Fred Thompson: I don't feel any need to apologize for the United States of America

Last night I linked to NRO-The Campaign Spot which posted the transcript of Fred Thompson on his Jay Leno appearance where he announced he was officially running for the Presidency and I also linked to www.fred08.com where you can watch his 15 minute video talking about the issues.

I came away with a few impressions of Fred and I am going to show you what they are and why.

First and foremost, this excerpt I am listing below says quite a bit about the man.

JAY LENO: I just wonder what we do to get a ‑‑ I grew up ‑‑ when I was a kid, John F. Kennedy was President. It was the Peace Corps, and we would send American college students to these countries, and they would love us. I think we made friendships that were good for 25, 30 years because Americans had befriended these countries. And it seems like we are not well‑liked around the world. Maybe I'm naive and maybe because I'm in show business, but it seems like I would want people to like us as a country because they think we're a ‑‑ I know we're a good country, but I wonder what we have to do to get these allies, these other countries to maybe ‑‑ what are we doing wrong?

FRED THOMPSON: Well, part of that comes with being the strongest, most powerful, most prosperous country in the history of the world. I think that goes with the territory. We're more unpopular than we need to be. That's for sure, but our people have shed more blood for the liberty and freedom of other peoples in this country than all the other countries put together. (Applause.) And I don't feel any need to apologize for the United States of America.

First off, Jay Leno is by no means a "conservative" and neither is his audience, that applause was genuine and loud and goes to show that people, everyday people, are still proud to be Americans and they like the fact that Fred Thompson has no qualms about being proud to be an America and loving his country. (I watched the show after having read the transcript and that was one of the things I was listening for)

Now, go back into your memory banks and do a few searches to all the latest speeches by all the presidential candidates.

Name me one, on either side of the aisle that makes it clear that America does not need to be apologized for.

Name me one that doesn't claim to love America in the same breath as they criticize everything America is and does.

Name me one that shows true pride in America and being an American without following it up with a "but" at the end.

Tell me, are YOU proud to be an American? Can you answer that without a "but" on the end of that sentence? (Click the link, read it, then come answer that question IF you can without a "but" at the end.)

Fred Thompson did.

JAY LENO: I wasn't suggesting that ‑‑

FRED THOMPSON: I know you weren't. We make mistakes. I think we can do some things better. I think part of what we've got to do with regard to the global terrorist problem I talked about is for all the forces of civilization, all of our friends and people who love freedom need to understand that this is a battle against freedom and tyranny worldwide, that the good guys need to be on one side. To the extent that we can do better in reaching out and convincing people, sharing intelligence and sharing military operations and so forth and equipment and know‑how and technology, we certainly need to do that. We have shown how difficult it is to shoulder these burdens or the greatest share of these burdens by ourselves, and we need to do that. But we need to keep it in perspective. We're probably never going to be loved by everyone as long as we're that way. Look, on the other hand, at a place like France. We've gotten more criticism probably from French leaders and French people or press than anybody else; yet they elected a person that came over here, shook President Bush's hand before the election, went back, and said, "We want to be friends with the United States," and they elected him. (Applause.) So we may have misjudged ‑‑ we may have taken some of that rhetoric coming from the leaders of that country from what the real people think. So it's not a totally clear picture.

Another great example of the rhetoric coming from politicians doesn't always echo what their supporters think. Quite often it just echoes what the loudest of those supporters think, not the majority.

Hat Tip to Hot Air, we have the video of Fred on Leno, watch it and notice one additional thing. The lack of desperation.


(6:19 second video, well worth the time)

He doesn't have the "air" of desperation that the other candidates, from both sides of the aisle have.

I have heard it said that after he officially joined the race, people would wait and see if he "sticks his foot in his mouth" as other candidates have done.... I disagree with the premise there.

A man that is not driven by polls, that does not change his mind because "popular opinion" has changed, doesn't care if what he says it liked, or appreciated, he calls them like he sees them and political correctness can be damned.

A man that says what he means and stands by it, might get criticized by those that do not like him or feel threatened by him, but you cannot stick your foot in your mouth if you stick to the truth and not what the polls tell you to say and do.

Yet another huge difference between him and the other presidential candidates.


News stories about his announcement come from NYT, Wapo, and Fox.

[Update] Hat Tip to Fred Heads USA for the email. (GAWD that name, "Fredheads", kills me every time.)

HURON - Fred Thompson won the first-ever South Dakota Republican Party Presidential Straw Poll at the South Dakota State Fair Aug. 30 through Sept. 3, 2007.

Just a point of interest.

Fred Thompson: I don't feel any need to apologize for the United States of America

Last night I linked to NRO-The Campaign Spot which posted the transcript of Fred Thompson on his Jay Leno appearance where he announced he was officially running for the Presidency and I also linked to www.fred08.com where you can watch his 15 minute video talking about the issues.

I came away with a few impressions of Fred and I am going to show you what they are and why.

First and foremost, this excerpt I am listing below says quite a bit about the man.

JAY LENO: I just wonder what we do to get a ‑‑ I grew up ‑‑ when I was a kid, John F. Kennedy was President. It was the Peace Corps, and we would send American college students to these countries, and they would love us. I think we made friendships that were good for 25, 30 years because Americans had befriended these countries. And it seems like we are not well‑liked around the world. Maybe I'm naive and maybe because I'm in show business, but it seems like I would want people to like us as a country because they think we're a ‑‑ I know we're a good country, but I wonder what we have to do to get these allies, these other countries to maybe ‑‑ what are we doing wrong?

FRED THOMPSON: Well, part of that comes with being the strongest, most powerful, most prosperous country in the history of the world. I think that goes with the territory. We're more unpopular than we need to be. That's for sure, but our people have shed more blood for the liberty and freedom of other peoples in this country than all the other countries put together. (Applause.) And I don't feel any need to apologize for the United States of America.

First off, Jay Leno is by no means a "conservative" and neither is his audience, that applause was genuine and loud and goes to show that people, everyday people, are still proud to be Americans and they like the fact that Fred Thompson has no qualms about being proud to be an America and loving his country. (I watched the show after having read the transcript and that was one of the things I was listening for)

Now, go back into your memory banks and do a few searches to all the latest speeches by all the presidential candidates.

Name me one, on either side of the aisle that makes it clear that America does not need to be apologized for.

Name me one that doesn't claim to love America in the same breath as they criticize everything America is and does.

Name me one that shows true pride in America and being an American without following it up with a "but" at the end.

Tell me, are YOU proud to be an American? Can you answer that without a "but" on the end of that sentence? (Click the link, read it, then come answer that question IF you can without a "but" at the end.)

Fred Thompson did.

JAY LENO: I wasn't suggesting that ‑‑

FRED THOMPSON: I know you weren't. We make mistakes. I think we can do some things better. I think part of what we've got to do with regard to the global terrorist problem I talked about is for all the forces of civilization, all of our friends and people who love freedom need to understand that this is a battle against freedom and tyranny worldwide, that the good guys need to be on one side. To the extent that we can do better in reaching out and convincing people, sharing intelligence and sharing military operations and so forth and equipment and know‑how and technology, we certainly need to do that. We have shown how difficult it is to shoulder these burdens or the greatest share of these burdens by ourselves, and we need to do that. But we need to keep it in perspective. We're probably never going to be loved by everyone as long as we're that way. Look, on the other hand, at a place like France. We've gotten more criticism probably from French leaders and French people or press than anybody else; yet they elected a person that came over here, shook President Bush's hand before the election, went back, and said, "We want to be friends with the United States," and they elected him. (Applause.) So we may have misjudged ‑‑ we may have taken some of that rhetoric coming from the leaders of that country from what the real people think. So it's not a totally clear picture.

Another great example of the rhetoric coming from politicians doesn't always echo what their supporters think. Quite often it just echoes what the loudest of those supporters think, not the majority.

Hat Tip to Hot Air, we have the video of Fred on Leno, watch it and notice one additional thing. The lack of desperation.


(6:19 second video, well worth the time)

He doesn't have the "air" of desperation that the other candidates, from both sides of the aisle have.

I have heard it said that after he officially joined the race, people would wait and see if he "sticks his foot in his mouth" as other candidates have done.... I disagree with the premise there.

A man that is not driven by polls, that does not change his mind because "popular opinion" has changed, doesn't care if what he says it liked, or appreciated, he calls them like he sees them and political correctness can be damned.

A man that says what he means and stands by it, might get criticized by those that do not like him or feel threatened by him, but you cannot stick your foot in your mouth if you stick to the truth and not what the polls tell you to say and do.

Yet another huge difference between him and the other presidential candidates.


News stories about his announcement come from NYT, Wapo, and Fox.

[Update] Hat Tip to Fred Heads USA for the email. (GAWD that name, "Fredheads", kills me every time.)

HURON - Fred Thompson won the first-ever South Dakota Republican Party Presidential Straw Poll at the South Dakota State Fair Aug. 30 through Sept. 3, 2007.

Just a point of interest.






.

Gordon Brown Pledges Iraq Stability Policy: Echoes John Howard and George Bush

Prime Minister Gordon Brown promised today that Britain's Iraq policy would be in keeping with the U.S. and the coalitions Iraq policies.

Brown:

"We are on exactly the same path that I have set out, which is that we will continue to discharge our obligations to the Iraqi people, that we support their democracy."

This echoes what President Bush said in his statement in front of the troops on Labor Day when he said:

But I want to tell you this about the decision -- about my decision about troop levels. Those decisions will be based on a calm assessment by our military commanders on the conditions on the ground -- not a nervous reaction by Washington politicians to poll results in the media.

The cheering Hoooooowaaaahhh's of the troops at that statement can be heard on the video at the link above, telling us quite clearly what they think about the "nervous" politicians making decisions based on polls instead of conditions on the ground.

Today Bush meets with another strong leader whose previous statements regarding Iraq have been very clear about continuing to help the Iraqi people achieve the security and freedom they want, John Howard, the Australian Prime Minister.

We have posted about Howard's statements last month.

In his stance Gordon Brown is echoing the Australian counterpart John Howard who has made it clear that he will keep his forces in Iraq despite anything the UK does.

Since becoming prime minister two months ago, Mr Brown has faced similar calls to his Australian counterpart John Howard about exactly how long allied troops will remain in Iraq.

Last week, Mr Howard faced more calls to clarify comments he made which appeared to suggest he would leave Australian troops in Iraq even if other countries like Britain pulled theirs out.

Iraq is expected to dominate talks between Mr Howard and George W Bush when the US president visits Sydney ahead of the APEC summit next month.

In his letter, Mr Brown wrote that Britain had obligations to the Iraqi government and United Nations to remain in Iraq until the country's own military forces were ready.

"Decisions on UK force levels and posture in Iraq are dictated by conditions on the ground," Mr Brown wrote.

"It is wrong to say that the continuing presence of UK forces in Iraq will achieve little, or that they are severely restricted in what they can do.

"We, together with the rest of the international community, have undertaken to support the country's political and economic development through the UN-led International Compact for Iraq.

"These are commitments it is not in our interests simply to abandon."

Brown, Howard and Bush all understand the need to make sure the Iraqi's are capable of maintaining their security before any reduction in troops or withdrawal and even time lines be set, as well as making sure their is no vacuum left in Iraq for Iran or al-Qaeda to step in to further endanger our combined interests.

These three strong leaders all have one thing in common, they all understand the necessity of finishing what we have started in Iraq, seeing to it that Iraq security forces are trained and capable of protecting themselves after the coalition forces leave and are determined to not provide a safe haven for al-Qaeda or allow Iran to step in and take over by leaving a vacuum.

I thank Gordon Brown, John Howard and George Bush for not bowing to "opinion" that does not take conditions on the ground into account but is instead screamed loudly because of political games.

Follow up with Fred Kagan's excellent analysis about the fools errand that Congress set upon the GAO.

[Update] More from todays joint press conference with President Bush and John Howard.



(NOTE: Instead of leaving you with the advertisements I usually have at the bottom of each post, I will leave you with one of the videos from Freedoms Watch) [30 second video.]


Gold Star Mother:




.

Gordon Brown Pledges Iraq Stability Policy: Echoes John Howard and George Bush

Prime Minister Gordon Brown promised today that Britain's Iraq policy would be in keeping with the U.S. and the coalitions Iraq policies.

Brown:

"We are on exactly the same path that I have set out, which is that we will continue to discharge our obligations to the Iraqi people, that we support their democracy."

This echoes what President Bush said in his statement in front of the troops on Labor Day when he said:

But I want to tell you this about the decision -- about my decision about troop levels. Those decisions will be based on a calm assessment by our military commanders on the conditions on the ground -- not a nervous reaction by Washington politicians to poll results in the media.

The cheering Hoooooowaaaahhh's of the troops at that statement can be heard on the video at the link above, telling us quite clearly what they think about the "nervous" politicians making decisions based on polls instead of conditions on the ground.

Today Bush meets with another strong leader whose previous statements regarding Iraq have been very clear about continuing to help the Iraqi people achieve the security and freedom they want, John Howard, the Australian Prime Minister.

We have posted about Howard's statements last month.

In his stance Gordon Brown is echoing the Australian counterpart John Howard who has made it clear that he will keep his forces in Iraq despite anything the UK does.

Since becoming prime minister two months ago, Mr Brown has faced similar calls to his Australian counterpart John Howard about exactly how long allied troops will remain in Iraq.

Last week, Mr Howard faced more calls to clarify comments he made which appeared to suggest he would leave Australian troops in Iraq even if other countries like Britain pulled theirs out.

Iraq is expected to dominate talks between Mr Howard and George W Bush when the US president visits Sydney ahead of the APEC summit next month.

In his letter, Mr Brown wrote that Britain had obligations to the Iraqi government and United Nations to remain in Iraq until the country's own military forces were ready.

"Decisions on UK force levels and posture in Iraq are dictated by conditions on the ground," Mr Brown wrote.

"It is wrong to say that the continuing presence of UK forces in Iraq will achieve little, or that they are severely restricted in what they can do.

"We, together with the rest of the international community, have undertaken to support the country's political and economic development through the UN-led International Compact for Iraq.

"These are commitments it is not in our interests simply to abandon."

Brown, Howard and Bush all understand the need to make sure the Iraqi's are capable of maintaining their security before any reduction in troops or withdrawal and even time lines be set, as well as making sure their is no vacuum left in Iraq for Iran or al-Qaeda to step in to further endanger our combined interests.

These three strong leaders all have one thing in common, they all understand the necessity of finishing what we have started in Iraq, seeing to it that Iraq security forces are trained and capable of protecting themselves after the coalition forces leave and are determined to not provide a safe haven for al-Qaeda or allow Iran to step in and take over by leaving a vacuum.

I thank Gordon Brown, John Howard and George Bush for not bowing to "opinion" that does not take conditions on the ground into account but is instead screamed loudly because of political games.

Follow up with Fred Kagan's excellent analysis about the fools errand that Congress set upon the GAO.

[Update] More from todays joint press conference with President Bush and John Howard.



(NOTE: Instead of leaving you with the advertisements I usually have at the bottom of each post, I will leave you with one of the videos from Freedoms Watch) [30 second video.]


Gold Star Mother:




.

al-Qaeda in Denmark

(Danish police looking for evidence after a raid resulted in the arrests of eight suspected terrorists.)
Eleven raids carried out in the greater Copenhagen area, leading to eight arrests is being credited with preventing a terrorist bombing linked to al-Qaeda.

The Director General of the PET (Police Intelligence Service), the Danish Police, these men arrested are quoted as being "militant Islamists with direct connections to international groups such as al-Qaida." The suspects are said to be between 19-29 yrs of age.

Buildings in the city's southern suburb of Ishoej and its Noerrebro district - both with large immigrant populations - were among those cordoned off by police.

The suspects had been under surveillance for some time and Danish investigators had liaised with "several foreign co-operation partners" before making the arrests, police said.

Later on Tuesday, two of the suspects, both 21, were remanded in custody for 27 days, with the first 13 days to be spent in solitary confinement.

Captain's Quarters asks and answers the question of why Denmark:

Why Denmark? The Danes belong to the Coalition fighting in Iraq, but that's probably a secondary issue. The Prophet cartoons -- which depicted Mohammed in a critical fashion -- were first published by Danish newspapers, and the Muslim world went nuts over the images. Hundreds of thousands protested, several people were murdered, and the radicals swore revenge. Some of them took it seriously.

From London to Denmark, al-Qaeda groups are having their plots foiled by good intelligence and cooperation between countries in sharing that intelligence. These plots are first being prevented then made public, which is embarrassing to al-Qaeda and it shows their desperation in their lack of planning, their lack of discretion and shows that they are not as organized as they once were.

We must stay on the offensive with any group linked to al-Qaeda or any group that pledges their allegiance to al-Qaeda's ideological goals.

Others discussing this: (Via memeorandum)
Neptunus Lex, Comments From Left Field, Hot Air, Gateway Pundit, The American Pundit, The Van Der Galiën Gazette and JammieWearingFool







.

al-Qaeda in Denmark

(Danish police looking for evidence after a raid resulted in the arrests of eight suspected terrorists.)
Eleven raids carried out in the greater Copenhagen area, leading to eight arrests is being credited with preventing a terrorist bombing linked to al-Qaeda.

The Director General of the PET (Police Intelligence Service), the Danish Police, these men arrested are quoted as being "militant Islamists with direct connections to international groups such as al-Qaida." The suspects are said to be between 19-29 yrs of age.

Buildings in the city's southern suburb of Ishoej and its Noerrebro district - both with large immigrant populations - were among those cordoned off by police.

The suspects had been under surveillance for some time and Danish investigators had liaised with "several foreign co-operation partners" before making the arrests, police said.

Later on Tuesday, two of the suspects, both 21, were remanded in custody for 27 days, with the first 13 days to be spent in solitary confinement.

Captain's Quarters asks and answers the question of why Denmark:

Why Denmark? The Danes belong to the Coalition fighting in Iraq, but that's probably a secondary issue. The Prophet cartoons -- which depicted Mohammed in a critical fashion -- were first published by Danish newspapers, and the Muslim world went nuts over the images. Hundreds of thousands protested, several people were murdered, and the radicals swore revenge. Some of them took it seriously.

From London to Denmark, al-Qaeda groups are having their plots foiled by good intelligence and cooperation between countries in sharing that intelligence. These plots are first being prevented then made public, which is embarrassing to al-Qaeda and it shows their desperation in their lack of planning, their lack of discretion and shows that they are not as organized as they once were.

We must stay on the offensive with any group linked to al-Qaeda or any group that pledges their allegiance to al-Qaeda's ideological goals.

Others discussing this: (Via memeorandum)
Neptunus Lex, Comments From Left Field, Hot Air, Gateway Pundit, The American Pundit, The Van Der Galiën Gazette and JammieWearingFool







.

Iran Claims Its Uranium Goal Has Been Reached

If this is true, then they are closer to a nuclear bomb than the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)thought they were as they said last week.

According to the LA Times, Iran is claiming they have reached the 3,000 running centrifuges for uranium enrichment, which would put them one year away from having enough nuclear material for a nuclear bomb.

TEHRAN -- Iran claimed today that it had reached its goal of running 3,000 centrifuges for uranium enrichment, a much higher number than recently estimated by the United Nations' atomic agency. If true, the accomplishment might allow Iran to produce enough nuclear material for a bomb within a year, military experts have calculated.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was quoted by state television as saying that despite economic sanctions by the United Nations, his country had "taken another step in the nuclear progress and launched more than 3,000 centrifuge machines."

It could not be independently verified whether Iran, which the West has often accused of exaggerating its nuclear capabilities for domestic propaganda, had reached it long-sought-after objective. Centrifuges spin at high rates of speed to enrich uranium and are critical to generating electricity or building a nuclear bomb.

A report released last week by the International Atomic Energy Agency estimated that Tehran had nowhere near 3,000 centrifuges operating. It found that the country's plant at Natanz was running 1,968 centrifuges, a 50% increase over the number it had on line in April. However, the report says Iran has only enriched uranium to 3.7%, well below the 90% needed for weapons-grade material.

The last two sets of UN sanctions have been little more than a slap on the wrist for Iran, due to Russia and China watering those sanctions down to a point where they have obviously been completely ineffective.

I asked the other day if there was going to be an attack on Iran and many pundits and bloggers from both sides of the aisle are already claiming it is inevitable, is it?

So much talk from both sides of the aisle here in America as well as being commented on by France, via Sarkozy the new President of France, which yesterday issued a warning to Iran to comply with their international obligations or face an attack.

After Sarkozy's public statement which shocked many, we saw this morning that Iran, ratcheting up the stakes makes a statement claiming they are ready to step into Iraq.

Times Online reports on President Bush's comments concerning Iran's pursuit to an atomic bomb could lead to a nuclear holocaust in the Middle East and vowing to confront Tehran before it is too late.

What exactly did Bush and Sarkozy talk about when Sarkozy visited the states and had meetings, private and open with President Bush?

Did they discuss putting more pressure on Iran via these public statements?

Is this also a way to put pressure on the UN to stop watering down the resolutions and start toughening up the sanctions on Iran to force them to comply?

Is an attack on Iran inevitable or can diplomatic solutions stop this crash course with Iran regarding their nuclear ambitions?

Lets see what they are saying and why before we attempt to answer this.

According to the blog Informed Comment Global Affairs:

The legal argument to bypass the U.S. Congress has already been floated. As I noted in my DailyKos post:

The U.S. cannot mount a ground invasion or occupation of Iran, but it might be capable of an air attack and sea embargo. The administration has prepared a legal justification by floating its plan to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. Since the IRGC is under the command of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, the administration, with its usual legal acuity, could claim legal authority for an attack on Iran under Senate Joint Resolution 23 of September 18, 2001,which authorized the use of military force against "those who plan, authorize, commit, or aid terrorist attacks against the United States and its interests -- including those who harbor terrorists."

Also according to a diarist over ay DailyKos, Maccabee, it is a done deal, according to a source they claim to have...this could be true or a complete fabrication, know one really knows.

"I don’t think it’s limited at all. We are shipping in and assigning every damn Tomahawk we have in inventory. I think this is going to be massive and sudden, like thousands of targets. I believe that no American will know when it happens until after it happens. And whatever the consequences, whatever the consequences, they will have to be lived with. I am sure if my father knew I was telling someone in a news organization that we were about to launch a supposedly secret attack that it would be treason. But something inside me tells me to tell it anyway."

By the way, just as a side note, I am with Macsmind here that IF, very big IF, Maccabee is telling the truth, then this "source" has just betrayed the country in an act of treason by speaking to possible pending operations where our troops lives are at stake.

QandO points out information fromt he Maccabee post that shows it to probably be nothing more than a sack of....umm...lies.

[Update] Confederate Yankee, thoroughly debunks Maccabee with facts about things Maccabee has claimed that are impossible]

[Update #2] DailyKos has removed the Maccabee entry from their blog. I guess even Kos smelled the bull. (Thanks to Bob for pointing it out.)

We know without a doubt that plans are made up in preparation for most eventualities, so it is no big surprise that we have a plan of action should we decide to attack Iran and Times Online has brought us some of those plans.

THE Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days, according to a national security expert.

Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing for “pinprick strikes” against Iran’s nuclear facilities. “They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military,” he said.

Debat was speaking at a meeting organised by The National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal. He told The Sunday Times that the US military had concluded: “Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same.” It was, he added, a “very legitimate strategic calculus”.

All of this is public news at this point and the lunatic from Iran (Ahmadinejad) already knows about it, so his statement about having completed the 3,000 running centrifuge mark is a simple "screw you" to the international community.

Members from the left have their panties in a bunch as Michael van der Galiën so puts it:

The liberal part of the blogosphere has its panties up in a bunch, because more and more people report that the US is preparing for war (against Iran).

Maccabee writes at Daily Kos that (s)he had a conversation with a friend - a friend who “is an LSO on a carrier attack group that is planning and staging a strike group deployment into the Gulf of Hormuz.” According to Maccabee (I have no idea how serious we should take this person) this friend told him (her) that the US is most definitely going to “hit Iran, bigtime” soon. Barnett R. Rubin - who I do trust - adds that those who can know basically told him the same thing. According to Barnett, the White House planned a major PR offensive right after Labor Day, after which the US will act.

Now, I understand that this is fascinating for political analysts (to think about), but once again it seems to me that all these people are doing right now is ringing the alarm bells, saying ’stop the war’ without offering a valid alternative. Once again it seems that they are more busy opposing Bush than thinking about possible solutions for the problem with Iran.

He is right, instead of looking at the problem and trying to come up with solutions, members of the far left are too busy pissing and moaning about Bush instead of the more serious discussion of how to stop Iran without bombing the hell out of them.

Bush doesn't need any permission for Congress to act, he has 90 days AFTER taking action to get approval from them and by then, according to the plans shown above, it would be a moot point.

So, my questions from above still stand:

What exactly did Bush and Sarkozy talk about when Sarkozy visited the states and had meetings, private and open with President Bush?

Did they discuss putting more pressure on Iran via these public statements?

Is this also a way to put pressure on the UN to stop watering down the resolutions and start toughening up the sanctions on Iran to force them to comply?

Is an attack on Iran inevitable or can diplomatic solutions stop this crash course with Iran regarding their nuclear ambitions?

Being that we cannot disprove Ahmadinejad claims, we must go with the assumption that he is telling the truth, anything else would be suicidal.

That gives us a year or less to either force him to cease and stop his nuclear activities, which China and Russia will not agree to anything strong enough to do so, or someone attacks them as Sarkozy said would happen.

With the good news that we have come to an agreement with North Korea, we now have a bigger problem still facing us with Iran.

We do have a few months yet before action is imperative, but is it wise to wait until the last minute, taking the chance that they may be closer than what even they are saying?

On the other hand, what if they are full of hot air and really aren't close to 3,000 running centrifuges? Do we have a way, through the IAEA do disprove it?

Iran is playing a very dangerous game here, figuratively speaking, they are poking a tiger with a stick to see how riled up they can make it, but is that smart to do when the tiger is fully capable of destroying you because there is no cage between you and said tiger?







.

Iran Claims Its Uranium Goal Has Been Reached

If this is true, then they are closer to a nuclear bomb than the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)thought they were as they said last week.

According to the LA Times, Iran is claiming they have reached the 3,000 running centrifuges for uranium enrichment, which would put them one year away from having enough nuclear material for a nuclear bomb.

TEHRAN -- Iran claimed today that it had reached its goal of running 3,000 centrifuges for uranium enrichment, a much higher number than recently estimated by the United Nations' atomic agency. If true, the accomplishment might allow Iran to produce enough nuclear material for a bomb within a year, military experts have calculated.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was quoted by state television as saying that despite economic sanctions by the United Nations, his country had "taken another step in the nuclear progress and launched more than 3,000 centrifuge machines."

It could not be independently verified whether Iran, which the West has often accused of exaggerating its nuclear capabilities for domestic propaganda, had reached it long-sought-after objective. Centrifuges spin at high rates of speed to enrich uranium and are critical to generating electricity or building a nuclear bomb.

A report released last week by the International Atomic Energy Agency estimated that Tehran had nowhere near 3,000 centrifuges operating. It found that the country's plant at Natanz was running 1,968 centrifuges, a 50% increase over the number it had on line in April. However, the report says Iran has only enriched uranium to 3.7%, well below the 90% needed for weapons-grade material.

The last two sets of UN sanctions have been little more than a slap on the wrist for Iran, due to Russia and China watering those sanctions down to a point where they have obviously been completely ineffective.

I asked the other day if there was going to be an attack on Iran and many pundits and bloggers from both sides of the aisle are already claiming it is inevitable, is it?

So much talk from both sides of the aisle here in America as well as being commented on by France, via Sarkozy the new President of France, which yesterday issued a warning to Iran to comply with their international obligations or face an attack.

After Sarkozy's public statement which shocked many, we saw this morning that Iran, ratcheting up the stakes makes a statement claiming they are ready to step into Iraq.

Times Online reports on President Bush's comments concerning Iran's pursuit to an atomic bomb could lead to a nuclear holocaust in the Middle East and vowing to confront Tehran before it is too late.

What exactly did Bush and Sarkozy talk about when Sarkozy visited the states and had meetings, private and open with President Bush?

Did they discuss putting more pressure on Iran via these public statements?

Is this also a way to put pressure on the UN to stop watering down the resolutions and start toughening up the sanctions on Iran to force them to comply?

Is an attack on Iran inevitable or can diplomatic solutions stop this crash course with Iran regarding their nuclear ambitions?

Lets see what they are saying and why before we attempt to answer this.

According to the blog Informed Comment Global Affairs:

The legal argument to bypass the U.S. Congress has already been floated. As I noted in my DailyKos post:

The U.S. cannot mount a ground invasion or occupation of Iran, but it might be capable of an air attack and sea embargo. The administration has prepared a legal justification by floating its plan to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. Since the IRGC is under the command of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, the administration, with its usual legal acuity, could claim legal authority for an attack on Iran under Senate Joint Resolution 23 of September 18, 2001,which authorized the use of military force against "those who plan, authorize, commit, or aid terrorist attacks against the United States and its interests -- including those who harbor terrorists."

Also according to a diarist over ay DailyKos, Maccabee, it is a done deal, according to a source they claim to have...this could be true or a complete fabrication, know one really knows.

"I don’t think it’s limited at all. We are shipping in and assigning every damn Tomahawk we have in inventory. I think this is going to be massive and sudden, like thousands of targets. I believe that no American will know when it happens until after it happens. And whatever the consequences, whatever the consequences, they will have to be lived with. I am sure if my father knew I was telling someone in a news organization that we were about to launch a supposedly secret attack that it would be treason. But something inside me tells me to tell it anyway."

By the way, just as a side note, I am with Macsmind here that IF, very big IF, Maccabee is telling the truth, then this "source" has just betrayed the country in an act of treason by speaking to possible pending operations where our troops lives are at stake.

QandO points out information fromt he Maccabee post that shows it to probably be nothing more than a sack of....umm...lies.

[Update] Confederate Yankee, thoroughly debunks Maccabee with facts about things Maccabee has claimed that are impossible]

[Update #2] DailyKos has removed the Maccabee entry from their blog. I guess even Kos smelled the bull. (Thanks to Bob for pointing it out.)

We know without a doubt that plans are made up in preparation for most eventualities, so it is no big surprise that we have a plan of action should we decide to attack Iran and Times Online has brought us some of those plans.

THE Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days, according to a national security expert.

Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing for “pinprick strikes” against Iran’s nuclear facilities. “They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military,” he said.

Debat was speaking at a meeting organised by The National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal. He told The Sunday Times that the US military had concluded: “Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same.” It was, he added, a “very legitimate strategic calculus”.

All of this is public news at this point and the lunatic from Iran (Ahmadinejad) already knows about it, so his statement about having completed the 3,000 running centrifuge mark is a simple "screw you" to the international community.

Members from the left have their panties in a bunch as Michael van der Galiën so puts it:

The liberal part of the blogosphere has its panties up in a bunch, because more and more people report that the US is preparing for war (against Iran).

Maccabee writes at Daily Kos that (s)he had a conversation with a friend - a friend who “is an LSO on a carrier attack group that is planning and staging a strike group deployment into the Gulf of Hormuz.” According to Maccabee (I have no idea how serious we should take this person) this friend told him (her) that the US is most definitely going to “hit Iran, bigtime” soon. Barnett R. Rubin - who I do trust - adds that those who can know basically told him the same thing. According to Barnett, the White House planned a major PR offensive right after Labor Day, after which the US will act.

Now, I understand that this is fascinating for political analysts (to think about), but once again it seems to me that all these people are doing right now is ringing the alarm bells, saying ’stop the war’ without offering a valid alternative. Once again it seems that they are more busy opposing Bush than thinking about possible solutions for the problem with Iran.

He is right, instead of looking at the problem and trying to come up with solutions, members of the far left are too busy pissing and moaning about Bush instead of the more serious discussion of how to stop Iran without bombing the hell out of them.

Bush doesn't need any permission for Congress to act, he has 90 days AFTER taking action to get approval from them and by then, according to the plans shown above, it would be a moot point.

So, my questions from above still stand:

What exactly did Bush and Sarkozy talk about when Sarkozy visited the states and had meetings, private and open with President Bush?

Did they discuss putting more pressure on Iran via these public statements?

Is this also a way to put pressure on the UN to stop watering down the resolutions and start toughening up the sanctions on Iran to force them to comply?

Is an attack on Iran inevitable or can diplomatic solutions stop this crash course with Iran regarding their nuclear ambitions?

Being that we cannot disprove Ahmadinejad claims, we must go with the assumption that he is telling the truth, anything else would be suicidal.

That gives us a year or less to either force him to cease and stop his nuclear activities, which China and Russia will not agree to anything strong enough to do so, or someone attacks them as Sarkozy said would happen.

With the good news that we have come to an agreement with North Korea, we now have a bigger problem still facing us with Iran.

We do have a few months yet before action is imperative, but is it wise to wait until the last minute, taking the chance that they may be closer than what even they are saying?

On the other hand, what if they are full of hot air and really aren't close to 3,000 running centrifuges? Do we have a way, through the IAEA do disprove it?

Iran is playing a very dangerous game here, figuratively speaking, they are poking a tiger with a stick to see how riled up they can make it, but is that smart to do when the tiger is fully capable of destroying you because there is no cage between you and said tiger?







.

Post-impressions.

Today was an incredibly busy day, beginning with that 8 a.m. "Week in Review." Around 1, I went in to the law school to record an episode of BloggingheadsTV, and I had a nice encounter with an individual who was turning a humble whiteboard into a work of art:



My questions -- are you a pointillist? and do you like Seurat? -- did not get much of an answer, but nonetheless... who will dare erase the whiteboard?

So... on to the Bloggingheads. It's not up yet. But I'll just tantalize you with my notes, which I drew on during the hour+ that we recorded:



(Enlarge.)

I hope I'm a decent docent.

I've never been a docent before. I've gone on a lot of architectural tours, and I was going to go on this one anyway, but somehow, I ended up getting to be a docent... at a little place called Penwern AKA the Fred B. Jones Gatehouse. Frank Lloyd Wright 1901-03. Me, a docent. I'll still do the whole tour, and I'll only be there for a 2-your slot. But I feel really awed by it. Frank Lloyd Wright!

Architects may come and
Architects may go and
Never change your point of view.
When I run dry
I stop awhile and think of you

"Mom, Mom, Mom.... It's not right."

Paris Hilton sent back to jail.

Ryan Grim live-chats his way through the big dustup he started by asking me about my "biggest dustup."

You know... all that Clinton-lunching-with-the-feminist-bloggers stuff. Excerpt:

12:12 PM kentucky: I don't understand why Jessica is so defensive about what you said in your profile of Ann Althouse. I personally don't think her chest was the focal point of the photo, but you, as a young man, are welcome to that opinion. So why does holding that opinion mean that you think she was flaunting her secuality [sic], or however she described it?

Ryan Grim: I bought Valenti’s book the other day and am about halfway through it. The title, Full Frontal Feminism, is an obvious play on Full Frontal Nudity, a porn term that let’s folks know how much they’re about to see. And then there’s the cover, splashed with a nude woman’s midsection. And then there’s the content: a steady theme of the book is sexuality, getting into specifics like oral sex and masturbation.

On the Colbert Report the other night, she said, "Nothing says feminism like a naked woman's body." Okay, fine.

I don’t care one way or the other what Valenti writes about. But to pick that subject matter and then object to me saying that she’s “not shy with her body” strikes me as a double standard. A woman can talk about sexuality but a man can’t then say that she’s comfortable doing what she’s doing? And why would anybody object to that characterization? What’s wrong with not being shy?

Thanks to several women who have discussed that very question to me, I now (think I) know why she objects to that. When she says “everyone knows” what I meant, she’s saying that I was using coded language to call her a ‘slut.’

Now, if you take the line I wrote completely out of context, I can agree that such an interpretation is possible, though it’s a stretch. But I can also say that that interpretation couldn’t be farther from the truth. What purpose on Earth would it serve either me or the story to call someone I never met a slut?

Not only wasn't intended to be offensive, the line wasn’t even remotely intended as a criticism. What could possibly be wrong with not being shy about one’s body? A lot of people aren’t and, I would think, that’s a trait shared by mature individuals.

I think there's something really incoherent about the Third Wave/pro-sex feminists. They continually use sexuality for self-promotion, but if you want to examine issues of sexuality from any dimension other than the one they control, they slam you as a misogynist or some such thing. You know, my biggest problem with them is that they are boring. There's no possibility of an interesting discussion about anything.

This adds to my sense that they are incoherent. They don't want to engage, because they can't deal with the flaws that can be pointed out by anyone who is not fully submissive to their ideological discipline. Note that Ryan invited Jessica Valenti to interact with him in the chat, and she wouldn't do it. She just insisted on an apology and a retraction. Even when you're sure you're right, why don't you like discussion, debate, and analysis? How utterly tedious... and suspicious.

ADDED: Bad link fixed.

Fill up with a big, gelatinous blob.

And lose weight.

ADDED: Wouldn't it be waaaaaay easier to just drink a large glass of water (or 2 or 3) before meals?

"Reminds me of those radical feminists who insist that their reasons for censoring pornography are completely different from Pat Robertson's."

"No they're not." Says Mickey Kaus, debunking "Bogus Meme #2" about the collapse of the immigration bill.

On the radio.

On momentarily, as indicated here.

UPDATE: You can stream the show at the archive here. (The 8 a.m. show.) It starts off a little slow -- about the G8 conference -- and gets really heated up midway about Iraq. I say some kind of mean things about Tommy Thompson. And we end by talking about "The Price Is Right."

"I couldn’t take the personal interaction of people walking in my house and making nasty comments."

That's how one Madison home seller justified paying a realtor's commission, but traditionally people have accepted the argument that the realtor will get you a higher price, and you'll actually come out ahead. But there's a front-page NYT article reporting on a new study, based on house sales in Madison, showing that the for-sale-by-owner -- FSBO, pronounced FIZZ-bo -- approach puts the seller ahead.

Now, Madison is kind of special:

FSBOMadison.com, the subject of a January 2006 article in The New York Times, charges $150 for an ad on the site and a yard sign. Taking advantage of antiestablishment sentiment in Madison, which has a highly educated and liberal population, it quickly grabbed a market share of roughly 20 percent. That made it among the most successful challengers in the country to real estate agent domination of home sales.

That scale, along with the cooperation of the site’s owners and of the local Realtor group, made the economists’ study possible. “We don’t have national data,” Mr. Nevo, one of the authors, said. “FSBOMadison is unique.”

So Madison is special -- don't we know? -- because of FSBOMadison.com and because of our "highly educates and liberal" "antiestablishment" culture. Does that make us resist professional help and think we can do better? Personally, I just can't picture myself interacting with all manner of strangers and ushering them around my house.

Can we get creative with the debate format?

A couple days back, my son John IM'd me -- from his bar review class -- a question he had about the presidential debates. Why do they keep the Democrats and the Republicans separated? After I gave my instant reaction -- because we're at the stage where people need to pick one from each group and because the top candidates wouldn't agree -- I made a post about it to see what people would say.

One of our regular commenters XWL said he'd written something along those lines a few weeks ago:

[I]nvite four candidates from each party to bi-weekly debates....

Have each candidate be the "host" for ten minutes at a time, asking questions to the four opposing party candidates. Have a moderator ensure that they don't use their time to ask 9 minute questions full of their own campaign talking points, but instead reward candidates for engaging the other side directly....

By forcing the two sides together as early as possible, that would change the tone of these debates from monologue to dialogue. It would be up to each candidate to decide whether that dialogue should be shrill, informative, cooperative, or combative. This would give the primary voters real information on how these folks would perform come general election time, and it would generate far more interest amongst that big group of independents who sit these things out till the last minute usually.

XWL has another post today, and he notes that Patrick Ruffini just wrote:

With candidates trying to shore up their general election creds, who will be the first to challenge a debate across party lines this year? ... It would be a risky move, and a gutsy one. Think of the huge earned media moment it would be, giving us the excitement of a general election slapdown a year early. It would be a make or break moment for a candidate a few points back looking to roll the dice. If you were looking to mess with the other party's frontrunner by elevating a top-tier challenger, this would do it. And it would teach the voters vastly more about those candidates than the current debates joint appearances can.

That seems to make it pretty obvious that frontrunners won't do it.

XWL has another idea: Have the candidates "send their 'policy experts' and 'advisers' out into the internet to have debates with each other."

When we pick a President we aren't just picking a single person, we are picking a team, and I want to know as soon as possible what the make up of that team will look like. A Bloggingheads type format would be perfect, with dingalinks, and a relatively unstructured time frame. Would Clinton have beaten Bush in 1992 if we had known it would have been a bunch of dweeby munchkins, a few crusty Carter leftovers, and heavily favoring academic over real world folks? Likewise, in 2000 if folks had known Bush was skipping past his father, and even Reagan to pick folks with experience in the Nixon and Ford years, would Gore have won more than the popular vote (although in this scenario I think he would have had a stable of far lefty policy wonks that would make Hillary look like Ayn Rand, so he probably would have lost resoundingly, even against the Bush/Ford/Nixon team).

Could any of the Republicans get Colin Powell to speak on their behalf? Would Clinton be crazy enough to dust off Albright? Does anyone know who Obama's people are or what his cabinet would look like? Does McCain have any friends (aside from a few in the media)? Would Rudy look past the five boroughs for advisers?

Any more creative ideas out there... and good arguments for getting the candidates to submit to them?

What killed the Senate immigration bill?

Jack Hawkins says he has the inside story.

And here's the NYT report:

The outcome, which followed an outpouring of criticism of the measure from core Republican voters and from liberal Democrats as well, was a significant setback for the president. It came mainly at the hands of members of his own party after he championed the proposal in the hope of claiming it as a major domestic policy achievement in the last months of his administration.

We're down to the "last months" already?

Radio alert.

I'm going to be on "Week in Review" at 8 AM, Central Time, tomorrow. You'll be able to live-stream it here, and there will be an archived version that I'll link to later. This is the show where we go over the week's news stories, with commentators from different sides of the political spectrum, and me counting as the conservative -- as I am, by Madison standards. It's a call-in show, so think up a question and call in.

UPDATE: You can stream the show at the archive here. (The 8 a.m. show.)

How hail 4+" in diameter caused me to see 18 films.

So I was just hanging around at home, trying to get some reading done, and I see reports predicting hailstorms -- hail 4 1/2 inches in diameter -- baseball size! I have never seen anything close to baseball-sized hail. And I don't keep my car in a garage. So I pack up my things and drive to the mall where there's a covered garage and a café with WiFi.

That was over 5 hours ago.

At the café, I ran into a friend and had a long conversation, then drank coffee and got absorbed into the laptop for who knows how much reading and writing. Still, no storm. It was after 5, so I moved upstairs to the Bistro, drank some wine, ate a salad and continued to fool around with the computer. Still no storm, but the scary baseball-hail was still predicted. It was nearly 7, so I paid the check and went downstairs to the theater.

Surely, the length of a movie will give the hail time enough to come through. I bought a ticket for "Paris, je t'aime," which is 18 short films -- all set in Paris -- from 18 directors. I emerged from the theater 2 hours later, hoping to see piles of hail-baseballs outside, telling me it's okay to go home. But, no, nothing seems to have happened. So I'm sitting in the café again, writing this, wondering if I can leave. Has the hail passed us by?

So let me while away a few more minutes and say the film anthology was swell. The films were so short that I didn't get too impatient -- my usual problem. If anything seemed not so good, it would go away very soon. And all the films were pretty good. The only one I disliked was the vampire thing with Elijah Wood, and even that was bad in an absurd enough way to put up with. My favorite was "Tuileries," which starred Steve Buscemi and was directed by Joel and Ethan Coen. Just a little scene in the subway, with an American tourist who reads in his guidebook, after staring at a reproduction of the "Mona Lisa" that in Paris, you shouldn't make eye contact with people. Then he makes eye contact with a woman, etc. etc.

Various French and American stars show up for their short sequence. Juliette Binoche is very touching. She encounters Willem DaFoe, who's a dream-cowboy. Ben Gazzara has a turn with Gena Rowlands -- they're in a restaurant, and the waiter is Gérard Depardieu. Who is this Margo Martindale? She appears in a very affecting film, the last one, directed by Alexander Payne, who, in an earlier sequence, played Oscar Wilde, suddenly appearing next to his grave in Pere-Lachaise Cemetery.

Still, no baseball hail. The hell with it. (The hail with it.) I can't stay here forever. I'm taking my

ADDED: ... chances. (Somehow, I neglected to finish that sentence. Failed to write "chances." Fortunately, I made it home alive. Or that would have been freaky. For you.)

UPDATE: "Severe Storm a Non-event in Madison."

Gathering of Eagles update...7JUN07

Illinois Eagles Needed June 16th!

Posted: 06 Jun 2007 05:51 PM CDT

Calling All Illinois Eagles!


GOE National Director of Operations, Chris Hill, is going to grace our state with his presence on June 16th 2007 for the 5th Annual Freedom Motorcycle Run in Joliet, Illinois. GOE needs ILLINOIS EAGLES to step up to the plate and come spend the day with Chris. Chris is a great guy to hang out with and EAGLES will be getting to advertise GOE! Guys, this is time to show GOE what type of ILLINOIS EAGLES GOE has in the organization!

Logistics: 5th anniversary of the Illinois Motorcycle Freedom Run Saturday, June 16th, 2007

The run starts at the CHICAGOLAND SPEEDWAY (Joliet, IL) goes 50 miles to THE MIDDLE EASTERN CONFLICTS WALL MEMORIAL (Marseilles, IL)

*Red/White/Blue PANCAKE BREAKFAST 6:00am to 9:30am($5.00). Line up starts at 6:00 am RUN Departs at 10:00am.

*Note: ILLINOIS EAGLES ARE TO ARRIVE EARLIER. Please contact Gabi at gabrielle.pike@gatheringofeagles.org for further information.

MEMORIAL CEREMONY 1:00 p.m. AT MEMORIAL.
Thousands will be in attendance!


FREEDOM CELEBRATION 3:00 p.m. to midnight.
Donation: $10.00 per person; the contributions help to defray the cost of etching the names of the Fallen Heroes on the Wall; and assist Veterans and their Families!
Check out the site

Hostile as I am to hosta....

This kind pleases me:

Who are you people?

Here are lots of graphs showing the results of that BlogAds survey so many of you were kind enough to slog through.

"Yes, biologically sometimes, I have felt it ... but in the meantime when I see the trouble married people have, I think maybe I am lucky."

Says the Dalai Lama -- the "it" being sexual desire:

"When you analyse the face or body, which is beautiful for two days, after 10 years it's more difficult.

"It can eventually create a lot of unhappiness - that's nature."

So that incredibly shallow thing you're not supposed to say? What if, in fact, it's really deep?

The Dalai Lama said as a celibate monk he sublimated physical desire through "training of the mind" and intense analytical meditation.

True happiness, he said, came through peace of mind, altruism and compassion.

It's only not shallow if you think such things along with celibacy and lots of analysis.

"Feminist Blogosphere Politics."

That's the topic for a live chat by Ryan Grim, who stirred things up in that Politico profile of me. You can submit questions here now. He'll respond tomorrow at noon.

UPDATE: Read the chat here.

Columbine.

Found down by the Limnology building.

And speaking of water... I like the way the top of the flower looks like one of those photographs of a drop of water. I wonder how hard it is to get a capture like that.

Paris Hilton out of jail.

After only 3 days. Some "medical" problem. They won't tell us what it is. Maybe all the other prisoners would fake it.

ADDED: Nicole Richie can stop praying now.

MORE: TMZ says the "medical" problem was an impending nervous breakdown. Is everyone going to fake that now? There's a poll over there, and 93% of the readers are not believing it.

When men "leer" at their own wives...

... at what point do we have a problem with it? Dr. Helen scoffs at at the people who complain about the way Fred Thompson looks at his voluptuous wife:

[T]here are many ... women who feel that unless one is Bill Clinton or the object of their own lecherous desires (of course, for these women, their own desire is called empowerment--not lechery!), a regular joe has no right to look at a woman--not even in pictures--with desire in his heart. In their eagar quest to control men's sexual rights, some "feminist" women (and other prudish ones too!) go to extremes to shame, expose or intimidate men who let their lust for women dare come to the surface. ...

[M]en have a right to sexual expression just as women do and leering or even an interest in porn is not a crime--but if some women have their way, it soon may be. So, I say to you men out there who believe in your right to sexual freedom, stand up for your right to leer--or it may soon be a thing of the past.

Well, now this goes beyond the problem of men leering at their own wives, and it also leans heavily on the idea of rights. If we're talking rights, surely, we've also got a right to express contempt for men who boorishly exhibit their sexual feelings in public. People need to learn manners -- even if bad manners aren't a crime. The word "leer" is useful: It lets you know there's a line you will be judged by. Learn where it is or suffer the consequences -- which don't include prison, just contempt and rejection... unless you've got a special way about you, which you probably don't if you're reading this and not off somewhere enjoying the benefits of flouting society's norms.

This connects for me to the discussion going on over in the comments to my profile at Politico, which refers to a line I crossed, not in person, but in writing, saying something that many people would think but not say looking at a picture of a woman. One commenter brings up the old line: If women knew what men were thinking, they'd never stop slapping us. I'm not a man. I don't know. But I've heard. It seems to me that you may have the right to leer, but as with many other rights, you'd better be careful how and when you choose to exercise it, if you want to get along well in life. Go ahead and cross a line -- I did -- but know what you're doing and do it for a good reason. (I did.)

But back to Fred Thompson. He's leering at his own wife. Does that make it okay? Well, there are lots of things you can do with your wife that people don't want to see in public. But what are people seeing with Fred Thompson? He doesn't stare at her breasts, does he? More likely, you're staring at her breasts, and then you're looking at him -- egad! he's older! -- and you're projecting your own feelings on to his face -- including, perhaps, the feeling that you don't want him to be President. You can still insult him. Go ahead! Just know what you're doing.

"The imprint of seams and zips and buttons will, with time, fade..."

"... the smarting humiliation that sensible women (yes, including me) actually wore this garment outside, in public, will take a lot longer to recover from."

Good riddance to the "hideous" garment that had "the cheek to tell you what your body shape needs to be in order to wear it."

"American life was becoming so surreal, so stupefying, so maddening, that it had ceased to be a manageable subject for novelists..."

So thought Philip Roth in 1960 -- as reported in a 1997 NYT review of "American Pastoral." (TimesSelect link.)

He argued that real life, the life out of newspaper headlines, was outdoing the imagination of novelists, and that fiction writers were in fact abandoning the effort to grapple with ''the grander social and political phenomena of our times'' and were turning instead ''to the construction of wholly imaginary worlds, and to a celebration of the self.''

These remarks -- made even before John F. Kennedy's assassination and the social upheavals of the 60's magnified the surreal quotient of American life -- help illuminate what Tom Wolfe identified (with considerable self-serving hyperbole) in the late 80's as a retreat from realism. They also help explain the direction that Mr. Roth's own fiction has taken over the last three and a half decades, his long obsession with alter egos and mirror games and the transactions between life and art.

Will the legislature cut back on affirmative action in the University of Wisconsin System?

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports:

Affirmative action in the University of Wisconsin System and state contracting would be abolished or significantly scaled back under legislative proposals to be taken up today by a committee of state lawmakers and citizens.

One measure would draft a constitutional amendment that would prohibit state agencies and public universities from granting preferential treatment to any individual or group based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin....

Other proposals, crafted by Sen. Glenn Grothman (R-West Bend), chairman of the Special Committee on Affirmative Action, would:

• Require racial or ethnic minorities applying to the UW System or state contracting agencies to prove they are at least 25% that race or ethnicity to receive preferential consideration.

• Require racial or ethnic minorities applying to the UW System to demonstrate "knowledge or experience" of their racial or ethnic group to receive preferential consideration. If applicable, the applicant would have to demonstrate proficiency in a language other than English.

• Prohibit the UW System from considering the race or ethnicity of an applicant unless the applicant proves that his or her family makes less than 400% of the federal poverty level ($80,000 for a family of four)....

David Giroux, a spokesman for the UW System, said there was a "compelling need for diversity" in public universities and that it would be a shame for the Legislature to move against affirmative action, which he described as a "divisive issue."

"Diversity benefits all students, improving the quality of their education and their prospects for career success," he said.

Grothman disagreed.

"I think it's racist to imply that I'm going to learn something from you because your great-great-grandparents came from someplace else," he said. "Unless you literally grow up in another country, you're an American just like everyone else. You follow the Packers, eat McDonald's, and share the same tastes as everyone else."

(Do some people figuratively grow up in another country? Apparently, yes.)

I understand Grothman's point, that diversity-based admissions ought to connect to some real diversity that the student will bring to the classroom. But isn't his solution worse than the problem he cites? We're going to ask students to prove what percent of a race they are? That's really ugly, worse than abolishing affirmative action altogether I would think.

"This case is very emotional, very personal, very sad."

On trial for murder, Gregory Zalevsky is representing himself:

With an arsenal of bad posture and loud sighs, soft paunch and hushed, almost groveling tones, Mr. Zalevsky, 57, has turned his trial into something of a humility contest....

In court, his main adversary is Jonathan S. Kaye, an assistant district attorney with a jarhead haircut and the blocky features of a man who plainly knows how it feels to be punched in the face. Mr. Kaye has matched the defendant’s demeanor with a choice of soothing, schoolmasterly tones over harsh rhetoric.

“Does everybody think they’re able to focus on the issues of this case and not get distracted by extraneous things, such as the defendant representing himself?” he asked potential jurors. Later, he put his concern more bluntly: “I may come across as — not a bully, but — if he doesn’t follow the rules of evidence, it’s my obligation to object.”

For jury selection, Mr. Zalevsky arrived from jail in striped slacks, tan socks, stitched shoes, tortoiseshell glasses and an aging sweater, all variants of blue or brown but none quite matching. He rubbed his lip idly, scanned the panel, scribbled notes and seemed to try to ignore Mr. Sweeney out of existence.

Ooh... better put two poofy flowers on top...

... to cover that up... though I know that even the flowers get you guys excited...

New York Times and Memorial Day: VULTURES

The New York Times, once again, publishes a piece, on Memorial Day no less, that leaves me shaking my head in disgust.

It seems that as far as this writer is concerned, a soldiers right to privacy and families right to be notified of their family members death before having the soldier's picture splashed all over the front pages, comes after the medias right to capitalize on said soldiers wounding or death.

On this Memorial Day, thousands of United States men and women are engaged in untold acts of bravery and drudgery on behalf of what our leaders have defined as vital American interests in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But even as the flags wave to honor soldiers past, much of the current campaigns go on without notice, because while troop numbers are surging, the media that cover them are leaking away, worn out by the danger and expense of covering a war that refuses to end.

Yes, this war on terror, specifically when the fighting is being done in Iraq is sooooooooo tiring to....THE MEDIA!!!!!

Many of the journalists who are in Iraq have been backed into fortified corners, rarely venturing out to see what soldiers confront. And the remaining journalists who are embedded with the troops in Iraq — the number dropped to 92 in May from 126 in April — are risking more and more for less and less.

Since last year, the military’s embedding rules require that journalists obtain a signed consent from a wounded soldier before the image can be published. Images that put a face on the dead, that make them identifiable, are simply prohibited.

[...]

Ashley Gilbertson, a veteran freelance photographer who has been to Iraq seven times and has worked for The New York Times, (along with Time and Newsweek among others), said the policy, as enforced, is coercive and unworkable.

“They are basically asking me to stand in front of a unit before I go out with them and say that in the event that they are wounded, I would like their consent,” he said. “We are already viewed by some as bloodsucking vultures, and making that kind of announcement would make you an immediate bad luck charm.”

Maybe, just perhaps, possibly, they are being seen as vultures because they are acting like vultures!!!

So they are complaining that they have to ask and get consent before publishing a soldiers face, wounded, perhaps dying, for the world to see.

Poor babies.

Remember now, this is the paper that published a piece showing a soldier (U.S. Army SSGT Hector Leija) dying, and they did this BEFORE his family had been notified.

Lets not forget that they often ignore what the soldiers tell them if it doesn't match their anti-war, anti-American philosophy, and these reporters want to complain about the rules?

“They are not letting us cover the reality of war,” he added. “I think this has got little to do with the families or the soldiers and everything to do with politics.”

Now THAT is the pot calling the kettle black.

Maybe if they would cover the "reality" of the war, instead of cherry picking just the bad, skipping over the good and ignoring what our troops say, they wouldn't have this problem of being seen as a bad luck charm or a vulture.

Maybe.

Vulture is too good a word for the likes of them.

Lt. Col. Josslyn L. Aberle, chief of media operations for the Multi-National Corps in Iraq, said that the regulations are a matter of common sense and decency, not message management.

“The last thing that we want to do is to contribute to the grief and anguish of the family members,” she said by phone from Iraq. “We don’t want the last image that the family has of their soldier to be a photo of him dying on a battlefield. You have to ask how much value is added.”

Exactly, but that, of course, isn't something the media, specifically the New York Times is worried about.

The families be damned, their headlines comes first.

This is how the paper cleans up what they did to SSGT Hector Leija's family.

There are some people stateside who would agree. In February, a story and accompanying video by The New York Times reporter Damien Cave — and a photo taken by Robert Nickelsberg — that depicted the grievous wounding and eventual death of a soldier on Haifa Street, drew both praise and condemnation on Web logs and in the military about what constitutes appropriate imagery for the breakfast table. What some readers see as a gratuitous display of carnage, others view as important homage to the boots on the ground.

Oooooops? They "forgot" to mention that the picture was shown before the family was notified?

I doubt it, they simply try to rewrite history and downright lie by omission here. No mention of the "reality" of what they did.

Unbelievable that they have the nerve to complain about this type of trivial bullshit while our soldiers are risking their lives to protect, not only us, but the reporters that are embedded!!!

Amy Proctor has a wonderful piece up about the Good news From Iraq, video and other news releases showing some words from our commanders on the ground.

Obviously there are problems. Iraq is, after all, a war zone. But for every bomb that goes off in downtown Baghdad, there are 10 areas of improvement ignored by the MSM. I’m here to bring them to you.

Amazing how a blogger, a military wife can get these stories, yet we don't see them printed in the New York Times and they are physically THERE.

They are treated like the enemy because they are acting like the enemy and becoming the enemies mouth pieces....so they need to quit complaining, start actually supporting our troops, telling their stories, dealing with the whole picture instead of just the Bleed and Lead articles and perhaps, then, they will stop being seen as a "bad luck charm" or a "vulture.

I doubt they are capable of it though.

They are vultures and they can be replaced.

Here is some good news from Iraq that you aren't seeing from our dinosaur media.

5/29/07- BOMBS DESTROYED, 18 SUSPECTS DETAINED

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Coalition Forces detained 18 suspected terrorists and destroyed a cache of weapons and bomb-making materials during operations against al-Qaeda in Iraq Sunday.

Based on information gained from successful operations May 21, Coalition Forces raided a suspected meeting place for al-Qaeda operatives. Inside the two targeted buildings, ground forces detained five individuals with suspected ties to the al-Qaeda network. One individual said he had attended an IED-making class in a building nearby.

Coalition Forces moved on to the nearby building and found a cache of weapons, explosives and improvised explosive device-making materials.

The cache contained three fully assembled IEDs, two artillery rounds, multiple IED triggers, eight rifles and assorted IED components. A trained explosives team safely destroyed the materials on site.

In Mosul, Coalition Forces detained six individuals in two separate raids targeting al-Qaeda cell leaders in the city. At the first location, Coalition Forces detained three individuals, including a suspected IED cell leader responsible for attacks on Iraqi and Coalition Forces. At the second site, Coalition Forces detained three more suspected terrorists, including an alleged al-Qaeda in Iraq cell leader who is known for distributing media and propaganda, including videos showing attacks on Iraqi Forces.

Intelligence reports led Coalition Forces to two buildings southeast of Fallujah, where they searched for associates of an al-Qaeda in Iraq senior leader. Four suspected terrorists were detained.

Coalition Forces raided a building searching for a cell leader within a Baghdad vehicle-borne IED network, where they detained three suspected terrorists for their involvement in the cell and destroyed two vehicles used in the VBIED network.

"Every day, we are chipping away al-Qaeda in Iraq's ability to operate and threaten the people of Iraq," said Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, MNF-I spokesperson.

5/26/07- SECRET CELL KEY LEADER DETAINED, AIR STRIKE IN SADR CITY

Or this one:

5/26/07- TWO TERRORISTS KILLED, 23 SUSPECTS DETAINED, EXPLOSIVES DESTROYED

Or dozens of others found at Centcom. These are daily releases and papers like the NYT have access, just as we do, but they don't find good news important enough to tell the American people.

Vultures, indeed.

Related articles today:

David Patten from the Middle East Quarterly explains the realities of Iraq, he doesn't sugar coat things, but he gives a good lesson on the differences between political posturing and the truth.

Bottom line here folks is this: If you want the truth, the whole truth, you cannot get it these days by watching the news or picking up the paper, you must open your search engine and look for yourself, visit Centcom daily, read the military blogs our soldiers are writing and speaking to us, but some are too lazy to look and listen, they prefer to be told what to think.

Those like that, deserve to be called ignorant, because they choose to be ignorant.

The news is out there.... do you care to see it all?
.