Does Our Bickering Affect the Morale of Our Troops? 

There are some things I simply don’t understand, such as Popular Mechanics inserting itself into a political and social argument.  The magazine is perhaps best suited to discussions of how to create a gas saving RV out of a 1972 Ford Pinto.

That said, James Joyner this morning points out that they’re doing exactly that; inserting themselves into a discussion about the Iraq war:

Soldiers in Iraq are too busy doing their jobs and trying to stay alive to be pay much attention to the domestic discussion of the war, Leslie Sabbagh writes in Popular Mechanics.

It never even hits the radar screen. For the troops on the front lines and the colonels in the rear—and just about everyone in between—the big news in Iraq every day is that they’re still alive and healthy. When it comes to Senate votes on the U.S. presence in Iraq, Sunday talk shows thrashing out length of deployment and stateside pundits talking to themselves, nearly every grunt, airman, sailor, soldier and Marine I speak with just doesn’t care.

It’s not negligence or a lack of opinion about how long they think they should stay here; they’re tuned out because the news doesn’t impact their day-to-day operations—and because comms often leave them uninformed from half a world away.

War deliberations and post-firefight reactions back home can vanish during the 12-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week base-line duty of the average soldier in Iraq. So when line troops are swamped carrying gear from street patrol to street patrol, village raid to village raid, for up to 20 hours a day, they often don’t have the time for, or the luxury of, Internet access. And when they do get it, they’re not punching up CNN—it’s e-mails from home they’re reading.

Forgive me, I am unimpressed by such arguments.  They tend to ignore history.  Vietnam ,for one thing.   Such arguments get even thinner when one considers that troops eventually come home.  James suggests that during his service in the previous action, Desert Storm, he never saw any of those arguments.  That’s probably true.  But it’s also true that that action was short enough that going home on leave and then returning to Iraq was in the cards, and therefore, for the duration, he was not exposed to the arguments going on at home about it.  Coupled, frankly, with the idea that the arguments and home were not being waged with nearly the intensity.

I find it difficult myself, to believe that anyone’s assessment would be that the morale of our troops could be completely unaffected by such arguments once they were exposed to them.  as Itel chains, in the responses, over there…

Certainly, you’re correct that in the end, and on the whole, each individual soldier must make his own determination as to whether not our actions in Iraq are “worth it”. If I read correctly the reactions of returning soldiers, most think it is.

But I suspect that those nagging doubts raised by the arguments amongst the people that they are supposedly representing,  here at home, have more effect on their morale than either article you cite would let on.

Tammy Bruce is reporting that John “Breck Girl” Edwards’ campaign is short of cash.  Edwards has pulled out of Nevada and launched a first strike attack on Ann Coulter.   In case you get the two confused, Edwards is one with the hair.  Ann is the one with the brains.

?

Over at the Captain’s Quarters:

Jeb Koogler, a staunch liberal at The Moderate Voice, has defended Hugo Chavez for a long time. He thought that Chavez intended to help the poor and downtrodden and made excuses for his tough tactics as a necessary interlude towards a better society. He disregarded Chavez’ authoritarian impulses as unimportant in the long run. Now Koogler says he can remain silent no more — and wonders why his colleagues on the Left haven’t made the same decision:

The sum of these recent developments, combined with previous measures to stack the courts and the legislature, have solidified Chavez’s rule to the point where there should no longer be any doubt about the direction in which the country is headed. Chavez is pushing for dictatorial-like powers and there seems to be little hope, at least in the near future, of re-establishing any semblance of democratic governance.Unfortunately, many of us on the left have been silent on this issue for far too long. While we have been quick to criticize our own administration and other foreign governments (think Vladimir Putin) for undemocratic policies, there has been a tendency to overlook the authoritarian governing styles of leftist regimes like that of Venezuela. For some reason — probably because these leaders profess the dogma of economic equality and social reform — many of us on the left have defended these liberal autocrats.

Ed responds, in part:

It’s not easy to admit error as Koogler does in this piece…

Quite so.  And I suppose that that is at least part of the reasoning behind the non reaction of the left to all of this that Koogler decries. After all, are they would have to admit that the right had this slime bag nailed all along.  However, I think both Ed and Koogler under-estimate the kind of people that Koogler has fallen in with.  People who, for example, wear T-shirts with portraits of Che, and think Fidel Castro is a good egg, and so on. In short, the Jimmy Carter/Noam Chomsky wing of the left.

Here’s the nut of it: If Koogler is really has open minded as his writings here seem to suggest, then perhaps in some point in the not so distant future he will actually address the question of where leftist policies have taken root, where the like of Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, etc, didn’t end up being the result.

This afternoon’s mention of my family’s loss of a beloved pet today, causes this article from Forbes (AP) to be even more painful:

As part of his plea agreement, Phillips signed a statement that said Vick joined in executing at least eight dogs that didn’t do well in test fights by various methods, including hanging and drowning.

“Phillips agrees and stipulates that these dogs all died as a result of the collective efforts of Peace, Phillips, and Vick,” the statement said.

These charges, in my view, take the dog fighting situation to a whole new level of disturbing.

At some point, some point very soon, the NFL  is going to need to step up to this, if they want to come out of this with any credibility at all.  Similarly, Mr. Blank and the entirety of the Atlanta Falcons organization is going to have to step up to this as well. If they don’t, they will find themselves in a situation where Michael Vick will be getting in the way of football, all season.

A sample of the recent press conferences with Roger Goodell  are exemplary, and the most recent one in the camp of the Detroit  Lions was downright painful to watch. The questions about the dogfighting affair, kept coming up like a triphammer, there. The fever surrounding these events, given the nature of the offenses, is understandable.  It is even more understandable, given the impression that the league is leaving us with ; that they just as soon not talk about it,a nd that they’re trying to get Vick off of the more serious charges.
Mr. Goodell is on record as saying that he wants the legal process to run its course before he rules on Vick, and his future in the league.  Frankly, this is among the thinnest dodges I’ve ever heard.  Since when is the NFL commissioner not ruling his own roost?

Goodell is seemingly more concerned about the legal aspects of all of this, rather than the moral aspects.  In short, “what can the league  get away with?”

If Goodell doesn’t act soon to separate Michael Vick from the NFL, the amount of fan dissatisfaction is going to cost him dearly.  I wonder, if his logic has brought him that far?  I ask, because in his actions thus far, I honestly don’t think it has.
There also seems to be unanswered questions surrounding the police in Virginia.  How is it, that Vick managed to get his operation going  to the extent that he did, in as high profile manner as he did, without some reaction on their part?  I’m curious as to what it was that finally started their investigation into the matter.

As a presidential candidate, Democrat John Edwards has regularly attacked subprime lenders, particularly those that have filed foreclosure suits against victims of Hurricane Katrina. But as an investor, Mr. Edwards has ties to lenders foreclosing on Katrina victims.

The Wall Street Journal has identified 34 New Orleans homes whose owners have faced foreclosure suits from subprime-lending units of Fortress Investment Group LLC. Mr. Edwards has about $16 million invested in Fortress funds, according to a campaign aide who confirmed a more general Federal Election Commission report. Mr. Edwards worked for Fortress, a publicly held private-equity fund, from late 2005 through 2006.

That’s Chris Cooper on page one of today’s WSJ. The dancing currently going on in the Edwards camp makes “Saturday Night Fever” and “Riverdance” look like still life.

These statements that Edwards has been making about subprime lenders, about Fox news, and so on, and then having to do the warp-speed backtrack makes Edwards come off as precisely what I have always thought he was, a snake in the grass.  That’s an easy judgment to make, given the proof he offers with every other utterance. The question of honesty arises here.  Is Mr. Edwards so rich that $16 million worth of investments just slipped his mind?

But let’s take this a step further; Mr. Edwards is pleased to call such organizations As the one he has $16 million invested in, “predatory lenders”. let’s examine that business model, for just a moment.

Wasn’t the government specifically responsible for forcing those organizations to be performing a certain level, a certain percentage, of high risk loans particularly to minorities? Imagine the charges of racism flying around, were the banks to turn down such loans.

Look, gang…

It’s not the bank’s faults that the government insisted on playing arbiter on what constitutes “equal housing” lending.

It’s not the bank’s faults that as a direct result that said borrowers following a major disaster were unable to pay the loans they signed for.

It’s not the bank’s fault that Katrina came along.  It’s not the bank’s fault that the people who were asking for loans lived in an area that is prone to storm damage.

And finally, it’s not the bank’s fault the John Edwards is hip deep in such businesses, and has piles of cash invested in making such loans, essentially profiteering from the governmental requirements to make such loans, in the first place.

Others blogging: Michelle Malkin,  OTB

I fear this will seem sappy. I’m sorry, it is what it is. You see, our house is suffering a bit of a loss, today. Ray, one of our family cats, is gone. In a lot of ways, he was a member of the family. In retrospect, I am forced to admit that he was closer to us and more dear to us than we knew, or perhaps, were willing to admit.

Ray was always the one to be the most openly affectionate, to everyone, most especially to Donna.  Ray was always the one to be acting most kitten like, even as compared to other cats half his age. He had a particular affection for blanket mice, and for laying at odd positions on pillows and open windows. If one wanted to smile, all they’d need to do is find Ray. Usually, you’d find him snoozing on his favorite pillow… on his back. Once in a while, you’d find him watching TV.

When we adopted him some years back, we had no idea how well he would weave himself into our family’s life. And what did we know? Donna and I have always been dog people.  And perhaps that’s what endeared him so to us; We called him our “Puppy Cat”… he would follow Donna around the house, everywhere… and would invariably end up on the foot of our bed each night.

About a month ago, Ray developed what turned out to be cancer on both one eye, and a kidney. We were unaware of the kidney, and we spent a good month trying to diagnose the eye problems as a separate issue. When the diagnosis came back as cancer, about a week ago, well, you can imagine the reaction. By that time, there wasn’t much to be done but go home with him, and wait for a while, and make him as comfortable as possible, which, trust me, is among the hardest, and most heartbreaking things I’ve ever had to do, in a life full of hard things.

But he’s gone now, and no longer hurting. That’s OK, we’re hurting for him. It’s covered.

Ray, you’ll be missed, little man. We can only hope we added as much to your life, as you added to ours.

Barack Obama:  He has interned in the Senate for three weeks.   He can locate Iraq on map in only two tries.  Let’s make him president.

Frank J. IMAO.

Jon Henke and I are usually in some degree of agreement on any given issue.

This isn’t one of them.

As you read that link, I want you to keep in the back of your mind the fundamental questions, here:

• Does a country have the right to secure its borders or not?
• Is a country engaged in securing its borders by definition engaged in “hate”?
• Is a country using force to secure its borders engaged in “murder “?
• Are there legit and moral reasons for securing the border?
• To what level can we morally take that security interest? Does it, for example include the use of deadly force?
• If so, is it more moral for the state to perform those functions, and why?

Frankly, that Jon considers the life of the criminal to be of greater import then the enforcement of our border security, is an indication to my mind that he has no clue as to why border security even exists. Then again, that he takes a video from such a source at face value, raises serious doubts about his thought processes in the matter to begin with.

A confirmation of those doubts would seem to have occurred when all the usual leftist suspects showed up over there, defending his statements.  Personally, I figure that when the SPLC, and the left show up on your side of the argument, it’s a pretty good indication that your position needs some serious reassessment.  All this apparently, goes right by him.

As I say, his arguments usually have much to commend them.  Not here.

However I do call him a con artist, a fraud and a race baiter.

It seems Al Sharpton and his cronies hav gotten into a urination contest with [c]rap performer known as David Banner, real name Levell Crump.  TMZ is attributing the following to Al Sharpton’s organization:

“From time to time we do encounter people that have sexual fantasies about Reverend Al Sharpton, but they are always women and Crump’s proposition is a first.” Then, entering slightly murkier waters, John-Foy continued, “I am sure Rev. Sharpton would not call Crump the “N” “B” or “H” word … [but] despite Crump’s personal request, I am sure Reverend Sharpton would not call him a f-g–t.”

Sharpton has the nerve to call himself a reverend.  I’ll have respect for Al’s title, when acts the part.  Rather than acting like a man of the cloth, Sharpton acts like a spoiled brat.  Here’s to Imus roasting Al.

Now can we send Sharpton to rehab?

Hat tip: Allah Pundit, Hot Air.

MIAMI (AP) Jurors reached a verdict Thursday in the trial of Jose Padilla and two co-defendants charged with supporting Al Qaeda and other violent Islamic extremist groups overseas.

The verdict was to be read at 2 p.m. before U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke. The jury of seven men and five women deliberated for about a day and a half following a three-month trial.

A sentence of life imprisonment is probably too good for this slime ball. He’s got a record of charges almost as voluminous as the totality of this blog. is life in crime starts at age fourteen, when he was involved in a murder. He and a chort robbed a drunk and kicked the guy in the head and killed him, in Padilla’s words… “because I felt like it”.

Trust me when I tell you, that he was involved in far more than just what he was convicted of here.

Addendum:  (David L)   I note two items from the story, one:

Padilla had lived in South Florida in the 1990s and was supposedly recruited by Hassoun at a mosque to become a mujahedeen fighter.

And:

Central to the investigation were some 300,000 FBI wiretap intercepts collected from 1993 to 2001, mainly involving Padilla’s co-defendants Hassoun and Jayyousi and others.

Gee, who was president in from 1993 to earlly 2001? B.J. Clinton.  The Clinton administation engaged in domestic spying.  So where is the lame stream media outrage?   Can we expect the LSM to challenge Mrs. Clinton on the Clinton domestic spying program?  No.

The player that we’ve heard from the least in the Middle East of late, is Syria.  So, I was interested when a BitsBlog reader forwarded a report from Reuters:

DAMASCUS (Reuters) – Syria is facing a violent campaign by Islamist militants and six border soldiers died in attacks launched from inside Iraq, a senior Syrian security official said on Thursday.

This is the first time Syria has publicly disclosed details of the fight against militants, which has intensified this year.

“We are conducting operations against terrorist cells and we have taken martyrs,” Mohammad Mansoura, head of the Political Security branch of Syria’s intelligence apparatus, told a closed door session of an international security conference on Iraq.

“Raids have yielded arsenals of weapons including suicide explosive belts. Our border forces have come under 100 attacks from inside Iraq. Six soldiers died and 17 were injured,” he said in a speech obtained by Reuters in a translated copy.

Obviously, the emphasis added use my own. Here, I was of the impression that such attacks only occurred in countries that the U.S. has invaded.  Clearly, the anti war left as this one wrong.  Dead wrong.

Frankly, I am not convinced that these attacks are coming from inside Iraq.  I am convinced, rather, that these are Syrian based militants who, upon finding resistance to high in Iraq, came back across the border, because the pickings were easier in Syria.
Syria is usually very tight lipped about such matters, so much so that this admission from them is startling, to say the least.  I don’t think they’re telling us the whole truth, as to where these attacks are coming from, but the news here is that the remaining they have a problem. If After so many years of silence and they are ready to do that , it’s not only a damned serious situation, it’s probably critical.

On the second page of the report comes an even more interesting statement… one which will doubtless raise the hackles of those who have been claiming that Mr. Bush has been acting unilaterally in the region, and that we are making no progress:

Officials from Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Britain and the United States ended closed talks aimed at coming up with security cooperation measures to help stop the violence in Iraq and attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces.

The conference concluded with a call to set up intelligence hotlines with Baghdad and take practical measures to stabilize Iraq, delegates said.

It’s hard to imagine how even the most even the most frothing at the mouth Bush Derangement Syndrome victim can conclude that Bush is acting alone, and that no serious progress is being made in the region.

As to the actions of the insurgents driving into Syria, I think I should point out, and I’ve been saying all along that the insurgents were coming to Iraq from inside Syria.  Indeed, that long line of trucks leaving Iraq, on the day prior to the invasion was headed guess where… Syria.

I have suspected for a long time that if things got difficult enough in Iraq for these Syrian based insurgents, that they would eventually turn against their hosts.  I must say, that part of me is not displeased by these jackals turning on Assad, after he hosted them for years.

It seems clear that what is happening, here, is that the militants are going after low hanging fruit.  Assad is now willing to deal with the rest, in order to prop himself up against the rush of Islamofacism. Apparently, like our own 9/11, having your country are rated by such people is still an effective means of focusing one’s attention on what matters.

Tell me again, how things are not turning around in that region.

Cliff Thier, American Thinker,  outlines the ultimate Rudy Guiliani general election spot.

Narrator: In 1999 Suha Arafat, Yasser Arafat’s wife, said, “Our [Palestinian] people have been submitted to the daily and intensive use of poisonous gas by the Israeli forces, which has led to an increase in cancer cases among women and children.”

Although Hillary Clinton was sitting on the same stage and receiving a simultaneous translation of Mrs. Arafat’s speech, she sat silent.

Cliff reminds us that in 1995, Rudy threw Arafat out of New York City.  So which method of dealing with terrorists do you prefer?
?

Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the news, because you didn’t think you’d hear from Mike Nifong again…. here comes The Smoking Gun :

AUGUST 15–In a pathetic end to the Mike Nifong saga, the disgraced North Carolina prosecutor who handled the Duke rape investigation has turned in his law license, noting that he never framed or displayed the document because it had been damaged “by a puppy in her chewing stage.”

As you might expect, TSG has the documents discussing this, posted, already.

Somehow, “the dog ate my law license” is emblematic for this whole affair.

I’m waiting for the first yutz to pronounce this the faults of George Bush:

LIMA, Peru -MSNBC- A powerful 7.9-magnitude earthquake shook Peru’s coast near the capital, killing at least 337 people and injuring more 827 others, the Civil Defense said early Thursday.

Civil Defense Commander Aristides Mussio released the figures on Peru’s state television station, saying one person was killed in Lima and 336 in the region of Ica.

The Civil Defense death toll of 337 first appeared on its Web site, but the organization’s spokesman, Dario Ariola, refused to confirm the figure, which was much higher the numbers provided by the health minister. But minutes later Mussio appeared on television to announce the new death toll.

It doesn’t take a genius to see that the figures are probably going to go much higher.  Our hearts go out to the people there.

That said, this is a political blog. In that context, one wonders what the longer term leper cautions are going to be over this for the remainder of the world.  Exports from Peru would be Copper, Gold, Zinc, and Crude oil. It would be hard to imagine that prices on those commodities wouldn’t be affected to at least some degree.

There are political implications as well, given the socialist spread in the area. I would expect the U.S. to try and reinforce our partnership with Peru, by means of sending help as necessary.  I would also expect such help to come from Germany, who in recent years has become their largest trade partner.

I came to the conclusion, some years ago, that I don’t quote Jeff Jacoby nearly as much as I should. This morning, comes yet another example of this:

INTRODUCING Newsweek’s Aug. 13 cover story on global warming “denial,” editor Jon Meacham brings up an embarrassing blast from his magazine’s past: an April 1975 story about global cooling, and the coming ice age that scientists then were predicting. Meacham concedes that “those who doubt that greenhouse gases are causing significant climate change have long pointed to the 1975 Newsweek piece as an example of how wrong journalists and researchers can be.” But rather than acknowledge that the skeptics may have a point, Meacham dismisses it.

“On global cooling,” he writes, “there was never anything even remotely approaching the current scientific consensus that the world is growing warmer because of the emission of greenhouse gases.”

Really? Newsweek took rather a different line in 1975. Then, the magazine reported that scientists were “almost unanimous” in believing that the looming Big Chill would mean a decline in food production, with some warning that “the resulting famines could be catastrophic.” Moreover, it said, “the evidence in support of these predictions” — everything from shrinking growing seasons to increased North American snow cover — had “begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.”

Yet Meacham, quoting none of this, simply brushes aside the 1975 report as “alarmist” and “discredited.” Today, he assures his readers, Newsweek’s climate-change anxieties rest “on the safest of scientific ground.”

Indeed…. and of course that’s exactly the argument we’re hearing now… We have a consensus, it’s on the safest of scientific ground possible, etc. etc. etc. and you’ll forgive me but I’ve heard it all before. Meadow muffins. You have, I presume, heard the story about the chicken who figured the sky was falling ?

You see, ladies and gentlemen, unlike about half of you, I actually lived through that experience back in 75. I attended the seminars, I attended the fund raisers, I bought into the idea, young as I was, that man actually could damage the earth, and that of course the whole thing was because of the automobile and the greed of corporate America. I walked miles at the rate of pennies per mile to raise funds for these organizations, funds that eventually ended up in someone’s pocket as opposed to actually “saving the world”.

Then, of course, I grew up.

So, you can understand me clearly when I tell you that being lied to by people who are trying to get me to change my culture and my lifestyle and what I do for recreation and what I do for a living, is not a new experience. Control, as someone else noted to me earlier this morning, is the most addictive drug known to man.

“Global warming” is simply more of the same. Indeed, this time they don’t even have the imagination to dress it a little differently than they did back in ’75. Given the short memories of most people anymore, they must have figured it wasn’t necessary.

Or… come to think of it, perhaps they can’t dress it differently. Scaring the crap out of people with end of the world scenarios proved rather effective back then. They managed to get the entire world to believe them… for a while. People who want to control your lives, after all, are nothing if not pragmatic.

Addendum:  (David L)   I’d like to think of myself as quick and witty.  Today, I am neither.   Bit beat me to the article.  Alas.  However, Sister Toldjah, as the witty headline, “Newsweek: Forget about our past climate change mistakes – this time we’re right”

Maybe, maybe not.