Massive Ammo Cache Found In Kirkuk

Via Central Command:

Iraqi and U.S. forces have removed more than 4,200 mortar rounds from a major weapons cache found outside of an abandoned military base near the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk Sunday.

The buried rounds were discovered by Iraqi Soldiers Sunday morning. The Soldiers removed about 800 mortar rounds before realizing that the cache was much larger than they originally thought. U.S. Soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team were called in to help excavate the munitions and secure the area.

The ammunition was buried under concrete blocks with dirt mounded on top. All of the ammunition removed so far has come from one mound located in a field full of similar mounds. The explosives ordnance disposal team at the site expects to find more rounds as the search expands throughout the field.

I'll be interested to see if the shells are all conventional munitions in nature, or if perhaps there is something potentially more interesting in the mix.

Defending the Long Gray Line

Blogger John in Carolina has been pressing NY Times public editor Byron Calame for a retraction for false claims made by Lucian Truscott IV attacking the United States Military Academy at West Point and the Cadet Corpsin an Op-Ed, "The Not-So-Long Gray Line.''

In the Op-Ed (now hidden behind the Wall of Irrelevance known as Times Select) Truscott IV claims:

There was a time when the Army did not have a problem retaining young leaders - men like Dwight Eisenhower, George Patton, George Marshall, Omar Bradley and my grandfather, Lucian K. Truscott Jr. Having endured the horrors of World War I trenches, these men did not run headlong out of the Army in the 1920's and 30's when nobody wanted to think of the military, much less pay for it. They had made a pact with each other and with their country, and all sides were going to keep it.

There was only one problem with Truscott IV's claim as noted by John in Carolina:

Eisenhower, Bradley and Truscott never served overseas during WWI; Marshall was in France as a staff officer; and only Patton saw combat. I don't know of any historian who's ever claimed the five future generals made any sort of pact with each other.

Faced with this easily verifiable falsehood, you would think that the Public Editor would print a retraction.

You would be wrong. John is now asking for your advice.

I'd start by first reading both posts linked above, and then drop Byron Calame a note.

Lying should not be called "figurative language," even in the New York Times.

2005 Weblog Awards

Finalists will be announced and voting will begin tomorrow, December 1, 2005.

Beware the Fordjahadeen!

Nancy Pelosi must be putting her finishing touches on her speech declaring that we should unilaterally withdraw from Detroit.

Harry Reid's Intelligence Problem

I'm sure you've heard about this story:

Nevada Senator Harry Reid thinks Osama Bin Laden was killed in last month's earthquake in Pakistan.

Speaking Wednesday on News 4's Nevada News Makers, Reid says he was informed today that Bin Laden may have died in the October temblor.

"I heard today that he may have died in the earthquake that they had in Pakistan, seriously." Reid says that if that is the case, "that's good for the world."

Is Harry Reid is basing his comments on pure speculation? He wouldn't be the first if so, but that isn't what he said.

He stated, "I heard today that he may have died..."

If Senator Reid's source is from the intelligence community and was given to him in his role as a Senator, his intelligence clearance should be reviewed. If (and only if) he is guilty of providing national security informaiton to the press, Senator Reid should not only lose his clearance, but lose his Senate seat and possibly face criminal charges.

More at PJM.

They Can't Stand The Competition

The L.A. Times just cannot stand the fact that another news organization might push a myopic one-sided view of the War on Terror... at least one that conflicts with their own, myopic one-sided view, that is.

Jeff Goldstein responds as well as I ever could, so go read it over there.

Because They Care So Much...

MoveOn.org cares so much about America troops that they...

wait for it...

can't even identify American troops.

But hey, they're getting better. This was actually their third attempt.

They originally tried this one:

This was their second choice:

Better luck next time, losers.

Light-headed

Ahmadinejad saw a bright light, alright...Zzzap!

Ahmadinejad said that someone present at the UN told him that a light surrounded him while he was delivering his speech to the General Assembly. The Iranian president added that he also sensed it.

"He said when you began with the words 'in the name of God,' I saw that you became surrounded by a light until the end [of the speech]," Ahmadinejad appears to say in the video. "I felt it myself, too. I felt that all of a sudden the atmosphere changed there, and for 27-28 minutes all the leaders did not blink."

Ahmadinejad adds that he is not exaggerating.

"I am not exaggerating when I say they did not blink; it's not an exaggeration, because I was looking," he says. "They were astonished as if a hand held them there and made them sit. It had opened their eyes and ears for the message of the Islamic Republic."

Baztab.com reported that during the meeting, Ayatollah Amoli said that "carrying out promises and restraining from fooling people" is the most important duty, presumably of officials . However, it is unclear whether that comment is made in reaction to the claim made by Ahmadinejad.

Critics And Skeptics
Iranian legislator Akbar Alami has questioned Ahmadinejad's apparent claims, saying that even Islam's holiest figures have never made such claims.

I'd suspect that Ahmadinejad's chances of dying a natural death just decreased tremendously...

Richard Cohen's Alternate Reality

In Tuesday's Washington Post, columnist Richard Cohen pens a column entitled More Than a 'Mistake' on Iraq that is not only incorrect, but bordering on delusional.

Cohen states:

A line is forming outside the Iraq confessional. It consists of Democratic presidential aspirants -- where's Hillary? -- who voted for the war in Iraq and now concede that they made a "mistake." Former senator John Edwards did that Nov. 13 in a Post op-ed article, and Sen. Joseph Biden uttered the "M" word Sunday on "Meet the Press." "It was a mistake," said Biden. "It was a mistake," wrote Edwards. Yes and yes, says Cohen. But it is also a mistake to call it a mistake.

Both senators have a point, of course. They were told by the president and members of his War Cabinet -- Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld -- that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. In particular, those three emphasized Iraq's purported nuclear weapons program. As late as August 2003, Condoleezza Rice was saying that she was "certain to this day that this regime was a threat, that it was pursuing a nuclear weapon, that it had biological and chemical weapons, that it had used them." To be charitable, she didn't know what she was talking about. [emphasis mine]

In denying that Saddam Hussein's Iraq had in the past pursued a nuclear weapons program, or that it had biological and chemical weapons and had used them, Richard Cohen shows that he is under the influence of the H5N1 strain of Bush Derangement Syndrome, and his grasp of reality is tenuous at best.

The U.K's Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction (PDF), otherwise known as the Butler Report, stated that :

a. It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999.

b. The British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger's exports, the intelligence was credible.

c. The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium, and the British government did not claim this.

The British government stands behind this information to this day, which pre-dates Joe Wilson's trip to Niger.

On January 1, 2003, The Telegraph reported:

United Nations weapons inspectors have uncovered evidence that proves Saddam Hussein is trying to develop an arsenal of nuclear weapons, The Telegraph can reveal. The discovery was made following spot checks last week on the homes of two Iraqi nuclear physicists in Baghdad.

Acting on information provided by Western intelligence, the UN inspection teams discovered a number of documents proving that Saddam is continuing with his attempts to develop nuclear weapons, contrary to his public declarations that Iraq is no longer interested in producing weapons of mass destruction.

Or perhaps Cohen should read Saddam, the Bomb and Me, from Mahdi Obedei, one of Saddam's nuclear scientists, in the New York Times:

Was Iraq a potential threat to the United States and the world? Threat is always a matter of perception, but our nuclear program could have been reinstituted at the snap of Saddam Hussein's fingers. The sanctions and the lucrative oil-for-food program had served as powerful deterrents, but world events - like Iran's current efforts to step up its nuclear ambitions - might well have changed the situation.

Iraqi scientists had the knowledge and the designs needed to jumpstart the program if necessary. And there is no question that we could have done so very quickly. In the late 1980's, we put together the most efficient covert nuclear program the world has ever seen. In about three years, we gained the ability to enrich uranium and nearly become a nuclear threat; we built an effective centrifuge from scratch, even though we started with no knowledge of centrifuge technology. Had Saddam Hussein ordered it and the world looked the other way, we might have shaved months if not years off our previous efforts.

The use of chemical weapons in the 1980-Iran Iraq War was well known:

The war was clearly going against Iraq by 1983, when Hussein ordered the use of chemical weapons against Iran. The first of 10 documented chemical attacks in the war was in August 1983 and caused hundreds of casualties, according to CIA sources. The largest documented attack was a February 1986 strike against al-Faw, where mustard gas and tabun may have affected up to 10,000 Iranians.

To this day, no one really knows how many other Iraqi chemical attacks went undocumented or how many Iranians died in them. Iranians call the survivors of the attacks "living martyrs," and the government in Tehran estimates that more than 60,000 soldiers were exposed to mustard gas and the nerve agents sarin and tabun.

The use of chemical weapons against Iraqi civilians was equally infamous.

For Richard Cohen to claim that administration officials "didn't know" what they were talking about when they stated Saddam "had biological and chemical weapons, that it had used them," is to rewrite history, severing all ties with reality and credibility.

Questioning the Unlikely

Nine days have passed since the first excited rumors surfaced that al Qaeda in Iraq leader Musab al Zarqawi may have died in a dawn raid in Mosul November 19. Shortly thereafter, remains were sent for DNA tests, and it was said that was "highly unlikely" that al-Zarqawi was among the dead.

That was over a week ago, and "highly unlikely" is still all we have from official sources.

But what is "likely?"

It is likely that a conclusive DNA test can be performed in five days or less from commercial sources, and it is probable that samples with as high a priority as al Zarqawi's would be determined before then.

It is perhaps likely that in the event of al Zarqawi's sudden termination, that U.S forces would intentionally keep quite about his death for a period of time, as the uncertainty in the chain of command could cause terrorists to make mistakes that might expose them.

It is highly unlikely that Abu Musab al Zarqawi is dead... but it isn't impossible, and nor is it highly unlikely that his death would be played out with not-quite confirmations and partial denials lasting as long as feasibly possible.

Corrupt Scum

I knew Marion didn't raise that boy properly, but I never thought he'd take $2.4 million in bribes.

Sound and Fury, Pleasing No Juan

President Bush gave an immigration-related speech today at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson, Arizona today, promising...

Nothing.

Bush, via Bloomberg:

"Together with Congress we are going to create a temporary worker program that is going to take pressure off the borders, bring workers out of the shadows,'' Bush told border patrol agents today at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson, Arizona. ``People in this debate must recognize that we will not be able to effectively enforce our immigration laws until we create a temporary worker program."

No, Mr. President. You could not be more wrong.

We will not be able to effectively enforce our immigration laws until we have leaders serious about protecting our borders, Mr. Bush, and you have not shown yourself to be serious in this task.

This proposal is nothing but a smoke screen, one that does not in any serious way address the problems of stopping the illegal cross-border traffic of illegal aliens, drugs and suspected terrorists.

Mr. Bush's guest worker program is laughable; my farcical Punjis for Peace program involving bamboo pit traps is far more likely to succeed.

If you do not care about border security, Mr. Bush, at least have the courage to say so. Do not patronize me with empty words.

The Lies of Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre, Part 3

Previous:
The Lies of Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre, Part 1
The Lies of Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre, Part 2

False claims are a constant in Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre.

In Part 1 of the series we show that Sigfrido Ranucci's film lies about a napalm attack in the Vietnamese village of Trang Bang in 1972. Despite the fact that this infamous incident was immortalized on film in photographer Huynh Cong "Nick" Ut's 1973 Pulitzer Prize winning photo, it didn't keep Rannuci from trying to blame a South Vietnamese Air Force mistake on Americans. Ranucci's film lied.

In Part 2 of the series we show that Ranucci's film lies about, "A rain of fire shot from U.S. helicopters on the city of Fallujah." But Ranucci's film does not show so much as one helicopter, and Ranucci's "rain of fire" was nothing more than two white phosphorus shell bursts along with one high explosive shell and three magnesium flares. Ranucci's film lied.

And Ranucci's film continues to lie again and again and again.

This time, we'll examine the bodies the "white phosphorus victims" of Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre.

White Phosphorus Pathology
Forensic Pathology is a branch of medical science concerned with analyzing medical evidence for crimes. When applied to the battlefield, forensic pathology can determine if certain wounds are consistent with different kinds of weapons.

In Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre, Sigfrido Ranucci's film shows in excess of 20 bodies his film claims were killed by the use of white phosphorus munitions in the assault on Fallujah, Iraq, in November of 2004.

But what are the characteristics of white phosphorus weapons?

To answer this question I turn to former Marine Grant Holcomb. While a Captain and the Operations Officer for 2d Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment from August 1990 to April 1991, Holcomb's unit conducted a minefield breach in Operation Desert Storm. He is an honor's graduate of the U.S. Marine Corps Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Warfare Defense School.

He states:

WP catches fire spontaneously in air, burning with a white flame and producing clouds of white smoke - a mixture of phosphorus(III) oxide and phosphorus(V) oxide. The proportions of these depend on the amount of oxygen available. In an excess of oxygen, the product will be almost entirely phosphorus(V) oxide.

When integrated as part of a projectile, the weapon effect is derived from a chemical reaction. However, a WP based weapon is not a chemical weapon.

If a piece of WP hits clothes, it will burn through it. If WP hits skin it will burn deeply in to the flesh and cannot be put out by covering it or splashing it with water. Marines are told to cut burning WP particles out with a knife. It does not "splash" like a liquid and will subsequently leave very distinctive scars. There is absolutely no mistaking a WP burn. [my bold]

So white phosphorus leaves distinctive burns that easily burn though clothing and go deeply into the flesh.

But Where Are The White Phosphorus Burns?
As stated earlier, Sigfrido Ranucci's film Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre, shows in excess of 20 bodies his film claims were killed by the use of white phosphorus munitions in the assault on Fallujah, Iraq, in November of 2004.

We will now make a brief examination of screen captures of 19 bodies captured from the low quality film to determine if any deep, distinctive burns are present on any of the bodies. As Confederate Yankee strives to be a work-safe blog, I will provide a link to the picture being discussed instead of embedding the image. The time of the still image capture from the film is included should you want to make your own analysis from other, perhaps higher quality versions of the film.

Examining the Dead
Body 1. 8:35 An upper torso of a military-aged male. There are no apparent burn marks on the remains, but the fact that these are only partial remains would indicate that white phosphorus, a non-explosive, is not his cause of death.

Body 2. 9:34 Extremely decomposed remains, cause of death undetermined. Note, however the film datestamp: 18.11.2004. The assault on Fallujah began November 9, 2004. This image, along with most of the images captured, were filmed nine days after the assault began.

Body 3. 9:38 Extremely decomposed remains, cause of death undetermined. No apparent burn marks on the body or clothes.

Body 4. 9:40 Partially decomposed remains of what appears to be a male. No burn marks viable on head or torso, flesh or clothes. Once again, captured with a datestamp of 18.11.2004.

Body 5. 9:53 Extremely decomposed, apparently mummified body, sex indeterminate, but probably male. Again, no burn marks.

Body 6. 10:00 More partially decomposed remains of an apparent military-aged male, without any signs of burn marks on the body or on the clothing. These is a very large wound to the skull above and behind the left eye, and much of the skull is missing, consistent with a bullet wound. This is in direct contradiction the claim of the narrator just six seconds before when he said, "There are no signs of bullet wounds."

Body 7. 10:07 Badly decomposed body of insurgent still wearing AK-47 magazine pouches. No apparent burns of any sort on bodies or clothes.

Body 8. 10:09 Another badly decomposed insurgent still wearing ammunition pouches and maybe body armor or a load bearing vest. No signs of burns on light-colored fabric (probably canvas) web gear which would have clearly shown burn marks if there were any to be found.

Body 9. 12:10 Video provided by Sunni biologist where he claims a female was killed by white phosphorus that passed through her clothes (including a full veil) without touching it, but miraculously melted her face. Fully-clothed body without any burn marks conclusively proves this claim of white phosphorus patently false.

Body 10. 12:25 More still photo evidence provided by the suspect Sunni biologist. A military aged-male, moderately decomposed. No signs of burns on clothing, possible wounds of some sort to the right side of the head, but angle of photo doesn't allow us to speculate what the cause of death was.

Body 11. 12:28 Military aged male, moderately decomposed. no evidence of burns on flesh or clothing that appears to be desert camouflage jacket. Top left of skull apparently missing, consistent with bullet wound.

Body 12. 12:36 A sad victim. Infant male, recently deceased. No signs of burns on clothes or skin. Film appears inconsistent with other footage, possibly spliced in.

Body 13. 12:38 Extremely decomposed remains. Clothing suggests female. Again, no signs of burns on clothing or skin. Extreme nature of decomposition and dirt covering the entire surface of the body would make me think this was a female killed prior to the battle and buried, possibly by al Qaeda/insurgency elements for a "crime" as simple as wearing such a low-cut blouse. This of course is pure speculation, but very consistent with civilian accounts of al Qaeda activity within Fallujah in the months prior to the assault.

Body 14. 12:51 Moderately decomposed military-aged male in light-colored short-sleeved tunic. Lower torso and legs may be missing. No signs of burns on skin or clothing, though blood is evident near lower torso.

Body 15. 13:00 Military-aged male. Heavily decomposed. No signs of burns on body or clothing. Dark stain on upper left quadrant of torso could be blood.

Body 16. 13:31 Extremely decomposed body. Much of the right side of the skull missing and teeming with maggots.

Body 17. 19:01 A skeleton covered in ragged clothing. No muscle, ligament, or tendons visible. Subject was likely deceased long in advance of assault on Fallujah, perhaps measured in years.

Body 18. 19:40 Military-aged male, moderately decomposed. No sign of burns on face or clothes.

Body 19 19:42 Same photo of Body 13, shown again.

Conclusions
There were no signs of burn marks (white phosphorus or otherwise) on any of the bodies in any of the photos that Ranucci presents as evidence in his film. Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of the dead shown were military-aged men, suggesting that these men were likely part of the insurgency, and not civilians. Military gear and military style clothing evident on several of the bodies lends some credence to this theory.

In addition, some of the dead seem to be in extremely advanced stages of decomposition, suggesting death took place prior to the U.S. assault on Fallujah.

Chemical Weapon?
Claims were made throughout the film that white phosphorus was a poison gas, and that it could readily pass through clothing to burn the skin beneath it. Again, I turn to the expertise of U.S. Marine Corps Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Warfare Defense School graduate Grant Holcomb:

Over a 15 year period, I used WP grenades (white smoke signal) and WP mortar and artillery rounds in virtually every live fire training exercise. The thick bright white smoke generated by the WP chemical reaction with air is used to conceal your location as you move toward an enemy position or as a marker for observers and pilots to designate targets for other weapon systems.

I have personally breathed in the WP white smoke numerous times. It is unavoidable as you move through the battlefield where it is deployed. The smoke does not even make you cough. Clothing exposed to the smoke leaves no noticeable smell. The smoke does not irritate the skin, eyes, or lungs.

If WP smoke presented any hazard, you can trust that the innumerable liberals in California would not allow Marines to use it on training ranges where the white smoke blows into wealthy neighborhoods (Camp Pendleton, California).

Chris Milroy, professor of forensic pathology at the University of Sheffield (England), came to the following conclusions when asked to watch the film for George Monbiot of the British newspaper The Guardian:

He reported that "nothing indicates to me that the bodies have been burnt". They had turned black and lost their skin "through decomposition".

We know that people died in the assault on Fallujah, and that was never in doubt. It is also a sad fact that some civilians died during the assault, even though probably more died at the hands of the insurgency in almost two dozen insurgent-run torture cells before the assault began.

Another thing we know is that white phosphorus does not act the way Ranucci's film claims nor does he show any credible evidence that white phosphorus contributed to the dead and injured he showed in his film.

Sigfrido Ranucci's film Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre, is a living lie, easily disproven. Ranucci isn't the only liar in this film however; he had willing accomplices.

We'll discuss some of them in far more detail before we've concluded The Lies of Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre.

Update: The Signaleer has graphic evidence of the difference between WP burns and those dead shown in Ranuccis' fraudulent film.

Yippie-Ki-Yay, Mother Sheehan

The Washington Post is the gift that just keeps on giving today, with the post Sympathetic Vibrations telling us what we already; liberals are bad for the morale of our soldiers, and the vast majority of Americans know it:

Democrats fumed last week at Vice President Cheney's suggestion that criticism of the administration's war policies was itself becoming a hindrance to the war effort. But a new poll indicates most Americans are sympathetic to Cheney's point.

Seventy percent of people surveyed said that criticism of the war by Democratic senators hurts troop morale -- with 44 percent saying morale is hurt "a lot," according to a poll taken by RT Strategies. Even self-identified Democrats agree: 55 percent believe criticism hurts morale, while 21 percent say it helps morale.

It gets worse for the Party of No:

Just three of 10 adults accept that Democrats are leveling criticism because they believe this will help U.S. efforts in Iraq. A majority believes the motive is really to "gain a partisan political advantage."

Roger Simon notices this shift, and also notices action star Bruce Willis is making a movie based upon Michael Yon's chronicaling of Deuce Four, First Battalion, 24th Infantry. My money is on Willis to personally play Deuce Four commander LTC Erik Kurilla.

When this pro-democracy, pro-military film comes out, opinions on the war will continue to swing back towards supporting our troops, and the liberal special interest groups and politicians that tried to undermine the War on Terror will be hoisted on their cowardly petards.

The DNC better hope that Willis doesn' get his movie out before the 2006 elections. If he does, the Democrats will be in for a world of hurt they assuredly deserve.

Ms. Lonely

Cindy Sheehan waits for people at her book signing near the president's ranch in Crawford, Tex., where she spoke to a crowd of about 100 people. Source

Via the Washington Post:

As in August, when she galvanized attention and made headlines for days with similar protests, there were songs and speeches and demonstrators holding signs reading "Bring the Troops Home" near the main entrance of the 1,600-acre ranch where Bush has been vacationing since Tuesday.

Unlike then, when hundreds came from all over the country for major events at the two campsites named after Sheehan's son, who was killed in Iraq, Sheehan found herself addressing a crowd of only about 100 Saturday afternoon. The large tent where supporters had erected a stage hung with the banner "Speak Truth to Power" was only partially full. In the morning Sheehan signed copies of her new book, being published this week, for an even smaller crowd.

Cindy Sheehan's cancerous celebrity had been built up around her belief that her son Casey Sheehan, an American soldier, "died for nothing." Cynical left wing political activists and the media immediately gravitated to her, and began distorting the war, comparing it to Vietnam. But Iraq is not Vietnam.

In fact, Iraq is the reverse-Vietnam, and Mother Sheehan will become even more lonely as the public becomes aware of her constant, America-hating lies.

Ranter Admits to Liberal Lies About Iraq War Support

Its long been an open secret, but at least one liberal is coming clean about their two-faced positions on supporting the troops in Iraq.

Via Newsbusters.org:

It was a classic "gotcha" moment.

Ellen Ratner, the short, liberal side of The Long & the Short of It on Fox & Friends Weekend, just let the liberal cat out of the bag. Discussing the Democrats' approach to Iraq withdrawal proposals, Ratner admitted:

"If you got [Dem leaders] in a room off camera everyone agrees, but people are trying to look tough on security so the Democrats can win the House back in 2006."

Jim Pinkerton, the long, conservative side of the equation, pounced on this rare bit of Dem candor:

"Viewers should note that Ellen basically said that Democrats will think one thing and say another."

Uh, duh...

Manufacturing a Gun Crisis with the Associated Press

Read this article, and you'd get the impression that there is a tank-killing, airplane-destroying rifle being bought by drug dealers, survivalists, and terrorists en masse.

It is too bad that almost all of what they write is inaccurate hyperbole.

For example:

When U.S. soldiers need to penetrate a tank's armor from a mile away, they count on a weapon that evolved from the garage tinkering of a former wedding photographer.

There is not a single tank made since early in World War Two that could be penetrated by an armor-piercing bullet from a .50 BMG. Not one. Only unarmored vehicles (which can be penetrated by literally any rifle, including a .22) and lightly-armored personnel carriers are threatened by .50 BMG rounds.

The .50-caliber rifle created by Ronnie Barrett and sold by his company, Barrett Firearms Manufacturing Inc., is the most powerful firearm civilians can buy.

Not quite accurate. While the 50. BMG is currently the most powerful centerfire rifle cartridge in wide distribution*, Barrett is far from being the only manufacturer making these rifles. They are offered by Accuracy International, Anzio Ironworks, Armalite, and more than a dozen other rifle manufacturers.

It weighs about 30 pounds and can hit targets up to 2,000 yards away with armor-piercing bullets.

This is accurate, though finding an area where you can see a target 2,000 yards away is somewhat problematic.

That kind of power has drawn a customer base of gun enthusiasts, Hollywood actors and Barrett's most loyal buyer, the U.S. military, which has been buying Barrett's rifles since the 1980s and using them in combat from the 1991 Gulf War to the present.

Also true.

But the powerful gun has drawn plenty of critics, who say the rifle could be used by terrorists to bring down commercial airliners or penetrate rail cars and storage plants holding hazardous materials.

This rifle has drawn plenty of ignorant critics, including, apparently, the Associated Press. A .50 rifle is less likely to bring down a commercial airliner than any other kind of rifle. Why?

The vast majority of .50 BMG rifles are single-shot weapons. The odds of hitting an airplane moving several hundred miles an hour with a single bullet from a 30-pound, handheld or bipod-mounted weapon are extremely remote, and the odds of a single half-inch wide bullet hitting anything of significance on an airborne aircraft verges on the impossible. (Publicola explains in exquisite detail why shooting an aircraft at range with a .50 BMG is highly improbable.)

Rail cars and storage tanks are a legitimate target for a .50 BMG rifle, but it is far easier to acquire or manufacture explosives that would cause far more damage to the targeted structure.

Tom Diaz, a senior policy analyst with the Washington-based Violence Policy Center, says the guns should be more regulated and harder to purchase.

The gun can now be bought by anyone 18 or older who passes a background check.

"They're (.50 caliber) easier to buy than a handgun," Diaz said. "These are ideal weapons of terrorist attack. Very dangerous elements gravitate toward these weapons."

Mr. Diaz, of course, is guilty of extreme hyperbole. .50 BMG-chambered weapons are not "easier to buy than a handgun" except in his fevered imagination.

The Barrett M82 pictured in the MSNBC-version of this Associated Press article retails for $7,500. Most single shot .50 BMG rifles range from $2,600 upwards. For this reason, no national sporting good stores carry this caliber of firearm, nor its ammunition, which costs $3-$5 per cartridge. It is prohibitively expensive for all but the most affluent customers. Only a tiny fraction of gun shops across the nation stock such a firearm, whereas almost all typically stock dozens to hundreds of pistols.

If 50 BMG rifles are the "ideal weapons of terrorist attack," then why hasn't a .50 rifle ever been used in a terror attack anywhere in the world? Not once have I ever heard of an incident reported where a .50 BMG rifle was used in a terror attack, not can I find any evidence of such an attack.

Nor can I find any evidence that "dangerous elements" gravitate towards such a weapon. More people have walked on water than have been assaulted with a .50 BMG rifle.

Mr. Diaz's hyperbole verges on being a bald-faced lie.

The guns are used by most civilians for hunting big game and in marksmanship competitions.

I'd be very interested to see who the Associated Press find who uses such a weapon for hunting. At roughly 30 lbs and five feet, these rifles are far too impractical for hunting purposes based upon size and weight alone. They are simply too heavy to carry afield. In addition, the .50 cartridge is not useful as a hunting round, being vastly overgunned for every big game animal on the planet.

Long-range target shooting with .50 BMG rifles, on the other hand is rapidly growing in popularity, as the existence and growing membership of the FCSA and .50 BMG-capable target ranges proves.

Joseph King, a terrorism expert at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, said terrorists could use the weapon to take out a plane.

"I don't understand what good a .50-caliber is going to do you," King said. "I don't understand any civilian use of it. The only thing it's good for is for military or police application. You can't really hunt with it because it would destroy most of the meat."

This has been previously addressed. .50 BMG rifles are very unlikely to successful carry out an attack against an aircraft. While Mr. Jay may claim terrorism expertise, he seems to have gathered his firearms and aeronautical knowledge from Hollywood.

"I don't understand what good" is not a valid legal argument in this country. While not understanding a good use for something might be a reason to outlaw everything from foosball tables to the Wonderbra for Mr. King, his potential fear of Wonderbras and guns doesn't have to ruin the enjoyment of such products for everyone else.

Barrett and gun advocates say the gun's power has been exaggerated and doesn't pose a threat to citizens because the weapons are too expensive and heavy to be used by criminals.

As I've been saying...

The heavy recoil of the Browning made it nearly impossible to shoot without it being mounted on a turret, but Barrett's rifle reduces recoil to the point where it can be shoulder-fired, while the weapon rests on a bipod.

Actually, the 84-pound weight of the M2 Browning all but negated recoil, but made sturdy mounts necessary.

There are enough things in this world to worry about in this world without the Associated Press manufacturing hysterics. Don't you agree?

* The .50 BMG is not the most powerful machine gun cartridge available in a rifle as the Associated Press claims. There are at least three rifle cartridges that have more power. The 12.7mm Russian cartridge uses the same .50 bullet, but has a case length 9mm longer, and therefore can hold more powder (producing more energy, range, and penetration) than the .50 BMG.

The 14.5mm Russian and 14.5 JDJ, while made in smaller numbers and requiring a destructive device exemption, both fire a bullet substantially larger than the .50 BMG, and the 14.5 Russian cartridge generates nearly twice the muzzle energy.

Update As a former member of the British Army's Queen's Own Highlanders reminds me in the comments, A Barrett Light 50 was used by an IRA sniper team between 1992-97, and killed 11 members of the security forces during that time period with single shot attacks.

I would agree with Dave T. that these IRA sniper attacks are indeed terror attacks, they just did not happen to fit the mass casualty definition of terrorism that has become common today and was implied in the AP article.

"Friends of Sheehan" Target Children With Grenades

Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan must be proud of their "Minutemen" friends for specifically targeting children with hand grenades hidden in dolls.

These children are the people Cindy Sheehan wants to abandon. She claims to be "heartbroken" that our troops aren't home.

I wish she cared half as much about these children, but hey, they aren't white, or American, so I guess they aren't worth dying for...

Right, Cindy?

Goodbye, Mr. Miyagi

Pat Morita, a sickly child who was told he would never walk (and didn't until he was eleven), later became the most famous fictional karate sensei in history as Mr. Miyagi. He died of natural causes on Thanksgiving at his Los Angeles home. He was 73.

He will be missed.

Think Progress Warns of Thanksgiving "Chemical Attack" by US Forces

Think Progress has intercepted the following communication and warns of L-tryptophan deployment by U.S. Forces today, and called for our immediate withdrawal from both Iraq and New Orleans.

This is thought to be a far more credible interpretation that their previous release discussed here.

PAAUZFH1 RUEOCSA6054 3252031-UUUU--RHMFIUU.
ZNR UUUUU ZOV RUEOCSA6054 RELAY OF RUEOMCE1058 3252025
P 211800Z NOV 05 PSN 250821H18
FM CJCS WASHINGTON DC
TO ALMILACT
INFO ZEN/JOINT STAFF WASHINGTON DC
BT
UNCLAS
QQQQ
SUBJ: CJCS-ALMILACT MESSAGE 15-05, THANKSGIVING 2005 UNCLASSIFIED// UNCLAS
UNCLASSIFIED DTG 211800Z NOV 05
MSGID/GENADMIN/CJCS//
SUBJ/CJCS-ALMILACT MESSAGE 15-05, THANKSGIVING 2005//
GENTEXT/REMARKS/

THIS THANKSGIVING WE JOIN AMERICANS EVERYWHERE IN GIVING THANKS FOR THE MANY BLESSINGS WE ENJOY AS CITIZENS OF THIS GREAT NATION. THOSE FREEDOMS FOR WHICH WE GIVE THANKS, HOWEVER, CAME ABOUT ONLY THROUGH TREMENDOUS SACRIFICE.

NEARLY 400 YEARS AGO, THE PILGRIMS INAUGURATED THANKSGIVING AFTER SURVIVING THE FIRST HARSH WINTER AT PLYMOUTH. GEORGE WASHINGTON PROCLAIMED THE FIRST NATIONAL DAY OF THANKSGIVING DURING THE EARLY STRUGGLES OF THE REPUBLIC, AND ABRAHAM LINCOLN LATER REVIVED THE TRADITION FOLLOWING THE DARK DAYS OF THE CIVIL WAR. ON THIS THANKSGIVING DAY, WE ARE AGAIN ENGAGED IN A GREAT STRUGGLE, THIS TIME AGAINST TERRORISTS WHO THREATEN THE VALUES WE HOLD SO DEAR. LIKE THOSE BEFORE YOU, A NEW GENERATION OF COURAGEOUS SOLDIERS, SAILORS, AIRMEN, MARINES, COAST GUARDSMEN AND MERCHANT MARINES CONTINUES THE NOBLE TRADITION OF SERVICE TO THE NATION. TO EACH OF YOU IN UNIFORM, WE ARE THANKFUL FOR YOUR DEDICATION AND SELFLESSNESS.

MANY WILL PAUSE ON THIS SPECIAL DAY, AND GIVE THANKS FOR THE FREEDOM YOUR SERVICE MAKES POSSIBLE.

ON THIS SPECIAL HOLIDAY, A DAY WHEN DUTY WILL KEEP MANY OF YOU AWAY FROM HOME AND LOVED ONES, THE JOINT CHIEFS JOIN ME IN SENDING YOU AND YOUR FAMILIES OUR BEST WISHES FOR A HAPPY THANKSGIVING.

SIGNED: PETER PACE, GENERAL, UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS, CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF//

BT

Happy Thanksgiving to all Americans, no matter where in the world you may be.

Note: N.Z. Bear has a Thanksgiving-related topic page up.

Military Intel Officer Scoffs at Think Progress "Chemical Weapons" Story

Originally posted in the comments at Defense Tech, a military reader weighs in on the debunked Think Progress article being repeated by such frauds as Sigfrido Ranucci.

The "military reader" writes:

"I have to chuckle at the 'chemical WP' story from the 'Think Progress' website.

Can they truthfully say that "Pentagon Document Described White Phosphorus As 'Chemical Weapon'". Sure they can....technically. That is what the words say. However this is not not some Pentagon policy paper, or tactics manual, or even primer on WMD making that claim. It is a HUMINT field report, from a Kurdish source. And we all know several things by now about this type of reporting.

First, HUMINT reporting can be shaky on several levels, for many reasons. One of the main problem with HUMINT...having a truthful source.

Second, it is a field report. A straight regurgitation of what the source told the reporter. No analysis has been put against this info whatsoever, it is simply an info report. Chances are, the guy who did up the report had no idea what White Phosphorus really is, so the info sounded like it would make a good report on Saddam's treachery. Also, I would bet, that when the report actually reached an analyst who knew a thing or two about Chemical Weapons, it was probably tossed in the burn bag as ludicrous.

Lastly, we have to remember the source was the Kurdish opposition. As we well know now, the Kurds were willing to provides lots of "intelligence" to us, much on it not up to snuff. They did this for many reasons, including money, and to influence us to act against Saddam. Once again, a problem with HUMINT is that sometimes there are motives behind a source, not just the information.

Thus I find it a little ironic that a movement from a certain end of the political spectrum that has chided the President for going to war based on bad intelligence (and worse), is now trying to pillory the Administration and DoD based on the same type of "bad intel" from the same suspect source pool.

Bottom line is that this is not a definitive "Pentagon Document", but rather one piece of suggestive information provided to the DoD. Thus this is not an example of how the Pentagon considers "white phosphorus rounds as chemical weapons" as 'Think Progress' would like to have us believe. It is hardly a smoking gun, say in the way if they found a hypothetical document penned by a Pentagon lawyer warning that WP could be considered CW. That would be something with direct influence on policy, this report is not. I don't think that 'Think Progress' is being underhanded in their analysis, just plain wrong. I just don't think they know what kind of report they are referencing, or how to read it.

I then sent sent the following message to Think Progress via their web site's contact form:

Gentlemen,

I've been reading (and commenting) on your story, "Classified Pentagon Document Described White Phosphorus As ‘Chemical Weapon'" for several days now.

A simple reading of the formerly classified document shows that it is nothing more than a transcript of a phone call between two Kurdish civilians. The Pentagon does note label white phosphorus as a chemical weapon, the civilians do. Your contention is false.

If John Podesta took down notes of a phone conversation between Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, that fact that he wrote those notes would not mean that Mr. Podesta endorsed the positions, would it? Of course it wouldn't.

If Think Progress is indeed a "nonpartisan organization" seeking to "provide a forum that advances progressive ideas," don't you think that the idea of advancing truth would warrant a retraction of your erroneous story?

Thank you very much for your time.

Sincerely,

Bob Owens
Confederate Yankee Blog
http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/

I do not expect a response.

Gaming the EcoSystem

My first "web" job back in '96 or '97 as a "search engine marketing specialist" was for a group of small businessmen that realized that they couldn't find their own companies on a simple web search. In the early days of "search engine optimization services" (SEOs) my job was to determine how search engines ranked pages, and "tweak" web page code accordingly so that my clients would show up accurately in search results for their products.

For example, one South Carolina-based client manufactured and repaired machine tools. I optimized their site to score well for the services they offered. As a result, their services were easily found, and in some cases, they appeared to clients searching online to be only machine tool company capable of doing certain kinds of work, because their real-world competitors were lost in the search results "clutter" several pages back. This is how search engine optimization was supposed to work and indeed, is how it was often marketed.

But this optimization knowledge wasn't always used for accuracy. It was, in fact, often used to purposefully distort search engine results in favor of clients.

This led to a cat-and-mouse game between the search engines of the day and SEO companies. The search engines had to produce and maintain relevant results to survive. Most search engines were unable to keep ahead of SEO companies, and their increasingly irrelevant results led to their downfall. They couldn't keep out the trash, became less relevant, and were abandoned by users.

There is a reason why "to search" on the web today is "to Google." Google was able to filter out the trash.

Today, blog trackback parties are a continuation of the same kind of gaming the system that occurred during the heyday of the abuse of search engine optimization, adapted to work off of the idiosyncrasies of the Truth Laid Bear Ecosystem instead of search engines.

Trackback parties "game" the system, and have been used to artificially adjust individual Ecosystem rankings. That N.Z. Bear noticed and corrected an abuse of a system he created is morally defensible. He has to, or otherwise it becomes meaningless, and the Ecosystem becomes meaningless and dies. It's survival of the fittest, and N.Z. Bear is well within his rights to assert his dominance in the food chain to assure his own survival.

Those who intended to game the Ecosystem will be among the loudest critics of this move, and those who are sincere about providing links to create true communities won't care. I guess we'll see which is which soon enough.

Open Sore Media

Like we didn't see this coming...

...or this going, for that matter.

At least we've still got these kewl graphics from those high-dollar branding consultants!

Standing Up, Standing Down

139 terrorists killed. 256 terrorists captured. Operation Steel Curtain ends today as a success.

Did I mention that a substantial number of the soldiers fighting for the coaltion were locally-recruited Iraqis?

Via Centcom:

The 17-day offensive, which took place in the cities of Husaybah, Karabilah and Ubaydi, was part of the larger Operation Sayaid (Hunter) designed to prevent al Qaeda in Iraq-led terrorists from operating in the Euphrates River Valley and throughout al Anbar province. The operation made way for the establishment of a permanent Iraqi Army security presence in the al Qaim region and set the conditions for local citizens to vote in the upcoming Dec.15 elections.

Operation Steel Curtain ushered in the first large-scale operational employment of the Iraqi Army, approximately 1,000 Soldiers, in western al Anbar province. The Iraqi Soldiers conducted detailed clearing missions alongside Coalition counterparts and began establishing permanent bases within these three cities. Forces at these outposts will prevent the al Qaeda in Iraq-led terrorists from regaining a presence in these cities and threatening local residents with their murder and intimidation campaign.

Integration of locally recruited Iraqi Army Soldiers in al Anbar was introduced by the arrival of the Desert Protectors. The Desert Protectors were recruited from the al Qaim region and worked alongside the Iraqi Army and U.S. units throughout the course of the operation. Their familiarity with the area and its people was crucial in identifying friend from foe and enabled their Iraqi and Coalition partners to better understand the geographical complexities of the region.

This comes on the heels of a discovery of a large cache of terrorist weapons in Baghdad by 2nd Battalion, 1st Brigade, 6th Iraqi Army Division the day before.

Iraqi police and military forces are increasingly asserting themselves, and so it is perhaps not surprising that their leaders are feeling confident enough to call for withdrawing coalition forces... if not exactly right now. Some folks seem surprised by this, but they shouldn't be; it has only been our plan since the beginning.

Some are also a bit taken aback by the fact that Iraqi officials have not condemned the insurgency outright. Indeed, they make the statement:

In Egypt, the final communique's attempt to define terrorism omitted any reference to attacks against U.S. or Iraqi forces. Delegates from across the political and religious spectrum said the omission was intentional. They spoke anonymously, saying they feared retribution.

"Though resistance is a legitimate right for all people, terrorism does not represent resistance. Therefore, we condemn terrorism and acts of violence, killing and kidnapping targeting Iraqi citizens and humanitarian, civil, government institutions, national resources and houses of worships," the document said.

Call me cynical, but I'd interpret that as Sunnis pandering to their insurgent elements in an attempt to get their agreement for furhtering the political process, while Shia and Kurd may have agreed because it would focus Sunni insurgents on the U.S. military forces best equipped to kill them.

The Iraqi government goes forward, insurgents get killed as things wind down, and we leave Iraq with a democratically elected government.

Yeah, I can get behind that.

A Challenge to Dave

[Far Left political blogger Dave Johnson of Seeing the Forest aroused the ire of retired Army veteran John Yetter with his nonsensical attacks against America's military and those who serve in it. CW5 Yetter asked for a moment to respond. He has certainly earned it.]

Dave Johnson, I see in your bio that you do not list military service. Therefore, let me weigh in and lend a perspective from my 31 years service in the United States Army.

First of all, a reasonable President and his DOD Secretary will rely upon the military experts, the general officers and their staff, to plan and execute war. That includes the withdrawal as well as the initial assault. Considerable National Command Authority (NCA) should be extended down to the general in command of the theater of operations. (NCA held at the Oval Office results in Mogadishu and Somalia. NCA extended to the theater commander produces the take over of Iraq with very little loss of life.) Exit strategy, as it has become known, is part of the operational plans and will be held very close hold so as to deny the enemy usable intelligence. Announcing an exit strategy with a time line is divulging too much information. It is a providing the enemy with usable intelligence by which they may plan their operations. President Bush has repeatedly said that we will stay only as long as it takes to complete the mission. For any segment of the population to demand that more information, with an inclusive time line, be divulged is asking the president to give the enemy usable intelligence. That would not be very intelligent.

One man's dissent can very well be another man's treason. With that you should not disagree. Article III, Section 3 of The Constitution of the United States, reads, “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” I am sure you can reason that comments comparing our soldiers' actions to those of Stalin's henchmen in the gulags or the Nazi's SS troops in the concentration camps would give our enemy comfort. I will be the first to proclaim a person's right to speak out critically about our policies or about our president and his cabinet, because I defended that right with my life for 31 years. I'm also going to be the first person to tell you there is a consequence to an action (speaking out) and that you own the responsibility for that consequence. I do not agree that there is such a thing as inconsequential free speech where there is no associated responsibility. You must take ownership of your actions and the consequences. If the consequence of your dissension provides comfort to an enemy with whom we are at war, then you must take responsibility for a treasonous act.

To believe that Iraq is the focus of the war on terrorism is to be too narrowly focused. Iraq is merely one front in the war. And, yes, the war against radical Islamic terrorist is extremely vital to the free world. Radical Islam has specifically targeted the United States since the Tehran Embassy takeover. This war did not start on 9-11; it was then that it was brought to our homeland. But 9-11 finally caused us to take action and we must not fail to be victorious in this war. By establishing Iraq and Afghanistan as free Islamic nations, we will deny al-Qaeda two logistical strongholds from which to base operations, recruit, train, finance, etc. If radical Islam can cause us to withdraw prematurely from Iraq and Afghanistan they will in essence render us globally ineffectual against their onslaught. That would be quite an accomplishment for a few radicals, but absolutely devastating to us nationally. That is why the American public must maintain a will to win.

I would also like to address the issue of White Phosphorus (WP) being a chemical weapon. There have been many testimonies by other subject matter experts that have substantiated that WP is not a chemical weapon, but there is a dogged belief that it is and that a covered up has been effected. Outside of a soldier's hands and feet, and such simple weapons as the bayonet and garrote all of our weapons are “technically” chemical in nature. Bullets are launched by the reaction of the ignited “chemicals” of the propellant (gun powder). Grenades, artillery shells, rocket and missile warheads, etc., explode due to the ignition of the “chemicals” causing huge pressure waves and shrapnel to kill and destroy people and equipment. True chemical weapons, regardless of the delivery mechanism (artillery shells, bombs, etc.), are liquids, powders or gases designed to attack the nervous system shutting down organs or the blood by preventing the absorption of oxygen. Chemical weapons are VX, saran and ricin – NOT WP. IMHO after all the facts have been laid out and to persist to claim that WP is a chemical weapon, a chemical WMD, is giving the enemy comfort in the court of world opinion. To me, that's treasonous, plain and simple.

Now, I've just given you substantial facts. How you receive them, of course, is up to you. However, I would implore you to start trusting the experts to do what they are trained to do. I don't believe you would take your car to your doctor for a motor tune up, nor would you ask your local Ford dealer to perform brain surgery. Let the military fight the war, and you support them.

I leave you with this quote. “Through dissent and protest [America] lost the ability to mobilize a will to win.” The author is Colonel Bui Tin who was the Chief of Staff to General Vo Nguyen Giap, the Commander of the Peoples Army of Vietnam (North Vietnam). He spoke of our pullout from Vietnam. In the war against radical Islamic terrorists, this must not become our epitaph.

John Yetter, CW5, USA (Retired)

Note: Dr. Rusty Shackleford delivers a brutal dressing down of another liberal blogger as being worse than a traitor. Considering the blogger in question and comments he's made, I'd say I agree with his assessment.

Colonel Cut 'N Run

I got sidetracked debunking the lies of Think Progress last night, and didn't get around to writing a post I meant to write about current Congressman and former Marine John Murtha.

Murtha has garnered recent interest for calling for a U.S retreat from Iraq. While Congressman Murtha has every right to his own opinion, the fact he was a decorated hero does not mean he has great judgement, nor does it insulate him from criticism.

As courageous as his record may have been in battle, John Murtha's record as a cheese-eating surrender monkey while in Congress has served to inspire this nation's enemies.

Generation Why? has the details.

Think Progress Misrepresents Phone Call Between Brothers as "Chemical Weapons" Evidence

This article by radical liberal group Think Progress might make your blood boil, but be careful: they might then try to label it a chemical weapon.

Their spin begins:

To downplay the political impact of revelations that U.S. forces used deadly white phosphorus rounds against Iraqi insurgents in Falluja last year, Pentagon officials have insisted that phosphorus munitions are legal since they aren't technically “chemical weapons.”

I too, was shocked that the U.S military used deadly white phosphorus rounds against Iraqi insurgents in Fallujah in 2004. While white phosphorus is an extremely effective obscurant, and it thwarted the ability of terrorist snipers and machine guns to easily slaughter our soldiers by hiding them from view, both night and day, it is all but useless as an offensive artillery round since it can neither penetrate nor burn though the concrete and concrete block construction of the urban battlefield. It was, however, was effective offensively as a "potent psychological weapon."

In a tactical trick called a "shake 'n bake," American mortars or howitzers would drop several white phosphorus shells as close as possible to an entrenched enemy position. The white phosphorus-saturated felt wedges would then deploy and fall to the ground, where some could potentially burn terrorists hiding in trenches and spider holes, but it would almost certainly obscure their vision, no matter what kind of cover they were under.

The terrorists, knowing that American forces preferred to use the dense smoke of white phosphorus to screen attacks, would panic, fearing they were about to be overrun. As the evacuated their entrenched ambush positions, high explosive shells were the fired to kill the insurgents flushed out in the open.

These high explosives, which "aren't technically chemical weapons" as Think Progress is sure to agree, use far more lethal chemical compounds than white phosphorus, and are able to destroy structures, spread fragmenting shrapnel, char, and liquefy flesh with concussive blasts.

Other battlefield weapons that "aren't technically chemical weapons" but are universally far more a lethal threat than white phosphorus include pistol, rifle, and machine gun bullets, hand grenades, RPGs, mines, IEDs, anti-tank rockets, tank gun rounds, and aerial bombs. Indeed, it would probably be accurate to say that the only kind of ammunition less lethal than white phosphorus shells used in the battle of Fallujah would be magnesium flares… though those could potentially leave nasty burns as well.

Think Progress's spin continues:

The media have helped them. For instance, the New York Times ran a piece today on the phosphorus controversy. On at least three occasions, the Times emphasizes that the phosphorus rounds are "incendiary muntions" that have been “incorrectly called chemical weapons.”

Now why on earth would the New York Times claim repeatedly that white phosphorus rounds are "incendiary muntions" and not “chemical weapons?” Could it be the imposing influence of "Freeper" Maureen Dowd? What about that rabid right-winger Frank Rich?

Or, could it be possible, that the New York Times, long considered as the "newspaper of record," actually interviewed some experts in the field? While a fact-based article might be outdated for a progressive organization lkeThink Progress, I found that my own military artillery experts came to the shocking conclusion that incendiaries catch fire, but aren't chemical weapons like mustard gas, Sarin or VX. Who knew?

But the distinction is a minor one, and arguably political in nature.

No dears, it isn't a political distinction, but a scientific one. Look up a branch of science called chemistry. You might just learn something that all the reputable news sources already know: white phosphorus isn't a chemical weapon.

But hey, if you can't rely on falsified media claims, and science lets your narrative down, can't you always rely on rough intelligence draft from a non-expert's brother over the phone?

DURING APRIL 1991, THE SOURCE TELEPHONED BROTHER (SUBSOURCE) [ (b)(1) sec 1.3(a)(4) ][ (b)(7)(D) ] . DURING THIS PHONE CONVERSATION, THE SOURCE WAS ABLE TO OBTAIN THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON THE PRESENT SITUATION IN KURDISH AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS

Of course you can!

A formerly classified 1995 Pentagon intelligence document titled “Possible Use of Phosphorous Chemical” describes the use of white phosphorus by Saddam Hussein on Kurdish fighters:

IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION IN AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS. […]

IN LATE FEBRUARY 1991, FOLLOWING THE COALITION FORCES' OVERWHELMING VICTORY OVER IRAQ, KURDISH REBELS STEPPED UP THEIR STRUGGLE AGAINST IRAQI FORCES IN NORTHERN IRAQ. DURING THE BRUTAL CRACKDOWN THAT FOLLOWED THE KURDISH UPRISING, IRAQI FORCES LOYAL TO PRESIDENT SADDAM ((HUSSEIN)) MAY HAVE POSSIBLY USED WHITE PHOSPHOROUS (WP) CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST KURDISH REBELS AND THE POPULACE IN ERBIL (GEOCOORD:3412N/04401E) (VICINITY OF IRANIAN BORDER) AND DOHUK (GEOCOORD:3652N/04301E) (VICINITY OF IRAQI BORDER) PROVINCES, IRAQ.

In other words, the Pentagon does refer to white phosphorus rounds as chemical weapons — at least if they're used by our enemies.

Yes, their “classified Pentagon document" boils down to a single brief phone call between two Kurdish brothers. Not so impressive now, is it?

And why does Think Progress also leave out the warning the report that forcefully states:

WARNING: (U) THIS IS AN INFORMATION REPORT, NOT FINALLY EVALUATED INTELLIGENCE. REPORT CLASSIFIED

Just to make this clear: the Pentagon NEVER referred to white phosphorus rounds as "chemical weapons" in this report. Only the conversation of two Kurdish brothers mentioned the term "chemical weapons" and that characterization was never accepted by the military.

Think Progress completely misrepresents the core element of their article.

The real point here goes beyond the Pentagon's legalistic parsings.

"Legalistic parsing," is Think Progress-speak for "facts."

The use of white phosphorus against enemy fighters is a “terribly ill-conceived method,” demonstrating an Army interested “only in the immediate tactical gain and its felicitous shake and bake fun.”

They quoted William Arkin's throughly debunked Washington Post blog entry as a source? You've got to be kidding me.

And the dishonest efforts by Bush administration officials to deny and downplay that use only further undermines U.S. credibility abroad.

After all the erroneous and intentional deceit you've tried to pass off so far, do you really think a link to the organization that pays you is going to hold any credibility at all?

To paraphrase President Bush, this isn't a question about what is legal, it's about what is right.

What do you know... they finally got something right.

Aid and Comfort

I do not begrudge Dave Johnson of Seeing the Forest his right to disagree with the present administration. Indeed he takes part in disagreeing with the George Bush with considerable passion, as is the right of every American.

But Mr. Johnson's hatred of President Bush, not at all uncommon among liberals, is so rabid that he eagerly, and blindly attacks American soldiers for using "chemical weapons," in Iraq. This is a position soundly refuted by military experts and chemists alike, but Johnson doesn't care because, as he explains in his comments to this post:

"The Pentagon" does not refer to "our troops." It means the political leadership of the military-industrial complex, appointed by Bush.

"The Pentagon" as used here is the chickenhawk Republican Party leadership, every single on of whom hid out during Vietnam - advocating FOR that war, as long as others served in their place. Similarly, they advocate for war again, as long as none of THEIR families, neighbors, etc. have to serve.

And further:

Posted here is a link to a document in which the Pentagon describes White Phosphorus as a "chemical weapon."

This is about the Bush Administration and the Republican Party, and you know it. Trying to deflect this by claiming that criticism of Bush is criticism of "the troops" or soldiers insults your and my readers.

By his own admission, Johnson, a respected blogger in the liberal circles with over a million visitors to his blog, cannot discern between senior career officers in the Department of Defense, and the elected and appointed civilian officials of the Executive branch.

Nor does Johnson have the capability to discern that (falsely) attacking the actions of troops in the field is not criticism of the Executive branch.

Should we question the patriotism of liberals? Perhaps not.

But we should question their understanding of American government, along with the level of danger they are willing put American soldiers under in their attempt to undermine a president.

He Pressed The "Any" Key Once Too Often

Via Central Command:

Coalition forces acting on multiple intelligence sources and tips from concerned citizens raided a suspected al Qaeda in Iraq terrorist safe house in Baghdad Oct. 31 capturing an al Qaeda in Iraq terrorist named Uthman Faruq Muhammad Abd-al-Hamid (aka Abu Ibrahim). Abu Ibrahim was a technology expert, advisor and supplier to al Qaeda in Iraq terrorists and leaders in Baghdad.

Abu Ibrahim was a computer store owner, a programmer and part owner in an engineering company in Baghdad. Abu Ibrahim admits he supplied hundreds of triggering devices for improvised explosive devices, as well as other technology items, to the al Qaeda in Iraq military commander in Baghdad on multiple occasions. These items include hand-held radios, cellular telephones, wireless telephones, computers, software and computer parts and electronic components.

I guess someone else is going to have to rip Baez and Streisand CDs for al Zarqawi from now on.

Vonne-gutted

Kurt Vonnegut, another leftist enamoured with terrorism:

Vonnegut suggested suicide bombers must feel an "amazing high". He said: "You would know death is going to be painless, so the anticipation - it must be an amazing high."

Mr. Vonnegut – again, a patriot whose dissent is being cruelly ground into the nurturing earth before your eyes – seems to think that suicide bombings literally happen in a vacuum, an unpopulated space where the bombers just pop like soap bubbles. It may be painless for them – alas – but it is not painless for the victims.

Of course, it's Chimpy McHilterburton's fault.

al-Zarqawi Killed by Chemical Weapons?

As Atlas notes, the eight bodies recovered from the Mosul firefight today are, "burned black and unrecognizable."

How long do you think it will be before ignorant America-hating leftists try to connect this to Rai's fraudulent documentary, and accuse U.S. forces of using "chemical weapons" against al-Zarqawi?

It isn't like they've ever let facts get in the way before.

06/08/06 Update: Got 'em.

Armando: Zarqawi Wasn't a Problem

Ever willing to downplay any strides towards peace or a more stable Iraq, Armando at Daily Kos is downplaying the significance of Musab al-Zarqawi's possible death after a protracted gunbattle today in Mosul:

The death if Zarqawi would be a positive step in fighting terrorism and, one hopes, suppressing the violence in Iraq.

What it will not be however, is a solution for our troubles in Iraq, whose roots are political in nature. Zarqawi is not and has not been the source of our troubles in Iraq. It is the intractable political problems of the sectarian power struggle between Shia, Sunni and Kurd. [emphasis added]

Will the death of Musab al-Zarqawi (if confirmed) put an end to all violence in Iraq? Of course not. But the vast majority of terror attacks again primarily civilian targets was the direct result of al Qaeda in Iraq attempting to ignite a civil war. If al-Zarqawi did die today along with senior members of the al Qaeda leadership in Iraq, it is reasonable to suspect that suicide attacks against Iraqi civilians will severely decline.

As increasing acceptance and participation by Sunnis the last round of elections proved, the struggles between ethnic factions is not "intractable" as Armando asserts. Shia and Kurdish interests are now being joined en masse by Sunni political groups that realize that ballots, not bullets, will ultimately determine the future of Iraq.

Armando considers defeating terrorists where they live versus where we live "empty rhetoric."

The majority of 25 million free Iraqis might just disagree.

Update: Generation Why? has more.

Dead Again?

Via Little Green Footballs and The Jawa Report, there are now three different reports (via sources of varying credibility) that the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq (and arguably the real power in al Qaeda since Osama Bin Laden is only communicating with mountain goats and Yetis on a regular basis) Abu Musab al-Zarqawi may have died today after blowing himself up once he found himself surrounded by U.S and Iraqi forces.

Via LGF we have this report from the Jerusalem Post:

At least one Arab television media outlet reported that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the head of the al-Qaida in Iraq, was killed in Iraq on Sunday afternoon when eight terrorists blew themselves up in the in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul.

The unconfirmed report claimed that the explosions occurred after coalition forces surrounded the house in which al-Zarqawi was hiding.

The Jawa Report has more. Via DEBKAfile:

US forces and forensic experts are examining the bodies of eight high-ranking al Qaeda leaders in Mosul to find out if their chief Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is among them.

A sample of his DNA is in American possession for a match-up.

The bodies they are trying to identify are of 7 men and one woman, who blew themselves up Sunday, Nov. 20, after their hideout in northern Iraq was under siege by a large US force, backed by tanks and helicopters. The bodies are burned black and unrecognizable. Four Iraqi security officers were killed and 10 injured in the operation.

Israeli News source Ynet News is also reporting a similar version of events.

If this is true, (and that is a big if) then the insurgency in Iraq will lose a figurehead and suffer a severe psychological loss.

If al-Zarqawi did survive, things may not be much better. His own family has renounced him, and some family members have stated that they wouldn't hesitate to kill him.

Dead or currently alive, I don't think he'll have a very happy Thanksgiving.

Update: Associated Press is now reporting that:

U.S. forces sealed off a house in the northern city of Mosul where eight suspected al-Qaida members died in a gunfight — some by their own hand to avoid capture. A U.S. official said Sunday that efforts were under way to determine if terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was among the dead.

Lending more credibility to this theory is this bit of information:

During the intense gunbattle that followed, three insurgents detonated explosives and killed themselves to avoid capture, Iraqi officials said. Eleven Americans were wounded, the U.S. military said. Such intense resistance often suggests an attempt to defend a high-value target.

American soldiers controlled the site Sunday, and residents said helicopters flew over the area throughout the day. Some residents said the tight security was reminiscent of the July 2003 operation in which Saddam Hussein's sons, Odai and Qusai, were killed in Mosul.

If it is true that the security around this site beyond what is ordinary for other post-combat scenes, it would lend some credibility to the theory that this is a site of some importance.

Time--and DNA tests--will tell.

Correction: YnetNews was previously and incorrectly identified as an Arab news source. Ynet News is in fact the English-language version of the Yedioth Ahronoth, an Israeli Hebrew newspaper and web portal.

Edited for Accuracy

Pixy Misa has a post up called Correcting Fluid that "fixes" Liz Sidoti's Associated Press coverage of the Republicans in the House calling the Democratic bluff to turn tail and run from Iraq.

A sample:

Democrats, aghast that their bluff had been called, said it was a political stunt and quickly decided to vote against it in an attempt to drain it of significance.

Read the whole thing.

Surrender, Hell: Neo-Copperhead's Embarrass A Hero

The House rejected the Democratic call for headlong retreat from Iraq by a resounding 403-3 vote this evening.

Democrats denounced it as a political stunt and an attack on Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, a leading Democratic military hawk who stunned his colleagues on Thursday by calling for troops to be withdrawn as quickly as possible.

Lets try to have a little bit of honestly, shall we?

Of course the call for a vote was politically calculated—so was Murtha's "surprise" call for a headlong retreat. Despite willful media amnesia, Murtha has been trying to back out, no in, no out of Iraq since 2002, well before the invasion. I'm thankful for Murtha's service to this nation's military, but to call him a pro-war "hawk" is like labeling a Pomeranian an attack dog. When it comes to position on Iraq, Murtha has more flip-flops than an Imelda Marcos/John Kerry timeshare.

The Democrats pulled a shrewdly calculated stunt by trotting out a hero to try to undercut the White House while the president was out of the country. House Democrats had estimated—and no one could blame them—that a Republican House, so flustered by the Democrat's last cheap stunt, would likely drop the ball again leaving the Republicans looking awkward and foolish as Congress headed into a long holiday break.

But the Democratic plan backfired, and backfired horribly. Instead of folding as they typically do, the Republicans grew a spine, and embarrassed the neo-copperheads into voting against their own treachery in a resounding and humiliating defeat.

Congressman Murtha's three decades of military service to his nation was whored away in a cheap bit of failed political theater by the Democratic Party. It is sad, sad sight to see.

Update Fixed some grammar issues pointed out by those turkeys at Bright and Early that weren't quite as obvious when it was Tired and Late.

Update 2: Discriminations uses the deplorable tactic of actually looking at what Democrats said. Scum. Also, excellent points brought up by Real Clear Politics about the three that did vote for an immediate withdrawal: Cynthia A. McKinney of Georgia, Robert Wexler of Florida and Jose E. Serrano of New York.

Update 3: History will look back at the Democrats as political opportunists using Rep. Murtha to make one last desperate bid to lose the Iraq War and retain some minor relevance . Unfortunately for them, the war plan is working and teh United States will start withdrawing troops in 2006 because we have won.

The OSM Gnomes

As most of you know, I'm one of the members of the New Evil Corporation taking over the InterWebosphere with Girls Gone Mild pictures of female bloggers exposing their naked thumbs for fun and profit.

Well I was.

Now Iowahawk wants to blow the whole damn thing, undermining our business plan before we ever have a chance get going.

Traitor.

Chicken "Hawks"

Attempting to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory...

The Lies of Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre, Part 2

Previous: The Lies of Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre, Part 1

False claims are a constant in Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre, as another scene from Sigfrido Ranucci's film amply demonstrates.

Approximately 18 minutes into the film, we hear this commentary:

Contrary to what was said by the U.S. State Department, white phosphorus was not used in open fields to illuminate enemy troops. For this tracer was used. A rain of fire shot from U.S. helicopters on the city of Fallujah on the night of night of the eighth of November, as we will show you in this exceptional documentary, which proves that the chemical agent was used in a massive and indiscriminate way to end districts of Fallujah.

In the days that followed, U.S satellite images shows that Fallujah was burnt out and razed to the ground.

Tracers are specialized, briefly-glowing bullets used to aim machine gun fire. Traveling several thousand feet per second and emitting small amounts of light lasting just tenths of a second, they are not used as a source of illumination. Rai News24 and director Ranucci have clearly not consulted with any military subject matter experts while in the making of this film, or that preposterous statement would have never been uttered.

But it gets worse.

The film that correlates the quoted text above shows footage of what the narrator claims is, "A rain of fire shot from U.S. helicopters on the city of Fallujah on the night of night of the eighth of November." But the footage shown does not show helicopters or helicopter-borne weaponry.

This is a cutaway view of the "helicopter."

The 155mm howitzer's M825A1 white phosphorus shell present in this picture is packed with 116 white phosphorus impregnated felt wedges. The projectile is approximately 2.5 feet long.

The top picture shows two M825A1 shells in a still from the U. S Army. The bottom image is a still captured from the Rai film. It shows a flare on the left, and two white phosphorus shell bursts that are nearly identical to the M825A1 shells.

As a matter of pure fact, the " helicopter attack" shown in Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre (from 17:54-18:40) shows a grand total of two white phosphorus shells exploding... along with one high explosive shell and three magnesium flares. That's it.

There were no helicopters "raining fire" on Fallujah.

We will however, be discussing helicopters once again before we complete the developing series that is The Lies of Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre.

Your Friend Osama

Thanks to Tim Blair, we can see the wonderful world Osama bin Laden would allow for the liberals of this world who don't want us to fight preemptive wars against terrorists and rouge regimes.

Their "rights" under Osama bin Laden, would be:

• a mandatory coversion to Islam.
• the destruction of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which would be replaced by strict sharia religious law.
• homosexuals would be jailed (and likely executed).


• women and women's pictures would be barred from appearing in the press, magazines, or advertising.
• alcoholic drinks would be banned.
• gambling would be barred.
• Any woman serving "passengers, visitors and strangers" would be out of a job, meaning the end of public employment for women.

America, Do Not Lose Heart Again

I will not question the patriotism nor the sincerity of Congressman John Murtha (D-PA). He is a former Marine who served in Vietnam, and I thank him for his service to our nation at that time. I cannot however, support his call to turn tail and run from Iraq.

Jim Geraghty's reponse to Murtha's speech is close to my own, but this post is not really about my feelings. Instead, I turn to another veteran comments about this war that I had agreed to publish several days ago.

You might recognize him by his handle, Old Soldier. These are his words on this war, unedited.

Make no mistake; we are at war with an enemy motivated by a radical theology diametrically opposed to our foundational religious underpinnings as well as our national ideology of divinely bestowed individual freedom and liberty. We can ill afford political polarization emulating our Vietnam War conclusion; political defeat snatched from the jaws of military victory. For the sake of generations to come, this war against radical Islamic terrorists must be prosecuted to a victorious conclusion… there must be no capitulation or appeasement.

In 1969, as a young man, I went off to war in Vietnam. With the anti-war movement's gain in momentum and the incessant pounding by politicians and the news media that the war was “unwinnable”, public opinion turned against the effort. America lost heart; ultimately, we dishonorably withdrew. Militarily, we had actually won¹ the war, but the politicians and news media turned that victory into what is now referred to as a defeat for the U.S armed forces. That defeat was not a military defeat; it was decidedly a mutinous political surrender – laid at the feet of a lack of fortitude to see the conflict to victory. With our withdrawal came the purgings and the rise to power of Pol Pot; unnecessarily costing millions of lives. Fortunately (or unfortunately is more realistic) we suffered no adverse repercussions as a nation.

In 1990, as an older man, I went off to war in Southwest Asia. Saddam's army had invaded Kuwait. Saudi Arabia asked the United Nations for protection, fearing invasion of their state as well. Resolutions were passed; a coalition formed around the U.S. military and Desert Shield/Desert Storm ensued. This time the political leaders held their tongues; the military commanders prosecuted the war. Victory was accomplished with a minimum loss of coalition lives and done so in very short order.

Since 1968 there have been approximately 150 acts of violence directly attributed to radical Islamic terrorists. On September 11, 2001 they openly declared war on the United States proper. They have shown their absolute willingness to die to prosecute their theological agenda. With our feathers ruffled and our national ego assaulted, we responded with unified determination in Afghanistan and Iraq. But we did not kill just to kill or strike a blow at a despised enemy; we purposely resolved to displace an oppressive theocracy and a despotic dictatorship with freedom producing democratic governances for each nation. With both popular and political unity we resolutely set about to build Free states that would no longer sponsor terror; but would in fact become allies against the oppressive radicals, and become shining free beacons to oppressed nations around them. This was not an easy undertaking; desired results could not reasonably be expected to occur overnight.

In both Afghanistan and Iraq, operational control was initially given to the military commanders and resounding successes ensued. However, since the initial military successes, politicians have become involved, constraining both resources and operations; now “quagmire” becomes the description most often coined by the MSM. Political polarization is being fueled by increasingly noisy anti-war groups. One political party has come to disavow their initial support for the actions taken. Elite liberalism is crying out that this war is “unwinnable”, that, “this country isn't worth dying for.” Their twisted distortion has erroneously caused the enemy to become… us.

Militarily, to be victorious it is imperative to know the enemy; i.e., know his tactics, know his doctrine, know his motivation. Do not confuse “knowing the enemy” with “understanding” his psyche. “Understanding” is a liberalistic warm and fuzzy emotion that contributes nothing to the fight. Our military leaders know our enemy and he can be defeat with the tools we possess. The first tool is actually a toolbox consisting of law enforcement (FBI), intelligence gathering (CIA) and the armed forces. We must mount offensive operations to definitively deny his ability to freely operate. The second tool is our ideology – freedom, liberty, democratic representative governance. We cannot build a free nation where none previously existed if we lose heart and withdraw too soon; abject lesson – Vietnam.

The current polarizing movement is reminiscent of the Vietnam era; only the flames are being fanned by a tremendously biased and self-flagellating MSM fueled by elitist liberalism. Individually, journalists may be opposed to war and that truly is fine. What are not acceptable are their incessant impositions: “peace at any cost” and the “war is unwinnable.” This irresponsible behavior provides the enemy with hope; hope born of our own boisterous and impatient critics; the very same hope given to North Vietnam. Actions bear consequences; some good, some bad. An unbearable consequence is the unwarranted loss of another soldier because our enemy was fortified by America's loss of heart. Our brave Soldiers will maintain the fight to victory, provided they know we remain committed to they purpose.

Afghanistan and Iraq are but two fronts of the war. Once victory is concluded there, we must nurture the fledgling nations to maturity. How many years did we “occupy” Germany and Japan after WWII; patiently developing democratic governments? We are not an occupational army in either Afghanistan or Iraq, but each must be given time to emerge and capably assume responsibility for their own security. Both are firmly on that path. However, once each is secure, you can count on another front opening up; the radical Islamic terrorists will undoubtedly move to another terror sponsoring state. We must have concrete national resolve to engage them until they become totally ineffectual. It may require many years to accomplish the required victories one at a time; but, if we are not committed to victory, this may become the 100-Years War of the 21st Century. Failure, God forbid, would rest squarely on the shoulders of elite liberalism; the same elite liberalism that historically would categorically deny any responsibility.

For reasons involving our national security, ideology, and the safety of your grandchildren, we cannot afford to lose this war – and we will not lose if we resource the first toolbox and let the commanders prosecute the war to victory. If we do not stay the course to stabilize Afghanistan and Iraq (and beyond), we will empower our enemy beyond measure. We will unequivocally demonstrate to the radical Islamic terrorists – to that theocracy – that we are not willing to share freedom and our commitment has an expiration date. We will embolden the enemy to initiate more and more attacks against our homeland and most sadly we will no longer be able to nationally lay claim to the phrase, “These colors don't run.”

America, please do not lose heart…, again. Our freedom to exist as a nation is at stake.

I leave you with words spoken almost 45 years ago; words with probably far greater application today than when they were spoken.

“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.

“In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than in mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course. Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty. The graves of young Americans who answered the call to service surround the globe.” John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address, Jan 20, 1961.

¹ According to General Giap, the commander of the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong forces, had we continued to prosecute the war – Hanoi would have fallen. Our anti-war movement and political opposition gave the North Vietnamese government the hope they needed to hang on just long enough to finally watch us withdraw.

About the author:
Old Soldier was born and raised on the southeastern Connecticut coast. In 1967 he joined the U.S. Army to become a Warrant Officer and helicopter pilot. In 1970 he returned from Vietnam to the rabid zealot cries of “baby killer” and experienced his uniform being spat upon because he did not denounce his war duty. Other tours include: Korea, Italy, a covert intelligence mission in Central America, the First Gulf War (and by contrast returned to a tearfully humbling red carpet heroes welcome), and several other stateside assignments.

He retired after 31 years active U.S. Army service, achieving: the rank of Chief Warrant Officer Five, and the status of Master Army Aviator. His decorations include: the Legion of Merit Medal, 3 Bronze Star Medals, 3 Meritorious Service Medals, 11 Air Medals, 3 Army Commendation Medals and many more awards and decorations. He currently continues supporting U.S. Army Aviation programs as a defense contractor analyst working in South Alabama.

Update It seems Murtha's speech isn't exactly news... he said roughly the same thing last year.

The 2005 Weblog Awards...

...are now open for nominations.

Ahem.

The Lies of Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre, Part 1

[Note: Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre is a recently released film from Italian Rai News24, an offshoot of communist-dominated channel Rai 3, and was directed by Sigfrido Ranucci. Thanks to Sgt. B of The Gun Line for the tip in this post at Argghhh!]

Starting with a lie

Kim Phuc, as shown in Fallujah: the Hidden Massacre

Fallujah, the Hidden Massacre, begins with a scene of horrified Vietnamese civilians fleeing a village after an air strike. Many are injured and burned by napalm, including a young girl who stripped naked to escape her burning clothes. The narrator of the Italian film explains that:

This is how a photo can speak about war, in Vietnam. Kim Phuc, age nine, whose fragile, naked body mutilated by the napalm thrown by the Americans, running, arms outstretched to escape death. It is 1972, and the image will circle the globe over...

Except this is alternative history.

On June 8, 1972, at approximately 1:00 PM, AE-1 Skyraiders belonging to the South Vietnamese Air Force based at Bien Hoa, bombed and strafed the outskirts of the village of Trang Bang near the Cai Dai pagoda. American forces were not involved in any aspect of this tragedy.

Nick Ut's 1973 Pulitzer Prize photograph

Phan Thi Kim Phuc says actions by photographer Huynh Cong "Nick" Ut that day saved her life.

But it was the South Vietnamese Air Force, and not Americans who rained fire upon the village of Trang Bang. It is an act of great arrogance and/or incompetence that Rai News 24 would try to rewrite the events surrounding one of the most famous photographed events of the Vietnam War.

Sadly, this is the mark director Sigfrido Ranucci makes throughout this truly incompetent and dishonest film.

What We're Fighting For

A great letter, via California Conservative.

The Rabblutionaires Have Arrived

Pajamas Media officially emerged as Open Source Media (AP story here) today, and I am honored to be among the founding 70 or so bloggers.

I think we will do quite well, but it is already making some dead-tree types nervous... probably because we do check facts, and we can, for example, tell the difference between someone groping themselves and giving a thumbs up (bottom picture). We can also tell the difference between "stop" and "drop" in a writer's commentary.

Mr. Wolcott may consider us rabble; others seem to consider us revolutionary.

Perhaps we're “rabblutionaries.”

Update: Apparently his name is "Wolcott" not "Walcott." Corrected.

Frist "Sheehan's" the War Effort

Bill Frist showed his political cowardice Tuesday, co-sponsoring an amendment to a spending bill that undermines the troops and the war on terror. As Residual Forces said in utter disgust, "Bill Frist is dead to me."

More on this tomorrow. Right now, I'm so pissed I can't see straight, and I don't want to say something I do not mean.

Update: Swift Boat Veteran Tom "River Rat" Mortensen does a wonderful job conveying the feelings I share in this letter faxed to Republicans senators who voted for the resolution. I'll just let him talk for me:

Senator,

Re: The American Surrender Resolution of 2005

I am named for an uncle who gave his life in the Pacific in 1942 for the freedom of this nation and its principles. My father lost a lung to bunker oil in the waters of the Pacific in 1943 for this nation and its principles. I carry shrapnel from two combat wounds and wear a Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat “V”, Navy Commendation Medal with Combat “V”, and two Purple Hearts acquired while defending this nation's principles on the rivers of Vietnam in 1968 and ‘69. I believe this grants me moral authority to say what follows.

I finally became a committed Republican in 1972 when a Democratic Congress voted to defund support of our allies in South Vietnam. That act of moral cowardice and treachery to our founding principles led to the death of millions in the killing fields of Southeast Asia.

Your vote yesterday in favor of what I'm calling the “American Surrender Resolution of 2005” is a travesty unparalleled in post-Vietnam American history. Your cowardice in face of an electorate deliberately misled by Democrats and a traitorous National Media is beneath contempt. It will lead directly to the death of now uncountable Americans and Iraqis and their graves will lie directly at your feet. Senator, you are a moral coward and the worst type of political panderer.

This vote provides direct aid and comfort to our avowed enemies. Thus Senator, you have no right so serve in elective office. I will work tirelessly to assure you are removed from office at the earliest possible date. I will spare no treasure or waking moment in this quest and anticipate the moment I can spit on your political grave.

I do commend with all honors the 13 Republican senators who stood up against the me-too cowardly Republican leadership: Bunning, Burr, Chambliss, Coburn, DeMint, Graham, Inhofe, Isakson, Kyl, McCain, Sessions, Thune, and Vitter. You should look to them for the courage you obviously lack.

Disrespectfully,

G. Thomas Mortensen
USA S/V Anticipation
Puerto Vallarta, Mexico

Political Jeopardy

A: Truth and Unicorns

Q: Can you name a few things you won't find in the Democratic Party?

Looking at these...

Setting the Record Straight: The New York Times Editorial on Pre-War Intelligence
President Delivers Remarks at Elmendorf AFB on War on Terror
Setting the Record Straight: The Washington Post On Pre-War Intelligence
President Commemorates Veterans Day, Discusses War on Terror

...it looks like Rove wasn't asleep or distracted after all, and was apparently giving the Democrats just enough rope.

Remember: it isn't the fall, but the sudden stop at the end.

update: James Wolcott has airly linked in and decided to pass judgement after visting from the Open Source Media blogroll. Sorry you're so touchy, James. Was it something someone said?

...and James, its the sudden stop at the end, not the sudden drop. In addition, the young lady in the picture was rather clearly giving a "thumbs up" gesture, not fondling her breast.

Perhaps the fact-checking is what really upsets you?

Update 2 Apparently his name is "Wolcott" not "Walcott."

Arkin Up The Wrong Tree

I've come to expect a certain level of dishonesty from the foreign media regarding the error-riddled white phosphorus "crockumentary" produced by Rai News24, but it is another thing entirely for a writer for a major American news organization based in our nation's capitol to uncritically repeat such "news", as has William M. Arkin in his Washington Post piece, "White Death" Is A Losing Strategy.

Arkin begins:

The military's use of white phosphorus during operations in Fallujah last year is making its way around the world media and blogosphere, with the claim being that the United States has again shown its inhumane side by using munitions normally reserved for smoke screens and target illumination to terrorize insurgents and kill civilians.

So the United States is "inhumane" when it decides to “terrorize" insurgents? Cry me a river, Mr. Arkin. I can't seem to work up the same amount of sympathy that you can for those that murder unsuspecting civilians on a near daily basis. Note that Mr. Arkin slyly works the language to portray killing civilians as a co-equal goal of the military mission in Fallujah, along with killing or capturing terrorists.

At least you can't accuse Arkin of hiding his biases.

The United States used "chemical" weapons, says the Italian media. A "war crime" says GlobalResearch.ca. "Illegal" and "banned" weapons say others. "White Death" says the African Mathaba.net.

He couldn't find any reputable news sources, but these will work well enough for his purposes... Just don't ask if the claims they make are "credible." They unequivocally are not.

The U.S. government's handling of the allegations has been typically clumsy and confused, fueling the controversy.

Thank the all-but-useless State Department for not being able to clearly state that white phosphorus is not a chemical weapon, and that the military does not intentionally target any civilians with any of our weapons. Even a blind hog will find an acorn every once in a while.

But what is most interesting here is why the Army chose to use white phosphorus as a terror and anti-personnel weapon, and why critics insist on labeling it "illegal" without ever recognizing the contradiction in their argument. Because the fight over white phosphorous has become so heated, it is likely that the military will stand firm behind its present policy and the commanders won't be held accountable.

Again, Arkin proves no compelling evidence at all that white phosphorus was used against civilians, nor can he justify his choice of calling a munition that has been in the conventional military arsenal of the majority of our allies and enemies, a "terror" weapon. It is an intentional misuse of language by Arkin, and a craven act. In addition, Army Field Manual (FM 3-6) states:

The purposes of incendiaries are to cause maximum fire damage on flammable materials and objects and to illuminate. Incendiary materials used include gasoline, gels, burning metals, incendiary mixes, and white phosphorus. To be effective, incendiary munitions should be used against targets susceptible to fire or heat damage. A considerable part of the target must be flammable, so the fire can spread.

It might be another scientific shock to Arkin, but human bodies, made primarily of water, are not considered flammable by the military, and therefore, are not thought of as anti-personnel weapons.

It is also interesting that Arkin wants military commanders to be "held accountable" when he cannot even provide evidence that they did anything wrong, unless, perhaps, in Arkin's opinion it is simply criminal enough to be in the military while President Bush is in office.

Skipping down a few paragraphs we find:

The documentary shows close-ups of Fallujah civilians, badly burnt, their skin dissolved or caramelized. An Iraqi biologist in Fallujah is interviewed, saying, "a rain of fire fell on the city," burning people's flesh, but strangely leaving "their clothes intact."

This is sheer conjecture, by a highly-biased and suspect source, presented as fact.

Watch the crockumentary and you will see many bodies—well, not many actually, though they repeat then again and again to make it appear there are more than their actually are. Some are clearly wearing military load-bearing equipment as you would inspect an insurgent might, Many of the other dead and wounded, in fact the majority, appear to be military-aged men. As the insurgents are not in the habit of wearing uniforms, it is quite a stretch for the Italian documentary makers to claim these were civilians.

Further, Arkin does not have any basis for claiming that the state of the bodies had anything to do with specific weaponry without an autopsy performed by a trained pathologist, preferably one with military experience. The bodies in the video most often appear to be in advanced stages of decomposition, not suffering from burns, unless the easily observable maggots on some of these bodies were present before the people died.

And while some may consider it a minor point, it would also make sense to mention that the Iraqi biologist in question has been accused of being a supporter of the insurgency... if one was trying to be objective, that is.

Arkin also misses the large, obvious lie embedded in this segment: white phosphorus, which burns hot enough to melt light steel and iron, would most certainly burn through cloth. This is not up for debate, Mr. Arkin. It is a scientific fact.

The fact that the clothes are intact on the bodies shown is strong evidence towards disproving white phosphorus as being the cause of death. But don't believe me, Mr. Arkin, call a local university chemistry department.

Obviously, fact checking is not on Arkin's agenda, it gets in the way of his message.

A year ago, Arab media was filled with reporting that the United States also used napalm and incendiary weapons in Fallujah. Islam Online, a Qatar-based website, reported that U.S. forces used "chemical weapons and poisonous gas." According to the State Department, the claim was soon "posted on hundreds of Web sites." Even the UK Sunday Mirror carried reporting that the U.S. was "secretly using outlawed napalm" in Fallujah

He has no evidence, but once again more unsupported insinuation seems to be enough for him. Arkin refuses to do the minimal legwork it would require to find out if any Mark 77s were expended in Fallujah during the assault. They were no known sightings of the massive fireballs characteristic of such weapons, cited by so much as a single credible source. Not one.

The Pentagon categorically denied the use of any chemical weapons, but the U.S. government did admit that the Marines had used napalm-like incendiary weapons during the march to Baghdad in 2003, and the admission became conflated with the denial.

The U.S. further painted itself into a corner arguing that although it had removed its last napalm bombs from its arsenal in 2001, "napalm or napalm-like incendiary weapons are not outlawed."

He doesn't have any evidence, but he'll still insinuate his predetermined storyline. Damn the facts, full speed ahead!

Finally, the U.S. said that phosphorous was used only "very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes. They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters."

That was from the State Department, which can't figure which end of a gun to point, and should never have been involved in this conversation.

Arkin then goes on to repeat this partial story, the he finds (not surprisingly) on a far left wing blog:

A year later, after the Italian documentary, the U.S. was again denying, but this time there was no denying that the claims about the use of white phosphorous appeared valid. Dailykos reported that the March 2005 edition (pdf) of the Army's official Field Artillery Magazine contained an article -- "The Fight for Fallujah" -- by three Army artillerymen that said:

"We used it [white phosphorous] for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE [high explosives]. We fired “shake and bake” missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out."

First, American military forces never claimed (to the best I can determine) that we did not use white phosphorus in the battle for Fallujah. White phosphorus was primarily used as a screening agent, a luminary, and as an anti-material weapon, as doctrine indicated. The "shake and bake" missions were a perfect example of this doctrine, and worked only because the insurgents know that white phosphorus is typically employed as a screening agent.

As the article stated, white phosphorus was used for screening mission so American forces could advance during the battle. The "shake and bake" mission were a "potent psychological weapon" because WP dropped upon their position made them fear they were about to be the immediate victims of an overrun attack by United States Marines. Marine forces were better armed, better armored, and better trained than their opponents, and the insurgents knew this. They tried to fall back to a more defensible position, but were mowed down by high explosive (HE) shells during their retreat. White phosphorus shook them, and HE cooked their respective gooses.

It is also interesting that rkin and his friends at Daily Kos couldn't seem to find this information in the Field Artillery Magazine article:

...TF 2-2 IN encountered few civilians in its attack south.

How willful do you think that omission was?

After skipping a few paragraphs, we find Arkin blathering on:

I for one am reluctant to pronounce whether the use of white phosphorous for "shake and bake" missions in Fallujah and the evident blundering use of white phosphorous in areas known to be occupied by civilians is illegal.

You shouldn't be reluctant at all. Civilians were given almost a week to evacuate by U.S. forces in the most telegraphed offensive of the war. It was well known that Fallujah was going to become a major urban battleground. The insurgents chose to heavily militarize an urban environment, and by giving civilians plenty of time and advance warning to evacuate the city, the military has every right to claim that Fallujah was an urban battleground ,but that it was not a battleground expected to contain civilians. The Army soldiers Arkin so eagerly quotes above prove that, in fact, civilian contact was rare.

Neither am I buying the State Department's line that the use of white phosphorous in this way -- that is, to possibly inflict unnecessary suffering -- is not "illegal" use. What I'm sure of is that the use of white phosphorous is not just some insensitive act. It is not just bad P.R. It is the ill thought out and panicked use of a weapon in an illegitimate way. It is a representation of a losing strategy.

Tell me, Mr. Arkin, what do you consider necessary suffering? The suffering of American soldiers, perhaps? Or perhaps better yet, can you indicate a single weapon that has not inflicted, by your definition, "unnecessary suffering."

White phosphorus used in Fallujah was not "ill thought out and panicked" as Arkin ignorantly describes, but is part of a well thought out, carefully crafted and well-practiced doctrine that has evolved over many decades of theoretical and practical use. Every credible source indicates that white phosphorous was used exactly in the ways U.S. military doctrine stipulates during the battle of Fallujah.

There is indeed bad PR being spread, but it is Mr. Arkin and his ilk spreading it.

Other posts on the White Phosphorus crockumentary:

Popham, Meet Sites
Ablution Exclusive: Weapons Expert Challenges White Phosphorus Claims
Crow. The Other White Meat
Be Careful What You Wish For
Rai's White Phosphorus Fraud
The WP Controversy
Yet More WP

Update: Jeff Goldstein joins the fray as well.

OES On the Air

Our friend Ward Brewer, CEO of Beauchamp Tower Corporation, was on Raleigh, NC's News-Talk 680 WPTF this morning, talking about Operation Enduring Service, a bid to build a small fleet of disaster response cargo ships from obsolete ships no longer needed by the United States Navy.

See previous posts here talking about the former USS Orion and USS Howard W. Gilmore and here starring the former USS San Diego.

Of course, I wasn't able to listen to the show, so if anyone in the Raleigh area heard it, please let me know how you think it went.

You've almost certainly heard a lot about the blog initiative Porkbusters sponsored by N.Z.Bear at The Truth Laid Bear and Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit. I haven't said much about it, not because I don't support it (I support the Fiscal Watch Team Offset Package), but because so many others have done a much better job saying what needs to be said (As a side note, that is why you don't see me offering a lot of commentary on SCOTUS nominations).

The driving idea behind Porkbusters was to cut wasteful government spending, called "pork," to help pay for the massive clean-up and recovery costs associated with the catastrophic damage caused by Hurricane Katrina (and later, Hurricane Rita).

These colors don't run. Somewhere between Gretna, LA, and Waveland, MS
(Taken By a Hope Chapel Hurricane Relief Team Sept. 17-22, 2005)

While independent of the Porkbusters, Operation Enduring Service is the near-perfect execution of the Porkbusters project. Operation Enduring Service will save American taxpayers $100 million dollars spent to scrap retired American naval ships, overseas. It will efficiently use the salvage and sale of certain ships to pay for the scrapping of less desirable vessels, and will actually generate enough profits to help pay to upgrade and refit several ships to be used in future disaster relief efforts.

The project will even help teh economies of storm-tossed Gulf states by creating between 1,500-3,000 shipbuilding-related jobs.

Operation Enduring Service will save $100 million in wasteful government spending, creates thousands of jobs in the Gulf States devastated by hurricanes this past year, and will build a fleet of disaster response vessels that will greatly enhance our nation's ability to respond to future disasters, at no cost to the taxpayer.

We are literally talking about a privately-funded and self-supporting "Salvation Navy" that will greatly assist FEMA and become the most technologically advanced ships available for use by the United States Coast Guard.

Corporate donors will pick up other costs of preparing these ships for service, and the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary will crew these vessels, but we have to get them first, and time is running very, very short.

The legislation required to make this happen is dangerously close to falling by the wayside. It has to pass before Congress ends this Session, in approximately one week, or the corporate sponsors will be forced to pull out.

BTC has obtained the support of a number of Congressmen and Senators. Each of the senators has the ability to submit this legislation for Operation Enduring Service and should be contacted via phone, fax or electronically and encouraged to submit this legislation immediately.

Senator Cochran, (R-MS) (Chairman of Appropriations)
Phone: (202) 224-5054
Internet Contact Form

Senator DeWine, (R-OH)
Phone: (202) 224-2315
Fax: (202) 224-6519
Becky Watts has the legislation for his office
Internet Contact Form

Senator Shelby, (R-AL)
Phone: (202) 224-5744
Fax: (202) 224-3416
Ryan Welch has the legislation for his office
senator@shelby.senate.gov

Senator Sessions, (R-AL)
Phone: 202) 224-4124
Fax: (202) 224-3149
Stephen Boyd has the legislation for his office
Internet Contact Form

Without this legislation the Corporate Donors will withdraw, the ships will no longer be available and the emergency relief program will collapse.

This is not a partisan exercise; each and every one of us has been directly affected by the recent hurricanes and will be affected again.

This requires immediate action, of the project will collapse. Contact with your House Representative and Senators, let them know the senators above have the legislation to make this happen and to support it or to submit it themselves.

Questions and comments can be directed to:

Email: info -at - btcorp.us
Website: www.btcorp.us
Weblog: www.btcorp.us/mt

Thank you.

Senator Traitor?

h/t The Anchoress:

Senator Jay Rockefeller's alledged meetings with representatives of enemy states in advance of the Iraq War, if true, should lead to an investigation under the Logan Act.

Bush Poll Amnesia Continues

According to USA Today, appropriately enough, today:

Bush's job approval rating sank to a record low 37%.

Interesting.

We're all well aware of the effects of Bush Derangement Syndrome (h/t: Instapundit), but the media's related and less-widely known Bush Poll Amnesia (BPA) shows no signs of abating.

BPA is indicated by the presentation of the various lows in Bush's approval rating during his presidency as occurring in a vacuum, independent of the other 42 preceding presidential administrations. For example, CNN's headline:

Poll: Bush approval mark at all-time low

This information is breathlessly presented, without providing any context as how Bush might relate to previous administrations, in such a way that the reader might just infer that George W. Bush is the Worst President Ever™.

But according, once again to USA Today on 10/17, that isn't true. As a matter of pure fact, Bush is still tied for have the "best/worst" numbers of any president since 1963:

Every president since 1963 has had approval ratings at one time or another that were lower than Bush's current rating. Those ratings include Lyndon Johnson's 35%, Richard Nixon's 24%, Gerald Ford's 37%, Jimmy Carter's 28%, Ronald Reagan's 35%, the elder George Bush's 29% and Bill Clinton's 37%.

Bush's numbers are on par with those put up by Clinton and Ford, slightly better than Reagan and Johnson's, and are far better than that of Nixon, G.H.W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, but you won't often find that mentioned in most poll-related articles due, apparently, to serious cases of Bush Poll Amnesia.

Dean Refuses to Apologize For Racist Democrats

Howard Dean says the Democratic National Commitee will not apologize for racist comments made by Maryland Democrats against Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele.

As if to prove his point, Dean then slandered John M. Kane, Maryland's Republican Party leader, falsely claiming that Kane asserted Dean was anti-Semite.

I love Howard Dean.

Too Far

The Central Intelligence Agency isn't perfect, but to suggest there is no difference between CIA and al Qaeda personnel is far over the line, even for the traitorous cesspool that is the Democratic Underground.

Rai's White Phosphorus Fraud

Rai News24, an offshoot of communist-dominated channel Rai 3, recently released a film titled Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre accusing the United States military of using chemical weapons against civilians in the 2004 battle of Fallujah in Iraq. Immediately, and without question in most instances, left of center media outlets and political blogs trumpeted the "fact" that white phosphorus was used to create deadly clouds of poison gas, killing unknown scores of Iraqi civilans as they slept in their beds.

But who are the documentary's experts, and can they be trusted?

The Documentary "Experts"
Noted anti-American communist and serial fabricator Guiliana Sgrena was one "expert" who came armed with her opinion, but without any actual evidence. In the film she explains that the terrorists who took her hostage for several months did not want videotaped evidence of U.S. attrocities to leak out.

Jeff Englehardt, a former soldiers and left-wing poltical blogger has been roundly debunked for his erroneous claims about the physical properties of white phosphorus, has now apparently retracted his claims, while claiming that the Rai film team (that let him go on at length) misquoted him.

Another "expert witness" journalist mentioned in the video is actually Mark Manning a retired deep sea diver (not Mark Manning, the acid-tripping lead singer of Zodiac Mindwarp and The Love Reaction), who coincidentally, has his videotapes of alledged atrocities conveniently stolen before another living soul could view them, apparently by a cash rich street bum with ties to George W. Bush himself.

Even the U.S. helicopter video that the documentary presents as evidence of U.S. brutality has been exposed as fraudulently edited footage taken from another battle entirely.

One might begin to question the credibility of Rai's experts...

A Real Expert Speaks
But some experts are rather difficult to refute, and former U.S. Captain Robison (full name and current employment have been witheld for security reasons), a Confederate Yankee reader, is such an expert.

Captain Robison has over ten years of military service as an officer and enlisted soldier in the Medical Branch, Field Artillery and Signal Corp including the Gulf War and Kosovo operations. Most recently he worked as a contractor for DIA with the Iraqi Survey Group.

He had this to say:

I am a former fire support officer, who was trained to travel with infantry and armor units and be the eyes of the artillery to call for fire.

I read the article from the Italian news source, and let me state unequivocally that what it claims is physically impossible. A white phosphorous round used for illumination is a base ejecting projectile that "opens" in the air and floats down under a parachute. The projectile casing does continue down range, but fire direction officers and fire support officers along with the maneuver commanders clear this impact area as part of the calculations. The projectile casing itself could kill a person, as any bullet would, but it is not possible to use it as a chemical warfare attack.

The flare itself floats down and you would pretty much have to chase after it and position yourself under where you project it will land to even get burned. It is possible although very unlikely that this flare could hit a building and could cause a fire, but the injury wouldn't be a chemical burn, but a burn from the building fire. I have never seen anything close to this happen.

The flares come down slowly and usually burn out first, but since they are the brightest thing in the sky, it would be easy to avoid one if it landed while burning. I have seen a few flares land on the ground while burning, but this is much different than a chemical attack.

The only way you could purposely harm anyone with this is if you direct fired at a short range. The projectile most likely wouldn't eject the flare (it has a timed fuse) and it really wouldn't matter if you fired Cheetohs at someone at that range, the concussion would kill them.

An artillery unit wouldn't use direct fire unless it was being attacked. And even then it would use their organic direct fire weapons and if necessary, another type of projectile. To use a WP for direct fire would be entirely counterproductive to the security of the battery even in self defense.

This Italian news story is nothing but a lie.

I hasten to add that Captain Robison is a perhaps the single most qualified person to examine this documentary so far.

He graduated with a B.S. Biology (pre-medicine) from the University of Tampa, and has graduted the U.S. Army Field Artillery Officer Basic Course, Signal Officer Adanced Course, Combined Arms and Services Staff School, and Airborne and Air Assault.

Further, in addition to his outstanding artillery and medical background, he is also a video expert, contracted under DIA to provide analysis of captured Saddam regime video, documentation, audio, and computer media. Later, his team analyzed captured insurgent media, and analyzed thousands of videos to determine intelligence value. His team provided support that assisted in the capture of Saddam Hussein and later provided intelligence of insurgent activities.

He had this to say in specific about the video itself:

I analyzed the video and am pleased to announce that it is junk. There are many things I could point out, but here is what sticks out.

1. The “fire raining down from the helicopter” was the part that concerned me...

   Contrary to the documentary claim that hellicopters were shooting fire, there are no helicopters in that video segment. There is a split second airbust and if you freeze the picture at the right instant, the airburst lights up the sky. There are no helicopters present. This proves a false claim by the documentary creators in what may be the most significant portion of the video...

   ...I had to watch it repeatedly to figure it out. At first I thought it was the backblast from a missile being fired the other direction. After a more thorough analysis, I realize it was an air burst of WP artillery rounds. Those are basically small rags that looked like balls of fire. This is because it is night and it is hard to get perspective at night, with or without night vision equipment. Taken out of context, it is easy to make it look like fire raining down on the city. The rag would certainly burn, but it would be like a cigarette and you would just need to brush it off, maybe take off clothes, and get away from it.

2. The voice over states "contrary to the claim by the state department that WP was used in open fields, this was not true because tracer rounds were used to illuminate the enemy" Nothing could have spelled out liar any bigger than that one statement. Tracy rounds are never used to illuminate the enemy. The glow from a tracer round lasts tenths of a second and travels hundreds of miles an hour; it could not possibly be used for this function, again a claim that defies all practicality. Tracer rounds are used to see where your bullets are going so your fire can be adjusted, flat out. And quoting the State Department about a military function?
3. The pictures of dead bodies while hideous provide no analytical value. Contrast the opening from Vietnam, with the burned little girl, running from a napalmed village. That is conclusive evidence. Nothing about these dead bodies looked any different to the many dead bodies I have seen analyzing other videos (of dead bodies) that were all made that way (dead) by Saddam's regime and then by Jihadists. There is no way to determine what killed these people by looking at pictures, except maybe by a forensics expert.

The soldiers in the video , however were a bit more complicated for the fomer Captain:

I find the taller guy, I think his name was Garret, credible. His story rang true and is tragically repeated. [Note: his story was about a civilian car traveling at soldiers at a high rate of speed, and the soldiers firing on the vehicle. --ed.] But this is not a war crime or a chemical attack, but bad target identification and a complete human tragedy, assuming the "civilians" were indeed non combatants, it is very hard for the soldiers to tell. Although I do question his motives that is irrelevant to this analysis since he provides no “evidence” of chemical weapons.

The other guy Jeff was a liar, to the point I would need to see his orders to believe he was in Iraq. He states, (paraphrasing) "the orders unequivocally came from the pentagon to wait until after the election".

How does he know this? Was he CENTCOM commander at the time? Did the CENTCOM commander call him up and tell him that? Even if it was true, that fact in itself is not nefarious.

The re-election of Bush would be a crushing blow to the Jihadists in Fallujah, and let me tell you, I have seen their own videos recovered from there and the place was crawling with them. It would make tactical sense to wait, if you were pretty confident that Bush would win. They call this tactical patience.

Also, the timing of the attack was heavily influenced by the Iraqi Provisional Authority. The U.S. had just helped them form and wanted to get them involved with running their country as soon as possible. That is why the first battle of Fallujah was ended, because the new Iraqi government wanted more time to talk with the Jihadists. That is until the new Iraqi government officials figured out that they were now the primary target of the Jihadists and told the U.S. effectively, go get them (the Jihadists in Fallujah) as soon as you can.

Jeff states (paraphrasing), that the U.S. was using chemical weapons because we used WP.

Hogwash.

Furthermore about Jeff Englehardt (and for the record, I noticed this too):

He states (paraphrasing) when they used the stuff (WP) they would come over the net and say the WP is coming or "commence bombing" or something.

Commence bombing? Who was on the net giving this sitrep, Clark Gable? That's about the last time anybody used this term. This guy is a clown.

But for Captain Robison, perhaps the most damning evidence of fraud comes from contradictions in the very video itself:

The real tip off about the credibility of this “news story” is the pictures of dead animals.

The voice over said, paraphrasing: that several animals were found dead with no visible sign of trauma.

First off, did they examine the animals? If so, they didn't show it. Sure something is not visible, if you don't look! Animals die everyday from natural causes, hunger, disease, or even getting hit by cars or possibly by conventional weapons.

And get this, they show people who appear burned and claim this to be a sign of a chemical weapon, then they show animals with no injuries in the context of this discussion to imply they died of a mysterious chemical weapon. Their “facts” not only fail to support each other, but they directly conflict with each other.

After reviewing all of this evidence, he states:

By introducing these “facts” in the context of a chemical weapons discussion, yet not having any supporting evidence, I can only conclude that not only are these charges false, but this was done with the documentary creator's full knowledge that they were baseless charges. In other words, they purposely lied, which goes to their credibility.

Captain Robison then floored me with this firsthand experience as he reacts to reading this story at Daily Kos, regarding Marines talking about using white phosphorus in screening missions:

The kind of projectile they are speaking about here creates smoke. It is widely, commonly, and legally used by every army to conceal their men. Usually, if an obstacle needs to be breeched, the smoke is delivered by artillery in between the obstacle and the enemy observer. It can also be placed on the enemy to confuse and scare them. The smoke itself is uncomfortable, but not dangerous, unless you want to sit on top of the projectile and breathe it. I know because I have experienced it. [my bold]

Unless someone at Daily Kos or Rai News24 can present me with convincing evidence that Captain Robison died due to his exposure and is now a zombie, then I think this "crockumentary" can now be listed as thoroughly debunked.

"They're not going after tourists."

Riots continue in Paris for a 17^th straight night:

Dozens of youths threw trash cans at police and attacked sidewalk shops in a main square of Lyon on Saturday night in the first clash between rioters and police in a city center after more than two weeks of violence in France, according to news reports.

Youths stormed through the historic Place Bellecour in Lyon, France's third-largest city, located in the southeastern Rhone Valley region, even though the city had imposed a nighttime curfew on minors not accompanied by parents. Police fired tear gas to disperse the youths, and 10 people were arrested, officials said.

It is surprising to most of us, I think, that these riots have continued unabated for more than two weeks. While the overall violence has tapered off it's highest point (according to the burning car metric), their seems to be some indication that the rioting may again intensify.

Interestingly enough, at least some tourists aren't worried.

Arjang Ahmadpour, 20, a student from Los Angeles waiting in line in a cold drizzle to take the elevator up the Eiffel Tower, shrugged off concerns about the unrest. "People asked me, 'Oh, you're going to Paris? Aren't you scared?' " he said.

His response, he said, has been, "They're not going after tourists."

It seems these days that the most dangerous thing to be in France, is French.

Update: The riots seem to have ignited the pen of Russ Vaughn, as well as French automobiles.

Paristine
Jacques and his frères are surely weeping
Les pauvres immigrès have caught them sleeping,
Paysans revolt, their emotions churning,
What's that odeur? Is Paris burning?
Within the banlieues there's no joy
Among les jeunes who are sans emplois
What, take a job? Not the way to go;
We'd rather riot, torch your Peugeot.

We'll breed you into minority,
Till only mullahs hear your plea,
And Shari'a rules throughout your land,
A Frenchman steals, he'll lose his hand.
Your licentious lifestyle, long extolled,
Will leave your women stoned, dead cold.
But everything will turn out fine,
In the Muslim Republic of Paristine.

Sometimes...

... it's all about me.

Carnival of Cordite #38

A Special Veteran's Day Edition is up, including a little post I tossed together. Check it out.

Hand-in-hand is a Report From A Marine In Iraq from Never Yet Melted that spends some time discussing weapons the Marines use.

Perhaps it isn't much of a shock, but the M-16, M-4, and SAW get ripped for constant jamming and having pathetic ballistics. Really? A prarie dog cartridge isn't up to snuff for killing bad guys?

Who knew?

Interestingly enough, the favored firearms in Iraq are modern versions of throwbacks... but I'll make you click over to find out which ones are being redeployed en masse.

Yippie-Ki-Yay...

Via The Corner:

It's about these guys. It's about these guys who do what they are asked to do for very little money to defend and fight for what they consider to be freedom.

And it's not just for this country. It's for the world. It is time for terrorism to stop. And the United States is the country that can stop it. And that's what they're doing over there."

That was actor Bruce Willis, talking about Duece Four LTC Erik Krillia's unit if you read Michael Yon as you should, before offering one million dollars of his own money for the heads of Osama Bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahri, or Abu Musab al Zarqawi.

Bush Calls Democrats On Iraq War Lies

The President is mad ans hell, and he's not going to take it anymore.

While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. (Applause.) Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs.

They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. And many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: "When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security." That's why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate -- who had access to the same intelligence -- voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power. (Applause.)

The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. (Applause.) These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them. (Applause.) Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. (Applause.) And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory.

You can access the full text of the speech here.

The Democrats long ago grasped the concept that a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth. They may yet discover that a "truth" manufactured in such a fashion quickly comes undone when exposed to the light of day.

The NY Times actually appears to have played this one down the middle.

Glenn Reynolds, Jeff Goldstein, and Gateway Pundit have more, though Scott Ott might have the most accurate comment on the day's speech yet.

Update: George W. Bush's speech today scared Ted Kennedy so bad that his hands quite shaking.

Help These Veterans Return to Service

The USS San Diego is but one U.S Navy veteran that looks to return to service as one of the nation's first Fast Response Emergency Cargo Vessel/Rescue Ships.

Beauchamp Tower Corporation has created Operation Enduring Service which will rebuild and refit obsolete military ships to provide state-of-the-art emergency relief and disaster response at no cost to the taxpayers and a savings to the government of at least $100 million.

In addition, the rebuild/refit of these ships will result in the creation of approximately 3,000 jobs in the areas hit by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, while increasing the operational capability of the United States Coast Guard.

A number of organizations and corporations are working closely with Beauchamp Tower Corporation to make this happen, including:

• United States Coast Guard Auxiliary
• Dell Computers


• Microsoft Corporation
• Sherwin Williams
• Bender Shipyard
• Alabama Shipyard
• IPSCO Steel
• Erikson Aircrane Heavy Lift Helicopters
• AEPCO Shipyard
• ERM North America
• KME Fire Apparatus

and many, many more.

But due to time constraints, the legislation required to make this happen is dangerously close to falling by the wayside. It has to pass before Congress ends this Session, in approximately one week.

BTC has obtained the support of a number of Congressmen and Senators. Each of the senators has the ability to submit this legislation for Operation Enduring Service and should be contacted via phone, fax or electronically and encouraged to submit this legislation immediately.

Senator Cochran, (R-MS) (Chairman of Appropriations)
Phone: (202) 224-5054
Internet Contact Form
Senator DeWine, (R-OH)
Phone: (202) 224-2315
Fax: (202) 224-6519
Becky Watts has the legislation for his office
Internet Contact Form
Senator Shelby, (R-AL)
Phone: (202) 224-5744
Fax: (202) 224-3416
Ryan Welch has the legislation for his office
senator@shelby.senate.gov
Senator Sessions, (R-AL)
Phone: 202) 224-4124
Fax: (202) 224-3149
Stephen Boyd has the legislation for his office
Internet Contact Form

Without this legislation the Corporate Donors will withdraw, the ships will no longer be available and the emergency relief program will collapse.

This is not a partisan exercise; each and every one of us has been directly affected by the recent hurricanes and will be affected again.

This requires immediate action from every one, contact with your House Representative and Senators, let them know the senators above have the legislation to make this happen and to support it or to submit it themselves.

Questions and comments can be directed to:

Email: info -at - btcorp.us
Website: www.btcorp.us
Weblog: www.btcorp.us/mt

Please help these Navy veterans return to serve their nation once more.

Jordanian Bombers Were Iraqis

Via YNet:

Two of the three suicide bombers that struck three luxury hotels in Jordan's capital Amman on Wednesday are believed to have been Iraqi citizens, CNN reported Thursday.

According to the report, Al-Zarqawi's al-Qaeda in Iraq claimed responsibility for the bombings in a website posting. Three blasts occurred almost simultaneously Wednesday evening at the Hyatt Grand Hotel, the Radisson SAS and the Days Inn hotels, killing 57 people and wounding hundreds.

Al Qaeda in Iraq has, once again, miscalculated horribly:

Sameeh Khreis has spent years demanding justice and more rights for jailed Islamic extremists. But on Thursday, he joined thousands who took to the streets across Jordan to condemn the militants behind Amman's triple hotel bombings that killed 59 people.

"This is disgusting. We will never tolerate such terrorism," Khreis said, marching with 2,000 others in Jordan's capital.

"Burn in hell, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi!" they shouted, denouncing the Jordanian-born leader of al-Qaida in Iraq. Al-Zarqawi's group claimed responsibility for the blasts but later, confronted with mounting protests, took the rare step of trying to justify the attacks on Arab civilians.

Bringing the war "home," targetting Arab civilians, has been a horrible decision for the terrorists. There is a saying that "you don't crap where you eat."

They have not learned that lesson, and one must wonder if they will before they lose their remaining public support.

Thirteen Folds

Our church was honored this past weekend when three American soldiers presented our congregation with a flag in recognition of the small acts we have performed for our military at home and aboard. As they presented the flag, the sergeant leading the detail explained the significance of each fold.

Via US History.org:

1. The first fold of our flag is a symbol of life.
2. The second fold is a symbol of our belief in the eternal life.
3. The third fold is made in honor and remembrance of the veteran departing our ranks who gave a portion of life for the defense of our country to attain a peace throughout the world.
   
4. The fourth fold represents our weaker nature, for as American citizens trusting in God, it is to Him we turn in times of peace as well as in times of war for His divine guidance.
5. The fifth fold is a tribute to our country, for in the words of Stephen Decatur, "Our country, in dealing with other countries,
   may she always be right; but it is still our country, right or wrong."
6. The sixth fold is for where our hearts lie. It is with our heart that we pledge llegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it tands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
7. The seventh fold is a tribute to our Armed Forces, for it is through the Armed Forces that we protect our country and our flag against all her enemies, whether they be found within or without the boundaries of our republic.
8. The eighth fold is a tribute to the one who entered in to the valley of the shadow of death, that we might see the light of day, and to honor mother, for whom it flies on Mother's Day.
9. The ninth fold is a tribute to womanhood; for it has been through their faith, love, loyalty and devotion that the character of the men and women who have made this country great have been molded.
10. The tenth fold is a tribute to father, for he, too, has given his sons and daughters for the defense of our country since they were first born.
11. The eleventh fold, in the eyes of a Hebrew citizen, represents the lower portion of the seal of King David and King Solomon, and glorifies, in their eyes, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
12. The twelfth fold, in the eyes of a Christian citizen,
    represents an emblem of eternity and glorifies, in their eyes, God the Father, the Son, and Holy Ghost.
13. When the flag is completely folded, the stars are uppermost, reminding us of our national motto, "In God we Trust."

A sincere thanks to all of you who have served our nation's military.

Your sacrifices are not forgotten.

Be Careful What You Wish For

Diarist Steven D at Daily Kos, citing the Altercation peice without bothering to put his brain in gear, parroted the same argument, cuasing a gleeful kos to make the challenge:

Let's see them deny this shit now -- kos

Bad move, cupcake.

In a post titled "US Army Admits Use of White Phosphorus as Weapon," Steven D starts off with the following claim:

That's right. Not from Al Jazheera [sic], or Al Arabiya, but the US fucking Army, in their very own publication, from the (WARNING: pdf file) March edition of Field Artillery Magazine in an article entitled "The Fight for Fallujah":

"WP [i.e., white phosphorus rounds] proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE. We fired 'shake and bake' missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out."

In other words the claim by the US Government that White Phosphorus was used only for illumination at Fallujah had been pre-emptively debunked by the Army. Indeed, the article goes on to make clear that soldiers would have liked to have saved more WP rounds to use for "lethal missions."

Steve D seems to have an issue meshing reading comprehension with tactical knowledge, as exposed by the paragraph that he cites as "proof" of chemical weapons attacks.

A primary use of white phosphorous is indeed creating smoke screens. But Steve D somehow manage to transmutate the use of white phosphorous as a "potent psychological weapon" into that of a chemical weapon. WP was used to scare the enemy, so that the enemy would run, where he would then be cut down by high explosive fragmentation ammunition.

Am I to believe that he takes issue with scaring the enemy before we kill him?

Steve D then repeats an untruth from emailer Mark Kraft at Altercation, who wrongly claims:

. . . there is no way you can use white phosphorus like that without forming a deadly chemical cloud that kills everything within a tenth of a mile in all directions from where it hits. Obviously, the effect of such deadly clouds weren't just psychological in nature.

Unequivocally this is false information. Altercation's commentator Kraft is totally, completely wrong. White phosphorous has been used for over 60 years by the United State military, and is most often deployed to screen the movement of troops from specific enemy positions. As these soldiers assault the position screened by the white phosphorous cloud of smoke, they must often maneuver directly through that smoke to taken their objective. I have been unable to find one instance dating from World War II to the present where a soldier has become a casualty as the result of the "deadly chemical cloud" Kraft relates to. As one of my readers, a retired Army Lt. Colonel related to me via email, "I'm sure breathing the smoke isn't the best thing for you, but Sarin it ain't."

Sadly, it just gets worse for Steve D. and others on the left that would like to forge ahead with this false story.

Military experts have debunked all claims made about white phosphorous weapons. The Italian filmmakers who started this left-wing meltdown have had their credibility shredded, and their American soldier witness was found to be an anti-war activist who never got closer to the battle than a radio.

Now even kos is trying to backtrack and shift focus. Too little, too late.

Consider you anti-American hatred forcefully, and conclusively, denied.

Update: More background on the Italian television station at the bottom of this left-wing fiasco from Captain Marlow.

Crow. The Other White Meat

Yesterday, I wrote blog post responding a pack of lies passed off as journalism by the Independent's Peter Popham.

Popham wrote an article accusing the United States military of using massive quantities of white phosphorous as a chemical weapon the battle of Fallujah. He claimed massive civilian casualties. He claimed that assault went unreported by the media, as were (presumably) the supposed atrocities. But none of Popham's story is supported by the truth.

I wrote a scathing reply to his false charges in this post, pointing out the very obvious fact that many journalists were in Fallujah, including Kevin Sites who shot the internationally famous (or infamous) video of a Marine shooting a wounded terrorist in a Fallujah mosque, or of a picture that made a Kentucky Marine famous as the "Marlboro man."

News photographers shot thousands of photos and hours of video in Fallujah. I was so right about the fact that they were there, but I was so wrong about what their presence and photographic evidence meant.

After reading Popham's article, I must have internalized the quote from the "former American solider" he quotes, who said:

"Phosphorus explodes and forms a cloud. Anyone within a radius of 150 metres is done for."

I then claimed that the lack of protective gear in the photos proved white phosphorous could not have been used in "massive quantities" as claimed by Popham. Boy, was I wrong. It proves nothing of the sort.

From a reader, who happens to be something of an expert:

You made an erroneous correlation in your commentary "Popham, Meet Sites" concerning the absence of chemical protection on the Marines indicating that WP would not have been used. Chemical protection is not needed nor used when WP is employed. There is no respiratory "chemical threat" associated with WP. Our chemical protection suits would not protect a person from burns associated with WP. (WP would burn right through a chemical protection suit.)

In other words, the lack of protective gear I cited meant precisely nothing, because protective gear wouldn't stop white phosphorous, nor even slow it down. He further clarifies the properties of WP:

WP is not employed in an anti-personnel roll. It works great in disabling equipment because of the extreme heat properties of the chemicals. It can burn through thinner steel and iron very quickly rendering equipment unusable. Of course it will quickly ignite fuel and ammunition, hence its use against POL [petroleum/oil/lubricants] and Ammo storage areas. It does not work well against heavily armored equipment like tanks because the there just isn't a large enough mass of burning phosphorus to burn through tank armor.

But wait. Didn't Popham claim the following?

Provided by the Studies Centre of Human Rights in Fallujah, dozens of high-quality, colour close-ups show bodies of Fallujah residents, some still in their beds, whose clothes remain largely intact but whose skin has been dissolved or caramelised or turned the consistency of leather by the shells.

So clothes don't remain "largely intact" nor is skin "dissolved," but is instead completely burned away. White phosphorous does not leave skin "carmelised" nor turns the skin "consistency of leather."

High explosives, commonly used in warfare, however, can "carmelise" skin, and dead bodies in hot dry desert air tends to begin to mummify, and can quite easily turn " the consistency of leather" because of the desiccation of the human body in such an environment.

In short, these wounds are not caused from WP. Period. The burn physics of white phosphorous does not change, though the excuses on the Left flitter by like the wind.

The expert concludes:

Most of the Fallujah operation was conducted in daylight, so the primary use of WP would have been as an obscurant. WP especially from mortars would serve no useful destructive purpose (like an HE round). Technically, in this employment roll, WP would be a tactic, not a weapon – in that it would not be fired with the expectation of killing the enemy. If the enemy was inside a building WP would be wholly ineffective as a weapon employed to neutralize/kill him...

In your defense, Sites and any other reporters close at hand did not report any massive use of WP. It would seem to me that if the Marines had used massive amounts of WP rounds; something out of the ordinary as compared to tactics previously employed, there would have been reporter comments. Not comments condemning the use of chemical weapons, but comments about the employment of an unseen and unusual tactic. Those comments were not forthcoming.

Scott Burgess at the UK blog The Daily Ablution has a similar conversation with an expert today that follows a similar path and reaches similar conclusions.

The Independent stories--Popham's yesterday, and Andrew Buncombe's today--are meritless, tawdry political theater based upon willful ignorance and deliberately uncritical reporting and editing.

I guess there is a place for "Mary Mapes-style" journalism in the world after all.

Also: While you're here, consider this post, will you?

Plug the Leak, And the Leaker

Drudge reported earlier today that:

House Speaker Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Frist will announce a bicameral investigation into the leak of classified information to the WASHINGTON POST regarding the “black sites” where high value al Qaeda terrorists are being held and interrogated.

Within hours, Mississippi Republican Trent Lott said it may have been a Republican Senator or staffer who leaked the information:

Lott told reporters that the existence of the secret prison system was discussed last week during the Republican policy luncheon, held on Capitol Hill the day before the Post story appeared.

"Information that was said in there, given out in there, did get into the newspaper," Lott said.

Asked whether he believed it was Republicans who had breached security, Lott said: "I don't know where else it came from...it looked to me that at least one of those reports came right out of that room."

Understandably, the media and liberal blogs such as Daily Kos, Eschaton and others are having a field day as Republicans apparently set the stage to pull the trigger on a circular firing squad that may claim one of their own.

My take?

The leaker(s), potentially compromised real agents and intelligence operations, and have committed nothing less than some form of treason or sedition against the United States. The person who leaked the information for this article should spend a significant portion of the rest of his or her life in prison.

I don't give a damn who did it, (Ace's suspect is as good as any); I want them held accountable.

In that same vein, I'd like to see an inquiry into the Washington Post's involvement in this story. Freedom of Speech is not the right to endanger the lives of American intelligence officers, anymore than it is the right to endanger servicemen. There are both ethical and legal lines that Dana Milbank and the Washington Post make have crossed, and if they did endanger our nation they should be held accountable as well.

Popham, Meet Sites

Update: The conclusions I drew in the post below are almost completely wrong. See why here.

British writer—I hesitate to credit him with the title journalist—Peter Popham, published an article the UK's Independent today titled "US forces 'used chemical weapons' during assault on city of Fallujah." In the article, Popham claimed, in part:

Powerful new evidence emerged yesterday that the United States dropped massive quantities of white phosphorus on the Iraqi city of Fallujah during the attack on the city in November 2004, killing insurgents and civilians with the appalling burns that are the signature of this weapon.

Ever since the assault, which went unreported by any Western journalists, rumours have swirled that the Americans used chemical weapons on the city.

Sadly, almost none of Popham's article is true. As I said in a comment this afternoon at Ezra Klein's blog (with my typos from the comments cleaned up, of course):

White phosphorous is not a chemical weapon.

White phosporous may been used in Fallujah consistent with its primary purpose, illumination of targets, but exactly zero evidence is presented for the claims that is was used widely and purposefully, as a weapon. In fact, the Independent provides no direct evidence at all.

And then there is simply the application of logic.

WP is not very useful in an urban, close quarters battle environment that the Fallujah battlespace was. High explosives are much more effective in most environments but especially in close quarters, and pose far less of a threat to your own troops who are constantly moving forward into the areas where these weapons would have been used. Do you really think Marines would have poured hundreds of rounds of such an agent into an area that they would then immediate occupy? The story shows a complete ignorance of tactics or even a shred of logic.

A corresponding point is readily available video from inside Fallujah that ALL of you have likely seen.

Does ANYONE remember Kevin Sites? Ignore the blowhard from the Independent that said no reporters were present. Kevin Sites was the embedded video-journalist that shot video of a Marine shooting a wounded insurgent inside a mosque as he followed them through Fallujah (as a side note, the Marine was cleared).

You will notice, as you watch the film, that NONE of the Marines had the chemical protective gear needed to survive in the WP-saturated environment that the Independent claims existed. The story is easily proven false by the video evidence provided by journalists who were there.

You have a simple choice: do you believe a story that provides no direct evidence, or do you trust your lying eyes?

Mr. Popham, meet Kevin Sites.

As I mention in the comment at Klien's blog, Sites leaped to stardom as one of the many embedded journalists reporting on Mr Popham's "unreported" assault on Fallujah, when he captured video of a Marine shooting a wounded Iraqi prisoner in the head inside a Fallujah mosque.

Does this image ring a bell?

Video of the shooting and other images captured by sites clearly show American Marines operating in Fallujah--when Popham claims "massive quantities of white phosphorus" were used, without any chemical protective gear in sight.

No chemical gloves or gas masks are present in another still from the infamous Fallujah mosque video:

Nor here:

Nor here:

As a matter of fact, a Google image search for "marines fallujah" shows that none of protective clothing needed to survive in an environment where "massive quantities of white phosphorus" was used can be found in any of the pictures from Fallujah.

Mr Popham and his editors at the Independent should learn to check facts before running such easily disproven propaganda, or better yet, perhaps they should consider a new line of work.

Other Coverage:
The Mudville Gazette
Ballon Juice
Outside the Beltway
QandO
Countercolumn

Lawyers, Guns, and Money

On February 12, 2004, Wake County Sheriff's Investigator Mark Tucker was killed by a blast from a single-shot Mossberg 12-gauge. The shotgun was fired by Matthew Grant, a convicted felon. The shotgun was purchased for Grant by one of his friends, Van McQueen.

These facts, as cited by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence in their civil lawsuit against Cary Jewelry & Pawn, are true.

Many of Brady's other allegations, however, are apparently untrue. The Brady Center made allegations and insinuations not supported by facts, as exposed in a previous post on the subject, and since then, new elements of the Brady Center's case have fallen apart, as two of the strongest allegations in their civil case against Cary Jewelry & Pawn now appear to be falsified.

According to the Brady Center's October 17, 2005 press release:

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence today filed a lawsuit on behalf of the widow of a Wake County, North Carolina Sheriff's Investigator, charging that a gun shop's negligence helped arm his killer.

Investigator Mark Tucker was shot in the face with a shotgun and killed on February 12, 2004, by Matthew Grant, a convicted felon. The suit seeks to recover damages from Cary Jewelry & Pawn, who supplied Grant's friend, Van McQueen, with the 12-gauge Mossberg shotgun that was used to kill Investigator Tucker. Grant is also a named defendant.

The suit was filed in Wake County court and claims that Cary Jewelry & Pawn, of Cary, North Carolina, negligently and illegally sold the murder weapon to an obviously dangerous person.

In November 2003, Van McQueen and Matthew Grant went to Cary Jewelry & Pawn to buy a firearm. McQueen planned to purchase a firearm as a straw buyer for Grant, because Grant was a felon prohibited from buying guns, and in return Grant promised to buy McQueen a beer. McQueen was mentally deficient and was obviously intoxicated, and the shop's clerk refused to sell him a gun. Three days later, McQueen returned to the pawn shop with Grant, again wanting to buy a firearm. Although his home address was a local mission, McQueen had $120 in cash to buy the weapon. This time, even though the same clerk who had seen McQueen intoxicated three days earlier was on duty, the shop completed the all-cash sale. McQueen then transferred the shotgun to Grant, who used it to shoot Investigator Tucker in the face, killing him. Grant was arrested, convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison for the murder of Investigator Tucker.

"The evidence in this case clearly shows that the gun dealer irresponsibly and illegally sold a shotgun to a man it knew to be dangerous," said Daniel R. Vice, Staff Attorney with the Brady Center. "The gun dealer chose to make a quick buck rather than protect public safety – greed and recklessness caused the death of a brave law enforcement officer."

Investigator Tucker's widow is represented by attorneys with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and by E. Spencer Parris of the Jones Martin Parris & Tessener Law Offices. The Brady Center represents victims of gun violence in lawsuits against irresponsible gun dealers and manufacturers who supply guns to criminals. Last year, the Center obtained settlements in three high-profile cases on behalf on gun violence victims last year, including victims of the Washington, D.C.-area snipers, totaling $4.4 million.

In the press release above, Brady states:

Although his home address was a local mission, McQueen had $120 in cash to buy the weapon.

That the Brady Center would apparently try to conjure up the frightening image of a homeless person willing to buy almost anyone a gun for a beer is a disgusting, bigoted tactic, but it is a tactic the Brady Center seems comfortable in using.

But Van McQueen's home address was not a local mission as Brady claims, at any point in the gun purchasing process.

At the time the shotgun was purchased, McQueen resided at a Buckingham Court apartment in Cary that he shared with Matthew Grant and several other men. He was not living as a resident of the mission until much later, in 2004, well after the murder had been committed.

Is Brady simply sloppy in their research, or are they willing to intentionally present false information? Someone should be asking the Brady Center that question, and perhaps under oath.

The Brady Center also states twice that McQueen went to Cary Jewelry & Pawn "in November 2003" and when denied purchase for having the scent of alcohol on his breath, he came back "three days later."

This is another falsehood, and ironically enough, the Brady Center's apparent fabrication this instance was refuted as the result of a law they helped to pass.

According the the Federal Bureau of Investigation CJIS Division:

In November 1993, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Act) was signed into law. The Brady Act requires Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to request background checks on individuals attempting to receive a firearm. The permanent provisions of the Brady Act, which went into effect on November 30, 1998, required the United States Attorney General to establish the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) so that any FFL may contact for information to be supplied immediately as to whether the receipt of a firearm by a prospective transferee would violate Section 922 (g) or (n) of Title 18 of the United States Code or state law.

Documentation, including NICS records, will show that Vandorance McQueen first attempted to purchase a firearm on November 26, 2003, and was approved by the FBI. At 3:38:55 PM, the shotgun was, as far as the FBI was concerned, now property of Van McQueen.

McQueen cleared the FBI background checks and was only turned down after employees noticed the scent of alcohol on his breath. The sale was voided by Cary Jewelry & Pawn and the firearm was technically re-entered as the property of Cary Jewelry & Pawn at 3:40:55 PM, just 2 1/2 minutes later.

Records will further show that Van McQueen did not come back three days later to attempt to purchase a firearm.

Three days after November 26 was November 29.

FBI NICS records and other documentation will show that Van McQueen did not purchase the shotgun until December 29 at 4:07:23 PM, 33 days later, or more than a month after the Brady Center's claim.

When combined with the questions raised in the previous fisking of the Brady Center's lawsuit press release, there is every reason to doubt the very credibility of the Brady Center's case.

They do, however, manage to tip their hand a bit, perhaps exposing their real reason for bringing the case against Cary Jewelry & Pawn.

Last year, the Center obtained settlements in three high-profile cases on behalf on gun violence victims last year, including victims of the Washington, D.C.-area snipers, totaling $4.4 million.

I'm no judge or jury, but it sure seems like a motive to me.

Deck 'O Bloggers

So am I a Spade or a Diamond?

My nominations

Ace of Diamonds goes to Glenn Reynolds. Ace of Clubs to Argghhh! Ace of Hearts would have to be Michelle Malkin. Ace of Spades simply is.

King of Diamonds would be Powerline. Blackfive would be King of Clubs. Frank J. for King of Spades. King of Hearts would be Sadie.

I'd nominate The Anchoress for Queen of Diamonds, Michalle Malkin for Queen of Spades, Boi from Troy as Queen of Hearts.

All the rest... well you don't really want all of my opinion, do you?

Operation Enduring Service

Your phone call to the senators listed below will free the USS Orion AS 18 and the
USS Howard W. Gilmore AS 16 to become emergency relief and disaster response vessels at
no cost to taxpayers.

A record breaking hurricane season has opened our eyes and brought to the forefront our need for improvement in response time to areas damaged by these massive storms. The first hours after a hurricane has made landfall are the most crucial. Without immediate relief those who've survived the massive winds and driving rains may very well succumb to rising waters, heat, water born illnesses and as well as fatigue and stress.

Beauchamp Tower Corporation has created Operation Enduring Service which will utilize obsolete military ships to provide emergency relief and disaster response at no cost to the taxpayers and a savings to the government of at least $100 million.

Due to time constraints the legislation required to make this happen is dangerously close to falling by the wayside-in fact it has to pass before Congress ends this Session (less than 14 days). BTC has obtained the support of a number of Congressmen and Senators. Each of the senators has the ability to submit this legislation for Operation Enduring Service and should be contacted via phone, fax or electronically and encouraged to submit this legislation immediately.

Senator Cochran, (R-MS) (Chairman of Appropriations)
Phone: (202) 224-5054
Internet Contact Form

Senator DeWine, (R-OH)
Phone: (202) 224-2315
Fax: (202) 224-6519
Becky Watts has the legislation for his office
Internet Contact Form

Senator Shelby, (R-AL)
Phone: (202) 224-5744
Fax: (202) 224-3416
Ryan Welch has the legislation for his office
senator@shelby.senate.gov

Senator Sessions, (R-AL)
Phone: 202) 224-4124
Fax: (202) 224-3149
Stephen Boyd has the legislation for his office
Internet Contact Form

This is not a partisan exercise; each and every one of us has been directly affected by the recent hurricanes and will be affected again. This requires immediate action from every one, contact with your House Representative and Senators, let them know the senators above have the legislation to make this happen and to support it or to submit it themselves.

Without this legislation the Corporate Donors will withdraw, the ships will no longer be available and the emergency relief program will collapse; thus leaving the disaster response efforts to be further mishandled by FEMA.

Directly from the O.E.S. Project Weblog:

We are preparing to receive at least two ships (if everything goes as planned) to begin the conversion to Fast Attack Emergency Cargo Ships to respond to disaster incidences in Coastal States (East Coast, Gulf Coast, and in some instances West Coast). It is estimated that we can removed about 27% of the federal burden for Ice, Water, and food within the first 10 hours following a CAT-4 landfall. There is also the ability of providing climate controlled medical and staging facilities for up to 40 percent of the same disaster area.

So, you want to see what these old girls will be able to do? Here's a list of only a few things we can provide during a Coastal State disaster (such as flooding or a hurricane)
----Service a disaster area of up to 10,000 square miles (up to 100 miles inland) with minimal (if any) outside support
----Provide complete berthing facilities for up to 400 emergency responders "on scene" at a disaster site
----Fully integrated communications system serving all local, state, and federal agencies, as well as cell phone coverage and military band frequencies--allowing for seamless communications between all disaster scene personnel, no matter what radio frequency or cell phone is being used.
----Daily provide 110 tons of bagged and palletized ice to the disaster region
----Daily generate, bottle, and palletize up to 50,000 gallons of fresh water
----Provide refueling station and loading platform for helicopters operating in the disaster area
----Carry over 7,000 tons of food and supplies for a disaster area
----Store (and provide delivery of) 700,000 gallons of diesel, gasoline, and aviation fuel for use in the disaster area on emergency vehicles and critical needs generators (hospitals, emergency operation centers, etc)
.......and that's just one ship.

It's time to realize that the government can't do it all during a disaster--we've got to roll up our sleeves and get to work to make sure the needs get met--one way or another.

Best part? The first two ships can be ready before next hurricane season--if things go as planned and all of you help us as we've asked.

It will only take a couple of minutes to provide comfort for someone that has had their life devastated by a natural disaster. Your immediate support by contacting your governmental representatives or by spreading the word about this project is greatly appreciated; because tomorrow may be too late.

If you have questions, leave a comment or send an e-mail, I'll find out the answer and get back to you. Or if you like contact O.E.S. directly:
Ward Brewer, CEO
Beauchamp Tower Corporation

Email: info at btcorp.us
Website: www.btcorp.us
Weblog: www.btcorp.us/mt

Note: In true naval fashion I've pirated Confederate Yankee and posted this.

Update: Added photo of USS Orion.

France Fries

A burned-out McDonalds in Corbeil-Essonnes, south of Paris. Via Yahoo!

A bomb-making operation was found in a Paris suburb last night as more than 900 vehicles, schools and shops were torched by Muslim immigrants in incidents spreading across France from Normandy to Paris to Mediterranean Sea.

The European Civil War is ahead of schedule, but hardly surprising. Sadly, as Mark Steyn notes, we have come to the edge of critical point in Western European history.

Now would be a prudent time to deploy the military to restore order, but as Parapundit notes, the loyalty of the French Army is in doubt.

The riots seem to be spreading, the police are ineffectual, the government is paralyzed by doubt, and the military, apparently, isn't trusted to follow orders.

If the French don't break out of their torpor soon, this might become known as the largest minaret in the world.

False Bravado

The News & Observer's Dennis Rogers whistles past the graveyard in his column Saturday, trying to convince himself that the newspaper industry is healthy. To make himself feel better about his future employment prospects, perhaps, he lashes out at the new kids in town:

If this is the brave new world, all I've got to say is, "Pshaw!" While there are responsible, well-researched and literate blogs doing a fine job at "people's journalism," there are plenty that are little more than some computer geek sitting in his mother's basement in his shorts and screaming for attention. It is difficult to know whom to believe and whom to laughingly ignore.

Newspapers are embracing new technology and the results are marvelous. But e-gizmos won't replace a rumpled reporter on the trail of a story. And when the piece is written and sleazy politicians are worried what their future holds, the answer will still be on the front steps by dawn's early light.

No newspapers? They wish.

Newspapers will indeed survive, as they have the resources to conduct original reporting that bloggers, in general, lack. Reporting may survive the onslaught of the new media, but not necessarily opinion columns.

Newspapers will have to trim the fat somewhere, however, and columnists are a dime a dozen... or as Times Select is proving, perhaps overpriced at that rate.

A Year Already?

Letters Home

I noticed with considerable amusement yesterday that according to Jane Smiley, 58 million American voters are complete idiots...

And thus started my blogging career, exactly one year ago today, correcting the blatant fact errors of an insufferable liberal. That first tentative post may have been the beginning and end of my blogging career, but a gentleman in Tennessee and another one in Florida linked to it, and I was hooked.

365 days, 780 posts, 2100 comments, nearly 330,000 visits and 442,000 page view later, I'm still have a blast.

I'd like to thank many, many people, but I'd like to start with Glenn Reynolds, who in addition to being one of the first bloggers that I read, provided me that first day's traffic that got the blogging fire stoked in me. I'd also like to thank basil, a very nice man who been very genrous with his linkage and advice, and over the past year, and who I do not give enough credit to, or stay in touch well enough with, who also managed to turn a practical joke into a full-fledged web portal.

I'd also like to thank Tom Elia very much, who was one of my first real influences (mostly behind the scenes after I got started, and who has done wonderful job of his own at The New Editor.

I'd also like to thank (in no particular order) Ace, The Anchoress, Michelle Malkin, Jay Stephenson, The Blue State Conservatives, Greg Wallace, and literally hundreds of other bloggers and commentors who have touched my life in the past year.

I also owe a special debt to Pixy Misa for giving a home to me and the Munuvian blogging family, and to my brother and co-owner and blogsmith Apothegm Designs, phin of phin's blog, who has designed this site from the ground up.

Gore-Wilson-Alamoudi-al Qaeda?

Wow.

Probably nothing but a conspiracy theory, but all too many intersecting interests, altogether, indeed...

The "Enemy?" I Can Live with That

Pervasive corruption in Canada, Dhimmitude in Buckingham, a ninth night of spreading revolt in France, fomenting arson in San Fransciso, cavorting with our nation's enemies in Argentina, and celebrating the deaths of American soldiers with a smile...

But conservatives are evil, non?

Bush's Lowest Still Better Than All Others in Recent History

To listen to the way it is spun in the Washington Post and crowd on the left, you'd think that President Bush's "all time low" job approval rating was the end of the world:

On virtually every key measure of presidential character and performance, the new survey found that Bush has never been less popular with the American people. Currently 39 percent approve of the job he is doing as president, while 60 percent disapprove of his performance in office -- the highest level of disapproval ever recorded for Bush in Post-ABC polls.

But if you look closely, these numbers are just for Bush in his own two terms, not for Presidents in general. How does he compare overall?

According to a 10/17 USA Today article, he compares pretty well:

Every president since 1963 has had approval ratings at one time or another that were lower than Bush's current rating. Those ratings include Lyndon Johnson's 35%, Richard Nixon's 24%, Gerald Ford's 37%, Jimmy Carter's 28%, Ronald Reagan's 35%, the elder George Bush's 29% and Bill Clinton's 37%.

Bush's worst to date is still several points better that the next best in President Clinton, and substantially better than all other presidents of the past four decades. Perhaps naysayers shouldn't crow so loudly when Bush is still at the top of the heap.

Update: As Tom Elia of the New Editor shows, Bush's "lowest" polling is the result of skewed polling across several polls.

For example, the CBS News poll, which shows that Bush's approval rating is at 35%, reports that an unweighted sample shows that 34.8% of its respondents self-identified as Democrats, while 27.6% said they were Republicans. While the unweighted sample yielded a seven-point differential favoring the Dems, a weighted sample had the spread at 11% points in favor of the Dems. This represents at least a 10-11 point swing in the electorate since the 2004 election (and perhaps as much as 14 points), when Bush won by about three points and the Repubs won the aggregate House vote by about four points.

The AP/Ipsos poll, which has Bush's approval rating at 37%, said its respondents self-identified 49% Dem and 40% Repub, yielding a nine-point differential favoring the Dems. This represents a 12-point swing in the electorate since 2004...

The ABC/Washington Post poll, which shows that Bush's approval rating is at 39%, saw its respondents break down thusly: 52% said they leaned toward the Dems, and 41% leaned toward the Repubs. That represents a 14-point swing since last year's elections.

Go read the rest.

Lies. Damn lies. Statistics.

Update 2: I should have titled this thread "You Can't Trust the Poll-ish."

My Little Phony

The International Arabian Horse Association association didn't want him, and newly released emails shows that fomer FEMA director Michael Brown was more worried about his looks than a developing catastrophe in New Orleans:

On August 29, the day of the storm, Brown exchanged e-mails about his attire with Taylor, Melancon said. She told him, "You look fabulous," and Brown replied, "I got it at Nordstroms. ... Are you proud of me?"

An hour later, Brown added: "If you'll look at my lovely FEMA attire, you'll really vomit. I am a fashion god," according to the congressman.

As PunditGuy notes, "Email has a way of revealing the real person inside the suit, and in this case, it confirms everything everyone suspected about Michael Brown."

Indeed.

Spanish Train Bomb Suspect Captured?

Via AP:

One al-Qaida suspect was killed in a police raid and a second was arrested, Pakistan announced Thursday, and an official said officials are trying to determine if the detainee is a Syrian with a $5 million U.S. bounty on his head for training terrorists.

Intelligence officials said a third man, with links to a Pakistani extremist group, was also captured Tuesday during the raid on a shop in this southern city that served as the office of an Islamic charity linked to a militant group.

"I can only confirm there was an encounter, and our security forces arrested one suspected al-Qaida terrorist while another terrorist was killed," Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed told The Associated Press. He said it would "take some time" to confirm their identities.

But a senior government official raised the possibility one of the arrested men is Mustafa Setmarian Nasar, 47, a Syrian native who holds Spanish citizenship.

It continues

Media reports have linked Nasar, also known as Abu Musab al-Suri, to the 2004 commuter train bombings in Madrid, Spain, that killed 191 people and to the July 7 attacks in London that left 56 dead, including the four bombers.

In September 2003, Nasar was among 35 people named in an indictment handed down by a Spanish magistrate for terrorist activities connected to al-Qaida.

If this is true, another high-level terrorist is out of action. The killing or capture of "A" list terrorists are getting fewer and further between. Of course, that probably has something to do with the fact that there aren't many more "A" listers still alive.

Dien Bien Phubar

photo via Yahoo!

Via The Corner:

Let's face facts...the French are in a quagmire. This is looking like another Vietnam. The insurgents are winning and gaining support each night...

On the bright side for the French, General Giap isn't leading the opposition this time, though the lack of centralized leadership does complicate the surrender somewhat...*

Kweisi's Klan

It must be hard to figure out who the biggest nigger-hater in America is right now.

Is it the evil Olsen twins or a bevy of black Democrats, who see a refusal to stay within the comfortable ideological chains of the Democratic Party as being a race traitor?

God help any black man or woman who would step off the Democratic plantation, for overseer Mfume and his chattering cohorts will quickly and harshly crack a whip across your back for daring to think anything other than what they sees as acceptable black thought.

If you are black in America you have no freedom today, but it comes not from white folks such as myself. No, it comes from the likes of Kweisi Mfume, and Lisa A. Gladden, and Salima Siler Marriott, and Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton, and other black "leaders," racists all, who know a nigger when they see one, and the easiest way to spot one is not by a scarlet letter on his chest, but by the capital "R" behind his name.

Woe be unto him that would seek emancipation from Kweisi's Klan!

What have black leaders done for black Americans in the past two decades, other than get fat off the sweat of working black Americans, while staying silent as the social programs of Johnson's "Great Society" ripped one black family after another apart and buried it further in defeatism and poverty? Black Americans should not be forced to vote for one party by the color of their skin, but be allowed to choose freely their own desires, based upon the content of their own characters.

Instead, black leaders call any free black thinker "nigger" in deed if not in name if he does not think as they do, and act as they prescribe.

The assault on Michael Steele -- "pointing out the obvious" as the race-bating Mfume would have it -- is an affront to the idea of black people in America being truly free.

Kweisi Mfume, the Congressional Black Caucus, and other "leaders" don't care about free thought or true equality for black America.

They just want to be the ones jingling the chain.

Cashin' In

Sorry folks, but I'm selling out. I've just found a new business partner via an email he promised he sent only to me, and well, you can read the rest...

I Dr. Kofi Annan, Secretary-General of the United Nations, would like to ask your partnership in reprofilling funds over $250m in excess, the funds would be coming via a string of selected banks in Europe and Asia.

The Funds in question were generated by me during the oil for food program in Iraq.

I have been getting scandals/ controversy in this regards, you can read more on the links below-

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/apr2005/anna-a05.shtml

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2003/main042803.htm

You would be paid 5% as your management fee. Please do not write back directly to me via my official email address. All further correspondence should be sent to my private mail box (kofiannan4un@walla.com). As soon as you indicate your interest I will give further details.

Remember to treat this mail and transaction as strictly confidential.

I will await your urgent correspondence via my private mail box-

Dr.Kofi Annan.

SECRETARY- GENERAL

kofiannan@un.org

www.un.org

Try not to miss me when I'm gone, okay?

An Absence of Outrage

I cannot pretend to be surprised to find out about the existence of "black" prisons. That every "civilized" nation has such facilities is understood by the players in this all too serious game. That these places didn't exist would come as a far greater shock.

The existence of such operations is legal under U.S. law, and supported by legal reviews from the CIA general counsel's office, the Justice Department, and lawyers of the executive branch according to the very Dana Priest article that breaks the story. Someone deliberately exposed the existence of these specific (formerly secret) operations and facilities, in what appears to be a clear crime in this time of war. This individual or group risks the lives of not just one operative, but entire intelligence operations.

One would think that those pundits, so offended by the exposure of one non-secret Langley operative would be outraged by the exposure of potentially dozens of agents still overseas... but one would be wrong. The lives of covert operatives, like the lives of our overt military forces, appeal to the left only when politically advantageous.

After fours years of siding against America and with islamofascists even to the point of attempting to rewrite history, we should hardly be surprised.

Have a Heart

Suddenly, I'm really into Dr. Helen's charity work. (h/t: the Instahubby)

The Toddler Option

I woke up for this?

No foresight. No plans. No new ideas. This is all they've got?

Reid just galvanized any Republican moderate that wanted to work with Democrats against them, gutted the "Gang of 14," and assured that Samuel Alito will become the next Supreme Court Justice without facing even the possibility of a filibuster. Special interest groups on the far left like NARAL and MoveOn.org just had their already slim chances of defeating Alito smashed.

In addtion, do Dems really want the public eye on the fact that a left-leaning political faction in the CIA was responsible for trying to subvert the elected government in the run up to the Iraq War? Frankly, I want this.

Reid misplayed badly by throwing this temper tantrum.

Other reactions:
Stop the ACLU
Ace of Spades
Ankle Biting Pundits

I'm going back to bed.

Update:

Via Fox News:

...Durbin said Democrats would stall Senate action for as long as it takes.

"It is within the power of the majority to close down the closed session. They can do it by majority vote to return to the legislative calendar," Durbin said. "We're serving notice on them at this moment: Be prepared for this motion every day until you face the reality. The Senate Intelligence Committee has a responsibility."

[bold mine]

Oh really, Dick?

You are already viewed more as obstructionists than legislators, so you know what?

I triple dog-dare ya!

Stretcher One

Some people spend Halloween as a ghost or or a Vampire or Elvis. This year, I was a prospective cardiac patient known as Stretcher One, Triage at WakeMed.

The headaches I've been having since last week finally convinced me to go to a doctor, and once there, I was diagnosed with a sinus infection. One of the drugs I was given to help fight the worst of the headaches is something called Imitrex.

It is supposed to help with headaches, only the best I can tell, the single 100MG Imitrex tablet I took could have come close to killing me. In the literature that accompanies most drugs these days, I think they call it a "potential side effect."

Within seconds of taking the pill I had a tightness in my upper left chest, followed immediately with dizziness and a rapidly numbing left arm. Luckily the guys in the big red and white truck with the flashing lights and stretcher were just minutes down the road, and I think the triple doses of nitro they hit me with on the way to the hospital seem to have kept any lasting damage from happening. It seems they weren't unfamilar with this side effect, which looking back, makes me feel both better and worse.

I missed trick or treating this year, but thanks to a top-notch ambulance crew that I never got to thank and some very good folks at WakeMed, this blogger should be around for many more Halloween's to come, which will make one five-year-old pixie I know (and her mother) very happy.

Perhaps I'll have more on the day's adventure tomorrow. In the meantime, I can only generate but so much sympathy for the ills of my dear brother.

Wuss.