Outside the Perimeter

Darn!

I was offered a contract yesterday for a technical writer position, which my wife told me I had to take. (Tip: The true secret to a long lasting marriage is doing what your wife says). Reluctantly, I will be giving up the carefree life of an unemployed technical writer to live the life in the cubicle fast lane.

The upside is that we will be able to revert to the lifestyle to which we had become accustomed. Which in essence means we will be able to reactivate HBO so I can watch The Wire and hopefully catch up with Six Feet Under.

The downside is that my touch-typing skills will now be devoted more to something that pays. That will probably mean less blogging.

There are a few upcoming events that I am going to be sure to cover. First, the PWers in Atlanta are getting together again to watch the next Presidential debate. If I can have WIFI access, I am thinking about liveblogging our reaction. I'll also be watching the VP debate tonight, if only to see Edwards proposal for a class action suit against of Al Queda. Next up will be election eve.

Later in November, PW will be attending the big protest at Fort Benning at the School of the Americas. Once again, I'll be covering that event and should be able to come up with some interesting video and stills.

Of course, I'll still be posting as the muse requires, but I am not sure how often that is going to work out with my rejoining of the rat race.

Kerry Fails the Global Pop Quiz

I watched the debate last night with some of the Atlanta Protest Warriors. We loved how President Bush nailed Kerry on the "Global Test" thing. I thought this analogy by Kerry was a little odd:

The terrorism czar, who has worked for every president since Ronald Reagan, said, Invading Iraq in response to 9/11 would be like Franklin Roosevelt invading Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor.

First, I don't think we had tens of thousands of troops stationed to keep an eye on Mexico during WWII. I certainly know that Mexico was not trying to actively shoot down our airplanes.

More to the point, Kerry's comment betrays a certain lack of knowledge about WWII. True, we were attacked by the Japanese and that led to our entry into the war. Subsequently, Adolph Hitler declared war on the United States.

President Roosevelt made the decision to concentrate our efforts on the defeat of Germany, to the detriment of our effort to avenge Pearl Harbor. The de-prioritization of the Pacific theater also led to some of our worst defeats of the war. Troops that could have been used to defend the Philippines were diverted to the European theater. Ships, airplanes, and Marines were on their way to assist with the defense of Wake Island . They were turned around and Wake was lost, despite the valor of the American troops on the island.

So while it is true that we did not avenge Pearl Harbor by invading Mexico, we did respond by invading North Africa. And Sicily. And Italy. And France.

President Roosevelt realized that we were fighting a global war to make the world safe for the United States of America. That being the case, we had to fight the war not just in a passionate way, but also in a smart way. We had to be able to engage against several enemies at once to achieve the final victory. We did.

President Bush has the same type of global vision. He knows that the war will not end when Osama Bin Lauden is caught (assuming that UBL is still alive). Bush knows the only way to a final victory is to not only confront terrorists, but to call those nations who assist with terror to account:

And not only will we find the terrorists, we will enforce the doctrine that says if you harbor a terrorist, you're a terrorist. If you feed a terrorist, if you fund a terrorist, you're a terrorist.

John Kerry's argument seems to be that he is upset that the President did what he said he was going to do. I can see how the President not advocating the expedient thing would confuse John Kerry, master of the politically expedient.

There is another two things that Kerry said that demonstrated his lack of understanding of the military. In the first case, Kerry was complaining that we used indigenous troops to attack Tora Bora. In the second, Kerry said he was going to increase the number of Special Forces troops.

It is obvious that Kerry does not understand that one of the major roles of Special Forces is to command indigenous troops. This was done to brilliant effect in our effort in Afghanistan. To quote from "American Soldier" by General Tommy Franks:

"Tiger 02, the Special Forces team supporting General Abdul Rashid Dostum (a Northern Alliance commander) - led by a young captain, a seasoned master sergeant, and a lanky sergeant first class, whose noms de guerre were Mark, Paul, and Mike - fought one of the most tactically skillful and courageous small-unit actions in American military history. Facing determined enemy resistance, terrible weather, and mounting casualties among their indigenous troops, these Green Berets used maneuver and air power to destroy an army the Soviets had failed to dislodge with more than half a million men."

You caught the right?

The number of Soviet Troops required to fight an army in Afghanistan and lose: 500,000.

The number of American troops required to fight an army in Afghanistan and win: 3.

The cost of the ignorance of John Kerry on military matters outside the environs of a little boat: Not a price we can afford.

Orange You a Little Vain?

Botox injection gone bad? Did he fall asleep under a tanning lamp? Perhaps the ever in search of nuance Kerry is making the case that the political issues of the day are not black and white, they are shades of orange. Whatever the case, Kerry's campaign has taken on a different tone.

In tribute, I wrote my own lyrics, to the tune of the Oompa-Loompa song for John Kerry:

Oompa Loompa doompadee doo.
I've got another puzzle for you.

Oompa Loompa doompadah dee.
If you are wise you'll listen to me.

What do you get with the orange on your face?
Looking like that in a na-tio-nal race?

If you don't know, then it's time you have heard.
Don't waste your time trying to polish a turd.

Your van-i-ty will look absurd.

Oompa Loompa Doompadee Dah,
November Second is not very far.
You will live in obscurity then,
Like the Oompa,
Oompa Loompa doompadee do.

Now That's a Salute

From the Army web site (orginal link from The Corner at National Review Online):

Seven-year-old Phillip Shriver has a new guardian angel -- a little bear angel with red, white and blue wings, wearing a helmet.

Shriver who has a life threatening illness, leukemia, received the memento during his visit to Fort Riley Sept. 20, from Command Sgt. Maj. James Savitski, 4th Battalion, 1st Field Artillery command sergeant major.

I have kids and one of my daughter's best friends died at age seven from cancer. So I understand the tragedy of childhood cancer and the tough battle these kids fight.

That being said, there is still something humorous in this article, and that is the picture:

The humourous thing? This kid is only seven-years old and still has a better salute than John Kerry.

Scare Tactics

On the front page of today's Atlanta Journal-Constitution, is a story with the headline "Aerial cameras keep eye on U.S.":

Bethesda, Md. --- In the name of homeland security, America's spy imagery agency is keeping a close eye, close to home. It's watching America.

Since the Sept. 11 attacks, about 100 employees of a little-known branch of the Defense Department called the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency --- and some of the country's most sophisticated aerial imaging equipment --- have focused on observing what's going on in the United States.

Oh my God, they could be watching me right now. I wonder to what nefarious purposes these spies have been using their technology? The article gives examples:

For instance, the agency has modified basic maps of the nation's capital to highlight the location of hospitals, linking them to data on the number of beds or the burn unit in each. To secure the Ronald Reagan funeral procession, the agency married aerial photographs and 3D images, allowing security planners to virtually walk, drive or fly through the Simi Valley, Calif., route.

I see, those evil guys are making maps! How dare they use satellites to take pictures to make maps. Where will it end? Privacy of geographical information is not a privilege, it is a right.

Gee, I wonder who we have to thank for bringing this important information to me and the readers of the AJC?:

Steven Aftergood, who oversees a project on government secrecy for the Federation of American Scientists, a nonprofit watchdog of the impact of politics on science.

The Federation of America Scientists? Oh yes, the liberal group. I guess that explains the front page article on the danger of maps. Apparently, the Steven Aftergood suckered some sympathetic AP reporter into legitimizing another left-wing conspiracy theory.

In other words, never mind.

The Rationalization of John Kerry

The sheer stupidity of John Kerry in justifying his vote to authorize the war in Iraq is an amazing thing to behold:

The reason so many people are confused about his position, Kerry says, is because they interpret his vote, incorrectly, as "a vote to go to war." "It wasn't a vote to go that day. It was a vote to go through a process," to give the president leverage at the United Nations and to get the inspectors back into Iraq.

Maybe Kerry was confused by the title of the resolution for which he voted: "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq". He must have thought the resolution for which he voted was titled "Authorization for the Present to go Through a Process to Give the President Leverage at the United Nations and to get Inspectors Back into Iraq."

If the title confused Kerry, then perhaps he should have read the resolution before he voted for it. Here is one part he should have read (emphasis mine):

a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

The resolution also spelled out that if the President went to war, he should report to Congress how he made that determination. What factors should the President use in that report? The President must determine that (emphasis mine):

"(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

"What about diplomacy?", you say. Here is what the resolution had to say about that:

"The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions."

The resolution is very clear: Either Saddam Hussein complies with U.N. Security Council resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, 677, 687, 688, and 949 or the President is authorized to go to war. (Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of "all necessary means" to enforce those security council resolutions. So much for the war being "illegal" in terms of international law, by the way). One could even credibly argue, with the compelling conditions for action laid out in the resolution, that President Bush was required to go to war if Saddam Hussein did not comply. Certainly one could see that Congress (and John Kerry) wanted "prompt and decisive action" by the United Nations Security Council.

That was something that the French made clear was never going to happen.

Notice that one never hears or reads of John Kerry or any other liberal mentioning the words "Saddam Hussein" when discussing the authorization of war. The war resolution put the burden of proof on Hussein to demonstrate that he had complied with all of those resolutions. The only way Kerry could argue that the President was not authorized would be to argue that Saddam Hussein had fully complied.

And that would be a even less credible argument than that John Kerry voted only to “go through a process”, not to enforce the multitude of United Nations Security Council Resolutions by going to war.

Kerry's Consistent Iraq Position

Yesterday, Kerry assured reporters of his consistent position on Iraq:

"The vote for authorization is interpreted by a lot of people as a vote to go to war," Mr. Kerry said. "It wasn't a vote to go that day. It was a vote to go through the process of going to the U.N., building the allies and then making a judgment of whether we had to go. ... I believe there was a better judgment to make, and I said so all along."

In a dramatic news conference this morning, John Kerry appeared with running mate John Edwards to visually demonstrate Kerry's "consistent" position on Iraq.

The two remained in the pose while fielding questions from reporters.

"Let's see Bush and Cheney top this," said Edwards during the news conference. "George Bush may be able to fly a fighter jet, but John Kerry is very bendy."

Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry said, "I can hold this position for a long time without breaking a sweat. As I carry the burden of John Edwards, so shall I be able to carry the difficult chore of cleaning up President Bush's mess in Iraq."

"I am both disciplined, flexible, and a Master of the Manchurian art of contortion," said Kerry.

Asked to comment, a senior White House Official privately admits to worry. "Kerry and Edwards have raised the bar for election-year news conferences. The President and Vice President had been practicing a couple of knock-knock jokes, but nothing like this."

The Official further said, "I blame reality shows like American Idol. Americans have gotten used to being entertained in order to earn their vote. Kerry and Edwards might have found a way to tap into that sentiment, and unless the President figures out a way to respond ... I think this election could start swinging the other way."

Hastert Hits The Nail on the Head

Dennis Hastert, Republican Speaker of The House, said this recently about the possibility of Al Queda launching an attack before the election in an attempt to help John Kerry win the Presidential election:

"I don't have data or intelligence to tell me one thing or another, (but) I would think they would be more apt to go (for) somebody who would file a lawsuit with the World Court or something rather than respond with troops,'' Hastert said of Kerry.

John Edwards, Democratic Vice-Presidential Candidate, said this in reply:

"Let me say this in the simplest possible terms: When John Kerry is President of the United States, we will find al-Queda where they are and crush them before they can do damage to the American people,'' Edwards said.

I think both of them are right. Kerry plans to crush Al Queda by filing a class action lawsuit in the World Court against Al Queda. Otherwise, what was the point of the selection of the lightweight trial lawyer as his running mate?

The Dems Were For The Draft Before They Were Against It

When I was in New York for the big protest before this year's Republican National Convention, I was confused by some of the professionally printed signs that the protestors were carrying. The signs said "No Draft No Way". The organization that, I assume, had the signs printed have a web site here. Their "Draft Threat Advisory", by the way, is set at "Yellow, Significant Risk of Conscription." Here is a still from some of the video I took of the protest, so you can see one of the signs from this organization in evidence:

The old draft was abolished in 1973, and a new draft would require a new law. "Schoolhouse Rock" pounded into me at an early age the process where a bill becomes a law. The upshot is that a law for a new draft would have to be introduced and passed in both Houses of Congress. If the bill passed in both Houses, then the President could sign the bill into law.

Step number one of instituting a new draft has been accomplished. Not by President Bush or his minions - But by Democrats: Dem. Congressman Charley Wrangle introduced House Bill 163 and Dem. Senator "Fritz" Hollings introduced Senate Bill 89. (Note: You can look up both of the bills yourself, HB163 and SB89 here). Both of the bills seek to introduce a new draft.

So What Gives With the Kerry Stoking Fears of a Draft?

The irony of the protestors carrying the "No Draft, No Way" signs a few weeks ago was not lost on me. I had heard Rangel talk in the past about reestablishing a draft. I merely assumed that the people carrying the signs were your typical liberal lemmings - shove a sign and their hand, point them in the general direction of the protest, and watch them go.

However, what I did not know at the time is that this was the start of a trend. My next clue was an editorial by my favorite "progressive" columnist, Jay Bookman of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. He wrote just this week:

... the U.S. military will be able to take on new commitments only if it is significantly expanded. And that probably means a draft.

Note: I've been reading him for a couple of years, and Bookman is typically either slightly ahead of the curve or right there with the Democratic Party line.

Then later in the week, John Kerry's surrogates, including The Mad Doctor and Mini-Me, are saying that President Bush wants to reinstate the draft. Mini-Me said:

“America will reinstate the military draft” if Bush is re-elected and continues the Iraq War, (Max) Cleland predicted, according to an account of his speech by the Colorado Springs Gazette.

Later in the article, The Mad Doc speaks up:

Former Kerry rival Howard Dean, now traveling the country to drum up support for Kerry and raise money for Democratic candidates, said last week at Brown University in Providence, R.I., "I think that George Bush is certainly going to have a draft if he goes into a second term, and any young person that doesn't want to go to Iraq might think twice about voting for him."

One question: Just what the heck are these Democratic handmaidens talking about? It is their party mates in Congress who have been introducing bill to reinstate the draft. President Bush has never supported a draft. Donald Rumsfeld certainly does not think we should have a draft (quote from the same article as above):

“This country does not need a draft,” Rumsfeld told an Army sergeant who’d just returned from Iraq and asked about the draft at a town hall meeting in Fort Bliss, Texas on Aug. 23.

Noting the size of the U.S. population, more than 290 million people, Rumsfeld said, “If you add up everyone we are looking for in the active forces, 1.4 million and the Guard and Reserve and the selective reserve and individual ready reserve and if you add them all up, it’s about 2.5 million. And all you have to do is alter the incentives and we can attract and retain all the people we need. We do not need to go to compulsion.”

Obviously, this is the latest attempt by the Kerry campaign to make up some fake issue, with no basis in fact, to try to keep their loser of a candidate afloat.

This would be, as I count it, the third fake issue the Dems have raised in a week. Number One was "Operation Fortunate Son", with the rather unfortunate associated CBS scandal. scandal. Number Two was "The Other Guy has a secret plan". A plan that apparently only exists in John Kerry's imagination.

Now with the second revelation of a supposedly "secret plan of Bush" in one week, the Dems showing that they are all out of ideas. Of course, as the selection of John Kerry as their candidate demonstrates, this year has not been a good one for smart Democratic ideas.

Bias at the AJC? Can't Be.

As the Blind Pig, I love all kinds of pig sayings. One of my favorites is "A Guilty Pig Squeals the Loudest". The head squealer, Public Editor Mike King of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, is squealing like he had his tail pulled in today's AJC in a column titled "Decisions not driven by any agenda" (registration required):

The CBS documents. Over the past week or so, as media bloggers on the Internet and mainstream news organizations have called into question the authenticity of the letter "60 Minutes II" used to question the special treatment President Bush allegedly received during his Air National Guard duty, callers and letter writers have asked why the AJC and other news organizations have not aggressively examined the veracity of CBS' reporting. Why hasn't it received the same scrutiny applied to the swift-boat veterans' campaign against Democratic candidate John Kerry's Vietnam service?

I would contend it has.

This reminds me of a joke: How do you make a blind pig laugh? Read him a Mike King column.

Here is the letter I wrote to Mr. King. Getting a response from him is 50/50 at best, but if I get a reply I'll let you know (Note: I xxx'ed out Mr. Shiver's phone number from this post):

Mr. King:

I’ll let you decide if the AJC practices bias or if it is simply incompetent.

For example, when the Swift Boat stuff was raging, the AJC published a column by William Rood (http://www.ajc.com/sunday/content/epaper/editions/sunday/issue_1482a191f3ba10330034.html) where basically agreed with Kerry’s version of one of the events brought up by the SBVTs.

On the other hand, the AJC published an article including accusations by Ben Barnes ( http://www.ajc.com/today/content/epaper/editions/today/news_140450b463c06219007e.html) accusing President Bush of getting special treatment to get into the National Guard.

Two high-ranking former Texas Air National Guardsman have spoken up in the last week answering questions about if Bush received special treatment. The first is Col. Earl Lively (Ret), the former Director of Operations of the Texas Air National Guard. Col. Lively, in an interview from this week, was asked if Bush jumped in front of several applicants to get a pilot’s slot with the Guard.

Col. Lively answered: “…I was the head of Operations. I was Director of Operations and I oversaw and inspected all of the units in Texas. Flew with them. And the, there was no waiting list for this. See, this is often confused with another thing. Which was a waiting list to simply enlist in the Guard and do your service their rather than in the regular military. And there were lots of people on those waiting lists. But those people weren't qualified to go to pilot training school.”

The second was one of the people quoted in the fake 60 minutes memo, Col. Walter Staudt, interviewed yesterday by ABC News. (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Vote2004/staudt_bush_040917-1.html)

In the interview, “Staudt said he never tried to influence Killian or other Guardsmen, and added that he never came under any pressure himself to accept Bush. "No one called me about taking George Bush into the Air National Guard," he said. "It was my decision. I swore him in. I never heard anything from anybody."

One naturally wonders why the AJC does publish rebuttal stories when they favor John Kerry, but does not publish rebuttal stories when they favor President Bush.

More Memo Questions

The first “media blogger on the Internet” who questioned the authenticity of the documents was someone called “Buckhead” who posted on the Internet site www.freerepublic.com. The real name of the person is Harry MacDougald, and he is an Atlanta attorney. One would assume, based on his user name, that “Buckhead” either lives or works in –wait for it- Buckhead. Does the AJC ever plan on trying the interview the person who started the firestorm over the memos? Since he is an Atlanta, one would think the AJC might have some interest in the story.

Next, an one of the experts quoted on other places on the Internet is Farrell C. Shiver, with Shiver & Nelson Document Investigation Laboratory based in Woodstock, GA. Mr. Shiver is certified by the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners and is a member of American Society of Questioned Document Examiners; American Academy of Forensic Sciences Questioned Document Section; and the Southeastern Association of Forensic Document Examiners.

I realize that having a reporter drive all the way up to Woodstock to check out the accuracy of one of your stories is quite the chore. However, Mr. Shiver also has a phone. The number is 770-xxx-xxxx.

Finally, the smoking gun to many is the fact that one can type up the same words into Microsoft Word using the default settings, print the document, and then compare the new document to the CBS memos. For real bit of ol’ timey investigative journalism, go to Office Depot and buy some transparencies, and then print the new document on the transparency. Put the transparency over the matching memo and presto – an exact match. I know the AJC has at least one PC and a copy of MS Word lying around somewhere, so this would be a very easy, and cheap, bit of investigative journalism. I am sure some of the IT folks at the AJC would have been more than happy to have helped if you guy could not have figured out the what the joke of a CBS “computer expert” called the “th setting”.

But the AJC did not do any of these things. So I ask you – incompetence or bias?

Update: Looking back over the letter, I had some typos. That's what I get for writing when I have not yet had my second cup of coffee.