Sheehan to crash SOTU.

Tuesday, January 31, 2006
via polipundit: Cindy Sheehan, fresh from her trip to Venezuala where she pandered to and slobbered all over Commie leader and Cocaine addict Hugo Chavez...will be in the audience at the SOTU tonight. Some nice Democrat gave her a pass. {she really was slobbering all over Chavez, I saw film of hugging and kissing and almost lost my lunch}

Will she behave? I wonder.

Another interesting post to check out at Michelle Malkins on the Palstinian riots complete with pics of burning Danish and Norwegian flags. It seems they are not believers in freedom of expression. Where is the left when you need them? Oh yes, that is right, they are sucking up to communists or making excuses for terrorists. Too busy to protect the freedom of speech or the press.


I just heard on Fox that Cindy Sheehan was lead away in handcuffs. It seems she tried to unfurl a banner. Needless to say she will be applauded by the Kos crowd. I wonder if these folks think rules don't apply to them?


Duffy Nichols said...

Her entire situation is rather sad, really.

terrye said...


Yes it is. But you know what? She is crying on cue now and that bothers me.

She is not right.

Buddy Larsen said...

I think she's on an adrenaline high--with her new star status.

Wonder if she actually has any idea at all what Hugo Chavez really is.

terrye said...


I don't know but if there is a communist in the hemisphere whose butt she has not kissed it was an oversight. She is obviously working at being as far out there as she can get.

Hugo Chavez has signed a pact of cooperation with Iran and has flaunted his relationship with them. He has the worst the human rights record in the region.

I guess Cindy figured that any enemy of her country was a friend of hers.

I wonder if it occurs to anyone that her exhusband was that young man's father and he is grieving too. Without the fanfare.

Buddy Larsen said...

Well, we all knew, didn't we, that as soon as the military started hot-pursuit of the terrorists, our hard-left would find and promote a Mother Sheehan. It's standard-operating-procedure for them--on any issue--to find some wounded soul and use the tear-streaked face to whoop through an agenda that cannot stand on any basis other than the romantic, sentimental, and (to enemies sworn against us) childlike.

ambisinistral said...

I saw her on C-SPAN just before the SOTU at some sort of "Impeach Bush" gathering. I had never heard her speak before. Let's just say her public speaking skills could use a wee bit of polishing.

That and her comprehension of the Constitution. She was rambling on that the Seperation of Powers had been destroyed because one party controlled both the Congress and Executive Office. In fact, such an atrocious abuse of the Constitution was one of the reason Bush should be impeached.


MeaninglessHotAir said...

I wonder if these folks think rules don't apply to them?

Umm, yeah.

MeaninglessHotAir said...


I can't help but think she's not doing her cause much good, except among the true believers.

terrye said...

Well the speech is over and the experts are bloviating.

Bill Kristol said it was not conservative enough.

I liked it, but what do I know?

It seems to me that a State of the Union address is meant for the entire country, not just your party faithful.

There will be plenty of oppurtunities for Bush to speak to the choir.

I did think that little shouting contest over entitlements was interesting. He is right about that.

The Congress will have to deal with it.

Seneca the Younger said...

Astoundingly stupid. Among other things, she started unfolding her banner, not just before the speech, but before most anyone was in the room. If she could have restrained herself for 10 minutes, she could have made an ass of herself on live TV.

Barry Dauphin said...

I'm sure that Sheehan wanted to get arrested hoping to make a big deal of our "fascist" state to arrest the aggrieved mother. Either that or she is really that out of it. Either way, it doesn't play well for her side except for the DNC kos koolaid addicts.

Buddy Larsen said...

Everybody likes to snort at committees and commissions, but forming one *is* a start--someone will now have to write a report, for the bipartisan commission that will be charged with studying the boomers' retirement effects on entitlements.

Buddy Larsen said...

After she's bailed, will she claim 'torture'?

Rick Ballard said...


Kristol is an intelligent man with a rather large blind spot that surrounds his head during waking hours. Not my favorite, either.

I thought the speech was OK. Not great but he tapped a few points that I found interesting - like nuke plants as a way to get off the oil ticks teat. I also liked the emphasis placed on additional basic research funding and trying to upgrade math skills at the elementary and secondary level. Having read back through the archives a bit over at Kitchen Table I'm puzzled as to why more parents don't lynch school boards en masse.

I also liked the card he laid down for Hamas and the vague promise of friendship to the Iranian people as well as the solid promise that they don't get no A-Bombs. Perhaps they'll remember that assurance after we finish delivering the J-Dams.

gumshoe1 said...

"If she could have restrained herself for 10 minutes, she could have made an ass of herself on live TV."


ambisinistral said...


If she does run for Office I plan on sending her twenty bucks. sleazey on my part for sure, but I figure it is a small price to pay for the vast amount of entertainment she'll certainly provide.

gumshoe1 said...

KozKidz reaction(s):

i decided to stick with the summary on the first page...

"There is no doubt that we live in a police state in America under Bush."


the police state that prevented him from posting both the news and his opinions of it online.

(*rolls eyes*)


Cindy Sheehan arrested by Capitol Hill Police!! Updated
by ajc888
Tue Jan 31, 2006 at 06:48:31 PM PDT

CNN's Ed Henry has just reported that Cindy Sheehan has been arrested by Capitol Hill police just before she was to attend the SOTU address tonight. She was present at the invitation of a California Dem congress woman Lynn Woolsey. So far, there has been no indication of the cause for the arrest. There is no doubt that we live in a police state in America under Bush.

* ajc888's diary :: ::

News update - Ed Henry is now reporting that Cindy Sheehan was already present in the house chamber gallery when she was arrested. The cause of arrest was Sheehan's action in unfurling a banner. The contents of the banner are not yet known. Henry also stated that Capitol Hill police would hold Sheehan for at least one hour for questioning which is very convenient since Bush's SOTU speech is scheduled for approx. 45 minutes.

Tags: Cindy Sheehan, SOTU, Recommended (all tags)

Rick Ballard said...


The commission is smoke and mirrors. Actuarial science isn't new nor is the probable answer unknown. 'Second half' boomers are not going to get full benefits until age 67 and the COLA is going to have the 1% "just because we love ya" add-on dropped.

It ain't rocket science.

terrye said...


I just can not seperate Kristol from Dan Quayle. Quayle was a lot smarter than people gave him credit for and people from the Hoosier state were not impressed with the work Bill did for him. Karl Rove he is not.

I am no expert on this but the other day I read a short article on ethanol. It seems that in Brazil they use it all the time and 3/4 of the cars are made to use both gas and ethanol.

I remember it from the 80's, but this is different and it seems more and more people are taking it seriously. I was surprised.

If I can find the article I will post a link.

terrye said...


History buffs they are not. They probably think a gulag is a Hungarian casserole.

I did notice that there was another mother there tonight who lost a son.

And she did not feel the need to make a spectacle of herself.

Buddy Larsen said...

Rick, right, the facts are published everywhere--but yet, without some formal mechanism to get a few marquee Dems to call it by name, the actuarial time-bomb can stay hidden out in Area 51 with the rest of the UFOs.

Rick Ballard said...


Well, if corn keeps dropping and oil keeps going up at some point there will be a crossing of the lines on a graph and it will make sense to everyone.

The either/or on gas - ethanol plays hell with carburetion and the cylinders - it would be a happier day if the blend percentage were fixed and the engineers could work to a tighter range of combustion.

I'm holding off for a nuclear car. There are some people that I want to have ride next to the fuel tank on a long trip.

Barry Dauphin said...


Area 51---isn't that where they're taking Cindy Sheehan in our police state?

Buddy Larsen said...

Are those 70,000 'math and science professionals' going to saunter into the K12 system from outside the NEA ?

Oh, my.

Barry Dauphin said...

If there are people inside our country who are talking with al-Qaida, we want to know about it – because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again.

The Dems sat on their hands after this line from SOTU. That does not look good for them.

terrye said...


I will see if I can find that article. I got the impression that scientists had found ways to deal with some of the problems.

It would seem that there would have to be a way.

terrye said...


The fact that the only time they got excited was when they were applauding doing squat about Social Security does not look good either.

Vote for me, I sit around and do nothing.

Barry Dauphin said...


Perhaps the Dems are auditioning for the job of lavatory salesman.

Rick Ballard said...


At least they didn't break into their "Hit us again, hit us again, harder, harder" cheer". I loved Landrieu and Blanco's expressions (on Fox) during the speech. I imagined an entire lemon stuck in their mouths.


There is definitely a way. It's being done now. It would just be easier if the mix ratio were fixed (in CA it's 10%) nationally and a phase in determined. Corn can't go up much either.

chuck said...

If I can find the article I will post a link.

The WSJ had a good article on this, but it is premium content. Anyway, what between government pushing ethanol from sugar cane for thirty years and offshore oil discoveries, Brazil is now energy independent. In Brazil, ethanol actually costs less than gas for the same energy content these days.

At current prices, Brazil can make ethanol for about $1 a gallon, according to the World Bank. That compares with the international price of gasoline of about $1.50 a gallon. Even though ethanol gets less mileage than gasoline, in Brazil it's still cheaper per mile driven. As a result, ethanol now accounts for as much as 20% of Brazil's transport fuel market. The country's use of gasoline has actually declined since the late 1970s. The use of alternative fuels in the rest of the world is a scant 1%.

There is also a nice chart in the article, but I'm not sure it is kosher to post it.

terrye said...


I think the article I saw was on Forbes.

Energy independent. I would love to tell the denizons of the ME to drown in their oil.

All that wealth and it has brought nothing bu misery to those people, not just in the ME but in Africa as well.

It is like a curse.

Buddy Larsen said...

Brazil is i think larger than the USA landmass-wise, and produces not only cars but airliners, too, for cryin out loud. Their markets have been straight up for the last several years--the bull market in commodities--esp those dug outta the ground--has really amped that economy.

terrye said...


The article I read made the point that the ethanol had helped out the rural areas in Brazil by giving them something to sell right there.

Buddy Larsen said...

Terrye, the curse of oil as an actual academic subject goes way way back (note Daniel Pipes' essay is from 1982--another era!), it's effects are quite visible even in some areas of the USA (shhh...*Louisiana*). It's akin to what we've been gnawing for days now--the cargo cult society.

MeaninglessHotAir said...

The oil thing is all about money, i.e., cost. If something else comes along that costs less, we'll use that instead. I'm sanguine about it for the first time in years, because the price of oil is getting sufficiently high that it's becoming economical to look for alternatives, and because technology has sufficiently improved that some of those alternatives are just barely feasible. I tend to think that nuclear will be an important part of the solution. Keep in mind that even if the price of oil gets sufficiently high to make ethanol et al. feasible, it doesn't mean that the usual oil tyrant suspects are going to go away. They'll keep their prices sufficiently low to remain competitive.

As for them wasting their inheritance, the same can be said of many Westerners, in a different context. The freest, most tolerant large nation in the world is dubbed a "police state" by its own sons.

Buddy Larsen said...

Yep--makes sense--I was in the Brazilian boonies a lot back in 70s/80s, and the common vehicle is a little three-wheel two-cycle car which blows clouds of exhaust and will run--up to around 20 mph--on damn near anything. Our engineered freeways are--no sarcasm--going to be trippy in those little things. Folks motor along and keep up three-way concersations--albeit shouted--with the cars on either side. In fact, I predict we'll like it, and soon find bizarre the idea of doing anything at all at 80 mph with other 80 mph people you don't even know coming straight at you and missing you by inches.

Buddy Larsen said...

Yep, Mark, 911 doesn't bother you, but the Sheehan loss does.

I guess that makes sense, since the Sheehan loss occurred in the prevention of more 911s.

I don't really 'get' the pretzel logic, but then again I'm not brilliant like you.

Barry Dauphin said...


Blanco is toast and she knows it. Knowing La. as I do, my guess is that Landrieu still has a few lives left, unfortunately. Her family's political connections in the state are very deep, although she didn't exactly cruise to victory. Nonetheless, I'm sure her her punch the facerhetoric did not go over well with W.

Barry Dauphin said...

The SOTU seemed strong on the fight we are in and the pursuit of liberty. The rationale and call to idealism is on target and something the opposing side has no answer for. He seemed to be telling the Iranins to stand up for themselves and gave no sense that military action is on the table at this moment.

I'm not a fan of laundry list stuff in SOTU, but that has become the way it is done. The addicted to oil rhetoric has an emotional appeal at many levels, but this shift is not going to happen soon, but it will happen largely because of economic forces and incentives that don't work on an artificial time table.

Rick Ballard said...


On the NEA/Math professionals - there were only 12,500 Math BS degrees awarded in '03. That's versus 106,000 Ed degrees. Ed grads have a mean score of 475 on the GRE while Math grads mean is 620. Somewhere in there is the key to "Why Festus can't add."


I think that Landrieu is up in '08. Won't the situation on the NO recovery have some bearing on her chances?

chuck said...

...three-wheel two-cycle car which blows clouds of exhaust and will run--up to around 20 mph--on damn near anything.

The WSJ mentioned Volkswagen -- they have a plant in Brazil -- as making a car with a selector switch that allows it run on either gas or ethanol. Getting all the service stations to carry ethanol was another thing the government had to do.

Knucklehead said...

I found the SOTU speech "OK". I didn't love it but I thought it was it edged toward very good. I was particularly pleased with the contrast in tone with that we've heard from the Dem leadership for the past five years, and the "gentle chastisement" of them for behaving like a bunch of spoiled adolescents (on their good days).

I was also pleased with the response to the little Dem uprising over the SS stuff. The problem is not going away just because you idiot Dems do a bunch of opposition knuckle-dragging.

Interstingly (to me), my wife - who is not particularly political but is becoming quite annoyed with the BDS sufferers she is finding are ubiquitous and cannot be escaped because they cannot seem to have a discussion about any danged thing without infecting the conversation with BDS blatherings - was bery interested. Her observations were that Bush seemed to her more confident than she'd ever seen him (I don't agree with that but he was close to top form for him) and that she expressed a high degree of interest in hearing how the opposition would respond to what she thought was a very good speech that made a great deal of sense. So she waited, literally on the edge of her seat, for the Dem response. Halfway through Kean's response I looked over and she was fast asleep on the sofa.

I thought Kean's response "small". He spent a fair bit of it telling us how so many states were doing their jobs yet tried to leave some underlying impression that the only reason states were forced to do their jobs was because the feds weren't doing theirs. I find the whole body-armor stuff so much drivel. There is always some portion of military kit that is not the latest and greatest available. The troops will never have the latest and greatest of everything they need in the quantities they need. It has always been so and will always be so. The notion that we should not deploy them into combat unless and until they have absolutely everything they need in its latest and greatest instantiation is a not-so-clever ruse to try and prevent the deployment of troops into combat.

Re: Sheehan... she's probably imbalanced. Shame on the Dem, especially the Dem who gave her a ticket into the gallery, for using her the way they are.

Re: dependence on oil. Ethanol is a mixed bag. We should get what we can from it but not oversell or expect it to be the Big Answer. Our laws surrounding diesel could use a big revamping and it would probably be wise to encourage wider acceptance of diesel autos. As with ethanol there are "bio" methods for augmenting supply that probably have similar pros and cons. Both ethanol and bio-diesel, even together, don't represent the big fix but they don't require the complete rebuild of distribution infrastructure either. These types of somewhat small changes can be pushed into the system without major disruption and passage of time for such an enormous industrial component of our economy. They probably represent little more than a dent but a somewhat significant one.

I support a move toward nuke power but it won't free up a great deal of oil (NG is another matter). Mostly I support it because aside from being a very sensible way to generate electricity the thought of it makes the average moonbat start twitching.

Knucklehead said...

Oh, I neglected to mention another point re: Kean's response. There was a whole lotta "now we know this and that" re: Iraq.

I've decided that when this stuff crops up in converstation I will no longer let it simply pass. We "no know" a whole lotta stuff we didn't know. As Bush said, hindight is not the same thing as wisdom. So when we look at the "now we knows", the "if we knew then what we know nows", we need to examine the entire spectrum of those things or we cannot extract any wisdom at all from the hindight.

For example, we need to acknowledge and take into account that now we know the UN is completely corrupt and that the OFF program was hopelessly compromised. Now we know that Saddam had put the French into his pocket. Now we know that the Canadians were doing everything they could to climb right in there with the French. Now we know that Schroeder wasn't displaying "principled objections" but, rather, desperately trying to find a way to use general German anti-American sentiments to hang onto his job which he was simultaneously using to firm up his personal financial future with the Russians.

Stuff like that. Add a few more "now we knows" to the gravy before deciding whether or not it tastes good.

Russ_M said...

I'm sure that Sheehan wanted to get arrested hoping to make a big deal of our "fascist" state to arrest the aggrieved mother. From the San Francisco Chronicle, "I'm still trying to find out why the president's Gestapo had to arrest Cindy Sheehan in the gallery." Rep. Pete Stark, D-Fremont.

markg8 said...

What no SOTU thread? Something like 15 comments about Cindy Sheehan, a few about Bill Krystal and a few about the monetary timebomb Bush - yes Bush - is leaving the grandkids. Gore was going to put the surplus (remember that?) in a lockbox.

Lemme chime in. Maybe Cindy will get committed or something. All that acting out just because the apple of her eye, her oldest son was shot dead in Sadr City. What a loon.

I really liked the part about how we'll cut our use of middle eastern oil by 75% by 2025. Hell we get less than 20% of our oil from the region now. By the time they run out of oil we'll only need 5% of our oil from them. Weeeeee!

And don't you just love the way he talked about how "we've changed our approach to reconstruction" in Iraq? We sure did, the $18.4 billion ran out. Man I hope the Iraqis appreciate all those painted classrooms cuz that's about all they're gonna get.

And the NSA wiretaps: "Previous presidents have used the same constitutional authority I have and federal courts have approved the use of that authority. Appropriate members of Congress have been kept informed."

That's some fancy speechifying. Unfortunately for him congress outlawed warrantless domestic intercepts in 1978 and since then no president has sidestepped the federal court that approves the use of that authority. They may have argued to get the law changed but when congress refused they obeyed the law. Some appropriate members of congress (but not all) were informed but then were sworn to secrecy and not even allowed to discuss the matter with aides or experts. That's not oversight and it isn't legal. And you know what? I don't expect terrorists to obey the law but I do expect the president of the United States to. Because if the NSA intercept program does lead to the apprehension of terrorists it'd be nice to be able to try and convict them in a court of law instead of just throwing them into a gulag because that is also against the law.

But then that's just me. I didn't wet my pants on 9/11 and decide that we should destroy our freedoms to protect our freedoms.

Peter UK said...

"But then that's just me. I didn't wet my pants on 9/11"
Why what was the difference between 2001 and 1974?

Fresh Air said...


That's a lot of question-begging in such a short space. Very efficient. You should really take some time off.

BTW, you forgot to mention that fruitcake Sheehan's literally drooling over Hugo Chavez, comparing George Bush with Hitler or calling New Orleans "occupied." I'm sure none of that matters to you since she speaks "truth to power" or somesuch, but for those of us with an ounce of sanity and common sense, that idiot's 15 minutes were up a long time ago.

She never had any moral authority or any other kind of authority at all. I don't give a rat's ass what she believes. It doesn't trump any other parent's beliefs, which in turn don't trump any other citizen's--they're all just tiny fish swimming in the marketplace of opinions and ideas. "Moral authority," to the extent it exists, is held by popes, not by the likes of Cindy Sheehan, and is, in any case, a giant logical fallacy.

If you think she makes a good spokesman for the antiwar Democrats, by all means keep promoting her--if possible make her available for the nominating convention in 2008. I'd love to see her call the president a war criminal on national television.

Ann Coulter was right: Liberals always take the bait. Children can't help themselves.

markg8 said...

And yes I posted it again. If you don't like it then just ban me. I'll go over to KOS and post my responses there with links. Who knows? Maybe it'll increase your traffic. Maybe it'll help us all hear each other a little better.

BTW the new Patriot Act makes it legal for the Secret Service to arrest anyone suspected of disagreeing with the president or any of his minions at taxpayer funded events on prememptive grounds that they may be disruptive. The FBI conducts political surveillance and obtains intelligence and files it in it's database on Bush administration critics to enforce this law. So does the Pentagon.

For instance the F.B.I. has 1,173 pages of internal documents on the American Civil Liberties Union, 2,383 pages on Greenpeace. Upwards of 60,000 pages on people in the US who have expressed an opinion disagreeing with the president's policies. No word on how many of them come from warrantless intercepts. All done under the auspices of counter terrorism. Who exactly are we at war with again?

You don't have to commit a crime to get arrested. You don't even have to be contemplating committing a crime.
If you have ever expressed an opinion that doesn't jibe with administration policy and attempt to attend a Republican rally, speech,
townhall meeting or even the Olympics you can be arrested and imprisoned for up to a year under the new Patriot Act. Will Sheehan get such punishment? Locking up a gold star mother would be an extremely stupid and desperate act for these folks so I doubt it.

What goes around comes around folks. Try and imagine Richard Clarke managing the no fly list for Hillary's Justice Dept. and being fed names by Under Secretary of State Joe Wilson.

Fresh Air said...


I don't know what else to say. You are an idiot.

Rick Ballard said...


Please don't insult idiots by associating Mark with them. Many idiots are actually competent to live without minders and Mark has never presented one iota of evidence that would support that assumption in his case.

Peter UK said...

It must be galling for Markg8 to be so idiotic that even the FBI can't be bothered arresting him.
"For instance the F.B.I. has 1,173 pages of internal documents on the American Civil Liberties Union, 2,383 pages on Greenpeace."
Markg8 has a post it note on the Stupid File.

Peter UK said...

Tony Blair is visiting an Edinburgh hospital. He enters a ward full of
patients with no obvious sign of injury or illness and greets one. The
patient replies:

"Fair fa your honest sonsie face,
Great chieftain o the puddin race,
Aboon them a ye take yer place,
Painch, tripe or thairm,
As langs my airm."

Blair is confused, so he just grins and moves on to the next patient.
The patient responds:

"Some hae meat an canna eat,
And some wad eat that want it,
But we hae meat an we can eat,
So let the Lord be thankit."

Even more confused, and his grin now rictus-like, the PM moves on to
the next patient, who immediately begins to chant:

"Wee sleekit, cowerin, timrous beasty,
O the panic in thy breasty,
Thou needna start awa sae hastie,
Wi bickering brattle."

Now seriously troubled, Blair turns to the accompanying doctor and asks "Is
this a psychiatric ward?"

"No," replies the doctor, "this is the serious Burns unit."

Fresh Air said...


I think my file must be bigger than that.

What I really want to know is this: Is there a bureau where people keep track of these idiots to make sure they don't hurt themselves, and always go out wearing safety helmets and reflective tape? Because if there isn't, we should probably have one. I'm sure the EU will get around to it soon, right after they mandate the percentage of sheep entrails that are allowed to go into haggis.

Poor Marky! Must be hard to sleep at night with all the goosestepping and jackboot-stomping going on outside his bedroom window.

Fresh Air said...


I posted on haggis before seeing the Burns joke. Yes, I read that one before, but it's still a good un. Just celebrated the Bonnie Bard's birthday a week ago. Remember: Scots are the most generous people in the world, who'll gladly water your grave with a pint of long as it passes through their kidneys first.

RogerA said...

Lets go back to the older system where the President just mailed it in to Congress--although this one was not the laundry lists of mom and apple pie that some are.

re Sheehan, I wish she becomes the leader of the Kos' new independent party!

And since I promised to post my DD214, here it is--will leave it up till Friday--too bad John Kerry couldnt do that. DD214

Syl said...

congress outlawed warrantless domestic intercepts in 1978

Which makes FISA unconstitutional.

His other paranoid rantings best be left alone. And he accuses US of living in fear.


Peter UK said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
RogerA said...

Link fixed

Peter UK said...

n exemplifies the modern left and should be supported
Besides she might get her hands on Tedda,now that would be irony.

ex-democrat said...

"If you don't like it then just ban me. I'll go over to KOS and post my responses there with links."

LOL. go ahead, punk, make my day!

markg8 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
markg8 said...

Still no luck rogera.

Buddy Larsen said...

A Ralph Peters essay--featured on Wretchard's current post--might help you, Mark, to grasp what it is that makes others so willing to accept a tightened domestic security policy.

Yes we want it to be temporary--but first, we want its causation to be temporary.

Read the link--the second half is a bit repititious, but you can try to absorb the first page, at least.

It's easy to scoff at such material--so, please, just accept that many very serious people do not--and find others who seem to willfully (and for nothing more than short-term partisan politics) ignore and/or ridicule such information, to be, well, idiotic.

Buddy Larsen said...

(quote from pg 2 of 2, Ralph Peters' essay)

"It is astonishing that we have managed to hold the line as well as we have."

Buddy Larsen said...

Be Spartacus! Well, at least buy Danish--start at the imported cheese section--

RogerA said...

Mark--I have no idea why its not working; however here's the long way to get there. Go to; then to the pull down menu at the top: about us--open that, then under "contact us" scroll down to the bottom of that page --the very bottom--and you will see DD214. I just tried it that way and it opens.

markg8 said...

Buddy I read the whole thing. You sent the second page so I read that first. I agree our brilliant hi tech military isn't geared toward the asymmetrical threats we face. To that I say why do you think Bush picked a weak state like Iraq to pound instead of chasing a non state actor like Bin Laden around the mountains of Central Asia? He knew what he had to work with and if all he had to show for 9/11 retaliation come Nov. 2002 was the 10th Mountain Div hunting for Osama like so much US cavalry chasing Pancho Villa around Mexico or your Indians staying reliably one day behind the horse soldiers his chances of hanging onto congress were dim.

But then he gets to his real target at the end. Not just the wimpy secular intelligentsia but the press. Both of whom suffer from 300 years of the enlightment but have "never experienced a soul-shaking glimpse of the divine" and therefore cannot hope to understand let alone conquer our enemies. Hmmm...maybe he's right. Maybe we at Operation Yellow Elephant ought to recruit evangelicals instead of College Republicans.

Seriously though WW2 censorship had to do with not revealing battle formations. Geraldo Rivera got kicked out of Iraq for that in 2003.
We also didn't horrify folks at home with pics of our dead at Pearl Harbor and Tarawa etc. Hell this war has made the administration so nervous they won't even allow pics of flag covered coffins coming to Dover.

We still don't show our dead unless we want to rile the masses at home. Like the first battle of Fallujah. Remember the burnt corpses of those American contractors strung up from the bridge? There was no outrage against the press for showing those
pics from our public or the administration. And it wasn't any kind of media that stopped the resulting offensive. It was the threat of a general revolt by Iraqis. Mookie Sadr's Shiites were sending aid to the Sunnnis in Fallujah for God's sake. Bremer decided at the same time it would be a good idea to shut down Sadr's newspaper and start a battle with his supporters in Najaf and Kharbala. The Marines had to pull back when the Iraqi units went over to the other side in Fallujah.

I've gone on long enough but this the important point. Let it suffice to say the motives of suicidal religious terrorists or more than a billion conceited Chinese secularists doesn't justify or even come close to making a sensible case for illegal spying on Americans. Their motives do not change their communication tactics and it doesn't require us to break our laws.

Bush missed connecting the dots before 9/11 because he didn't focus attention on them not because there were too few dots. We still don't have nearly enough Arabic translators for all the chatter we detect and yet they still insist on firing them if they're gay. Sending the FBI and military investigators off to check out Greenpeace and Quaker meetings is a waste of time and resources and does nothing to protect us from jihadis.

RogerA said...

Mark--I gotta tell you guy--attempting to make sense out of your posts is difficult--even more so when you try the long ones--But lets start:

The 10th Mountain Division was not simply to chase OBL around the mountains--rather it was designed to defeat the Taliban and replace that regime--It did that pretty well,it was in all the papers.

As far as OBL goes, while he hasnt been physically captured, and we dont have DNA to prove it--he does appear to be much of a player anymore.

Your knowledge of events in Iraq with respect to Moqutada al Sadr seem equally ignorant of facts--as do you comments about WWII censorship.

The only thing I think you said that was correct was we dont have enough arabic humnit guys--the gay thing was a red herring as was most of the rest of your post.

"Connecting the dots" has become the single biggest cliche in the last five years--its wonderful what we do with hindsight--At least now we are being proactive and (gasp) eavesdropping on those who seek to do us harm--thats a step in the right direction.

Peter UK said...

It is probable that no Western country has sufficient Arabic translators,certainly ones who can tell the difference between Ali al Kaboom's laundry list and coded messages.Training translators who can understand idiomatic languages or different dialects is a task that takes decades,the essential ingredient being linguists need to spend time in the country to really learn the tongue.
This is a problem which should have been addressed as far back as the carter administration

Buddy Larsen said...

Mark, I pointed to that essay in an attempt to open your eyes not to the policies in effect, but to the perception of the threat that many, many people absolutely believe. Sorry if you felt you had to springboard into the tunnel-vision liturgy again--that was not my intention.

When you say we should listen to each other, I was trying to facilitate your advice.

BTW, Tarawa was the battle that FDR first allowed pics of fallen Americans. The pics caused a very large drop-off in Marine recruitment--which was thankfully temporary--but very real.

Point--human nature does not include wanting to get killed. All the more reason to TRY to understand the nature of the threat--and the concomitant *real* support and gratitude our soldiers deserve. Conversly, anyone who *honestly* believes the sacrifice is in vain or fraudulent should be going absolutely nuts about the war.

But first they ought to ponder the American system, the democratic republic, the meaning of elected leaders, and then ask themselves what it is about the people who voted for this administration that makes them so much stupider than you guys.

markg8 said...

If you think I'm hard to understand try reading Ralph Peters. Thank God he didn't spend 15 paragraphs comparing our struggle to the Peloponnesian War or some such drivel. That guy ought to write Osama's speeches. It'd bore the jihadis to death.

I used the term connecting the dots because Bush uses it all the time. I figured it was a term you folks could grasp.

roger you make unsubstantiated claims that I'm wrong. How about a little proof?

Do you think Porter Goss's CIA is lying when they say that voice on the recent tape is OBL? Don't you think they'd love to say it's not him or it's old spliced tape?

Do you think the 10th Mountain or any other US Army divsiion did the lion's share of fighting against the Taliban?

If you'd like contemporaneous news reports of what happened in Fallujah and the rest of Iraq when all hell broke loose in April 2004 it won't take long.

How can you possibly quibble about WW2 censorship? The D-Day rehearsal fiasco in the English Channel in the spring of '44? I'll give ya that one. They hid it.

But we've seen this movie before and it doesn't look like the Longest Day. It looks more like Born on the Fourth of July. Our soldiers aren't rolling across France being greeted with flowers and candy by liberated Frenchmen. We've occupied a hostile foreign country for almost 3 years now and they're still being blown up. The American people want to know how we're going to get out of this and don't have much faith anymore in the guys who got us into it.

Bush said last night: It is said that prior to the attacks of September the 11th, our government failed to connect the dots of the conspiracy. We now know that two of the hijackers in the United States placed telephone calls to Al Qaeda operatives overseas. But we did not know about their plans until it was too late.

He then uses that as justification for warrantless NSA intercepts. That's just BS.

"By late August 2001, the FBI finally had information that Almihdhar had recently entered the United States. But the search for the suspected al Qaeda operative was treated as routine and assigned to a rookie agent, according to the commission report.

Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert who heads Rand Corp.'s Washington office, said it is unclear what communications could have been intercepted if the FBI and other agencies did not know where Alhazmi and Almihdhar were."

Peter UK said...

Buddy, Slapton Sands

RogerA said...

Mark--with your grasp of reality and knowledge, of military strategy and force strucure--how come you arent the secretary of defense? Inquiring minds want to know. umm, and yes
I think the 10th Mountain did a fair amount of fighting
as did a lot of other forces who will never be cited in dipatches--

markg8 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
markg8 said...

Buddy I know you're trying to be serious as am I.

But if human nature does not include wanting to get killed then what are the suicide bombers doing? If you believe that then it throws Peters' whole remorseless, I'm goin to 72 virgin Disneyland psychological theory out the window.

And it's not like it's the first time we faced such a foe. Might I remind you of the kamakazis and the suicide charges in the Pacific? Those men believed their emperor was God. And they had a modern industrial state backing them.

Just because jihadis are ruthless murderers doesn't mean we should sink to their level anymore than Halsey's pilots should have crashed their dive bombers into the Yamato to avenge the Intrepid. We are who we are and they are who they are and I want us to be better than them. That's how we win.

markg8 said...

Sure the 10th Mountain Div. did a fair amount of fighting as did other US divisions roger. They did not however do most of the fighting in the fall and winter of 2001. That was done mostly by indigenous Afghanis with US air support directed by CIA and US special forces. Not that the Taliban did much fighting. Mostly they just fell back and melted back into the populace or took off back to Pakistan.

Buddy Larsen said...

Fox's 'saddam-trial ten-seconds' just now related that today the court heard testimony from a woman (behind a screen) who was hung upside down naked to watch the murder of her husband and children.

Connect THEM dots, Mark.

While we're on the subject of standards by which to judge the current war effort, look into the 1943 Sicily landings--US Navy AA gunners never got the message that a fleet of C-47s intended to night-overfly the anchorage, and they shot the formation to pieces--IIRC, twenty-some aircraft and hundreds of paratroopers KIA. Point? Good people doing their best under extreme stress can be imperfect.

But anyway, FDR shoulda been impeached over these repeated incidents. We'd still be fighting Hitler, but what the hey.

Peter UK said...

You know how the war against Japan was won Markg8,Japan did not sign the Geneva convention.Nealy every ton of merchant shipping was sunk,flame throwers were used against bunkers,entire cities were burnt to the ground,the war against Japan was won because you exceded their savagery.
That is what war is a suspension of civilisation until one side is beaten and is incapable of defending itself.
I recommend you read some illustrated histories of the War in the Pacific.

Buddy Larsen said...

"...I want us to be better than them. That's how we win."

But, we *are*, on both counts, better, and winning.

That's my whole point--we are better, we are winning, and you and your party have already established that you could've done it better--point taken--we got it--nuff said--

So now, as Peters reminds you of the depth of the enemy's zeal, isn't it worth entertaining the thought of maybe backing the *national* effort to get this thing over with?

markg8 said...

OK peety get your ass over to Iraq so you can hang a naked woman upside down and murder her husband and children and to prove you can exceed their savagery rape her in front of her husband and children first ya f*cken savage.

Buddy Larsen said...

You know yourself that you have Joe Leiberman to do it with, and backing him would un-sour the nation and elevate politics back to argumentation of policy rather than psychotic smearing--but--no can do, Sen. Joe's out of fricken FASHION. Feh.

Buddy Larsen said...

There--you typed it out--that Iraqi woman's ordeal (multiplied by God only knows what number)--and yet--and yet--not a word from the Democrats about the Ramsey Clark exhibition. Why is this? Why? Why?

markg8 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
markg8 said...

Oh Buddy if only you were right. Believe me there's nothing I'd like better than only having Bush's hairbrained economics and cynical domestic policy to bitch about. But sadly you're wrong. Iraq is going to hell in a handbasket and Iran is going to be there to pick up the pieces. The latest poll shows 41 percent of Shiites approve of attacking Americans.

Peter UK said...

"hang a naked woman upside down and murder her husband and children"

Projecting your psycopathic urges again are you Markg8,you must be a particulary degenrate piece of scum for imagery like that to be swilling around your mind,hardly the thoughts of a peacenic.
Get help son and get it soon

Buddy Larsen said...

See, you can't help yourself--leave out the 'hairbrained' [ed. 'hare'] and you'd have a post with no auto-shut-offs. besides, he's the pres, how would YOU (or I) know if he's 'harebrained'? He has more info than we do, right?

The WorldOpinion poll by Univ of Maryland--do you have the questions asked, and any audits of the results?

Good comments on the Sicily 'friendly-fire'.

markg8 said...

Goddamit don't talk to me about Ramsey Clark when Saddam is being tried for crimes he committed in 1982 when Ronald Reagan was supplying him with WMD and Donald Rumsfeld was only months away from going to to Baghdad to shake his hand.

I'm sick of your amnesia and BS realpolitik. Don't give me that crap about how we needed an enemy of our enemy to be our friend. If it wasn't for playing one side off against another and using these people as pawns in the Cold War we wouldn't be in this mess to begin with.

markg8 said...

The U of Maryland poll is due to be released tomorrow I think.

Buddy Larsen said...

You can be sick of anything you want to be sick of, Mark--but it doesn't change the facts.

Hard to believe, but apparently that handshake in the 80s would've okayed everything Saddam later did, and from there possibly cost the future of civilization, if your people were running the country.

Buddy Larsen said...

"...using these people as pawns in the Cold War" THAT's don't like how the Cold War ended up.

Peter UK said...

This infantile argument of the handshake keeps coming up,refuse to shake a mans hand and he knows he has an enemy,it is part of diplomacy,it is designed to avoid conflict.

Buddy Larsen said...

The genesis is thought to be, a way for Krag and Grok to know that the other doesn't have a rock (weapon) in his hand.

markg8 said...

My people weren't running the country after 1980 and selling him WMD all the way up the time he invaded Kuwait Buddy.

Jimmy Carter actually spent money trying to find ways to wean us off of foreign sources of oil instead of giving it lip service like Bush has in every state of the union speech since he's been president. Yeah the technology wasn't there yet but it sure as hell would be by now if we'd followed his lead. Instead we got the great communicator who gave us morning in America, $4.8 trillion dollars of debt and a whole new set of enemies to point our military at after the commies fell apart.

markg8 said...

I'd say going to Baghdad to shake murderous dictator's hand and offer to sell him WMD ought to disqualify you and the people who sent you for life in any capacity in US government. But then that's just me. Tell me that bedtime story again about morning in America but leave out the part about the woman hanging upside down.

Buddy Larsen said...

President Malaise did leave RR an excellent economy and world situation to work with, yessirree, Mark.

Sure, we ALL wish Carter done a better job of selling conservation to us idiots, just as we now wish GWB could do a better job of selling 'up is up and down is down' to OTHER idiots.

Peter UK said...

The best way to wean the nation off oil is for Senators to set an example and have only one car.

Buddy Larsen said...

So, RR is responsible for Saddam, and there were no '90s' in between?

How 'bout we root even earlier causes, and just blame Churchill, or Kublai Khan?

Blame *anybody* but Saddam, right?

But, whatever, don't sweat the women hanging upside down, they can't be helped, and they're Not In Your Name.

Peter UK said...

Poor old John F Kennedy airbrushed out of history,gets no gratitude at all for Viet Nam.

Buddy Larsen said...

The airbrush, every lefty's favorite weapon.
So, post WWII history is a disaster and the conspiratorial republicans did it?

Well, I've worked very hard all morning on the well-considered, academic, point-by-point rebuttal that your post deserves, Mark:


markg8 said...

I was trying to brief. Pretty hard to cover 60 years in a few sentences.

Ike's advisors refused to accept the
UN election that would have put Ho Chi Minh in power in 1956. They didn't name Saigon for him for nothing. Like it or not he was their George Washington. Kennedy was trying to figure out how to get out of Vietnam in his last few months.
But in the meantime he upped our advisors and LBJ went nuts. But LBJ also tried to buy off the North Vietnamese with a TVA building program in 1966 and had the same peace deal in 1968 Nixon took later. Nixon had Kissinger whisper promises to the South Vietnamese in Oct. 1968 and scuttled LBJ's deal.

Can you imagine Goldwater as president during the Cuban missile crisis? Christ Florida would be gone along with Cuba and Atlanta's slogan would be "the city too radioactive to hate."

And no postwar post WWII history wasn't a disaster for us. Mostly because we were the only industrialized nation that wasn't flattened or broke after the war.
We were pretty much able to sell anything we wanted with little competitton and with the GI bill and
subsidized housing there were great economic times. Even if we had coasted after the war it would have been boom times til 1970.

But all those events I mentioned before sewed the seeds of the problems we have now.

There's reasons we're distrusted and disliked from Caracas to Islamabad and it's not because of the Peace Corp.

Buddy Larsen said...

I hardly know where to start--why not with a question--can you describe an alternate history? One where the big kahuna whoever it is will not be envied annd used as a domestic excuse for being lesser ("we aren't like the USA because the USA won't LET us!")?

And per your one hard point, re Goldwater--historians in Russia will tell you that Kruschev's meeting with fresh-victor JFK (Vienna?) set him on a mission to whup JFK--he thought JFK rollable, and all the provocations of that era came directly from that appraisal. IOW, the heroic performance of JFK wrt Cuban Missile crisis would've been BEST handled by never having had the crisis to begin with--which credit would've redounded to Nixon, who--hate to embarrass you--was JFK's opponent. The presidency which Goldwater would've averted is the one you yourself just called 'nuts'--LBJ's. and, you should read up on Goldwater the man--the groundbreaking things he did for his co. employees before he ever entered politics--the way he quietly flew wounded vets home to Arizona--personally--at the controls of his plane. the way he treated women in business, in the hard glass-ceiling era. then reaD HIS SPEECHES, HIS PLATFORM, HIS VOTING RECORD. YOU'LL SEE, THE aTOMIC BARRY CARTOON YOU HAVE IN YOUR HEAD IS THE WORK OF THE FIRST GREAT aMERICAN MODERN SMEAR CAMPAIGN.

Ah--geez--I can't type--have to look at keyboard--didn't see i'd hit capslock--leaving it as is--too much trub to re-do. read as small-type, willya?

Luther McLeod said...

Oh a few all caps won't bother marky, he was using them himself a few days ago when he was accusing all here as being manipulated, brainwashed and cultish.

You are right in what you say above BL, but that makes no difference to marky. Not only does he have an alternate history, I think he truly lives in an alternate world.

You are a patient man for trying to reach him. Of course having been around goats a bit myself I can kinda understand where some of the patience comes from. They can be ornery creatures.

markg8 said...

Well Buddy I hope you had a chance to read my response to your last post before it was deleted. Seems the powers that be around here can't handle it so if not that's too bad, go to Goldwater's wikpedia bio and scroll down to his last years if you want more.