Daniel McCarthy has a post about the Fall/Winter catalog from ISI Books, and does it sound awful! Apparently it has not one book about how LIBERALS HATE AMERICA! Nothing explaining that anyone not currently groveling at George Bush's foot is a TRAITOR!
ISI is ignoring the twin threats of HILLARY and BARBARA STREISAND!
Conservatives have a murderers row of brilliant minds ranging from Coulter to Hannity to Hewitt, yet ISI thinks people will actually read books by Russell Kirk and SolzhenWHOtsyn? They aren't even on Fox!
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Monday, June 19, 2006
It's A Number
I despise this insane war as much as anybody, but the criticism of Tony Snow for his quote about the 2500th fatality in the war ("It's a number") is silly and off-base. He is right about this. People have a fascination with round figures, and make a big deal out of milestones. The 2500th death in the Iraq war is no more or less significant than number 2499 or 2501, and people should stop acting as if it is.
Beating the Powers That Be
I put a link to Sean Scallon's blog a few days ago. Those of you who subscribe to Chronicles will recognize him as a contributor to that magazine. I also just got a copy of his book, Beating the Powers that Be : Independent Political Movements and Parties of the Upper Midwest and their Relevance for Third Parties of Today 
. I have only skimmed it, but it looks good. As the subtitle suggests, it is about political movements organizations such as the Non-Partisan League in North Dakota and the Farmer-Labor Party in Minnesota. It looks like a good companion read to Bill Kauffman's Look Homeward America.
. I have only skimmed it, but it looks good. As the subtitle suggests, it is about political movements organizations such as the Non-Partisan League in North Dakota and the Farmer-Labor Party in Minnesota. It looks like a good companion read to Bill Kauffman's Look Homeward America.Sunday, June 18, 2006
Ah Freepers!
It is always a pleasure to follow the banter and exchange of views on this thoughtful website:
To: Sub-Driver
MURTHA = ANTI-AMERICAN PIG
2 posted on 06/18/2006 10:01:59 AM PDT by new yorker 77 (FAKE POLLS DO NOT TRANSLATE INTO REAL VOTERS!)
To: Sub-Driver
traitor
To: Sub-Driver
Some enterprising counter-protestor should go to one of these lib rallies and start the chant "We Can't Win"... let that be the slogan of the Democrats!
4 posted on 06/18/2006 10:04:36 AM PDT by thoughtomator (A thread without a comment on immigration is not complete)
To: thoughtomator
Time to put the old fart out to pasture.
http://www.irey.com/
To: Sub-Driver
Okinawa??? WTF???
6 posted on 06/18/2006 10:06:26 AM PDT by rickmichaels
To: Sub-Driver
http://murthamustgo.blogspot.com/
Excellent rebuttal to Murtha's rants.
7 posted on 06/18/2006 10:09:47 AM PDT by stopem (God Bless the U.S.A the Troops who protect her, and their Commander In Chief !)
To: rickmichaels
Okinawa??? WTF???
That was one of the locations that murtha wanted to "redeploy" our troops to. From there, they could "quickly" go back in if it were necessary.
To: rickmichaels
That would require at least 12 days of hard steaming by boat or a bunch of aircraft to move from Okinawa to the Gulf, plus days to unload prepositioning ships.
I have no idea what he think being in Okinawa can do for us.
To: Bob
In other words, he's testing to see if all out carnage breaks loose. And if it does and thousands die, the government goes under, and the police force is in tatters, we should redeploy.
It's beyond moronic.
10 posted on 06/18/2006 10:12:51 AM PDT by CheyennePress
To: rickmichaels
Okinawa??? WTF???
I think he meant Guam, but he failed to correct himself (even though Tim gave him a chance). I don't think Okinawa wants 100,000 more troops hanging out there anyway.
11 posted on 06/18/2006 10:14:34 AM PDT by operation clinton cleanup
To: Sub-Driver
This POS is already the most vulnerable incumbent running.
I'd hate to be in his shoes on the day after the election.
12 posted on 06/18/2006 10:15:37 AM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
To: Sub-Driver
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Hadji Girl
Elements of the nutballsphere have entered the advanced stages of hysterics over criticism of the song "Hadji Girl," written and performed (and posted for a brief time at youtube) by Cpl. Joshua Belile, a Marine serving in Iraq. The song tells the story of a Marine being lured into a trap by an Iraqi girl; and who proceeds to kill her jihadi brother and father, while using another young girl as a human shield:
The most absurd response comes from "Uncle Jimbo" at the milblog, Blackfive. Jimbo writes that the,
Ignore fore a minute that someone over fourteen writes, "WTF"; Jimbo claims to have military experience, but he seems to have never heard of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Article 134 of the UCMJ reads in part, ". . . all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, . . . shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial , according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court."(emphasis added)
A resonable person might consider singing about killing Iraqis, while using a child as a human shield, and "laughing manically"; might "bring discredit upon the armed forces." Jimbo is naive if he thinks that a Marine in uniform, as Belile is partially in the video (still available at Little Green Nutballs), is free to say anything he pleases. Imagine if a Belile got up and sang about how he hates Bush or Rumsfeld. I doubt if he would have many rightwing defenders. And as much as I detest Bush and Rumsfeld, they are in the military chain-of-command, and entitled at least respectful silence if nothing else.
Still, I would hope that the Marine Corps passes on any serious form of punishment in this case. There is nothing wrong with writing and performing such as song for your fellow Marines or soldiers. I assume that it would help to relieve the stress of facing death on a regular basis in a hostile, alien culture. The military should however, impress upon Cpl. Belile and the rest of the troops, how foolish it is to post such a song on the internet; where essentially the whole world can see it.
. . . And she pulled up to a side shanty
And she threw open the door and I hit the floor.Cause her brother and her father shouted
Durka Durka Mohammed Jihad
Sherpa Sherpa Bak Allah
They pulled out their AKs so I could seeAnd they said
Durka Durka Mohammed Jihad
Sherpa Sherpa Bak Allah
So I grabbed her little sister and pulled her in front of me.As the bullets began to fly
The blood sprayed from between her eyes
And then I laughed maniacallyThen I hid behind the TV
And I locked and loaded my M-16
And I blew those little f***ers to eternity . . .
The most absurd response comes from "Uncle Jimbo" at the milblog, Blackfive. Jimbo writes that the,
USMC has decided that appeasing the apologists at CAIR is more important than, oh say the freaking Bill of Rights. WTF? over. I realize that military service comes with some restrictions, but I must have missed the part where the right to satire during off duty time was revoked. Anyhow me being me I zipped off a message to the spokesweasel the USMC sent out to flog their kowtow to the Islamic lobby.
Ignore fore a minute that someone over fourteen writes, "WTF"; Jimbo claims to have military experience, but he seems to have never heard of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Article 134 of the UCMJ reads in part, ". . . all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, . . . shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial , according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court."(emphasis added)
A resonable person might consider singing about killing Iraqis, while using a child as a human shield, and "laughing manically"; might "bring discredit upon the armed forces." Jimbo is naive if he thinks that a Marine in uniform, as Belile is partially in the video (still available at Little Green Nutballs), is free to say anything he pleases. Imagine if a Belile got up and sang about how he hates Bush or Rumsfeld. I doubt if he would have many rightwing defenders. And as much as I detest Bush and Rumsfeld, they are in the military chain-of-command, and entitled at least respectful silence if nothing else.
Still, I would hope that the Marine Corps passes on any serious form of punishment in this case. There is nothing wrong with writing and performing such as song for your fellow Marines or soldiers. I assume that it would help to relieve the stress of facing death on a regular basis in a hostile, alien culture. The military should however, impress upon Cpl. Belile and the rest of the troops, how foolish it is to post such a song on the internet; where essentially the whole world can see it.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
Once In a . . .
Check for a blue moon tonight. John Podhoretz said something that makes sense. "Whatever Jim Webb is, a 'liberal' he ain't. He's closer to a paleocon when it comes to foreign policy, which is his major issue."
"Mission Accomplished"
Sarah Moore mocks the almost 90 year old Sen. Robert Byrd for, among other things, saying that George Bush declared "mission accomplished" in May of 2001 instead of 2003. It's an minor mistake compared to, you know, being the one who declared "mission accomplished" at the beginning of a long guerilla war.
I Pledge Allegiance . . .
Concerned Women for America's (CWA's) Director of Government Relations Lanier Swann will join other conservative leaders in speaking at a press conference tomorrow in support of Sen. Jon Kyle's (R-Arizona) and Rep. Todd Akin's (R-Missouri) Pledge Protection Act. This legislation would ensure the protection of the phrase "under God" in the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance . . .
Swann said, "As Americans commemorate Flag Day, it is also appropriate to remember the importance of keeping God in our Pledge. CWA strongly supports the mention of God in our nation's oath in keeping with our constitutional freedoms. We are free from an established religion and free to worship as we choose. Our country's founding fathers were men of faith who intentionally included the phrase 'under God' in an oath that serves as a symbol of loyalty and patriotism to our great country.
Sullivan helpfully notes that the Pledge didn't come from the "founding fathers" but from 19th century socialist and Baptist minister, Francis Bellamy. It originally read: " I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." It had numerous revisions, including the addition of "under God" in the 1950s.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Lower Standards
How low have standards become for the right to declare victory these days? Rush Limbaugh provides an answer by celebrating the fact that Karl Rove avoided indictment and, more importantly, the president was able to sneak into Iraq with enough security -- ABC News reported that only Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld knew -- that he avoided being blown up.
This is victory? More than three years after you know what it is still not safe enough to have a normal visit to Iraq and that's reason to brag?
In related news, another partisan hack is smug because deficit is going to be cut in half sooner than Bush predicted. You know, the deficit that was zero when Bush took office.
This is victory? More than three years after you know what it is still not safe enough to have a normal visit to Iraq and that's reason to brag?
In related news, another partisan hack is smug because deficit is going to be cut in half sooner than Bush predicted. You know, the deficit that was zero when Bush took office.
Monday, June 12, 2006
Saddam's Ties to Terror . . .
Jonah Goldberg points to yet more proof that the United States would be nothing more than a smoking crater if the Bush administration hadn't rushed to meet the grave threat from Iraq in the spring of 2003:
A newly released document appears to provide evidence that in 1999 the Taliban welcomed "Islamic relations with Iraq" to mediate among the Taliban, the Northern Alliance and Russia, and that the Taliban invited Iraqi officials to Afghanistan.
Cobra II
Andrew Bacevich has a good review of Cobra II : The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq
in the London Review of Books. It is critical of the usual suspects -- Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc. He, and the book, also give needed attention to the performance of Tommy Franks:
, about a battle in the war in Afghanistan, was also highly critical of Franks.
I doubt that if Robert E. Lee, Patton and Erwin Rommel all rose from the grave to tell Rummy that his theories and plans were nuts, that he would have listened. But it seems that Franks didn't even see a problem with them.
in the London Review of Books. It is critical of the usual suspects -- Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc. He, and the book, also give needed attention to the performance of Tommy Franks:Not a Good Day to Die : The Untold Story of Operation AnacondaRumsfeld's chosen military interlocutor was General Tommy Franks, the commander of United States Central Command. In a bestselling memoir published after his retirement, Franks portrays himself as a 'good old boy' from west Texas who also happens to be a military genius. In Cobra II, he comes across as Rumsfeld's useful idiot: a coarse, not especially bright, kiss-up, kick-down martinet who mistreats his subordinates but keeps his boss happy. Franks knew that he wasn't in charge, but he pretended otherwise. Appreciating the 'political value in being able to stand at the Pentagon podium and say that the Bush administration was implementing the military's plan', Rumsfeld was happy to play along.
, about a battle in the war in Afghanistan, was also highly critical of Franks.I doubt that if Robert E. Lee, Patton and Erwin Rommel all rose from the grave to tell Rummy that his theories and plans were nuts, that he would have listened. But it seems that Franks didn't even see a problem with them.
Friday, June 09, 2006
The Party's Over
Bill Kauffman officially signed off at Reactionary Radicals this morning, but the website and the book linger on.
linger on.
The Two Marks
Today's American Spectator carries not one, but two defenses of Ann Coulter's remarks about the 9/11 widows, who had the temerity to tepidly criticize the Bush administration on occcasion. Mark Gavreau Judge latches on to the bizarre notion that to ever describe the death of a loved one in any detail makes you a moral monster:
What is he talking about? "Great detail," "startling precision"? The statement from the press release is descriptive, but hardly constitutes "startling precision. By invoking his father's death, Judge undermines his whole point. He doesn't use "great detail," but he is using the death of a loved one to make a political point in a fashion far less defensible than the "Jersey Girls." I pay little attention to the policy notions of 9/11 widows, but the 9/11 attacks had obvious political consequences. But Judge invokes his father's death to come to the aid of Ann Coulter.
Judge's point is further undermined by the companion article by Mark Golblatt. Golblatt leads off by describing the death of his mother with, you guessed it, "startling precision." "She spent the last two weeks of her life in a hospice, under heavy sedation but still gasping for air and coughing up phlegm." Goldblatt's article almost has a point. He argues that being a 9/11 widow gives one no special policy insight. I say "almost" because Coulter didn't simply denounce the views of the 9/11 widows, she questioned their basic human decency. Which is what she, and many other commentators, does. Her political schtick involves taking the rightwing line and describing anyone who crosses it as a traitor and as an evil person. It does nothing to advance the political debate in this country, and I can't imagine why the two Marks would dredge up the bones of their own loved ones in order to defend such a repulsive person.
But the more I saw the Jersey Girls' press release, the more that fissure widened . . . Before the list came this: "Contrary to Ms. Coulter's statements, there was no joy in watching men that we loved burn alive. . ."
I read that, and a thought came to mind. I tried to push it away, ignore it. But I simply could not get that line out of my mind: "there was no joy in watching men that we loved burn alive."
. . .
What person describes the death of a loved one in such detail?
Think about it. Think about people you've loved who have died, and how they died . . . Ten years ago, my father died of cancer. I can hardly bring myself to say the word, much less describe what he looked like and went through in the last months. When I meet someone who had a loved one suffer a similar fate, the conversation always trails off when we mention our common story. One of us will mutter, "it's a terrible thing," then change the conversation.
Curse me, I know I'm going to hell for this: Why did the Jersey Girls describe the deaths of their husbands with such startling precision?
What is he talking about? "Great detail," "startling precision"? The statement from the press release is descriptive, but hardly constitutes "startling precision. By invoking his father's death, Judge undermines his whole point. He doesn't use "great detail," but he is using the death of a loved one to make a political point in a fashion far less defensible than the "Jersey Girls." I pay little attention to the policy notions of 9/11 widows, but the 9/11 attacks had obvious political consequences. But Judge invokes his father's death to come to the aid of Ann Coulter.
Judge's point is further undermined by the companion article by Mark Golblatt. Golblatt leads off by describing the death of his mother with, you guessed it, "startling precision." "She spent the last two weeks of her life in a hospice, under heavy sedation but still gasping for air and coughing up phlegm." Goldblatt's article almost has a point. He argues that being a 9/11 widow gives one no special policy insight. I say "almost" because Coulter didn't simply denounce the views of the 9/11 widows, she questioned their basic human decency. Which is what she, and many other commentators, does. Her political schtick involves taking the rightwing line and describing anyone who crosses it as a traitor and as an evil person. It does nothing to advance the political debate in this country, and I can't imagine why the two Marks would dredge up the bones of their own loved ones in order to defend such a repulsive person.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Ding Dong the Witch is Dead!
Lorie Byrd has it all wrong. The killing of Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi is good news, no matter how you look at it. But she says, "make no mistake about it, there are some people who will not be happy about this very good news just because it might allow the President's approval numbers to rise a tick or two."
That may be true in some quarters, but shame on them. The president is in deep trouble because he is doing a terrible job. He may rise a tick or two, but he will go down again.
That may be true in some quarters, but shame on them. The president is in deep trouble because he is doing a terrible job. He may rise a tick or two, but he will go down again.
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Why Ann Coulter is Rich . . .
Freepers:
Ann Coulter responds to Hillary Clinton
Drudge ^
Posted on 06/07/2006 1:36:02 PM PDT by Republican Red
ANN COULTER RESPONDS TO SENATOR CLINTON: 'BEFORE CRITICIZING OTHERS FOR BEING 'MEAN' TO WOMEN, PERHAPS HILLARY SHOULD TALK TO HER HUSBAND WHO WAS ACUSED OF RAPE BY JUANITA BROADDRICK AND WAS GROPING KATHLEEN WILLEY AT THE VERY MOMENT WILLEY'S HUSBAND WAS COMMITTING SUICIDE.'
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: CATFIGHT; COULTER; HILLARYCLINTON
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-50, 51-100, 101-150, 151-173 next last
Hillary calls Coulter: 'SELF-OBSESSED', 'HEARTLESS' Sean Hannity read the quote to Ann on air and Coulter responded with the above quote.Priceless.
1 posted on 06/07/2006 1:36:03 PM PDT by Republican Red
To: Republican RedGO ANN, GO!!!!
To: Republican RedYou would think Hillary would be smart enough to not argue with Ann.
To: Republican RedOuch! That stings.
4 posted on 06/07/2006 1:37:50 PM PDT by theDentist (Qwerty ergo typo : I type, therefore I misspelll. 17,400+ snide replies and counting!)
To: Republican RedIt is all over DRUDGE NOW! YOU go ANN! LMAO!!!!!!!!!
To: Republican RedYeah! Hillary should never have crossed Ann expecting some sort of subdued, or even silent response.
SMACKDOWN!6 posted on 06/07/2006 1:38:06 PM PDT by tongue-tied
To: theDentistCat fight . . . cat fight!
To: Republican RedWhile I don't agree with Ann's "schtick"--she is awesome.
To: Republican Redouch ! does this effectively shut Hillary up ?
how does she respond ?
let anne lewis do the dirty work ?
here we go again...probably the nuts&sluts defense.
grab some popcorn......9 posted on 06/07/2006 1:38:36 PM PDT by stylin19a (Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps.)
To: Republican RedBawahahha...IT'S ABOUT TIME!! The loathing WITCH FROM NY needs to be put in her place...unfortunately, the mediaWHOREES will only cover HITLERY'S statement and not Ann's...SCREW THEM!!10 posted on 06/07/2006 1:38:37 PM PDT by RoseofTexas
In The Email
I received an interesting email yesterday, but I think I'll pass on it:
Hello,
I am a casting associate for Fox’s hit show “Trading Spouses.” I was checking out your website and was hoping you could help me out in my search. We are looking for families who are dedicated and passionate in their convictions to participate in the show which highlights the wealth of cultures and personalities from households across ther country. The show requires that each family consist of at least one child between 6-18 years of age and have two parents within the home. At the end of the 7 day shoot, each family receives $50,000. If you are what we are looking for, or know anything family that is, please contact me. If you have any questions regarding the show, check out the website and www.fox.com and click on the “Trading Spouses” icon.
Our deadline is approaching FAST and I would love for families to have this amazing opportunity. Thanks so much and I can’t wait to hear from you!
Thanks a lot and take care,
Jason
Jason Eskin
Casting Assistant
Trading Spouses
Rocket Science Laboratories
323.802.0485
JasonE@rocketsciencelabs.com
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
You Can't Throw Bombs From Your Front Porch
I see that, (via Michael Silence, and a host of others) A.C. Kleinheider has been scolded for linking to one of my posts at Reactionary Radicals. Nathan Moore doesn't like my post with Wendell Berry's thoughts on corporations ("You would find that these organizations are organized expressly for the evasion of responsibility. . . The buck is processed up the hierarchy until finally it is passed to 'the shareholders,' . . .) and puts the invective level on high:
I can't argue with that logic. What part of it constitutes "whipped absurdity"? The part about corporations being designed to evade responsibility or the part that we should care about it?
I don't know if I qualify for the title "anarchist," but if I do, Moore need not worry. I'm the Front-Porch type, not the bomb-throwing kind.
Update: I should also comment on the thoughts of this guy who scolds poor A.C. for linking, as well, to " anti-Semites and Nazi war criminals." I didn't figure out who the anti-Semite was in the first link, but the second one is of Hermann Goering. " . . .the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." As vile as they are, dictators and mass muderers often cut through the crap and get to the truth, and the Goering quote explains how we got into the mess in Iraq rather succinctly. Absent any other evidence, no reasonable person believes that quoting Goering where appropriate implies any support for his crimes.
I found both quotes (he is upset with another Kleinheider link also) posted to be drenched in a stank of thoroughly whipped absurdity, but were quoted alone without comment possibly indicating tacit approval. Do we have a blogging Tennessee anarchist in our midsts?
I can't argue with that logic. What part of it constitutes "whipped absurdity"? The part about corporations being designed to evade responsibility or the part that we should care about it?
I don't know if I qualify for the title "anarchist," but if I do, Moore need not worry. I'm the Front-Porch
type, not the bomb-throwing kind.Update: I should also comment on the thoughts of this guy who scolds poor A.C. for linking, as well, to " anti-Semites and Nazi war criminals." I didn't figure out who the anti-Semite was in the first link, but the second one is of Hermann Goering. " . . .the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." As vile as they are, dictators and mass muderers often cut through the crap and get to the truth, and the Goering quote explains how we got into the mess in Iraq rather succinctly. Absent any other evidence, no reasonable person believes that quoting Goering where appropriate implies any support for his crimes.
James Webb vs. A Pig In Slop
The June 19 American Conservative has a good article by James Antle about the Senate campaign of James Webb in Virginia. If Webb wins the Democratic Primary, Virginia will surely be the most interesting state to watch in the fall campaign. And I believe, with no real basis, that the incumbent, George Allen, Jr. has a glass jaw and feet of clay; and he can be beat, or at least wounded enough to kill his presidential ambitions. Antle notes the danger to Allen:
The New Republic article about Allen a few weeks back, once you get past Ryan Lizza's silly obsession with the Confederate Battle Flag and race, is an interesting character study. One of the details that stood out to me was that when his father left the Los Angeles Rams in 1971 to go to the Washington Redskins, Allen transferred from UCLA to the University of Virginia. Its probably what I would have done, but then I don't put on Allen's tough guy schtick. The biographies of the two men present a startling contrast. Lizza notes that when Allen went to UVA that he was,
If this sounds like a privileged, rich kid's idea of being a "good ol' boy" that's because it is exactly what it is. Contrast Allen's sideline support for Nixon and the Vietnam War with Webb's record of being a heavily decorated veteran of the war that Allen was content to cheerlead for. Biography alone isn't enough, but Webb's bio is about 1000 per cent better than John Kerry's. Webb has issues as well, particularly the Iraq quagmire which he opposed back when Kerry and most other Democratic politicians were afraid to do so.
Antle notes that Webb has been wearing the combat boots of his son, an Iraq bound Marine. Glenn Reynolds, who has frequently recommended Webb's book, Born Fighting : How the Scots-Irish Shaped America
, called wearing the boots a "gimmick reminiscent of 'John Kerry, reporting for duty.'"
Here's a prediction: Reynolds, who is less and less distinguishable from Hugh Hewitt; will, if the Virginia race is close, join with the yet to be formed "Naval Academy Grads for Truth" in calling for Webb to release all of his military records to prove if he really "earned" that Navy Cross.
The outcome of this primary fight will have national implications. The most obvious pertain to 2008. If Allen is forced to spend this fall defending his seat or ends up losing, his Republican presidential bid may be derailed. By contrast, a Democratic Senate pickup in Virginia would aid the presidential aspirations of former Gov. Mark Warner, who has held fundraisers for both men. While a Rassmussen poll shows both Webb and Miller trailing Allen badly, a Zogby survey has Webb down by just 7 points—and Allen below the critical 50-percent incumbents’ threshold.
The New Republic article about Allen a few weeks back, once you get past Ryan Lizza's silly obsession with the Confederate Battle Flag and race, is an interesting character study. One of the details that stood out to me was that when his father left the Los Angeles Rams in 1971 to go to the Washington Redskins, Allen transferred from UCLA to the University of Virginia. Its probably what I would have done, but then I don't put on Allen's tough guy schtick. The biographies of the two men present a startling contrast. Lizza notes that when Allen went to UVA that he was,
like a pig in slop. Even at Virginia's own state school, Allen stood out for his showy brand of good ol' boyness. Under the headline "allen and country living," a 1973 profile in the school paper noted his penchant for country music had earned him the campus nickname of "Neck." He drove a pickup truck (paid for by the Redskins). He wore cowboy boots. He supported Richard Nixon and the war in Vietnam. He once shot a squirrel on campus, skinned it, ate it, and hung its pelt on his wall.
If this sounds like a privileged, rich kid's idea of being a "good ol' boy" that's because it is exactly what it is. Contrast Allen's sideline support for Nixon and the Vietnam War with Webb's record of being a heavily decorated veteran of the war that Allen was content to cheerlead for. Biography alone isn't enough, but Webb's bio is about 1000 per cent better than John Kerry's. Webb has issues as well, particularly the Iraq quagmire which he opposed back when Kerry and most other Democratic politicians were afraid to do so.
Antle notes that Webb has been wearing the combat boots of his son, an Iraq bound Marine. Glenn Reynolds, who has frequently recommended Webb's book, Born Fighting : How the Scots-Irish Shaped America
, called wearing the boots a "gimmick reminiscent of 'John Kerry, reporting for duty.'"Here's a prediction: Reynolds, who is less and less distinguishable from Hugh Hewitt; will, if the Virginia race is close, join with the yet to be formed "Naval Academy Grads for Truth" in calling for Webb to release all of his military records to prove if he really "earned" that Navy Cross.
Friday, June 02, 2006
Sorry Poddy . . .
"Buddies"
A.C. Kleinheider points to a comment by R. Neal discussing Glenn Reynolds' thoughts on Haditha. Neal says, "what little I know from talking to people who have been in the military, and in combat, suggests that a big part of the training is that it's not about God, Country, the Constitution, or Freedom and Liberty, or anything else. It's about your buddy in the foxhole next to you, who will watch your back if you watch his, who is willing to die for you as you are for him . . ."
That is essentially how it works, although I can't remember me or any of my "buddies" actually using that term. Maybe we would have in a war zone. I know nothing about war, but something about Marine training. It relied heavily on cultivating an us-versus-them mentality. With "them" being the other squads in your platoon, the other platoons in the series (a group of four platoons who trained and graduated together), the other training battalions at Parris Island, and the Army and the Navy. I remember my senior drill instructor referring to the "Army position of attention -- surrender." Marine General and anti-war activist, Smedley Butler explained what happened to young men sent to war in 1918, and it probably still applies:
That might help explain what happened at Haditha, if the story turns out to be true. It ought, in my opinion, to mitigate slightly (though not excuse) the crime. The idea that, in a couple of years the young men who actually pulled the trigger may be sitting on death row or serving life in prison, while the architects of this war collect 100 grand at a time on the lecture circuit, makes me sick.
I don't think anyone has commented on the creepy email that Reynolds posted and appears to agree with:
That is essentially how it works, although I can't remember me or any of my "buddies" actually using that term. Maybe we would have in a war zone. I know nothing about war, but something about Marine training. It relied heavily on cultivating an us-versus-them mentality. With "them" being the other squads in your platoon, the other platoons in the series (a group of four platoons who trained and graduated together), the other training battalions at Parris Island, and the Army and the Navy. I remember my senior drill instructor referring to the "Army position of attention -- surrender." Marine General and anti-war activist, Smedley Butler explained what happened to young men sent to war in 1918, and it probably still applies:
Boys with a normal viewpoint were taken out of the fields and offices and factories and classrooms and put into the ranks. There they were remolded; they were made over; they were made to "about face"; to regard murder as the order of the day. They were put shoulder to shoulder and, through mass psychology, they were entirely changed . . .
That might help explain what happened at Haditha, if the story turns out to be true. It ought, in my opinion, to mitigate slightly (though not excuse) the crime. The idea that, in a couple of years the young men who actually pulled the trigger may be sitting on death row or serving life in prison, while the architects of this war collect 100 grand at a time on the lecture circuit, makes me sick.
I don't think anyone has commented on the creepy email that Reynolds posted and appears to agree with:
. . .
Our press and the anti-American left both in this country and outside of it has been reporting "Hadithas" over and over again over the last three years.
. . .The real danger is that we who support the war will reach the point that we say "we might as well be taken as wolves then as sheep". At that point the left can celebrate that they have made our military and those who support it the people they claim we are. Once that happens however any compunction about respecting them will be gone, and remember one side is armed and one is not.
That is a fate that I don't wish on any of us. (emphasis added)
Note the extent to which this guy confuses the role of the guys who sit in Borders, typing with a latte, and those who actually do the killing. Another way to read it is that war supporters are going to get their guns and kill everybody else. Or am I missing something?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)