data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/85929/8592947cb285677123e4f9a4bef60e1f13de9730" alt=""
Earlier cartoon on the Democrat's fickle policy on Iraq...
It doesn't matter where you end up.
Sometimes, it just feels good to be off that damned road.
Kerry lost because he couldn’t escape the label of being a “flip-flopper”. He made himself famous by being an anti-war activist-turned politician, and then tried to make America believe that these were credentials sufficient for him to become a Wartime President. He “voted for the War before he voted against it.”
The Democratic Party is collectively today doing what Kerry did as a candidate: Flip-flopping. Iraqi regime change became American policy in 1998 on a 97-2 vote in the Senate (as well as signed into law by Clinton). In 2002, the Congress “authorized [the President] to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate...” to pull Saddam out of power and to enforce the UN resolutions [emphasis added]. And, last week the House overwhelmingly voted down the idea that we should withdraw immediately.
Yet we continue to hear the Biden/Pelosi/Reed/Murtha/Sheehan crowd crow over and over that we ought to get out. What Democrats really ought to do is to get down on their knees and beg someone like Zell Miller, Ed Koch, or even Joe Lieberman to be their standard-bearer. Take the foreign policy issue away from the Republicans and force the debate to focus on domestic issues. You guys can win on domestic policy. The Republicans will cream you if you insist (again) on staying out of a war that our enemy has decided we’re in.
![]() |
You scored as William Wallace. The great Scottish warrior William Wallace led his people against their English oppressors in a campaign that won independence for Scotland and immortalized him in the hearts of his countrymen. With his warrior's heart, tactician's mind, and poet's soul, Wallace was a brilliant leader. He just wanted to live a simple life on his farm, but he gave it up to help his country in its time of need. |
"He was at the beginning of the chain of phone calls, the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter. And then he lied about it afterwards, under oath and repeatedly."
President Bush May Send Up To 5 Marines For French Assistance
President Bush has authorized the Joint Chiefs to begin drawing
up a battle plan to pull France's ass out of the fire again. Facing an
apparent overwhelming force of up to 400 pissed off teenagers Mr.
Bush doubts France's ability to hold off the little pissants. "Hell, if
the last two world wars are any indication, I would expect France
to surrender any day now", said Bush.
Joint Chiefs head, Gen. Peter Pace, warned the President that it
might be necessary to send up to 5 Marines to get things under
control. The General admitted that 5 Marines may be overkill but
he wanted to get this thing under control within 24 hours of them
arriving on scene.
He stated he was having a hard time finding even one Marine to
help those ungrateful bastards out for a third time but thought he
could persuade a few women Marines to do the job before they go
on pregnancy leave.
President Bush asked Gen. Pace to get our Marines out of there as
soon as possible after order was restored. He also reminded Gen.
Pace to make sure the Marines did not take soap, deodorant, or
razors with them. The less they stand out the better.
In 1965 Black unemployment in the U.S. was 9%, but unemployment in Watts was 31%. Los Angeles joined the ranks of cities all over the country - Newark, New York, Las Vegas, Detroit - where riots had broken out over political and social issues.
"Can you imagine how it would have been perceived if a president of the United States of one party had pre-emptively taken from the female governor of another party the command and control of her forces, unless the security situation made it completely clear that she was unable to effectively execute her command authority and that lawlessness was the inevitable result?" asked one senior administration official, who spoke anonymously because the talks were confidential. [emphasis mine]
It was an obviously symbolic thing to do...Question for Mr. Stewart: Please expand on how we are supposed to know when the actions of our government are just symbolic or when they really, really mean something.
What continues to amaze, however, is the sheer arrogance and hubris with which the Republicans have chosen to govern. As Congressman Jeff Flake — one of the few principled Republicans in Washington — told the Washington Post, "Republicans don't even pretend anymore." [emphasis added]
The weather absolutely sucked...
YYZ 022004 SPECI 022004Z 34024G33KT 1 1/4SM PTSRA SCT015 OVC045TCU RMK RA2SF2TCU5 CB ASOCTD
YYZ 022004 SPECI 022004Z CCA 34024G33KT 1 1/4SM PTSRA SCT015 OVC045TCU 23/ RMK RA2SF2TCU5 CB ASOCTD
YYZ 022020 SPECI 022020Z 34024G33KT 3SM PTSRA FEW015 OVC040TCU 23/ RMK SF2TCU6 CB ASOCTD
To help those who need the important parts translated from Aviation Meteorology-talk into English... There are three reports here. The first two are basically the same; YYZ (Toronto) on the second (the date) at 2004 (GMT-which is 4:04pm local and 1 minute after the accident). But here's where it gets interesting--winds 340˚ (from a direction just a bit west of due North) at 24 knots gusting to 33 knots. Visibility 1¼ miles and heavy(P) thundershowers(TS) and rain(R). The third report comes 16 minutes later, and has the visibility lifting to 3 miles, but otherwise is basically the same.
So for their landing on runway 24, they had to assume a crosswind at 33 knots--which, although I don't know what the limits of the A340 are, it has to be quite near the plane's crosswind limit.
Most runways in America are grooved. They diamond cut grooves into the concrete about 2 inches apart, and maybe ½ an inch deep. These grooves act to channel water off the runway and improve traction. For some reason (climate perhaps), most runways in Canada are not grooved, and none of the runways in Toronto are. What I'm getting to here is that, with the heavy rain they were getting at the moment of the accident, it is likely that the runway surface was very slick. [I'm here to tell you it doesn't take much water on a runway to make it feel like you're landing a locomotive on a skating rink.] Given these crosswind conditions, IMO it is admirable that they were able to keep it on the runway at all. [Of course, their best choice would have been to go around and wait for the thunderstorm to clear before attempting to land. However, there's lots more yet to investigate (reports of lightning, possibility of microburst, etc), so I won't Monday-morning Quarterback things quite yet.]
So, although they kept it on the runway despite the rain and crosswind, they were unable to brake sufficiently before they ran off the end of the runway by some 200 yards. Their evacuation went just about as perfectly as you can make it. For those who don't know, most airline captains (or maybe it's just me) assume that an evacuation--for any reason--will result in minor injuries to about 10% of your passengers. This is just about what we see here.
However, related to this, and the real reason why I'm writing this comes from this sentence from this report...
I cannot tell you how many times I cringe inside, especially this time of year, when I see someone board my plane while wearing sandals. Men, kids, but especially women. I understand that everyone wants to be comfortable, and that on flights of more than an hour or so, feet tend to swell. But I sense that much of the trend towards sandals--again, especially for women--seems to be more out of a sense of fashion than of comfort. Ladies will often go out and get a cute pair of sandals or thongs, a nice pedicure, maybe a toe-ring, and you just want to show it all off. Now I like a well-turned ankle as much as the next guy, but I'm here to tell you that, at the moment you jump down that evacuation slide, lose your shoes, and then attempt to get away from the twisted and burning wreckage of an aircraft accident while in your bare feet, you'll wish more than anything that you'd put on that pair of Nikes."We were all trying to go up a hill; it was all mud, and we lost our shoes. We were just scrambling, people with children." [emphasis mine]
Moral of my story: Despite how incredibly rare it is to be a passenger in an aircraft accident--Wear sensible shoes.
And, with unintended, yet perfect irony, the editors of the Arizona Republic place this article above the fold on the front page of this very same issue.
Update: Heh. (h/t: Cracker Barrel Philosopher)
As to the details related to this weekend of shooting...
For the IDPA match, although at this writing the results haven't been released yet, I'm sure they will show that I basically sucked. The theme this month was distance, which is my nemesis. There were a couple of targets at 3-5 yards, but the vast majority were in the 25-30 yard range. Humbling to say the least. However, one of the guys in my group had serious problems with his gun. He's usually one of the better scorers, but was cursed this month with bad mag's, and bad ammo (reloads--of course). [Note to self: Perhaps I should rethink that dream of someday procuring a Dillon RL 550B.] He finally switched out his entire setup to a more reliable gun. My stuff worked just the way you'd want it--aside from the operator errors. The guys who do all the legwork for this match (bless their hearts) aren't usually all that creative in their scenarios, but this month they did have one very cool stage--a You're-Michael-Durant-in-Your-Just-Shot-Down-Helicopter Blackhawk Down stage. I imagine lots of ranges with active practical shooting groups have tons of props for use on their stages. However, how many of them have a real helicopter from which to do something like this? Cool. Very cool.
Although I always enjoy IDPA, my Sunday morning outing with the kids was probably more pleasant. Daughter#1 has fallen in love with my Browning Hi-Power, and wanted to shoot this. I also brought along my Glock23C, HK USP Compact, AR-15, and Mossy 590. I had intended to put a few slugs through the Mossy, and brought 2 5-round boxes, but as it turns out, I'd loaded the slugs into the Sidesaddle and Sling and left them at home as part of my "Home Load". The 10 rounds I'd brought consisted of 2 slugs and 8 buckshot rounds. So my son and I each shot off one of the slugs and I shot off 3 of the buckshot rounds. Son-of-Azlibertarian has generally shyed away from pistols, as he's much more proficient with rifles, but did seem to enjoy all three pistols this time. We all did pretty well with the pistols, and with the AR-15 (Iron sights) were each able to stay reasonably on the paper at 100 yards and regularly get hits on the 300-yard metal plate. Good times had by all.
As an aside, Daughter#1 will be an RA at ASU this year. She kept the targets we used, and we joked about her using them as room decorations. We'll see if (a)ASU let's her put these up and (b)she actually goes through with this.
...Unlike any other country, America came into the world with a message for mankind -- that all are created equal, and all are meant to be free. There is no America race; there's only an American creed: We believe in the dignity and rights of every person. We believe in equal justice, limited government, and in the rule of law. We believe in personal responsibility, and tolerance toward others....
Some items I've been thinking about, but haven't had time to write on...
Anyway, perhaps I'll get to these. However, it is a holiday weekend, I'm at home with the family, I've got a ton of chores to do, and my youngest turns 16 very soon (Yikes!). Off to breakfast and my chores before it gets too hot.
Update: I found a compelling and deep analysis of the Kelo decision over at hubris. I'm pondering a purchase at Amazon. [A movie, BTW, made quite near where we live.]
But back to Amnesty International. They've done a great job of devolving themselves of any credibility they might had. Last week Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday had William Schulz, the executive director of Amnesty International, USA. I could fisk this transcript inside-out, but here are just a few points.
So, this is the same Amnesty International that will lecture the Congress on the Patriot Act.
Maybe it's just me, but serious opponents of the Patriot Act ought to cut their losses here and find another mouthpiece.
Update: To quote somebody really famous at blogging....Heh. H/T little green footballs
I thought about that as yet another tale of torture and abuse came out about the POW camp we are running at Guantanamo Bay.
Columnist Tom Friedman said the prison ought to be shut down because the stories about it are so inflaming the Arab world they're making the war on terrorism more dangerous for our American soldiers to fight.
But as I watched the McCain movie, I wondered if the greater danger is the impact Guantanamo is having on us. Do we want our children to believe this is how we are? Is this the code of honor we are passing on to the next generation?
As we reflect on the meaning of Memorial Day, let us remember first what it is that separates us from those who would take away our freedom -- what John McCain's dad taught his kid, what we should be teaching ours.
Well, to answer Schieffer, let me clue him in on a couple of things. These "torture and abuse" allegations we're hearing about are coming from the friggin' prisoners. These allegations have been investigated. What we hear described as "torture" is also often seen as nothing more than a fraternity prank here. The vilest "torture" alleged is that a woman interrogator has applied simulated menses on the Muslim prisoner and then kept him from cleaning himself. The "abuse" is said to have been mishandling of the Koran--apparantly a non-believer touched the holy Koran, or dropped it on the floor, or in some other way dis-respected their holy book. [I think even the MSM have dropped their claims that the Koran has been flushed down the toilet.] Let's not forget that these prisoners are the most violent and committed of the Islamofacists. They are strikingly intolerant of non-believers, to the point of believing that all non-believers need to be killed (Anyone else remember the Muslim Palestinians who took refuge from the Israelis in The Church of the Nativity? They desecrated venerated and historic Christian artifacts while there.).
Both political parties opened a historic showdown over judicial nominations Wednesday while the public worried that Congress could be distracted from more tangible issues such as gas prices and Social Security.
So which is it? Is this filibuster debate going to fail to influence voters in 2006, or will antagonism increase and make this debate central to the mid-term elections? And you know what? I'm getting tired of the qualifiers "Few strategists" and "many analysts". Are we talking about someone who gets paid to craft or analyze strategy or are we talking about whomever happened to show up around the water cooler that morning? This paragraph tells me nothing.Few strategists in either party expect the specific arguments over the GOP's bid to thwart Senate filibusters to sway many voters in the 2006 elections. But many analysts believe the conflict could increase and solidify public antagonism toward Washington surfacing in polls, especially if the dispute deepens Capitol Hill's partisan acrimony and impedes action on issues more tangible to voters.
The key political question is whether the public disenchantment would hurt the parties equally or the GOP more, because it holds the majority and is seeking the rule change on judges.So it will either hurt both parties equally or the GOP more. Those are the two choices. It apparantly isn't possible that the Dem's could be hurt here. The bias from this reporting/analysis is absolutely screaming.
Both sides step into this fight visibly bruised by recent events. Since last year's election, the news in Washington has been dominated by a Bush drive to restructure Social Security that has generated majority opposition in polls; the congressional intervention in the case of a brain-damaged Florida woman, Terri Schiavo, which provoked a sharp backlash in public opinion surveys; the ethics charges swirling around House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas; and the escalating acrimony over Democratic efforts to block some of Bush's most controversial judicial appointments through the filibuster.Maybe it's just me, but I don't think Bush's attempt at reforming/saving Social Security has failed. Sure, the D's have confused the issues, but I don't think we're done yet. I do agree that Congressional involvement in the Schiavo case was misplaced, but I don't think there will be a lasting effect from it. And please. Tom DeLay? While he's probably not exactly a saint, the D's are engaging in nothing more than a witchhunt here precisely because he's been effective against them. And finally in the last sentence, we get an example of something the D's might be doing which the analysts here think will hurt them. More bias.
As I got into the hotel room on the same layover mentioned earlier, I somehow stopped again on CSPAN. I used to watch CSPAN quite regularly--especially during the Impeachment Months. I've always enjoyed and often marvel at the balance they present.
Brian Lamb has to be the best at this. There are probably none better at asking fair questions. His questions are not so probing as to betray evidence of some agenda he might have, but just deep enough to elicit some information the audience might otherwise not know. Last night I saw his interview of Markos Moultisas (whom I will call "Kos" here) of Daily Kos.
First, some attribution. I am a libertarian-leaning conservative (or is it a conservative-leaning libertarian--I don't know). I don't often get over to Daily Kos, or any other lefty site. I have checked in occassionally to Democratic Underground, and find that they're generally off-the-deep-end nutty. I expected as much from him on this show.
And I was somewhat pleasantly surprised.
Here's some of what I learned about Kos...
As I said, I was more than surprised at how reasonable he came off. He makes no apologies for what he believes, but he did make a couple of points that betray him.
Anyway, all told, I enjoyed Lamb's interview of Kos. I don't have many political agreements with him, but it was interesting none-the-less.
Samuel R. Berger, a national security adviser to President Bill Clinton...and
Mr. Berger was a senior policy adviser to Senator John Kerry of MassachusettsNow--Why would anyone begin to question the ethics of someone who cavorts with these two? Hmmmmmm? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
[Berger] was often mentioned as a possible secretary of state in a Kerry presidency.Oh, that would have been just friggin' great now, wouldn't it. A guy at the top who spent decades telling us that he went on some Apocalypse Now mission that never happened being represented by a guy who
When the issue surfaced last year, Mr. Berger insisted that he had removed the classified material inadvertently.Right, Sandy. Those classified papers ended up in your socks accidentally. Sure. Happens to me all the time.
But in the plea agreement reached with prosecutors, he is expected to admit that he intentionally removed copies of five classified documents, destroyed three and misled staff members at the National Archives when confronted about it...[emphasis added]
Mr. Berger, 59, was unavailable for comment Thursday. In a statement, his lawyer, Lanny Breuer...Lanny Breuer. Lanny Breuer. Where do I know that name? Oh, yeah. Now I remember. He spent some time in the Clinton White House, where Clinton "repeatedly and unlawfully invoked the Executive Privilege to conceal evidence of his personal misconduct from the grand jury". This attempt at Executive Privilege included shielding Lanny Breuer from testifying before the grand jury. Question: Do all Democrats caught in a scandal hire some
...the plea agreement requires him to give up his secret security clearance for three years...He lost his security clearance for Three Friggin' Years? Is that all? He admitted that he intentionally took classified documents and then DESTROYED them. The least that he ought to get is the chance to make small rocks out of big rocks for Three Years.
But some political analysts said the case against him...may have made him unemployable in government in the short term.Oh. Do ya Think? If the world is fair at all, Sandy's "short term" will last quite some time.
[Berger] is currently chairman of a global business strategy firm.Note to those who might hire Berger's firm for whatever "business strategy" advice they might need: Drop him like a bad habit. Do it now.
I am in no way implying that children ought to have access to guns while at school (other than potentially through supervised gun-training programs). What I am suggesting is that it is time that we consider arming willing and trained teachers and staff.
Waiting for the SWAT team to arrive is too late. Not that I don't want them to come--I do. But I hope we're beginning to understand that having the tools available to do something--before the professionals arrive--might prevent the scale of the tragedy from being as large as it otherwise might be.