Domain Name: disa.mil (Military) IP Address: [Deleted for Reasons of National Security] (Naval Ocean Systems Center) ISP: Naval Ocean Systems Center Location: Continent: North America Country: United States State: Ohio City: Columbus Lat/Long: 39.9666, -83.0123 Distance: 1,975 miles Language: English (en) Operating System: Microsoft WinXP Browser: Opera 9.23Opera/9.23 (Windows NT 5.1; U; en) Time of Visit [Deleted for Reasons of National Security] Last Page View [Deleted for Reasons of National Security] Page Views: 1 Referring URL: http://blogsearch.go...2&ie=utf-8&scoring=d/ Search Engine: blogsearch.google.com Search Words: in post title: "raquel welch"Why is the Naval Ocean Systems Center in Columbus, Ohio? And why were they looking for Raquel Welch?
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Friday, September 14, 2007
Authorities were investigating allegations that Bryan had sexually abused two of his adopted daughters, Stuart said. The Times is withholding their names because of the nature of the allegations. In addition, authorities were investigating whether Bryan had sexually abused his former nanny, whom he had also adopted. The former nanny is now 38.These days, we needn't really ask what his party was, do we?
Petraeus on Britney
A no-nonsense assessment of the benchmarks achieved by the rehabilitating pop star.
Hey, if you like "The Clash" (and who doesn't?) check out my band "The Clash City Rockers." We're playing Fri. Sept. 28th at: "The Goodhurt Nightclub" 12249 Venice Bl., LA. 90066 (310) 390-1076 It's $10. Show time is: 12:30 am...............Hope to see ya there..........Mikaleno AKA Mick J.
$8.00 tix may be available @ their MySpace page. Click "band" above.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Sadly, No! guest poster clif brings our attention to Podhoretz' book-pimpin' @ the WSJ.com OpinionJournal. (Well, we saw it yesterday, but were so dulled out by N-Pod by that time we had little more to say, so thanks to clif for saying something worth adding. Also posted @ Outside The Tent.) Or you could look @ Reason, who have the Podperson's video on bombing Iran. And if you did go to OpinionJournal, you might have noticed the illustration w/ the book self-plug, which Crooked Timber mentions & re-publishes. Or after all this, you could just slit your wrists. Remember, length-wise, not across.
A tip of the Bouffant chapeau & a bow from the waist to the S,N! commentariat for the links, especially to Lesley for the photo of M. D.
And a link to The New York Review of Books on World War IV, blah blah blah...
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Podhoretz has a nose for all that because when he turned into a crypto-fascist in the '60s he started picking fights (intellectual, of course) w/ all the people who were in his New York literary crowd. And we must mention Roger L.'s nose for alliteration. "Preening prevarication." Here's a bit more preening from Rog. See if you can spot the prevarications.
The best part of Podhoretz’s book is a tour d’horizon of all this opposition. He has a nose for the sturm und drang of intellectual conflict, whether it be the posturing of a Sontag or a Mailer, the slithering realpolitik of a Brent Scowcroft or the preening prevarications of a Joseph C. Wilson.
"Admittedly disingenuous opponents." There is nothing as disingenuous as Dick Cheney insisting Saddam Hussein was involved in the 11 September 2001 attacks, then denying he said it, then saying it again. Those strategic errors were not made in the fog of war; they were planning errors made long before the war was started. That clichéd fog of war is what happens to your plans after the war begins. And if your plans are worthless from the beginning, the fog of war has that much more of an effect on them. Or perhaps the entire administration has been in a fog from its first day in office. Has Mr. Simon ever heard the current president speak? An exhortation to "Shop 'Til You Drop" is the longest sentence you'll get out of him. And as Lyndon Johnson said when he was president, "It's hard to defend an unpopular war." Especially if that war is actually an occupation you were completely unprepared for, & everyone in the "media & the political classes" knows it. One last inanity:
In his understandable zeal to defend Bush and his doctrine from admittedly disingenuous opponents, he overlooks an inadequacy on the part of the President and his administration that is nearly fatal. I am not referring to the strategic errors that may or may not have been made – whether there were too few troops, etc. Podhoretz makes it clear such errors were probably even worse in WWII. The “fog of war” is a cliché for a reason. Nor am I even referring to the decision to emphasize the pursuit of WMDs over the promotion of democracy as justification for the war. (Podhoretz sees this as an error, as I do, although he soft pedals it.) I am referring to the extraordinary inability of Bush and those surrounding him to understand and to respond to the paramount importance of public relations in asymmetrical war. Indeed, it can be argued that asymmetrical war is in essence about public relations. You would think, given the recent history of our time, the Tet Offensive, indeed the whole story of Vietnam, the administration would have known that, seen the inevitability that a powerful opposition would coalesce in the media and in the political classes (one that Podhoretz describes so well) and moved to head it off, to co-opt their opponents, but they did the opposite. They told us to go shopping.
He also knows that few could do what history demanded of George W. Bush. For that reason perhaps he does not emphasize Bush’s failings in World War IV.Either that or Podhoretz is being, oh, what would you call it? How about "admittedly disingenuous?" Certainly any one who pretends that George W. Bush did what history demanded, when he has yet to do what common sense & national security are demanding, can't be taken seriously. Nor can Academy Award©-nominated screenwriter Simon. And here's a bonus, if you've ten minutes of your life you never want back. See & hear the man who decided his country was perfect, except for all those annoying people who didn't share his predjudices. Listen to a discussion of The Bush Dictrine. (Shorter Bush Doctrine: "I'm running this schoolyard, and if you look at me cross-eyed or call my Mommy a poopy-head I'll push you down & kick you. Now give me your
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Let's pull a quote just for the hell of it:
Many Democrats too have been grudgingly breaking from their base's otherworldly narrative of late, though they continue to insist that a "political solution" can be had in Iraq without a concomitant military one. Even the Sunni insurgents are coming to grips with the fact that Al Qaeda doesn't have Iraq'sAh, now the Democratic "base" has an "otherworldly narrative." Few narratives are more "otherworldly" (& rapidly changing) than that of Bush/Cheney/The Project for a New American Century. A brief recap:
best interests at heart.
• "Every ten years or so we have to throw some crappy little country against the wall to prove to the world that we mean business."
• "Saddam Hussein is a thug w/ WMDs who's terrorizing his own people."
• "We can't let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud."
• "We'll bring democracy to Iraq, inspiring other nations and ushering in a new age of peace and prosperity."
• "We're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here."
• "If we withdraw now, there'll be a bloodbath."
There are a few others, but they've mercifully slipped our mind. Jonah, could you remind us just who it is that has "a dizzying sense that they were living in a supernatural world, in which reality knelt before faith?"
And while you're explaining that (good luck) could you throw in an explanation of the "military solution" the United States is going to achieve in a sectarian civil war, in a "nation" that was a drawn up to maximize the power & influence of an imperial power (the United Kingdom)? By staying there in the line of fire like cops trying to stop a turf war between the Bloods & Crips? The "political" solution won't come until the Sunni & Shia are sick & tired of killing each other. And considering this particular schism has been going on for the last 1300 or so yrs., is that the new timetable for withdrawal?
If these fools will admit that the war portion of their sad little adventure has been over since late spring of 2003, and everything since has been an occupation, it might be easier for them to leave w/ the "honor" they continually babble about. Not they had any "honor" to begin w/.
Finally, let’s not forget the other September 11th. I just wish that some idiots would realise that behaviour like the first leads to behaviour like the second.She spells in that cute way because she's a cat, & lives in Australia.
Below, the last photo of Salvador Allende before his murder at the hands of fascist thugs supported & financed by the CIA, on the orders of Richard "Murderhous" Nixon & Henry "Killer" Kissinger.
Several days ago we had a good laugh at Newt Gingrich's expense, concerning his appearance yesterday @ AEI. TNR briefly reports on the event. Let's steal the whole thing:
GINGRICH: A LITTLE BIT KOOKY, A LITTLE BIT ... LIBERAL?:
Newt Gingrich gave a speech at AEI this morning in which he presented an "alternative history" of the war on terror as he would have conducted it. The speech was vintage Newt, complete with bold new capitalization (Gingrich says at war with the Irreconcilable Wing of Islam), exciting-but-kooky ideas ("We should give every student in Iran a free cell phone"), and casual suggestions for huge new military operations (Blockade Iran! After all, "We have an entire Navy not currently occupied in Iraq.")
Listening to the speech, though, what I found most interesting was that it also contained a fairly standard liberal critique of the way President Bush has conducted the war on terror. Gingrich faulted Bush for not dedicating enough resources to first responders, for not waging an aggressive public-diplomacy campaign to improve the U.S.'s standing in the world, and for maintaining a visa system that makes it all but impossible for many foreigners to visit or study here. He called for the creation of a "new Geneva Convention against terrorism" and a "Convention on Civilization, the Rule of Law and the Illegitimacy of Terrorism," which sounds a lot like John Edwards's proposed "Counterterorrism and Intelligence Treaty Organization." Gingrich also wants "a genuine Marshall Plan-scale effort to transform the poorest parts of the Islamic world." He even channeled David Broder, saying Bush should have "established an informal bipartisan advisory committee from the Congress which he met with every two weeks," which would have "enabled the President to get far more out of Congress with far less partisanship."
It was heartening to see that a more liberal narrative of the fight against terrorism has taken hold to such a degree that even the Newtster is repeating it--and also nice to be reminded why Gingrich never got closer to the presidency than third in the constitutional order of succession.
--Josh Patashnik posted 6:54 p.m
His new book [...] contains remarkably little information about its supposed subject. “Islamofascism,” for instance, goes largely undefined.Here's how Mr. Podhoretz defines it in Commentary:
Like the cold war, as the military historian Eliot Cohen was the first to recognize, the one we are now in has ideological roots, pitting us against Islamofascism, yet another mutation of the totalitarian disease we defeated first in the shape of Nazism and fascism and then in the shape of Communism; it is global in scope; it is being fought with a variety of weapons, not all of them military; and it is likely to go on for decades.Ah yes, the "totalitarian disease." Bienart again:
Podhoretz does call it a “monster with two heads, one religious and the other secular.” But if fascism involves worship of the state, how exactly does the religious “head” — Al Qaeda — qualify, given that Osama bin Laden sees the state as a pagan imposition threatening the unity of Islam? And if the secular “head” was Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party, what made it Islamofascist? [...] What really interests Podhoretz, who now advises Rudolph Giuliani, isn’t the Islamic world; it’s the home front. The news media, he explains, are in favor of “an American defeat in Iraq.” So are the former national security advisers Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft. Why do these ostensibly patriotic Americans want to see their nation humiliated and its troops killed? Because it will help their careers. Many Realists ... along with most liberal internationalists,” he writes, “were rooting for an American defeat as the only way to save their worldview from winding up on the ash heap of history.” And thus, Podhoretz lays the foundation for claiming — if America loses in Iraq — that we were stabbed in the back. Which, as Theodore Draper noted 25 years ago in a review of Podhoretz’s book “Why We Were in Vietnam,” is exactly what he did the last time America lost a major war.The stab in the back narrative. Known to post World War I Germany as Dolchstoßlegende. Did somebody say "totalitarian disease?" On to the next book:
Unlike Podhoretz, for whom “World War IV” is largely an excuse to insult his old foes on the left and titillate himself with fantasies of civic violence, Michael Ledeen has written an actual book on the Middle East. In particular, he is passionate about Iran. If Podhoretz is vague about whom exactly America is fighting, Ledeen is precise: everything traces back to Tehran.Ledeen has had it in for Iran for quite some time. He's well connected to sources in the country. And is a generally pleasant, entertaining fellow. A bit more from the NYT review:
He says Shiite Iran was largely behind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a man famous for his genocidal hatred of Shiites. He claims that “most” Iraqi insurgents are “under Iranian guidance and/or control,” not just Shiite warlords like Moktada al-Sadr, but Sunni militants as well — the very people who say they are fighting to prevent Iranian domination. In Ledeen’s view, in fact, Sunni-Shiite conflict — the very thing that most observers think is tearing Iraq apart — is largely a mirage, because Iran controls both sides. And Al Qaeda is a mirage too, a mere front for the regime in Tehran. “When you hear ‘Al Qaeda,’ ” Ledeen writes, “it’s probably wise to think ‘Iran.’ ” Not surprisingly, he thinks the mullahs were probably behind 9/11. If this kind of statement sounds oddly familiar, it should. It’s the 2007 equivalent of the claims made in 2002 and 2003 about Iraq. The years between 9/11 and the Iraq war gave rise to a cottage industry — led by Ledeen’s colleague at the American Enterprise Institute, Laurie Mylroie — charging that Saddam Hussein was the hidden mastermind behind a decade of jihadist terror. While refuted by the 9/11 Commission and mainstream terror experts, these claims had a political effect. They offered cover for top Bush administration officials who were predisposed to believe Iraq represented the real terror threat.Mr. Bienart wraps it all up:
One day, prominent conservatives will offer not merely new foreign policies for the post-Bush era, but a new style of foreign policy argument: lighter on character attacks and unsubstantiated generalizations, heavier on careful reasoning and empirical evidence. And when they do, they may find “World War IV” and “The Iranian Time Bomb” instructive, as object lessons in the kinds of books not to write.For more poop on these two pants-wetting paranoiacs, click away. Norman Podhoretz. Michael Ledeen. Remember those names. If This Great Nation of Ours™ finds itself spinning faster & faster out of control, & about to smash itself into the ground, these two will be as responsible as any for an air disaster bigger than anything Osama Bin Laden could ever have imagined. P. S.: Roger L. Simon, CEO of Pajamas Media, has also reviewed Podhoretz' book. We haven't read that review yet, but we'll link to it, and perhaps add more later. Bet it's amusingly stupid & ignorant though.
Monday, September 10, 2007
NDR said Eva Herman, 48, was fired after confirming quotes printed by the newspaper Bild am Sonntag.Here's the cover of her book:
She said "values like the family, children and motherhood, which were promoted in the Third Reich too, were later scrapped by the 68ers".
Sunday, September 9, 2007
He seems to be whining about identity politics. Imagine that, a group complaining about their mistreatment as a group. The nerve! Oddly enough, he does mention the "elderly" (though we're sure he doesn't consider himself so, nor do we consider him so) as deserving of compassion. And a lucky thing for him, because:
In the past, compassion was extended to the elderly, the abused, the innocent and the infirm. But during the last few decades, it has become an entitlement demanded by members of various voting blocs. In short order, it has been transformed into political currency doled out by political hacks trolling for votes.
As some of you may be aware, I am one of the 175 or so older writers involved in a class action lawsuit that accuses the movie studios, the TV networks and a number of Hollywood talent agencies, of engaging in the unlawful practice of ageism.Burt, just shut up & take it. It's their industry, & they can run it any old way they want to. You aren't one of those "liberals, leftists, Socialists, progressives, Maoists, Castroites, Communists, and all the other whack-jobs on the wrong side of history" types you were just bitching about.
But back to compassion:
Frankly, I’m sick and tired of pretending that foreigners -- be they Islamic terrorists or Mexican nationals -- are somehow entitled to constitutional safeguards, not to mention a grab-bag of goodies unavailable to law-abiding American taxpayers.We're not completely sure what that has to do w/ "compassion," but that was where he started. And frankly, we're sick and tired of people taking the position that "constitutional safeguards" (rights, Burt, rights) apply only to American citizens. Which constitutional amendment was that again? If we're not mistaken, the Constitution applies wherever the U. S. government is the sovereign authority, and is not limited to citizens of the United States. Maybe he'll take it a bit further & say that "safeguards" should only apply to American citizens who've not been accused of anything. Or maybe he could take 30 seconds to explain the "grab-bag of goodies unavailable to law-abiding American taxpayers." Is there a hidden super-secret Dep't. of Cool Stuff for Swarthy Furriners that no taxpayer can find out about, & if you did they'd have to kill you? Is there another gift-giving agency for law-abiding work permit-holding legal alien residents who pay taxes? Please tell us. We'll gladly renounce our citizenship if there's an entire grab-bag of goodies in it for us. After all, we may not have any constitutional safeguards left anyway. And what if there's an "Islamic terrorist" who's an American citizen? The courts will be tied up for years w/ that one. (See also: Jose Padilla case.)
Recently, I received an e-mail from a kindred soul. She wrote: “Like a lot of folks, I have a job that requires I pass a random urine test. That’s not a problem. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my tax money to people who don’t have to pass a similar test. Why shouldn’t one have to pass a drug test in order to get a welfare check if I have to pass one in order to earn it for them?"OK, can't blame Burt for the idiocy of his "kindred spirit." Just for publishing her. We can point out that the drug test she has to pass is not government mandated, but employer mandated. For all we know, she may operate heavy equipment. Let's hope it's not a job that requires rigorous logical abilities. She has to piss in a cup in order to support herself, not in order to pay taxes. Perhaps she wants any one receiving government aid to pass a morals test rather than a means test. People living in the decadent, free luxury of public housing can already be evicted for drug convictions. College loan applicants w/ drug convictions are denied federally-backed student loans, by federal law. Not enough. Certainly cameras & microphones in all public housing (even the private housing of aid recipients) would be an excellent idea. One of those dirty welfare bums might say something w/ which "kindred spirit" disagreed. Can't have her precious
And now Burt wraps it all up & brings it on home. Remember, he writes for telebision (& letters to the editor) so logic isn't his strongest suit:
Not very compassionate, I grant you, in these days of unbridled political correctness. But it certainly sounds far more sensible than anything I’ve heard from our elected officials. One can only assume that when this sorry collection of senators and congressmen took their oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution, they all had their fingers crossed.Please, Burt, we're trying very hard to make the connection between what you call "compassion," & urine tests for all, & the Constitution, and the legislative oath sworn w/ "fingers crossed," &...&...Oh, at this point we're just throwing good money after bad.
One other 9 September death: Mao Zedong, 1976.