack Oborrow

I've held recently, both here on CY and on Pajamas Media, that Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama is remarkably light on substance, if extremely gifted as a public speaker.

We are now hearing that the soaring oratory he gives may not entirely be of his own:

"Don't tell me words don't matter," Mr. Obama said, to applause. " 'I have a dream' — just words? 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal' — just words? 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself' — just words? Just speeches?"

Mr. Patrick employed similar language during his 2006 governor's race when his Republican rival, Kerry Healey, criticized him as offering lofty rhetoric over specifics. Mr. Patrick has endorsed Mr. Obama, and the two men are close friends.

" 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal' — just words? Just words?" Mr. Patrick said one month before his election. " 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself' — just words? 'Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.' Just words? 'I have a dream' — just words?"

Barack Obama obviously used Deval Patrick's language and apparently even inflections in delivery in a speech he delivered over the weekend. Hillary Clinton's campaign has been attempting to capitalize on the borrowing, and insists upon calling it plagiarism.

Is it?

According to plagiarism.org (citing Merriam Webster), plagiarism is:

1. to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own
2. to use (another's production) without crediting the source
3. to commit literary theft
4. to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source.

Did Barrack Obama meet any of these definitions when he used elements of Deval Patrick's 2006 speech?

It is unclear whether or not that Obama was attempting to pass off Patrick's language as his own, but once could certainly make an argument that he did. It is certain he did not give Patrick credit for that language he borrowed during the course of the speech. Is that plagiarism? As a textbook definition, yes.

It remains to be seen how seriously others will view the offense, but it is obvious that the candidate of "change" is not as full of fresh ideas as he would like to portray.

Text Messages Don't Stop Crime

A futile effort, to say the least:

In the event of an emergency on North Carolina State University's campus, officials would send out text messages to faculty, students and staff.

Getting people to sign up to receive the "WolfAlert" messages is another issue.

Of the 40,000 faculty, students and staff at N.C. State, only 10,000 have registered their phone numbers, despite campus-wide advertising. For those who have signed-up, school officials plan to test the system this week.

N.C. State isn't the only campus trying to get this type of system off the ground. On North Carolina's 110 public and private college campuses, new safety measures have quickly become the priority.

"Our challenges are population and geography. We're the largest in terms of students and area," said David Rainer, N.C. State's associate vice chancellor for environmental health and safety.

Last year, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper formed a task force to look at crisis communication plans at colleges and universities. The task now is to make sure those plans work.

The plans being used will do very little to stop the next Virginia Tech or NIU.

Keeping involuntarily committed people from being able to purchase firearms and getting the mentally ill treatment are laudable goals, but messaging systems and alarms are reactive in nature, and would not have saved a single life at either of the universities when gunmen rampaged through classrooms in a matter of minutes. In both instances, the events would have been over, or almost over, before an alert was even issued.

These are feel-good solutions, but in general are not real solutions to stop a threat as it is occurring. They are designed merely to speed emergency response to those who are lucky enough to survive the initial onslaught, or to keep a shooter from moving from one building into another after catastrophic events have already started. If you happen to be in the room or building when such an unlikely assault takes place, there is little that can currently be done to save you.

In such situations, only luck can save you if you are unarmed. I'd like to see university administrators in North Carolina rationally discuss the pros and cons of allowing faculty, staff and students in off-campus housing with concealed carry permits to carry their handguns on campus. I can find little evidence of such a conversation having occurred.

Perhaps university administrators are under the impression that by posting policies declaring university campuses "gun free" that they in fact are. I know for a fact that is not the case from my own university days, when I knew of at least three students who chose to carry pistols because they did not feel (rightfully) that university police officers, while diligent, could be relied upon to be there at the precise moment they were needed if a violent crime was visited upon them.

This was over a decade ago. University shootings were virtually unheard of at the time, and those I knew to carry did so because of a fear of sexual assault or armed robbery on or near campus.

Those I speak with now are now typically staff and faculty-aged, and while those fears of being a victim of a case of individual violent crime are still valid, I've heard some talk from staff and faculty would would feel safer if they had the means to legally protect their fellow staff members and students if a school shooter happened upon their classroom or administration building. They aren't looking to be heroes. Like most in the education field, they only want what is best for their students, and they tend to agree that life is one of their students continuing interests.

Not all university staff and faculty are comfortable with the idea of fellow faculty and staff being armed—in fact, I'd hazard a guess that most are probably uncomfortable with the general concept of having to face the fact that firearms are indeed on university campuses. They would rather pretend them away.

But firearms are on university campuses across North Carolina, and they always will be as long as distant parking lots and night classes exist. Instead of making self-defense illegal and typically be practiced by those with no formal training, it would perhaps be far wiser to allow those who have undergone the legal training, shooting qualifications, and background investigation to earn a CCH to legally carry a defensive handgun on campuses.

Allowing CCH to legal permit holders is not guaranteed to stop any specific crime on college campuses, but what it does do is give qualified citizens the option, and that is a discussion worth having, and far more likely to help prevent or stop a violent crime on campus than a belated text message or siren.

Best Valentine's Day Gift Ever

Sure trumps a steak dinner.

Kathryn (we'll call he Kate) was born six weeks early at 3:58 PM on Valentine's Day, and this picture was taken while she was than an hour old in neonatal intensive care. After running a series of tests, our little fighter was moved into the nursery with the full-term children, 100% healthy and hungry. The staff regards her as something of a little miracle. I certainly agree.

My wife Christine is doing remarkably well after her c-section, and we're getting ready to have breakfast. Big sister Maya will be by after school to see her new sister again.

Blogging is probably going to be light.

Life is good.

Live By the Bomb, Die By the Bomb

Imad Mughniyeh, the "original bin Laden" has been killed by a car bomb in Damascus, Syria.

It couldn't happen to a nicer guy:

Imad Mughniyeh, the Hezbollah mastermind behind the kidnapping of Westerners in Beirut and many big terror attacks around the world in the 1980s and 1990s, was killed late last night in a car bomb explosion in Damascus.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the attack, which occurred in the Syrian capital’s smart Kfar Soussa district, although Hezbollah blamed Israeli agents.

His death is a huge blow to the Iranian-backed militant group, given Mughniyeh's years of experience and organisational skills.

He was commander of Hezbollah's military wing, which he helped to build up into the formidable machine that fought the Israeli Army to a standstill in the war of summer 2006.

Israel's Mossad was quickly fingered by Hezbollah as being responsible for the assassination, which the Israeli's have officially denied, probably between toasts.

The Preggo Menace

Fox News is just one of several news outlets running a warning by the Department of Homeland Security that fake pregnant women could be used as suicide bombers in America:

The growing use by terrorist groups of women — some disguised as expectant moms — to deliver deadly homicide bombs has prompted the Department of Homeland Security and FBI to issue a rare warning that such attacks could take place on American soil.

The joint security assessment cited recent female homicide bomber attacks in Baghdad — in which two women who appeared to have Down syndrome delivered a deadly explosion that killed 99 — as well as in Sri Lanka, Chechnya, India, Pakistan and the Palestinian territories as reason for the warning.

"Female suicide bombers may have an advantage over their male counterparts in accessing targets," the analysis cautioned. "The means to conduct a suicide attack vary widely, but a key element in maximizing the lethality of a suicide bombing is the bomber's ability to get close to the target."

The assessment also strongly warned that potential female homicide bombers could use "prosthetic devices that mimic the look of a pregnant woman."

Reality check.

There are far more obese Americans that pregnant ones, and unlike pregnant people, the obese, both real and fake, are often "invisible," pitied and looked way from by members of the general public. Little old ladies like to talk to and touch pregnant ladies they don't even know. The obese? We're taught from a young age not to stare.

Few would want to get close enough to an obese person to see if it is fat or TATP that is causing the sweating in their second stomach fold.

The fake obese can hide far more explosives distributed around their bodies far more convincingly than "pregnant" bomber, especially when they get to a size where they can justify using a scooter, walker or wheelchair to carry even more explosives or shrapnel.

Is either scenario very likely here in the United States? Probably not, which makes this entire DHS-driven story one based more of sensationalism than in any real, actionable threat.

Frankly, I'm far more worried about more realistic threats, like exploding trash.

The Obama Flag Flap

The blogosphere began buzzing yesterday afternoon because of a Cuban flag superimposed with a picture of Che Guevara that was flown in an volunteer, unofficial office for Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama in Houston, Texas, captured by a local Fox News affiliate.

Allahpundit likened it yesterday to be the equivalent of flying a Timothy McVeigh flag in a John McCain office, and noted that if that had occurred, media outlets would have more than likely made more of an issue of it than they have in this instance.

I don't however, share the condemnation heard yesterday of the Obama campaign itself over this particular story from some of my friends on the right. I think James Joyner's take on the issue is even-handed, in that:

...Che is a terrorist who shouldn't be honored by decent people. Che worship (or, alternatively, the wearing of Che t-shirts as a statement without the slightest clue of who he was) seems to be a phase that certain left-leaning activists go through in their youth; it generally passes. Driscoll's characterization of it as "juvenilia" is spot on.

For reasons I'll certainly never understand, a contingent on the fringe left does and has long had a special affinity for this particular terrorist, but that in and of itself should not reflect upon Obama, unless he also shares those views or had advance knowledge of such a flag being placed in this volunteer-established office (which I strongly doubt).

What the flag may come far closer to representing is the historical cluelessness of some potential voters, and the sad flocking to cults of personality by those who feel politically marginalized, as noted by the U.K.based satire site Anorak News which said dryly:

"...The stakes could not be higher in the battle between Ron Paul and Barack Obama for the hearts and minds of America's young people, as this picture shows."

But it isn't just the young and uninformed who flock to such cults of personality, as we've all seen our fair share of Paulites and Obama supporters of every age and education level.

There are many people who feel politically lost who will flock to those voices that offer seemingly easy "change," whether that voice offers workable solutions or empty platitudes.

Considering that this story is largely confined to the blogosphere at this moment, there is probably very little desire in the official Barack Obama campaign to issue a statement against the displaying of this terrorist-hyping flag in a volunteer office. Though it would be a nice gesture, such a refutation may make this into a larger story than it would otherwise be.

Cuban-Americans, however, may find this political calculation to be less than satisfactory.

It is rather sad that the Obama campaign is in a position where it had to decide whether denouncing a terrorist is a smart move, but when a candidate runs on a platform offering so little substance or experience, being quiet and vague is perhaps precisely what they are counting on.

"Ready, Fire, Aim"

"Act, then think" Toledo Mayor Carty Finkbeiner stopped a planned urban combat training exercise by Company A 1st Battalion 24th Marine Regiment last week, and has been under considerable fire from the public since his decision. He still defends the decision today:

"I spoke with Major Brooks of the United States Marine," Finkbeiner said in a news release Monday. ""I conveyed my sincere regret for the failure to communicate within the administration and any inconvenience that caused the U.S. Marines Corps. Finkbeiner had offered to allow the Marines to use abandoned buildings on the outskirts of Toledo.

The mayor said he made the decision not to allow the Marines, Company A 1st Battalion 24th Marine Regiment from Grand Rapids, to perform their training maneuvers downtown beginning Friday in downtown Toledo because the presence of armed soldiers in the central business district would have alarmed residents.

"The CBD (Central Business District), particularly on a weekday afternoon, was not available for military staging operations. (Ten thousand to 14,000) men and women would have been departing their offices in downtown Toledo on Friday afternoon with a major military training unfolding, including the use of weapons being discharged with blanks," said Feinkbeiner said.

The mayor's office has been flooded with calls from people from across the nation, asking him to apologize, according to the Toledo Blade.

Among those voicing frustration with the Mayor are members of the Toledo Chamber Commerce, one who wrote in an email that, "all of the community suffers unnecessarily because of the unfortunate action of the Mayor."

The Toledo City Council, in conjunction with county officials, are attempting to make amends with a resolution that will be introduced later this morning that will provide an abandoned mall as a training location for the Marines.

In addition, the resolution will offer to pay the Marines for the lost training costs, and offers to pick up a free night's stay for each of the 200 Marines anywhere in the city, and will provide passes to area restaurants and events. They will also apologize on behalf of Toledo to the Marine Corps.

Finkbeiner, described as an "arrogant bully," but one person close to the story, will face a City Council resolution expected to pass 12-0.

02/13 Update: The resolution passes.

The Unbearable Lightness of Obama

Eight Years of "Billary" was enough for most of us. Are we ready for "Barichelle?"

On a conference call to prepare for a recent debate, Barack Obama brainstormed with his top advisers on the fine points of his positions. Michelle Obama had dialed in to listen, but finally couldn't stay silent any longer.

"Barack," she interjected, "Feel -- don't think!" Telling her husband his "over-thinking" during past debates had tripped him up with rival Hillary Clinton, she said: "Don't get caught in the weeds. Be visceral. Use your heart -- and your head."

The campaign veterans shut up. They knew that Mrs. Obama's opinion and advice mattered more to their candidate than anything they could say.

Considering his lightweight resume featuring no executive experience on any level and only fleeting legislative experience of less than one term in the U.S. Senate, do we really want a presidential candidate to run his campaign on feelings?

But when a candidate has nothing more substantial to fall back on, perhaps the feelings in Barack Obama's heart is all he has left... that, and the advice of Michelle Obama, who unlike her husband, does have some executive experience (though in healthcare, not government).

As Hillary Clinton fades and Barack Obama's sweep of Democratic primary and caucus races over the weekend give him the momentum going into Tuesday's votes in Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C., both Obamas will come under increasing scrutiny as they seem poised to take the nomination from once-favored frontrunner Hillary Clinton in a tight Democratic race.

So what do we have in the Obamas? Barack Obama has, in less than one term, established himself as the Democrat with the most liberal voting record in the Senate. More liberal than Harry Reid. More liberal than Barbara Boxer. More liberal than Dick Durbin. He has, in his short career, established himself as the most extremist Democratic Senator. He speaks mightily and often of "change," but is America ready for the radical progressive, socialist agenda his record suggests, and that his campaign avoids mentioning? Based purely on his track record, he seems too liberal to lead France, much less represent the greater population of the United States.

Michelle Obama has been mostly out of the limelight compared to the other spouse of the candidate in contention, but her advice to her husband to run with his heart—"Feel -- don't think!"—is terrifying advice to give a man who would have nuclear weapons under his control when the next terror attack takes place on American soil, and eventuality which one day will occur, and one that could quite possibly occur during the next presidency.

As Bill Whittle noted in Tribes, feeling, caring people such as Obama are great to be around when things are going swimmingly, but as we saw when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans and Kathleen Blanco melted in her role as chief executive of Louisiana, you do not want them in charge when the crap hits the fan.

Barack Obama has never faced a true crisis. He has never faced calamity. His character, judgment under pressure, and strength in a crisis have never been tested. He is woefully inexperienced in a leadership role. All Barack Obama has is his emotions... or at least, that is all he has shown us, and what his wife advises him to show.

Perhaps he is, down deep, made of sterner stuff. But he has not shown it. He instead issues threats against nuclear-armed states, while promising to lose the war in Iraq as recently as just days ago.

He promises the " audacity of hope" because the paucity of his substance is so revealing. Without his brilliant gifts as a motivating speaker, he has little. As the Bard might say, Obama is "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

We can do better than a candidate that excels only at oratory, and who would be shell-shocked as one of the most unqualified presidents this nation has ever known.

We deserve better.

We can do better.

Yes, we can.

With Romney Gone, It's Thompson Time in the Veepstakes

Mitt Romney's gracious withdrawal yesterday at CPAC effectively cemented the Republican nomination for Arizona Senator John McCain, a candidate that I don't particularly like, but one is that is still far superior to either the empty promises of "change" from Barack Obama (presumably from partial presidential incompetence, to total), or the similar economy-killing socialist politics of a character-free Mrs. Clenis.

That support for McCain, however, is very fragile, and could easily be crushed or increased by the presumptive nominee's choice of running mate.

As both Scott Ott and Stephen Green have noted, Fred Thompson would make an excellent Vice Presidential running mate for McCain, balancing McCain's fiery temper and RINO leanings with sound conservatism based upon Federalist principles. That Thompson brings some regional balance to the Arizona Senator's ticket is also something others might note, but I find less important that his principles (full disclosure: Thompson became my favorite for office after Roger L. Simon and I interviewed him for Pajamas Media in November.)

Other conservatives, of course, could be an acceptable choice, but if McCain wants the support of the conservative wing of the party he has so often fought with, he needs a sounds conservative choice as his Veep, not a fellow RINO.

If McCain chooses a fellow liberal Republican—say, for example, social conservative theocrat, but economically liberal and internationally buffoonish Mike Huckabee, or South Carolina's amnesty-loving fellow RINO Senator Lindsey Graham—then any hopes McCain has of the tentative truce between his campaign and the conservative wing of the Republican Party are dashed.

We have nothing but flawed characters remaining in this election, but McCain, for the moment, is the less offensive choice for many. He could go a long way towards building a winning coalition if he recognizes the hopes and fears of his own party by asking a conservative such as Thompson to join him on the ticket, without compromising the "Maverick" reputation that moderates and independents seem to value in his candidacy.

The ball is is McCain's court. We can only hope he plays it wisely.

Scotland Yard: Blast Killed Bhutto

In The Sun:

British officials are set to release a summary later today of a report on the probe into PPP Party chief Bhutto’s December 27 death.

Scotland Yard investigators said Bhutto died from a severe headwound as she was thrown by the force of the blast.

They also said that the attack was carried out by a single person who blew himself up after opening fire, not by two as authorities had originally reported.

The finding supports the Pakistani Government’s version of events.

But what about the bullet theory, seemingly supposed by video? As I noted December 31:

While the new film shows her hair and shawl moving, however, it is not conclusive.

Unlike the Zapruder-filmed assassination (YouTube) of John F. Kennedy, however, there is not the spray of flesh and bone one might have expected from a pistol blast at near contact range of approximately six feet.

The ballistics expert interviewed by Channel 4, Roger Gray, notes the concussive blast of the bullet hitting her hair and shawl and suggests that it indicates a bullet strike on the left side of Bhutto's head. There were not, however, any direct signs of an invasive impact to Bhutto's skull as seen with Kennedy, just the movement of her hair and shawl. One might think that a bullet hitting Bhutto on the left side of the skull, penetrating, and exiting the right side of her skull would have shown signs of exiting in the form of a spray of blood and bone, which was not evident in the film footage.

So while it is probable that Bhutto was struck by a bullet, it is not conclusive, and the government account of her hitting her head cannot be conclusively ruled out.

In short, Scotland Yard seems to bring us back to square one: the seemingly bizarre Pakistani claim that Bhutto was killed when the blast threw her against the right rear sunroof latch of the armored car in which she was riding. The claim, however, is the only one that seems to make logical sense if the assassin's bullet did in fact miss.

Ever helpful, the Bhutto family has refused a request to have an autopsy performed, and her political party instead issues forth absurd claims that she was killed with a laser.

It seems that the Bhutto family is far more concerned with supporting the story of her martyrdom by an assassin's bullet than seeking what may be a less glamorous martyrdom by the force of the suicide blast throwing her skull against the right rear sunroof latch. If they continue to refuse an autopsy, we can only surmise they are more interested in preserving mythology than divining the facts.

Biting the Bullet

I don't like John McCain. He is no better than my third-place choice for President, and I cannot drum up any enthusiasm to vote for him in November.

But I will.

I frankly don't care if he plans on trying to make nice at CPAC today. Whatever olive branch he extends will be quickly forgotten once he finally clinches the nomination from Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, two candidates that so far refused to concede, but have very little chance of turning the tide of McCain's improbable run for the nomination. Once nominated, McCain will tack even further towards the center as his leftward lurch continues.

I don't like John McCain, but I will vote for him. I won't stay home in protest. I won't write in another candidate, either. This election is too important for that.

The eventual Democratic nominee, whether it is inexperienced committed socialist Barack Obama, the most liberal voter in the Senate, or the woman of a thousand scandals, Hillary Clinton, who preemptively declared that any report of good news coming out of Iraq would be a lie, is unacceptable as President. Both promise higher taxes, a far more intrusive and meddling federal government, and defeat in the war against Islamic extremism. This is the actuality of the "change" they refuse to clarify in their vacuous campaign speeches.

Love him or hate him, McCain has something both Democratic candidates lack: meaningful experience. Obama has served less than one full term as a U.S. Senator, following just two full and one half-completed term as a state Senator. Clinton has completed one term in the U.S. Senate, and only a third of her second term. She has no prior national experience as an elected politician... unless you think being an acquiescent First Lady to the Philanderer-in-Chief counts. Frankly, that she lacks the self-respect to ditch a serial sex abuser such as William Jefferson Clinton says all about her character (or lack of it) that I need to know.

By comparison, McCain served two terms in the House of Representatives, and has been a U.S. Senator since 1986, and while I've often disagreed with his positions, he cannot be accused of being a weathervane politician.

So while I do not like John McCain, he is what we have left among the candidates that will attempt to work with both parties, who hasn't adopted a fringe ideology (or tried to hide it), and who has meaningful experience on the federal level, who did not take his seat in the Senate merely as a stepping stone to higher office. As purely a pragmatic calculation, he's the only candidate still running in either party that won't screw this country up too bad during his term.

During some elections, that may have to be enough.

This is hardly a ringing endorsement. It isn't supposed to be.

McCain for President. Or we're really screwed.

Update: Romney steps aside.

At PJM: Gunning For a Concealed Carry Permit

While most of you were getting ready for the Super Bowl, I was in a concealed carry course to obtain certification to apply for North Carolina's concealed carry permit.

What did I learn?

That I need a lawyer small enough to shove in a holster.

Acts of Desperation

I wrote several days ago about how the use of mentally-disabled suicide bombers showed just how desperate al Qaeda in Iraq in was/is becoming, stating:

These attacks today serve to show that al Qaeda in Iraq is not quite finished, but then, that is something we already knew. What is does show us is just how desperate they are to retain relevance in a war that is going very badly for them.

Far from today's attacks being a sign of the "surge" in Iraq failing, the extraordinary lengths al Qaeda was forced to take to carry out these attacks show that the "surge" and the COIN doctrine implemented by General Petraeus are working precisely as we'd hoped.

A story published today showing that al Qaeda is now training children to carry out attacks merely confirms that theory.

Al Qaeda propaganda tapes released by the Pentagon reveal a possible new trend in the group's terror strategy in Iraq.

The tapes, obtained by FOXNews and later released to the media, are training videos showing black-masked Iraqi children between 6 and 14 being taught how to hold AK-47s, how to stop a car and carry out a kidnapping, how to break into a house and how to break into a courtyard and terrorize the individuals living there.

Footage aired for reporters showed an apparent training operation in which the boys are shown storming a house and holding guns to the heads of mock residents. Another tape showed a young boy wearing a suicide vest and posing with automatic weapons.

They also are seen being taught to use rocket-propelled grenade launchers.

"These were young boys all masked and hooded, all outfitted with weapons; adults were doing the training," said Rear Adm. Greg Smith, a spokesman for Multinational Forces Iraq.

"Al Qaeda is clearly using children to exploit other children to get the interest of Jihad spread among teenagers far and wide. They use this footage on the Internet to encourage other young boys to join the jihad movement."

al Qaeda has been forced to a point where it is recruiting children to fight for it in Iraq, attempting to indoctrinate them at a young age to become acolytes of terror. While this is hardly unknown in terrorist cultures outside of Iraq—it is disturbingly common to see Palestinians indoctrinate their children this way—it has been very rare in Iraq, where al Qaeda has a desperate need for fighters now, not years from now. The children al Qaeda is training are trained for current operations.

This strongly suggests, like did the use of mentally disabled women last week, that al Qaeda is increasingly unable to find military-aged men in Iraq to carry out their attacks.

Last week at liberal blog Newshoggers, Libby called the use of mentally-disabled female suicide bombers as " a sign of adaptation and a brilliant one at that" before asking, "Perhaps Mr. Owens can educate me on how our troops are supposed to counter this new evil tactic? That would be helpful."

The quite obvious answer that she should have been able to grasp on her own was that we are successfully countering al Qaeda, using the exact COIN doctrine that she and her fellow liberals still refuse to recognize as working.

al Qaeda is forced to go to such lengths as using the mentally infirm and impressionable children as foot soldiers precisely because the COIN strategy being implemented by coalition military forces and Iraqi security forces and CLCs, is depriving the insurgents and terrorists of their base of support. Without popular support from significant sections of the population, insurgencies are doomed to fail.

While horrific and speaking a great deal about their depravity, these acts show that al Qaeda in Iraq and associated insurgent groups and criminal gangs are increasingly desperate. The proven COIN doctrine being implemented against these groups is increasingly more effective. Far from being able to brilliantly adapt, al Qaeda in Iraq has once again been proven itself to be incapable of long-term success, or even survival.

"A Vote For Huckabee is a Vote for McCain"

That charge has been leveled against Mike Huckabee since it became obvious he could not hope to win the Republican nomination after the South Carolina and Florida primaries, and it has been a charge that Huckabee has vehemently denied.

We'll just add that to the long list of his lies.

Mike Huckabee won the first of 21 states being contested by the Republican presidential candidates on Super Tuesday, pulling out a victory in the West Virginia Republican convention.

Huckabee won in the second round of voting, even though Mitt Romney led after the first round. The former Arkansas governor won with 51.5 percent to Romney’s 47.4 percent, pulling ahead after John McCain’s delegates apparently defected to his side.

The convention had to go into a second round of voting after no candidate took a clear majority the first time. Texas Rep. Ron Paul was knocked out, and Huckabee, Romney and McCain moved forward.

Paul finished fourth with 10 percent among the 1,133 participating delegates in the first round, while Romney took 41 percent and Huckabee took 33 percent. McCain, who started the day in New York City before heading to California, reached the second round with 15 percent.

But before Huckabee’s surprising turnaround in the second round, McCain delegates told FOX News they had been instructed by the campaign to throw their support to Huckabee.

McCain delegate John Vuolo said former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer approached him and other McCain supporters at the convention and told them he had spoken to McCain, and that the best thing to do was to support Huckabee in the hope that Huckabee could beat Romney in this winner-take-all state.

Don't get me wrong—for McCain, denying Romney a state he should have won, especially a winner-take-all state, is smart politics.

But I don't want to hear any more that the Huckster from Hope is campaigning because he still has delusions becoming the nominee. That ship sailed long ago. He's still in this race for one reason, and one reason only: to trip up Mitt Romney, and ensure a McCain victory.

I only wonder what promises Huckabee extracted from John McCain in return for his role as spoiler.

Obligatory Super Tuesday Predictions

Allahpundit has his up as does Scott Elliott of Election Projection, as no doubt does every other political blogger under the sun.

On the Democratic side, it doesn't seem like either Obama or Hillary will grab enough delegates to land a knockout punch. Advantage: Obama. This final blow to Hillary's seeming inevitability from earlier in the campaign means that it may be a true free-for-all after all of tonight's delegates are awarded. My prediction? No clear winner.

John McCain, despite being only slightly more conservative than Hillary, looks to pull decisively ahead in the race for the Republican nomination unless Mitt Romney stages some surprising comebacks... and frankly, I don't see that happening. McCain won't win enough delegates tonight to clinch the nomination, but he might pull enough that Romney (sorry, Hugh) and Huckabee concede the nomination in coming days. Advantage: Obama.

We're a long way from November, but if current trends continue this is going to get ugly for Republicans. For conservatives, with no candidates in the hunt at all, we've already lost.

AFP: Something Old is New Again

Agence France-Presse (AFP) the oldest news agency in the world and the largest French news agency, has been caught recycling two-year-old Congressional subcommittee testimony as current news.

On Sunday, AFP released an article, "US Qaeda strategy fatally flawed; analysts," which opened:

In its ideological struggle against Al-Qaeda, American anti-terrorist strategy too often overlooks the basic tenets of the infamous Chinese warlord Sun Tzu, namely: know your enemy.

That is the fixed view of leading analysts, who conclude that through ignorance of the enemy it faces, ignorance of its nature, its goals, its strengths and its weaknesses, the United States is condemned to failure.

"The attention of the US military and intelligence community is directed almost uniformly towards hunting down militant leaders or protecting US forces, (and) not towards understanding the enemy we now face," said Bruce Hoffman, a professor at Georgetown University, Washington DC.

"This is a monumental failing not only because decapitation strategies have rarely worked in countering mass-mobilisation terrorist or insurgent campaigns, but also because Al-Qaeda's ability to continue this struggle is based absolutely on its capacity to attract new recruits and replenish its resources.

"Without knowing our enemy, we cannot fulfill the most basic requirements of an effective counter-terrorist strategy: pre-empting and preventing terrorist operations and deterring their attacks," Hoffman added.

What AFP neglected to mention is that the quotes from Professor Hoffman were issued in written testimony to The House Armed Services Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities in February of 2006. The testimony can be found in a PDF document published at the RAND Corporation web site on page 5 and a "dowdified" quote from the bottom of page 5 and the top of page 6.

This written testimony was issued eleven months before President Bush proposed the "surge" of American troops into Iraq, almost eleven months before General David Petraeus was confirmed as the new Commanding General, Multi-National Force - Iraq, and a full year prior to the beginning of the buildup of American forces beginning in February of 2007 as part of the new Strategy for Iraq.

The AFP article, written in present tense, in no way indicated that it was citing obsolete information as current news.

The information is so obsolete as to render the article itself as fraudulent in nature. Agence France-Presse should immediately retract this article, and explain how such "journalism" ever made it to press.

Thanks to CY reader Cameron Gilchrist for the tip.

Update: I updated with the correct page numbers from the RAND PDF. I had originally pulled the page numbers 21 and 22 from this version of the testimony.

How the Mighty Have Fallen

Two suicide attacks on pet markets in Baghdad today have left approximately 100 killed and twice as many wounded. Both attacks used women "with Down's syndrome" according the the Daily Mail and less specifically, they were described as "mentally disabled" according to CNN.

Both bombs appear to have been remote detonated. These women probably did not know they were carrying explosives at all, and it would probably be fair to include them among the victims.

The ever-objective, ever-unbiased New York Times saw fit to exclude the horrific detail of their alleged mental disabilities from their reporting of the day's massacre. It might upset their readers, and cause some confusion over who the real enemy in Iraq is (George Bush).

With tedious predictability, bloggers on the political left jumped with self-satisfaction at the opportunity to write about the attack, "proof" in their eyes, at last, that the "surge" of American forces into Iraq, which they so reviled, was a (blessed) failure.

Kevin Hayden wrote mockingly at the American Street:

How’s your surge, Mr. Oil Crony president?

It's not working so hot for Iraqis.

But Exxon seems to think it's peachy. I wonder if they plan to send flowers and a thank you note to the families of the 3943 US troops who died to make Exxon richer than 2/3rds of the planet's countries.

How many troops per gallon does your car get?

His deep and abiding concern for the men, women, and children killed in the attack, and those injured, must have been saved for a later post.

At Newshoggers, Libby was quick to jump to the occasion to declare the war lost:

I've never understood how people were lulled into thinking the surge really succeeded in establishing security in Iraq. It seemed rather apparent, even to my under-schooled eyes, that the surge was a gimmick. It reminded me of those bait and switch promotions that unscrupulous retailers used to engage in. The surge raised the violence to greater levels and then lowered the numbers with artificial manipulatons [sic] to a level that had been judged unacceptable when the surge began. But all that too many Americans seemed to notice was that the levels dropped. For some reson[sic], the relative metrics just didn't register.

The surge, you see (like spell-check) is a gimmick in Libby's eyes, and the very real drop in attacks and casualties around Iraq because of the application of COIN doctrine is just the result of artificial "manipulatons," whatever they may be.

Both, of course, miss the larger picture in their desire, their need to prove their worldview right. But she is right in one regard... she is "under-schooled" in how this war is being fought, and why it is being won.

These attacks today are not the first time al Qaeda in Iraq has stooped to using female suicide bombers. They have been used several times, including twice earlier this month in Diyala.

This tells us several things.

First, it tells us that al Qaeda in Iraq recognizes that attempts to use male suicide bombers and vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices (VBIEDs), their preferred method of suicide attacks for those seeking martyrdom, are no longer effective. These attacks fail because the combination of coalition military forces, Iraqi security forces, and neighborhood militias, known as "concerned local citizens" (CLCs) creating a security system that increasingly works, and makes it very unlikely that these preferred attacks will succeed. There is also some speculation that the influx of would-be foreign suicide bombers into Iraq is drying up.

Today's attacks also tell us that al Qaeda in Iraq is getting very desperate in seeking the high-casualty attacks that they so value. They were forced to scrape the bottom of the proverbial barrel, and use not only women (which they'd prefer to subjugate), but mentally disabled women at that, suggesting that finding willing volunteers is becoming ever more difficult.

These attacks today serve to show that al Qaeda in Iraq is not quite finished, but then, that is something we already knew. What is does show us is just how desperate they are to retain relevance in a war that is going very badly for them.

Far from today's attacks being a sign of the "surge" in Iraq failing, the extraordinary lengths al Qaeda was forced to take to carry out these attacks show that the "surge" and the COIN doctrine implemented by General Petraeus are working precisely as we'd hoped.

Update: The NY Times has updated the original article to now include a contribution from Mudhafer al-Husaini. It now includes commentary about the mental disability of the suicide bombers... buried 15 paragraphs into the now much longer story.

IHT still has up an original version of this story as it ran earlier, which I've copied into the comments as well.

Looking for Advice On a Carry Gun

This Sunday, while the vast majority of my fellow Americans will be preparing to watch the New York Giants get obliterated by the New England Patriots in the Super Bowl (and for the record, I'm pulling for the Giants...sorry Eli, it's going to be a long day), I'll be taking the concealed carry class required to obtain my concealed carry permit here in North Carolina.

I'll most likely be shooting either my own M1911-A1 .45ACP clone to qualify during the shooting qualification portion of the class, or perhaps my brother's Springfield Armory XD Compact 9mm. My other brother will be shooting his Glock 23 .40S&W, and my Dad will be qualifying with his Ruger, also in .40S&W.

Once the class is over (anticipating I pass... and I expect to), the next step it to apply for the permit. Between 30-90 days after that, if all goes well, I should have my North Carolina-issued concealed carry permit, which is good in 30 other states (PDF) thanks to reciprocity agreements.

But what to carry?

My steel-framed, 5"-barreled 1911 is a great gun, but at over 40 ounces loaded, I don't want to try to lug it around all day, and the fact it is a full-size service pistol makes it a tiny bit difficult to conceal on my rather thin frame (I'm 6'3" 165 lbs). I am, in short, looking for a dedicated carry gun.

I've immediately ruled out pocket pistols, both ultra-tiny semi-autos and revolvers chambered in .17, .22, .25, .32 and .380. While small handguns such as a Beretta Bobcat or the entire line-up from North American Arms are very easily concealed, they are difficult to shoot well due to small grips and tiny sights. Combine that with questionable stopping power, and I'm just not interested.

After doing some online research, shooting a bit, and talking with both some owners and gun shop folks, I've decided on the following criteria:

• either 9mm or .40 S&W caliber in a pistol, or .357 Magnum or .44 Special in a revolver.
• less than 30oz in weight, but more than "airweight."
decent grip size—I hate "pinky dangle."
• good sight picture.
• under $500.

I'll also betray a preference for semi-auto pistols over revolvers, predominately because that is what I'm used to shooting, but also because they are typically easier/faster to reload.

That said, here are the contenders I have so far.

Springfield Armory XD Subcompact Pistol

My middle brother bought one of these several months ago in 9mm, and I like the way it shot. There was a bit of pink dangle due to the short grip on the 10-round magazine, but with the extension on the 16-round magazine, it fit my hand very well. I also like the cost of the 9mm FMJ practice ammo, which is much cheaper than my current .45.

Taurus 617 .357 Magnum Revolver

I like the fact that with a .357 Magnum, you can practice with .38 Special ammunition, but still have the stopping power of a Magnum. The only downsides are that it is thicker through the cylinder than most semi-autos, and it is going to slower to reload. Oh... and it's a seven-shot.

Taurus Millennium Pro Pistol

Compact and light, it has a lot of the favorable features I'm looking for, but I've heard mixed results about reliability.

Charter Arms .44 Special Bulldog

Less powerful than the .357 Magnum, it still makes a .44 caliber hole. Other than that, I don't know much about it.

CZ 2075 Rami Pistol

The only alloy-framed semi-auto on my list, it's big brother, the CZ-75, has a sterling reputation. My local dealer carries one, and he's quite high on his.

Kahr CW Series Pistol

The "Pontiac" of the Kahr Arms family, and as such, their entry into the less-pricey end of the CCW market. The downside? Only a 6,000 round frame.

So that's what I'm looking at right now. For those of you gun nuts out there, based upon my criteria, which would you choose... or would you suggest something else entirely?