Grim's Hall

Boston.com / News / Boston Globe / Ideas / Against types

TIME.com Print Page: TIME Magazine -- "I've Been in Worse Situations"

Hey, Kerry Gave an Interview:

TIME has the first one in 43 days. I can see why they got it, too: not one hardball question. Nothing on any of the stuff his campaign has had to backtrack on (e.g., Cambodia, self-inflicted wounds), the Naval investigation into his record, his antiwar statements, the veterans opposed to him rallying today, none of it.

He was asked about timetables, but only if he had any. His response:

I have said that I have a goal to be able to bring our troops out of there within my first term, and I hope to be able to bring out some troops within the first year. But what's important here is that I can fight a more effective war on terror.

So: 'Yes, our enemies can count on my commitment to withdrawal. But I still expect to be more effective, with fewer troops, in the face of an enemy who knows I expect to get out ASAP.'

Blogs for Bush: Web of Connections Update -- Forged Documents Version!

More Fun with Ra^thergate:

The Blogs for Bush are now poking fun at the New York Times. They've built a Times-style "Web of Connections" between the players in Ra^thergate. It's mildly amusing, especially since it correctly points out that Ben Barnes is a Kerry Campaign vice-chair. It would have been nice if they'd mentioned Ra^ther's attendance at Democratic fundraisers, in despite of CBS' ethics policy, but you can't have everything.

There has been a lot of activity on the Internet recently concerning the forged CBS documents

Money Where His Mouth Is:

This fellow is serious about that forgery thing. He's not only posted the longest and most comprehensive attack on the docs I've seen yet, but he's also posted a prominent link to his resume, in case you doubt his credentials to make the charges. "No fan of Bush," he says, but an enemy of fraud.

Drudge, on the other hand, points to a rumor of a new DNC campaign that will "attack Bush's guard service." "George Bush has a clear pattern of lying about his military service," it says. Drudge notes dryly that this means Clinton's advice to stay away from Vietnam is being ignored by the Kerry campaign.

Now, Bush has done all that really can be asked of a political opponent to save Kerry's bacon on this issue. He has repeatedly said that Kerry should be proud of his (Kerry's) service, and he's called for a stop to the Swifty ads and to 527 ads generally. He's had to put up with them paying him back by saying that "George Bush betrayed his country" by not serving in Vietnam, and now that he has "a clear pattern of lying about his military service."

Do they really think this is going to help? You can't win against a well-known incumbent by trying to redefine him in the eyes of voters. This kind of negative attack can work against a John Kerry, an empty suit lacking a national reputation (and the guts to talk to the media -- an incumbent can "do his job" to show his worth in the office, but a challenger has to talk and take questions). Negative ads can define who he is in the minds of the voters: in Kerry's case, a waffling, spineless, weak-on-everything playboy, who 'by the way served in Vietnam,' where he was known by hundreds of fellow veterans who now hate his guts.

But the voters know perfectly well who Bush is. Effective negative ads against a well-known incumbent have to attack the things people already believe about him. And to spend money on this kind of ad campaign right on the heels of Ra^thergate, when the minds of voters nationwide are fixed on how this very issue was used by people trying to slander the President with blatant forgeries?

Astonishing. Kerry almost certainly would have gotten a pass from the American people on any charge that he was connected to the forgeries. Rumors in the American Spectator don't generally rise to the public's notice, and people would assume such charges were partisan politics, like the charges that Bush was driving the Swifties in private while scorning them in public.

But if Kerry's camp insists on pushing the Guard angle, they're going to associate themselves with the forgery story in peoples' minds. Is this really the "issue" they want to be talking about? With an official US Navy investigation ongoing into his record, does Kerry really want "a pattern of lying about his military service" to be the thing people are discussing?

Well, it's just a rumor from Drudge, for now. Maybe he's brighter than that.

Belmont Club

Yeomen Bloggers:

If you haven't seen it yet, the Belmont Club has a charming comparison of blogs to longbows. I lift my cup of good October to you all, merry men.

Mudville Gazette

Milblogs on Ra^thergate:

Both the Mudville Gazette and BlackFive have the same reaction to Ra^thergate: the are outraged at the slander to LTCOL Killian. Greyhawk:

Not much has yet been made of the fact that this fraud has been perpetrated in the name of a deceased military officer, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian of the Texas Air National Guard. CBS's claims actually besmirch the reputation of a man who served his country nobly and well, a man whose opinions (by all accounts of those who knew him best - his family) were the exact opposite of those expressed in the Rather Forgeries. A man who after spending a lifetime defending his country is no longer able to defend himself.

B5:

By allowing the forgeries to stand against all logic - including statements against the documents issued by Killian's son (also a retired Air National Guard Officer) and his widow - CBS is defaming the character of the service of LTC Killian.

Defaming LTC Killian's character?

I am sure that you military folks (and many of you who never wore a uniform) understand that writing a memo referenced to CYA is craven and not looked upon as worthy of the uniform of our Armed Forces. To military Officers, putting your career ahead of doing what is right is possibly one of the most distgusting acts for someone to commit (anyone thinking of the VVAW?).

If any of this pisses me off, it's the fact that CBS probably doesn't care about that.

The thought had come to me, in less strong terms, that it was a bit cowardly to forge documents in the name of a man who could no longer speak in his defense. But BlackFive's point is well taken: the "content" of the memo is itself slanderous to Killian.

C-SPAN: Watch LIVE

"Vietnam Veterans for Truth" Rally:

It's on C-SPAN now.You can watch if you're so inclined. I'll live blog it for a bit. Quotes are as best as I can transcribe, but perfect accuracy is not guaranteed. I'll try to demark the ones I am sure of with full quotes, and the ones I'm doing my best with with half-quotes.

Right now Jim Warner is on to talk about what it was to be tortured by the Communists, and to have Kerry's words thrown in his face.

Warner, five and a half years a prisoner, began his statement by saying, "Semper Fi," and then said that he wanted to thank his country for the chance to fight in Vietnam. He spoke about the justness of the cause, and the harm caused not only to Vietnam and the Vietnamese, but to the people of Thailand, Laos, and Cambodia by the withdrawal.

Then he launched into a discussion of interrogation sessions in which Winter Soldier and John Kerry's words were used against him. He said, 'John Kerry said this was official policy... I remember my in-country briefing, where they said that these were all the things we weren't allowed to do.' He then went on and said, 'The Vietcong were defeated utterly at Tet... we were all they had left to bargain with... they said, "Your own naval officer says you deserve to be punished!"'

He says, "Everyone knew we were being tortured." 'Nobody had any way of knowing that we would not get hurt. But they did have a way of knowing that, if they said things like that, it could cause us to be hurt.'

Now he's talking about studies of military history. 'The first thing you need is a commander with sound judgment and steadfast character.... John Kerry made a famous statement, I'm told, "Don't be the last man to die in a lost cause." How is Communism doing now? Whose cause is lost now, John Kerry? It wasn't ours.'" That's a misquote of Kerry, I'll note (Kerry said not 'lost cause' but 'mistake'), but the point is valid.

Now he's wrapping up. He says he has something he wants us to take away, "Seared, seared! into your memory." This is it: "Here is a test you can apply universally every time someone wants to be your commander, or your leader... you'll know he has good judgement if he knows the best way to stop a war against an evil enemy is to win it. God bless you, God bless America, and Semper Fi."

Next speaker is now being introduced. He's a Swifty: John O'Neill, it turns out. The introduction contained the line, "Did you notice Dan Rather was more polite to Saddam Hussein than he was to the Swift Boat Vets?"

O'Neill begins: 'I'm no hero, but I served in a unit with a lot of heroes in it.' How many times have I heard that formula, from veterans from many wars? And never from John Kerry.

O'Neill digs at Kerry for hiding for 43 days (and counting) from the press, since the Swifties started raising their charges.

"When has there ever been an American presidential candiate who met with the enemy in time of war?"

He's not backing off of anything the Swifties have charged. Lots of applause from the assembled vets.

Talking about Arlington, 'across the river that divides life from death.' 'They were not the army of Genghis Khan. In fact, they were the greatest people I've ever known.'

The New York Times > Opinion > On Guard, America

The NYTimes Blows It Again:

Here follows a critique of yesterday's lead editorial, "On Guard, America":

As regressive milestones go, few are as frightful in this new era of homeland security as the decision by Congress and the Bush administration to allow the expiration of the 10-year-old law protecting the public from assault rifles and other rapid-fire battlefield weapons. The law - a far from perfect but demonstrably effective restraint on high-tech gunslingers - expires on Monday with not a whimper from the White House.

This lead paragraph needs as much correction as any whole article normally would. I hardly know where to begin. I suppose I shall begin with the outright untruths.

First, none of the weapons banned by this bill -- not one! -- were "rapid-fire." All of them fired one shot per pull of the trigger. All weapons that do otherwise (properly termed "automatic" weapons, or "select-fire" if they have a switch that lets you choose the rate of fire) were illegal before the ban, and remain illegal now. They were regulated by the National Firearms Acts of the 1930s. No one may legally own or possess one except the military, certain police units, and persons holding what is known as a "Class III" permit. A Class III permit requires large fees, extensive background checks, and other safeguards. In a lifetime spent around shooting ranges, I've met only one person who actually had one.

Second, none of these firearms -- not one! -- were "battlefield weapons." The military has firearms that look like these, but they don't function the same way. Battlefield weapons are generally speaking select-fire. None of these are. The Army would not issue any of these to forces it planned to send into the field.

Third, there is no evidence of any sort that this law was "effective" at stopping crime.

Fourth, I object to the notion that this is "regressive." As Chesterton pointed out, what's regression to one is progress to another. I consider this a major step forward in removing unconstitutional restrictions from the law; I also think it's generally progressive to strip away useless laws. But my goal is that of building a society based on individual liberty and independence, not that of building a society based on a life that is regulated 'for our safety.'

Fifth, I wonder at the suggestion that these were "frightful" and "high tech" weapons. Most of them have been around in their current form for between thirty and fifty years. All of the Kalishnikov variants, for example, are based on a WWII-era design. There have been minor adjustments and refinements since then, but it's pretty much the same rifle as ever.

When George Bush was a candidate four years ago and under campaign pressure from moderates, he announced that he did support the renewal of this highly popular law. It turned out that he was shooting rhetorical blanks; his support depended on the renewal's ever getting through Congress in the first place. As president, Mr. Bush has never once demanded that his G.O.P. leaders cease playing first responder to the demands of the gun lobby and take the initiative on this public safety issue.

The Times has an annoying habit of assuming the mantle of moderation. Anyone who agrees with them is a "moderate." Now, honestly, the fact is that the Times' position on gun control is reflected by the laws of only a double-handful of states; the vast majority of states now permit concealed carry on a shall-issue basis. Most of the rest permit concealed carry, though not on a shall-issue basis. The Times' position is hard to the left of what the majority of America practices, and the momentum is on the side of those who believe in the Right to Bear Arms.

Roughly the same objection can be raised against the notion that this was a "highly popular law." If that were the case, why have the Democrats been so quiet about gun control this election season? Kerry took a swipe at Bush over this, but made sure the same week to get out to the gun range and get photographed blasting away at sport clays. (Amusingly, the firearm he used was one he voted to ban.)

Again, pretty much the same argument can be fielded against the Times' demand that Bush should have done more to resurrect this monster. If this were such a moderate, highly popular law, why should it have been a hurdle to say that you would be glad to sign it if Congress sent it to you? The fact that the bill had no chance of getting through Congress is a little telling. Blaming it on the influence of the "gun lobby" doesn't get you out of the pit. The "gun lobby" is just American citizens, after all. I'm the NRA! (And so are you, Sovay, if you'll get around to cutting them that check you promised after losing a certain bet, which forfeit has been outstanding since February.)

A decade's experience with the assault weapons ban showed clearly that the only people who were inconvenienced were the criminals, the gun lobbyists and the least responsible gun dealers. Certainly the Second Amendment rights of responsible hunters were never crimped. Anyone taking to the woods next week with a freshly unfettered AK-47 or Uzi, or a TEC-9 assault pistol, will only make mincemeat of the game and a mockery of sportsmanship.

First of all, this garbage about "sportsmanship" needs to stop. The argument for firearms rights has almost nothing to do with hunting. By far the majority of the argument has to do with self-defense, and a citizen's duty to protect himself, his family, and his community. We have both the right and the duty under the law, and we also have a constitutional right to the tools.

However, since you mention it, an AK-47 is a .30 caliber rifle (7.62x39mm). Since (again!) none of these are automatic weapons, there's no fear of making "mincemeat" out of the animal; you get one shot per pull of the trigger. One shot from a .30 caliber rifle is the single most common means of bringing down a deer for your table. The AK-47 is not ideal: most people prefer a scoped .30-30 or .30-06 for the task. On the other hand, some persons apparently prefer crawling on their belly through the mud with a 12-gauge, so to each their own.

....Now the greedier gun dealers are preparing to profit on the law's expiration as if it signaled the arrival of Beaujolais nouveau. The Bush administration has allowed the right to bear arms to degenerate back to the right to brandish battlefield weapons on the home front.

"Beaujolais nouveau." Somehow that phrase does as much to show the Times' bias as anything else in the article. If you didn't get it, though, they hammer the point one more time: they repeat the dishonest formula, "battlefield weapons," and they refer to a restoration of our rights as "degenerate."

Once again, the Times has misrepresented the truth about these firearms. They have dishonestly portrayed them as automatic weapons, "rapid-fire" "battlefield weapons" that would make "mincemeat" out of their targets. They have suggested, in despite of the facts, that the ban somehow impacted crime rates. They have also misrepresented the argument of firearms rights proponents, who have never suggested that hunting was the reason for these firearms' legality.

The editors of the Times have, in other words, approached the issue without any regard for facts or fairness. If they wish to know why the majority of the country is opposed to their suggested policy, they might take that as a starting point.

Grim's Hall

Nuclear Test?

By now everyone's heard that the DPRK may have detonated an atomic weapon, although the US gov't and ROK gov't are both denying it. It's possible that it was non-nuclear: the DPRK may be trying to sort out what kind of bunker they need to contain an underground nuclear test. The US gov't did several similar tests with conventional explosives out in the desert back during the Manhattan project, as I recall -- they took a rough estimate of the explosive power from the scientists, loaded that much TNT into a hole, and blew it up.

Several people are pointing to the mushroom cloud that was reported. Well, here's a picture of last week's explosion in Jakarta:

If you get a big enough explosion, even with conventional explosives, you'll get something shaped in this fashion. It has to do with the way the air is pushed and heated by the blast (forming the cap of the "mushroom," which rises, being hot). Cool air rushes in below, drawn into the partial vacuum created both by the explosion's push, and by the rapid rise of the heated air. That keeps the stem of the mushroom slender, and helps drive the cap even higher.

Of course, instead of a test, this could be one of several other things: an uncontrolled explosion at an underground facility, an assassination attempt (that was what the official state media finally settled upon as the cause of the railway explosions), &c.

Still, Grim's Hall has been predicting a DPRK nuclear test for nearly as long as Grim's Hall has been on the internet. Their progress is slower than I've expected.

9/11

9/11:

As is the tradition of the Hall, I am going to repost "Enid & Geraint," which I wrote on 9/11. Three years on, I suppose it could use some editing, but I have left it in the form I composed that day, sitting on an island in a stream, when I could not watch the towers fall any more.

Enid & Geraint

Once strong, from solid
Camelot he came
Glory with him, Geraint,
Whose sword tamed the wild.
Fabled the fortune he won,
Fame, and a wife.
The beasts he battled
With horn and lance;
Stood farms where fens lay.
When bandits returned
To old beast-holds
Geraint gave them the same.

And then long peace,
Purchased by the manful blade.
Light delights filled it,
Tournaments softened, tempered
By ladies; in peace lingers
the dream of safety.

They dreamed together. Darkness
Gathered on the old wood,
Wild things troubled the edges,
Then crept closer.
The whispers of weakness
Are echoed with evil.

At last even Enid
Whose eyes are as dusk
Looked on her Lord
And weighed him wanting.
Her gaze gored him:
He dressed in red-rust mail.

And put her on palfrey
To ride before or beside
And they went to the wilds,
Which were no longer
So far. Ill-used,
His sword hung beside.

By the long wood, where
Once he laid pastures,
The knight halted, horsed,
Gazing on the grim trees.
He opened his helm
Beholding a bandit realm.

End cried at the charge
Of a criminal clad in mail!
The Lord turned his horse,
Set his untended shield:
There lacked time, there
Lacked thought for more.

Villanous lance licked the
Ancient shield. It split,
Broke, that badge of the knight!
The spearhead searched
Old, rust-red mail.
Geraint awoke.

Master and black mount
Rediscovered their rich love,
And armor, though old
Though red with thick rust,
Broke the felon blade.
The spear to-brast, shattered.

And now Enid sees
In Geraint's cold eyes
What shivers her to the spine.
And now his hand
Draws the ill-used sword:
Ill-used, but well-forged.

And the shock from the spear-break
Rang from bandit-towers
Rattled the wood, and the world!
Men dwelt there in wonder.
Who had heard that tone?
They did not remember that sound.

His best spear broken
On old, rusted mail,
The felon sought his forest.
Enid's dusk eyes sense
The strength of old steel:
Geraint grips his reins.

And he winds his old horn,
And he spurs his proud horse,
And the wood to his wrath trembles.
And every bird
From the wild forest flies,
But the Ravens.

The wind from that horn has shaken the world, but the forest has proven deep. There is still much to do; but over the fresh graves of Russian schoolchildren, we can only renew our oaths to see this to the very end.

Ed

A Colleague Writes:

A couple of weeks ago there was a bombing in Afghanistan that took out a DynCorp building. I don't work for DynCorp, but two of my colleagues had been in that building on several occasions while on an Afghan project.

Today, I got a mail from another colleague, about a bombing in Indonesia:

Here's some photos from a good friend and former colleague in Indonesia. BTW, **** (in one of the photos) is the headquarters of ****, where I used to work. The last two offices that I've worked in before coming home to the US have now been hit by car bombs.

He then suggests I consider another line of work. Heh. I don't think I'm in any danger in my heavily-armed compound in Warrenton, VA, where I'll be for at least another month and a half. Still, the overseas market is getting dangerous for "mercenaries," as KOS would have it.

The Scotsman - Top Stories - British couple shot dead by Thai policeman after restaurant row

The Wild East:

Out of Thailand, a story that could have come from an old American ballad. One doesn't expect good Buddhists to act in quite this way:

A THAI policeman ran down a British tourist in his car and shot her dead after murdering her boyfriend following a row in a town on the banks of the river Kwai....

Police said the couple had been involved in a violent argument with a man at a restaurant in the town, 100 miles north-west of Bangkok.

"We don’t know what the argument was about, but after Adam and Vanessa left, this man followed them on the way back to their guesthouse," said Inspector Milind Phienchand, of the tourist police.

"He followed them in his car. He shot Mr Lloyd three times - once in the head, once in the arm and once in the body.

"He tracked Ms Arscott for 200 metres and hit her with his car. Then he shot her once in the head and once in the chest."

This answers to the point raised earlier today, on the relative wisdom of arming only the 'servants of the state.' At least you might have returned the fire, poor Brit, in the brave old days of Dickens, but no more.

Mudville Gazette

Dan Rather Replaced:

The Mudville Gazette has the story. He got a nice sendoff, though:

Dan Rather will tolerate nothing but truthfulness as he is a man of great honor and integrity.

Walking The Walls

Death In the Afternoon:

Walking The Walls reports that the Senate has adjourned. The gun ban now expires at the end of the weekend, with no chance of renewal.

Good riddance. Thank you again, watchmen.

The Corner on National Review Online

*Chuckle*

That Howard Dean is a funny fellow. Via The Corner, an interview with the non-candidate who is still giving a lot more press interviews than the actual candidate:

"The Republicans have the best propaganda out there since Lenin, and they just make stuff up and they keep repeating it, and hope people are going to believe it," said Howard Dean.

And then:

"I think that George Bush is certainly going to have a draft if he goes into a second term[.]"

Given that Rumsfeld and the Secretary of the Army have both categorically rejected the notion, does this count as "just mak[ing] stuff up and... repeating it, and hope people are going to believe it"?

Walking The Walls

On Gun Rights:

Walking The Walls has a beautiful post this morning -- not what I expected, since it was created just to provide a go-to place for news on any attempt to renew the Clinton Gun Ban. Apparently someone wrote in to tell the folks that the existence of a blog devoted to restoring gun rights frightened them.

One of the authors responds at length. It is a respectful, honest, and I think a convincing explanation of why they are opposed to the gun ban. If you're one of my readers who is a little frightened by guns, you might want to read this reply. It may not convince you to oppose the ban also, but it should ease your mind about the intentions of those who do oppose it.

Kitten killing soldiers appeal sparks outrage - National - www.smh.com.au

And You Thought Michael Moore Hated Soldiers:

You haven't yet read about the Great Australian Kitten-Killing Case.

Jesse robbed from the poor
and he gave to the rich.
He never did a friendly thing.
And when his best friend died
he was right there by her side
and he lifted off her golden wedding ring.

Poor Jesse had a wife
who mourned for his life,
three children, they were brave.
But that dirty little coward
who shot Mister Howard
has laid poor Jesse in his grave.

The New York Times > Books > Sunday Book Review > 'Secrets of the Soul': Is Psychoanalysis Science or Is It Toast?

Death To Pseudoscience!

The New York Times asks, "Is psychoanalysis science? Or is it toast?" A hint:

Almost from the moment of its inception... the mongrel of a discipline known as psychoanalysis was in a struggle for its life.

Few things have brought more damage to the cause of human freedom than psychology. We now live in a day when boys are regularly drugged to make them easier to handle. This is called "medicine," but it is poison. We will be better off when the last psychologist has been... well, I won't recycle metaphors from Communists. But we'll be better off when the "discipline" is dead, and these fake-doctor schools are forever closed.

BLACKFIVE

All Veterans Against John Kerry:

There's a rally on Sunday, for those who are not (like your correspondant) too sick to attend. Details from BlackFive:

A gathering of Vietnam veterans from across America

Where: Upper Senate Park, Washington, D.C. It is easy to get to, shady and pretty, with a great view of the Capitol dome in back of the speaker's platform. THIS IS A NEW LOCATION AS OF 7/17/04

When: Sunday, Sept 12, 2004 2:00-4:00 PM (EDT)

Why: To tell the truth about Vietnam veterans.
To counter the lies told about Vietnam veterans by John Kerry

All Vietnam veterans and their families and supporters are asked to attend. Other veterans are invited as honored guests.

NOTE: Bring a blanket or lawn chairs. None will be provided.

Any of you who can manage it, go and give good cheer. I'll be here, coughing away and drinking "the ten year old cough syrup" until I feel better. (Actually, I'll likely make do with Guinness.)

Grim's Hall

Kill the Beast:

One more day. My salute to those keeping watch on this. Victory is nigh, so keep your head up: and give a call to Congressmen and the President. You can get the right numbers here.

pacetown

Polls Flawed:

Spacetown has an interesting point about the polls being conducted today. Almost all of them are telephone polls, he notes, and the polls are based on "2002 version of a nationally published set of phone CDs of listed households, ordered by telephone number."

Since 2002, an estimated 9 million customers have quit keeping "landlines," and gone to cell/digitial phones only. This is true for my household: we had a landline in 2002, but since 2003 have been cell-phone only.

What does this mean for polls? No one knows, except this: they aren't accurate.

INDC Journal: (UPDATED: Almost Positive It's a Fake)

Are the CBS National Guard Documents Fake?

All's Fair:

INDC Journal hires one of the nation's top forensics experts, and he says that the CBS memos are "90%" probably fakes. Hat tip: Allah, who has a lot more.

But this is all fair in the wake of the Swiftee stuff, right? Except, of course, that the Swiftees put their own names on sworn statements and, of course, Unfit for Command, putting their lives and fortunes at risk under slander and libel law. (Also, of course, they've been proven correct on several points... and then there's that US Navy investigation it's spawned into Kerry's records).

Wow. This really is turning into an ugly race. Forging federal documents is a federal crime, right? I suppose we'll be seeing the same folks who were calling for an investigation into the Plame business calling for a full investigation into CBS' source for these memos. Since I was one of the ones who wanted the Plame matter investigated, I'll start:

Let's get these reporters under oath.

Grim's Hall

Walking the Walls:

Two days. I just got off the phone with one of my Senators' offices. The other one has a recorded message playing saying that they are taking such a high volume of calls that no one can answer the phone. They aren't even taking voice mail. I sent an email instead.

Instapundit.com

Nov. 2nd is Veteran's Day:

Via the Sage, I see that the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion have both endorsed President Bush's reelection. VVAW, oddly enough still around, says it doesn't endorse candidates in order to protect its tax status, so there's no way to know who they support.

UPDATE: You know, after I wrote that, I wondered why the VVAW would have a limitation on its endorsements the VFW doesn't. So, I looked into it and found that in fact the VFW can't endorse candidates either. A closer reading of the story Instapundit linked shows that it was actually some of the leadership who endorsed Bush, speaking one supposes for themselves, but identifying themselves as leaders. I expect this means that the VFW would like to endorse Bush, if it could legally do so.

WorldNetDaily: Kerry Navy probe to expand scope?

Wild:

Did you folks see this WorldNetDaily article?

Judicial Watch's supplemental filing points out Navy regulations state that only the secretary of the Navy can sign a Silver Star, on behalf of the president. But Kerry's first citation is signed by Vice Adm. E.R. Zumwalt Jr., commander of U.S. Naval Forces in Vietnam, and Adm. John J. Hyland, commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.

Farrell said today he thinks there is reason to believe Kerry has attempted to 'paper over an unauthorized Silver Star.'

'It appears there was an attempt, by autopen, to 'ratify' what had been done in an unauthorized manner earlier,' he said.

'We don't know this for sure, but that's precisely why there should be an investigation,' Farrell added.

I was convinced that the whole "combat V" thing was a clerical error, and that the third citation would prove to be a political favor -- perhaps something done at Ted Kennedy's request, to bolster the language in order to make Kerry look heroic for his 1984 Senate run. Nothing big, nor actually illegal.

Well, WND is hardly gospel, but they are citing a bipartisan group with a decent reputation. So the one question I had about it earlier:

I mean, it's a Silver Star citation. How bad can it be? Why not release it, like he did the two others?

...may have a good answer. It may be that first citation wasn't properly signed. And since the Secretary of the Navy says he didn't actually sign the other one, or know of it...

It can't really be this bad, can it? I'm no naif, but really -- we're talking about felonies now. It's one thing to scoff at the US code when it says you can't be paid for work you don't perform; and it's another thing to scoff at the Logan Act. Neither of those have ever actually been enforced.

But to falsify a Silver Star? I'm no fan of Kerry, but even I have trouble believing it. Godspeed to the Navy investigators in sorting it out.

Walking The Walls

Walking the Walls:

For those of you who haven't been following it, just three business days on the deathwatch. Call your congressmen tomorrow.

Cogicophony: Timetables: Suck or No Suck?

Who's Advising Kerry On Military Matters?

The answer appears to be, "No one."

The question came up during the Cogicophony debate on Kerry's new timeline-to-withdrawal. I looked into the matter, and discovered that Kerry's titular advisor on military matters is retired Air Force General Merrill A. McPeak. I'm not sure what McPeak's qualifications are beyond what is listed in his official biography, though I assume he has some. He's only published two papers in the last twenty years (one of which dates to 1985), both of which are on exclusively USAF matters. He attended War College, but it's been in the 1970s; since about 1976, he's been out of the "theory arena" and in the field and the bureaucracy. As a consequence, while I'm certain he must have views on military transformation, guerrilla war, and the like, I don't have any way to know what they are.

One reason for his position would appear to be that he was nominated for the USAF Chief by GHWB, served under Clinton, supported GWB in 2000, and now supports Kerry. He therefore has bipartisan credibility, which counts more among the press and citizenry than having the right ideas. Relatively few of the press, as we've discussed frequently, have the background to evaluate the ideas anyway. What matters is that you can say, "Here's a man who's been on both sides politically, and now supports our boy." What ideas he uses that credibility to advocate, I can't say.

However, it appears that it doesn't matter anyway. Kerry flatly ignores his advice.

General McPeak told Steph: “We need to about double the size” of our contingent of forces in Iraq. He’s JF Kerry’s military advisor, and Kerry said Friday:
“I believe that within a year from now, we could significantly reduce American forces in Iraq, and that’s my plan,” Kerry said. “I believe we can.”

So apparently he's just a figurehead. One more veteran used to bolster Kerry's credibility, whose interests are ignored when they're inconvenient.

UPDATE: I found an interview with McPeak; the original is behind subscription walls, but a cache of it is here. It pre-dates the Iraq war. He appears to be "fighter mafia," which is to say that he belongs to that segment of the Air Force that believes the Army should eliminate its heavy divisions entirely, concentrate on special forces only, and let the Air Force do the work of destroying enemy armies. This is glorious, he says:

The man who headed the U.S. Air Force during Desert Storm will tell you, over black coffee in a Lake Oswego cafe, that the potential attack on Iraq is "the fight you dream about, a wonderful kind of war to have."

The former fighter pilot calls the conflict a "no brainer," pitting the U.S. military machine -- with precision-guided munitions that he conceived -- against a nation whose gross national product is dwarfed by what the Air Force spends each year.

"Everybody's going to get decorated out of this thing," says Tony McPeak, a four-star general who retired to Oregon in 1995. "Everyone comes home. It has a lot of appeal to me."

But what to do when the war is over? The Air Force can't do the work of occupying nations that need rebuilding, but that's OK, as McPeak is against it:

Airstrikes would wipe out Baghdad's communications system again, McPeak says. "If we go in there and occupy the place for 50 years, which is my prediction, we'll have to rebuild it."

Close combat in Baghdad would be stupid, he says, despite what Army generals may advocate. "We've already radicalized 99 percent of the Arabs in the world. We'll get the holdouts if we start doing hand-to-hand combat in Baghdad."

So, in short, he believes in a military that strikes from afar, destroys enemy civilizations, and then leaves them in ruins. Baghdad's people he would have left in the hands of the Fedayeen Saddam, and without civil services.

This kind of punitive-strike warfare was practiced by the Imperial Roman Legions to great effect. There is something to be said for it. But in a world in which failed states are the breeding ground for terrorists, who export rather than contain their misery and wrath, it must be regarded as a fool's approach.

In retrospect, McPeak seems to realize that. As in the quote above, he is now calling for doubling the forces on the ground. But where would those forces come from, if the Army disbanded its divisions to focus on "agile" special operations teams?

Not, as I say, that it matters. Kerry doesn't listen to his military advisor. But, even should he begin, this is the advice he'll get.

Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall

Carter Responds to Miller:

I see that Talking Points Memo has obtained a copy of a letter by Jimmy Carter, to Zell Miller. You can see the whole thing at Josh's site if you like. After scolding Zell for speaking out against the national party, and suggesting that dissent is improper in a Democrat, Carter says this:

I, myself, never claimed to have been a war hero, but I served in the navy from 1942 to 1953, and, as president, greatly strengthened our military forces and protected our nation and its interests in every way. I don’t believe this warrants your referring to me as a pacificist.

We thank the former President for his service in the navy. This is the first time, however, I have heard it suggested by anyone that the Carter presidency "strengthened our military forces," to say nothing of "greatly strengthened." I wonder if he also believes that he "greatly strengthened" the CIA?

My Way - News

Kerry: I Guarantee Victory for the Enemy

Good lord.

Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry on Monday called the invasion of Iraq "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time" and said his goal was to withdraw U.S. troops in a first White House term.

I honestly don't know what to say. "Elect me, and I promise that I'll withdraw troops before I leave office" means nothing other than, "If I'm elected, Zarqawi, keep your head down for a few months and I'll hand Iraq to you on a silver platter."

Chairman Mao wrote that a guerrilla campaign had three phases. The first was survival in the face of a superior army. The second, once dispersal and recruitment were achieved, was an engagement of the army. The third phase, when the guerrillas could actually face the enemy, had to wait until the enemy drew down its forces.

Iraq’s insurgents can’t defeat U.S. forces on the battlefield, and the insurgents know it. Unable to advance to a third phase of insurgency, a realistic goal of the insurgents is to stay deadlocked in a second phase until they can drive out the U.S.-led coalition....

The job of U.S. military forces is at minimum to contain the second phase of insurgency and reduce it to the level of the first phase as rapidly as possible.

Offensive operations of the sort begun in Iraq in November will have to continue and emphasize tactical interdiction — finding and destroying enemy capability before it can be used against American and allied coalition forces. These operations have been fruitful and led directly to locating and capturing Hussein.

The second phase is the most costly for a guerrilla movement. They have to engage a superior foe openly, and absorb the losses it costs them. We've seen the costs of such a policy in the fighting in Najaf, where several thousand of Sadr's forces have died since April. Yet the insurgents continue to engage, as failure to achieve anything that can be called "victory" means that the insurgency burns out, and cannot recruit replacements.

As long as Bush is in office, they will continue to engage us against their interests. This is because they know we're not going anywhere. They continue to press the odds in spite of massive fatalities because they have no choice. Elections approach, and time is not on their side. This dynamic will eventually break them, just as it broke the Viet Cong during Tet. There is no NVA to carry on the fight once the VC are broken. Iran, which everone now more or less openly recognizes is bankrolling this insurgency, cannot face the US openly, as no Soviet Union stands behind them to cast a protective arm around their shoulders.

But Kerry has handed the insurgents a promise of pulling out US forces if he's elected. All they have to do is wait. Nine months of relative peace, while the insurgents gather strength and recruit replacements, and he can send the troops home.

Then comes the third phase. What will it look like, when the insurgents overrun the country while President Kerry watches from Washington? Just what it looked like in South Vietnam, where half a million died because the US would no longer support the ARVN, not even with air power. Just what it looked like in Laos and -- dare we say it? -- Cambodia, where two million died at Communist hands, no longer restrained by the proximity of US firepower.

Astonishing: to have run on Vietnam, and to have learned none of its lessons.

UPDATE: Greyhawk thanks Kerry for his support, and requests some of yours.

UPDATE: KGC at Cogicophony has started a topic for this debate.

UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt has noticed this too:

Memo to Fallujah terrorists: If Kerry wins, all you have to do is endure at most four years, then you can have another Afghanistan. If Bush wins, you will die in Fallujah or give up your war.

Could Kerry have done anything more stupid than to telegraph to terrorists everywhere that there is a party of retreat in the United States?

UPDATE: Citizen Smash adds his opinion: "Kerry has just given our enemies in Iraq a goal to shoot for. Thanks, Senator."

UPDATE: BlackFive has something to say also:

My friends who gave their lives knew what they were doing and supported the decision to go to war. I mourn them every damn day, but I don't pity them. I honor them. I remember them. The number one thousand has nothing to do with that. It has everything to do with politics.

Then, I heard John Kerry speak, in reference to one thousand, about bringing the troops home. Doesn't he know that he's fueling the fires instead of supporting the troops? What the hell is he thinking?

Iraqi Sites Guide - The Mass Graves

The Mass Graves:

Via Mike the Marine, the mass graves of Iraq. It's hard hitting. The only thing I've seen like it lately are the pictures from Russia.

John F. Kerry's response to President Bush, Republican Convention -- 09/03/2004

John Kerry: John Kerry is Unfit for Command!

I've been thinking a bit about this line from the "Midnight Madness" speech:

Let me tell you what I think makes someone unfit for duty. Misleading our nation into war in Iraq makes you unfit to lead this nation.

Now, I watched "The Kerry Iraq Documentary." It's a production of the Bush campaign, and therefore has no cause to be kind to Kerry. Still, it presents Kerry's position in his own words, and in his own voice -- usually through videoclips of him appearing, time and again, over several years, to advocate war with Iraq over WMD.

Kerry eventually voted for the Iraq war resolution, and said at the time that he "fully supported" it.

Kerry had a seat on the Senate Intel committee, although apparently he didn't make much use of it. Still, he has had direct access when he wanted it to the CIA's intelligence on Iraq; to CIA staffers for questions; and to the documentation from the rest of the intel community as well. Whereas Bush had access to this information only after 2000, when he assumed office, Kerry has been 'in the know' for a decade and more. He should have been familiar with the intel backwards and forwards, and indeed in the television spots he makes a big deal about the fact that he was.

And Kerry supported the war resolution, as he supported the President's call throughout 2001 and 2002.

So, what to make of his statement?

Misleading our nation into war in Iraq makes you unfit to lead this nation.

There are two possible answers. The first is that Kerry is, today, acting in bad faith. He knows that Bush did not mislead the nation, as he himself had the same information and access and advocated the same course. Kerry is parroting the Michael Moore line because he thinks it is an effective attack, not because he believes it to be true.

The second possibility is that Kerry does believe Bush misled the country. In that case, however, Kerry misled the country too. In his own words, he is unfit to lead this nation.

Since we prefer to give veterans the benefit of the doubt whenever possible, I'll choose to believe that Kerry really thinks he is unfit to command. If I'm right to believe Kerry's words, all sides now agree on the point: Vice President Cheney, the Swifties, the Honorable Senator Zell Miller, and now John Kerry himself.

SurveyUSA: Momentum Shifts to Bush; Big GOP Bounce After RNC Convention

SurveyUSA Poll:

We've all recognized that the Time and Newsweek polls are disproportionately Republican. However, here's another poll that says much the same thing. It asks not, "Who will you vote for?" but "Who do you expect to win?" It finds that there's been a thirty-six point bounce for Bush in NYC, in spite of the massive protests everyone got to watch all week; and in other liberal markets, the numbers are bigger still (thirty-nine in LA, for example).

We'll see if it holds.

Clinton Urges Kerry To Sharpen His Attack (washingtonpost.com)

Clinton Calls Kerry:

It's bad when a man undergoing a quadruple bypass calls from the hospital to tell you that you're dying. Kerry seems to be responding with another shakeup of his campaign staff, and another attempt to craft a message. So much for clearing that national defense hurdle, eh?

Google Answers: Defending the infallible Bible

The Infallible Bible:

While looking for something else entirely, I noticed an advertisment for "Google Answers." One of the answers they've recently provided is apparently called Google: Defending the infallible Bible.

You can judge for yourself -- Grim's Hall takes no official position on religious questions. Grim himself does, but doesn't blog about them or discuss them socially. I merely refer you to this because I thought it was a curiousity, seeing experts in the newest technology researching and replying to the oldest questions.

UPDATE: I suppose that's not quite true. I did undertake to defend Forn Sidr, "the Old Way," and disprove atheism on one occasion. The Raving Atheist didn't bother to reply to the challenge, which is odd since he issued it.

Low Casualties

Low Casualties:

I am glad to see someone finally picking up on this. I remain astonished at how low casualties in Iraq have been, considering the numbers of troops, the numbers of operations, and the fact that there has been continuous resistance for more than a year. Back in April, when there was heavy rumor of a draft, I wrote this at FreeSpeech:

Here you can find the official DOD figures for OIF as of 9 April. As you can see, including DOD civilian contractors, there have been 652 American killed and 3269 wounded during OIF. Of the wounded, 1137 were returned to duty within three days. The number not RTD within the three day period was 2,132; of these, some were sent home, and others returned to duty after rehabilitation.

(Compare with Afghan operations, btw, which are just below, and you'll notice that the Afghan theater is actually far more deadly. We've had about 1/6th the casualties, with a force 1/15th the size. Note also that OEF lists KIAs in unspecified areas 'other than Afghanistan.')

To keep the math simple, let's assume that all soldiers not returned to duty in three days don't return to duty at all. 2,784 combat losses out of a force level that approximates 150,000 means that we have lost 1.856 percent of forces deployed in Iraq.

This is not accurate, however, due to troop rotations--I MEF fought in the invasion, rotated out and was replaced by 82nd Airborne, then rotated back in; 3rd ID rotated out over the summer, but 4th ID rotated in, etc. 150,000 is the approximate number of troops in country at any given moment, but the actual number of American soldiers who have served in Iraq this year--that is, who have given the enemy a chance to kill them--is far higher. As a result, the loss level is much lower than the almost-two-percent we calculated above. I'm not sure what the exact numbers are for all forces, so I can't calculate the exact level, but my impression is that it would be around one percent.

Any military that can't keep up with a wartime loss rate of two percent is in trouble--and as I said above, our rate is lower than that, especially if you take into account the troop rotations. We have no need to consider a draft.

The Sage of Knoxville picks up an article from Strategy Page that says the same thing in a different way:

American combat losses continue at a historically low level. Since March, 2003, American troops have suffered 7,900 casualties (including 976 dead.) This is an unprecedented killed to wounded ratio of 1:8. In past wars, the ration had been 1:4 or 1:5. American combat deaths over the Summer were 42 in June, 54 in July and 66 in August. There are the equivalent of three American combat divisions in Iraq, each running several hundred patrols and other combat operations each day. Never have combat divisions, operating in hostile territory, kept their casualties this low. The news media, concentrating on any losses as the story have generally missed the historical significance of the low casualties. The American armed forces have developed new equipment, weapons and tactics that have transformed combat operations in an unprecedented way. This is recognized within the military, but is generally ignored, or misunderstood, by the general media.

I suspect that the reason this doesn't get much play is that it is misunderstood, rather than ignored. We've talked about the media's lack of understanding of military science before (many times), and this looks like one more effect of it.

There may be an additional cause: media outlets may be afraid that, by talking about the remarkably low loss rates, they could appear to be downplaying the value of those who have died. The fact that the military has learned to fight with so few casualties is of tremendous importance to you if you are the mother of a Marine; but if you are the mother of a Marine who was killed yesterday, hearing about how few Marines die will not comfort you. Sensitivity to the dead may be a primary cause of this underreporting. If so, it's a noble reason to underreport.

However noble, it is the wrong tribute to pay to the dead. The focus on rising numbers makes it more likely that the American public will misunderstand Iraq as a losing war, rather than a war that we are winning, but which will take time. This underreporting makes it more likely that the American people could vote to withdraw forces from Iraq before the war is won. The cost of this tribute to the dead would be, finally, that they died in vain.

That is no kindness.

BLACKFIVE: Veterans'Day '04 Will Come Nine Days Early

Some Call It Treason:

A few days back, I suggested that I didn't know anyone who had actually accused Kerry of treason, excepting one fellow with a Veteran license plate and a bumper sticker to that effect. Well, make that two:

How liberals do defy the mind
For nothing in theirs’ can we find,
That willingly will look with reason
At how their man committed treason,
Skulked off to Paris this effete
To grovel at the Madame’s feet,
Betraying his sworn officer’s oath
To become the turncoat we so loathe.

Our law is clear you shall not treat
With America’s foes nor their cadres meet;
Give aid nor comfort to enemy forces
Nor espouse a view from hostile sources.

Without a mandate from the state
Wherefrom your right to negotiate?
Was treason, John, and is treason still
To this very day your unpaid bill.

Don’t try to hide behind your youth.
You knew the law you knew the truth.
You knew your faux negotiation
Would further tear our war-torn nation

And all for what, John, your career
So you can shameless brazen here,
And claim now that you’re fit to lead
The very nation you made bleed?

And yet before us there you stand
With medals blazing you demand
Such treachery we must ignore
Your treason that lost us our war.

But hold on, John, we veterans say,
You had your turn, now comes our day.
You thought we slept, forgot your crime?
Oh no, John boy, it’s come our time.

Some say let you apologize
But that won’t do it in our eyes.
A man astride of each position
Could we believe your true contrition?

The vindication we’ll accept
In settling up this long-held debt,
Is each of us will do his best
To deny you, John, your lifelong quest.

Listen carefully John to what we say,
November 2nd is Veterans’ Day.

Russ Vaughn
2d Bn, 327th Parachute Infantry Regiment
101st Airborne Division
Vietnam 65-66

November 2nd is Veterans' Day. There's something to be said for that idea.

The Australian: Mark Steyn: No other word for it but slaughter [September 06, 2004]

Steyn:

Mark Steyn has a stemwinder of his own, on the Russian dead and what it means:

What happened in one Russian schoolhouse is an abomination that has to be defeated, not merely regretted. But the only guys with any kind of plan are the Bush administration. Last Thursday, the President committed himself yet again to wholesale reform of the Muslim world. This is a dysfunctional region that exports its toxins, to Beslan, Bali and beyond, and is wealthy enough to be able to continue doing so.

You can't turn Saudi Arabia and Yemen into New Hampshire or Sweden (according to taste), but if you could transform them into Singapore or Papua New Guinea or Belize or just about anything else you'd be making an immense improvement. It's a long shot, but, unlike Putin's plan to bomb them Islamists into submission or Chirac's reflexive inclination to buy them off, Bush is at least tackling the 'root cause'.

If you've got a better idea, let's hear it. Right now, his is the only plan on the table. The ideology and rationale that drove the child-killers in Beslan is the same as that motivating cells in Rome and Manchester and Seattle and Sydney. In this war, you can't hold the line against the next depravity.

The Politburo Diktat: Death Wish

Beautiful, Comrade:

The Commissar composes an open letter to Chechen rebels, to explain why their murderous tactics won't work against the Russians like they work against America or Israel:

Perhaps you don't understand the rules. As Yogi Berra might say: 'Ninety percent of the world's problems are America's fault; the other half are Israel's.'...

If the Americans arrest four hundred Iraqi fighters, headlines follow. More editorials and self-righteous denunciations of America. And foreigners won't like it either.

Sadly, that's all too true.

Duels

From Sharp Knife:

Noel of Sharp Knife sends this story, for your reading pleasure. It is from the Wall Street Journal's "Opinion Journal" (which, oddly enough, seems to be down this morning).

Noel adds, "Somewhere, Mr. Jackson just chuckled, if not Mr. Hamilton."

In the wake of Zell Miller's fiery denunciation of John Kerry at the GOP convention, the national media has been working overtime to remind people that Mr. Miller once worked for Georgia's axe-handle wielding segregationist Governor Lester Maddox backed in the 1960s. Curiously, this is something they never brought up when Mr. Miller was a loyal Democratic Governor or Senator.

But last night at a Club for Growth reception honoring Mr. Miller, Herman Cain, the former chairman of Godfather's Pizza and an unsuccessful GOP candidate for Mr. Miller's Senate seat this year, isn't having any of it. An African-American, Mr. Cain says attacks on Mr. Miller are 'bunk.' 'When I campaigned and people asked me who I wanted most to be like in the U.S. Senate, I always said Zell Miller,' he told me.

Later, Messrs. Cain and Miller embraced on stage and Mr. Miller was presented with a pair of 18th-century dueling pistols -- an obvious reference to the duel he said he'd like to have with Chris Matthews of MSNBC as the two tangled on air Wednesday night after Mr. Miller's controversial speech.

There really is something to be said for a return to duelling. Even the reminder of the institution, though, is clarifying. Consider the "Go to Hell, Zell," John Kerry Infant creeper, for those who think that American life isn't sufficiently profane for children. This shirt allows those of a particularly cowardly persuasion to express obscenity without fear of retribution. No reasonable person would take the baby to task (the baby would be just as happy if the creeper said "Vote Bush, 2004," or said nothing and was decorated only with carrot stains). No decent man would engage the parent in front of the child, as anyone bent out of shape enough to dress an infant in such garb would surely cause a scene upsetting to the innocent.

Or consider this interview with Zell, from the Imus program. He was asked about his defense of Michelle Malkin, whom he doesn't seem to have known at the time (during the Hardball interview, he called her 'that young lady you had on the other day'):

[I] ought to stay down in Young Harris with [my] two yellow labs, Gus and Woodrow, and let the world go by, I guess. I had just been holding one for Chris Matthews ever since I saw him browbeat Michelle Malkin on his show that night. He wouldn't let that little 5'2", 95-pound girl say a word, and I just said to myself, 'If he ever gets into my face like that, I'm gonna pop him.'

The image of the crossed pistols reminds us that men used to take responsibility for their words -- that the things they said were things they would risk death to defend. They remind us that once men would not permit women and children to be abused, which is no longer a popular sentiment. Today women wish to defend themselves, which is excellent. It nevertheless speaks very well of a man that, if he should see the strong abusing the weak, whether strong from size or from position of power (e.g., anchor of the news program), that he should take their part.

"I should in that case hold you,'' replied the yeoman, "a friend to the weaker party.''

"Such is the duty of a true knight at least,'' replied the Black Champion; "and I would not willingly that there were reason to think otherwise of
me.''

Malkin, who has certainly proven quite outspoken in her own right, still appears to have appreciated the courtesy.

How many times have I had to hear people toss around the words "lie!" or "liar!" in this election? It seems to be the very first line of defense, when anyone says anything you'd rather not believe. Not only do these people hide behind children, they sound like children. They spit deadly insults freely, knowing that they can never be called to account.

The end of the duel may have brought some good effects, but it has also ended the culture of responsibility that went with it. No one is called to account for their slander. That John Kerry of the VVAW is a candidate for the highest office in the land says this as truly as anything.

I'm with Zell. It is a shame that duels are no longer legal. Duels were private wars, and like wars they could be just. Like wars, for all the harm they did, they often did more good. In a world fallen from hope of perfection, that may be the best you can ask.

Dave Kopel on Guns, Terrorism & Teachers on National Review Online

An Excellent Suggestion:

Arm the teachers. We talked here about the Thai teachers unions back in June. Of course, if there is no formal training in weapons use offered by the government, such carrying would have to be entirely voluntary -- someone who is not trained, or who knows they are not capable of using their weapon, is only putting a weapon in the hands of whoever seizes that classroom.

The suggestion does not go far enough. One of the best ways that we can make terrorism more difficult is by making America a hard target. The way to do that is to arm, and train, the civilian population -- that is, to call up the general militia of the United States, as established in the US Code. These persons should be given necessary training in how to safely and accurately carry and use a firearm; and then they should carry them about their persons. It need not be a long course, that would take people away from their jobs -- not a fully military "Basic - AIT - etc" setup, but rather short series of courses, scheduled around their need to work for a living. Topics to be covered include the carrying of weapons, and range time, both traditional and tactical. It would be good if the order opened military base and police firing ranges to the public, so long as the public's use of them was scheduled around the needs of the authority.

These persons would be able to carry without regard to "exemption" laws, such as usually prevent carrying firearms into schools or courthouses. The 2nd Amendment, whatever else it covers, certainly does cover members of the US militia acting on orders to go armed.

Combined with those Americans who voluntarily carry under the various concealed weapons permits available from the several states (who would still be covered by exemption laws), this should provide a strong "immune system" to hostage crises. It makes them much more difficult and dangerous to execute, but not only that -- it makes them harder to plan. Because these weapons are usually concealed handguns, terrorists scoping out a potential site can't guess how many armed persons they would have to face. That seriously complicates planning and -- as it requires that they act in larger groups, in order to address the unknown threat level -- makes more likely the discovery of the plot or the capture of one of their number by counterintelligence and police.

"Unthinkable!" I imagine many are shouting. "The population would not stand for it!"

Let this happen just once to an American kindergarten, and the population will be demanding it with full lungs. Why, then, should we wait? Must we really insist on paying a blood price in order to recover this traditional, explicitly Constitutional defense of freedom, of our children, and our land?

And now, think.

And Now, Think.

You have had a moment to laugh over this picture of me playing with my son:

This is what the enemy wants to turn him into:

A little thought:

Zalina Dzandarova cradles her son Alan as he sleeps with his small face buried against her stomach. He is the child Dzandarova was able to save. The child she chose to save, really.

It is the other one, little Alana, her 6-year-old daughter, whose image torments her: Alana clutching her hand, Alana crying and calling after her. Alana's sobs disappearing into the distance as Dzandarova walked out of Middle School No. 1 here Thursday, clutching 2-year-old Alan in her arms.

This is why we fight. This is what Zell Miller meant, when he said he wanted a President who would defend his great-grandchildren.

Is there anyone left who fails to understand the stakes? John Kerry said the terrorist threat was "exaggerated." Is that the right way to think about this?

Swear then by all the children you could not save that the next dead little one will not be yours. Wrong. Swear then that you will defeat them whatever it takes and into whatever hell you must go.

I so swear.

MSNBC - GlennReynolds.com

"It's Hard to Criticize John Kerry These Days"

Glenn Reynolds, in his MSNBC clothing, picks up on a theme that has been bothering me for a while now.

Osama bin Laden has been captured in Pakistan?

Osama:

Another silly rumor.

We have received reports from US sources that Pakistani security forces have captured Osama bin Laden.

According to these sources, bin Laden was captured not far from Chitral in the Northern part of Pakistan (between Chitral and Peshawar), approximately 4 weeks ago....

According to the US sources, the capture of the "Big Fish" will not be officially announced until sometime next month, in what is sure to be "Headline" news throughout the world.

Of course, the Army is not helping:

"If you are asking if we are close to getting OBL, the answer is yes," he said, when asked whether the large-scale arrests are leading to the capture of bin Laden, the prime suspect in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.

"Our president (George W. Bush) has said we will arrest Osama bin Laden. It is guaranteed," he said, adding it could happen tomorrow, in a week or a month from now.

This isn't the first time they've guaranteed his capture. No offense, old son, but show me the money. I don't think it's helpful to be overconfident, as if you don't find him -- and it's a hard thing, as you know better than anyone -- the enemy is encouraged by our failed boasts.

Now, if you do make good that boast, I know who I'm voting for in 2008.

Deserving victory

S.F. Gate:

Today the San Francisco Gate carries an editorial that says that Republicans deserve victory, and the Democrats "deserve to lose, and I think they know it." The reason? Read "Deserving Victory."

Hat tip: Allah.

TIME.com Print Page: Press Releases -- Campaign 2004: Bush Opens Double-Digit Lead

52-41:

Call it the Zell Bounce:

Terrorism: 57% trust Bush to handle the war on terrorism, while 36% trust Kerry.

Providing strong leadership: 56% said they trust Bush to provide strong leadership in difficult times, while 37% said they trust Kerry to provide leadership in difficult times.

So much for clearing that hurdle. Let's talk about health care.

John F. Kerry's response to President Bush, Republican Convention

An Imagined Interview:

I have a couple of questions for Kerry, based on last night's speech.

I am under the impression that he will want to answer them:

For the past week, they attacked my patriotism and my fitness to serve as Commander-in-chief. We'll, here's my answer. I will not have my commitment to defend this country questioned by those who refused to serve when they could have and by those who have misled the nation into Iraq.

Well, that really gets right to my questions, so let's start. Unhappily, since Kerry has decided not to give interviews at which people can ask non-scripted questions (his last one was more than a month ago), we are left having to imagine his responses. I'll try to imagine them based on things his campaign, or he himself, has already said.

Grim: Senator, you've been accused of hiding from criticism on every possible issue. Does this answer mean that you will, once again, try to ignore all the questions raised about your record, walk away, and hope no one notices? Or are you simply trying to draw limits around legitimate free speech -- that is, that you won't take questions from people who didn't volunteer for military service, but you will take questions from those who did?

Kerry: Are you a Republican?

Grim: No, Senator. Does that mean that Republicans are also in the category of people who aren't allowed to question you?

Kerry: Did you vote for George Bush? Did you vote for George Bush?

Grim: No, neither one.

Kerry: Well, then I might consider answering your question. What was it again?

Grim: Will you permit combat veterans to question your record, or are you really suggesting that no one may question you at all?

Kerry: Well, that's a complicated question, and the nuances...

Grim: Let's make it simpler, then, to save time. Will you let Bush question you? He volunteered for service.

Kerry: No. George Bush betrayed his country by not serving in Vietnam. Besides, he's a Republican, and I'm sure he voted for himself.

Grim: I see. How about Zell Miller's questions? He's not a Republican, and he served in the United States Marine Corps.

Kerry: No. He is no better than Darth Vader.

Grim: I see. Well, how about all these Swift Boat Veterans, then? They served in the same capacity as you, in the same place, and for much longer. Will you answer the questions they've raised?

Kerry: No. They are nothing but smear artists connected to George Bush.

Grim: There are over three hundred of them now.

Kerry: I won't have my service questioned by them, no.

Grim: By the men who served with you?

Kerry: No.

Grim: What about Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry?

Kerry: Their leader is a lunatic who hates me.

Grim: How about Vietnam Special Forces Against John Kerry?

Kerry: No. They are also full of hate.

Grim: Ralph Peters? He called you an "eel in a vat of olive oil."

Kerry: More hate speech. See, if someone hates you, you don't have to answer any question they raise.

Grim: Are you sure that every single veteran who is opposed to your candidacy hates you?

Kerry: Yes.

Grim: Well, then, a lot of veterans hate you, don't they?

Kerry: Well, why are all these veterans opposed to me? Never mind. Let's move on. I want to talk about the issues.

Grim: Your refusal to answer questions about your record is the issue we're talking about. I have one more question.

Kerry: OK.

Grim: Will you answer to me? We know I'm a Democrat, that I didn't vote for Bush, and that I volunteered for the Marines.

Kerry: Don't be foolish. You're just a blogger. Do you know who I am?

At this point, we had to end the interview, so that my second could step in to arrange the duel.

UPDATE: Greyhawk has his own imagined interview. His has audio.

Logic & Sanity: School seized in Russia.

L&S:

Per the wolf, you can see some of the images coming out of Russia here. We should all see them.

strider172's Xanga Site - 9/3/2004 2:23:04 AM

Game Day:

I went by to see the Tolkien and Bible quotes that BlackFive was talking about. What I ended up liking even better was the comparison between North and South:

Stadium Size:
NORTH: College football stadiums hold 20,000 people.
SOUTH: High school football stadiums hold 20,000 people.

Fathers:
NORTH: Expect their daughters to understand Sylvia Plath.
SOUTH: Expect their daughters to understand pass interference.

Getting to the Stadium:
NORTH: You ask "Where's the stadium?" When you find it, you walk right in.
SOUTH: When you're near it, you'll hear it. On game day it becomes the state's third largest city.

Concessions:
NORTH: Drinks served in a paper cup, filled to the top with soda.
SOUTH: Drinks served in a plastic cup, with the home team's mascot on it, filled less than half way with soda, to ensure enough room for bourbon.

When National Anthem is Played:
NORTH! : Stands are less than half full, and less than half of them stand up.
SOUTH: 100,000 fans, all standing, sing along in perfect four-part harmony.

The Smell in the Air After the First Score:
NORTH: Nothing changes.
SOUTH: Fireworks, with a touch of bourbon.

Commentary (Male):
NORTH: "Nice play."
SOUTH: "Dammit, you slow sumbitch - tackle him and break his legs."

Commentary (Female):
NORTH: "My, this certainly is a violent sport."
SOUTH: "Dammit, you slow sumbitch - tackle him and break his legs."

Announcers:
NORTH: Neutral and paid.
SOUTH: Announcer harmonizes with the crowd in the fight song, with a tear in his eye because he is so proud of his team.

Do we know anybody like that?

ABCNEWS.com : Bill Clinton to Have Multiple Heart Bypass

Good Luck, Bill:

Per Drudge, Bill Clinton is suddenly down with an emergency quadruple bypass. Although we at Grim's Hall have always considered the Clintons bitter foes in the culture war, we remember that even our worst enemy in that regard is an American and therefore, if not a brother, at least a cousin. We wish him well, and a speedy recovery.

The Command Post - A Newsblog Collective

Russia:

The Command Post has a great deal on the Russia hostage crisis, and is keeping on top of updates.

It's clear that this was not what we originally feared: the attack turned into a classic Islamic-terrorist hostage situation, rather than a Qaeda style "wait for the television cameras, then kill the kids for everyone to see." Even so, they apparently killed at least a hundred women and children.

On reflection, I think we can thank Operation Anaconda. Anaconda seems to have gone into the record books as a complete disaster, which has always surprised me. It was clear at the time that the US had managed to draw out Qaeda fighters by the hundreds -- the dangerous ones trained in Bin Laden's Afghan camps -- into a place where US firepower could be brought to bear without fear of collateral damage. Reports from US forces at the time stated that they brought such firepower down that the bodies of men they were tracking by starlight scopes were frequently vaporized in th explosions.

Yet the news coverage focused on the relatively few American deaths, and the row between US and UK forces. This last was to be expected, the first time two allied armies tried to work together; such things take a while to smooth out. (The article to which I linked includes only the American side of the complaint, which I noticed Kerry recognize the other day at the American Legion, when he said that he would have used only US troops in Afghanistan. The UK side of the complaint was made by the SAS, which was the US fear of civilian casualities kept them from capturing Bin Laden. You can read the UK's side of the story here.)

In spite of the personality conflicts, which perhaps prevented even greater success, Anaconda was a great blow against terrorism's most terrible shock troops. If they had not been killed where they were, we might well have seen some of the brutality they imagined acted out. Thanks to the US Army, and every bit as much also to the brave forces of the United Kingdom, we did not have to.

Today, of course, we must think of the Russian forces. They can have only little joy in knowing that it could have been worse.

The Blue Bus is calling us...: GOP backs away from Miller�s blast

Betrayal, AKA, "Another Reason Why I Will Always Be A Democrat":

From Lizard Queen, we see that Bush has done just what was expected: distance himself from invited guest Zell Miller.

The whole point, from the Republican point of view, was to let a Democrat say what they lacked the guts to say. Now, by publicly scorning the Hon. Zell Miller, they can erect a nice wall between themselves and his comments. No one can accuse any Republican of anger, no... anger is unseemly, improper, not wanted in the America of Bush's "New Freedom." Such variance should be medicated by your new doctor, until you feel much, much better.

Of course, I understand that the election is within four percentage points, and they're scrambling for every advantage. I doubt Zell minds, as he got what he wanted in the chance to dress down our own deviant Democrats, in the hope that they might -- perhaps after a debacle in November -- find their way home.

But still, this is a fine reason to stay and fight for the soul of my own party, instead of switching, if I needed another. At least the national Democrats are honest when they say they hate you and everything you stand for. They don't shake your hand and applaud you, and then pretend they never knew your name.

Scoundrels. It's still important to defeat Kerry, but I am disappointed at this display of cowardice by the "God-fearing" man "with a spine of tempered steel."

Captain's Quarters

Ahah! A Substantive Complaint!

I see via Sovay that someone has declared Zell's speech to have been based on an email hoax. Snopes has shown that many of those weapons systems Kerry voted against were procedural votes, which don't necessarily mean that you are actually opposed to the weapon system.

That's a fair and substantive argument against Zell's speech. It is not, however, a correct one. As Captain's Quarters shows, Kerry didn't just vote against these systems -- he campaigned against them. There's no getting out of the fact that he was against them. The fact that an email went around saying so for spurious reasons doesn't change the fact that legitimate reasons exist.

New York Post Online Edition: postopinion

Hate Leads to Anger:

Another fallen Jedi -- er, veteran -- in need of slandering and character assassination. Ralph Peters, retired Army officer, author of many books on military science and history, PBS Commentator, and contributer to the Army War College's Journal Parameters has a piece in the NY Post that makes our Zell look tame:

Kerry's the guy who, at the beginning of August, stated that we need to withdraw troops from Germany and South Korea. Then, as soon as President Bush announced a plan to do so, Kerry thundered against the idea. Confronted with his own remarks -- made only two weeks earlier -- he claimed that, well, yes, he thought we should withdraw troops, only not the way the president proposed to do it.

The guy is an eel in a vat of olive oil.

Yesterday, John Kerry tried to pander to America's heroes, conveniently forgetting that he'd trashed them for political gain, then shortchanged them throughout his Senate career. Suddenly, Kerry was the man who had fought for benefits for his fellow Vietnam vets, the man who felt their pain (Kerry makes Bill Clinton look like a paragon of integrity).

The only veterans' benefit young John Kerry fought for was the right of vets to be spit upon in public.

I'm sure we can expect to hear from one of Kerry's spokesmen, soon, that this fellow is an out of the mainstream radical. I'm sure we can expect to see his character described with words like "liar," which seems to be a particular favorite term for Leftists who wish to describe anti-Kerry veterans. But since both Darth Vader and the Emperor are used up, will we have to call him "Darth Maul"?

UPDATE: When they do, let's remember that he was called "A military analyst generally respected by both left and right," by CalPundit, back when he was critical of Rumsfeld.

NPR : GOP Keynote to Cap Zell Miller's Turn from Democrats

Zell Miller: Really Evil, or Irredeemably Evil?

On NPR today, asked about Zell Miller, Terry McAuliffe said that Zell Miller was "the Democratic Party's Darth Vader." Buzzflash, on the other hand, says that he is really The Emperor Himself.

So, the Kerry campaign assassinates the character of yet another veteran, just because he is vocally opposed to Kerry's candidacy. This is in keeping with Kerry's preferences: ignore the issues, slander your opponents, try to move on and hope no one remembers what was said.

Kerry Sharpens Contrast With Bush (washingtonpost.com)

Drat, Another Campaign Strategy Down the Tubes:

From yesterday afternoon's Washington Post:

Despite losing ground in polls, Kerry believes he has cleared the national security hurdle with most voters and plans to focus mostly on health care and the economy leading up to Nov. 2, Lockhart said.

Emphasis added. Zell Miller's sixteen minute speech will require Kerry to scrap this plan, or let those charges hang unanswered over his head. Zell put up a brand new national security hurdle, taller and wider and solid concrete.

Can Kerry afford another two weeks of "crisis planning" to set up a third campaign strategy? Or will he just trudge on with this one, in spite of its newly obvious deficiency?

Miller skewers his own party

AJC on Zell:

The AJC has a writeup on the speech called "Miller skewers his own party." It's surprisingly fair minded for the AJC, which is one of the most liberal newspapers in the country.

What is especially interesting is their online poll of readers. Even though they serve primarily the liberal public of the Atlanta city limits -- the D.C. of the South -- the poll is running over 70% in favor of Zell's speech. Of course, online polls, etc... but it's surprising given their primary readership, and shows the love with which Zell is regarded by Georgians.

Ace of Spades HQ: Occupiers Vs. Liberators?

Ace on Zell:

Ace also had some comments on the speech:

[Zell] was drawing a contrast between those who call our troops liberators -- occupiers for a noble and good purpose -- and those who call them oppressive occupiers for the pecuniary gain of Bell Helicopter, Halliburton, and GE.

Between those who call them liberators and those who call them invaders who ravage the countryside like 'Jenjis Khan.' (Several searches of on-line encyclopedias have as of yet yielded no insight into who the great ravager 'Jenjis Khan' might be. I'm still looking-- when I know, you'll know!)

He was drawing a contrast between those who call our military heroes and those who call them war criminals, the sort of people who might be inclined to cut off ears, cut off heads, rape, blown (sic) up bodies, shot cattle and livestock without cause, fired indiscriminately at civilians, etc.

Know anyone like that, spinners?

Sadly, yes.

Ace of Spades HQ: Was I on crack, or did Zell Miller challenge Chris Matthews to a duel tonight?

Ace on Matthews:

Having been watching Hardball all night, Ace says that Chris Matthews was railing about Zell to everyone, before Miller came on the show:

[Chris Matthews] badgered Kay Bailey Hutchinson about [Miller], then suggested that Miller should, in the interests of honor, stop drawing checks from the Senate, and actually quit the Senate. (No such suggestions were offered to Jim Jeffords, natch.)

Why would he do that? He is still performing his duty as a Senator, so naturally he should draw his pay. The only reason I know of that would prevent you drawing your pay as a Senator is not showing up for work:

Section 39 of the United States Code Service requires the Secretary of the Senate and the Chief Administrative Officer of the House to deduct daily pay from members for each day they are absent.
The only legal excuse is if the senator or representative, or one of their family members, is ill, the law states.

Zell Miller's been right there doing his job. Where is John Kerry? Where is John Edwards? Is there a reason for this lawbreaking, other than that it is convenient for them to continue to receive public money which they are legally forbidden from receiving?

Thanks for reminding me, Mr. Matthews.

Zell!

James Lileks said:

Big banner: “A MORE HOPEFUL AMERICA.” Lame. Why not “FLUFFIER KITTENS” or “BRIGHTER LAUNDRY.” I want A CHAIN-MAILED FIST CRUSHING THE FORCES OF JIHAD!

Well, son, there you go. The last ride of a great man. Semper Fidelis, Senator.

UPDATE: Allah says: "The guy was stupendous. If Cheney wants to follow this, he had better come out with Bin Laden's head on a f***ing stick."

UPDATE: BlackFive:

Tonight, watching Senator Zell Miller's speech, my mother said, "Kerry and Kennedy really pissed off Senator Miller."

Me, "No, Mom, they pissed off Sergeant Miller." That's worse...

You said it. Ooh-Rah!

UPDATE: See also my tribute to Zell from a few days back.

UPDATE: The Sage:

Democratic spin from Tad Devine: It's the politics of fear. (It must be: he looks afraid.)

UPDATE: Several sources say that Miller, on Hardball, challenged Chris Matthews to a duel over Matthews' comments, and Matthews backed off. He's wise. It was not a joke. I know, who comes from where Zell does, and who bears a scar or two of my own.

UPDATE: My first reaction to this was to say, "They obviously said that, since Zell is a Democrat, he can go after them with both barrels and a Bowie knife." On reflection, I remember Hill's Celtic Warfare, which used military science to suggest a strong cultural connection between Scottish Highlanders and Appalachian Southerners. This is how he described "the Highland Charge":

They advance rapidly, discharge their pieces when within musket length of the enemy, and then, throwing them down, draw their sword, and... dart with fury on the enemy through the smoke of their fire... Their attack is so terrible, that the best troops in Europe would with difficulty sustain the first shock of it; and if the hordes of the Highlanders once come in contact with them, their defeat is inevitable.

Both barrels, and the Bowie knife.

Welcome, Southern Appeal and Right on Red readers.

Welcome, National Review readers. John Derbyshire doubtless does not know this, but he and I have exchanged mail on several occasions under my real name. He sent me a kind congratulations on the birth of my son, and his name and website appear to the right, in the permanent collection of "Admired Voices."

AnAmericanSoldier

One Night Only:

If you can get by there before tomorrow morning, Drill Sergeant Rob is running a "Name My New Platoon" contest at AnAmericanSoldier.

figurine peinte : fabrication et distribution de figurines peintes Papo

Something Good From France:

One of the two signs of spiritual health in a man is that he takes pleasure in the play of children. (The other is that he finds joy in life, in spite of its hardships.) I don't spend as much time as I might to talking about that here, because the readership of Grim's Hall is all adult, although some of you have children (I'm looking at you, BlackFive).

Today I bought my son Beowulf a couple of toys. All I can say about these things is that I wish we'd had them when I was a boy. They are from a company called Papo-France, and I am honestly impressed.

One of the toys I bought was from the "L'antiquite" page, and is the finest example of a Viking warrior toy I've ever seen. The details are correct, from the chain mail (rare but prized by Vikings) to the nasal helmet and round shield. The horned-helmet fellow on the same page is not a Viking, but an ancient Gaul, for whom the horns are correct. The only complaint I have is the sword, which has a high central ridge (appropriate for a stabbing weapon, rather than a Viking slashing sword which would have had a central groove and high ridges along the edge). Otherwise, it's beautiful.

I also bought a dragon (from Contes et legendes). With the two together, I have a functional "Beowulf and the Dragon" set to use in teaching my son about the poem that is his namesake.

Not shown on the website, but in the print catalog they gave me, is a Richard the Lionheart, a Joan of Arc, and several other historic figures. There are also knights from various periods, again with arms and armor that are largely correct -- a shining departure from the norm.

If you're looking for a gift for a boy, say five to twelve (and possibly older if they love Tolkien, or play Dungeons & Dragons), this seems a good bet to me.

HughHewitt.com

Hospitality:

Hugh Hewitt offers some warm hospitality to Terry McAuliffe:

HEWITT: Sitting across from me Terry McAuliffe. Strike me dead. It's so good to see you here Mr. Chairman. It's good to have you at the Democratic National Convention and at the Republican National Convention

MCAULIFFE: Who would have thought that I'd be going around with a credential at the Republican Convention.

HEWITT: Can you stay for a couple of hours?

MCAULIFFE: Love to. Love it here. Everybody is being hospitable to me.

HEWITT: I want to start with some very easy questions.

MCAULIFFE: Yeah.

HEWITT: Do you believe that John Kerry took a CIA man into Cambodia and kept his hat?

MCAULIFFE: Uh, I have no idea.

You have no idea if you believe it?

Links

Links:

I repaired the "Democrats for Bush" link, which had been broken after they moved house. I've also added two new permanent links: one to Lizard Queen's site, and one to Marine Corps Moms. The first is under "Other Halls," and the second, under "Honor & Virtue." Marine Corps Moms have both in abundance.

Subscribe To