USMC_Vet is now posting at Threats Watch dot com along with Bill Roggio and Marvin Hutchens.---Pass the Ammo!
Is there any correlation between negative speeches or public statements and increased casualties?One for the number crunchers,sadly,not my field.
Peter, my two cents: without a huge sample, you couldn't quantify that sort of volition on the part of the enemy. But some things simply must be so, in the realm of cause and effect. Intuition is not necessarily less valid due to lack of data...lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. That said, I think we saw a spate of just that over the last couple weeks.
Here's something that could yield facts: the date at which the Dem primary candidates' speeches assumed the anti-war BDS rhetoric, vs the date at which the terror campaign in Iraq fully launched.
Buddy 6:18 PM,What are you talking about?Sample of our positive and loyal opposition:---"I was for withdrawal in defeat,But that was before,I was for a time table for success in Iraq which would allow for the U.S. military to leave." ---What is "Reality" Department:via Hugh HewittAnd, via Left Coaster, I find that Jeffrey Feldman at Daily Kos and I had the same reaction to official Democratic response to the speech:According to John Kerry, the problem with the President's "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq" was that it made the claim that the U.S. military belonged to the President's policy and not to the American people (hang on, here, it's hard to explain Kerry's arguments). He then went on to explain that Democrats are not calling for a time table for leaving Iraq, but were instead calling for a time table for success in Iraq which would allow for the U.S. military to leave.
Buddy,Yes and keynote patriotic speeches by,Senators Durbin,Kennedy et al,there might be some spikes somewhere.We know that bin Laden quotes DeMsm-stopper talking points,these could definitely be matched up..make a nice ad interspersing the two.
Where there's a distinction with no difference, there you will find the Massachusetts Mealy. Where there's credit rightfully due others, there you will find the Botox Billboard. Where there's...oh, what's the use....
It works better on Audio, where you can use that Ever Self Important and AuthoritativeTone of Voice.(gawd, how I miss it! - can't wait for the short lived 2008 primaries)---"Words ought to be slightly wild for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking" J M Keynes ht Daniel M. Harrison
is Zell too old?
There's a new up-and-comer in Texas...name is Buford Estrada.
"Is Zell too old?" ---No, could always have a young guy like Joe Liebermann for VP
PeterUK,I suspect the correlation would be to tenacity rather than tempo. The blatherings of the Seditionists don't so much encourage the terrorists to swarm as they prevent some of them from giving up. So the question - which is unanswerable through data about number of attacks - isn't "is there an increased number of attacks when the Seditionists bleat most loudly?" but, rather, "how much would attacks have fallen off by now if the Seditionists had kept their stupid mouths shut?"
Knucklehead, thanks for the excellent expression of a thought which I couldn't drag up outta the mess I made of myself with birthday daughter's ice cream & cake.Translated to the first reality, these blabbering politics-addled Dem fools have instigated an extra measure of violence and death--of that, I have no--absolutely no--doubt. Peter--maybe in the interests of civil order, we'd best not try to quantify that extra measure. One fresh grave or a thousand--pick a number. It's all tragic to the extent it could be avoided via less of the selfish careerist momomania rampant in the system.
Mom just called and said that's "moNomania".
Knucklehead,I would agree,the first premise of Osama bin Laden was that of the weak horse,decades of prostration and equivocation before terrorism lead directly to 9/11 and 7/7 Bali and other atrocities.The world learned from Vietnam that that the main ally in any conflict was within the US itself.The anti-war stance is perfectly respectable,but dishonest in that no price is given for such a position.The Loyal Opposition are politically driven,a position which lacks any moral ascent whatsoever.It may be done under the guise of national interest or the First Ammendment,but no one with a scintilla of sense ad decency would utter wordsd which give aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of perilIf one takes some of the utterances of Senators and put them in the context of WWI or WWII what would have been the response.In the UK somebody like Galloway is regarded as a pariah,what price Kennedy,Durbin ,Kerry or Biden?In warfare much depends on the perceptions of the antagonists,these do not necessarily correspond to reality.many a military diaster has resulted from misunderstanding the enemy.So To paraphrase Attlee, "A period of silence on their part would be welcome."
I've just complimented a Knucklehead post, and am thus a little concerned about cheapening my currency, but still I gotta say, that was well, well said, Peter.Hell, POTUS was a cheerleader, too!
Post a Comment