Minggu, 31 Oktober 2004
New York Post Online Edition: news
New York Post Online Edition: news: "FULL TAPE AN OSAMA A WOE SHOW"
Afganistan
No Left Turns Archive: "Charles Krauthammer says that the transformation of Afghanistan 'represents the single most astonishing geopolitical transformation of the past four years"
America cannot afford Terry Kerry - PittsburghLIVE.com
America cannot afford Terry Kerry - PittsburghLIVE.com: "America cannot afford Terry Kerry"
Kerry's Legacy: By POW
Printer-Friendly Version: "Kerry's Legacy:
No One Who Has Aided the Enemy Deserves to Become President
PAUL GALANTI
GUEST COLUMNIST
Sunday, October 31, 2004
Being a prisoner of war in Vietnam had some high points but many more low ones. The worst days physically were behind us in 1970, 1971, and 1972. After Ho Chi Minh died in 1969, the routine torturing of POWs for propaganda purposes pretty much stopped. Our captors panicked in November, 1970, following the daring raid on a closed POW camp at Son Tai 20 miles west of Hanoi - and moved all of us into the huge Hoa Lo prison in central Hanoi. We finally were permitted a semblance of societal life after years in solitary and/or stuffed into tiny windowless cells with two or three other POWs.". . . .
No One Who Has Aided the Enemy Deserves to Become President
PAUL GALANTI
GUEST COLUMNIST
Sunday, October 31, 2004
Being a prisoner of war in Vietnam had some high points but many more low ones. The worst days physically were behind us in 1970, 1971, and 1972. After Ho Chi Minh died in 1969, the routine torturing of POWs for propaganda purposes pretty much stopped. Our captors panicked in November, 1970, following the daring raid on a closed POW camp at Son Tai 20 miles west of Hanoi - and moved all of us into the huge Hoa Lo prison in central Hanoi. We finally were permitted a semblance of societal life after years in solitary and/or stuffed into tiny windowless cells with two or three other POWs.". . . .
Sabtu, 30 Oktober 2004
TradeSports Trading & Betting Exchange, Best Lines & Bonuses.
TradeSports Trading & Betting Exchange, Best Lines & Bonuses.: "day's Highlights
Symbol Bid Ask Last Vol Chge
Contract Detail PRESIDENT.GWBUSH2004 55.1 55.8 55.8 1.0m 2.8
Contract Detail PRESIDENT.KERRY2004 44.6 44.9 44.9 93.2k -2.1
Contract Detail BUSH.FLORIDA 60.3 62.0 62.0 15.6k 1.3
Contract Detail BUSH.MINNESOTA 36.6 41.0 41.0 12.3k 1.5
Contract Detail BUSH.OHIO 49.8 52.0 51.9 15.0k 4.6
Contract Detail BUSH.ELECTORAL 300 26.9 28.0 26.9 19.5k -1.9
Contract Detail BUSH.POPULARVOTE 52.2 54.7 52.2 10.2k -0.5
Contract Detail SENATE.SD.DASCHLE 42.2 43.0 42.9 3908 -0.1
Contract Detail NFL.PATRIOTS 19.5 22.5 19.6 21.4k -0.9
Contract Detail BCS.SOUTHERNCAL - 40.0 40.0 4874 5.0
WHAT'S NEW?"
Symbol Bid Ask Last Vol Chge
Contract Detail PRESIDENT.GWBUSH2004 55.1 55.8 55.8 1.0m 2.8
Contract Detail PRESIDENT.KERRY2004 44.6 44.9 44.9 93.2k -2.1
Contract Detail BUSH.FLORIDA 60.3 62.0 62.0 15.6k 1.3
Contract Detail BUSH.MINNESOTA 36.6 41.0 41.0 12.3k 1.5
Contract Detail BUSH.OHIO 49.8 52.0 51.9 15.0k 4.6
Contract Detail BUSH.ELECTORAL 300 26.9 28.0 26.9 19.5k -1.9
Contract Detail BUSH.POPULARVOTE 52.2 54.7 52.2 10.2k -0.5
Contract Detail SENATE.SD.DASCHLE 42.2 43.0 42.9 3908 -0.1
Contract Detail NFL.PATRIOTS 19.5 22.5 19.6 21.4k -0.9
Contract Detail BCS.SOUTHERNCAL - 40.0 40.0 4874 5.0
WHAT'S NEW?"
BeldarBlog: Osama bin Laden's invitation to Pres. Kerry to negotiate a truce
BeldarBlog: Osama bin Laden's invitation to Pres. Kerry to negotiate a truce
this blithering fool's (Kerry's0 personal history of enthusiastically swallowing just this kind of bait, hook, line, and sinker — and then trying to base America's course upon it — scares me far more than anything Osama bin Laden could ever say.
Posted by Beldar
this blithering fool's (Kerry's0 personal history of enthusiastically swallowing just this kind of bait, hook, line, and sinker — and then trying to base America's course upon it — scares me far more than anything Osama bin Laden could ever say.
Posted by Beldar
What to do When the Atkins Diet Fails You ... and Why it Usually Does 7/3/04
What to do When the Atkins Diet Fails You ... and Why it Usually Does 7/3/04 I need to go through this, but it looks good.
Duct Tape More Effective than Cryotherapy for Warts - February 1, 2003 - American Family Physician
Duct Tape More Effective than Cryotherapy for Warts - February 1, 2003 - American Family Physician: "Duct Tape More Effective than Cryotherapy for Warts"
Power Line: Kerry Rides a Really Slow Horse
Power Line: Kerry Rides a Really Slow Horse: "October 29, 2004
Kerry Rides a Really Slow Horse
I've never understood the Kerry campaign's decision to make Al Qaqaa--that is, an attack on the competence of the U.S. Army, based on essentially no evidence--the centerpiece of the last week of the campaign. On the merits, the issue has fizzled. We now know (although it has not been widely reported) that around half of the explosives in question were surreptitiously removed from the site by Saddam Hussein prior to January 2003; this is acknowledged in the IAEA report of that date. We also know that American troops secured the area starting on April 3, 2003, and thereafter it is hard to see how 40 truckloads of explosives could have been spirited away, unbeknownst to the soldiers stationed there.
We got an email today from a member of the 101st Airborne who said that he was at Al Qaqaa from April 10 through May 18, living in the bunkers there, and throughout that time, no munitions were driven away by terrorists. 'I was there!' he wrote. No doubt there are another 100 or more soldiers who can say the same thing."
Kerry Rides a Really Slow Horse
I've never understood the Kerry campaign's decision to make Al Qaqaa--that is, an attack on the competence of the U.S. Army, based on essentially no evidence--the centerpiece of the last week of the campaign. On the merits, the issue has fizzled. We now know (although it has not been widely reported) that around half of the explosives in question were surreptitiously removed from the site by Saddam Hussein prior to January 2003; this is acknowledged in the IAEA report of that date. We also know that American troops secured the area starting on April 3, 2003, and thereafter it is hard to see how 40 truckloads of explosives could have been spirited away, unbeknownst to the soldiers stationed there.
We got an email today from a member of the 101st Airborne who said that he was at Al Qaqaa from April 10 through May 18, living in the bunkers there, and throughout that time, no munitions were driven away by terrorists. 'I was there!' he wrote. No doubt there are another 100 or more soldiers who can say the same thing."
Power Line: Is Osama Calling Time Out?
Power Line: Is Osama Calling Time Out?: "October 30, 2004
Is Osama Calling Time Out?
Wretchard has an interesting take on Osama's video: he's like the kid on the playground who tries to call 'time out' when he's about to get clobbered:
It is important to notice what he has stopped saying in this speech. He has stopped talking about the restoration of the Global Caliphate. There is no more mention of the return of Andalusia. There is no more anticipation that Islam will sweep the world. He is no longer boasting that Americans run at the slightest wounds; that they are more cowardly than the Russians. He is not talking about future operations to swathe the world in fire but dwelling on past glories. He is basically saying if you leave us alone we will leave you alone. Though it is couched in his customary orbicular phraseology he is basically asking for time out.
The American answer to Osama's proposal will be given on Election Day. One response is to agree that the United States of America will henceforth act like Sweden, which is on track to become majority Islamic sometime after the middle of this century. The electorate best knows which candidate will serve this end; which candidate most promises to be European-like in attitude and they can choose that path with both eyes open. The electorate can strike that bargain and Osama may keep his word. The other course is to reject Osama's terms utterly; to recognize the pleading in his outwardly belligerent manner and reply that his fugitive existence; the loss of his sanctuaries; the annihilation of his men are but the merest foretaste of what is yet to come: to say that to enemies such as he, the initials 'US' will always mean Unconditional Surrender.
Osama has stated his terms. He awaits America's answer.
Posted by Hindrocket at 08:20 AM "
Is Osama Calling Time Out?
Wretchard has an interesting take on Osama's video: he's like the kid on the playground who tries to call 'time out' when he's about to get clobbered:
It is important to notice what he has stopped saying in this speech. He has stopped talking about the restoration of the Global Caliphate. There is no more mention of the return of Andalusia. There is no more anticipation that Islam will sweep the world. He is no longer boasting that Americans run at the slightest wounds; that they are more cowardly than the Russians. He is not talking about future operations to swathe the world in fire but dwelling on past glories. He is basically saying if you leave us alone we will leave you alone. Though it is couched in his customary orbicular phraseology he is basically asking for time out.
The American answer to Osama's proposal will be given on Election Day. One response is to agree that the United States of America will henceforth act like Sweden, which is on track to become majority Islamic sometime after the middle of this century. The electorate best knows which candidate will serve this end; which candidate most promises to be European-like in attitude and they can choose that path with both eyes open. The electorate can strike that bargain and Osama may keep his word. The other course is to reject Osama's terms utterly; to recognize the pleading in his outwardly belligerent manner and reply that his fugitive existence; the loss of his sanctuaries; the annihilation of his men are but the merest foretaste of what is yet to come: to say that to enemies such as he, the initials 'US' will always mean Unconditional Surrender.
Osama has stated his terms. He awaits America's answer.
Posted by Hindrocket at 08:20 AM "
Jumat, 29 Oktober 2004
HOG ON ICE: Zogby's Scary Halloween Tale
HOG ON ICE: Zogby's Scary Halloween Tale: "Zogby's Scary Halloween Tale"
Shaking Spears: Zen and the Art of Vote-Chumming
Shaking Spears: Zen and the Art of Vote-Chumming
. . . In one scene from the 70s blockbuster Jaws, Chief Brody (Roy Scheider) is shown at the back of Quint’s boat, casually chumming to attract the villainous shark and secure its demise.
After the massive fish surfaces, Brody dryly replies: “we’re gonna need a bigger boat.”
That churning outside Kerry's boat is an electorate waiting to surface on November 2.
. . . In one scene from the 70s blockbuster Jaws, Chief Brody (Roy Scheider) is shown at the back of Quint’s boat, casually chumming to attract the villainous shark and secure its demise.
After the massive fish surfaces, Brody dryly replies: “we’re gonna need a bigger boat.”
That churning outside Kerry's boat is an electorate waiting to surface on November 2.
Kamis, 28 Oktober 2004
Good thoughts
Bad Example: "ersuading the Undecided in 250 Words or Less - He outlines 5 inarguable points regarding the War on Terror, and follows with this:
6) George W. Bush understands 1-5.
7) George W. Bush will not hesitate to summon all of the powers of the U.S. government to proactively defeat the Islamist Fascists, thereby removing this grave threat.
What's wrong with Kerry?
1) John Kerry does not understand 1-5, and will not summon all of the powers of the U.S. to proactively defeat the Islamist Fascists, thereby increasing this grave threat. QED."
6) George W. Bush understands 1-5.
7) George W. Bush will not hesitate to summon all of the powers of the U.S. government to proactively defeat the Islamist Fascists, thereby removing this grave threat.
What's wrong with Kerry?
1) John Kerry does not understand 1-5, and will not summon all of the powers of the U.S. to proactively defeat the Islamist Fascists, thereby increasing this grave threat. QED."
Rabu, 27 Oktober 2004
New York Post Online Edition: postopinion
New York Post Online Edition: postopinion
TERROR TAKES A STAND
By RALPH PETERS
Email Archives
Print Reprint
October 27, 2004 -- SOLDIERS don't beg. But an old friend of mine who's still in uniform came close the other day. He badly wanted me to write another column before Election Day stressing that our troops are winning in Iraq.
He's an Army veteran of three wars. Now he's working to help Iraq become a democratic model for the Middle East. And he's worried.
Not about terrorists or insurgents. He's afraid John Kerry will be elected president.
"Kerry's rhetoric is giving the bad guys a thread to hang on," he wrote. "They're hoping we lose our nerve. They're more concerned with the U.S. elections than with the Iraqi ones."
My pal has been involved in every phase of our Iraq operations — dating back to Desert Storm. And he's convinced that the terrorists have risked everything to create as much carnage as they can before Nov. 2. Our troops are killing them left and right. The terrorists are desperate. They can't sustain this tempo of attacks much longer.
But Sen. Kerry insists that we're losing — giving our enemies hope that we'll pull out. No matter what else John Kerry may say, the terrorists only hear his criticisms of our president and our war.
Let's review what's actually happening in Iraq.
The terrorist stronghold of Fallujah is increasingly isolated. Night after night, precision weapons and raids by special-operations forces kill international terrorist leaders. Terrified, the local troublemakers are trying to play the negotiations card. They know the U.S. Marines are coming back. And this time the Leathernecks won't be stopped short. Allah's butchers are praying that they can bring down our president before terror's citadel falls.
Meanwhile, the Iraqi people have been revolted by the terrorists' barbarities. They may not want U.S. troops in their streets forever, but they do not want to be ruled by fanatical murderers. Kidnapping aid workers and lopping off heads on videotape horrifies decent Muslims. The slaughter of 50 unarmed Iraqi recruits did not win hearts and minds.
Every day, Iraqis are more engaged in defending their own country. Elections are still on track. The suicide bombings continue, but they haven't deterred Iraq's new government. Nor have they been able to stop the Coalition and Iraq's expanding forces from cleaning out one terrorist rat's nest after another.
Click to learn more...
Muqtada al-Sadr is quiet as a mouse. Najaf is being rebuilt. Two-thirds of Iraq's provinces are quiet. We never see any headlines about our Kurdish allies in northern Iraq — because they're building a successful modern society in the Middle East. Good-news stories aren't welcome in our undeniably pro-Democratic media.
Even the French are uncharacteristically subdued. The serpents of the Seine thought they'd seduced the terrorists with a few anti-American apples. Instead, they've found that they can't even free two kidnapped French journalists.
After their own recent terrorist debacle, the Russians repented their criticism of the Bush administration. The Spanish, too, discovered that appeasement doesn't work any better for them than for the French — an Islamist plot to blow up justice-ministry buildings was recently uncovered. And there's more to come.
Terror's appetite is only whetted by weakness.
Of course, the United Nations is still doing everything it can to undercut President Bush. Embarrassed by Oil-for-Food corruption revelations, the U.N. would like to get back to the good old days of the Clinton administration, which winked at outright U.N. criminality.
The terrorists are pulling out all the stops to shed blood in Iraq this week. While the media makes every mortar round sound like the end of the world, the encouraging news is that the terrorists haven't been able to do more. They can harass convoys and murder civilians — but they haven't budged our troops or the new Iraqi government.
Of course, the terrorists aren't suddenly going to quit if President Bush wins at the polls — but his re-election would be a terrible psychological blow to them. They know how high the stakes are in Iraq.
The struggle isn't just about the fate of one country, but about the future of the entire Middle East. If freedom and the rule of law get even a 51 percent victory in Iraq, it's the beginning of the end for the terrorists and the vicious regimes that bred them.
Al Qaeda and its affiliates are rapidly using up the human capital they've accumulated over decades. The casualties in Iraq are overwhelmingly on the terrorist side. Extremist leaders have paid a particularly heavy price. But they won't stop fighting because they can't. The terrorists have to win in Iraq. They have to defeat America.
The astonishing thing is that so many of our fellow Americans don't get it. The terrorists aren't committing their shrinking reserves because the outcome's a trivial matter. They recognize the magnitude of what we're helping the Iraqi people achieve.
This is the big one. The fate of a civilization hangs in the balance. And all we hear from one presidential contender is that it's the "wrong war, at the wrong time."
It is. For the terrorists.
Ralph Peters is the author of "Beyond Baghdad: Postmodern War and Peace."
TERROR TAKES A STAND
By RALPH PETERS
Email Archives
Print Reprint
October 27, 2004 -- SOLDIERS don't beg. But an old friend of mine who's still in uniform came close the other day. He badly wanted me to write another column before Election Day stressing that our troops are winning in Iraq.
He's an Army veteran of three wars. Now he's working to help Iraq become a democratic model for the Middle East. And he's worried.
Not about terrorists or insurgents. He's afraid John Kerry will be elected president.
"Kerry's rhetoric is giving the bad guys a thread to hang on," he wrote. "They're hoping we lose our nerve. They're more concerned with the U.S. elections than with the Iraqi ones."
My pal has been involved in every phase of our Iraq operations — dating back to Desert Storm. And he's convinced that the terrorists have risked everything to create as much carnage as they can before Nov. 2. Our troops are killing them left and right. The terrorists are desperate. They can't sustain this tempo of attacks much longer.
But Sen. Kerry insists that we're losing — giving our enemies hope that we'll pull out. No matter what else John Kerry may say, the terrorists only hear his criticisms of our president and our war.
Let's review what's actually happening in Iraq.
The terrorist stronghold of Fallujah is increasingly isolated. Night after night, precision weapons and raids by special-operations forces kill international terrorist leaders. Terrified, the local troublemakers are trying to play the negotiations card. They know the U.S. Marines are coming back. And this time the Leathernecks won't be stopped short. Allah's butchers are praying that they can bring down our president before terror's citadel falls.
Meanwhile, the Iraqi people have been revolted by the terrorists' barbarities. They may not want U.S. troops in their streets forever, but they do not want to be ruled by fanatical murderers. Kidnapping aid workers and lopping off heads on videotape horrifies decent Muslims. The slaughter of 50 unarmed Iraqi recruits did not win hearts and minds.
Every day, Iraqis are more engaged in defending their own country. Elections are still on track. The suicide bombings continue, but they haven't deterred Iraq's new government. Nor have they been able to stop the Coalition and Iraq's expanding forces from cleaning out one terrorist rat's nest after another.
Click to learn more...
Muqtada al-Sadr is quiet as a mouse. Najaf is being rebuilt. Two-thirds of Iraq's provinces are quiet. We never see any headlines about our Kurdish allies in northern Iraq — because they're building a successful modern society in the Middle East. Good-news stories aren't welcome in our undeniably pro-Democratic media.
Even the French are uncharacteristically subdued. The serpents of the Seine thought they'd seduced the terrorists with a few anti-American apples. Instead, they've found that they can't even free two kidnapped French journalists.
After their own recent terrorist debacle, the Russians repented their criticism of the Bush administration. The Spanish, too, discovered that appeasement doesn't work any better for them than for the French — an Islamist plot to blow up justice-ministry buildings was recently uncovered. And there's more to come.
Terror's appetite is only whetted by weakness.
Of course, the United Nations is still doing everything it can to undercut President Bush. Embarrassed by Oil-for-Food corruption revelations, the U.N. would like to get back to the good old days of the Clinton administration, which winked at outright U.N. criminality.
The terrorists are pulling out all the stops to shed blood in Iraq this week. While the media makes every mortar round sound like the end of the world, the encouraging news is that the terrorists haven't been able to do more. They can harass convoys and murder civilians — but they haven't budged our troops or the new Iraqi government.
Of course, the terrorists aren't suddenly going to quit if President Bush wins at the polls — but his re-election would be a terrible psychological blow to them. They know how high the stakes are in Iraq.
The struggle isn't just about the fate of one country, but about the future of the entire Middle East. If freedom and the rule of law get even a 51 percent victory in Iraq, it's the beginning of the end for the terrorists and the vicious regimes that bred them.
Al Qaeda and its affiliates are rapidly using up the human capital they've accumulated over decades. The casualties in Iraq are overwhelmingly on the terrorist side. Extremist leaders have paid a particularly heavy price. But they won't stop fighting because they can't. The terrorists have to win in Iraq. They have to defeat America.
The astonishing thing is that so many of our fellow Americans don't get it. The terrorists aren't committing their shrinking reserves because the outcome's a trivial matter. They recognize the magnitude of what we're helping the Iraqi people achieve.
This is the big one. The fate of a civilization hangs in the balance. And all we hear from one presidential contender is that it's the "wrong war, at the wrong time."
It is. For the terrorists.
Ralph Peters is the author of "Beyond Baghdad: Postmodern War and Peace."
Arafat successor
http://haloscan.com/tb/chrenkoff/109893497745404439Chrenkoff: "There's an old tale retold by the ancient historian Arrian of young Alexander the Great laying on his death bed in Babylon, surrounded by his trusted generals who over the previous decade had conquered most of the known world at his side, all now uneasily waiting for Alexander to appoint his successor from among them. Alexander, always a ruthless realist at heart, despite his semi-divine pretensions, is said to have finally answered their question 'Who do you leave your empire to?', 'Hoti to kratisto' - to the strongest."
Wizbang
Wizbang: "Political sign language
On the way home from work tonight, while stuck at a red light, I saw a bunch of guys holding up 'KERRY-EDWARDS' signs. I honked to get their attention. When one of them looked over at me, I held up both hands to give him a double 'V' symbol.
The guy was thrilled. He nudged his buddies, and they all grinned at me and gave me thumbs up.
Then I pulled my hands together and joined my fingertips to make the two 'V's' into a single 'W.'
The guy's smile turned chagrined and he changed to a thumbs down.
Then the light turned green and I drove off.
Damn, it felt good.
J."
On the way home from work tonight, while stuck at a red light, I saw a bunch of guys holding up 'KERRY-EDWARDS' signs. I honked to get their attention. When one of them looked over at me, I held up both hands to give him a double 'V' symbol.
The guy was thrilled. He nudged his buddies, and they all grinned at me and gave me thumbs up.
Then I pulled my hands together and joined my fingertips to make the two 'V's' into a single 'W.'
The guy's smile turned chagrined and he changed to a thumbs down.
Then the light turned green and I drove off.
Damn, it felt good.
J."
Sobran Column --- Death of a Comedian
Sobran Column --- Death of a Comedian
DEATH OF A COMEDIAN
October 12, 2004
by Joe Sobran
In the middle of a pretty humorless presidential
campaign, we had to lose Rodney Dangerfield. Dang.
I first saw him on the old ED SULLIVAN SHOW in the
late 1960s. His style of comedy was already
old-fashioned: nonstop one-liners, many about his wife
and kids, hard-luck stories and insults. He added a great
new twist to the old formula, though: He was the butt of
his own insults.
In those days, Don Rickles had just made a hit by
taking the insult to new heights; but he softened his act
with occasional smiles to show it was all a joke, folks.
Dangerfield never flashed an ingratiating smile; he was
insulting himself, and there would be no apologies --
just implacable self-depreciation.
Humor is an elusive thing. The best joke will fall
flat with some people, and the dumbest joke may bring
down the house. It's hard to rate comedians. All you can
say is that every time Dangerfield appeared on
television, you could feel an earthquake of laughter.
Soon his signature line -- "I tell you, I don't get no
respect" -- was a catchphrase, coast-to-coast. It now
looks to be an immortal joke.
But he wasn't just telling jokes; he was playing a
character, a sore loser who felt, as we all do at times,
that he wasn't getting his due -- while showing us =why=
he was a loser. He wasn't a beautiful loser, either: "My
psychiatrist told me I'm going crazy. I said, 'If you
don't mind, I'd like a second opinion.' He says, 'All
right -- you're ugly too!'"
That was Dangerfield's world, a world where your
shrink steps out of his therapeutic role to destroy
whatever is left of your fragile ego, where every social
encounter ended in crushing discouragement. It had
started early: "When I was born, I was so ugly the doctor
slapped my mother." He made being ugly -- bulky and
frog-eyed -- part of the act, turning the mud of
humiliation into pay dirt. He made the imaginary Rodney
Dangerfield (real name: Jacob Cohen) into a character
almost as beloved as Charlie Chaplin's nameless Little
Tramp.
The real Dangerfield must have had resources,
though. Despite early failures, he persisted in the very
tough business of standup comedy, where a stony audience
can quickly teach you the meaning of "flop sweat." I once
quoted a hilarious line to a large crowd, and the ensuing
silence has been matched, in my experience, only at
well-attended funerals, with the difference that the
corpse being stared at doesn't usually turn beet-red.
It takes a special kind of courage, as well as
talent, to make a living telling jokes. Dangerfield's
secret was that he appealed to our sympathy. He exposed
his dread of failure right in front of us. He'd already
failed in life, and he made the most of it. But he didn't
ask for our pity: he was indignant! And that was the best
part of the joke: When a lesser loser might have resorted
to self-improvement courses or cosmetic surgery, he
wasn't about to change. He was determined to keep on
losing, so he could keep on griping.
Psychoanalysts tell us that humor is a form of
aggression. My own view is that psychoanalysis is a form
of aggression for humorless people. The funniest writer
of the twentieth century, or any other century I can
think of, was probably P.G. Wodehouse, whose humor was
remarkably gentle and chaste. He could even make a
hilarious compliment: "My dear, you look like Helen of
Troy after a good facial!"
Of course it's easy to praise humor, since nobody is
overtly anti-humorous. The problem is that some people
are humorless, and there's no arguing with them. Refusing
to laugh is like refusing to extend sympathy: It can't be
forced. You can't =prove= something is funny.
Humorlessness is irrefutable. But so is humor. And if you
can't laugh at yourself, you're missing half the fun of
life.
I love a good laugh, but sometimes I find myself the
humorless one. DON QUIXOTE has, for four centuries, made
countless readers laugh helplessly, and is widely hailed
as the funniest novel ever written. But every time I try
to read it, I find myself wondering, "When do I get to
the funny part?"
That doesn't mean Cervantes isn't funny. It probably
means I'm like a tone-deaf man listening to Handel. I'm
up against the laughter of millions.
But never let it be said that I failed to laugh at
Rodney Dangerfield. I've been doing it for nearly 40
years, with a brief sad pause last week.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Read this column on-line at
"http://www.sobran.com/columns/2004/041012.shtml".
Copyright (c) 2004 by the Griffin Internet
Syndicate, www.griffnews.com. This column may not
be published in print or Internet publications
without express permission of Griffin Internet
Syndicate. You may forward it to interested
individuals if you use this entire page,
including the following disclaimer:
"SOBRAN'S and Joe Sobran's columns are available
by subscription. For details and samples, see
http://www.sobran.com/e-mail.shtml, write
PR@griffnews.com, or call 800-513-5053."
DEATH OF A COMEDIAN
October 12, 2004
by Joe Sobran
In the middle of a pretty humorless presidential
campaign, we had to lose Rodney Dangerfield. Dang.
I first saw him on the old ED SULLIVAN SHOW in the
late 1960s. His style of comedy was already
old-fashioned: nonstop one-liners, many about his wife
and kids, hard-luck stories and insults. He added a great
new twist to the old formula, though: He was the butt of
his own insults.
In those days, Don Rickles had just made a hit by
taking the insult to new heights; but he softened his act
with occasional smiles to show it was all a joke, folks.
Dangerfield never flashed an ingratiating smile; he was
insulting himself, and there would be no apologies --
just implacable self-depreciation.
Humor is an elusive thing. The best joke will fall
flat with some people, and the dumbest joke may bring
down the house. It's hard to rate comedians. All you can
say is that every time Dangerfield appeared on
television, you could feel an earthquake of laughter.
Soon his signature line -- "I tell you, I don't get no
respect" -- was a catchphrase, coast-to-coast. It now
looks to be an immortal joke.
But he wasn't just telling jokes; he was playing a
character, a sore loser who felt, as we all do at times,
that he wasn't getting his due -- while showing us =why=
he was a loser. He wasn't a beautiful loser, either: "My
psychiatrist told me I'm going crazy. I said, 'If you
don't mind, I'd like a second opinion.' He says, 'All
right -- you're ugly too!'"
That was Dangerfield's world, a world where your
shrink steps out of his therapeutic role to destroy
whatever is left of your fragile ego, where every social
encounter ended in crushing discouragement. It had
started early: "When I was born, I was so ugly the doctor
slapped my mother." He made being ugly -- bulky and
frog-eyed -- part of the act, turning the mud of
humiliation into pay dirt. He made the imaginary Rodney
Dangerfield (real name: Jacob Cohen) into a character
almost as beloved as Charlie Chaplin's nameless Little
Tramp.
The real Dangerfield must have had resources,
though. Despite early failures, he persisted in the very
tough business of standup comedy, where a stony audience
can quickly teach you the meaning of "flop sweat." I once
quoted a hilarious line to a large crowd, and the ensuing
silence has been matched, in my experience, only at
well-attended funerals, with the difference that the
corpse being stared at doesn't usually turn beet-red.
It takes a special kind of courage, as well as
talent, to make a living telling jokes. Dangerfield's
secret was that he appealed to our sympathy. He exposed
his dread of failure right in front of us. He'd already
failed in life, and he made the most of it. But he didn't
ask for our pity: he was indignant! And that was the best
part of the joke: When a lesser loser might have resorted
to self-improvement courses or cosmetic surgery, he
wasn't about to change. He was determined to keep on
losing, so he could keep on griping.
Psychoanalysts tell us that humor is a form of
aggression. My own view is that psychoanalysis is a form
of aggression for humorless people. The funniest writer
of the twentieth century, or any other century I can
think of, was probably P.G. Wodehouse, whose humor was
remarkably gentle and chaste. He could even make a
hilarious compliment: "My dear, you look like Helen of
Troy after a good facial!"
Of course it's easy to praise humor, since nobody is
overtly anti-humorous. The problem is that some people
are humorless, and there's no arguing with them. Refusing
to laugh is like refusing to extend sympathy: It can't be
forced. You can't =prove= something is funny.
Humorlessness is irrefutable. But so is humor. And if you
can't laugh at yourself, you're missing half the fun of
life.
I love a good laugh, but sometimes I find myself the
humorless one. DON QUIXOTE has, for four centuries, made
countless readers laugh helplessly, and is widely hailed
as the funniest novel ever written. But every time I try
to read it, I find myself wondering, "When do I get to
the funny part?"
That doesn't mean Cervantes isn't funny. It probably
means I'm like a tone-deaf man listening to Handel. I'm
up against the laughter of millions.
But never let it be said that I failed to laugh at
Rodney Dangerfield. I've been doing it for nearly 40
years, with a brief sad pause last week.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Read this column on-line at
"http://www.sobran.com/columns/2004/041012.shtml".
Copyright (c) 2004 by the Griffin Internet
Syndicate, www.griffnews.com. This column may not
be published in print or Internet publications
without express permission of Griffin Internet
Syndicate. You may forward it to interested
individuals if you use this entire page,
including the following disclaimer:
"SOBRAN'S and Joe Sobran's columns are available
by subscription. For details and samples, see
http://www.sobran.com/e-mail.shtml, write
PR@griffnews.com, or call 800-513-5053."
Selasa, 26 Oktober 2004
Eutychus Fell: Becoming Catholic
Eutychus Fell: Becoming Catholic: "Tuesday, October 26, 2004
Catholics for a Free Choice, a group that believes the Pope should stay out of the abortion question, has filed an IRS complaint against the Denver Archdiocese:
'Archbishop Chaput, leader of the Archdiocese of Denver, has repeatedly engaged in voter instruction by explicitly urging Catholics to vote against candidates who support abortion rights and embryonic stem cell research. In fourteen of 28 of his columns in the archdiocese's weekly newspaper, Archbishop Chaput has repeatedly urged voters to reject candidates opposed to the organization's views. The archbishop has also attempted to influence voters during public speeches, interviews and on Friday, October 22, in an op-ed in the New York Times.
'Without mentioning anyone by name, the archdiocese has frequently equated a vote for certain candidates as sinful and even outright 'evil.'
I wonder why no complaints ever seem to be filed against those Southern Baptist churches when Bill Clinton or John Kerry or Jesse Jackson stand in the pulpit and do much more than Archbishop Chaput ever does. This is just the sort of action our priest said the bishops were worried about.
So what if the Catholic Church loses its IRS except status? Whoever said being Christian was cheap, or easy?
I heard Jesse Jackson preach from the pulpit a few weeks ago, saying, 'Raise your hand if you or someone in your family is gay and plans to be married this year.' Of couse no one raised their hand. 'You see, this issue is a side issue, what is it doing in the center of our plate?' I wonder, since there are supposedly 55 abortions for every 100 live births in the African American community, how many women would have raised their hands (honestly) if the question was 'Raise your hand if you or someone in your family has had an abortion or plans to have one.' -- perhaps the abortion issue should be at the center of the plate."
Catholics for a Free Choice, a group that believes the Pope should stay out of the abortion question, has filed an IRS complaint against the Denver Archdiocese:
'Archbishop Chaput, leader of the Archdiocese of Denver, has repeatedly engaged in voter instruction by explicitly urging Catholics to vote against candidates who support abortion rights and embryonic stem cell research. In fourteen of 28 of his columns in the archdiocese's weekly newspaper, Archbishop Chaput has repeatedly urged voters to reject candidates opposed to the organization's views. The archbishop has also attempted to influence voters during public speeches, interviews and on Friday, October 22, in an op-ed in the New York Times.
'Without mentioning anyone by name, the archdiocese has frequently equated a vote for certain candidates as sinful and even outright 'evil.'
I wonder why no complaints ever seem to be filed against those Southern Baptist churches when Bill Clinton or John Kerry or Jesse Jackson stand in the pulpit and do much more than Archbishop Chaput ever does. This is just the sort of action our priest said the bishops were worried about.
So what if the Catholic Church loses its IRS except status? Whoever said being Christian was cheap, or easy?
I heard Jesse Jackson preach from the pulpit a few weeks ago, saying, 'Raise your hand if you or someone in your family is gay and plans to be married this year.' Of couse no one raised their hand. 'You see, this issue is a side issue, what is it doing in the center of our plate?' I wonder, since there are supposedly 55 abortions for every 100 live births in the African American community, how many women would have raised their hands (honestly) if the question was 'Raise your hand if you or someone in your family has had an abortion or plans to have one.' -- perhaps the abortion issue should be at the center of the plate."
John Wesley's Journal: Tuesday 23rd October 1739
John Wesley's Journal: Tuesday 23rd October 1739: "Tuesday 23rd October 1739
In riding to Bradford I read over Mr. Law's book on the new birth. Philosophical, speculative, precarious; Behemish, void, and vain!
Oh, what a fall is there!
At eleven I preached at Bearfield to about three thousand, on the spirit of nature, of bondage, and of adoption.
Returning in the evening, I was exceedingly pressed to go back to a young woman in Kingswood. (The fact I nakedly relate and leave every man to his own judgment of it.) I went. She was nineteen or twenty years old, but, it seems, could not write or read. I found her on the bed, two or three persons holding her. It was a terrible sight. Anguish, horror, and despair above all description appeared in her pale face. The thousand distortions of her whole body showed how the dogs of hell were gnawing her heart. The shrieks intermixed were scarcely to be endured. But her stony eyes could not weep. She screamed out, as soon as words could find their way, 'I am damned, damned; lost forever! Six days ago you might have helped me. But it is past. I am the devil's now. I have given myself to him. His I am. Him I must serve. With him I must go to hell. I will be his. I will serve him. I will go with him to hell. I cannot be saved. I will not be saved. I must, I will, I will be damned!' She then began praying to the devil. We began:
Arm of the Lord, awake, awake!
She immediately sank down as sleep; but, as soon as we left off, broke out again, with inexpressible vehemence: 'Stony hearts, break! I am a warning to you. Break, break, poor stony hearts! Will you not break? What can be done more for stony hearts? I am damned that you may be saved. Now break, now break, poor stony hearts! You need not be damned, though I must.' She then fixed her eyes on the corner of the ceiling and said: 'There he is: ay, there he is! come, good devil, come! Take me away. You said you would dash my brains out: come, do it quickly. I am yours. I will be yours. Come just now. Take me away.'
We interrupted her by calling again upon God, on which she sank down as before; and another young woman began to roar out as loud as she had done. My brother now came in, it being about nine o'clock. We continued in prayer till past eleven, when God in a moment spoke peace into the soul, first of the first tormented, and then of the other. And they both joined in singing praise to Him who had 'stilled the enemy and the avenger.'"
In riding to Bradford I read over Mr. Law's book on the new birth. Philosophical, speculative, precarious; Behemish, void, and vain!
Oh, what a fall is there!
At eleven I preached at Bearfield to about three thousand, on the spirit of nature, of bondage, and of adoption.
Returning in the evening, I was exceedingly pressed to go back to a young woman in Kingswood. (The fact I nakedly relate and leave every man to his own judgment of it.) I went. She was nineteen or twenty years old, but, it seems, could not write or read. I found her on the bed, two or three persons holding her. It was a terrible sight. Anguish, horror, and despair above all description appeared in her pale face. The thousand distortions of her whole body showed how the dogs of hell were gnawing her heart. The shrieks intermixed were scarcely to be endured. But her stony eyes could not weep. She screamed out, as soon as words could find their way, 'I am damned, damned; lost forever! Six days ago you might have helped me. But it is past. I am the devil's now. I have given myself to him. His I am. Him I must serve. With him I must go to hell. I will be his. I will serve him. I will go with him to hell. I cannot be saved. I will not be saved. I must, I will, I will be damned!' She then began praying to the devil. We began:
Arm of the Lord, awake, awake!
She immediately sank down as sleep; but, as soon as we left off, broke out again, with inexpressible vehemence: 'Stony hearts, break! I am a warning to you. Break, break, poor stony hearts! Will you not break? What can be done more for stony hearts? I am damned that you may be saved. Now break, now break, poor stony hearts! You need not be damned, though I must.' She then fixed her eyes on the corner of the ceiling and said: 'There he is: ay, there he is! come, good devil, come! Take me away. You said you would dash my brains out: come, do it quickly. I am yours. I will be yours. Come just now. Take me away.'
We interrupted her by calling again upon God, on which she sank down as before; and another young woman began to roar out as loud as she had done. My brother now came in, it being about nine o'clock. We continued in prayer till past eleven, when God in a moment spoke peace into the soul, first of the first tormented, and then of the other. And they both joined in singing praise to Him who had 'stilled the enemy and the avenger.'"
Proverbial Wife: Be Blessed
Proverbial Wife: Be Blessed:. . . . "He talked about speaking blessings over other believers (not recommended for unbelievers as they'll probably think you're wacky). This is somewhat different than praying. It's actually looking someone--your spouse, your child, your friend--eye to eye (intimidating, I know) and speaking words of encouragement, in the form of a blessing, into their life. It can be off the cuff or a recitation of Scripture, but personalized.
My husband was blessed in a special way by the message because our pastor actually related the incident I shared in The Prayer of Edward as an example of how to speak blessing over someone. Not to digress too much, but one reason I have had such peace about our new church (we started going in June) is because of the way the pastor has reached out to my husband--developing a friendship with him, recognizing his gifts, and discipling him. Eddie just thrives on the personal attention, and in turn, God is using him in our pastor's life, so that it is a mutually 'Ed'ifying relationship. I couldn't resist...
I know it would be harder for me to improvise a blessing over someone face-to-face than to pen them words of encouragement or pray (with heads bowed) for them, but I don't want to let that stop me from attempting this new (yet ancient) way of building up others in Christ. So I like the idea of memorizing blessings from Scripture. I think I'll start with this simple one ('Aaron's Blessing') whose imagery I have always liked (several of my former pastors used to close each service by speaking it over the congregation), but I would love it if you would write your favorite blessings from the Bible (or other sources) in the comments:
The Lord bless you and keep you; the Lord make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; the Lord lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace. ~Numbers 6:24-26"
My husband was blessed in a special way by the message because our pastor actually related the incident I shared in The Prayer of Edward as an example of how to speak blessing over someone. Not to digress too much, but one reason I have had such peace about our new church (we started going in June) is because of the way the pastor has reached out to my husband--developing a friendship with him, recognizing his gifts, and discipling him. Eddie just thrives on the personal attention, and in turn, God is using him in our pastor's life, so that it is a mutually 'Ed'ifying relationship. I couldn't resist...
I know it would be harder for me to improvise a blessing over someone face-to-face than to pen them words of encouragement or pray (with heads bowed) for them, but I don't want to let that stop me from attempting this new (yet ancient) way of building up others in Christ. So I like the idea of memorizing blessings from Scripture. I think I'll start with this simple one ('Aaron's Blessing') whose imagery I have always liked (several of my former pastors used to close each service by speaking it over the congregation), but I would love it if you would write your favorite blessings from the Bible (or other sources) in the comments:
The Lord bless you and keep you; the Lord make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; the Lord lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace. ~Numbers 6:24-26"
Wizbang
Wizbang
THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR (Part III)
Note: Part 3 of a six part series. Return to Part I
THE IMPACT OF INSURGENCY
In the year and a half since the initial invasion, we have experienced a total of two insurgencies. One led by Muqtada al-Sadr and one led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. If anyone honestly expected anything less, they're just not rational human beings. I honestly expected a lot more resistance.
Do you realize that there are currently more than 100 active gangs and 30,000 hardcore gang members in the Chicago, Illinois area alone? Also, consider this... in the past 19 months we have been at war, a few more than 1,100 Americans have perished in Iraq. During this same time period, more than 950 Americans were murdered in Chicago.
Obviously the toll on Iraqis has been much greater, but I wanted to give you a little context before moving on.
Contrary to the beliefs of many of those on the left (and some on the right), there is NOT a general insurrection in Iraq. Three-quarters of Iraq is relatively stable and a strong majority of Iraqis want the liberty we are offering them.
So, what are these insurgencies? Generally speaking Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian, is responsible for much of the unrest in the Sunni Triangle: Fallujah, Ramadi, Barqubah, Hit and, until recently, Samarra. The Sunni triangle is a relative small area of Iraq, north of Baghdad, and roughly comparable to the size of the Dallas-Fort Worth area in Texas. Although Zarqawi's goons often travel to Baghdad and other high profile spots in Iraq to get maximum TV coverage of his antics, Zarqawi's sphere of influence is not very large. In fact, it is rumored that the locals in the Sunni Triangle are rapidly tiring of this foreigner and the grief he has brought upon them.
Zarqawi is the terrorist who operated training camps in Afghanistan before being harbored by Saddam. He is also the one responsible for the beheadings and most of the car bombings.
Because of the decision of the Turkish parliament and the resulting necessary redeployment of the 4th ID to Kuwait, we never had the opportunity to properly neutralize the area immediately north of Baghdad and south of the Kurds in northern Iraq. Unfortunately this allowed Zarqawi an opportunity to gain a foothold and develop a following in a foreign land. Had the 4th ID been able to swoop down from the north, much of the Sunni Triangle would have been neutralized and Zarqawi more than like would have been captured or killed.
Unlike Zarqawi, Muqtada al-Sadr is a local, descended from a powerful line of religious leaders. Sadr's stronghold is in the Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City. This neighborhood makes up roughly 25% (the northeast quadrant) of Baghdad. Over the past several months, Sadr has led a group of militants called the Mehdi Army. In addition to the general level of unrest in Sadr City with mortar rounds, some car bombs and medium to light arms, the Mehdi Militia and Sadr were responsible to laying siege to the Imam Ali Mosque in Najaf, the holiest shrine to the Shiites and the second holiest site in all of Islam.
COMBATING THE INSURGENCY
The insurgencies started to become a more noticeable problem about 6 months ago. Toward the middle of June, right before the hand-over of Iraq to new Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, the insurgencies became more organized trying to disrupt the transfer of power to Iraqis. However, it was ultimately more important to put an Iraqi face on the new government than it was to immediately deal with the 2 insurgent organizations.
In an absolutely brilliant move, the United States relinquished control of Iraq to Allawi several days early, catching the insurgents by surprise and avoiding any potential attacks timed to coincide with the transfer of power. Incredibly brilliant.
Soon after the transfer, the insurgency became increasingly more organized and we knew we had to eliminate the threat from both Sadr and Zarqawi. The order in which they would be neutralized became apparent at the beginning of August when Sadr and the Mehdi Army laid siege to the Imam Ali Mosque in Najaf. Because of the holy nature of this shrine, the way we handled this crisis had the potential to become a very serious international incident.
In a masterful display of crisis resolution, the Bush administration was able to combine the U.S. Military with the Iraqi National Guard and bring Prime Minister Allawi, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and Sadr together to negotiate a peaceful resolution to the potentially inflammatory incident. Could you imagine Kerry bringing the U.N. in to negotiate? I could. And I'm sure that would have impressed Sadr.
Since the resolution, Najaf has returned to normal, Iraqi police/National Guard are patrolling the city and we, here in the U.S., are hearing absolutely nothing from the mainstream media (MSM) about Najaf. That's because it is an incredible success story.
In a final push to completely neutralize Sadr and the Mehdi Army, Allawi and the Bush administration negotiated a 'weapons for cash' program which has, in the past few weeks, resulted in collecting more than 18,000 weapons, explosives and mines from the teeming slum of 2.5 million people and beyond as others traveled to Sadr City to exchange their arms for money.
It must be working marvelously, because I have heard nothing, save the weapons-for-cash program, from Sadr City or about Sadr himself in the past few weeks from the MSM. If the program was failing, the MSM would surely be there covering it.
Zarqawi is next and he knows it. In fact, he has already lost a small but significant battle with the U.S. and Iraqis. In what was described as a resounding success, Iraqi forces, backed up by U.S. forces, combined in a swift operation to wrest control of Samarra from insurgents loyal to Zarqawi. It was such a resounding success that the MSM reported about it for one day and we have heard absolutely nothing from Samarra since. I'm beginning to detect a pattern here.
In Fallujah, where Zarqawi himself is thought to be hiding, there are currently negotiations underway, not with Zarqawi, but with the elders and leaders of Fallujah. The very people I stated earlier that were tiring of the foreigner and his thuggish gang. It seems as though either the city elders/leaders can not or will not hand over Zarqawi. But, when we have to act militarily, it can not be said that we did not attempt to stave off the incursion peacefully.
Additionally, by working with the locals, we are gaining valuable intelligence from those evacuating the city. As soon as we get this intelligence, we are acting immediately. Just yesterday (Friday October 22, 2004), we captured 6 Zarqawi loyalists, including a recently promoted senior leader in his terror movement. This captured leader had risen in rank as other Zarqawi associates had been killed in U.S. attacks on Fallujah.
There is still a great deal to do. With the insurgency, everything is not rosy. Neither is it sheer chaos as the left would have you believe. As the election draws near and Zarqawi's fate becomes more clear to him, the attacks will come more frequently and become more deadly. Attacks have reportedly risen by 25% since the beginning of Ramadan last weekend. But one thing is for certain, with the Sadr movement nearly quelled, the U.S. and Iraqi military will be working furiously over the next month to dislodge Zarqawi from Fallujah and the surrounding areas ahead of the January elections.
THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR (Part III)
Note: Part 3 of a six part series. Return to Part I
THE IMPACT OF INSURGENCY
In the year and a half since the initial invasion, we have experienced a total of two insurgencies. One led by Muqtada al-Sadr and one led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. If anyone honestly expected anything less, they're just not rational human beings. I honestly expected a lot more resistance.
Do you realize that there are currently more than 100 active gangs and 30,000 hardcore gang members in the Chicago, Illinois area alone? Also, consider this... in the past 19 months we have been at war, a few more than 1,100 Americans have perished in Iraq. During this same time period, more than 950 Americans were murdered in Chicago.
Obviously the toll on Iraqis has been much greater, but I wanted to give you a little context before moving on.
Contrary to the beliefs of many of those on the left (and some on the right), there is NOT a general insurrection in Iraq. Three-quarters of Iraq is relatively stable and a strong majority of Iraqis want the liberty we are offering them.
So, what are these insurgencies? Generally speaking Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian, is responsible for much of the unrest in the Sunni Triangle: Fallujah, Ramadi, Barqubah, Hit and, until recently, Samarra. The Sunni triangle is a relative small area of Iraq, north of Baghdad, and roughly comparable to the size of the Dallas-Fort Worth area in Texas. Although Zarqawi's goons often travel to Baghdad and other high profile spots in Iraq to get maximum TV coverage of his antics, Zarqawi's sphere of influence is not very large. In fact, it is rumored that the locals in the Sunni Triangle are rapidly tiring of this foreigner and the grief he has brought upon them.
Zarqawi is the terrorist who operated training camps in Afghanistan before being harbored by Saddam. He is also the one responsible for the beheadings and most of the car bombings.
Because of the decision of the Turkish parliament and the resulting necessary redeployment of the 4th ID to Kuwait, we never had the opportunity to properly neutralize the area immediately north of Baghdad and south of the Kurds in northern Iraq. Unfortunately this allowed Zarqawi an opportunity to gain a foothold and develop a following in a foreign land. Had the 4th ID been able to swoop down from the north, much of the Sunni Triangle would have been neutralized and Zarqawi more than like would have been captured or killed.
Unlike Zarqawi, Muqtada al-Sadr is a local, descended from a powerful line of religious leaders. Sadr's stronghold is in the Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City. This neighborhood makes up roughly 25% (the northeast quadrant) of Baghdad. Over the past several months, Sadr has led a group of militants called the Mehdi Army. In addition to the general level of unrest in Sadr City with mortar rounds, some car bombs and medium to light arms, the Mehdi Militia and Sadr were responsible to laying siege to the Imam Ali Mosque in Najaf, the holiest shrine to the Shiites and the second holiest site in all of Islam.
COMBATING THE INSURGENCY
The insurgencies started to become a more noticeable problem about 6 months ago. Toward the middle of June, right before the hand-over of Iraq to new Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, the insurgencies became more organized trying to disrupt the transfer of power to Iraqis. However, it was ultimately more important to put an Iraqi face on the new government than it was to immediately deal with the 2 insurgent organizations.
In an absolutely brilliant move, the United States relinquished control of Iraq to Allawi several days early, catching the insurgents by surprise and avoiding any potential attacks timed to coincide with the transfer of power. Incredibly brilliant.
Soon after the transfer, the insurgency became increasingly more organized and we knew we had to eliminate the threat from both Sadr and Zarqawi. The order in which they would be neutralized became apparent at the beginning of August when Sadr and the Mehdi Army laid siege to the Imam Ali Mosque in Najaf. Because of the holy nature of this shrine, the way we handled this crisis had the potential to become a very serious international incident.
In a masterful display of crisis resolution, the Bush administration was able to combine the U.S. Military with the Iraqi National Guard and bring Prime Minister Allawi, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and Sadr together to negotiate a peaceful resolution to the potentially inflammatory incident. Could you imagine Kerry bringing the U.N. in to negotiate? I could. And I'm sure that would have impressed Sadr.
Since the resolution, Najaf has returned to normal, Iraqi police/National Guard are patrolling the city and we, here in the U.S., are hearing absolutely nothing from the mainstream media (MSM) about Najaf. That's because it is an incredible success story.
In a final push to completely neutralize Sadr and the Mehdi Army, Allawi and the Bush administration negotiated a 'weapons for cash' program which has, in the past few weeks, resulted in collecting more than 18,000 weapons, explosives and mines from the teeming slum of 2.5 million people and beyond as others traveled to Sadr City to exchange their arms for money.
It must be working marvelously, because I have heard nothing, save the weapons-for-cash program, from Sadr City or about Sadr himself in the past few weeks from the MSM. If the program was failing, the MSM would surely be there covering it.
Zarqawi is next and he knows it. In fact, he has already lost a small but significant battle with the U.S. and Iraqis. In what was described as a resounding success, Iraqi forces, backed up by U.S. forces, combined in a swift operation to wrest control of Samarra from insurgents loyal to Zarqawi. It was such a resounding success that the MSM reported about it for one day and we have heard absolutely nothing from Samarra since. I'm beginning to detect a pattern here.
In Fallujah, where Zarqawi himself is thought to be hiding, there are currently negotiations underway, not with Zarqawi, but with the elders and leaders of Fallujah. The very people I stated earlier that were tiring of the foreigner and his thuggish gang. It seems as though either the city elders/leaders can not or will not hand over Zarqawi. But, when we have to act militarily, it can not be said that we did not attempt to stave off the incursion peacefully.
Additionally, by working with the locals, we are gaining valuable intelligence from those evacuating the city. As soon as we get this intelligence, we are acting immediately. Just yesterday (Friday October 22, 2004), we captured 6 Zarqawi loyalists, including a recently promoted senior leader in his terror movement. This captured leader had risen in rank as other Zarqawi associates had been killed in U.S. attacks on Fallujah.
There is still a great deal to do. With the insurgency, everything is not rosy. Neither is it sheer chaos as the left would have you believe. As the election draws near and Zarqawi's fate becomes more clear to him, the attacks will come more frequently and become more deadly. Attacks have reportedly risen by 25% since the beginning of Ramadan last weekend. But one thing is for certain, with the Sadr movement nearly quelled, the U.S. and Iraqi military will be working furiously over the next month to dislodge Zarqawi from Fallujah and the surrounding areas ahead of the January elections.
Senin, 25 Oktober 2004
Minggu, 24 Oktober 2004
Kerry's Vietnam ghosts won't go away | The San Diego Union-Tribune
Kerry's Vietnam ghosts won't go away | The San Diego Union-Tribune
The San Diego Union-Tribune
Kerry's Vietnam ghosts won't go away
By Robert J. Caldwell
October 24, 2004
In a race appropriately dominated by questions of presidential leadership, the war on terror, Iraq and the economy, Vietnam nonetheless continues to haunt Democrat John Kerry. For this, Kerry has only himself to blame.
Advertisement
It is Kerry who quite deliberately made his brief four months on Navy Swift Boats in Vietnam in 1968-69 his signature credential to be commander in chief 35 years later. It is Kerry and his surrogates who repeat constantly the mantra that he "defended this country as a young man." It was Kerry who presented his "band of brothers" – the seven (out of eight) members of his Swift Boat crew who support him for president – as a backdrop at the Democratic National Convention.
Yet, the echoes of Vietnam also have grievously wounded Kerry's presidential aspirations, and rightly so.
A month of largely unanswered attacks by other Navy Swift Boat veterans on Kerry's war record and his subsequent anti-war, if not anti-American, radicalism helped President Bush build a lead in September. The Swiftees' anti-Kerry critique, detailed in their best-selling book "Unfit for Command" and publicized in television ads, raised profound questions about Kerry's fitness for the presidency. Against the seven supportive members of Kerry's Swift Boat crew, more than 250 Swift Boat combat veterans who served alongside Kerry in the same units denounce him as unfit to be commander in chief. Among them are 17 of the 20 officers in Kerry's chain of command in Vietnam.
Now, the anti-Kerry Swiftees are being joined by a second aggrieved group, former American prisoners of war. In North Vietnam's fetid prisons, they were subjected to years of torture and tormented by their interrogators with propaganda from America's anti-war movement. These highly decorated ex-POWs denounce Kerry for giving aid and comfort to a vicious communist enemy. In some cases, they recall being threatened with trial and execution by interrogators quoting Kerry's outrageous accusations.
In 1971, Kerry testified under oath before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that U.S. forces in Vietnam were guilty of systematic war crimes, including rape, murder, mutilation and pillage with the full knowledge and complicity of their entire chain of command.
Virtually all of America's former Vietnam prisoners of war also believe – with good reason, as North Vietnam's army commander has since said publicly – that the anti-war movement Kerry helped lead in the early 1970s encouraged Hanoi to fight on despite the odds. That prolonged the imprisonment of American POWs.
Ralph Gaither, a Navy pilot who was shot down over North Vietnam and spent, as he notes, "seven years, three months and 23 days" as a prisoner of war, is unsparing about the radical protest movement Kerry helped lead in the early 1970s.
"My imprisonment was extended by the anti-war movement. The war would have ended sooner if the (North) Vietnamese had not believed that the anti-war movement would win in the United States. It prolonged the war. I had friends die during this time. One was beaten to death, one died on a hunger strike and a third of malaria," Gaither says.
George 'Bud' Day, an Air Force pilot who won the Medal of Honor for his heroic resistance in North Vietnamese captivity, says this of Kerry:
"This man committed an act of treason. He lied, he besmirched our name and he did it for self-interest. And now he wants us to forget. What he stands for is wrong."
Leo Thorsness, another former POW and Medal of Honor winner, says the North Vietnamese threatened to execute him if he did not confess to war crimes.
"John Kerry and that whole movement made our lives more difficult. The things he said were just devastating because he was using words like 'war criminal.' He (was) saying the same things we were being tortured to say. I was told by them the penalty for this was death," Thorsness says.
James Warner, a Marine pilot who spent years in North Vietnamese captivity, recalls that John Kerry's 1971 accusations against the U.S. military were quoted and thrown in his face by a table-pounding interrogator at a punishment camp for resistant POWs.
"'This naval officer admits you are all war criminals. These words prove you all deserve punishment,'" Warner remembers his interrogator shouting. "He (Kerry) abandoned his comrades. His allegations were utterly absurd. To be charitable, at a minimum, he showed abominable bad judgment."
Mike McGrath, now a retired Navy captain, was a POW in North Vietnam for six years. Torture broke his back, dislocated both shoulders and broke an arm and a leg. "I nearly died," McGrath says. "They wanted us to make statements against the war."
Of John Kerry's lurid litany of accusations in 1971, McGrath says, "I agree with the Swiftees. I was ashamed that a Navy lieutenant would give such testimony. I'm disappointed this guy did the wrong thing. He shouldn't be commander in chief."
The testimony of these and other American POWs from the Vietnam War is the basis for a documentary entitled "Stolen Honor" that the Kerry campaign is trying, shamefully, to suppress.
Politics aside, no one can question the right of these men to be heard. No one can doubt the authenticity of their words.
How could this not be a legitimate issue as John Kerry, the unrepentant anti-war activist whose slanderous testimony did so much damage, seeks the presidency, and with it, the command of America's armed forces?
© Copyright 2004 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.
The San Diego Union-Tribune
Kerry's Vietnam ghosts won't go away
By Robert J. Caldwell
October 24, 2004
In a race appropriately dominated by questions of presidential leadership, the war on terror, Iraq and the economy, Vietnam nonetheless continues to haunt Democrat John Kerry. For this, Kerry has only himself to blame.
Advertisement
It is Kerry who quite deliberately made his brief four months on Navy Swift Boats in Vietnam in 1968-69 his signature credential to be commander in chief 35 years later. It is Kerry and his surrogates who repeat constantly the mantra that he "defended this country as a young man." It was Kerry who presented his "band of brothers" – the seven (out of eight) members of his Swift Boat crew who support him for president – as a backdrop at the Democratic National Convention.
Yet, the echoes of Vietnam also have grievously wounded Kerry's presidential aspirations, and rightly so.
A month of largely unanswered attacks by other Navy Swift Boat veterans on Kerry's war record and his subsequent anti-war, if not anti-American, radicalism helped President Bush build a lead in September. The Swiftees' anti-Kerry critique, detailed in their best-selling book "Unfit for Command" and publicized in television ads, raised profound questions about Kerry's fitness for the presidency. Against the seven supportive members of Kerry's Swift Boat crew, more than 250 Swift Boat combat veterans who served alongside Kerry in the same units denounce him as unfit to be commander in chief. Among them are 17 of the 20 officers in Kerry's chain of command in Vietnam.
Now, the anti-Kerry Swiftees are being joined by a second aggrieved group, former American prisoners of war. In North Vietnam's fetid prisons, they were subjected to years of torture and tormented by their interrogators with propaganda from America's anti-war movement. These highly decorated ex-POWs denounce Kerry for giving aid and comfort to a vicious communist enemy. In some cases, they recall being threatened with trial and execution by interrogators quoting Kerry's outrageous accusations.
In 1971, Kerry testified under oath before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that U.S. forces in Vietnam were guilty of systematic war crimes, including rape, murder, mutilation and pillage with the full knowledge and complicity of their entire chain of command.
Virtually all of America's former Vietnam prisoners of war also believe – with good reason, as North Vietnam's army commander has since said publicly – that the anti-war movement Kerry helped lead in the early 1970s encouraged Hanoi to fight on despite the odds. That prolonged the imprisonment of American POWs.
Ralph Gaither, a Navy pilot who was shot down over North Vietnam and spent, as he notes, "seven years, three months and 23 days" as a prisoner of war, is unsparing about the radical protest movement Kerry helped lead in the early 1970s.
"My imprisonment was extended by the anti-war movement. The war would have ended sooner if the (North) Vietnamese had not believed that the anti-war movement would win in the United States. It prolonged the war. I had friends die during this time. One was beaten to death, one died on a hunger strike and a third of malaria," Gaither says.
George 'Bud' Day, an Air Force pilot who won the Medal of Honor for his heroic resistance in North Vietnamese captivity, says this of Kerry:
"This man committed an act of treason. He lied, he besmirched our name and he did it for self-interest. And now he wants us to forget. What he stands for is wrong."
Leo Thorsness, another former POW and Medal of Honor winner, says the North Vietnamese threatened to execute him if he did not confess to war crimes.
"John Kerry and that whole movement made our lives more difficult. The things he said were just devastating because he was using words like 'war criminal.' He (was) saying the same things we were being tortured to say. I was told by them the penalty for this was death," Thorsness says.
James Warner, a Marine pilot who spent years in North Vietnamese captivity, recalls that John Kerry's 1971 accusations against the U.S. military were quoted and thrown in his face by a table-pounding interrogator at a punishment camp for resistant POWs.
"'This naval officer admits you are all war criminals. These words prove you all deserve punishment,'" Warner remembers his interrogator shouting. "He (Kerry) abandoned his comrades. His allegations were utterly absurd. To be charitable, at a minimum, he showed abominable bad judgment."
Mike McGrath, now a retired Navy captain, was a POW in North Vietnam for six years. Torture broke his back, dislocated both shoulders and broke an arm and a leg. "I nearly died," McGrath says. "They wanted us to make statements against the war."
Of John Kerry's lurid litany of accusations in 1971, McGrath says, "I agree with the Swiftees. I was ashamed that a Navy lieutenant would give such testimony. I'm disappointed this guy did the wrong thing. He shouldn't be commander in chief."
The testimony of these and other American POWs from the Vietnam War is the basis for a documentary entitled "Stolen Honor" that the Kerry campaign is trying, shamefully, to suppress.
Politics aside, no one can question the right of these men to be heard. No one can doubt the authenticity of their words.
How could this not be a legitimate issue as John Kerry, the unrepentant anti-war activist whose slanderous testimony did so much damage, seeks the presidency, and with it, the command of America's armed forces?
© Copyright 2004 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.
22 questions unanswered from Bob woodward to Kerry
Decision Iraq (washingtonpost.com)Decision Iraq
Would Kerry Have Done Things Differently?
By Bob Woodward
Sunday, October 24, 2004; Page B04
The role of commander in chief is clearly one of the president's most important jobs. But a presidential campaign provides voters little opportunity to evaluate how a candidate would handle that role, particularly if the candidate isn't an incumbent.
At the end of last year, during 3 1/2 hours of interviews over two days, I asked President Bush hundreds of detailed questions about his actions and decisions during the 16-month run-up to the war in Iraq. His answers were published in my book "Plan of Attack." Beginning on June 16, I had discussions and meetings with Sen. John Kerry's senior foreign policy, communications and political advisers about interviewing the senator to find out how he might have acted on Iraq -- to ask him what he would have done at certain key points. Senior Kerry advisers initially seemed positive about such an interview. One aide told me, "The short answer is yes, it's going to happen."
In August, I was talking with Kerry's scheduler about possible dates. On Sept. 1, Kerry began his intense criticism of Bush's decisions in the Iraq war, saying "I would've done almost everything differently." A few days later, I provided the Kerry campaign with a list of 22 possible questions based entirely on Bush's actions leading up to the war and how Kerry might have responded in the same situations. The senator and his campaign have since decided not to do the interview, though his advisers say Kerry would have strong and compelling answers.
Because the interview did not occur, it is not possible to do the side-by-side comparison of Bush's record and Kerry's answers that I had envisioned. But it seems to me that the questions themselves offer a useful framework for thinking about the role of a president who must decide whether to go to war.
Here are the 22 questions, edited only for clarity:
1. On Nov. 21, 2001, just 72 days after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, President Bush took Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld aside and said he wanted to look at the Iraq war plans. Bush directed Rumsfeld not to talk to anyone else, including the National Security Council members and the CIA director.
Questions: If a President Kerry wanted to look at war plans pertaining to a particular country or threat, how would he go about it? Who would be included? What would the general war-planning process be in a Kerry administration? Was it reasonable to look at Iraq at that time?
2. The CIA was asked in late 2001 to do a "lessons learned" study of past covert operations in Iraq and concluded that the CIA alone could not overthrow Saddam Hussein and that a military operation would be required. The CIA soon became an advocate for military action.
Questions: How can such advocacy be avoided? The CIA argued that a two-track policy -- negotiations at the U.N. and covert action -- made their sources inside Iraq believe the United States was not serious about overthrowing Saddam. Can that be avoided? How can diplomacy and covert action be balanced?
3. In January 2002 President Bush gave his famous "axis of evil" speech singling out Iraq, Iran and North Korea as threats.
Questions: Was this speech too undiplomatic? How would a President Kerry frame the issues and relations with Iran and North Korea? Do you consider these two countries part of an axis of evil now?
4. On Feb. 16, 2002, the president signed a secret intelligence order directing the CIA to begin covert action to support a military operation to overthrow Saddam, ultimately allocating some $200 million a year. Bush later acknowledged to me that even six months later, in August, the administration had not developed a diplomatic strategy to deal with Iraq.
Questions: How should military planning, CIA activities and diplomacy (and economic sanctions and the bully pulpit) fit together to form a policy?
5. On May 24, 2002, Gen. Tommy Franks and the Pentagon's Joint Staff began work on stability operations to follow combat in Iraq. This was about 10 months before the Iraq war started. But it was not until seven months later, in January 2003, that President Bush became involved in the aftermath planning.
Questions: How would you make sure that there was sufficient planning for both the war and the peace? What aspects would you want to be personally involved in or aware of as president?
6. On June 1, 2002, President Bush announced his preemption doctrine.
Questions: Do you agree with it? What are the acceptable conditions for preemptive war? Bush has said that he believes the United States has a "duty to free people," to liberate them. Do you agree? Under what circumstances?
7. In July 2002, President Bush secretly ordered that some $700 million be spent on 30 major construction and other projects to prepare for war. Congress was not involved or informed.
Questions: How would you seek a relationship with the leaders of Congress so that they would be informed of such secret work? Should congressional leaders have an idea where you are heading? What should be the overall role of Congress in preparing for war?
8. In August 2002 (about seven months before the start of war in March 2003), Secretary of State Colin Powell told the president over a two-hour dinner that an Iraq war would have consequences that had not been considered or imagined. He said that an invasion would lead to the collapse of Iraq -- "You break it, you own it."
Questions: What would you do after receiving such a clear warning from a senior cabinet officer or other person with comparable experience?
9. On Nov. 8, 2002, the U.N. Security Council unanimously (15 to 0) passed Resolution 1441 on new weapons inspections in Iraq. Powell thought it was a critical victory, putting the United States on the road to diplomatic success.
Questions: What did this mean, now that Saddam seemed isolated and friendless in the world? Was strategic victory -- getting Saddam out of power -- possible through diplomacy or by continuing diplomacy and weapons inspections?
10. In November-December 2002, major U.S. force deployments began but were strung out to avoid telling the world that war was all but inevitable and that diplomacy was over. Rumsfeld told the president that the large U.S. divisions could be kept in top fighting shape for only two to three months without degrading the force.
Questions: How might a President Kerry have handled this? What is the role of momentum in such a decision-making process?
11. On Dec. 21, 2002, CIA deputy John McLaughlin gave a major presentation to the president on the intelligence evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The president was not impressed and asked where the good, strong intelligence was. CIA Director George Tenet twice assured the president that the WMD case was a "slam dunk."
Questions: What might a President Kerry have done when he smelled weakness in an intelligence case?
12. On Jan. 9, 2003, the president asked Gen. Franks: What is my last decision point? Franks said it would be when Special Forces were put on the ground inside Iraq.
Question: Had the president already passed his last decision point when he ordered such a large military deployment and such extensive CIA covert action to support the military?
13. Around this time, in January 2003, Rumsfeld told the president that he was losing his options, and that after he asked U.S. allies to commit forces, it would not be feasible to back off. Rumsfeld asked to brief the Saudi ambassador, Prince Bandar bin Sultan. Vice President Cheney, Gen. Richard Myers and Rumsfeld briefed Bandar on Jan. 11, 2003, telling him "You can count on this" -- i.e., war.
Questions: Do you agree with Rumsfeld's assessment? Andy Card, the Bush White House chief of staff, thought the decision to go to war was not irrevocable, that Bush could pull back, though the consequences would be politically expensive. How does a president credibly threaten force without taking steps that make the use of force almost inevitable? Should foreign governments be briefed in this way?
14. On Jan. 13, 2003, the director of the National Security Agency, Lt. Gen. Michael Hayden, issued a formal director's intent on how to support Gen. Franks in a war with Iraq. Previously, on his own, Hayden had reallocated some $300 million to $400 million of NSA funds to Iraq-specific signals intelligence programs to support a war without the specific knowledge or approval of either Rumsfeld, Tenet or Bush.
Questions: Was this good planning? What would be the procedures for such decisions in a Kerry administration?
15. On Jan. 20, 2003 (two months before the war), the president signed National Security Presidential Directive 24 to set up the office for reconstruction for Iraq.
Question: What do you think of the timing of this?
16. On Feb. 7, 2003 (six weeks before war started), French President Jacques Chirac called the president and was very conciliatory. He said, "If there is a war, we'll work together on reconstruction. We will all contribute. I fully understand your position is different. There are two different moral approaches to the world and I respect yours." Bush was optimistic but took no action.
Question: What would a President Kerry have done about this conciliatory statement?
17. On March 17, 2003, concluding that Saddam was stalling and lying, Bush ordered war while U.N. weapons inspectors were still in Iraq.
Questions: Was this decision right or premature? Was there any other action, short of war, that would have effectively increased pressure on Saddam?
18. On Sept. 30, 2003 (six months after the start of the war), British Prime Minister Tony Blair told his annual Labor Party conference that he had received letters from parents whose sons were killed in the Iraq war, saying that they hated him. "And don't believe anyone who tells you when they receive letters like that they don't suffer any doubt," Blair said. President Bush has said emphatically that he has no such doubts.
Questions: Can a president afford to have doubt in a time of war? What is the role of doubt in presidential decision-making?
19. Secretary of State Powell has said that he believed Cheney had a "fever," an unhealthy fixation on al Qaeda and Iraq that caused him to misread and exaggerate intelligence and the threat. In Powell's view, Cheney and others -- Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, vice presidential chief of staff Scooter Libby and Douglas J. Feith, undersecretary of defense for policy -- were part of "a separate little government."
Questions: Your reaction? What should or could a president do about this discord among top officials of his administration?
20. Powell also had said he believed that the Bush administration had become "dangerously protective" of its decisions on Iraq and was unable to consider changing course.
Question: How does a president set up a system or process to enable his administration to alter course or get a clear-eyed evaluation of its actions and its consequences?
21. President Bush has said on the record that he did not directly ask Powell, Rumsfeld or his father, former President George H.W. Bush, whether he should go to war in Iraq. He did ask national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and his senior aide, Karen Hughes.
Questions: Your reaction? What sort of consultation process would you have on major national security decisions? Would you consult former presidents, even former President Bush?
22. Asked in December 2003 how history would judge his Iraq war, Bush suggested that history was far off. "We won't know. We'll all be dead," he said.
Questions: How do you judge his Iraq war? What do you think history's verdict is likely to be?
Would Kerry Have Done Things Differently?
By Bob Woodward
Sunday, October 24, 2004; Page B04
The role of commander in chief is clearly one of the president's most important jobs. But a presidential campaign provides voters little opportunity to evaluate how a candidate would handle that role, particularly if the candidate isn't an incumbent.
At the end of last year, during 3 1/2 hours of interviews over two days, I asked President Bush hundreds of detailed questions about his actions and decisions during the 16-month run-up to the war in Iraq. His answers were published in my book "Plan of Attack." Beginning on June 16, I had discussions and meetings with Sen. John Kerry's senior foreign policy, communications and political advisers about interviewing the senator to find out how he might have acted on Iraq -- to ask him what he would have done at certain key points. Senior Kerry advisers initially seemed positive about such an interview. One aide told me, "The short answer is yes, it's going to happen."
In August, I was talking with Kerry's scheduler about possible dates. On Sept. 1, Kerry began his intense criticism of Bush's decisions in the Iraq war, saying "I would've done almost everything differently." A few days later, I provided the Kerry campaign with a list of 22 possible questions based entirely on Bush's actions leading up to the war and how Kerry might have responded in the same situations. The senator and his campaign have since decided not to do the interview, though his advisers say Kerry would have strong and compelling answers.
Because the interview did not occur, it is not possible to do the side-by-side comparison of Bush's record and Kerry's answers that I had envisioned. But it seems to me that the questions themselves offer a useful framework for thinking about the role of a president who must decide whether to go to war.
Here are the 22 questions, edited only for clarity:
1. On Nov. 21, 2001, just 72 days after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, President Bush took Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld aside and said he wanted to look at the Iraq war plans. Bush directed Rumsfeld not to talk to anyone else, including the National Security Council members and the CIA director.
Questions: If a President Kerry wanted to look at war plans pertaining to a particular country or threat, how would he go about it? Who would be included? What would the general war-planning process be in a Kerry administration? Was it reasonable to look at Iraq at that time?
2. The CIA was asked in late 2001 to do a "lessons learned" study of past covert operations in Iraq and concluded that the CIA alone could not overthrow Saddam Hussein and that a military operation would be required. The CIA soon became an advocate for military action.
Questions: How can such advocacy be avoided? The CIA argued that a two-track policy -- negotiations at the U.N. and covert action -- made their sources inside Iraq believe the United States was not serious about overthrowing Saddam. Can that be avoided? How can diplomacy and covert action be balanced?
3. In January 2002 President Bush gave his famous "axis of evil" speech singling out Iraq, Iran and North Korea as threats.
Questions: Was this speech too undiplomatic? How would a President Kerry frame the issues and relations with Iran and North Korea? Do you consider these two countries part of an axis of evil now?
4. On Feb. 16, 2002, the president signed a secret intelligence order directing the CIA to begin covert action to support a military operation to overthrow Saddam, ultimately allocating some $200 million a year. Bush later acknowledged to me that even six months later, in August, the administration had not developed a diplomatic strategy to deal with Iraq.
Questions: How should military planning, CIA activities and diplomacy (and economic sanctions and the bully pulpit) fit together to form a policy?
5. On May 24, 2002, Gen. Tommy Franks and the Pentagon's Joint Staff began work on stability operations to follow combat in Iraq. This was about 10 months before the Iraq war started. But it was not until seven months later, in January 2003, that President Bush became involved in the aftermath planning.
Questions: How would you make sure that there was sufficient planning for both the war and the peace? What aspects would you want to be personally involved in or aware of as president?
6. On June 1, 2002, President Bush announced his preemption doctrine.
Questions: Do you agree with it? What are the acceptable conditions for preemptive war? Bush has said that he believes the United States has a "duty to free people," to liberate them. Do you agree? Under what circumstances?
7. In July 2002, President Bush secretly ordered that some $700 million be spent on 30 major construction and other projects to prepare for war. Congress was not involved or informed.
Questions: How would you seek a relationship with the leaders of Congress so that they would be informed of such secret work? Should congressional leaders have an idea where you are heading? What should be the overall role of Congress in preparing for war?
8. In August 2002 (about seven months before the start of war in March 2003), Secretary of State Colin Powell told the president over a two-hour dinner that an Iraq war would have consequences that had not been considered or imagined. He said that an invasion would lead to the collapse of Iraq -- "You break it, you own it."
Questions: What would you do after receiving such a clear warning from a senior cabinet officer or other person with comparable experience?
9. On Nov. 8, 2002, the U.N. Security Council unanimously (15 to 0) passed Resolution 1441 on new weapons inspections in Iraq. Powell thought it was a critical victory, putting the United States on the road to diplomatic success.
Questions: What did this mean, now that Saddam seemed isolated and friendless in the world? Was strategic victory -- getting Saddam out of power -- possible through diplomacy or by continuing diplomacy and weapons inspections?
10. In November-December 2002, major U.S. force deployments began but were strung out to avoid telling the world that war was all but inevitable and that diplomacy was over. Rumsfeld told the president that the large U.S. divisions could be kept in top fighting shape for only two to three months without degrading the force.
Questions: How might a President Kerry have handled this? What is the role of momentum in such a decision-making process?
11. On Dec. 21, 2002, CIA deputy John McLaughlin gave a major presentation to the president on the intelligence evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The president was not impressed and asked where the good, strong intelligence was. CIA Director George Tenet twice assured the president that the WMD case was a "slam dunk."
Questions: What might a President Kerry have done when he smelled weakness in an intelligence case?
12. On Jan. 9, 2003, the president asked Gen. Franks: What is my last decision point? Franks said it would be when Special Forces were put on the ground inside Iraq.
Question: Had the president already passed his last decision point when he ordered such a large military deployment and such extensive CIA covert action to support the military?
13. Around this time, in January 2003, Rumsfeld told the president that he was losing his options, and that after he asked U.S. allies to commit forces, it would not be feasible to back off. Rumsfeld asked to brief the Saudi ambassador, Prince Bandar bin Sultan. Vice President Cheney, Gen. Richard Myers and Rumsfeld briefed Bandar on Jan. 11, 2003, telling him "You can count on this" -- i.e., war.
Questions: Do you agree with Rumsfeld's assessment? Andy Card, the Bush White House chief of staff, thought the decision to go to war was not irrevocable, that Bush could pull back, though the consequences would be politically expensive. How does a president credibly threaten force without taking steps that make the use of force almost inevitable? Should foreign governments be briefed in this way?
14. On Jan. 13, 2003, the director of the National Security Agency, Lt. Gen. Michael Hayden, issued a formal director's intent on how to support Gen. Franks in a war with Iraq. Previously, on his own, Hayden had reallocated some $300 million to $400 million of NSA funds to Iraq-specific signals intelligence programs to support a war without the specific knowledge or approval of either Rumsfeld, Tenet or Bush.
Questions: Was this good planning? What would be the procedures for such decisions in a Kerry administration?
15. On Jan. 20, 2003 (two months before the war), the president signed National Security Presidential Directive 24 to set up the office for reconstruction for Iraq.
Question: What do you think of the timing of this?
16. On Feb. 7, 2003 (six weeks before war started), French President Jacques Chirac called the president and was very conciliatory. He said, "If there is a war, we'll work together on reconstruction. We will all contribute. I fully understand your position is different. There are two different moral approaches to the world and I respect yours." Bush was optimistic but took no action.
Question: What would a President Kerry have done about this conciliatory statement?
17. On March 17, 2003, concluding that Saddam was stalling and lying, Bush ordered war while U.N. weapons inspectors were still in Iraq.
Questions: Was this decision right or premature? Was there any other action, short of war, that would have effectively increased pressure on Saddam?
18. On Sept. 30, 2003 (six months after the start of the war), British Prime Minister Tony Blair told his annual Labor Party conference that he had received letters from parents whose sons were killed in the Iraq war, saying that they hated him. "And don't believe anyone who tells you when they receive letters like that they don't suffer any doubt," Blair said. President Bush has said emphatically that he has no such doubts.
Questions: Can a president afford to have doubt in a time of war? What is the role of doubt in presidential decision-making?
19. Secretary of State Powell has said that he believed Cheney had a "fever," an unhealthy fixation on al Qaeda and Iraq that caused him to misread and exaggerate intelligence and the threat. In Powell's view, Cheney and others -- Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, vice presidential chief of staff Scooter Libby and Douglas J. Feith, undersecretary of defense for policy -- were part of "a separate little government."
Questions: Your reaction? What should or could a president do about this discord among top officials of his administration?
20. Powell also had said he believed that the Bush administration had become "dangerously protective" of its decisions on Iraq and was unable to consider changing course.
Question: How does a president set up a system or process to enable his administration to alter course or get a clear-eyed evaluation of its actions and its consequences?
21. President Bush has said on the record that he did not directly ask Powell, Rumsfeld or his father, former President George H.W. Bush, whether he should go to war in Iraq. He did ask national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and his senior aide, Karen Hughes.
Questions: Your reaction? What sort of consultation process would you have on major national security decisions? Would you consult former presidents, even former President Bush?
22. Asked in December 2003 how history would judge his Iraq war, Bush suggested that history was far off. "We won't know. We'll all be dead," he said.
Questions: How do you judge his Iraq war? What do you think history's verdict is likely to be?
Sabtu, 23 Oktober 2004
the fourth rail: The Battle of the Sunni Triangle
Good rundown on the battle for the Sunn Triangle the fourth rail: The Battle of the Sunni Triangle
Clayton Cramer's Blog WHY OIL PRICES ARE SO HIGH
Clayton Cramer's BLOG
Why Are Oil Prices So High?
I've heard some of the explanations, and they make some sense: the hurricanes shut down production in the Gulf of Mexico for a while. There has been unrest in Angola. But the Iraq situation shouldn't matter much; they haven't shipped that much oil since Gulf War I. Dan Gifford, a long-time journalist, tells me about the following interesting items that he has heard recently. From financial journalist Jim Cramer (no relation) on CNBC's "Kudlow and Cramer" show:
I don't want to sound too conspiratorial here, but there's something about this oil market that just doesn't smell right. Do you think certain big hedge funds could be buying oil contracts to drive the market up in order to make our current leader [George W. Bush] look bad?
From Jon Burnham, Burnham Financial Group, October 12, 2004, CNBC-TV, "Closing Bell" 3:00 PM - 5:00 PM ET:
The price of oil is high because it's being pushed up by speculators and money from the big hedge funds. The important thing that gets lost in all that is that there is no shortage of crude oil in relation to current demand.
And from Adel al-Jubeir, Advisor to the Saudi Crown Prince September 28, 2004 at about 1:40 PM Pacific time, CNBC interview with Maria Bartaromo:
We believe the price of oil should be between $22 and $28 per barrel. $25 is a good reasonable price. There is no extra demand accompanying today's very high price for oil. We are seeing no extra customers lined up and there is no shortage of supply. The high prices we are seeing are due to speculation in the oil markets.
Then we have this interesting item from the New Yorker (of all places):
On August 6th, a week after the Democratic Convention, a clandestine summit meeting took place at the Aspen Institute, in Colorado’s Rocky Mountains. The participants, all Democrats, were sworn to secrecy, and few of them will discuss the event. One thing that is certain, however, is that the guests formed a tableau that not many people would associate with the Democratic Party of the past. Five billionaires joined half a dozen liberal leaders in a lengthy conversation about the future of progressive politics in America. The billionaires were not especially close socially, nor were they in complete agreement about politics or strategy. Yet they shared a common goal: to use their fortunes to engineer the defeat of President George W. Bush in the 2004 election.
“No one was supposed to know about this,” an assistant to one participant told me, declining to be named. “We don’t want people thinking it’s a cabal, or some sort of Masonic plot!” His concern was understandable: the prospect of rich men concentrating their wealth in order to sway an American election was an inflammatory one, particularly given the Democratic Party’s populist rhetoric....
The meeting’s organizer was Peter B. Lewis, the seventy-year-old reclusive chairman of the Progressive Corporation, an insurance company based in Cleveland, Ohio. He has spent much of 2004 discreetly directing millions of dollars to liberal groups allied with the Democratic Party, such as America Coming Together and MoveOn.org, while cruising the Mediterranean Sea on his two-hundred-and-fifty-foot yacht, Lone Ranger. The yacht has communications equipment that allows Lewis to monitor political developments in America while sunbathing off the coast of Italy.
...
Flying in from Arizona was John Sperling, an octogenarian businessman who in 1976 created the for-profit University of Phoenix....
Herb and Marion Sandler, a California couple in their seventies, came to Aspen looking for ways to give back to a country that had allowed them to prosper. The founders of Golden West Financial Corporation, a savings-and-loan company worth seventeen billion dollars, the Sandlers are devoted to the idea of preserving progressive income taxes and inheritance taxes.
The wealthiest participant at this meeting of hard-core partisans—and the one whose presence was the most surprising—was George Soros, the seventy-four-year-old Wall Street speculator turned philanthropist.
...
Sperling proposed a potential new project for the group: unionizing Wal-Mart workers. Soros, however, had no interest in union drives. He wanted to stay focussed on the main objective—ousting Bush. Yet he also warned the group against the idea of combatting right-wing propaganda with leftist demagoguery. “I do not have an interest in replacing one extremist movement with another,” he said.
Andrew Stern, the president of the Service Employees International Union, a holdover from the traditional working-class base of the Democratic Party, was also at the summit. In an interview not long ago, he conceded that consorting with billionaires had become a strange but increasingly common part of his job. “I have to admit, I used to think I was doing well when I met millionaires,” he said. “I’m glad we’ve got the billionaires with us. But it did feel a bit odd.”
...
The Quantum fund, a pool for hugely wealthy investors that profited by anticipating and exploiting price swings in foreign currencies, is famously iconoclastic. Soros recently passed much of the fund’s management to his two grown sons, Robert and Jonathan, but under his direction it rejected the prevailing orthodoxy about the rationality of the market in favor of the notion that markets were prone to chaos and distortions stemming from human error.
Now, the Quantum Fund is no stranger to oil trading. But what is interesting is another remark in the New Yorker article. After explaining that Soros has contributed $18.5 million to defeat George Bush:
Critics of Soros see his donations as brazenly hypocritical, considering that, until recently, he was a leading crusader for campaign-finance reform in America. Starting in the late nineteen-nineties, he donated eighteen million dollars to groups that supported the cause, and he is credited with having contributed significantly to the passage of the McCain-Feingold law. When Soros was asked about this reversal, he said, “This is the most important election of my lifetime. These aren’t normal times. The ends justify every legal means possible.”
Now, Soros has said in the past that he would give away all his billions if he could be guaranteed of defeating Bush--and you wonder, since Soros has been a big player in currency markets in the past, if he could be manipulating oil prices right now.
Remember this: until oil prices started skyrocketing in early summer, the economy seemed to be flying upwards. What would it cost for Soros, Lewis, and some of the other billionaires to manipulate oil markets? It doesn't have to last for long--just long enough to derail the economy into October. You don't need to actually buy hundreds of billions of dollars worth of oil. You can buy and sell oil future delivery contracts for a fraction of the final delivery price. (This highly leveraged nature of futures contracts is why you can make--or lose--an enormous amount of money in commodities trading.) Once you start playing with the price of a commodity, and causing panic buying, you can jerk the price up--or down--quite impressively.
I don't know for sure, but I would guess that people at Soros's level can probably spend two or three billion dollars to adjust future prices of 50 or 100 times that much oil--at least for a few months. The Quantum Fund was, back in the 1990s, what is called a "global macro fund", described this way:
By borrowing money to buy and sell futures contracts—themselves a powerful form of leverage—macro funds possessed the capability to move indexes like Japan's Nikkei or to influence significantly the value of important international currencies.
Now, supposedly the Quantum Fund isn't that powerful anymore. But is it powerful enough? Soros also returned to an active role in the Quantum Fund in 2002--after 9/11, when it became apparent that Soros was going to have to do something to bring down George Bush.
Large scale commodities market manipulation can't continue indefinitely, and you can lose your shirt on this sort of thing--but Soros has already said that he was willing to lose it all to defeat Bush. On the other hand, with a little care, he might actually make money. This article reports:
Soros, the founder of Quantum Endowment Fund, one of the world's largest hedge funds, was dubbed "The Man who broke the Bank of England" for his role in betting heavily that the pound would fall in 1992. As a result, Britain suffered a humiliating exit from Europe's exchange rate mechanism -- the precursor to Europe's 12-nation currency. It was rumored that Soros earned $1 billion in a day with his bet against the British pound.
Of course, I doubt that an oil play like this could be kept secret indefinitely--but certainly, President Kerry's Justice Department isn't going to prosecute George Soros for winning him the election. If we suddenly see oil prices drop down again after the election, I certainly hope the Bush Administration will take a serious look at possible market manipulation. But if Bush loses, there won't be investigation at all.
posted by Clayton at 8:30 PM
Why Are Oil Prices So High?
I've heard some of the explanations, and they make some sense: the hurricanes shut down production in the Gulf of Mexico for a while. There has been unrest in Angola. But the Iraq situation shouldn't matter much; they haven't shipped that much oil since Gulf War I. Dan Gifford, a long-time journalist, tells me about the following interesting items that he has heard recently. From financial journalist Jim Cramer (no relation) on CNBC's "Kudlow and Cramer" show:
I don't want to sound too conspiratorial here, but there's something about this oil market that just doesn't smell right. Do you think certain big hedge funds could be buying oil contracts to drive the market up in order to make our current leader [George W. Bush] look bad?
From Jon Burnham, Burnham Financial Group, October 12, 2004, CNBC-TV, "Closing Bell" 3:00 PM - 5:00 PM ET:
The price of oil is high because it's being pushed up by speculators and money from the big hedge funds. The important thing that gets lost in all that is that there is no shortage of crude oil in relation to current demand.
And from Adel al-Jubeir, Advisor to the Saudi Crown Prince September 28, 2004 at about 1:40 PM Pacific time, CNBC interview with Maria Bartaromo:
We believe the price of oil should be between $22 and $28 per barrel. $25 is a good reasonable price. There is no extra demand accompanying today's very high price for oil. We are seeing no extra customers lined up and there is no shortage of supply. The high prices we are seeing are due to speculation in the oil markets.
Then we have this interesting item from the New Yorker (of all places):
On August 6th, a week after the Democratic Convention, a clandestine summit meeting took place at the Aspen Institute, in Colorado’s Rocky Mountains. The participants, all Democrats, were sworn to secrecy, and few of them will discuss the event. One thing that is certain, however, is that the guests formed a tableau that not many people would associate with the Democratic Party of the past. Five billionaires joined half a dozen liberal leaders in a lengthy conversation about the future of progressive politics in America. The billionaires were not especially close socially, nor were they in complete agreement about politics or strategy. Yet they shared a common goal: to use their fortunes to engineer the defeat of President George W. Bush in the 2004 election.
“No one was supposed to know about this,” an assistant to one participant told me, declining to be named. “We don’t want people thinking it’s a cabal, or some sort of Masonic plot!” His concern was understandable: the prospect of rich men concentrating their wealth in order to sway an American election was an inflammatory one, particularly given the Democratic Party’s populist rhetoric....
The meeting’s organizer was Peter B. Lewis, the seventy-year-old reclusive chairman of the Progressive Corporation, an insurance company based in Cleveland, Ohio. He has spent much of 2004 discreetly directing millions of dollars to liberal groups allied with the Democratic Party, such as America Coming Together and MoveOn.org, while cruising the Mediterranean Sea on his two-hundred-and-fifty-foot yacht, Lone Ranger. The yacht has communications equipment that allows Lewis to monitor political developments in America while sunbathing off the coast of Italy.
...
Flying in from Arizona was John Sperling, an octogenarian businessman who in 1976 created the for-profit University of Phoenix....
Herb and Marion Sandler, a California couple in their seventies, came to Aspen looking for ways to give back to a country that had allowed them to prosper. The founders of Golden West Financial Corporation, a savings-and-loan company worth seventeen billion dollars, the Sandlers are devoted to the idea of preserving progressive income taxes and inheritance taxes.
The wealthiest participant at this meeting of hard-core partisans—and the one whose presence was the most surprising—was George Soros, the seventy-four-year-old Wall Street speculator turned philanthropist.
...
Sperling proposed a potential new project for the group: unionizing Wal-Mart workers. Soros, however, had no interest in union drives. He wanted to stay focussed on the main objective—ousting Bush. Yet he also warned the group against the idea of combatting right-wing propaganda with leftist demagoguery. “I do not have an interest in replacing one extremist movement with another,” he said.
Andrew Stern, the president of the Service Employees International Union, a holdover from the traditional working-class base of the Democratic Party, was also at the summit. In an interview not long ago, he conceded that consorting with billionaires had become a strange but increasingly common part of his job. “I have to admit, I used to think I was doing well when I met millionaires,” he said. “I’m glad we’ve got the billionaires with us. But it did feel a bit odd.”
...
The Quantum fund, a pool for hugely wealthy investors that profited by anticipating and exploiting price swings in foreign currencies, is famously iconoclastic. Soros recently passed much of the fund’s management to his two grown sons, Robert and Jonathan, but under his direction it rejected the prevailing orthodoxy about the rationality of the market in favor of the notion that markets were prone to chaos and distortions stemming from human error.
Now, the Quantum Fund is no stranger to oil trading. But what is interesting is another remark in the New Yorker article. After explaining that Soros has contributed $18.5 million to defeat George Bush:
Critics of Soros see his donations as brazenly hypocritical, considering that, until recently, he was a leading crusader for campaign-finance reform in America. Starting in the late nineteen-nineties, he donated eighteen million dollars to groups that supported the cause, and he is credited with having contributed significantly to the passage of the McCain-Feingold law. When Soros was asked about this reversal, he said, “This is the most important election of my lifetime. These aren’t normal times. The ends justify every legal means possible.”
Now, Soros has said in the past that he would give away all his billions if he could be guaranteed of defeating Bush--and you wonder, since Soros has been a big player in currency markets in the past, if he could be manipulating oil prices right now.
Remember this: until oil prices started skyrocketing in early summer, the economy seemed to be flying upwards. What would it cost for Soros, Lewis, and some of the other billionaires to manipulate oil markets? It doesn't have to last for long--just long enough to derail the economy into October. You don't need to actually buy hundreds of billions of dollars worth of oil. You can buy and sell oil future delivery contracts for a fraction of the final delivery price. (This highly leveraged nature of futures contracts is why you can make--or lose--an enormous amount of money in commodities trading.) Once you start playing with the price of a commodity, and causing panic buying, you can jerk the price up--or down--quite impressively.
I don't know for sure, but I would guess that people at Soros's level can probably spend two or three billion dollars to adjust future prices of 50 or 100 times that much oil--at least for a few months. The Quantum Fund was, back in the 1990s, what is called a "global macro fund", described this way:
By borrowing money to buy and sell futures contracts—themselves a powerful form of leverage—macro funds possessed the capability to move indexes like Japan's Nikkei or to influence significantly the value of important international currencies.
Now, supposedly the Quantum Fund isn't that powerful anymore. But is it powerful enough? Soros also returned to an active role in the Quantum Fund in 2002--after 9/11, when it became apparent that Soros was going to have to do something to bring down George Bush.
Large scale commodities market manipulation can't continue indefinitely, and you can lose your shirt on this sort of thing--but Soros has already said that he was willing to lose it all to defeat Bush. On the other hand, with a little care, he might actually make money. This article reports:
Soros, the founder of Quantum Endowment Fund, one of the world's largest hedge funds, was dubbed "The Man who broke the Bank of England" for his role in betting heavily that the pound would fall in 1992. As a result, Britain suffered a humiliating exit from Europe's exchange rate mechanism -- the precursor to Europe's 12-nation currency. It was rumored that Soros earned $1 billion in a day with his bet against the British pound.
Of course, I doubt that an oil play like this could be kept secret indefinitely--but certainly, President Kerry's Justice Department isn't going to prosecute George Soros for winning him the election. If we suddenly see oil prices drop down again after the election, I certainly hope the Bush Administration will take a serious look at possible market manipulation. But if Bush loses, there won't be investigation at all.
posted by Clayton at 8:30 PM
BLACKFIVE: The Good And Bad Days in Iraq
BLACKFIVE: The Good And Bad Days in Iraq
This is a good first hand account of what is a good and bad day in Iraq.
This is a good first hand account of what is a good and bad day in Iraq.
The 9/11 Election
The 9/11 Election
From the November 1 / November 8, 2004 issue: "This is the first presidential election since September 11, 2001, and it will define America's response: On the one hand, we can attempt to return to the 1990s; on the other hand, we can face our challenges, and carry out our duties."
by William Kristol
11/01/2004, Volume 010, Issue 08
"We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance."
--John Kerry, New York Times Magazine, October 10, 2004
"What American would not trade the economy we had in the 1990s, the fact that we were not at war and young Americans were not deployed?"
--John Kerry, on Larry King Live, July 8, 2004
"During the decade of the 1990s, our times often seemed peaceful on the surface.Yet beneath the surface were currents of danger. Terrorists were training and planning in distant camps. . . . America's response to terrorism was generally piecemeal and symbolic. The terrorists concluded this was a sign of weakness, and their plans became more ambitious, and their attacks more deadly. Most Americans still felt that terrorism was something distant, and something that would not strike on a large scale in America. That is the time my opponent wants to go back to. A time when danger was real and growing, but we didn't know it. . . . September 11, 2001 changed all that. We realized that the apparent security of the 1990s was an illusion. . . . Will we make decisions in the light of September 11, or continue to live in the mirage of safety that was actually a time of gathering threats?"
--George W. Bush, October 18, 2004
THIS IS THE FIRST presidential election since September 11, 2001. Its central issue is the meaning of September 11. The events of that day did not really "change everything," as Bush sometimes says in a defensible shorthand. But they did reveal, as columnist Paul Greenberg put it, that "everything we had thought/assumed/expected in the Golden '90s hadn't been so." The surface peace of the 1990s had been bought at a great price. On 9/11 a failure of American leadership was revealed, a failure to look ahead and act forcefully to forestall threats--to do what Bush has called "the hard work of fighting terror and spreading freedom."
This is what President Bush thinks. John Kerry really doesn't agree. That's why it is so fitting that Bill Clinton will reemerge to campaign for Kerry this week. The choice will then be clearly posed: On the one hand, we can attempt to return to the 1990s. This is not, of course, an unattractive prospect, but it is surely an unachievable one. To pretend we can go back to the 1990s raises false hopes that will prove dangerous to the country. On the other hand, we can face our challenges, and carry out our duties--as President Bush has tried, with considerable success, to lead us to do.
In his October 18 speech on the war on terror, President Bush noted correctly that his opponent "has not made democracy a priority of his foreign policy." Indeed, Kerry's critique of Bush goes beyond competence in the execution of policy to first principles. Kerry does not see a need to fundamentally change the political culture of the Middle East. Bush posed the challenge well: "Is he content to watch and wait, as anger and resentment grow for more decades in the Middle East, feeding more terrorism until radicals without conscience gain the weapons to kill without limit?" Bush isn't. Thus he embraces the task of helping to spread "democracy and hope" so that "governments that oppose terror multiply across the Middle East."
He does so for reasons his counterpart Tony Blair recently explained. This is the only way to deal with a "worldwide global terrorism" based on a perversion of Islam: "Its roots are not superficial but deep, in the madrassas of Pakistan, in the extreme forms of Wahhabi doctrine in Saudi Arabia, in the training camps of al Qaeda in Afghanistan. . . . If you take this view, if you believe September 11 changed the world . . . the only path to take is to confront this terrorism and remove it root and branch."
New York Times columnist Tom Friedman recently criticized the Bush administration for being "addicted to 9/11." He praised John Kerry for "wanting to put terrorism back into perspective." Friedman continued, "I want a president who can one day restore Sept. 11th to its rightful place on the calendar: as the day after Sept. 10th and before Sept. 12th. I do not want it to become a day that defines us. Because ultimately Sept. 11th is about them--the bad guys--not about us. We're about the Fourth of July."
We at THE WEEKLY STANDARD yield to no one in our loyalty to the Fourth of July. But September 11, 2001, also cannot help but define us 21st-century Americans. And it defines us not simply in terms of those we have to fight, and defeat. For September 11 is not simply about "the bad guys," about the attacks on America. September 11 is also about our response. It is about the police and firefighters in New York, the servicemen and women in the Pentagon, and the passengers and crew of United Flight 93. September 11 was a day of infamy. But it was also a day of bravery, and of nobility. And it could go down in history as a day that began an era in which the American people, and their leaders, rose to the challenges before them--an era in which they acted wisely, and steadfastly, and honorably. September 11 saw horrible hours. But it could also be the beginning of one of America's finest hours. The chances of that will be greatest under President Bush.
--William Kristol
© Copyright 2004, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.
From the November 1 / November 8, 2004 issue: "This is the first presidential election since September 11, 2001, and it will define America's response: On the one hand, we can attempt to return to the 1990s; on the other hand, we can face our challenges, and carry out our duties."
by William Kristol
11/01/2004, Volume 010, Issue 08
"We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance."
--John Kerry, New York Times Magazine, October 10, 2004
"What American would not trade the economy we had in the 1990s, the fact that we were not at war and young Americans were not deployed?"
--John Kerry, on Larry King Live, July 8, 2004
"During the decade of the 1990s, our times often seemed peaceful on the surface.Yet beneath the surface were currents of danger. Terrorists were training and planning in distant camps. . . . America's response to terrorism was generally piecemeal and symbolic. The terrorists concluded this was a sign of weakness, and their plans became more ambitious, and their attacks more deadly. Most Americans still felt that terrorism was something distant, and something that would not strike on a large scale in America. That is the time my opponent wants to go back to. A time when danger was real and growing, but we didn't know it. . . . September 11, 2001 changed all that. We realized that the apparent security of the 1990s was an illusion. . . . Will we make decisions in the light of September 11, or continue to live in the mirage of safety that was actually a time of gathering threats?"
--George W. Bush, October 18, 2004
THIS IS THE FIRST presidential election since September 11, 2001. Its central issue is the meaning of September 11. The events of that day did not really "change everything," as Bush sometimes says in a defensible shorthand. But they did reveal, as columnist Paul Greenberg put it, that "everything we had thought/assumed/expected in the Golden '90s hadn't been so." The surface peace of the 1990s had been bought at a great price. On 9/11 a failure of American leadership was revealed, a failure to look ahead and act forcefully to forestall threats--to do what Bush has called "the hard work of fighting terror and spreading freedom."
This is what President Bush thinks. John Kerry really doesn't agree. That's why it is so fitting that Bill Clinton will reemerge to campaign for Kerry this week. The choice will then be clearly posed: On the one hand, we can attempt to return to the 1990s. This is not, of course, an unattractive prospect, but it is surely an unachievable one. To pretend we can go back to the 1990s raises false hopes that will prove dangerous to the country. On the other hand, we can face our challenges, and carry out our duties--as President Bush has tried, with considerable success, to lead us to do.
In his October 18 speech on the war on terror, President Bush noted correctly that his opponent "has not made democracy a priority of his foreign policy." Indeed, Kerry's critique of Bush goes beyond competence in the execution of policy to first principles. Kerry does not see a need to fundamentally change the political culture of the Middle East. Bush posed the challenge well: "Is he content to watch and wait, as anger and resentment grow for more decades in the Middle East, feeding more terrorism until radicals without conscience gain the weapons to kill without limit?" Bush isn't. Thus he embraces the task of helping to spread "democracy and hope" so that "governments that oppose terror multiply across the Middle East."
He does so for reasons his counterpart Tony Blair recently explained. This is the only way to deal with a "worldwide global terrorism" based on a perversion of Islam: "Its roots are not superficial but deep, in the madrassas of Pakistan, in the extreme forms of Wahhabi doctrine in Saudi Arabia, in the training camps of al Qaeda in Afghanistan. . . . If you take this view, if you believe September 11 changed the world . . . the only path to take is to confront this terrorism and remove it root and branch."
New York Times columnist Tom Friedman recently criticized the Bush administration for being "addicted to 9/11." He praised John Kerry for "wanting to put terrorism back into perspective." Friedman continued, "I want a president who can one day restore Sept. 11th to its rightful place on the calendar: as the day after Sept. 10th and before Sept. 12th. I do not want it to become a day that defines us. Because ultimately Sept. 11th is about them--the bad guys--not about us. We're about the Fourth of July."
We at THE WEEKLY STANDARD yield to no one in our loyalty to the Fourth of July. But September 11, 2001, also cannot help but define us 21st-century Americans. And it defines us not simply in terms of those we have to fight, and defeat. For September 11 is not simply about "the bad guys," about the attacks on America. September 11 is also about our response. It is about the police and firefighters in New York, the servicemen and women in the Pentagon, and the passengers and crew of United Flight 93. September 11 was a day of infamy. But it was also a day of bravery, and of nobility. And it could go down in history as a day that began an era in which the American people, and their leaders, rose to the challenges before them--an era in which they acted wisely, and steadfastly, and honorably. September 11 saw horrible hours. But it could also be the beginning of one of America's finest hours. The chances of that will be greatest under President Bush.
--William Kristol
© Copyright 2004, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.
Jumat, 22 Oktober 2004
Incivility in Polotics
Right As Usual: "INCIVILITY OF POLITICS
Maybe it's just me, but I'm finding that this may be one of the most heated and contentious elections in recent history, and that is wild, considering the 2000 election.
There are few political discussions anywhere, at least in the tradition of give-and-take. I'm hearing a lot of heated spews about the OTHER side (not, in general, about the merits of one's candidate) and the cataclysmic consequences of letting THAT PERSON steal the election.
What on Earth is going on?
I remember when the 100-year anniversary of the Civil War was celebrated. At that time (I was 10 at the start), I couldn't get a handle on WHY people became so filled with righteous bile that they couldn't calmly discuss the issues, and work together. I just couldn't imagine problems that people of decency couldn't handle in a reasonable way.
I'm beginning to understand. It didn't happen all at once. It built over time, like today's situation. Both sides believed themselves to be right, and the other to be, not just wrong, but potentially dangerous. It ceased to be a political discussion, but a battle against the forces of evil.
Each episode of conflict just led to even greater grievances, with the losing side more determined to prevail. And the losing side only associated with others like themselves. They couldn't contaminate themselves with contact with THOSE EVIL, VILE PEOPLE, IF YOU COULD EVEN CALL THEM HUMAN.
The Civil War didn't happen overnight. It was a long road from the Transcendentalists to war. But the same people grew more agitated each time they suffered a political or legislative loss, and this led to an 'end justifies the means' attitude, and eventually to chaos."
Maybe it's just me, but I'm finding that this may be one of the most heated and contentious elections in recent history, and that is wild, considering the 2000 election.
There are few political discussions anywhere, at least in the tradition of give-and-take. I'm hearing a lot of heated spews about the OTHER side (not, in general, about the merits of one's candidate) and the cataclysmic consequences of letting THAT PERSON steal the election.
What on Earth is going on?
I remember when the 100-year anniversary of the Civil War was celebrated. At that time (I was 10 at the start), I couldn't get a handle on WHY people became so filled with righteous bile that they couldn't calmly discuss the issues, and work together. I just couldn't imagine problems that people of decency couldn't handle in a reasonable way.
I'm beginning to understand. It didn't happen all at once. It built over time, like today's situation. Both sides believed themselves to be right, and the other to be, not just wrong, but potentially dangerous. It ceased to be a political discussion, but a battle against the forces of evil.
Each episode of conflict just led to even greater grievances, with the losing side more determined to prevail. And the losing side only associated with others like themselves. They couldn't contaminate themselves with contact with THOSE EVIL, VILE PEOPLE, IF YOU COULD EVEN CALL THEM HUMAN.
The Civil War didn't happen overnight. It was a long road from the Transcendentalists to war. But the same people grew more agitated each time they suffered a political or legislative loss, and this led to an 'end justifies the means' attitude, and eventually to chaos."
JS Online: Cosby urges city to get serious
JS Online: Cosby urges city to get serious: "Cosby urges city to get serious
Responsibility can cure social ills, he says"
Responsibility can cure social ills, he says"
Bad Example
Bad Example: "KERRY & TERRY EXPLAINED
Most excellently by Gerard of American Digest:
The French have an idiomatic phrase nostalgie pour la boue which means, roughly, 'yearning for the mud.' Nostalgie pour la boue is a compulsion that comes over people when they have, for complex reasons, a need to immerse themselves in self-degradation. This is a specialty of the French culture.
Nostalgie pour la boue is usually a mix of drink, drugs, and weird sex until the soul is obliterated by the abused flesh. You can see it at its most graphic in the party scenes in the French film, Killing Zoe. Most people try this sort of thing a time or two in their youth, but grow out of it when time, experience, or, in many cases, God gets the upper hand. Others grow out of it via deep psychoanalysis and a few trips to the rehab clinic. Many never kick it and were, in the past, thought of as 'perverts' but are now more kindly seen as 'differently minded' and left to go their own way in our 'consenting ' culture.
[...]
I'd like to suggest that there's another kind nostalgie going around in this hybrid culture; one that arises from nostalgie pour la boue, but is more damaging to the body politic: nostalgie pour la d�faite.
Nostalgie pour la d�faite is that dark state of the soul when an American, who either came of age in the Vietnam era, or who was taught and mentored by a leftist or liberal of that vintage, yearns for the defeat of America. American defeat is then seen as confirmation that his or her world view and social milieu is the right view and right milieu. It is simply 'the way things must be.'
I outgrew it when I was 17. I fell in love with a respectable girl and put my life in order so that I could be worthy of her. Never looked back.
I think one of the commenters said it best: 'I have so often wondered: How can an entire lifetime be spent pining away for the lunacy of youth?'
by Harvey "
Most excellently by Gerard of American Digest:
The French have an idiomatic phrase nostalgie pour la boue which means, roughly, 'yearning for the mud.' Nostalgie pour la boue is a compulsion that comes over people when they have, for complex reasons, a need to immerse themselves in self-degradation. This is a specialty of the French culture.
Nostalgie pour la boue is usually a mix of drink, drugs, and weird sex until the soul is obliterated by the abused flesh. You can see it at its most graphic in the party scenes in the French film, Killing Zoe. Most people try this sort of thing a time or two in their youth, but grow out of it when time, experience, or, in many cases, God gets the upper hand. Others grow out of it via deep psychoanalysis and a few trips to the rehab clinic. Many never kick it and were, in the past, thought of as 'perverts' but are now more kindly seen as 'differently minded' and left to go their own way in our 'consenting ' culture.
[...]
I'd like to suggest that there's another kind nostalgie going around in this hybrid culture; one that arises from nostalgie pour la boue, but is more damaging to the body politic: nostalgie pour la d�faite.
Nostalgie pour la d�faite is that dark state of the soul when an American, who either came of age in the Vietnam era, or who was taught and mentored by a leftist or liberal of that vintage, yearns for the defeat of America. American defeat is then seen as confirmation that his or her world view and social milieu is the right view and right milieu. It is simply 'the way things must be.'
I outgrew it when I was 17. I fell in love with a respectable girl and put my life in order so that I could be worthy of her. Never looked back.
I think one of the commenters said it best: 'I have so often wondered: How can an entire lifetime be spent pining away for the lunacy of youth?'
by Harvey "
Kamis, 21 Oktober 2004
Rabu, 20 Oktober 2004
Selasa, 19 Oktober 2004
Interesting Comments
Copied and pasted from Andrew Sullivan comments:
EMAIL OF THE DAY: "I was stationed at a base (Al Taqqadum) South-West of Fallujah that we took over from the 82nd Airborne. Your writing about the Abu Graib prompted me write this. It is an explanation of why so many in the military favor Bush, even though we are the ones suffering the most because of his mistakes:
It is an old military maxim that blunders can be forgiven, but a lack of boldness cannot. There will always be blunders. The simple becomes difficult in war. Take for example the following question: what is 2+2 equal too? An easy question right? Now imagine I gave you 15 such questions and you had 2 seconds to answer them. Most likely you would answer some and leave the rest. Looking at those questions you missed in isolation I might say, "What kind of blathering idiot are you? You can't even answer simple questions like 2+2=4". That is why Armchair Generals are so annoying. They look at one thing in isolation with all the time in the world to think about it and say confidently "the answers obvious". But when you are out in the fight everything looks different. Nothing is ever seen in isolation. You never have enough time. You never know more than 1/10 what you need to know. There will always be blunders.
But the job has to get done anyway. And to get this kind of job done boldness is essential. A leader who never blunders, but who doesn't take the fight to the enemy is worthless. A leader who sets about to win - win ugly if needs be - is priceless.
One thing the Marine Corps taught me is that a 70% solution acted on immediately and violently is better than a perfect solution acted on later. My experience has proven this true time and again. The sad fact is however, that a 70% solution is a 30% mistake. And those mistakes can be hard to take. In WWII for example, 700 soldiers drowned in a training accident in preparation for D-Day (that is about how many combat deaths we've experienced so far in Iraq).
There is a scene in the movie "We were Soldiers" that says it better than I can. In the scene a young soldier on the ground is giving directions on enemy positions to aircraft flying overhead. The aircraft then dropped Napalm on the enemy. At one point the soldier gets the directions wrong and stares horrified as the Napalm is dropped on his own unit. The soldier is shaken beyond belief. He sat there doing nothing - paralyzed by his mistake. Then his Commanding Officer gave him the confidence to carry on. The CO told him to "forget about that last one" and "you're keeping us alive here". And so the soldier swallowed his guilt and kept doing his job and thereby saved the unit. That is what a 70% solution looks like in real life. And those are the 70% solutions that win wars.
Most people and events are beyond your control. Most questions you don't have time to answer. Most facts you will never know. But you have to press the attack anyway. No matter how ugly it gets, you keep going until you win.
Kerry doesn't understand that. Everything he did during the Cold War and everything he says about this one states as much. He represents those who would never blunder, but who would not take the fight to the enemy. He would just sit there - like the soldier in the movie - paralyzed by America's mistakes."
EMAIL OF THE DAY: "I was stationed at a base (Al Taqqadum) South-West of Fallujah that we took over from the 82nd Airborne. Your writing about the Abu Graib prompted me write this. It is an explanation of why so many in the military favor Bush, even though we are the ones suffering the most because of his mistakes:
It is an old military maxim that blunders can be forgiven, but a lack of boldness cannot. There will always be blunders. The simple becomes difficult in war. Take for example the following question: what is 2+2 equal too? An easy question right? Now imagine I gave you 15 such questions and you had 2 seconds to answer them. Most likely you would answer some and leave the rest. Looking at those questions you missed in isolation I might say, "What kind of blathering idiot are you? You can't even answer simple questions like 2+2=4". That is why Armchair Generals are so annoying. They look at one thing in isolation with all the time in the world to think about it and say confidently "the answers obvious". But when you are out in the fight everything looks different. Nothing is ever seen in isolation. You never have enough time. You never know more than 1/10 what you need to know. There will always be blunders.
But the job has to get done anyway. And to get this kind of job done boldness is essential. A leader who never blunders, but who doesn't take the fight to the enemy is worthless. A leader who sets about to win - win ugly if needs be - is priceless.
One thing the Marine Corps taught me is that a 70% solution acted on immediately and violently is better than a perfect solution acted on later. My experience has proven this true time and again. The sad fact is however, that a 70% solution is a 30% mistake. And those mistakes can be hard to take. In WWII for example, 700 soldiers drowned in a training accident in preparation for D-Day (that is about how many combat deaths we've experienced so far in Iraq).
There is a scene in the movie "We were Soldiers" that says it better than I can. In the scene a young soldier on the ground is giving directions on enemy positions to aircraft flying overhead. The aircraft then dropped Napalm on the enemy. At one point the soldier gets the directions wrong and stares horrified as the Napalm is dropped on his own unit. The soldier is shaken beyond belief. He sat there doing nothing - paralyzed by his mistake. Then his Commanding Officer gave him the confidence to carry on. The CO told him to "forget about that last one" and "you're keeping us alive here". And so the soldier swallowed his guilt and kept doing his job and thereby saved the unit. That is what a 70% solution looks like in real life. And those are the 70% solutions that win wars.
Most people and events are beyond your control. Most questions you don't have time to answer. Most facts you will never know. But you have to press the attack anyway. No matter how ugly it gets, you keep going until you win.
Kerry doesn't understand that. Everything he did during the Cold War and everything he says about this one states as much. He represents those who would never blunder, but who would not take the fight to the enemy. He would just sit there - like the soldier in the movie - paralyzed by America's mistakes."
Land Surveying weblog
This site has some amazing info and incidents from the life of a land surveyor.
Land Surveying weblog
Land Surveying weblog
Les Jones Blog: Kerry's Senate Record
Les Jones Blog: Kerry's Senate Record:
Here are the facts on Kerry's illustrious 20 year Senate career:
"At the last debate Bush claimed Kerry had only passed five bills. Kerry claimed 56. FactCheck.org found only 11.
S.791: Authorizes $53 million over four years to provide grants to woman-owned small businesses. (1999)
S.1206: Names a federal building in Waltham, Massachusetts after Frederick C. Murphy, who was killed in action during World War II and awarded (posthumously) the Medal of Honor. (1994)
S.1636: A save-the-dolphins measure aiming 'to improve the program to reduce the incidental taking of marine mammals during the course of commercial fishing operations.' (1994)
S.1563: Funding the National Sea Grant College Program, which supports university-based research, public education, and other projects 'to promote better understanding, conservation and use of America's coastal resources.' (1991)
S.423: Granting a visa and admission to the U.S. as a permanent resident to Kil Joon Yu Callahan. (1987)
H.R.1900 (S.300): Awarded a congressional gold medal to Jackie Robinson (posthumously), and called for a national day of recognition. (2003)
H.R.1860 (S.856): Increased the maximum research grants for small businesses from $500,000 to $750,000 under the Small Business Technology Transfer Program. (2001)
S.J.Res.158: To make the week of Oct. 22 - Oct. 28, 1989 'World Population Awareness Week.' (1989)
S.J.Res.160: To renew 'World Population Awareness Week' for 1991. (1991)
S.J.Res.318: To make Nov. 13, 1992 'Vietnam Veterans Memorial 10th Anniversary Day.' (1992)
S.J.Res.337: To make Sept. 18, 1992 'National POW/MIA Recognition Day.' (1992)
To summarize: in 20 years Kerry passes 11 bills. Of those 11 bills, one is for a visa for an individual, two are to honor individuals, and four are of the 'June is National Sandwich Month' variety. That leaves just four bills in 20 years, and none are especially noteworthy. What an empty suit.
UPDATE: This pitiful record brings to mind this quote from Kerry's official campaign biographer, Douglas Brinkley:
Kerry decided to make Vietnam the centerpiece of his campaign for one clear reason: Imagine him without his military record--he would just be another liberal from Taxachusetts.'"
Here are the facts on Kerry's illustrious 20 year Senate career:
"At the last debate Bush claimed Kerry had only passed five bills. Kerry claimed 56. FactCheck.org found only 11.
S.791: Authorizes $53 million over four years to provide grants to woman-owned small businesses. (1999)
S.1206: Names a federal building in Waltham, Massachusetts after Frederick C. Murphy, who was killed in action during World War II and awarded (posthumously) the Medal of Honor. (1994)
S.1636: A save-the-dolphins measure aiming 'to improve the program to reduce the incidental taking of marine mammals during the course of commercial fishing operations.' (1994)
S.1563: Funding the National Sea Grant College Program, which supports university-based research, public education, and other projects 'to promote better understanding, conservation and use of America's coastal resources.' (1991)
S.423: Granting a visa and admission to the U.S. as a permanent resident to Kil Joon Yu Callahan. (1987)
H.R.1900 (S.300): Awarded a congressional gold medal to Jackie Robinson (posthumously), and called for a national day of recognition. (2003)
H.R.1860 (S.856): Increased the maximum research grants for small businesses from $500,000 to $750,000 under the Small Business Technology Transfer Program. (2001)
S.J.Res.158: To make the week of Oct. 22 - Oct. 28, 1989 'World Population Awareness Week.' (1989)
S.J.Res.160: To renew 'World Population Awareness Week' for 1991. (1991)
S.J.Res.318: To make Nov. 13, 1992 'Vietnam Veterans Memorial 10th Anniversary Day.' (1992)
S.J.Res.337: To make Sept. 18, 1992 'National POW/MIA Recognition Day.' (1992)
To summarize: in 20 years Kerry passes 11 bills. Of those 11 bills, one is for a visa for an individual, two are to honor individuals, and four are of the 'June is National Sandwich Month' variety. That leaves just four bills in 20 years, and none are especially noteworthy. What an empty suit.
UPDATE: This pitiful record brings to mind this quote from Kerry's official campaign biographer, Douglas Brinkley:
Kerry decided to make Vietnam the centerpiece of his campaign for one clear reason: Imagine him without his military record--he would just be another liberal from Taxachusetts.'"
Gertrude, RIP
This just came from my nephew, Tim Dudley. It is his thoughts on an elderly friend who had been his landlady for years in Austin, Texas. I thought it quite a tribute!
Hello.
After the news that Gertrude had died, I tried to describe to some friends and colleagues (up this way) who she was (they had heard some stories), but did not do a very good job. So, I wrote something which may or may not be totally accurate, but is "as I remember it......"
Please indulge me for a few minutes. The passing of an era seems worth some mentioning.
Gertrude died on Saturday. She was well in to her 90s. Passed away in her sleep in the home she had lived in for over 60 years.
I first met Gertrude when Paula Chaney took me over to her house to make introductions. Gertrude and Paula's grandmother (another fine lady whose strength, grace, and continued faith while watching 3 of her children die in such rapid succession still amazes me) had been neighbors since the 1930s. Gertrude had a wonderful garage apartment and I wanted to be the first person called the next time it became vacant. We hit it off. I had been to a good school (Baylor), displayed proper manners, and had the recommendation of the Chaney family. Several months later, I got the call, and was able to move in after the place had been carefully scrubbed cleaned and used for family visiting at Thanksgiving.
There were only a couple of rules: The apartment was furnished and the furniture up there remained there. No overnight visitors of the opposite sex. Do not use excessive amounts of electricity (electric was included and she had kept records back to the 1960s of how many watts had been used each month). She considered me her guest. A paying guest, but a guest nevertheless.
Gertrude was an old school southern lady. Her phone listing and most of her correspondence came to Mrs Robert Lindsey, even though he had passed sometime in the early 1970s. She enjoyed "highballs," but only after 5 pm. Smoked some, but never while walking. She was active member of the Episcopal Church, but thought there was too much emphasis over the Old Testament, especially all the "begets." She liked to look at the Neiman Marcus catalogues to see what the stores were "showing" each season. She saved stuff and liked to get every last use out of anything. The garage had an old refrigerator where she stored paint. It had to be ancient because the one in the house seemed really old. Liked to work in the yard, camp and fish. I will never forget picking her up at the train station late one evening after a long day of travel. Of course she still had on her hat and gloves.
Gertrude and her sister (quite a character herself) lost their mother at a very early age and were shuttled from one family member to another. Gertrude was on her own by the time she was 17. She was lucky to meet a lady who owned a very successful dress making business in Fort Worth. The lady gave Gertrude a job because of her sassiness, took her in, and they remained family until the lady's death. The job allowed Gertrude to support herself and attend college. She was elected class representative to greet Charles Lindberg when he traveled across the US. When commenting on that experience, I heard her say more than once, "I wasn't really pretty, but I was awfully cute."
I knew Gertrude after her husband died, her eyes were not so great, and her hearing shot. Did not weigh more than 90 pounds dripping wet, most of the time with a pony tail on top of her head. She was still driving a green Ford (circa early 1970s), kept immaculately clean and mechanically tuned. She was an artist, a painter, having won ribbons and recognition at art shows, but now only painted periodically or for a specially requested wedding present. She did however, remain as active and curious as her body allowed. She was always working in and around the house. I would be amazed to she her crawling all over the place meticulously watching anyone who was doing work at her house: painters, plumbers, carpenters, gardeners and/or electricians. Mainly, out of curiosity to see what they were doing. Once, I went outside to see what all the commotion was on top of my roof. It was her - up two stories in the air - with a rope tied around her waist cleaning out gutters. After that I ran downstairs to assist anytime I heard ladders.
She listened to McNeil - Lehrer and books on tape each evening when she did not have company or some other engagement.
She was great fun to be around. We would have "highballs" - play cards, discuss what was going on in the world and our neighborhood. She was quick with an opinion and always stayed curious. I enjoyed hearing updates of her family and sitting with her and her sister or her only child, a daughter named Bobbie Joyce, when they came to visit. She considered me family.
The last time I saw Gertrude was in a hospital room. I had written a postcard - telephoning was too much trouble with her "ears" (hearing aids) - to let her know when I would be in town and could come by and see her. When she realized who it was she commented, "Oh, it must be April 17th or 18th, because that is when you said you would be here." We got caught up, laughed, and joked. She told me that I was handsome for the last time.
Several years ago Paula and I were discussing with her yet another death in the Chaney family, which she had seen grow up and loved so much. She talked about plans for her own death - to be cremated and buried in Llano next to her husband Bob, but without fan fare. She wanted Anne Hoey, her favorite rector, to do the small, simple service. And she told us just to call Weed-Corley (the funeral home) and tell them to "come and get it......."
Gertrude was my friend.
I will always miss her.
Time to "come and get it......."
Hello.
After the news that Gertrude had died, I tried to describe to some friends and colleagues (up this way) who she was (they had heard some stories), but did not do a very good job. So, I wrote something which may or may not be totally accurate, but is "as I remember it......"
Please indulge me for a few minutes. The passing of an era seems worth some mentioning.
Gertrude died on Saturday. She was well in to her 90s. Passed away in her sleep in the home she had lived in for over 60 years.
I first met Gertrude when Paula Chaney took me over to her house to make introductions. Gertrude and Paula's grandmother (another fine lady whose strength, grace, and continued faith while watching 3 of her children die in such rapid succession still amazes me) had been neighbors since the 1930s. Gertrude had a wonderful garage apartment and I wanted to be the first person called the next time it became vacant. We hit it off. I had been to a good school (Baylor), displayed proper manners, and had the recommendation of the Chaney family. Several months later, I got the call, and was able to move in after the place had been carefully scrubbed cleaned and used for family visiting at Thanksgiving.
There were only a couple of rules: The apartment was furnished and the furniture up there remained there. No overnight visitors of the opposite sex. Do not use excessive amounts of electricity (electric was included and she had kept records back to the 1960s of how many watts had been used each month). She considered me her guest. A paying guest, but a guest nevertheless.
Gertrude was an old school southern lady. Her phone listing and most of her correspondence came to Mrs Robert Lindsey, even though he had passed sometime in the early 1970s. She enjoyed "highballs," but only after 5 pm. Smoked some, but never while walking. She was active member of the Episcopal Church, but thought there was too much emphasis over the Old Testament, especially all the "begets." She liked to look at the Neiman Marcus catalogues to see what the stores were "showing" each season. She saved stuff and liked to get every last use out of anything. The garage had an old refrigerator where she stored paint. It had to be ancient because the one in the house seemed really old. Liked to work in the yard, camp and fish. I will never forget picking her up at the train station late one evening after a long day of travel. Of course she still had on her hat and gloves.
Gertrude and her sister (quite a character herself) lost their mother at a very early age and were shuttled from one family member to another. Gertrude was on her own by the time she was 17. She was lucky to meet a lady who owned a very successful dress making business in Fort Worth. The lady gave Gertrude a job because of her sassiness, took her in, and they remained family until the lady's death. The job allowed Gertrude to support herself and attend college. She was elected class representative to greet Charles Lindberg when he traveled across the US. When commenting on that experience, I heard her say more than once, "I wasn't really pretty, but I was awfully cute."
I knew Gertrude after her husband died, her eyes were not so great, and her hearing shot. Did not weigh more than 90 pounds dripping wet, most of the time with a pony tail on top of her head. She was still driving a green Ford (circa early 1970s), kept immaculately clean and mechanically tuned. She was an artist, a painter, having won ribbons and recognition at art shows, but now only painted periodically or for a specially requested wedding present. She did however, remain as active and curious as her body allowed. She was always working in and around the house. I would be amazed to she her crawling all over the place meticulously watching anyone who was doing work at her house: painters, plumbers, carpenters, gardeners and/or electricians. Mainly, out of curiosity to see what they were doing. Once, I went outside to see what all the commotion was on top of my roof. It was her - up two stories in the air - with a rope tied around her waist cleaning out gutters. After that I ran downstairs to assist anytime I heard ladders.
She listened to McNeil - Lehrer and books on tape each evening when she did not have company or some other engagement.
She was great fun to be around. We would have "highballs" - play cards, discuss what was going on in the world and our neighborhood. She was quick with an opinion and always stayed curious. I enjoyed hearing updates of her family and sitting with her and her sister or her only child, a daughter named Bobbie Joyce, when they came to visit. She considered me family.
The last time I saw Gertrude was in a hospital room. I had written a postcard - telephoning was too much trouble with her "ears" (hearing aids) - to let her know when I would be in town and could come by and see her. When she realized who it was she commented, "Oh, it must be April 17th or 18th, because that is when you said you would be here." We got caught up, laughed, and joked. She told me that I was handsome for the last time.
Several years ago Paula and I were discussing with her yet another death in the Chaney family, which she had seen grow up and loved so much. She talked about plans for her own death - to be cremated and buried in Llano next to her husband Bob, but without fan fare. She wanted Anne Hoey, her favorite rector, to do the small, simple service. And she told us just to call Weed-Corley (the funeral home) and tell them to "come and get it......."
Gertrude was my friend.
I will always miss her.
Time to "come and get it......."
Senin, 18 Oktober 2004
A Brief History of the Baptists
This info from Landmark Baptist Church in Fla. I need to spend some time really digging into this. Looks like interesting info though.
A Brief History of the BaptistsA Brief History of the Baptists
by the late Norman H. Wells
The history of the ancient churches is very obscure. Much of the early recorded history was either lost or destroyed. A great part of the history that remains was changed to suit the interests of the Roman Catholic Church. All of church history has been involved in much controversy and was subject to the whims and fancies of each particular age.
In a very broad outline we want to look at the history of the church.
The First 300 Years of Church History
Jesus Christ, during His earthly ministry, founded the first church in Jerusalem in approximately the year 30 A.D.
This first church was commissioned to go forth preaching the gospel, winning the lost to Christ, baptizing and teaching the converts and establishing new churches.
On the pages of the New Testament we find the record of the growth of Christianity and the founding of many New Testament churches.
Nero, the Roman Emperor, blamed the Christians for the burning of Rome in 64 A.D. and began the first of ten persecutions the Christians were to receive at the hands of the Romans.
Despite all the persecution, Christianity grew. At the end of the first 300 years the religion of Jesus Christ was established all over the then known world. There were churches in every town and community.
The Progress of Error During The First 300 Years
In the first two centuries the individual churches rapidly multiplied and some of them became very large. The church at Jerusalem had possibly as many as 50,000 or more members!
These large churches each had several preachers or elders. Some of these bishops or pastors began to assume authority over smaller churches. This corrupted the original democratic policy and government of the churches and led to the kind of hierarchy we see in the Roman Catholic Church today.
In the first two centuries the false teaching of "baptismal regeneration" began to spread. This error led to infant baptism and many other errors.
It has to be remembered that these changes did not come about all in a day, nor within a year. They came about slowly and never within all the churches. Some of the churches vigorously repudiated these errors.
About the middle of the third century the lines were clearly drawn. Those churches that remained loyal to the Scriptures were now clearly separate from those that had gone into error and apostasy.
Constantine ruled as Emperor of the Roman Empire from 306 to 337A.D. and his reign was to mark one of the great turning points in church history.
During a battle in 312 A.D. Emperor Constantine believed he had a vision of a flaming cross and above it the words, "By this sign thou shalt conquer."
He decided to fight under the banner of Christ and Christianity came into favor in the Roman Government.
In 313 A.D. Constantine gave a call for all the churches to come together and pronounced himself as the head of the churches.
Many, but not all, of the churches came. The true churches would have no part in this error.
This hierarchy or body of church rulers, that Constantine formed was the definite beginning of the Roman Catholic Church. Many of the errors of Catholicism had already had their beginning but now they were organized into a definite system.
Constantine made "Christianity" the "State Religion." Up until this point the persecution of the Christians had been done either by Judaism or Paganism. Now came a change. Christians (in name) began using the law to compel all Christians to join the organization. The true churches that refused were persecuted.
The division was now complete. The true churches refused to line up with the errors of the "state church." The church of Constantine became what we know as Roman Catholicism. Baptists were never part of Roman Catholicism. They remained true to the Scriptures and rejected the error.
After the organization of the churches into a hierarchy and their acceptance as a "State Religion" the true, loyal churches that rejected this error were identified by various names.
It is not to be understood that each of these groups was entirely free from error or entirely embraced the truth. Through these groups can be traced the people called Baptists. In these groups is to be found the true church -- not in Catholicism.
Montanist ... Paulician ... Novationist ... Paterines ... Donatist ... Albigenses ... Anabaptists ... these were some of the names used to identify those who refused to identify with Rome.
The Dark Ages
The period from 426 A.D. to 1628 A.D. is called the "Dark Ages."
With the establishment of the new Catholic temporal power a bloody persecution began. Loyal, New Testament churches, by whatever name they were called, were hunted and hounded to the utmost limit by this new Catholic power.
The now established Catholic Church began a war of extermination upon all who opposed her.
It is reliably reported that 50,000,000 died of persecution during the Dark Ages.
During the bloody times of persecution, as Catholicism tried to exterminate the true churches, many of the false doctrines of the Catholic church of today began to take place.
The Inquisition 1198-1700
The Inquisition was instituted by Pope Innocent lII and perfected under Pope Gregory IX. It was a "Church Court" established by the popes for the trying and punishing of "heretics" ... a heretic being anyone who did not agree with Roman Catholicism. The lnquisition lasted for 500 years and was a time of indescribable horror.
During all this persecution Baptist churches continued to exist.
The Reformation
The conditions within the Catholic Church had become so corrupt that many voices were raised within the church in protest. Among these voices was that of John Wycliffe (1320- 1384), John Huss (1373-1415), Savonarola (1452-1498), Zwingli (1484-1531), John Knox (1505-1572), John Calvin (1509-1564), and Martin Luther.
The combined effort of these men, along with many others, brought about the Reformation.
All these Reformers started new churches. This was the beginning of Protestantism. All Protestant churches had their beginning in the period of the Reformation or since that time.
Baptists continued to exist through the Reformation as they had since the time of Christ. Since the Reformation the Baptists have had a glorious history. There are over 23,000,000 Baptists in the United States and they are also found in over 100 different countries.
Available as a printed tract from:
Landmark Independent Baptist Church
P.O. Box 847
Archer, FL 32618-0847
A Brief History of the BaptistsA Brief History of the Baptists
by the late Norman H. Wells
The history of the ancient churches is very obscure. Much of the early recorded history was either lost or destroyed. A great part of the history that remains was changed to suit the interests of the Roman Catholic Church. All of church history has been involved in much controversy and was subject to the whims and fancies of each particular age.
In a very broad outline we want to look at the history of the church.
The First 300 Years of Church History
Jesus Christ, during His earthly ministry, founded the first church in Jerusalem in approximately the year 30 A.D.
This first church was commissioned to go forth preaching the gospel, winning the lost to Christ, baptizing and teaching the converts and establishing new churches.
On the pages of the New Testament we find the record of the growth of Christianity and the founding of many New Testament churches.
Nero, the Roman Emperor, blamed the Christians for the burning of Rome in 64 A.D. and began the first of ten persecutions the Christians were to receive at the hands of the Romans.
Despite all the persecution, Christianity grew. At the end of the first 300 years the religion of Jesus Christ was established all over the then known world. There were churches in every town and community.
The Progress of Error During The First 300 Years
In the first two centuries the individual churches rapidly multiplied and some of them became very large. The church at Jerusalem had possibly as many as 50,000 or more members!
These large churches each had several preachers or elders. Some of these bishops or pastors began to assume authority over smaller churches. This corrupted the original democratic policy and government of the churches and led to the kind of hierarchy we see in the Roman Catholic Church today.
In the first two centuries the false teaching of "baptismal regeneration" began to spread. This error led to infant baptism and many other errors.
It has to be remembered that these changes did not come about all in a day, nor within a year. They came about slowly and never within all the churches. Some of the churches vigorously repudiated these errors.
About the middle of the third century the lines were clearly drawn. Those churches that remained loyal to the Scriptures were now clearly separate from those that had gone into error and apostasy.
Constantine ruled as Emperor of the Roman Empire from 306 to 337A.D. and his reign was to mark one of the great turning points in church history.
During a battle in 312 A.D. Emperor Constantine believed he had a vision of a flaming cross and above it the words, "By this sign thou shalt conquer."
He decided to fight under the banner of Christ and Christianity came into favor in the Roman Government.
In 313 A.D. Constantine gave a call for all the churches to come together and pronounced himself as the head of the churches.
Many, but not all, of the churches came. The true churches would have no part in this error.
This hierarchy or body of church rulers, that Constantine formed was the definite beginning of the Roman Catholic Church. Many of the errors of Catholicism had already had their beginning but now they were organized into a definite system.
Constantine made "Christianity" the "State Religion." Up until this point the persecution of the Christians had been done either by Judaism or Paganism. Now came a change. Christians (in name) began using the law to compel all Christians to join the organization. The true churches that refused were persecuted.
The division was now complete. The true churches refused to line up with the errors of the "state church." The church of Constantine became what we know as Roman Catholicism. Baptists were never part of Roman Catholicism. They remained true to the Scriptures and rejected the error.
After the organization of the churches into a hierarchy and their acceptance as a "State Religion" the true, loyal churches that rejected this error were identified by various names.
It is not to be understood that each of these groups was entirely free from error or entirely embraced the truth. Through these groups can be traced the people called Baptists. In these groups is to be found the true church -- not in Catholicism.
Montanist ... Paulician ... Novationist ... Paterines ... Donatist ... Albigenses ... Anabaptists ... these were some of the names used to identify those who refused to identify with Rome.
The Dark Ages
The period from 426 A.D. to 1628 A.D. is called the "Dark Ages."
With the establishment of the new Catholic temporal power a bloody persecution began. Loyal, New Testament churches, by whatever name they were called, were hunted and hounded to the utmost limit by this new Catholic power.
The now established Catholic Church began a war of extermination upon all who opposed her.
It is reliably reported that 50,000,000 died of persecution during the Dark Ages.
During the bloody times of persecution, as Catholicism tried to exterminate the true churches, many of the false doctrines of the Catholic church of today began to take place.
The Inquisition 1198-1700
The Inquisition was instituted by Pope Innocent lII and perfected under Pope Gregory IX. It was a "Church Court" established by the popes for the trying and punishing of "heretics" ... a heretic being anyone who did not agree with Roman Catholicism. The lnquisition lasted for 500 years and was a time of indescribable horror.
During all this persecution Baptist churches continued to exist.
The Reformation
The conditions within the Catholic Church had become so corrupt that many voices were raised within the church in protest. Among these voices was that of John Wycliffe (1320- 1384), John Huss (1373-1415), Savonarola (1452-1498), Zwingli (1484-1531), John Knox (1505-1572), John Calvin (1509-1564), and Martin Luther.
The combined effort of these men, along with many others, brought about the Reformation.
All these Reformers started new churches. This was the beginning of Protestantism. All Protestant churches had their beginning in the period of the Reformation or since that time.
Baptists continued to exist through the Reformation as they had since the time of Christ. Since the Reformation the Baptists have had a glorious history. There are over 23,000,000 Baptists in the United States and they are also found in over 100 different countries.
Available as a printed tract from:
Landmark Independent Baptist Church
P.O. Box 847
Archer, FL 32618-0847
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)