8:46:26 a.m (Eastern Time): American Airlines Flight 11 impacts the north side of the North Tower (1 World Trade Center) of the WTC between the 94th and 98^th floors. American Airlines Flight 11 was flying at a speed of 490 miles per hour.

From the fifties through the early nineties, NATO deterred Soviet aggression by very publicly treating an attack on any NATO member as an attack on all of them.

To enforce that, we stationed hundreds of thousands of American troops – the largest peacetime overseas deployment in US history, and one of the biggest ever – overseas; mostly in Germany, the Netherlands, the UK and Italy, but also South Korea and Okinawa (to deter a different bunch of communists). They were joined by troops from all that NATO partners – the Germans and Spaniards back when they were serious about defense; the Brits, Italians, Greeks, Turks, Dutch, Belgians, Norwegians, even Letzenburgish, along with de facto partners in France, Sweden, Austria, Switzerland and eventually Finland. For forty years, the various countries stayed at what seems to kids today an absurd degree of readiness (or might, if any of them learned about it); the US military in 1988 was almost twice as large as today, with a national population considerably smaller than it is in 2008. Many European nations went further; they maintained military conscription well into the nineties, and some nations (Norway, Sweden, Finland) maintained Swiss-style national-service armies, where virtually every male serves in the military, the reserves or the home guard from their twenties through their fifties, keeping their uniforms and rifles at home to be ready to fight the moment they walked out the door (hypothetically).

The whole point? To deter Soviet aggression.

HEavy Handed POlitics links to a piece by Dick Morris with some perspective sorely lacking from a major media that is fairly illiterate on the subject.  He wants to accelerate the admission of Ukraine to NATO:

The clear implication of the invasion of Georgia is that Russia cannot be trusted to live in peace with its neighbors. The impetus to imperial conquest predated and has outlasted communism. As Henry Kissinger argues, Russia must either be expanding or contracting. With so many divergent and often hostile nationalities inside and around Russia, the momentum of conquest is the only way to avoid an inertia which leads to decomposition.

Ukraine wants to enter NATO but our European allies, led by Germany, are so dependent on Russian gas that they are reluctant to antagonize the bear. Until now, the case of expanding NATO’s protection to Ukraine has been hypothetical, based on fear of Russian intentions. But by breaking the civilized rules of national conduct, Russia has demonstrated the folly of leaving smaller democracies exposed on its border.

Some – initially including Barack Obama – treated the Russian invasion as a border war for which both sides were responsible. The Democratic candidate called for mutual restraint and, only after two days had elapsed, did he label the Russian actions as “aggression”. Others have sought to blame Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili for the war because he sent troops into South Ossetia, long a part of Georgia which the Russians have egged on to seek its independence. The breakaway province is an example of Moscow’s oft-used strategy of encouraging emigration to other countries so as to use the new demographics to justify a takeover.

That’s been almost funny – the notion that Georgia, with a population smaller than Minnesota and a military maybe twice the size of the Minnesota National guard, would seek a military showdown with Russia

Of course NATO cannot extend its protection to every nation in Europe. It is, in the final analysis, a military alliance and it must be certain that it can back its guarantees with adequate might. The location of Georgia makes this difficult to assure. But Ukraine, located right next to NATO members Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, and Romania, can and must be defended by NATO.

And there’s the rub.  We talked about this on the show on Saturday.  For forty years, NATO kept immense garrisons in (West) Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and other western European nations.

And while the garrisons are smaller today, that’s where they still are.  While the “front” between the West and newly-imperialistic Russia has moved hundreds of miles to the east, the US military still maintains a big clutch of bases in Germany – in exactly the same area that the US VII Corps occupied from the end of WWII through the Cold War.  But in the countries that actually face potential Russian aggression?  Poland, the Baltic Republics, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, Bulgaria?

Nichevo.

Why does it matter?

Russia is rapidly losing its population. It has the lowest birth rate in Europe and loses half a million people every year. Its GDP is only $1.7 trillion, a tenth of the Euro Zone’s. It is only through energy reserves that Russia is able to project its influence. And Russia must realize that the West’s likely movement away from oil and toward alternative fuels may make the energy card obsolete in the future. It is only through blunt, blatant military force that Russia can expand and trouble its neighbors. And if the U.S. and NATO stand up to it, Russia will back down. And Ukraine is where we must make a stand.

In other words, it is “Back to the Eighties”; the Russians once again realize, perhaps, they’re playing a short hand, and have nothing but force to make it work.

Fear and desperation make bad neighbors.

…drop what you’re doing at get out to Eagan.

As this is written, Col. Joe Repya will be starting his big sign giveaway in the parking lot at Stephano’s in Eagan – the corner of Highway 13 and Cliff Road  – starting at noon, and going until 3 or until they run out, whichever comes first. 

And the smart

I say that because they should run out fast – as in, possibly within the first hour or so. 

What to do with them?  From Colonel Joe Repya’s press release (I’ve added emphasis):

At noon on September 1, the anti-war crowd claims they’ll have upwards of 50,000 marching from the Minnesota Capitol Building to the Excel Energy Center where the Republican National Convention, at the Excel Energy Center in Saint Paul.

We are asking everyone who supports our men and women in uniform defending America in the War on Terror to line the streets from the Excel Center with our signs. It is our way of being “Minnesota Nice” and wishing these protesters a “nice day in Minnesota.” We encourage no discussion or verbal exchange with the demonstrators – only a pleasant “smile!

So show up!  I’ll be heading up there in a few minutes.  See you at noon-ish at Stephano’s!

When I saw the lefty blogs en phalanx crowing about the factoid that a survey of the military showed them giving to Obama by a 6:1 margin over Mac, I sat up.

Wow. Gotta check this out.

Zack Stephenson of MNPublius’ tone was a lot like all the rest of the leftyblogs that wrote on the subject (hmmm):

I thought the Republicans were supposed to be the party of the military:

According to an analysis of campaign contributions by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, Democrat Barack Obama has received nearly six times as much money from troops deployed overseas at the time of their contributions than has Republican John McCain…

Wow. Given that Bush crushed Kerry in troop donations (and votes; 4:1 with active duty troops, 3:1 with reserves) four years ago, that’d be big news, if it’s entirely true.

Of course, that’s the “if” you always have to run down when it’s “news” spread simultaneously through the Sorosphere.

Allahpundit:

The left will happily run this up the flagpole, just as Ron Paul’s supporters did last year, despite the fact there are so many variables in play that no one’s quite sure what the actual significance of it is. Is it evidence that the troops favor withdrawal? Evidence that the military’s trending left? Evidence that Obama’s supporters are more enthusiastic than McCain’s? None of the above? All of the above?

To really know, we’d have to know a couple of things; a big one would be “sample size”, the number of troops and contributions being sampled in the “Study”.

And we don’t know that. Remember that fact. We’ll come back to it shortly.
We do know a couple of things. Back to Allahpundit:

But again — what is it, precisely, that we’re noting? The fact that Paul does disproportionately well among the same group probably means it’s a war thing; it may be that there’s a core group of troops who are passionately opposed to extending the occupation for whatever reason and they’re willing to donate to candidates to achieve that end. That group was likely too small in 2004 to help Kerry given how recent the invasion still was, but after five years it’s grown along with the rest of the anti-war tide among the electorate. Evidence, then, that most troops want out? Maybe! Except … the data doesn’t specify whether the donations came mostly from Iraq or were spread out around the globe, and interestingly, the one branch where McCain leads Obama in contributions is the one most likely to see the hardest action — the [US Marine] Corps. Beyond that, the would-be McCain soldier-donor has a hurdle to clear on his way to his checkbook that the Paul and Obama donor doesn’t. By kicking in to Maverick, he’s making it marginally more likely that he’ll continue to be deployed in the field and away from his family in the future. Even if he agrees with McCain’s foreign policy, thinks we ought to finish the job in Iraq, and is willing to continue serving bravely and well to that end, it’s asking a lot to ask him to pay for the privilege.

They got their anecdotes, we have ours.

Oh, wait. Remember when I said to remember the fact that we don’t know the sample size?

That’s not exactly true:

Of the hundreds of thousands of American soldiers, sailors and airmen currently deployed around the entire world, 134 — about the size of a company or a handful of platoons — have contributed to the Obama campaign. This is blockbuster news, folks.

Here, let me use the original sensational headline instead:

Troops Deployed Abroad Give 6:1 to Obama

Anecdotes, data…whatever. Obama Fever is obviously blitzkrieging through the ranks.

The Sorosphere: Distrust and Verify.

Perhaps helped along by events in Georgia, Poland has finally signed the crucial paperwork to get a future US missile-interceptor base built on its territory.

The signing comes after Prime Minister Donald Tusk had been holding out for enhanced military cooperation with the United States in return for consent to host 10 interceptor rockets at a base in northern Poland.

Washington says the interceptors and a radar in the Czech Republic would form part of a global “missile shield” protecting the United States and its allies from long range missiles that could in the future be fired by Iran or groups such as al-Qaeda.

“We have crossed the Rubicon,” Tusk said just before the deal was signed.

“We have finally got understanding of our point of view that Poland, being a crucial parner in NATO and an important friend and ally of the United States, must also be safe.”

I have a number of friends in the armed forces in Germany who are very much looking forward to transferring to Poland. One of the most pro-American places in the world, a place where Ronald Reagan’s photo sits on mantelpieces next to Karol “Pope John Paul II” Wojtyła’s, it’d be a nice switch – say they – from Germany, which is constantly ambivalent about Americans.

On the other hand, from the “He Who Forgets His History…” department…:

Officials said the deal included a U.S. declaration that it will aid Poland militarily in case of a threat from a third country and that it would establish a permanent U.S. base on Polish soil in a symbolic gesture underlining the alliance.

“We are comfortable that we negotiated a strong agreement,” Rood said. “It elevates our security relationship to a new level.”

Given the chance of an Obama presidency and the Poles’ experiences in 1939, you’d think they’d be leerier about promises of aid if a bigger, gnarlier power attacks them.

Powitanie, dziękuje, i gratulacja, Polska!

I was reading a summary of a journal belonging to Hideki Tojo, one of Japan’s World War II era Prime Ministers, that described his disposition just after the incineration of Japan’s Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Tojo, executed in 1948 after being convicted of war crimes by the Allies, was prime minister during much of the war. The notes buttress other evidence that Tojo was fiercely opposed to surrender despite the hopelessness of Japan’s war effort.

The stridency of the writings is remarkable considering they were penned just days after the U.S. atomic bombs incinerated Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing some 200,000 people and posing the threat of the complete destruction of Japan. At the time, Japan had begun arming children, women and the elderly with bamboo spears, in addition to the aircraft and other forces it had marshaled, to defend the homeland against a ground invasion.

The mindset of the times and of this man seem to express a level of nationalism and kamikaze pride too extreme to exist today. To think that a nation would preemptively attack another to gain ground or extinguish another people is nearly unthinkable in this day and age.

Fifty years seems like a long time, especially for me, one generation removed. Names like Hitler, Mussolini, Hirohito and Tojo are just ink on a page in a history book. The evil they represent has been diluted by time, relative peace and prosperity in America.

…and then Russia attacks Georgia and we are faced with the fact that history repeats itself.

And that a stong national defense, and the proper use and maintenance thereof is of no less value now than in any time in the past.

Probably even moreso now as more and more nations, with our help, gain footholds in world commerce, capitalism and democracy, thereby becoming world powers if not superpowers.

One has to wonder if we weren’t in Iraq and gearing up for an attack or counter-attack on Iran, would our response to Russia’s attack on a burgeoning democracy and ally to the West be more than tough talk on the part of Bush and McCain?

Is our military as stretched as we keep hearing? …or do we have capacity to wage war that is kept up our sleeve?

It seems to me that the attack on Georgia should not have been a surprise, and even if it was, why are we (and I mean the whole Western world) not responding in kind while hundreds maybe thousands of citizens of a sovereign nation lose their lives and homes to a neighboring aggressor?

European leaders have criticized us for Iraq and yet I still get the feeling that those same leaders are looking to us for a reaction to the (now apparently reduced if not ceased) aggression on the part of the Russians.

Will there ever be a time when America is not expected to shoulder the burden as well as the criticism of being the globe’s police force?

In any case, I think it wise for voters to consider their choice for President as it relates to their role as commander and chief of America’s military resources.

Talk is cheap and it is clear that we have given Russia exactly what they anticipated in planning this attack. At the same time, Iran is watching us right now and no doubt the world’s response can only be emboldening their irrational ambitions.

Speaking of cheap talk (guess who):

Chicago, IL — “I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence in Georgia, and urge an immediate end to armed conflict. Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full scale war. Georgia’s territorial integrity must be respected. All sides should enter into direct talks on behalf of stability in Georgia, and the United States, the United Nations Security Council, and the international community should fully support a peaceful resolution to this crisis.”

Not that George Bush’s response has been all that more assertive:

Mr. Bush, in an interview with NBC Sports, said, “I’ve expressed my grave concern about the disproportionate response of Russia and that we strongly condemn the bombing outside of South Ossetia.”The president called the violence in Georgia “unacceptable.”He said he did so directly to Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who is in Beijing with Mr. Bush for the Olympics, and by phone to Russian President Dmitri Medvedev.“I was very firm with Vladimir Putin,” said Mr. Bush. “Hopefully this will get resolved peacefully.”   

I would have liked to have also heard:

In the mean time, I am working with other world leaders such as France, Germany, Great Britian and Japan to marshal and mobilize military resources to stand ready to defend our ally if Russia continues to defy our demands to stand down.

As costly as military action is, sometimes it is a necessary tool to act as a deterrent to those that would use it against weaker nations. It may be all that they are capable of understanding.

Sometimes the Good Guys need to kick some ass.

I often see “War is not the Answer” lawn signs and bumper stickers and in response I always say “It depends on what the question is.”

Russia (and Iran) may need to be answered soon. I hope we are ready.

…but they may stand around a bit.

Mark your calendars; Saturday is the big sign giveaway at Stephano’s in Eagan.

Here’s why it matters; from Colonel Joe Repya’s press release (I’ve added emphasis):

At noon on September 1, the anti-war crowd claims they’ll have upwards of 50,000 marching from the Minnesota Capitol Building to the Excel Energy Center where the Republican National Convention, at the Excel Energy Center in Saint Paul.

We are asking everyone who supports our men and women in uniform defending America in the War on Terror to line the streets from the Excel Center with our signs. It is our way of being “Minnesota Nice” and wishing these protesters a “nice day in Minnesota.” We encourage no discussion or verbal exchange with the demonstrators – only a pleasant “smile!

So show up!

You can pick up a sign as long as the initial order lasts on Saturday, August 16th, in the parking lot of STEPHANO’S Restaurant, the corner of Highway 13 and Cliff Road (across from Walgreen’s) from 12:00 Noon to 3:00 PM. Please arrive early since we are printing a limited number. Your donations will be greatly appreciated and will allow us to print more signs.

So I’ll see you Saturday afternoon at Stephano’s.

Leave a comment here and/or at the Colonel’s blog if you plan on showing up.

Just another reminder; Saturday is the big sign giveaway at Stephano’s in Eagan.

We’re talking Col. Joe Repya’s signs.

Here’s why it matters; from Joe’s press release (I’ve added emphasis):

At noon on September 1, the anti-war crowd claims they’ll have upwards of 50,000 marching from the Minnesota Capitol Building to the Excel Energy Center where the Republican National Convention, at the Excel Energy Center in Saint Paul.

We are asking everyone who supports our men and women in uniform defending America in the War on Terror to line the streets from the Excel Center with our signs. It is our way of being “Minnesota Nice” and wishing these protesters a “nice day in Minnesota.” We encourage no discussion or verbal exchange with the demonstrators – only a pleasant “smile!

So show up!

You can pick up a sign as long as the initial order lasts on Saturday, August 16th, in the parking lot of STEPHANO’S Restaurant, the corner of Highway 13 and Cliff Road (across from Walgreen’s) from 12:00 Noon to 3:00 PM. Please arrive early since we are printing a limited number. Your donations will be greatly appreciated and will allow us to print more signs.

So I’ll see you Saturday at Stephano’s.

Leave a comment here and/or at the Colonel’s blog if you plan on showing up.

It’s just a week until the big sign giveaway at Stephano’s in Eagan.

We’re talking Col. Joe Repya’s signs.

From the Joe’s press release (I’ve added emphasis):

At noon on September 1, the anti-war crowd claims they’ll have upwards of 50,000 marching from the Minnesota Capitol Building to the Excel Energy Center where the Republican National Convention, at the Excel Energy Center in Saint Paul.

We are asking everyone who supports our men and women in uniform defending America in the War on Terror to line the streets from the Excel Center with our signs. It is our way of being “Minnesota Nice” and wishing these protesters a “nice day in Minnesota.” We encourage no discussion or verbal exchange with the demonstrators – only a pleasant “smile!

So show up!

You can pick up a sign as long as the initial order lasts on Saturday, August 16th, in the parking lot of STEPHANO’S Restaurant, the corner of Highway 13 and Cliff Road (across from Walgreen’s) from 12:00 Noon to 3:00 PM. Please arrive early since we are printing a limited number. Your donations will be greatly appreciated and will allow us to print more signs.

So I’ll see you one week from today at Stephano’s.

Leave a comment here and/or at the Colonel’s blog if you plan on showing up.

Hey – the event even got some play with MPR!

With DNC in mind, city bans carrying urine, feces

Poo and pee dominated a public hearing Monday on a new law that prohibits people from carrying certain items if they intend to use them for nefarious purposes.

What other purpose might there be for carrying these “products”? I’d say monger away. This is a law whose time has come!

Representatives from some of the groups planning large-scale protests during the DNC this month said the ordinance was unnecessary and accused city officials of fear mongering.

No Pun intended? 

“The intent of this ordinance is to try to smear protesters and make them look as if they are somehow criminal or somehow going to engage in some kind of gross conduct,” said Glenn Spagnuolo, an organizer with the Re- create 68 Alliance.

The ordinance makes it illegal to carry certain items, such as chains, padlocks, carabiners and other locking devices. It also prohibits the possession of noxious substances. Two of the most frequently used examples of a noxious substance are a bucket of urine and a “feces bomb.”

Police have to prove that people carrying such items intend to use them to block public access or emergency equipment or to thwart crowd control measures.

“Our intent for this bill is not about suppressing or chilling First Amendment rights,” he said.

“Young man!”

“Yes Officer?

” Just exactly what do you intend to do with that shit?”

“Exercise my first ammendment rights?”

“Put down the poop son. Before I get pissed!”

Colonel Joe Repya burst onto the regional scene close to six years ago, with his “Liberate Iraq” signs.  In the run-up to the war (which would eventually be Repya’s third war, after Vietnam and Desert Storm), the Colonel gave away thousands of the big, paper-on-corrugate signs, which popped up all over the city and showed people that not everyone in the Twin Cities supported leaving Hussein in power.

The Colonel is at it again.

As the Twin Cities prepares to welcome the Republican National Convention in three weeks, the Cities are also getting ready to be swamped with demonstrators.  And it’ll be nice to show the world that not everyone in the Twin Cities is a kool-aid-drinking, chimpy-mcbushitler-chanting, wide-stance-giggling, patchouli-reeking, terrorist-coddling cut-and-runner.

So it’s time for another giveaway:

From the Colonel’s press release (I’ve added emphasis):

At noon on September 1, the anti-war crowd claims they’ll have upwards of 50,000 marching from the Minnesota Capitol Building to the Excel Energy Center where the Republican National Convention, at the Excel Energy Center in Saint Paul.

We are asking everyone who supports our men and women in uniform defending America in the War on Terror to line the streets from the Excel Center with our signs. It is our way of being “Minnesota Nice” and wishing these protesters a “nice day in Minnesota.” We encourage no discussion or verbal exchange with the demonstrators – only a pleasant “smile!

Here’s the fun part:

You can pick up a sign as long as the initial order lasts on Saturday, August 16th, in the parking lot of STEPHANO’S Restaurant, the corner of Highway 13 and Cliff Road (across from Walgreen’s) from 12:00 Noon to 3:00 PM. Please arrive early since we are printing a limited number. Your donations will be greatly appreciated and will allow us to print more signs.

So I’ll see you on the 16th at Stephano’s – and, naturally, at and around the convention.

Leave a comment here and/or at the Colonel’s blog if you plan on showing up.

I’ll be bumping/reprising this post many, many times in the coming week. 

And if you’re a regional blogger who supports the Colonel’s effort, shoot him a link.

Sean at MNPublius does the endzone happy dance over Iraqi leader Maliki’s “endorsement” of The Messiah’s “withdrawal plan”:

Obviously — this is huge. The Democratically elected leader of Iraq says that Barack Obama’s withdrawal plan (1 or 2 brigades a month, somewhere between 6-8 thousand people a month) is the right idea.

Er, let’s shoot for accuracy here; Maliki agrees with The Messiah’s latest plan. The one he put forward after the surge (which The Messiah opposed) made the whole notion of withdrawal responsible enough for Iraq to consider:

Allahpundit, with emphasis added by me:

The unasked follow-up question: How about the 14-month timetable that Obama wanted to set in January 2007 to start pulling troops out before those positive developments could occur? How keen does that look in hindsight?

(Hindsight? Leftybloggers don’t need no steenkin’ hindsight!)

To repeat a point made yesterday, the only reason a timetable or “time horizon” is arguably a responsible strategy now is because it was properly rejected as being irresponsible then.

Sean missed this part of Maliki’s statement:

Maliki hints at that in another part of the interview:

So far the Americans have had trouble agreeing to a concrete timetable for withdrawal, because they feel it would appear tantamount to an admission of defeat. But that isn’t the case at all. If we come to an agreement, it is not evidence of a defeat, but of a victory, of a severe blow we have inflicted on al-Qaida and the militias.

Exactly, which at least partly explains why Bush is more willing to compromise now on some sort of informal schedule. Compare Maliki’s justification for the timetable to Obama’s justification in his big Iraq speech. The pacification of the country is almost incidental, something to congratulate Petraeus on and then quickly move past.

Most of us want to embrace the victory that our troops – and tens of thousands of brave Iraqi troops, and the millions of citizens that the troops won over through killing Al-Quaeda and pacifying the religious militias – seem to have won. Obama just wants to gloss it over.

Other than all of that, though? Sure. It’s a ringing endorsement of The Messiah’s sagacity.

Hey – does anyone remember when the left thought Maliki was just a stooge of the Bushes?

Why, sure I do!

UPDATE: Of course, the above only counts if Maliki really said what Sean said he said – if it made the translation from Arabic to German and then to English correctly and… ach du lieber! Und ach, Dolmetschung is so schwehr!

Well, of course, if they got the political context right…

Right?

D’oh!

I’ve been wanting to write about the absurdity of Obama’s “withdrawal” plan – aka “Dunkirk On The Euphrates” – but Jeff Kouba already did it:

Well, I guess it wouldn’t be precipitous if you don’t define precipitous as leaving all your equipment behind.

The Dems are channeling split personalities when it comes to Iraq. On the one hand, Iraq’s early security woes were because we didn’t have enough troops to prevent looting and whatnot, and on the other, Fightin’ Obama can reduce our presence in Iraq to a skeleton crew and still perform the tasks we’re doing now.

So, go ahead America. Roll the dice. Those crazy Islamists really don’t mean what they say, do they?

The Dems’ entire approach to terrorism seems to be “it’s all adolescent posturing; ignore/negotate with them and it’ll go away”.

At his best, Michael Yon is among the best journalists around, in the classical sense of the term.

This piece – about an American, pseudonymously “Charlie” – journeying up the Irrawaddy River in defiance of the Burmese junta’s ban on foreigners after Cyclone Nargis, which killed hundreds of thousands and exposed the corruption, cruelty and incompetence of the Burmese government – hit me where I live.

The local people, even the monks, expressed open hatred for the government of Myanmar. The people wanted guns as badly as they wanted shelter. They had no idea what to do with the guns, yet Charlie was deeply moved by the robust character of these people, to whom democracy and freedom were not cynical conceits argued over coffee or crumpets, but ideals for which these simple denizens of the river yearned, believing deep in their hearts that the United States of America could bring change to this far-off corner of the world. They hoped that the U.S. would swoop in and bring justice to the Irrawaddy by deposing the Myanmar military regime. But these hopes would be dashed by real-politik and shifting geo-strategic priorities. Something about the universality of man’s desires occurred to Charlie, how, he thought, we all want the same things—freedom, dignity, a chance to make our own way in this world. Between village visits and dodging patrols he would sit quietly on the bow of the boat and ruminate under the same night sky full of stars that had witnessed men struggle through folly, fiasco, and victory in the pursuit of these very ideas.

This quote smacked me right in the gut when I read it. It resonated on so many levels, both low (this is why the Second Amendment is a right “of the people”, and don’t you ever forget it) and high – this is what America, and the small-d democratic ideal that founded us and, at our best, binds us together, means to those looking at us from outside who really know what it is not to be free. Ignore the eurotrash; douse the stench of Berkeley from your nose; take those breathless articles about America’s supposedly diminished stature in this world and wipe your bottom with them on the hottest day possible, too good for them as it is.

The quote sums up why we’re here.

Naturally, you need to read the whole thing.

Maha – of “Mahablog”, a famously gutless leftyblog and a leader in the “namecalling = facts and research” school of leftyblogging – wants to dismiss the whole “we found yellowcake uranium in Iraq” story:

The critical point is that Saddam Hussein couldn’t do anything with this uranium because he lacked the equipment and technology to enrich it. So it had been sitting around for years in drums sealed by the IAEA. No nuclear program.

Right.

Of course, the presence or absence of “equipment and technology” was a key bone of contention between about 2001 and the invastion, but…

…oh, why bother.

Justin Levine at Patterico has the essential response:

If Mahablog has a legitimate point, then why did Joe Wilson go to such great lengths to try and cast doubt on the very existence of the yellowcake Niger story? Why didn’t he just say, “It is possible that Iraq tried to purchase yellowcake from Niger. But even though I can neither confirm nor deny this accusation, it is ultimately irrelevant since yellowcake is harmless and is not proof of anything significant regarding an Iraqi nuclear weapons program.”?

That is not the argument that Joe Wilson the liar made. There is a reason for this – reason’s that people like Mahablog would rather not address. So I’ll be happy to stay on his ‘Idiot’s Hall of Fame’, let people read both posts, and decide for themselves.

Look – it’s pretty clear, five years on, that Hussein didn’t have any functioning WMDs when the tanks crossed the border.  We know that he had WMDs, because he gassed the Kurds in the eighties.  We know he wanted WMDs, because he was buying equipment to build them.  We know he had uranium that, combined with that equipment he was seeking (and, for whatever reason, didn’t deny having), could have been made into one kind of bomb or another.

If it were a criminal case, it’d be like finding a once-convicted, paroled Meth producer with 50,000 tabs of Sudafed.  All he needs is a stock pot, some tubing, and a few other chemicals…

Oh, Maha’s counterattack?

Here’s the Idiot’s Hall of Fame:

American Thinker
Don Surber
Gateway Pundit
Pirate’s Cove
Neptunus Lex
Patterico’s Pontifications
Sweetness and Light

The accumulated IQ of the above bloggers adds up to about 47.

Hm.

Oh, the two grafs I pulled were the closest “Maha” gets to sentience.

But please, “Maha” – can I be an “idiot” too? 

(And note to Ms. O’Brien; she can’t ban my comments when they’re on my blog)

John Hinderaker at Powerline notes that even the NYTimes is noticing; mainstream media coverage of Iraq is in freefall.

John concludes:

The conclusion of the Times piece is revealing, too:

Journalists at all three American television networks with evening newscasts expressed worries that their news organizations would withdraw from the Iraqi capital after the November presidential election. They spoke only on the condition of anonymity in order to avoid offending their employers.

It’s interesting that the journalists themselves link their employers’ interest in Iraq to the election. I think it’s fair to say that the mainstream media’s interest in Iraq has always been driven largely by the opportunity to spin events there in a way that advances a political agenda. Remember al Qaqaa? That story dominated the news for a week before the 2004 Presidential election. It was a story of great importance, however, only as long as it could be used to help John Kerry’s Presidential campaign. Once the election was over, al Qaqaa was never heard of again. With hindsight, that episode might be taken as a paradigm of far too much of the mainstream media’s coverage of the war.

So the bad news is that the mainstream media is, for whatever reason (and I’m neither rushing nor shying away from ascribing cynical, political motives to this) is losing interest in covering Iraq.

The good news?  The mainstream media is losing interest in covering Iraq.  Since we can not trust the MSM to be evenhanded in its coverage, it’s just as well that our troops can do their jobs without a malignant buzzard on their backs.

Oh, of course it’d be good if the media did manage to get the good news out – but that’d only bolster the case of the “stay the course” candidate.

And we couldn’t have that.

Let’s see – Obama’s gotten Castro, Qaddafi, Hamas…

…and now, Kim Jong-Il?

The Chosun Sinbo, the mouthpiece of North Korea’s Japanese front organization Chongryon and often for the North Korean regime itself, has announced its preference for Obama over McCain, whom it calls “a variant of Bush” and “nothing better than a scarecrow of neoconservatives,” which is a bit odd considering that the Bush Administration’s giveaway diplomacy is better for Kim Jong Il than even Clinton’s awful performance.

The blogger – from the “One Free Korea” blog, heretofore unknown to me – throws in a key caveat (I’ve added emphasis):

The Republicans’ efforts to capitalize on the Hamas endorsement made me slightly squeamish, because there are separate issues here that shouldn’t be mixed. It isn’t fair for anyone to imply, based on an unwanted endorsement, that a candidate in any way supports the endorsing entity’s ideology or actions. It is fair to ask whether the endorsement suggests that the endorsing entity knows something about the candidate. Why would Hamas or Kim Jong Il both believe that if Obama is elected, his policies would mean boom times for evildoers? Are they wrong?

I don’t want to presume that Obama solicits or appreciates the endorsement of these dictators – no more than I appreciate the usual howler-monkeys on the left drawing significance from some right-fringe wackjob endorsing a GOP candidate.

But what do these dictators know that Obama’s supporters – especially the ones who aren’t sporting “Che” paraphernalia – don’t?
(Via CW)

Leo Pusatieri is one of the local MOB bloggers you need to be reading regularly, both at his main gig, Psychmeister’s Ice Palace, and his other project, the one he started in his capacity as the father of a son in the Army who did a tour in Iraq, Murtha Must Go.

MMG today runs a lengthy piece by Darryl Sharratt, father of Marine Lance Corporal Justin Sharratt, one of the eight Marines accused in the so-called “Haditha Massacre”.  Excoriated by a media that was in the bag for the anti-war movement and just dying to find a new generation of My Lais and a new crop of Lieutenant Calleys for a new generation, tossed under the bus by the left, railroaded (alleges Mr. Sharratt) by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, and personally and severally defamed by Representative John Murtha, these eight Marines have, one by one, been absolved of any role in the crime – but are still seeking justice.

Mr. Sharratt indicts…well, just about everyone –  the media, the NCIS, and Rep. Murtha – for their role in creating a hysterical rush to judgment for purely political reasons.

Well worth a read.  So read it.

Allahpundit on Barack Obama’s dangerous delusions about prosecuting – I use the term advisedly – the war on terror…:

…which start with an implausibility…:

redeploying tens of thousands of troops from Iraq to Afghanistan and having them shake their fists angrily in the direction of the Pakistani border?

…and ends with a pointless metaphor…:

So what’s a Nuremberg for Osama going to accomplish? Here’s what it’ll accomplish: It’ll give him a world stage to inveigh against the U.S. just like his crony-in-chief did a few weeks ago down at Gitmo, secure in the knowledge that the media would carry the good word back to the Wahhabi faithful abroad. That’s the other huge difference between now and Nuremberg. When Hermann Goering ranted on behalf of Nazism, there was no one left on his side to be inspired. Not so this time. If Obama’s so hot for analogies to German trials, he should think less about 1945 and more about 1924.

Everyone knows history begins in 1933, right?

Paul Schmelzer, at the Minnesoros Independent – the site that joked about John McCain’s teeth (although to be fair, they didn’t know he’d been tortured in Vietnam) writing on the new Al Franken ad.

He starts by quoting Franken – who, to give credit where it’s due, has spent a lot of time in Iraq entertaining the troops – in his latest spot (emphasis added by me):

“We’re building 810 schools, 4800 water and sewage projects and 1047 roads and bridges.” But there’s a kicker: We’re building them not in the land of I-35W and Winona’s Highway 43 bridge, but in Iraq.

The message could come off as harsh—running the risk of seeming anti-troop or, for that matter, anti-Iraqi (who, bombed to kingdom come by coalition troops, might rightfully expect a little rebuilding)

Uh, Paul?

Since about April of 2003, most of the “bombing to kingdom come” has been done by the insurgents.

You know – the “other” bad guys?

But the ads, which will run in the Twin Cities, Duluth, Rochester and Mankato, might not satisfy supporters of Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer, who could read into it a less-than-immediate pullout of troops in Iraq.

To be fair, to win over the Nelson-Pallmeyer supporters, he’d have to claim that we’d murdered a million Iraqis.

Franken’s not depraved enough get most of Nelson-Pallmeyer’s supporters.

Kimberly and Frederick Kagan in the Wall Street Journal on the current status of the war in Iraq:

Conclusion (emphasis added by me):

The war is not over. Enemy groups are reforming, rearming and preparing new attacks. Al Qaeda in Iraq will conduct spectacular attacks in 2008 wherever it can. Special Groups and their JAM affiliates will probably reconstitute within a few months and launch new offensives timed to influence both the American and Iraqi elections in the fall.

And for all its progress and success, the ISF is not yet able to stand on its own. Coalition forces continue to play key support roles, maintaining stability and security in cleared but threatened areas, and serving as impartial and honest brokers between Iraqi groups working toward reconciliation.

But success is in sight. Compared with the seemingly insurmountable obstacles already overcome, the remaining challenges in Iraq are eminently solvable – if we continue to pursue a determined strategy that builds on success rather than throwing our accomplishments away. No one in December 2006 could have imagined how far we would have come in 18 months. Having come this far, we must see this critical effort through to the end.

Read the whole thing.  Draw your own conclusions.

Ed and I briefly discussed the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s report on the public-facing statements on Iraq before the invasion were substantiated by intelligence.

We briefly noted the myriad glossings-over and omissions that the majority party – the Democrats –  wrote into the report.

Paul Mirengoff at Powerline kicked off a detailed, multi-part analysis of the report on Saturday. In concluding the first of several parts, Paul notes:

Committee Democrats attempt to finesse the fact that Democratic Senators as a group gave shorter shrift than the administration to the dissents contained in the NIE not only by limiting the report to statements by administration officials, but also by making misleading claims about congressional access to intelligence. They assert that members of Congress did not have the same ready access to intelligence as did senior executive branch policymakers. In fact, however, all of the intelligence analyzed in the Committee report was fully and readily available to members of Congress. Some of it was actually provided to members of Congress in closed hearings. Much of the remainder, including the NIEs, was widely disseminated to members.

Committee Democrats claim, though, that the NIE on Iraqi WMD was published “mere days” before Congress was scheduled to vote on the war resolution. Again, the Dems are attempting to mislead. The NIE in question was published nearly two weeks before the vote. Moreover, its key assessments had been presented to members of the Intelligence and Armed Services committees a month before the vote. Nor were these judgments new – numerous intelligence assessments had reached identical or similar judgments months earlier.

In any case, Senators Rockefeller, Dodd, Kerry, and the others (including Senators Clinton and Edwards) cannot defend statements they made about WMD following publication of the NIE on the grounds that they didn’t have enough time to study the document. If that were true, and it is not, they shouldn’t have opined on the issue, much less affirmatively claimed that there was no debate, as Dodd and Kerry (but not the administration) did.

Most irritating – the report, in giving massive weight to what were dissenting views within the international view (dissents that the noted Congressional Democrats largely didn’t accept until it became politically expedient), endorses a sort of “gotcha” politics, in which every dissent from the majority view that might in the future be born out can be retroactively applied to every decision made with good faith according to the then-prevailing view.

For political gain, of course.

Keep following Paul’s analysis.

(Norm should, too, although he’s voted generally correctly over the past seven years).

Senator Klobuchar:

I know you’re busy – too busy to respond to your consituents, indeed! – but I think you oughtta make time for this offer from Michael Yon:

One of the biggest problems with the Iraq War is that politics has frequently triumphed over truth.  For instance, we went into Iraq with shoddy intelligence (at best), no reconstruction plan, and perhaps half as many troops as were required.  We refused to admit that an insurgency was growing, until the country collapsed into anarchy and civil war.  Now the truth is that Iraq is showing real progress on many fronts:  Al Qaeda is being defeated and violence is down and continuing to decrease.  As a result, the militias have lost their reason for existence and are getting beaten back or co-opted.  Shia, Sunni and Kurds are coming together — although with various stresses — under the national government.

Oh, and…:

 If progress continues at this rate, it is very possible that before 2008 is out, we can finally say “the war has ended.”

Yon is no administration ass-kisser, a fact that got him banned from the Hannity show; he’s always told it like it was.

 Whatever we do in Iraq from here forward, we must strive to make better decisions than those made between 2003 and 2006.  And one way to achieve that is by making certain that our civilian leaders are fully informed.  All three candidates for President are extremely intelligent, but that doesn’t mean that all three are tracking the truth on the ground in Iraq.  Anyone who wants to be President of the United States needs to see Iraq without the distorting lenses of the media or partisan politics.  I would be honored to visit Iraq with Senator Obama, Senator Clinton, Senator McCain or any of their Senate colleagues.

I hereby offer to accompany any Senator to Iraq, whether they are pro-or anti-war, Democrat or Republican.  I will make this offer personally to a few select Senators as well.  Our conversations during the visit would be on- or off-record, as they wish.

Senator Klobuchar; you’d really show yourself to be a leader if you took Yon up on this.

Our civilian leaders need to make decisions based on the best information available.  The only way to learn what is really going on in Iraq is to go there and listen to our ground commanders, who know what they are doing.  Generals Petraeus and Odierno have years of experience in Iraq, and vast knowledge of our efforts there.  But the young soldiers who have done multiple tours in Iraq also have unique and invaluable perspectives as well.  These young soldiers have personally witnessed the trajectory of the war shift dramatically, and can articulate those changes in concrete and specific terms.  It doesn’t matter if a soldier is only twenty-something.  If he or she spent two or three years in the war, that person is likely to have valuable insights.

Take the offer, A-Klo.  While it might contradict Harry Reid’s forced pessimism…

…oh, wait.  Never mind.

Conservative pundit Sean Hannity – long known for his reflexive support of the Administration and its policies – writes an op-ed criticizing the media for ignoring some extraordinary news from Iraq:

THERE’S BEEN a relative lull in news coverage and debate about Iraq in recent weeks — which is odd, because May could turn out to have been one of the most important months of the war. While Washington’s attention has been fixed elsewhere, military analysts have watched with astonishment as the Iraqi government and army have gained control for the first time of the port city of Basra and the sprawling Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City, routing the Shiite militias that have ruled them for years and sending key militants scurrying to Iran. At the same time, Iraqi and U.S. forces have pushed forward with a long-promised offensive in Mosul, the last urban refuge of al-Qaeda. So many of its leaders have now been captured or killed that U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, renowned for his cautious assessments, said that the terrorists have “never been closer to defeat than they are now.”

Hannity’s right.  The story of the surge – like any successful counterinsurgency – is that slow, patient activity that focuses as much on tribal diplomacy and building up the locals’ confidence and proficiency has created immense gains, and led to the current 86 percent drop in US casualties in the past year (allowing that they will likely rise again, especially before the US elections this fall, as Al Quaeda does its best to further influence US politics)

It is — of course — too early to celebrate; though now in disarray, the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr could still regroup, and Iran will almost certainly seek to stir up new violence before the U.S. and Iraqi elections this fall. Still, the rapidly improving conditions should allow U.S. commanders to make some welcome adjustments — and it ought to mandate an already-overdue rethinking by the “this-war-is-lost” caucus in Washington, including Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.)…When Mr. Obama floated his strategy for Iraq last year, the United States appeared doomed to defeat. Now he needs a plan for success.

(Boy, does he ever – and he must recognize it, since his staff is already trying to reconstruct history) 

Hannity also notes that the current success means that Gen. Petraeus is talking seriously about accelerating the disengagement of US regular forces. 

Read the whole thing.  While Hannity perhaps surprises nobody with the conclusions, the primary message – that the media is continuing its pattern of ignoring the growing chorus of good news from Iraq – is very important.

CORRECTION:  I can’t believe I bobbled this.  Sean Hannity didn’t write this piece; it was the left-leaning Washington Post editorial board.

If even they get it, do you suppose Nancy Pelosi might?

I wrote last year for Veteran’s Day about the history of the North Dakota National Guard from the Spanish-American War through Iraq.

There was a bit of current history I’d missed; Jamestown’s National Guard company (renamed again – it’s now the 817th Engineer Company (Sapper), specializing in minefield clearance) has done its second tour in Iraq (the first was almost four years ago, as Company B/141st Combat Engineers). 

And I’m happy to relate…:

Soldiers of the 817th Engineer Company (Sapper) are tentatively scheduled to return from their one-year tour of duty in Iraq to Ft. McCoy, Wis., from June 1 to 8.

Nobody died in action this time; on its first tour, the 141st lost four killed in action.

Anyway – welcome home, from a long-time expat!