Exultate Justi

Thursday, July 31, 2003

JOB-BLOGGING

Anybody out there in the Rocky Mountain region (specifically in the Denver or Salt Lake City areas) looking to hire a great accountant (or know of any such openings)? My Father In-Law was laid off a couple months back, and he's a very experienced general ledger accountant with tremendous people and management skills, as well as experience with complex Federal regulations, etc.. Anyway, if anyone's got a lead, fire me an email (jaredkeller74-at-hotmail.com), or post a comment. Thanks!

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 2:06 PM |

NOT A MONKEY! NOOOOOOOOO!

Get your hands off me, you damn, dirty ape!

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 12:08 PM |

MOMENT OF SILENCE, PLEASE

For the passing of Kuno.

(hat tip to John, at Non Scholar)

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 11:31 AM |

THE PRESIDENT'S REMARKS ON HOMOSEXUALITY

Yesterday, during a press conference with the Washington Press Corps, President Bush was asked a question regarding his personal views on the morality of homosexuality (read the AP’s coverage here). His response has set off a bit of a mini-firestorm, especially among the Left, and among libertarians. Many of the more well-known bloggers out there (Reynolds, Sullivan, etc.) are very libertarian in their leanings, and reacted negatively to the President’s remarks. Glenn Reynolds had a collection of links to other blogs, and, as he says the comments under Roger Simon’s blasting of Bush are intriguing, and are an excellent microcosm of the debate taking place in society at-large.

As a conservative, Evangelical Christian, I’m always interested in observing the results of collisions between faith, culture, and politics. Many on the Left (and many libertarians) immediately jump to the “Holy Roller” mud-slinging, as their view of conservative Christianity has been formed by stereotypes within the media, and, in fact, within their own minds. This is what seemed to happen to Roger Simon. To be fair, the same thing often happens in reverse - many of us on the Right would be too quick to stereotype gays and lesbians for lack of specific exposure to such individuals.

I’ve had a bit of a different experience than many in my community of faith, however, and have, through various experiences, had fairly regular contact with both gay and lesbian persons. That having been said, I must express my utter frustration and discouragement with many of the voices in the debate today.

I believe that marriage is viable only as a construct made up of one man, and one woman. I find the arguments of the gay rights movement to be utter untenable in this regard, as they do nothing to address the fundamental issues regarding just what constitutes a marriage. Marriage is far more than just a collection of benefits, despite what the Left would have you believe. That’s why there is a significant difference in the levels of recognition given to marriage and to domestic partnerships. Marriage has traditionally been an institution not ordained exclusively (or even originally) by the State, but rather by the Church. It is a system that has been established by the Church (and even by non-Christian cultures throughout the history of man) to act as a bridge between male and female – an arrangement that allows for completeness and for the protection of both the husband and wife, and of the children that they bear.

As per the libertarian argument, I guess I fail to see how taking a pro-gay marriage position is non-federalist in nature. The institution of marriage (defined as being made up of one man and one woman) is far older than the United States of America, or, for the most part, even the whole of Western Civilization. It would seem to me that, by setting up laws that mandate the recognition and endorsement of a construct that goes against long-held societal, cultural, and religious norms, the government would, in fact, be guilty of not only legislating and regulating behavior; but also of taking the far more extreme step of legislating a belief system. Marriage is not a Constitutional right. Marriage is an arrangement that forms one of the pillars of civilization itself – established by religious communities, and supported by the state. Were the State, then, through its own endorsement, to demand that the religious communities responsible for the establishment of marriage recognize same-sex marriages (or plural marriages, etc.), the State would be, in my opinion, in very real danger of violating the First Amendment – by virtue of the fact that a demand upon the religious communities of America to renounce the moral code by which so many lead their lives would, without exception, inhibit the free exercise of the religious beliefs held by those communities.

What are the options? As the situation is currently posited, homosexual couples do not have the ability to marry, and to have those marriages recognized by the State. As such, it is argued, gay couples are discriminated against, as they are prohibited from obtaining visitation rights, and inheritance privileges that married couples enjoy. The problem, of course, is that each of these benefits is quite open to gay couples in the form of legal contracts, which are, in fact, far more durable than marriage, due to laws permitting no-fault divorce.

If the goal of same-sex marriage legalization is not one of legal equality (which is already available), what is it? Certainly, one of the central goals of the gay rights movement has been the normalization of homosexuality in the eyes of the American public. This goal has, for the most part, been achieved. Archaic laws restricting the practices of consenting adults have been stripped away, and there is largely no stigma attached to homosexuality within the American people at-large.

However, there is still the matter of moral equality. As a Christian, I believe that we are all sinners (as the President said). This means that I, as a married Christian man (who still commits sin), cannot look down upon a gay or lesbian person as somehow “inferior” to me (and yes, according to the Bible, homosexuality is a sin – there’s no getting around that fact, if one is to be at all intellectually honest. Those who deny that fact always intrigue me, with the lengths they’re willing to go to in order to conjure up bizarre interpretations of what the passages in question truly mean – the logical contortions are breathtaking). We are at the same level, morally – left to our own devices, we would both end up in the same place for eternity, and are both in need of a Savior. “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”, Jesus said, when confronted with the woman caught in adultery. Once a sinner accepts Christ, no matter his/her sin, he/she is washed clean. This philosophy (often referred to as "hate the sin, love the sinner") does not imply that we, as human beings, are forbidden from taking a moral stance of any kind, or, in fact, from calling a sin a sin. Rather it simply states that we are to love and show kindness, regardless of the person in question, as we are no better than anyone else without Christ. With Christ, we are still no better, but we have been cleansed from our sin in God's eyes (hence the bumperstickerism, "Christians aren't perfect - just forgiven" Though you know how I feel about bumper stickers...). Once again, this admonition does NOT preclude judgement of behavior. Tolerance is not the same thing as endorsement; and while it's certainly within the purview of the Federal govnernment to mandate tolerance of behaviors that may or may not be objectionable, the same cannot be said of a government mandate regarding the endorsement of such behavior.

The President’s remarks were wholly consistent with his deeply held beliefs, and, while many on the Left see their opposition to his position as “righteous indignation”, I must confess that I am more inclined to see it another way. The prospect of the forced moral normalization of any behavior within the hearts of the American public is, to me, a most unpleasant one.

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 11:16 AM |

MYONGWATCH!

And now, without further adieu, let's check in with Everyone's Favorite Crack-Smokin' Commie™, Kim Myong-Chol!

From here on out, my MYONGWATCH! posts will begin with a link to one of Myong's glorious essays. YOU READ NOW! This week's winner is North Korea Makes Public Threat to Blow Up US Mainland. It's a short piece, but here's a brief snippet:

The threat came on December 3 in a statement issued by Vice Defense Secretary Jong Chong Ryol. The North Korean defense official declared that the Korean People's Army is prepared to "blow up American soil entirely" and went the length of saying that "this planet would cease to exist without Korea."

Cheery, cheery people, those NorComs...

During a March, 2003 interview shown on Austrailia's long running current affairs program 60 Minutes (no, not the one with Andy Rooney), The Myong-Man had some rather, awkward exchanges with interviewer Tara Brown...

TARA BROWN: This is the North. This is South Korea. The more you see and hear, the more difficult it is to believe that they are the same people. Sometimes the same families, divided by politics and barbed wire.

KIM MYONG CHOL: North Koreans are hungry wolves.

TARA BROWN: Hungry?

KIM MYONG CHOL: Wolf. South Korea rich, (Mmmmm...delicious...) fat dog.

TARA BROWN: Kim Myong Chol is the face of North Korea in the West, recognised as their unofficial spokesman.

He continued rambling:

TARA BROWN: Do you understand why America doesn't want to deal with North Korea?

KIM MYONG CHOL: They are afraid of us.

TARA BROWN: So it's about fear? It's not because they don't want to sit down with a dictator who is a liar and a cheat?

KIM MYONG CHOL: No, they are afraid of talking with North Korea. North Korea is talking justice and truth. They are talking injustice, doing injustice. They are not confident.

Ahh yes...North Korea, well-known land of justice and truth.

Somehow, Tara Brown gets a bit of well-placed sarcasm over the Myongster's head...

TARA BROWN: If you're North Korean, these are some of the things you would know about your "Dear Leader". Kim Jong Il is a genius. As a university student, he taught the teachers (ed. - and then had them shot, no doubt). He's musically gifted, writing six operas in two years and on the sports field, he's unbeatable. Now, there's nothing wrong with a little bit of exaggeration, but Kim Jong Il has his finger on the button.

What sort of a man is Kim Jong Il, in your opinion?

Myong-O-Rama gamefully responds:

KIM MYONG CHOL: He's a very … I'd say he's a canny fox. Very calculating.

TARA BROWN: Cunning fox?

KIM MYONG CHOL: Yes.

TARA BROWN: Very calculating.

KIM MYONG CHOL: Yeah.

TARA BROWN: He's not evil?

KIM MYONG CHOL: Oh, he's not evil man.

Let that last one sink in a bit...

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Some omitted quotes

South Koreas lazy dogs! Lazy, delicious dogs. Do you have napkin?

Oh yeah...forgot. Kim Jong-Il only have one weakness - kryptonite. If Bush try to use on Kim-Jong, though, Kim-Jong unleash Tae Kwon Tang Soo Hap Ki Do on his Texan butt. He a baaaaaad man!

Do you have animal shelter nearby?

Here puppy! Here, fat and tasty puppy! Come to Myong!

Boy...you see Gigli yet? Talk about weapon of mass destruction. Phew! That some BAD kimchee. They need execute Martin Brest. Kim Jong got nothing on him!

You read about Al Gore yesterday? Maybe he enter race, huh? Gore would do very well in North Korea. He could feed entire village for three month!

Along those line, entire country a bit down right now. Michael Moore turned down invitation to open up Pyongyang Film Festival. Maybe we shouldn't have invited him to stay for dinner. We didn't think he that smart...

This interview over. I hungry, and Glenn Reynolds say he leave me piece of puppy paw pie in freezer.

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 9:52 AM |

THIS WEEK's WATCHER WINNERS

Our first week at the Watcher's Council has finished, and everyone submitted some great blog entries. I know I had a hard time picking just one from each category (Council-written links, and external links).

The Council-written winner this week was none other than the blog you're now reading! Woo-hoo (hey, even I get lucky every now and then, right? Wait, that didn't sound right...)!

My kind fellow-members voted for my account of the "Nuclear Nun" foolishness, You Can't Hug Your Children With Nuclear Arms. Painful, painful stuff.

The external link winner of the week was a terrific interview with editorial cartoonists Cox & Forkum, done by Dean Esmay. It's a must-read.

To view the voting results in their entirety, check out Watcher of Weasels.

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 9:12 AM |

Wednesday, July 30, 2003

THE TYRANNY OF "BIG MOO"

Here's a drive-by blogging -

I love Dave Barry's stuff. Always have. Ever since I read his absolutely brilliant piece on Tony Robbins and the world of motivational speakers (reprinted here), I've never missed a column. Last weekend's was another classic, combining Cheez-Its, vegans, and "Big Moo." Read.

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 2:05 PM |

R.I.P., P.A.M

The Policy Analysis Market “scandal” now seems, unfortunately, to have resulted in the Pentagon’s burial of the project. This is truly a shame, as the intelligence community is in dire need of an injection of innovation and creativity – two things that this experiment would likely have provided.

The intelligence world is, for the most part, stuck in a series of heuristics and constraints that have, to some degree, limited its effectiveness in predicting the outcomes of current events – especially the traumatic. The central debate taking place within the world of analysis – intuition vs. analytic process – is, to some degree, just a microcosm of the larger issues at hand within the world of intelligence. All of the major intelligence agencies - CIA, NSA, DIA, etc. – have experienced countless internal struggles over their roles within the greater intelligence community, and the methodologies that they should use to achieve the missions attached to those roles. Unfortunately, due to the nature of the work done within these agencies, they tend to be inherently insular, and, in some ways, incestuous in their dealings with intelligence data. All-too-often, these agencies tend to develop tunnel vision regarding their particular area of focus. This tendency has, undoubtedly led to intelligence failures through the years, that might have been avoided if a different perspective might have been brought to bear on the data at hand.

In this way, the Policy Analysis Market – the brainchild of George Mason University economics professor Robin Hanson – might have served an indescribably valuable purpose. An outsider’s view on intelligence matters might have been successful in overcoming one of the unfortunate side-effects of expertise – a too-narrow focus, and a loss of “the big picture (as described in this piece from the CIA’s Center for Studies in Intelligence)". Futures markets not unlike the PAM have been used in other areas of national interest for quite some time now (a great discussion of both the PAM, and other similar efforts may be found here), and have allowed for the flourishing of creativity and revolution in thought. Such a revolution is much-needed within the intelligence community, and it’s too bad that this promising effort has been strangled in its crib.

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 10:57 AM |

RELATIVELY LIGHT POSTING DAY

I've got much work to do at the office, but tune back in tomorrow for another account of the adventures of Everyone's Favorite Crack-Smokin' Commie™, Kim Myong-Chol, as MYONGWATCH! makes its regular Thursday appearance.

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 9:43 AM |

THE QUALITY PROGRAMS ON FOX

Well, I suppose it had to come to this sooner or later, didn't it?

101 Things Removed From The Human Body

Lord, ha' mercy!

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 9:29 AM |

NEW (OLD) BLOG IN TOWN

My good friend John has re-started his blog. Check it out.

John's a terrific guy, and is easily one of the smartest folks with whom I've had the pleasure of being associated. His site should be well worth a blogroll!

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 9:19 AM |

Tuesday, July 29, 2003

IRAQ AND THE LARGER WAR ON TERROR

The StratFor Weekly for this week (as was the case for the previous six) focuses on Iraq. In this case, however, the piece does not deal with the day-to-day tactical maters at hand in the nation, but rather focuses on the potential ramifications of success or failure in Iraq, as well as on the significance of the deaths of Uday and Qusay Hussein to the larger insurgency.

Although the piece tends to take StratFor's typically relatively pessimistic stance on several issues (with which I would disagree a bit), they present an extremely well-reasoned case for a continued, and even intensified focus on Iraq, and therefore, on the entire region. Some excerpts -

The Stratfor Weekly is supposed to focus on the most important geopolitical issue of the week. The last six have been about Iraq; this will make the seventh. Certainly, there are a great many things happening in the world. However, our apparent obsession with Iraq reflects our conviction that Iraq, right now, is the pivot of the international geopolitical system. A global war is under way between the United States and militant Islam. That war is reshaping the international system. As with the Cold War or World War II, a host of relationships in the international system are aligning themselves along the axis defined by the war. The Iraqi campaign is a subset of that global war; however, it is a critical subset because the outcome of that campaign will decisively shape the U.S.-Islamist conflict -- which in turn will shape the international system.

As has been stated in many other forums, ultimate success in the war in Iraq is absolutely crucial to the further stabilization (and, though it would seem contradictory on its surface, the revolutionization) of the entire region. Were we to leave the job undone, or to avoid carrying it through to its necessary conclusion, the results would be disastrous, with a newly emboldened group of Islamists ready to step forward into the gaps left by the Taliban, and by the Ba'athists in Iraq.

Another excerpt:

U.S. forces must, at the very least, achieve two objectives. First, the guerrilla war must be contained at the current level; second, there must not, under any circumstances, be a Shiite rising in the south. An expanded guerrilla war in the north and a rising in the south would move the U.S. situation to the worst-case scenario.

Preventing this requires political rather than military leadership. Washington must make core decisions about the future of U.S. relations with Shiites in general and with Iran in particular. Just as Nixon split the communist bloc by forming an alliance with Mao, so too does the United States see the need to divide the Islamic world, which it cannot face as a single bloc. Complex and sophisticated political maneuvering is needed to split the Islamic world and, more immediately, to co-opt Muslims in Iraq. If the United States can't achieve this, it must fight a war on all fronts simultaneously -- hardly an ideal situation, and possibly not winnable. Therefore, containing the Shiites in Iraq at an affordable price represents not only a key to Iraq, but to the entire war.

This is an intriguing, and difficult prospect. Although there are natural point of division within the Islamic world (i.e., Sunnis v. Shiites, etc.), it will be no small acheivement if will are able to pit them against one another in such a way as to benefit the West, and to do so without utterly destroying any chance for true political and cultural reform in the region. Though our chief goal must always remain the physical protection of the United States and our allies, we should not abandon the longer-term goal of introducing democratic principles into the region. If we are unable to bring about political reform, we will be forced to rely upon the threat of overwhelming retribution alone as the motivating force for peaceful coexistence. Granted, this approach worked with the Soviet Union, and, may very well be our best and, in fact, ONLY real option in this case, as well. However, I don't know that we need to abandon all optimism just yet.

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 10:19 AM |

Monday, July 28, 2003

GREAT INTERVIEW WITH TANCREDO

Right Wing News has a great interview with Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo. It's all over the blogosphere, but hey...the guy's from my district, and I'm proud to have voted for him. Read the whole thing.

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 5:39 PM |

PETITION O' THE DAY!

Ian has annoyed the wrong people.

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 4:38 PM |

YOU CAN'T HUG YOUR CHILDREN WITH NUCLEAR ARMS

Says it all, doesn't it?

For those of you not fortunate enough to live in Colorado (or the surrounding region), this will all be new info. For the rest? We've seen it all before, but never at this level of ickiness.

I'm referring to the relatively recent hysteria over three Dominican nuns - Sisters Ardeth Platte, Carol Gilbert, and Jackie Hudson - who were arrested, charged, convicted, and, over the past couple of weeks, sentenced to jail for breaking onto the grounds of a Minuteman III missile silo (of which there are still quite a few scattered across the plains of Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming), banging on the silo doors with hammers, and writing what are certain to have been pithy messages in their own blood on said doors.

The reliable Lefty enclaves in Denver and Boulder (in virtual hibernation sine the nuke-crazy day sof the Reagan Administration) have gone ape poopy over the possibilities for meaningless and annoying slogan shouting, paper mache puppet (and missile!) construction, and nausea-inducing street pseudo-theater presented by this ignominious deed (the arrests...not the "protest").

Some of the "highlights" of the intensely painful Denver Post article linked above:

"It was one of the most unjust sentences of our time," said protester David Silver, a Boulder physician. "They were clearly involved in a symbolic action." - apparently, no one has informed the good Dr. Silver that the US Criminal Code doesn't make exceptions for "symbolic actions"...

Other nun supporters included Magdalena "Mag" Seaman, 77, a member of the Raging Grannies of Denver who traveled to the northeastern plains with seven members of her group.

"The sisters are trying to save the Earth for the rest of us," Seaman said. - personally, I prefer the "Peace Through Strength" method of Earth-saving, but that's just me, I suppose...

Organizers of the protest were surprised to see so many people travel to Weld County to support the movement.

"I'm amazed at the turnout," said Cynda Collins Arsenault, a member of a group called Code Pink Colorado.

Arsenault said she thinks the media hype over the arrests and sentencing of the nuns drew the huge crowds to the silo areas Saturday. - Ah yes...49 missile silos, "hundreds" of protestors. Even if there were 500 (which there weren't), that's 10 per silo. Woo-hoo. That's stickin' it to the Man.

For Greg and Kymm Ciccin of Golden and their 3 1/2-year-old daughter, Mekayla, the event was a family experience.

"This is not her first protest, and it's not going to be her last," Kymm Ciccin said. - Rule #1 - don't trust anyone who spells "Kim" K-y-m-m. Rule #2 - forced sterilization is not without its benefits...(kidding!)

Ahhh, yes. This whole thing takes me back to my childhood in the 80s, when the evening news always seemed to bring fresh footage of ninnies like this dressing up in hazmat suits, and lying down in front of the Rocky Flats plant (often accompanied by Martin Sheen!), or spouting off with migraine-inducing chants like the one from the headline above (and seen on a banner at one of this weekend's "mass" protests!).

Come on, you insufferable pinkos! Get some new material! Live in the now! GAH!

Morons. All of them, morons...in my state. Sigh...

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 4:31 PM |

MEMPHIS BELLE RAFFLE

If you're like me (the Peanut Gallery will remain SILENT!), you love military aviation (granted, you also love The Simpsons, John Locke, and blasting clay pigeons, but that's another matter altogether). If so, you'll want to check out a great little online store I've been patronizing for awhile now. It's called AV8RStuff.com, and it carries a VAST selection of patches, clothing, and miscellaneous stuff from American military squadrons from all branches and missions. Though I'm a t-shirt guy, myself, they have an ENORMOUS selection of patches - from both active, and disestablished squadrons.

Right now, Whitey (William White - he's a great guy, and a military aviator) is holding a raffle (I believe it's $10 a ticket) for a hand-painted A-2 leather flight jacket featuring the nose art of the Memphis Belle - one of the most storied B-17s of the Second World War. You can see a similar (not as nice) jacket, and read the story of the Belle here.

Email Whitey, and let him know that you'd like more info about the raffle!

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 3:52 PM |

SHOULDN'T IT BE CALLED THE "REALLY, REALLY MILITARIZED" ZONE?

The Heritage Foundation's Peter Brookes shows some good insight regarding a US presence on the Korean Peninsula in the latest of a series of editorials he's written for The New York Post.

From the piece:

The dramatic changes in warfare and technology provide opportunities to strengthen the U.S.-South Korean alliance. New capabilities in long-range, high-precision munitions, intelligence and information systems, and joint operations demonstrated in Afghanistan and Iraq should be incorporated into the defense of South Korea. It also seems appropriate to look at defense cost- and burden-sharing (Korea should do more on both accounts) and the location of U.S. forces on the peninsula in light of these new capabilities.

The U.S. will, of course, do its part to enhance the partnership. According to the Pentagon, Washington will make an $11 billion investment in some 150 military capabilities over the next four years that will enhance American war-fighting on the peninsula, including Patriot PAC-3 surface-to-air missiles (of Gulf War I/II fame), the Army's new, highly mobile Stryker brigade and the Navy's High Speed Vessel.

The U.S.-South Korean alliance is a partnership forged in time, blood and valor. It is strengthened by the shared common values of freedom, democracy and open markets and by the millions of Koreans who have come to America's shores as immigrants. It is appropriate for Seoul and Washington to upgrade their defense relationship to ensure that it is capable of meeting the increasing security challenges posed by Pyongyang.

As Yogi Berra said, "It ain't over till it's over."

Like it or not, we're there to stay. The region is far too strategically important to be left at the "mercy" of Kim Jong Il's brutish and backward regime, and we're the only ones up to the job. It's an ugly job, and potentially, a very deadly job...but it's ours. We have no other options left.

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 3:37 PM |

THESE DON"T COUNT

Naturally, none of these weapons will make a dent in the Left's monolith of Iraqi innanity, but it's a good find, nonetheless. They're off the streets, and away from the Fedayeen (or the pseudo-Fedayeen)...

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 3:31 PM |

Bloody 'ell!

DAI has a nice piece on the recent study of crime rates in London. Good stuff. My, how they do love to protect their burglars n' muggers there, don't they?

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 3:27 PM |

IN A SAD TURN OF EVENTS

I'll be attending a memorial service this morning, so I won't be able to post much until this afternoon/evening. See you a bit later in the day.

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 9:24 AM |

Friday, July 25, 2003

THE WATCHER'S COUNCIL

Exultate Justi is proud to announce that we've been selected as one of the members of The Watcher's Council. Also included are two must-read blogs, Aaron's Rantblog, and, of course, the founding member, Watcher of Weasels. Gotta get me one o' them slick graphics like Aaron's got!

More to come!

FYI - here are the rules and regulations pertaining to The Council.

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 2:22 PM |

PETITION O' THE DAY!

Apparently, the FuTur3 will be both annoying, and confusing. Huzzah.

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 2:00 PM |

FRANCE SURRENDERS TO TEXAS HIGH SCHOOL

(hat tip Jheka, in the LGF comments section)

Yeah, yeah, I know...but I haven't seen a good "France surrenders" satire in awhile (the world just isn't the same without SatireWire), and this is a good'un.

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 1:56 PM |

NOW IF WE COULD JUST CONVINCE THE AMERICAN LEFT...

(hat tip InstaPundit)

The Telegraph's Jonathan Foreman, an "embedded" reporter with American troops in Iraq, offers an uplifting appraisal of the quality of our troops. Specifically, he addresses the grumblings about the necessity of Uday & Qusay's deaths (vs. their capture). Read the whole thing. Terrific stuff.

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 11:08 AM |

THE DAY OF RECKONING APPROACHES...

The US continues to capitalize on its recent change in strategy (detailed at numerous other blogs) toward the elimination of the Ba'athist regime in Iraq, and, as has been said frequently, the noose continues to tighten.

The entire character of this ongoing conflict would change markedly were we to find, and apprehend or kill Saddam Hussein. This event (which I firmly believe will happen quite soon) will have massive ramifications on both combat operations in Iraq, and on the political environment in the United States.

The chief “weapon” of the Left currently being utilized against the Administration is to construct Ex Nihilo the idea that Iraq is rapidly becoming another Vietnam, and that the entire mission is at risk of failure (this tactic, it would seem to me, is quite lacking in common sense, as, whether or not one is satisfied with our performance in the days following the cessation of major combat operations, there is no denying the success of the mission. Hussein is, at a minimum, deposed, and his brutish sons dead). The refrain heard from much of the Left is that, even if one claims that we’ve won the war, we run a tremendous risk of losing the war. In the event of Saddam Hussein’s apprehension, the rhetorical arrows of the Left will vanish from their quiver, leaving them to internal sniping, and a degree of nitpicking (when dealing with the performance of the Bush Administration in the War on Terror) that can only be seen as unseemly, and, to some degree, delusional.

As Bill Kristol noted yesterday in a piece for The Washington Post, the Democrats (specifically Dick Gephardt, in this case) are rapidly digging holes for themselves through some fairly stupefying statements. During a major foreign policy speech given on July 22, Gephardt had this to say regarding the state of our national security –

George Bush has left us less safe and less secure than we were four years ago.

Kristol’s response to this asinine assertion is spot-on:

Is this the case? Were we safer and more secure when Osama bin Laden was unimpeded in assembling his terror network in Afghanistan? When Pakistan was colluding with the Taliban, and Saudi Arabia with al Qaeda? When Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq? When demonstrations by an incipient democratic opposition in Iran had been crushed with nary a peep from the U.S. government? When we were unaware that North Korea, still receiving U.S. food aid, had covertly started a second nuclear program? When our defense budget and our intelligence services were continuing to drift downward in capacity in a post-Cold War world?
Are we not even a little safer now that the Taliban and Hussein are gone, many al Qaeda operatives have been captured or killed, governments such as Pakistan's and Saudi Arabia's are at least partly hampering al Qaeda's efforts instead of blithely colluding with them, the opposition in Iran is stronger, our defense and intelligence budgets are up and, for that matter, Milosevic is gone and the Balkans are at peace (to mention something for which the Clinton administration deserves credit but that had not happened by July 1999)?

In a sense, it is disturbing and disheartening to see the depths to which the Left has sunken on this issue. Admittedly, as a conservative, I feel some degree of glee in watching this mass act of seppuku, committed upon the altar of bizarrely convoluted political strategery. On the other hand, we have now come to the place in the world of American politics where the opposition is no longer loyal, and is certainly no longer rational. As such, they lose their ability to spark and focus honest debate where it might be effective in sharpening ill-defined policies.

Combined with the efforts of other such luminaries as the Left’s current darling, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean (who has said that he’s not sure if the Iraqi people are better off now than they were under Hussein), and crazy Charlie Rangel, who has, for all intents and purposes accused the troops responsible for the raid that resulted in the deaths of Uday and Qusay Hussein of murder, the Left continues to come ever more unhinged, and, by default, has become less-than qualified to speak to matters of national security.

The ground being staked out by the Democratic Party is incredibly dangerous – and not merely for the Party itself. They have painted themselves into a corner such that, one must honestly consider whether or not they would see the death or capture of Saddam Hussein as a good thing. The prospect of even a minute's hesitation by members of the Democratic presidential "team" is truly a frightening thing..

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 11:04 AM |

Thursday, July 24, 2003

LET THE SPINNING BEGIN

And so it begins...

The first reports dealing with missed opportunities in regard to the handling of intelligence in the days, weeks, months, and years leading up to the attacks of September 11 have surfaced, and already, the tomfoolery has gone into full swing.

Former chairman of the Senate's Select Committe on Intelligence, and resident crank, Sen. Bob Graham of Florida, had the following scintillating observation of the entire affair:

The attacks of Sept. 11 could have been prevented if the right combination of skill, cooperation, creativity and some good luck had been brought to task.

For those of you in the balcony, what he just said was this:

"If everything had gone exactly right, and if the bad guys weren't trying to hide anything from us, and maybe, if we had some of those psychics from The Weekly World News on our side, we might conceivably have possibly considered the off chance that we might have prevented this particular attack. Granted, we certainly would have opened ourselves up to a different threat, as every man, woman, child, dog, cat, and hamster on the Government payroll would had to have been fully committed to this operation, but still..."

Once again, intelligence is ALWAYS a game of uncertainties, of best guesses, and of large portions of luck - both good and bad. Am I saying that we shouldn't be taking a look at the failures of our intel system? Of course not. Our intel system is imperfect - there's WAY too much interagency competition, and too little info sharing, but that problem has existed for a whole heck of a lot longer than the CIA (Bill Donovan wasn't exactly forthcoming with others in the intel community either...). There is work being done to bring more accuracy, process, and logic to the realm of intel analysis, but until the public stops imagining an Ian Fleming world full of dashing field agents and daring-do, and wakes up to the reality of the situation - that we have far more intel data than we can presently analyze - there will be little real pressure put on our elected officials to make the types of changes that will bring about real benefits, rather than just neato photo opportunities.

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 10:37 PM |

MYONGWATCH!

It's time once again for a briefing on the world of Everyone's Favorite Crack-Smokin' Commie, Kim Myong-Chol!

Kim Myong-Chol is the author of such insightful essays as N. Korea Makes Public Threat to Blow Up US Mainland, N. Korea Ready to Take Their Bloody Revenge on the Americans, and, let's not forget that literary classic, US Will End Up In Shotgun Marriage With DPRK. In the "Shotgun Marriage" piece, Kim Myong includes the following dazzler of a statement:

Most Americans deny that they are in love with the North Korean regime of Kim Jong Il. However, sooner or later Uncle Sam will find himself left with no other option than to accept a shot-gun marriage with the North Korean girl and eventually desert his long-standing South Korean mistress. Once married, the American man will be totally fascinated by the feudalisticly loyal, sexy North Korean wife. No additional extramarital relationships will be tolerated.

Wow. I mean, really...wow. The rest of the piece is similarly fascinating and, um, challenging.

Kim Myong-Chol is the Executive Director of the ever-so-aptly named Center for Korean-American Peace, which seems to exist solely to publish pieces with titles like "DPRK - You Know You Want Us, Capitalist Pig-Dogs", or "Give Us The Reactors, Or Seoul Gets It - But We're Not A Rogue State!" Be warned, though...a visit to The Center's site may very well induce seizures...or fits of uncontrollable laughter resembling seizures.

Here are some more excerpts from Kim Myong-Chol's recent interview with Australia's ABC.:

The executive director of the Centre for Korean-American Peace, Kim Myong-Chol, says if US ships interdict North Korean vessels, North Korea will retaliate with a nuclear missile attack on major cities such as New York and Washington.

Mr Myong-Chol has told the ABC's Lateline program that if Australia is part of the interdiction, it could also be attacked.

"If Australia becomes part of American manipulation against North Korea, North Korea reserves the right to strike back on Australia - that is official North Korean position," he said.

He added: "North Korea can reach Australian mainland anytime. Unfortunately, Australia has no capacity to reach North Korea."

Mr Myong-Chol has warned Prime Minister John Howard to carefully consider his approach to the North Korean issue.

"The North Korean message is to be careful in talking," he said. "Otherwise, harm to Australia."

__________________________________________

Some insightful comments that were, unfortunately edited from the interview

These comments provide some insight into Kim Myong-Chol's strange hatred for The Land Down Under...

"What is it with that place? I mean, everything there can kill you, right? They have salt-water crocodile, great white shark, big nasty snake, box jellyfish! I mean, come on...we nuke that place, we take out most of dealy creature in world. We doing you a favor!"

"Elle MacPherson say she not go out with me back in '89. I devastated."

"They bring this on selves! Did you see Crocodile Dundee III?!"

"It has come to our attention that Australian Government funding big research project to arm wombats with MIRV capability. This cannot stand."

"Say, what you think about Ben and Jen? What she see in him? He have head like a brick! I should know, right?"

"Want to know real reason why we building nukes? Kim Jong-Il BIG fan of Justin Timberlake. RIAA not so quick to come after guy with nukes, you know? He ALWAYS on Kazaa."

"Why the US go after Iraq? Sure, Hussein crazy, but he small time. Kim Jong-Il so crazy he have three nukes targeted on Ashton Kutcher alone! That how crazy he is!"

"Oh, he also targeting Michael Savage. Whole 'Red Diaper Doper Baby' comment very much rub Kim Jong-Il wrong way."

"What this word 'Crikey' mean? All the time, it's 'crikey'-this, and 'by-crikey'-that. So annoying!"

"Yeah, that's right...I'm looking at you, too, Japan. Your prime minister hair look even funnier than Kim Jong's! Ha! We have Ghidra now, too, so you watch out!"

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 9:35 AM |

Wednesday, July 23, 2003

NOT SURE WHAT THIS MEANS, BUT...

You are Optimus Prime!

Vast, red and ready to turn into a lorry at the slightest provocation, you are a robot to be reckoned with. Although sickeningly noble, you just can't resist a good interplanetary war, especially when Orson Welles is involved. You have friends who can shoot tapes from their chests. Tapes that turn into panthers. And other friends who are dinosaurs. Dinosaurs who jump out of planes. Will you have my children?

Which Colossal Death Robot Are You?

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 2:33 PM |

Coming Tomorrow, an all-new MYONGWATCH!

Featuring Everyone's Favorite Crack-Smokin' Commie, Kim Myong-Chol!

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 1:35 PM |

PETITION O' THE DAY!

Today's PETITION O" THE DAY! is truly worthy. By signing, you, too, can let the world know that yes, indeed, JOHN KERRY SUCKS!

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 1:31 PM |

TRUTH AS A CONSTRUCT

In a stunningly good piece, Randy Barnett (via Glenn Reynolds) discussus truth vis-a-vis the American Left. The piece includes this remarkable passage:

Since the 2000 election, however, I have begun to realize for the first time that the Left really and truly lives in a socially constructed world — a world where “truth” is their own construction. In their world:

Al Gore was elected president. Bush was selected. The Supreme Court “decided the election” (rather than reversed a rogue Southern state Supreme Court and restore the rulings of local, mainly democratic, election officials). Bush is in the pocket of the oil companies. Dick Cheney really runs the country. Bush’s energy plan would destroy the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

I could go on and on. These are not disagreements about “values” or ends, but disagreements about facts. Once you notice this phenomenon, you see it everywhere. Now the Left is lying about Bush to make him appear to be a liar because they cannot catch him in any actual lies. The question is whether they believe what they are saying. Some do, some may not, but millions certainly believe what they are hearing.

Utterly brilliant, and very important. Read it.

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 1:29 PM |

GOT 'EM

As we learn more about the raid in which Uday and Qusay Hussein (now referred to as "The Brothers Grim") met their end, we've already begun to hear the voices from the back of the room - "How convenient! Bush is under fire so they cook this thing up to distract the people from the TRUTH!" or the similar "Why should we believe this? They've told us about stuff like this before!".

Yesterday, I mentioned the fact that we seemed to have gotten Uday and Qusay to a guy with whom I worked, prompting him to respond that Bush had lied about the reason for going, so he'd believe it when he saw it. Not an untypical response among many in the world, and far too many among the American public, I'm afraid.

I remain of the opinion that the vast ajority of Americans remain supportive of the President, and of our mission in Iraq. However, there is a growing percentage of people who only get their news from folks like ABC and The New York Times, and accordingly, have gained an impression of events in Iraq that is altogether different from that which is held by the people actually on the ground over there. The most infuriating aspect of this entire phenomenon is that the information isn't a secret. As they say on The X-Files (never did watch that show, but hey...), "The truth is out there".

It only takes an elementary understanding of the web (specifically search engines like Google) to discover some pretty detailed (and very damning) evidence concerning Saddam's record of torture, murder, and pursuit of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. To allow oneself to remain ignorant of readily available information, simply because it might counter a viewpoint that appeals to you, is the height of arrogance, and is a complete refusal of one's responsibility as an American citizen.

What on earth does it say about the desperation of the Left, when wannabe Presidential candidates bloviate about non-issues, while ignoring the good that's been done in Iraq? One can only be left with the impression that these folks truly and deeply desire to see the US fail completely in its mission - if only to score political points, and to further their own careers. This, of course, is an accusation that has been flying about for the past several months, as, one-by-one, the seemingly hundreds of Democratic candidates for the Presidency have come forward to take shots at the Bush Administration, and its policies in the Middle East.

However, as the rest of the nation celebrated the news of the death of Hussein's butcher-offspring, the Left continues its clarion call of doom, gloom, and petty sniping. They do so, in some cases, even at the risk of appearing almost comically contradictory. John Kerry, now one of the President's most strident critics, voted for the Iraqi use of force resolution a matter of months ago, and, in 1997, was described by The Washington Times as

calling for a 'strong' military attack in response to the Iraqi leader's 'horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction.'

The piece continues -

As the senator points out, military might is the only language Saddam knows — and fears. 'Saddam Hussein should pay a grave price, in a currency that he understands and values, for his unacceptable behavior,' says Mr. Kerry. 'This should not be a strike consisting only of a handful of cruise missiles hitting isolated targets primarily of presumed symbolic value. But how long this military action might continue and how it may escalate ... and how extensive it would reach are for the [White House National] Security Council and our allies to know and for Saddam Hussein to find out!'

You know the Democrats are WAY out in left field on an issue when Bill Clinton steps forward to speak up for Bush. I think that's one of the signs of the apocalypse...

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 1:22 PM |

Tuesday, July 22, 2003

IF YOU CAN STIFLE THE BILE RISING IN YOUR THROAT...

Try and get through this marvelous profile of the REAL Michael Moore, as seen through the eyes of City Journal writer, Kay Hymowitz.

(hat tip to The Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs' blog, No Left Turns, and to my buddy John, who's an Ashland alum)

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 4:41 PM |

THE SUN IS BREAKING THROUGH...

Andrew Sullivan posts a letter from Iraq. GREAT stuff.

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 3:54 PM |

UDAY and QUSAY? SAY IT AIN'T SO!

It looks like Saddam's nutjob sons may have bought the farm (and NOT the farm on which Uday used to store millions of incriminating documents, either!). It should be interesting to see what effect this has on the ongoing streetfighting...

UPDATE

It's true! Nice work, boys. Keep it up, and know that we're all proud of you, and that you've lifted an evil from a nation too-long oppressed. Your deeds won't be forgotten, despite the best efforts of some to do so...

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 11:25 AM |

PETITION O' THE DAY!

You must act now. Make Cup O' Noodles the Naitonal food of the United States. It has, after all, kept millions of college students alive. Oh, wait...

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 11:08 AM |

Monday, July 21, 2003

LIGHT POSTING DAY

Well, y'all, it's going to be that kind of day. I've got a major project to finish up at work, and will have to leave early, as my wife and I will be travelling to the Hinterlands (well, the Boulder area, actually) this afternoon to have our first meeting with the birth mother whose baby we'll be adopting. Looking forward to it, but also very nervous.

I'll squeeze in a PETITION O' THE DAY! before I leave, and then tonight, I'll be posting the next section of my Iraqi nuke program research paper.

Later this week, I'll be bringing you another MYONGWATCH!, so stay tuned...

Update

Too busy for tonight...sorry. More tomorrow.

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 9:43 AM |

Friday, July 18, 2003

OUTTA HERE FOR THE WEEKEND

With parenthood rapidly approaching, my lovely bride and I will be running up to the mountains for a couple of days R&R. Have a great weekend, and we'll see you on Monday.

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 11:54 PM |

MORAL MYOPIA

Allow me to preface this passage by, once again, declaring my utter, and complete disdain for the Presidency and character of William Jefferson Clinton. I voted against him (the first election in which I was old enough to vote was 1992 - I made the cut by a week!), and generally speaking, wished for the treacherous flying monkeys of Oz to be visited upon him.

Having said that, he got a few things right (though what he did after reaching the right conclusion was almost always a cluster). Included in this (rather short) list, is his belief in the need for action against Saddam Hussein. Lost in the current nonsense is the fact that this belief (that Hussein had reconstitued his WMD programs) is not new, is not radical, and is not merely the groundless assertion of a bloodthirsty sixgun-packin' cowboy from Texas (or a crisp, liberal English Prime Minister). There are scads of intelligence going back for years detailing the efforts of the Ba'athist regime to construct a nuclear weapon, and, unfortunately, Saddam's own people can provide all of the confirmation we need regarding his stocks of chemical weaponry. In short, there IS no controversy to be found, if one is intellictually honest. Hussein DID pose a serious threat, and he DID attempt to reconstitute his WMD programs. To deny this fact is to relegate oneself to the dustbin of moral turpitude and intellectual blindness. Moreover, for members (or defenders) of the Clinton Administration to come forward with criticism of President Bush's actions is an utterly laughable (and damnable) turn of events. They, by their own words, have braided more than enough rope by which to hang themselves. The Clinton quotes aren't bits of information that have not yet been rehashed...it's out there, but, for some reason, the Left has failed to take heed of that info. I wonder why that is...

Some excerpts from President Clinton's comments on Iraq (from January 17, 1998 - the entire speech may be found here) -

Those who have questioned the United States in this moment, I would argue, are living only in the moment. They have neither remembered the past nor imagined the future.

So first, let's just take a step back and consider why meeting the threat posed by Saddam Hussein is important to our security in the new era we are entering.

(in regard to the inspections process, to which he ascribes far too much credibility)

Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?

Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.

And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too.

Regarding the need for action -

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be fair, President Clinton placed a great deal of responsibility on the shoulders of the UN inspections system. He, unlike President Bush, argued that the inspections were the central issue at hand, and that WMD were merely the subtext that required those inspections. However, given what we know about the IAEA and UNSCOM inspections process, how on earth can it be argued that a continuation of these programs would have brought about any results?

For a second example, I'd like to reference President Clinton's speech to the nation on the night of his airstrikes on Iraq, given December 16, 1998. The transcript for the speech can be found here.

From the speech -

The international community had good reason to set this requirement (for rigorous inspections). Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

He continued,

In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.

Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

He ented his speech with the following, rather "Bushian" passage -

In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So I guess all of this means that somehow, Bush lied to Clinton, too?

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 1:34 PM |

PETITION O' THE DAY!

Stupid liberal media! First they covered up the proof of Nessie's existence, now, they want to shut down the live, Loch Ness Web Cam that allowed the monumentous discovery! Stop them!!

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 11:58 AM |

MYONGWATCH! Part deux -

Normally, MYONGWATCH! will be a weekly feature, but due to our exciting news (the adoption), and my stark, dumb luck for stumbling upon more fodder for the column, I'm in a writin' mood, and I give you Kim Myong-Chol! Once again, we feature an interview with "The World's Favorite Crack-Smokin' Commie!™"

Everyone's Favorite Crack-Smokin' Commie!

In an interview given to a NineMSN's Jana Wendt, the Myongster -

Describes North Korea's similarities to the US -
I'm afraid that North Korea is a dictatorship, yes. If that is the case, there is also a dictatorship under Bush. (ed. note - What if they gave an election, and nobody came? Or, if they did, they were rounded-up, shipped to concentration camps, and summarily executed?)

He then comments on the need for the Commies in the PRK to watch out for mass defections -
(Laughs) No, no, no. Highly unlikely. In any country there are some defections, defections from South Korea, defections from the US, any country. There is no need for the North Korean Party to watch for such a thing. (ed. note - Funny, I can't remember the last time we shot a bunch of folks trying to LEAVE the US, but maybe it's just me...)

And finally, he comments on the title bestowed upon him by the Western media -
No, the news magazines call me a spin doctor for North Korea and Kim Jong. It's an honourable title for me.

OMITTED QUOTES

"You going to eat rest of that?"

"Did I mention that our nukes invisible? We don't even need super-invisible nuke, though. We have giant Whiffleball bat! It more scary than Marlon Brando! Kill you all!"

"That Angelina Jolie. She very strange chick. Maybe Kim Jong's type though...he a freak."

"'Freak' in hip, streetwise sense of word."

"Pyongyang nice town, but it cramping Kim Jong's style. He more suited to hollowed-out volcano, or place like Legion of Doom headquarters from Superfriends. You know, the one that look like Darth Vader's head. That more his style."

"It funny, but after I make comment about Howard Dean and John Kerry, Somebody throw brick of Brie at me. He yell something about Vietnam and run. Didn't get a good look at guy, though. It was here in Sydney, so maybe it Steve Irwin."

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 11:01 AM |

IRAQ's nuclear program - a recap

As part of my Strategic Intelligence class at AMU last fall, I authored a 35-page research paper (incorporating only open-source intel) regarding the history and progress of the Iraqi nuclear weapons program. With all of the nonsense taking place at this point, I have decided to post the paper in its entirety (though in sections) here at Exultate Justi. The first section deals with a brief history of the nation, and the early days of its nuclear program.

INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY
Since 1979, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein has sought to place himself amongst the ranks of the world elite in wealth, political accomplishment, and military might. To that end, he has lead, for more than 30 years, an effort to acquire the technology and materiel to allow his nation to enter the ranks of nuclear powers. Disregarding various international regulations and agreements, Iraq has worked with any and all willing sources, both internally and externally, to develop a viable nuclear weapons program to compliment her already well-developed chemical and biological weapons programs. The story of this effort is largely the story of Saddam’s rise to power.
Despite the tendency of many Iraqis to credit the ancient Babylonians with the development of Iraqi culture, Iraq is distinctly Arabic. The Iraqi people are descended from the groups of nomadic peoples who roamed the Arabian Peninsula long after the Babylonians, their language, and their culture, had vanished from the earth. In the Seventh century, A.D., the Prophet Muhammad united the Arab peoples under the banner of his teachings, and, in thirty years had, through conquest, firmly established the dominance of Arabic culture in the region.

Iraq became an autonomous state in 1932 (the first modern Arab state to do so). Its ruling Hashemite family retained power through various coups and uprisings until 1958, when a group of military officers led by Brigadier Abd al Karim Qasim and Colonel Abd as Salaam Arif staged a violent early morning coup that left much of the royal family (including King Faisal II – a western ally) and many governmental ministers dead. Not long after the coup, the plotters themselves became targets for elimination. In 1959, a young Army officer named Saddam Hussein attempted to assassinate Qasim. The plot failed, but Qasim would eventually fall victim to a coup in 1963, in which he would be killed.

That coup, which took place on February 9, 1963, would set the stage for Iraq’s future as in Arab power. The coup was staged by a political movement originating in Lebanon, and called the Ba’ath Party. This party, founded by a Lebanese-Syrian student named Michel Aflaq, promoted a version of Western Socialist thought, appealing more to nationalism than to any particular economic theory. The Ba’ath Party, founded in 1946, pushed for Arab unity and opposition to colonial powers (Ba’ath is Arabic for “resurrection” or “renaissance”).

Hussein became a central figure in the Ba’ath Party long before he rose to leadership, but his ascension coincided with the founding of Iraq’s Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) – the most powerful political body in the nation. Ahmad Hasan al Bakr, who, like two other members of the five-member body, shared Hussein’s hometown of Tikrit, founded the RCC. Hussein was placed in charge of the group’s internal security and, within weeks of his placement in this position began a series of bloody purges within the Iraqi political community. Over the next few years, the “Tikritis” consolidated their power, and by 1969, they controlled the RCC, and indeed, all of the Ba’ath Party. Bakr acted as the public face of power within the government, even as Hussein ran the nation behind the scenes.

Saddam Hussein has made no secret of his desire to become the first truly Arab nuclear power. This desire is in keeping with his vision of himself as the inevitable unifier of the Arab people, and of Iraq as the seat of power in a powerful Arab “superpower” of states. These visions are deeply rooted in a mindset that mixes Stalinist rhetoric with fascist reality. Saddam Hussein consolidated his power when Bakr, who had previously served as president of the republic, secretary general of the Ba’ath Party, chairman of the RCC, and commander-in chief of the armed forces, was forced to resign his positions. Within months, Hussein had purged the Ba’ath party of all those who he viewed as loyal to the previous regime in a series of mass executions (over 500 in all). Hussein’s rise to power encountered its first roadblock with the rise of the Shiite regime of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in neighboring Iran. Hussein, a Sunni Muslim, was deeply suspicious of the native Shiites within his country and soon began an effort to control and, in some cases, eradicate them. He has followed suit with native Kurdish populations in the north of Iraq. Since the early 1980s, Hussein is believed to have ordered the use of chemical agents (Sarin, Mustard Gas, Tabun, and Cyclosarin) in attacks that killed more than 20,000 (mostly Iranian troops and Iraqi Kurds).

Iraq and the NPT
In 1968, Iraq signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The treaty was ratified by Iraq in 1969. However, from the beginning, Iraq’s purpose in signing this treaty was one of deception. The treaty allowed Iraq to continue to build its fledgling nuclear program in the open, under the auspices of a nuclear-power cover. Iraq’s eventual purchases were all fully vetted by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Khidhir Hamza*, who at one point was the Director of Weaponization for Iraq’s nuclear program said of the IAEA:
Acquiring nuclear technology within the IAEA safeguards system was the first step in establishing the infrastructure necessary to develop nuclear weapons. In 1973, we decided to acquire a 40-megawatt research reactor, a fuel-manufacturing plant, and nuclear fuel-reprocessing facilities, all under cover of acquiring the expertise needed to eventually build and operate nuclear power plants and produce and recycle nuclear fuel. Our hidden agenda was to clandestinely develop the expertise and infrastructure needed to produce weapon-grade plutonium.”

Hamza continued:
As it turned out, few of Iraq’s suppliers – or the IAEA itself – ever bothered to ask a simple question: Why would Iraq, with the second largest oil reserves in the world, want to generate electricity by burning uranium? For its part, Iraq was careful to avoid raising IAEA suspicions; an elaborate strategy was gradually developed to deceive and manipulate the agency.

Iraq limited its requests from the IAEA to non personnel-related issues, so as to avoid close contact as much as was possible. In 1974, Iraq sought to gain a seat on the IAEA’s Board of Governors, so as to allow for close observation of the inner workings of the agency. Despite a late start to the process, Hisham Al-Shawi, Iraq’s Minister of Higher Education was elected to the Board. However, immediately after the IAEA’s general conference of 1974, Saddam Hussein gave control of the Atomic Energy Commission to the RCC, and appointed himself its chairman, effectively pushing Al-Shawi out of the picture. In addition to its seat on the Board of Governors, Iraq was rewarded with the creation of a new position – “Scientific Attaché”, to be based at Iraq’s embassy in Vienna. The brother of one of Saddam’s senior bodyguards, Suroor Mahmoud Mirza was appointed to this position, with the express purpose of providing Baghdad with detailed information about the IAEA’s inspection processes, and the ways in which Iraq could defeat these processes.

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 10:28 AM |

BIG NEWS (well, for us...)

Thanks to Tim Blair, Frank J., and fellow Coloradan Maripat for the links!

Exultate Justi – A little less obscure every day!

Now for the big news of the day…

We were chosen (I sound like one of those three-eyed aliens from Toy Story - “The Claw has chosen!”)! We’ll be brining home a baby boy or girl in the next few weeks (sleep now, for the end is near…).

What a wonderful, intimidating feeling this is.

More to come later – some funny stuff (hopefully), and some serious stuff.

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 8:20 AM |

Thursday, July 17, 2003

PETITION O' THE DAY!

Soylent Green is made of PEOPLE! PEOPLLLLLLLLLLE!

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 3:06 PM |

Was it something I said, Tim?

Unfortunately, your mail was not delivered to the following address:

(trblair-at-ozemail.com.au):
203.2.192.76 does not like recipient.
Remote host said: 550 you are not allowed to send mail to (trblair-at-ozemail.com.au)
Giving up on 203.2.192.76.

*sniff*

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 10:40 AM |

BUSH LIED - A PRIMER FOR DISASSEMBLY

(hat tip to InstaPundit)

Terrific reference for the facts in the Africa/Iraq/Uranium "scandal"...

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 10:37 AM |

MYONGWATCH!

And now, the latest update from everyone's favorite crack-smokin' Commie, Kim Myong-Chol! Give it up for the Myong-Man.

In an interview given to Australia's Herald Sun, crack-smokin' Kim dares the US to attack North Korea, describing such an attack as the best way to judge the truthfullness of North Korea's claims regarding its nuclear arsenal.

"The best way is to start a war against North Korea," Mr Myong-Chol said, adding he was representing the views of North Korea.

"Why don't they (America) launch a surgical strike against Pyongyang?

"Why not start a war, why not launch a preemptive strike on North Korea? Get the answer."

SOME QUOTES OMITTED FROM THE PRINTED INTERVIEW -

"Yeah...Kim Jong Il - he all that and bag o' chips."

"In addition to threat against US, I now make threat against Japan! We have captured several monster from Monster Island. Japan give us respect, or we send Mothra! You know how much neon in Tokyo? It take forever to get rid of huge moth! HA!"

"Personally, I think Howard Dean has outside shot. He a very reasonable guy, and Kerry too French-looking for capitalist pig-dogs in red states!"

"Cocker spaniel OK, but if you want real good stuff, there no other dog but Shar-Pei. So much flavor!"

"North Korea have a google nukes. You know how much that is? That a one, with one hundred zeros after! They all invisible, too! You all die!"

"That Katie Couric. She very cute. Too well-fed, though. I like women with a little bone on their meat."

"Steve Irwin! Is that guy crazy nut, or what? 'Look! Sydney Funnel Web! Gorgeous!' What a crazy guy. He need to get out more."

"I like Raiders in AFC West. Tough division, with Broncos and Chiefs, but I like Raiders. Something about air of pestilence and death make me feel at home."

Amazing insights from a truly messed-up guy.

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 10:25 AM |

Wednesday, July 16, 2003

Oshkosh 2003/Baby blogging

Well, this next post will be of very little interest to those who can't tell the sound of a Rolls-Royce Merlin-powered P-51D from a Cessna 172. If you have no idea what I just wrote, move along. This post's for the airnerd crowd (sort of).

As I mentioned briefly in an earlier post, my wife and I are in the process of adopting a baby. Last year, we discovered that is was highly unlikely that we would be able to conceive a child naturally. Due to our beliefs, we weren't comfortable with the notion of invitro-fertilization, and, as we had both felt a call to adopt at some point, we thought we'd build our family in this way. Well, it's been a long and arduous process, with my wife having to bear the brunt of the labor. The process goes something like this -

1. Select an agency.

2. Pay said agency lots o' money.

3. Fill out LOTS of paperwork.

4. Create painfully intricate scrapbook to be shown to birth mothers (they pick the family that they'd like their child to be placed with. My wife did this by herself, and did an extraordinary job of it. She referred to it as her "labor and delivery").

5. Wait for a call.

We're at step 5, and it's rough. Our book was one of seven selected to be shown to a birth mother who's due very soon. We haven't heard anything, so we're in a kind of emotional limbo.

What does this have to do with airplanes? What a silly question!

We are scheduled to go to the Land O' Lincoln to vist my brother, his lovely wife, and his great kids. The trip is to take place next week. During this trip, we are planning to head up to Oshkosh, WI, to breathe the JP-7, and hear the rumble of big radial engines at the enormous airshow held there each year. This thing is a monster. Lotsa planes, including tons of warbirds. My brother, dad, nephew and I are all salivating at the thought of spending a whole day walking amongst these legends of the sky.

The problem? If we're picked, we'll have to miss the trip, as the baby is due in short order. Of course, this isn't a PROBLEM, perse. To get that call would be incredible. I would be more happy than I could express. It is, however, indicative of the difficulties inherent in the adoption process - specifically, the need to balance anticipation with the ability to live your life from day-to-day while you're waiting. We're on pins and needles, and the fact that this incredible news might just preempt another long-anticipated event just magnifies our stress. Can we plan on going, or do we need to cancel our reservations and do some (very) last-second baby shopping? Frustrating, but wonderful, too. Our agency is really terrific, and they've done a great job of prepping us, but at this point, all we can do is wait, and pray. In a perfect world, I'd get a baby, AND I'd get to go see the P-51s, and pet the metal. But, if the Lord decided that He'd rather us have the baby than the vacation, I think we'd be pretty darn fine with that...but I'd sure miss those Mustangs. Might have to name the kid "Merlin"...

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 2:53 PM |

PETITION O' THE DAY!

Today's PETITION O' THE DAY! is a high-tech iteration of a cry as old as school itself...no more homework!

This petition is, no doubt, part of some kid's campaign for Student Body President - "If elected as San Dimas High School Student Body President, I, Ritchie Thacker, will circulate a petition to BAN homework! Oh, and also, I'll make another one demanding Pepsi in the drinking fountains! SAN DIMAS HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBAL RULES!!"

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 11:13 AM |

CBRN and the terrorist threat

Given the uncertainty regarding the location or condition of much of Iraq's suspected arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, as well as the possibility that some of the materiel missing from al-Tuwaitha nuke facility is on its way to the black market (and therefore, into the hands of al-Qaeda, etc.), it makes sense to take a look at the most likely methods of attempted use of these materials by terrorist groups. Along these lines, the CIA has offered a quick-and-dirty primer on the threat posed by Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists. The report can be found here. It's a quick read, and is an excellent reference for clearing up misconceptions, and clarifying the true effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of such weapons systems.

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 11:04 AM |

SPIN, SPIN, SPIN

(Hat tip to InstaPundit) In a stunning turn of events, the normally anti-Bush Daily Howler has a very well done piece on media distortion regarding the press' treatment of the Administration's position on the Iraq/African uranium matter. Read it.

Along those lines, Peter Jennings and the rest of the folks at ABC News were in rare form last night, with the lead-in to the newscast all-but proclaiming the Bush Administration to be a lying bunch o' liars - hated by the troops in Iraq. There was one segment featuring a group interview with a bunch of 3rd ID guys airing their dissatisfaction with the Bush Administration (specifically SecDef Rumsfeld) over the fact that they're still over there, and that their departure dates have gotten moved several times.

Now, notwithstanding ABC News' crappy (but not surprising) judgement in prodding troops on active duty in a war zone to gripe about the Admin, I have to wonder if these guys (the soldiers quoted in the piece) might have crossed a line in protocol, if not in military regulations (frankly, I suspect that they did this, as well). Lord knows that I feel for these guys. It's a lousy thing to have to go through, I'm sure. I can't fathom being away from my family for such a long period of time, and I offer my thanks and my respect to each and every serviceman/woman over there. We owe them our total support. Just the same, they owe their Commander In-Chief more respect than they showed by allowing themselves to be used by a reporterette with an axe to grind. Good display of judgement, guys.

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 10:55 AM |

Tuesday, July 15, 2003

MYONGWATCH!

(Hat tip to Tim Blair)

Never one to miss an opportunity to steal another, more-talented blogger's idea, and post it on my own obscure site, I've decided to become the official outlet for all of "unofficial North Korean spokesman" Kim Myong-Chol's otherworldly rantings about who NK's gonna nuke, and how their "Dear Leader" can beat up all of our dads, with both arms tied behind his back, using nothing but a Whiffle Ball bat. It's true! See the following passage from the above-linked interview with Mr. Myong-Chol by Tony Jones -

TONY JONES: They're increasingly confident because they already have nuclear weapons or because they believe they will soon have nuclear weapons?

KIM MYONG-CHOL: No, no, already.

Already North Korea have nuclear capability to fight war with America at any time.

TONY JONES: Alright.

Has North Korea already begun to reprocess fuel rods at the Yongbyon nuclear plant?

KIM MYONG-CHOL: Yongbyon is nothing.

Yongbyon is a joke.

North Korea already has more than 100 nuclear warheads.

TONY JONES: More than -

KIM MYONG-CHOL: Yongbyon facility has 100 nuclear war heads, including hydrogen bomb. (Ooh! And also big scary Whiffle Ball bat!)

TONY JONES: They certainly haven't done any testing of those, sir, how can they have 100 without anybody knowing?

KIM MYONG-CHOL: That is a North Korean technique. (We have own house! Neighbors not hear a thing. Very thick walls!)

America CIA intelligence always failure, blunder.

Pakistan did testing for North Korea.

That was no problem.

Watch for more kookiness from a man who makes Baghdad Bob look like Edward R. Murrow!

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 11:17 AM |

PETITION O' THE DAY!

Well, you knew this day would come. Sign this petition to ban petitions.

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 10:36 AM |

GAAAAAAAAH!

Sorry. I'm just a bit hacked by all of the absolutely, incontrovertably moronic crticism being leveled at the Bush Adminiatration over the "African uranium" goings-on. The Left seem perfectly comfortable to continue their onslaught despite the fact that the Brits are standing by this intelligence. The real problem here is not one of deception, but rather one of stating the truth while potentially citing the wrong source (even this contention is in doubt).

For a different view of the Iraqi WMD situation than has been presented in most outlets, see this analysis by StratFor, and stay tuned. There still WAY more info that'll come out, and, as the StratFor piece asserts, the scary question isn't whether or not the Bush Administration somehow cooked-up a bogus WMD argument to justify a war over OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIL! Rather, the question that should be keeping us up at night is this: where are the WMD now?

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 10:32 AM |

NORTH KOREA - NEW RUMBLINGS

Last week, North Korean officials informed the Bush Administration that they have reprocessed enough spend fuel rods to fashion six nuclear weapons, and had plans to do so sooner, rather than later. In a story running in the StarTrib, North Korean officials are quoted as saying that “weapons production was beginning.” One senior American official said, “They didn't say how long it would take, and they didn't threaten to sell anything."

Are the North Koreans telling the truth? No doubt there is some truth to their claims, but according to the story,

...that the answer is unclear. A preliminary set of atmospheric tests for the presence of a gas given off as nuclear waste is reprocessed into plutonium is the best indicator the United States has to work with from one of the world's most closed nations. The most recent tests suggested that nuclear work has accelerated, but the results were inconclusive. More test results are expected at the end of this week.

It is, of course, in the interests of North Korea to lead the rest of the world to fear the repressive regime. On the other hand, Pyongyang has come far too close to outright provocation than can be deemed wise.

Due to the closed nature of the country, it is nearly impossible for Western intelligence agencies to accurately determine the extent to which North Korea has been successful in developing a viable nuclear weapons program. The consensus is generally that, while they may not be as close as they say they are, they are far closer than any of the rest of us would like.

In the past several months, North Korea has sought to use the war in Iraq as a fulcrum upon which to shift the advantage in the political (and strategic) struggle on the Korean Peninsula. From a piece published by the intelligence analysis firm StratFor:

Pyongyang is carefully studying the war in Iraq, as it represents a test case of U.S. will and ability to disarm and "liberate" a member of Washington's so-called "axis of evil." But far from the expectations so widely touted in international media, the Iraqi people have not risen up against their government, the military has not deserted en masse and the regime has not collapsed. Instead, irregular forces have carried out harassment attacks against rear-area positions while regular forces have established a ring of defenses around Baghdad. And despite some limited signs of popular revolt, the military campaign seems if anything to be strengthening the resolve of the Iraqi people to resist -- or at least not directly support -- the U.S. campaign.

From Pyongyang's view, the lesson of Iraq thus far is that, although the United States has a technologically superior military, it is not suited to a war where the stated aim is disarmament and liberating the citizens of a nation from their own government. If North Korea launched an attack on South Korea, officials in Pyongyang know that the technological might of the U.S. military would triumph. However, if Washington decided to disarm North Korea pre-emptively, its own rules of engagement would hinder it from fully using its superior firepower and force projection -- leaving U.S. forces vulnerable to irregular and asymmetrical warfare from the North Koreans.

Pyongyang is taking hope from this assessment of U.S. military actions in Iraq. If North Korea refrains from striking first, the United States will be tied by a set of combat constraints that significantly narrows the technology gap between the U.S. and North Korean forces. And even if Washington eventually wins in Iraq, the message already will have been delivered: Unilateral attempts at disarmament and regime change are no cakewalk. Since Pyongyang has little interest in instigating a full-scale war with the United States, the regime now feels more confident in its ability to withstand a U.S. assault under the aegis of "liberating" the North Korean people from their own leadership or "disarming" a rogue nation.

This approach is, obviously, not without significant risk to North Korea (and, in fact, to the entire region). The article continues:

That said, in order to gain maximum leverage against the United States, leaders in Pyongyang feel they must move now to take advantage of the military situation in Iraq. Thus, the North Korean regime has withdrawn from military liaison talks with the United States, warned that "no one can vouch that the U.S. will not spark the second Iraqi crisis on the Korean Peninsula," and moved vehicles around its nuclear and missile facilities -- in plain view of U.S. satellites. Pyongyang also has delayed talks with Seoul and threatened that the upcoming Japanese satellite launch will only ensure Japan's destruction.

Should North Korea move in an overtly aggressive way against either her sister nation to the South, or Japan to her east, the reaction of the United States would be swift and severe. The unfortunate aspect to every dealing with the North Koreans is the wildcard himself – Kim Jong Il. Rationally, one would assume that the North Koreans are aware that steps taken to engage in hostilities with the United States (or her allies) will result in their annihilation. With Kim Jong Il, however, there has been no real sign given that reason and rationality enter into his thought process to any large degree.

StratFor agrees, stating that

Rhetoric will not be enough to press home the dire nature of the situation in North Korea to Washington, Pyongyang has seen, and North Korea may well be preparing two more concrete steps to up the ante: firing up the nuclear reprocessing facilities and launching another long-range ballistic missile. Both moves would trigger an outcry from South Korea and Japan, thus pressuring the United States to address the situation immediately. And in North Korea's calculations, Washington has only two choices in such circumstances: either launch a pre-emptive strike against North Korean facilities or accede to bilateral talks aimed at ending the nuclear standoff and formulating a non-aggression pact with the North.

Despite the lack of attention given to the ongoing situation on the Korean Peninsula, we would be foolish to completely take our eyes off of the very real danger growing there.

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 10:20 AM |

Monday, July 14, 2003

INTEL ANALYSTS - WHO WILL TRAIN THE TRAINERS?

Shortly after the attacks on New York City and the Pentagon in September of 2001, DCI George Tenet implemented an aggressive plan designed to address a long-neglected shortfall in the number of intelligence analysts at work within the nation's intelligence network. There has never been any lack of raw data - rather, what's been missing is the necessary volume of well-trained analysts who are able to make sense of the vast quantities of data that circulate on a daily basis. In a recent piece for Congressional Quarterly, Jim McGee writes that this newly concentrated effort has exposed a serious deficiency in the nation's training apparatus for intelligence analysis. From the piece (a subcription is required to view the entire article):

In June, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence issued a fiscal 2004 Intelligence Authorization Act report chiding the intelligence agencies for dwelling on acquiring expensive new technologies to collect more information while dragging their feet on the less costly, but equally urgent, task of growing a much larger cadre of analysts to find, with needle-like precision, terrorist plots hidden in the haystacks of data gathered by satellites and spies.

"The formal training analysts receive remains brief and uneven across the [intelligence] community," the report said. "More emphasis must be placed on analyst training, on consistent career development, and on better mentoring."

Appropriating large sums so that intelligence agencies can hire hundreds of new analysts does not ensure the agencies will do a better job of connecting the dots of future terrorist plots, said Robert David Steele, a former CIA officer who has published two books on intelligence reform.

The intelligence community has always been divided by various internal debates. Potentially the most public being the debate over intuition- vs. analytics-based analysis. This debate has overflowed into the field of training. In the past, analysts were expected to show near-psychic abilities of intuiting an enemy's capabilities, while little attention was given to other. more reproducible means of analysis which rely on the consistent implementation of various sets of criteria.

More recently, innovators like Dr. Jonathan Lockwood have begun to win widespread acceptance of programs like his Lockwood Analytical Method of Prediction method - a methodolgy featuring a solid foundation analytical process.

All in all, the level of accuracy being demanded of our intelligence agencies will necessitate the (at least partial) resolution of this debate if we are to see true improvement in the field of intelligence analysis.

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 10:13 PM |

PETITION O' THE DAY!

Here's today's fittingly migraine-inducing petition. It deals with a concern we all share - the inability of the Irish to get drunk at a reasonable price. Woo-hoo. If you're tired of looking fer ye Looky Chahrms, click 'ere.

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 12:46 PM |

MIGRAINE-BLOGGING

Well,

It's going to be a light posting day (perhaps until this evening). I've got lots of work to do, I've got a migraine, and my lovely wife and I are awaiting a VERY important call from our adoption agency (perhaps THE call). Petition of the day coming soon...

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 11:03 AM |

Saturday, July 12, 2003

Tempest, meet teapot.

Well, now the DCI is being drawn into the Iraq/Africa uranium nonsense. This bit of info made up a whopping 16 words during the POTUS's State of the Union Address, and the left is, rather predictably, acting as if he had build the entire foundation of the case for war in Iraq upon this single brick. Absolute rubbish.

From the article:

Members of Congress called on the CIA to be held accountable. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kansas, said Tenet was ultimately responsible for the mistake.

"The director of central intelligence is the principal adviser to the president on intelligence matters," Roberts said. "He should have told the president. He failed. He failed to do so," Roberts said.

It's not unusal for the DCI to be called upon to fall on his sword for embarassments such as this, but, in this case, I think that this eventuality is going to be a mistake. Tenet, for all of his falws, seems, to me, to be an effective Director. He's made every effort to revitalize the United States' intelligence community (especially in the area of field/black ops - a field of focus that was neary eradicated by the Church hearings), and has, from what I've seen, been fairly well received by those under him, which is no small feat, given the hellish nature of political wrangling within the various competetive branches of the intelligence community. The CIA is the big dog, and wishes to be seen as such, but more speciallized agencies like the NSA, NRO, and NIMA want, and deserve recognition for their contributions, as well. Add to the mix the various military intelligence agencies (the DIA, and the intel groups within the various branches, etc.), and you've a recipe for chaos - even by Beltway standards.

In his seminal work The United States Intelligence Community (now in its 4th printing), author, and fellow with the National Security Archive, Jeffrey Richelson defines intelligence analysis as follows:

Analysis involves the integration of collected information - that is, raw intelligence from all sources - into finished intelligence. The finished intelligence product might be a simple statement of facts, an eveluation of the capabilities of another nation's military forces, or a projection of the likely course of political events in another nation.

A fairly broad definition, you'd have to agree. More than ever before, it is critical that the American public learn the basics of what intelligence agencies can, and cannot control within their analyses. It is readily apparent that, though there may have been reasons to suspect the validity of the British intellligence at the heart of this matter, there were also potentially more valid reasons for which to have confidence in the accuracy of the information.

In the Washington Post article linked above, John Solomon, the piece's author writes the following:

Although the CIA did not learn until well after the president's speech in January that some documents obtained by British intelligence that formed the basis of the Iraq-Niger uranium allegations were forged, CIA officials recognized at the beginning that the allegation was based on "fragmentary intelligence gathered in late 2001 and early 2002," the director said.

To the unitiated, this would appear to be a smoking gun...an admission that there was significant suspicion regarding this intelligence. This theory would not hold up under close scrutiny, however. The second half of the quote above (the "gotcha" portion, wherein we're supposed to be dismayed by the use of the sinister-sounding "fragmentary intelligence") says essentially nothing. The bottom line to be found is in the first half of the quote - "...the CIA did not learn until well after the president's speech in January that some documents obtained by British intelligence that formed the basis of the Iraq-Niger uranium allegations were forged".

ALL intelligence, by its very nature, is fragmentary. Intelligence analysis will (much to the consternation of many in the field), never be purely analytic in nature. To some extent (though it should be minimized where possible), analysis will always involve intuition, and a well-reasoned reading of political events, national tendencies, and gut feelings. As such, when information that makes sense from a rational perspective comes along which would seem to indicate a serious threat to national security, there is little time to be spared. Decisions must be made, and made quickly. Will mistakes be made? Undoubtedly. But, let's have some perspective when we look back at those mistakes in the grand scheme of things, shall we?

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 11:47 AM |

Friday, July 11, 2003

A big thanx to the kind Mr. Blair

I was a bit surprised to see that my readership had jumped from the usual 2 or so...

To read the exchange to which he's referring, scroll down, or click here.

I will need to fix the stupid formatting problem, though...!@#$! Blogger (guess I shouldn't complain...it is free, after all...).

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 10:59 PM |

SIGNING OFF FOR THE WEEKEND

See y'all Monday, unless some fit of insanity should seize me and cause me to desire the headache-inducing buzz of a computer monitor on this gorgeous Colorado weekend. I think that unlikely.

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 3:26 PM |

Not just the Fedayeen...

(Via InstaPundit)

Tennessee Judge Gilbert Merritt writes about a document he's seen that directly links the Hussein regime and Osama Bin Laden. He ends with the following passage:

Up until this time, I have been skeptical about these claims. Now I have changed my mind. There is, however, one big problem remaining: They are both still at large and the combined forces of the free world have been unable to find them.

Until we find and capture them, they will remain a threat — Saddam with the remnants of his army and supporters in combination with the worldwide terrorist organization of Osama bin Laden.

Truer words were never written.

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 3:24 PM |

A kind follow-up from a classy lefty

Here's Peter's latest -

Jared,

I wish I shared your confidence, I really do.

Keep in touch. Let us check with each other in six months or so. I promise
you, I REALLY want to get a messagre from you: "Peter, I told you so."

Very warmly,

Peter Fitz

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 3:20 PM |

PETITION O' THE DAY!

Terry's bloomin' 'air must be stopped!

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 11:21 AM |

FUN WITH FITZ!

In response to a recent Tim Blair posting regarding Sydney Morning Herald columnist Peter Fitzsimons' piece about President Bush and the insufferable, mercifully ficticious questions of a boy named Billy (below)

"I have three questions. First, why are you president when Al Gore got more votes? Second, what is the connection between Iraq and September 11? And third, where are these weapons of mass destruction, anyway?"

I sent the following email:

"Well, sheeee-oot, Billy. Them's some mighty fine questions. Lessee,
here...

First off, ah'm President becuase, in the United States, as spelled out in
the Constitution, we use the Electoral College, not the popular vote to
elect the Preseident. Consequently, Big Al's popular vote count don' mean
diddly-squat. You might want to ask that guy why he felt the need to try
and take away the votes of thousands of men & women in uniform, though...

Hmm. Secondly, I guess I should explain something about the WMD. See,
Billy, there's this thing called "National Security". I know those'r big
words, and, given the fact that Michael Moore says I'm a big stupid head, I
have trouble with 'em, too. Here's the thing 'bout that National Security,
though...Condi Rice told me that it means that, despite the protestations of
fifth graders, I don't have to tell you everything that we know about a
given strategic situation. Given that fact, it's safe to say that you don't
know what I do, and, until you do, I'd have to ask to to sit down, shut up,
and try and keep Helen Thomas entertained. On a side note, Billy, does your
dad keep a gas centrifuge buried under your roses back home? Just
wonderin'...

Lastly, Billy...ah know that there's lotsa folks who think that there's no
connection between Iraq, and the attacks of September 11. Here's the thing
about that, though...terrorism is terrorism. Ah don't know about you, but
ah'd say that keeping hundred of kids like you in jail, and executing
thousands more is a kind of terrorism. How 'bout you?

Oh yeah...one last thing. Y'know that Iraqi guy who the Czechs said met
with Mohammed Atta before the attacks? Well, coincidentally, we just arrested 'im.
Ah'm sure it's just so Ashcroft and Rumsfeld can have some fun by taking away
constitutional rights that he never had in the first place, though. Nothing
more to it.

Thanks for your question, though."

Ever the gamer, Fitz sent back the following reply:

Get with the program Jared. This aint just me. Start reading TIME magazine.
They have been all over these very issues!

Best,

Peter Fitz

To which I, in turn replied:

Peter,

Oh, it's certainly not just you. I'm well aware that there is a large
portion of the world (including many Americans) who have been following this
line of reasoning for quite some time now. Your citation of TIME is hardly
convincing, in my book, however. I grew up reading the thing, and still
read it quite often. TIME is a solidly Center-Left publication, and is most
definitely not without its biases. It's not "The Nation", but it does tend
toward the left end of the politcal spectrum (for reference purposes, I
would classify the editorial pages of "The Wall Street Journal" as
Center-Right).

You obviously know how the Electoral College works, so I'm assuming that any
effort to clarify the process would simply be redundant. As such, I'll skip
that point, and we'll agree to disagree.

As to the Iraq/September 11 connection - the Administration never listed
such a connection as a means for the justification of hostile action. There
have been several other governments around the world (the Czechs, of course)
who have made such an assertion, but this contention was never pushed by the
White House. What was stated (and correctly so), was that Iraq was one of
the major state sponsors of terrorism. This has been proven time and time
again. As such, an attack on the Baathist regime was completely in keeping
with the Administartion's policy of prevention rather than response.
Interestingly enough, there are still some indications that Iraq had tried
for some time to align itself with Al Qaeda, but, whether or not those
indications lead to a solid discovery or not, I see absolutely no
inconsistency there.

As a graduate student working toward a Master's degree in Strategic
Intelligence, I once authored a sizeable research paper regarding the
development of the Iraqi nuclear program - from its abortive efforts at
Tammuz-1, to its ongoing experimentation with the EMIS and gas centrifuge
methodologies for uranium enrichment. There are vast collections of damning
open-source intelligence to be found regarding the certainty of Saddam
Hussein's desire and effort to acquire nuclear weapons. This ambition was
hardly a secret, and it has been universally maintained by all major Western
intelligence agencies (and by the Clinton Administration, as well) that
Hussein had most likely begun to reconstitute his nuclear weapons program
after the expulsion of inspectors in 1998. This was not some
shot-in-the-dark, crazy theory put forth by the warmongering Bush
Adminstration. Rather, it was simply a given. Add to this the fact that
there were still hundreds of tons of chemical and biological agents
unaccounted for in 1998, and you're left with no real recourse but to
believe that Hussein was hiding something. If not, why all of the secrecy?
You might say, "well, right there you have the justification for supporting
further inspections by UNSCOM and the IAEA. This is utterly impratical for
many reasons. The incompetence and naivety of both the UNSCOM and IAEA
inspection teams was a source of great humor among the Iraqis. Their
manipulation is catalogued in countless articles worldwide. To quote former
inspector David Kay (upon learning of the recent rose garden/gas centrifuge
find:

"It begins to tell us how huge our job is," Kay said. "Remember, his
material was buried in a barrel behind his house in a rose garden. There's
no way that that would have been discovered by normal international
inspections. I couldn't have done it. My successors couldn't have done it."

At any rate - there's my two cents. You're a darn good sport for playing
along and answering these emails personally. Take care, and have a terrific
day.

-Jared

Peter wrote back:

Thanks, Jared, and you in turn are clearly an intelligent man, so let's cut
to the chase.

What chance do you think, that dropping bomb on the angry ants nest that is
the Middle East is going to bring the world peace? Seriously!

How long can America sustain a bill of 4 billion dollars a month to have
forces in Iraq and Afghanistan?

How long can they have their soldiers picked off at the rate of one every
two days, before the American public - or the soldiers themselves - say,
WE'RE OUTTA HERE!

I believe this whole thing was a disaster from the beginning. I wrote a
column two months ago saying that I really hope I'm wrong and that democracy
will flourish and bloom in Iraq, but I certainly have seen no sign of it
yet.

And I genuinely feel very sorry for the soldiers on the ground over
there...

Best,

Peter Fitz

So, today, I sent this reply:

Peter,

Good to hear from you again. I share your sympathy for the men on the ground over there - some of whom are my friends. It's not an easy life, but it is one deserving of respect. In many ways, that respect will be what allows those men to stay the course and see this effort through to its conclusion. The Clinton Administration showed open contempt for the military, and very little else. From the travesty in Mogadishu (the decision to immediately pull out was a mistake for which we'll pay dearly for years, I'm afraid) to our various jaunts in the Balkans (which I supported, and still believe were the right things to do). As such, there was little love lost for him among the men and women in uniform. It has nothing to do with a Republican v. Democrat schema - the majority of the military could well be classified as conservative, of course, but there are many outstanding soldiers who, though Democrats, despised Clinton for his treatment of their brothers and sisters in-arms. Such is not the case with the current Administration. Does every member of the Armed Services fawn over Dubya? Of course not. They are no more a monolithic bloc than are the rest of the American public. The difference is simply this: on the whole, the men and women in harm's way trust the man. Such trust cannot easily be won, and is not easily discarded once awarded. For this reason among others, I have no doubt that the peace will be won in Iraq (though, regrettably, not without struggle that is sometimes severe in nature).

The American public will, of course, shift up and down in its support, by degree. However, the general sense I get from most reports (not from either coast, admittedly) is that, as long as we remain fully committed, and don't fall into Vietnam-era incrementalism, support will remain in place, for the most part. To show the Iraqi people (more specifically, the remaining Ba'athists) weakness, or a faltering resolve is to invite, and even incite further violence and chaos. Such an appearance must be avoided at all costs for this transition to be effective. It is not without grave danger, or significant risks. There are, of course, no sure things when it comes to nation-building, other than the fact that it is never easy, and almost never goes strictly according to plan. Two months is hardly sufficient for judging the success or failure of the mission, however.

Even with these difficulties in mind, I fail to see the justice in prolonging the rule of the Hussein regime. His legacy of brutality is one for which there is little comparison in recent history - short of Rwanda, or Pol Pot's Cambodia. I have absolutely no regrets for the actions taken (I say this as if I had a part in them!).

I am a realist. There is every possibility that this cause could fail, and fail miserably. Your analogy of the middle east as an "angry ants' nest" is spot-on. The unfortunate reality of Islamic extremism (AL Qaeda, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, MILF, Abu Sayaaf, et. al.) and Islamo-fascism (the Ba'athists of Syria and Iraq), however, is that there is no shelter to be found in inaction.

These groups do not wish to live and let live. Though it sounds over-the-top, and, I'm sure, "typically American" to say so, there is no dialogue to be had with the majority of them. Their interests lie, not in understanding, nor in the betterment of their own people. Rather, they lie in the forced expansion of dar al-Islam - the House of Islam, wherein Islamic rulers are in place, and Islamic Holy Law is the law of the land. We in the West are considered to be part of dar al-harb - the House of War. As such, we are to be converted, or eliminated. There is no middle ground.

I'm not naive enough to believe that a war in Iraq will, in some way, lead to world peace. Frankly, I don't believe in the remotest possiblity of world peace. There are too many ancient nests of hatred that will most likely always exist. As such, my primary desire lies not in a utopian vision of a world with no war. I find such dreams nonsensical, and a waste of time. Rather, I would have my friends (including those in other nations), family, and country safer from attack than they were the day before. Does this mean we're less likely to be hated now than we were before? Heavens no. We'll always be hated for our very existence. We just might be more feared than we were before, however. The sad reality is that, to Islamic terrorists, fear speaks far more loudly than does foreign aid, and steel convinces more readily than rapprochement. I know that this must conjure up images of Rambo, John Wayne, and every other cliched vision that is dredged up and plastered upon American policy in much of the world, but, in our experience, it has been the case. I wish it were not so.

Cheers,

Jared

I'll post further entries as they arrive.

He seems like a decent fellow. Dead wrong, but decent.

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 11:10 AM |

Thursday, July 10, 2003

PETITION O' THE DAY!

Mondays are bad. Why don't we ban em?!

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 2:18 PM |

BUSH LI...oh. He didn't. Never mind...

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_2529.shtml

D'OH!

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 12:33 PM |

Publish AND Perish?

Fascinating article dealing with a George Mason University grad student's dissertation, and its potential impact on national security. As a grad student myself (though not nearly so smart a one as he), in a field dealing with potentially sensitive information, I'm always interested in seeing how the "free speech vs. national security" struggle plays itself out in regard to cutting-edge reseacrh. Read it here.

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 11:17 AM |

Wednesday, July 09, 2003

11:59?

As reported in London's Evening Standard, it appears that North Korea has begun reprocessing some of the 8,000 uranium fuel rods previously housed it its Yongbyon nuclear research center. In addition, the Communist nation has begun efforts to test "triggers" - high explosive charges used to spur the chain reaction needed for a nuclear detonation.

This information should come as no surprise, given Pyongyang's near-continuous high-profile rambling in regard to its nuclear weapons and ICBM programs. However, this development does signal yet another upward ratcheting of the stakes involved, and a significant shortening of the timeframe present before North Korea posesses both a functional nuclear weapon, and a intercontinental ballistic missile with which to deliver it.

North Korea, at present, is a strange bird, indeed. On the one hand, it is hard to take the threat posed by the nation too seriously. Its leader, Kim Jong Il is given to wild, obviously grandiose pronouncements of impending doom for both the United States, and South Korea. However, this behavior has been more or less consistent since Jong Il's rise to power after the death of his father, the equally nutso Kim Il Sung several years ago. In general, the country's continued threats come across like a passage from Shakespeare's Macbeth - "...a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

There is obvious danger to be found in the complacency that has inevitably followed the repeated pronouncements of North Korrea's leader, however. There has been much made of the thousands of heavily-entrenched artillery pieces currently level at Seoul from the North - for good reason. However, a direct attack on the South is not the gravest of dangers to be found.

Although there would likely be many thousands of casualties if the North were to unleash a suprise attack upon its sister to the South, such a move would be suicidal to Pyongyang, and they are aware of that fact. Within an hour of the start of such an attack, the South Koreans (who posess a very capable military), aided by American forces, would be able to mount a counter attack that would likely cripple the North's delapidated infrastructure. For that reason, I don't see this scenario as a likely one.

There are, however, two very real possibilities that pose a grave threat to the United States and her allies - one concerns a physical threat, the other, a primarily political one, though both are intertwined with the successful acquisition of nuclear weaponry by the North. I have yet to see these scenarios discussed in other outlets, so I'll bring them up myself.

Should North Korea decide to act upon one of the myriad of threats they've made throughout the years by launching a nuclear strike, it is unlikely that Seoul would be its only target. Rather, it is likely that Tokyo and Hawaii would also be in the crosshairs. In addition, if the North is able to complete its work on the Taepodong-2 missile, it would posses the ability to strike targets as far east as the West Coast of the United States. Is it likely that the North would, in fact strike the American mainland? At this point, all bets are off. Kim Jong Il is, by all accounts, an exceptionally devious, and uniquely psychotic man. His lust for power and for respect might well be enough to drive him over the line that would otherwise keep him from doing so.

Such an attack (even if unsuccessful) would undoubtedly necessitate a retaliatory strike by the United States, leading to the second, political threat. Should the United States use its nuclear arsenal, there would, without a doubt, be an uproar among many governments around the world. Through its effectiveness in the use of conventional weapons, the United States has, inadvertently placed itself in a position where the mere discussion of nuclear weapons useage strkes many in Europe and Asia as unnecessarily brutal. The political fallout of nuclear retaliation might, in fact, be enough to trigger unanticipated hostilities among other, previously uninvolved nations like China, India, or Russia. Do I think that any of these nations would attack the US? Of course not. However, when the nuclear card has been played, there is no way to know what effect such an action might have on the rest of the world.

Be back later with more. This is off-the-top-of-my-head stuff, and I want to expand on things a bit when I have more time...

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 12:23 PM |

Speak for yourself

I loathe bumper stickers. I truly do. Even the ones with which I agree tend to make me cringe. Generally speaking, I find it unlikely that a cogent political or philosophical point can be sufficiently summed-up on a 3” x 8” strip of adhesive plastic.

Case in point: today, while walking to my workplace at The National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center on the University of Denver’s campus, I saw a variation on the “WAR IN IRAQ? NO!” sticker that’s been floating around since last fall. This sticker read “Our grief is not a cry for war.”

Speak for yourself.

What gets me most about this notion is its pure arrogance and presumptuousness. Of course, there is a certain amount of presumptuousness contained within every bumper sticker of a political nature. Again, it’s hard to be cogent in such a small space. However, there is another level of pedagogy and condescension that presents itself in these statements.

As an American who watched the planes slice into the Trade Center towers, and then watched them buckle and fall, I can say, with all certainty, that my grief was, and is a cry for war. What would those who hold to this notion of shallow pacifism and forced vulnerability have our nation do when it is attacked? This is a strawman, of course. We all know the answer to this question – nothing. This is not a new ideal. Rather, it is a very ancient mindset. Throughout history, there have been those who are unable or unwilling to see the use of violence in any context as necessary, or even remotely justifiable. Even if I shared in this belief at a philosophical level, I find it impossible to understand how on earth any rational human being can extend it to its logical conclusion – that, regardless of the dangers caused by inaction, it is never right to take any action that might harm another living creature.

Those of this philosophical persuasion tend to have an innate flaw in their ability to differentiate between reality, and the nirvana that they so desperately wish to see come about. The fact of the matter is, quite simply, that there is no way to reconcile with a person who wants you dead for the simple reason that you exist. The world of extremist Islam is not crying out for acceptance or understanding. It cries for the blood of infidels. As unsettling a thought as it is, there is nothing political that can be done to make groups like Al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, Abu Sayaaf, Hezbollah, or any of the other countless practicioners of terror cease their efforts to destroy the United States. They hate us because we are…not because of any slight, whether perceived or real. This reality has shaved away all of the extraneous trappings of philosophical and religious debate, and has left us with but two options – destroy those who seek to destroy us, or doom generations of innocents through our inaction. There is no middle ground to be taken.

”It does no good for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion.”

So then, when I see a bumper sticker extolling the virtues of passivity in the face of wholesale slaughter, I take it personally. This person…this faceless Accord pilot, feels that it’s better to risk the lives of my family and friends than to upset others – even those who want us dead.

I value life enough to know that it must sometimes be taken…and my grief IS a cry for war. Bring 'em on.

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 11:34 AM |

PETITION O' THE DAY!

In keeping with Frank J.'s mandate that all blogsites link to IMAO, today's PETITION O' THE DAY! is a request for the establishment of July 9 as "The National Day of Frank". Please review and sign this important document here. Thank you.

Coming later today, and analysis of a truly putrid bumper sticker seen earlier today on the DU campus. Interest piqued? Well...I can see why not. I'll try and make it interesting nonetheless.

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 10:54 AM |

Tuesday, July 08, 2003

PETITION O' THE DAY!

And now, gentle reader(s), for today's PETITION O' THE DAY!

This scintillating bit of free speech activism involves Norway, and Al Gore - Creator of the Internet.

Sign away.

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 10:38 AM |

It's funny because it's true

(via the all-powerful IMAO) -

Go to Google, type "French Military Victories" in the search field, and click on "I'm Feeling Lucky". Good stuff.

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 10:29 AM |

THE PRESIDENT'S AFRICA POLICY

Conservative? Not necessarily. Moral? Absolutely.

In a piece for The Australian printed (fittingly enough) on July 4, James Morrow lays out the case for leftist befuddlement over the President's clear committment to helping the needy on the African continent. An excerpt:

The notion that if the US can save lives somewhere, it ought to do so, rather than surrender power to international talking shops that settle for easy, feel-good solutions that do nothing to help ordinary people, has clearly taken hold in the White House.

And it is this that upsets the elite Bush-hating class more than anything else: unlike 99 per cent of professional politicians, and certainly his predecessor, the man does what he says he will do, whether it is saving Iraqis from a genocidal maniac or ordinary Africans from disease and civil war.

Those on the Left who are driven mad by the man they derisively call "Dubya" and his use of US power should stop to consider their prejudices – and the alternatives. If they truly care about people, they might find that Bush isn't so scary after all.

It's an excellent, concise piece. Read the whole thing.

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 10:23 AM |

ISLAMIC JIHAD

What a shock. Didn't see this coming, did you?

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 10:05 AM |

Monday, July 07, 2003

PETITION O' THE DAY!

Without further ado, here's today's PETITION O' THE DAY!

It seems that one Mr. Poppinfresh Montgomery has created a petition demanding that his left shoe be made king of the world. Oh, and the petition is specifically directed at the guy on the Quaker Oats box, for what it's worth. Go. Sign now!

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 10:52 AM |

Thursday, July 03, 2003

Iran - Who's Really in Charge?

In an excellent piece at Forbes.com, Paul Klebnikov illustrates the continuing danger posed by the Iranian government by shedding light on the bizarre political structure in place within the Islamic Republic.

A bizarre catchall of dictatorship, socialism, and free-market capitalism, Iran is now faced with intensifying unrest by a strengthening student-led democracy movement, which it has taken steps to crush.

Iran is widely known to be active in its efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. Every intelligence agency in the Western world has indicated that Iran will most likely have at least one functional nuclear weapon within the next 5 years. This, of course, is not a happy situation.

The article is a good read, and is tremendously helpful in revealing the true source of leadership in Iran (a hint - it's neither President Khatami, nor Ayatolla Khamenei)

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 2:36 PM |

PETITION O' THE DAY!

Gather 'round, cheeldrens...it's time for today's PETITION O' THE DAY!

Today's sterling example of worthwhile petitioning deals with an evil we've all cursed at one time or another - pants. Sign away.

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 11:14 AM |

WMD? We'll see...

Personally, I've seen enough open-source stuff to convince me that we've already found some pretty significant stashes, but are holding on to the info to see what else we can dredge out.

This could be promising...

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 11:11 AM |

Wednesday, July 02, 2003

Who Armed Iraq (courtesy of RantingScreeds.com)?

Though similar info has been distributed over the past several months, I find it to be beneficial to shout this type of thing out as loudly, and as often as I can.

From Ranting Screeds -

Who Armed Iraq? A Ranting Screeds Special Report: It's come up often, and it's apparently becoming more common, not less, for critics, especially Our European Friends, to claim that America armed Iraq, especially in the '80s. So it falls to me, apparently, to list the facts.

For the purpose of investigating these charges, it is best to look at what Iraq had at the time of its invasion of Kuwait, because the accusations pertain to what Iraq was supplied with (passive voice deliberate here) in the decade or so preceding this invasion. Thus we need to account for whatever Iraq lost during the conflict to insure that there aren't any omissions (thus nixing possible accusations that America destroyed whatever it gave Iraq during the war to hide the evidence).

The main sources for the below are the Desert Shield Fact Book (Frank Chadwick, Loren Wiseman et al, GDW 1991) and the Gulf War Fact Book (Frank Chadwick, Matt Caffrey et al, GDW 1991). Equipment will be listed by category, along with the nation of origin. For those scoring at home, items of AMERICAN origin will be highlighted thusly, and of European (FRANCE) likewise. As of 90/91, Iraq had the following:

Aircraft

MiG-29s - 70 (Soviet)
Mig-25s - 18 (Soviet)
MiG-23s - 20 (Soviet)
MiG-21s - 105 (Soviet)
F-7s - 20 (Red China)
MiG-17s - 30 (Soviet)
Su-25s - 20 (Soviet)
Su-20s - 30 (Soviet)
Su-7s - 50 (Soviet)
F-6s - 20 (Red China)
Su-24s - 10 (Soviet)
Mirage F1s - 100 (FRANCE)
MiG-23/27s - 70 (Soviet)
Il-20s - 10 (Soviet)
Tu-22s - 7 (Soviet)
Tu-16s -12 (Soviet)

Armored Vehicles

T-54/55 - 1400 (Soviet)
Type 59 - 500 (Red China)
Type 69 - 1000 (Red China)
T-62 - 1600 (Soviet)
T-72 - 1000 (Soviet)

IFVs, armored recon vehicles, and APCs - 9000 total, aprox (biggest component BTR - 60s); no precise breakdown but consist of:

EE-3 (Brazil)
EE-9 (Brazil)
EE-11 (Brazil)
ERC-90 (FRANCE)
AML-60 (FRANCE)
AML-90 (FRANCE)
Panhard M-3 (FRANCE)
FUG-70 (Hungary)
BRDM-2 (Soviet)
BTR-40 (Soviet)
BTR-50 (Soviet)
BTR-60 (Soviet)
BMP-1 (Soviet)
Type 63 (China)
OT-62 (Czechoslovakia)
OT-63 (Czechoslovakia)
BVP-1 (Czechoslovakia)
Walid (Egypt)

Navy

Interesting to note, at the time Iraq had 13 modern ships on order from ITALY

Artillery

G-5 155mm (South Africa)
GHN-45 155mm (AUSTRIA)
Astros-II SS-30 MRL (Brazil)
Astros-II SS-40 MRL (Brazil)
M56 105mm (BRITAIN)
D-74 122mm (Soviet)
D-30 122mm (Soviet)
2S1 122mm (Soviet)
2S3 152mm (Soviet)
M1937 152mm (Soviet)
M1938 122mm (Soviet)
M1939 37mm (Soviet)
M1943 152mm (Soviet)
M-1975 122mm MRL (Soviet)
BM-21 122mm MRL (Soviet)
BM-13 132mm MRL (Soviet)
S-23 180mm (Soviet)
ZSU-23-4 23mm (Soviet)
ZSU-57-2 (Soviet)
ZU-23 23mm (Soviet)
"Majnoon" 155mm (Iraq/Gerald Bull of CANADA)
"Al Fao" 210mm (Iraq/Gerald Bull of CANADA)
82 mm Mortar (Soviet)
SA-2 SAM (Soviet)
SA-3 SAM (Soviet)
SA-6 SAM (Soviet)
SA-7 SAM (Soviet)
SA-13 SAM (Soviet)

Small Arms

AK-47 (Soviet)
RPK (Soviet)
RPG-7 (Soviet)

Clearly, the vast majority of Iraq's weapons came from the Soviet Union and other Communist nations. Behind them, however, it's largely European countries that armed Iraq. The best I can tell, the U.S. provided Iraq with some spare parts for systems Iraq acquired elsewhere, relatively trivial support compared with even what France provided (much less the Soviets). Even on the level of parts and logistical support, America's contribution was small compared with that supplied by those nations. Hysterical reports to the contrary of how America armed Saddam are belied by the facts of Iraq's TO&E on the eve of the Gulf War. Therefore, it is deceptive to the point of dishonesty for anyone - especially anyone from Europe - to say America armed Iraq. People are only able to get away with this like they do with inflated civilian casualty figures for the Afghanistan campaign - feeding off of people's ignorance. The ignorant then take the accusation at face value and pass it on.

Another thing to note is that three nations show up most frequently on the list - France, Russia (in the form of the Soviet Union), and China. It probably isn't simply a coincidence that France, Russia, and China worked hardest over the years down to the present to obstruct action against Saddam and pushed most strongly for the removal of sanctions, etc.

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 3:53 PM |

Dubya - Steely-eyed missle man

And, in another example of behavior that is guaranteed to cheese-off the "enlightened" world (y'know - places like France, Belgium, and Hollywood), President Bush has issued a challenge to Iraqi fighters who continue to snipe at Coalition troops in Baghdad and other population centers (that's how we intel geeks say "cities") around Iraq.

Consistently confounding the Clinton model of Superpowering (bite lower lip, lean on podium with forefinger and thumb pinched together, while explaining the finer points of non-intrusiveness-as-statecraft while blindly launching Tomahawks at mud huts), the President has time and again shown a willingness to confront both the intransigence of Europe at-large, and the machismo of Islamic terrorist organizations. This development is to be relished and savored - not merely applauded.

We have returned to a less obtuse form of statesmanship...one of eloquent simplicity. No longer do the pronouncements of the Commander In-Chief need to be interpreted, analyzed, or translated. He means what he says, and he says what he means. Of course, the mindset of groups like The Brookings Institute and The University of Denver's School of International Studies dictate that they react with disdain, and with pedagogical tongue-clucking and head-shaking. "Arrogance" is the cry. How can we, in this pluralistic world, expect to win the respect of other nations when we so recklessly impose our philosophical mores upon them? The answer, of course, is that we can't.

So then, what good can come of this reversion to a more black-and-white mindset? Quite simply put - the preservation of American lives, and the defense of the Constitution. Though we, as a nation (at least that part of the nation made up of academics and cultural theorists) have forgotten that the primary job of the President is not to win friends and influence people (though, admittedly, those are worthwhile goals). Rather, the President's primary responsibility, when it call comes down to it, is to scare the living hell out of any who might threaten either the nation's citizens themselves, or those freedoms to which we hold so tightly.

President Bush has, in his now 3+ years in office, managed to alienate a great many of the world's elite. President Clinton, in contrast, was beloved by these same folk. Clinton achieved a level of respect among the darlings of European political thought never before attained by an American leader, save for possibly Jimmy Carter. That, of course, is the damning indictment to end them all. Under Clinton's leadership, the United States was forgiven of its insensitivities under Reagan and George H. W. Bush. Under George W. Bush's presidency, however, the old animosities and "ugly American" epithet-hurling are back with a vengeance.

All of these things are acknowledged to be true - even by fans of the President, like myself. Another fact, however, has escaped the minds of the President's critics. Americans feel safer, and are safe under this President's leadership. Islamic terrorists respect only one thing - power. To say that they respect it is, in fact, not altogether correct. They fear power. Under Clinton, any response to an act committed against American civilians (or even military personnel) led to a predictably mild tactical action, coupled with a severe rhetorical rebuke. Under the current Administration, however, such actions do nothing but ensure the destruction of said organization, in one form or another, rhetorical grandstanding notwithstanding.

So...would I acknowledge that we, as Americans are more unpopular with the rest of the world than we've been in recent history? Certainly. Am I comfortable with that fact? You bet. When it comes to international relations, the unfortunate reality is that fear, with its accompaniments is a better alternative to fawning. To be hated by the European elite, and feared by Islamic extremists is, to my mind, a far better thing than to be loved by Europe, and thought toothless by those who would strike us. The unfortunate reality is that it is, in my opinion, impossible to take the kind of posture that would satisfy Europe without compromising our national security. Such is the world in which we live.

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 3:04 PM |

The All-Around Relevance of The Simpsons

Jonah Goldberg, the excellent NRO writer, utilizes my favorite show, The Simpsons to make a point about gay marriage, and culture in general.

Remember..."A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man." - Jebediah Springfield

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 9:48 AM |

PETITION O' THE DAY!!

To start the day off right, here's today's PETITION O' THE DAY!

Today's issue of earth-shattering importance is online petitions. We all know they don't really do anything, right (that having been said, sign my Karate Kid petition now!!!)?

So, go here, and sign the online petition against online petitions.

More to come later...busy day ahead.

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 9:31 AM |

Tuesday, July 01, 2003

NO CONCUR!

And now, without further ado, today's PETITION O' THE DAY!

Today's crucial petition deals with one of the most insipid blights at work in the world today. That's right - the word "concur". This petition requests the removal of this foul assemblage of vowels and consonants from the English language. Sign, and we'll be the better for it.

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 10:21 AM |

Hurricanes - according to Frank J

For my readers down in the area of the Gulf of Mexico (hah!), I've linked to a piece on hurricanes (what they are, what causes them, etc.) by IMAO's Frank J. As a SkyWarn-trained weather spotter, I know the value of good information about severe weather. This isn't it. But, it's fun, so who cares, right? An excerpt -

FUN FACT ABOUT HURRICANES

* Hurricanes involve wind... and rain too, I think.

* Hurricanes only attack near the coastline, because further inland is ruled by the tornados who don't take kindly to other weather anomalies moving in on their territory.

* The main differences between a hurricane, a tropical storm, and a depression are their spellings and pronunciations.

Good stuff. Read and print off for future reference, should the need arise.

(permalink) Posted by Jared @ 10:17 AM |

Patronize 'em!

Currently Reading/Recommending

What's in my ears right this minute

The Rocky Mountain Alliance of Bloggers

Meaty Links

Evangelical Links

Reach

Other Quality Blogs

80s Nostalgia!

Aloha Links