Ray McGovern's letter from "Camp Casey"

But hey, he's just some guy coming forward to question Rumsfeld. Right? He's got no axe to grind?
Here's his letter.

In it, he talks about a rumor going around that Karl Rove set fire ants off in the camp.
He says that he has a dream that "Camp Casey" can do a Selma-like march over the bridge, in protest.
But then he goes off and starts talking about how we can all help Cindy protest "an unnecessary war", and he goes into this part:

Ignore. That's what the vast majority of Germans did in the 1930s as Hitler curtailed civil liberties and launched aggressive wars. I was born in August 1939, a week before Hitler sent German tanks into Poland to start World War II. I have studied that crucial time in some detail. And during the five years I served in Germany I had occasion to ask all manner of people how it could possibly be that, highly educated and cultured as they were, the Germans for the most part could simply ignore. Why was it that the institutional churches, Catholic and Evangelical Lutheran, could not find their voice? Why was it that so few spoke out?

May I respond?

Nuts. That's what the vast majority of us think you are, when you compare our actions in Iraq to Hitler's Germany. America did not blindly support this war, nor do we look past when the very few of our men violate the rules of war.

Stop being a dick, Ray.
I don't mind if you have something of substance to add to this debate. But man, I cannot stand your ignorance and dishonesty.

-John

When all of the tin foil reaches critical mass

Sometimes you find something out that just makes soooo much sense.

Like... well, when you find out that Ray McGovern was planning on protesting with Cindy Sheehan. Or when you find out that there is a photo of him, David Swanson, and Cindy Sheehan at some "impeach Bush" rally.
(In case you haven't been paying attention, Ray McGovern is the self-appointed "CIA analyst with 27 years of experience" who told Rumsfeld that he lied about WMDs.)

The photo feels like the black hole of tin foil to me. Somehow, I imagine a swirling of Che shirts all around them, as all anti-Bush conspiracies reach critical mass.
You've GOT to see the photo. Honestly.

-John

The GAO final report on Clinton WH damage

Something I found while looking up other somethings.

It is the G.A.O.s final report on the damage to the White House when Clinton left. It was released in June of 2002, and kinda got lost in the news. I was curious so I started to read.

Damage, theft, vandalism, and pranks did occur in the White House complex during the 2001 presidential transition. Multiple people said that, at the beginning of the Bush administration, they observed (1) many offices that were messy, disheveled, or contained excessive trash or personal items; (2) numerous prank signs, printed materials, stickers, and written messages that were left behind, some of which contained derogatory and offensive statements about the president; (3) government property that was damaged, including computer keyboards with missing or damaged “W” keys and broken furniture; and (4) items that were missing, such as office signs, a presidential seal, cellular telephones, doorknobs, and telephone number labels. In addition, documentation provided indicated that some broken, missing, or possibly stolen items were repaired or replaced at the beginning of the Bush administration. Several EOP staff said they believed that what they observed during the transition, such as broken furniture and excessive trash left behind, was done intentionally.

Basically, it says that yeah, there was a lotta damage to the White House, but according to Clinton staffers, the White House was damaged when they got there, too.
Oh, and the Clinton staffers said that they have no idea how the damage happened.
I guess that so many people are allowed through the White House offices unescorted, that pretty much anyone could have been gluing the "W" buttons to the walls and putting Gore stickers on the inside of cabinets.

The Bush White House responded to it at the time (their response is included in the report) and basically accused the G.A.O. of trying to downplay the damage. Which, if you read the report, is entirely true.

Anyway, read away. It shows you just how juvenile the former Clinton staff was, and kinda explains why they have to spend their nights bad-mouthing the Bush White House.

-John

Ray McGovern Lied About Rumsfeld

Here's a little background primer. Ray McGovern is a former CIA member with 27 years of experience. You probably already heard that, because every liberal website wants you to know that.
What they probably haven't told you is that he has been out of the intelligence business since the early 90's. Instead, he joined one peacenik group and created a second. His is called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, or VIPs for short.

I wanted to try to skip over the part where I make fun of someone who calls their organization VIPs. But you can't. For God's sakes, he calls his group VIPs. What does that say about his ego? His maturity? His inflated self-opinion?

Of course, the real point is 'was he right?'
Rumsfeld was speaking in Atlanta on May 3rd at the Southern Center for International Studies, when McGovern took him on in this exchange (Relevant parts bolded):

RAY MCGOVERN: I'm Ray McGovern, a 27-year veteran of the Central Intelligence Agency and co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. (Light laughter.) I would like to compliment you on your observation that lies are fundamentally destructive of the trust that government needs to govern. A colleague of mine, Paul Pillar, who is the top agency analyst on the Middle East and on counterterrorism accused you and your colleagues of an organized campaign of manipulation, quote, "I suppose by some definition" --

SEC. RUMSFELD: Could you get to your question, please?

MR. MCGOVERN: -- that's been called a lie.

Atlanta, September 27th, 2002, Donald Rumsfeld said, and I quote, "There is bullet-proof evidence of links between al Qaeda and the government of President Saddam Hussein."

Was that a lie, Mr. Rumsfeld, or was that manufactured somewhere else, because all of my CIA colleagues disputed that and so did the 9/11 commission. And so I would like to ask you to be up front with the American people. Why did you lie to get us into a war that was not necessary and that has caused these kinds of casualties?

AUDIENCE: (Booing.)

MR. MCGOVERN: Why?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, first of all, I haven't lied. I did not lie then -- (applause). Colin Powell didn't lie. He spent weeks and weeks with the Central Intelligence Agency people and prepared a presentation that I know he believed was accurate, and he presented that to the United Nations. The president spent weeks and weeks with the Central Intelligence people, and he went to the American people and made a presentation. I'm not in the intelligence business. They gave the world their honest opinions. It appears that there were not weapons of mass destruction there.

MR. MCGOVERN: You said you knew where they were.

SEC. RUMSFELD: I did not. I said I knew where suspect sites were, and we were --

MR. MCGOVERN: You said -- you said you knew where they were near Tikrit, near Baghdad and northeast, south and west of there. Those are your words.

SEC. RUMSFELD: My words -- my words were that -- no, no, no. Wait a minute, wait a minute. Let him stay one second -- just a second. (Referring to security removing Ray McGovern from the press conference.)

MR. MCGOVERN: This is America, huh?

Do you think McGovern wanted honesty?
Did Rumsefeld say that he knew exactly where the weapons were to bring us to war? Did he say that they were in Tikrit, Baghdad, etc?

Here is the exchange from This Week With George Stephanopolous, March 30th 2003.
Note the date. The war was already under way.
So for McGovern to suggest that Rumsfeld said that he knew exactly where the WMDs were, as a justification for war, is a lie.
But let's move on...

SEC. RUMSFELD: Not at all. If you think -- let me take that, both pieces -- the area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

Second, the [audio glitch] facilities, there are dozens of them, it's a large geographic area. It is the -- Answar Al-Islam group has killed a lot of Kurds. They are tough. And our forces are currently in there with the Kurdish forces, cleaning the area out, tracking them down, killing them or capturing them and they will then begin the site exploitation. The idea, from your question, that you can attack that place and exploit it and find out what's there in fifteen minutes.

I would also add, we saw from the air that there were dozens of trucks that went into that facility after the existence of it became public in the press and they moved things out. They dispersed them and took them away. So there may be nothing left. I don't know that. But it's way too soon to know. The exploitation is just starting.

So how is it that McGovern noted the first part of Rumsfeld's statements, but not the second?
How is it that McGovern noted where Rumsfeld said the WMDs would be, but he missed the caveat where Rumsfeld said that they might not be there anymore?

Why is McGovern quoting Rumsfeld's comments during the war as an example of what Rumsfeld said to justify going to war?
Is McGovern a liar? Or did he just a victim of bad intelligence?

-John

John Murtha, Democratic troll from PA, has opened his mouth against our troops. Again.

He held a news conference to talk about a November 19th action by our troops in Iraq. A pentagon investigation into the events in Haditha is pending, but Murtha has declared the troops guilty already.
According to The Seattle Times:

"There was no firefight. There was no IED (improvised explosive device) that killed those innocent people," Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said during a news conference on Iraq. "Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them. And they killed innocent civilians in cold blood. That is what the report is going to tell."
How does Murtha come to this conclusion? Its hard to say, since he admitted not reading the report.
So basically, Murtha has come forward again to oppose any action in Iraq.

What a douchebag.
Hey, if you want to spout your opinion, that's one thing. But Murtha is the ranking Democrat on the Defense Appropriations committee. Which means that he shouldn't hold a press conference to give a verdict on an investigation that he hasn't read the report on.
It also means that he's using the death of Iraqis as a political football.
Which makes him a douchebag.
But we already knew he was. Right?

-John

Dixie chicks; Flipping and flopping

Apparently, taking their cue from John Kerry, the Dixie Chicks are flip flopping.

How, you say?

In 2003, singer / political pundit Natalie Maines was in London when she said, "Just so you know, we're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas."

Natalie didn't expect the reaction from her fans, many who supported Bush. At first, she issued a kinda half-hearted "guess I shouldn't have said that out loud" kinda thing. That didn't go over with her fans. So, as CNN reported, she apoligized to the president:

"As a concerned American citizen, I apologize to President Bush because my remark was disrespectful. I feel that whoever holds that office should be treated with the utmost respect," Maines said in her latest statement.

Of course, no one expects musicians to have convictions, thoughts, or consistency.
-But Maines seems to have none of these things. The Chicks put out the first single from their new album, "Not Ready To Make Nice." Which is kinda ironic, cause they already did. But now they don't want to be nice. Again.
From her Entertainment Weekly interview:

Every day a soldier dies, I am more proud that I spoke out. For the last three years, I am at a loss for words as to... what this country is. Who we are. I really think people have just gone insane. And they think we've gone insane. I think it's sad that you have to truly seek out the truth these days, because CNN and Fox News don't give it to you. So you can't really point a finger at individuals, because it's exhausting to seek out fact from fiction. I used to try and make sense of it but when Bush got reelected, I just didn't know what to do. Keep livin'. It's gotta change back.

Later, Maines says that the American people don't have a voice. She calls it a corpocracy, which makes her a corpocracy nut.

I want to be clear here; when someone hates the president, I'm cool with it. I'm even cool with the borderline conspiracy nuts who believe that CNN is on Bush's side. I would keep sharp objects away from them, but for the most part, they are pretty harmless.

But I can't stand people who apoligize for what they said, and then turn around and say it again.
You have no balls Miss Maines, which is why you don't understand what's going on in Iraq. We are putting a lot more then our reputation on the line in Iraq, and those of us who support the actions there, understand that. This isn't just about the safety of one soldier, or 100,000 soldiers. If you understand anything, please understand this;

There are people out there who want you and I dead because we do not worship their god.

They are not just upset with us because we traveled thousands of miles to kick a dictator out of Iraq. Its not as simple as "leave our country, and we won't hate you anymore."

You know those idiots who sent you death threats?
Picture tens of thousands of them, all organized, and ready to travel. That's our problem in the Middle East. Its not just some idiot sending you a "I hate when you speak" e-mail. Its a group of highly radicalized idiots who don't like it when you wear a low cut dress or talk dirty.

Now we can't pretend like those people don't exist. But what we can do is send over the people who are most qualified to kick their asses, and send them the message that they cannot sqelch the freedom to live as one chooses to live.

Anyway, I will now wait as that concept soars over the heads of those who aren't intellectually prepared to understand it. And I'll wait for Maines to get all whiny about the fact that I've called her a flip flopper.

-John

Translation: Democrats are gullible as perch

Yeah, I've been gone. But now its time to rant with a vengence.

My latest problem?
The un-fucking-believable tendency of the left to believe that everything that GWB says is a lie.

Yesterday, Kos went on a rampage because he found a Reuters article quoting Bush as sayng that he caught a 7.5 pound perch.
Which, as fishermen know, is damned impossible. Apparently, the record for perch is 4 pounds.

What did Kos leave out? Besides, you know, the fact that it was an interview with a German paper "weekly Bild am Sonntag"?
Kos left out the part that it was an English translation of a German article.

Which, of course, means that somehow Bass was translated into Perch.
Here's the White House version of the same interview.

Did I mention that the left is full of pillow heads?
This is the very example of moonbattery.

-John

Dems continue to jump the shark

Yesterday, they shut down the congress to the public so that they could discuss their Iraq-war conspiracy theories.

Today?
First, black Dem leaders are defending the people who threw oreo cookies at Michael S. Steele, a black Republican who is running for senate. In a statement (quoted in the Washtington Times) that could only have been written by a KKK member, Kweisi Mfume said:

There is a difference between pointing out the obvious and calling someone names

In that case Mr. Mfume, you are one self-absorbed racist asshole.

Secondly, former president Carter comes out of his hobbit hole to attack Bush, in this AP article:

The Bush Administration's prewar claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction were "manipulated, at least" to mislead the American people, former President Jimmy Carter said Wednesday.

I'd love to ask Carter why Clinton also attacked Iraq, and supported the attacks on Iraq. At least initially, and then of course Clinton had to say that it was wrong because it was the Democratic plot line.
Anyway, its nice to see Carter shedding his nice-guy image and coming out as an even bigger partisan jerk then the rest of his party.
Its difficult though to see the Dem party jumping the shark in masse. What is going to be their 2008 election theme? "We're sane, again"? Its going to be really hard for them to step back from that cliff.

Don't believe the hype: Judy Miller is a liberal

A lot of people have suggested that Judith Miller is in bed with conservatives.
I want to kill that notion immediately.
Unless she has had a change of heart her later years, there is nothing in her past to suggest that she is anything but a liberal. From a biography on her:

Before joining The Times, Ms. Miller was Washington bureau chief of The Progressive, a monthly and the nation's second oldest journal, was heard regularly on National Public Radio, and wrote articles for many publications.

I just want to set things straight.

Judith Miller comes down with Hillary Clinton disease

I guess I'm not the only person who thinks that Judith Miller is holding out on us.
During recent grand jury testimony, she reportedly got a case of what I call "Hillary Clinton" disease. That's when you find your back to the wall, and suddenly, you "can't recall".

My own take on it is that after she was given a heads up by Libby on Wilson's wife, she went looking to other sources of information to find out Valerie Plame's name. Where would you go if you were a Washington journalist to confirm such information?
Why... to your fellow liberals.
That's my educated guess.
Anyhoo, this is what the Editor & Publisher had to say about her memory problems:

John Temple, editor and publisher of The Rocky Mountain News in Denver, also noted such surprise. "It is hard to believe that Judy Miller couldn't remember the name of the source that gave her Valerie Plame's name," Temple said.

Indeed.

And the headline says what???

The AP puts a different kind of spin on the Iraqis voting on their first real Constitution, with this headline:

Sunnis Appear to Fall Short in Iraq Vote

In other news, the AP appears to be upset that the Constitution might be approved.
Interesting, that.

Soldier on the "staged" press conference

I'm going to skip past the idea that suddenly, it matters to the media, that politicians are staging events with people friendly to their POV.

Although it is curious that they suddenly noticed.

Instead, I'm going to focus on this, the blog of a soldier who was actually there and being asked questions:

We were given an idea as to what topics he may discuss with us, but it's the President of the United States; He will choose which way his conversation with us may go.
We practiced passing the microphone around to one another, so we wouldn't choke someone on live TV. We had an idea as to who we thought should answer what types of questions, unless President Bush called on one of us specifically.

'Nuff said?
Probably not.

On Harriet Miers...

Let's talk Miers.

Since everyone keeps on saying that she's not qualified, I decided to look up her resume, before she met Bush.

CNN has a pretty decent article about her:

Miers, 60, has a string of firsts on her resume that track her quiet but steady march to the top echelons of power: first woman hired by her law firm in 1972, first woman president of the Dallas Bar Association in 1985, first woman president of the Texas State Bar in 1992, first woman president of her law firm in 1996.

But wait, that's not all. According to the Washington Post:
On numerous occasions, the National Law Journal named her one of the nation's 100 most powerful attorneys and as one of the nation's top 50 women lawyers.

But outside of that... she just worked for the President of the US for a few years.
Not much experience, I guess.

I'm a libertarian. Of course.

You are a Social Liberal (61% permissive) and an... Economic Conservative (75% permissive) You are best described as a: Libertarian Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid

So much to catch up on.

This should be first. My father passed away on August 28th, 2005. He was a good man. He was the best man I ever knew, with a sense of nobility that most people can never attain.

He was sick for a couple of months, so I was given the gift of being able to say goodbye. Not everyone is given that gift. If you haven't done so already, make sure you let your loved ones know that you love them.

-John

About Katrina...

I just sent this in to the NYT, in reply to an editorial where they blamed Bush for a lack of response.

I'm not including the entire thing, but the bulk of it. I'm hoping that someone picks up on these ideas:

The New York Times addresses, briefly, the money that was “slashed” from the budget for New Orlean's levees. But the Times ommitted that the money was earmarked for a study on the levees- a typical government study- that wouldn't have been completed until 2006, and would not have changed a damn thing.

There are things that can be done, but those things will take fortitude and the backing of such institutions such as the New York Times.

• The city needs to be completely evacuated, and martial law needs to be instituted today. Anyone found looting should be shot. Its that simple. We need to ensure that the residents of New Orleans have something to go back to, and that lawlessness is stopped overnight. Moreover, we need to make it possible for the rescue crews to do their job, without threat of harm from predators.

• No one, except authorized rescue personel, should be allowed back into New Orleans. The perimiter should be patrolled by the National Guard.

• Every available gas-powered water pump that can be donated should to be shipped to New Orleans, today. Ten pumps will not make a dent. A hundred pumps won't make a difference. But once the levees are repaired, a thousand pumps or five thousand pumps arrayed around the levee, and manned by volunteers, could speed up the rate at which the city would be emptied of water.

• We need to move the population of New Orleans out of the New Orleans area. Those people who can visit relatives should be transported there immediately. We need to spread out the population of New Orleans to areas that can help them, insteead of trying to ship food and shelter to New Orleans. Names of residents should be taken, and each family assigned an e-mail address with the New Orleans domain, so that they can receive updates on the status of the city. Then we can resettle them if and when New Orleans is emptied of water.

• A public works project should be instituted without the instrusion of unions into the process. Residents capable of work, should be put to work. Their first projects should be to clean and inspect those public buildings needed for basic services, like water and electricity. Then government buildings can be rebuilt and repaired, so they will be in place as the residents return. Schools can be repaired, so kids will be out of the way as their parents deal with rebuilding.

• Finally, every effort should be made to build up the floor of New Orleans. Essential buildings should be raised far above sea level, and a few large shelters should be built for the next emergency that are independent of outside electrical and plumbing needs.

There is enough space to criticise a lot of people at the end of this tragedy, starting with those people who choose to live below sea level in an area smack dab in hurricane territory. But the New York Times should focus on helping people now, not the casual placing of blame on their least favorite politician.

Scott Randolph writes one heckuva post

If you read no other post this week, go to ScottRandolph.net. Scott explains what it is that soldiers do, and a little bit about the concept of what it means to dishonour the fallen.

Soldiers know, when they enlist, that it is entirely possible they will be shipped out and never come home. It’s part of the job. The fact that people still walk in to recruiters’ offices and sign that piece of paper make them heroes. To imply that they are simple kids who didn’t know what they were getting into, or even worse, that they died for no reason, or an immoral reason, does a horrible thing. It strips their sacrifice of the honor that it deserves. Even though those folks sitting out there in the Texas fields claim to honor and support the soldiers, they obviously have been blinded by their own selfishness as to the real way to support them.

Amen, Scott.
These brave souls volunteer for a job that involves walking into harms way. Some people get upset when their job involves repetitive tasks. But repetitive tasks are the easy part of being a soldier. The hard part involves running into an area where people are trying to kill you, and trying to make sure that they don't succeed by killing them first.
That's honour. That's bravery. That's being a U.S. soldier.

Parents honour sacrifice of their fallen

Get a kleenex and read this editorial from Opinion Journal. Ronald Griffin lost Spc. Kyle Andrew Griffin, his son, in Iraq. After reading about Cindy, he contacted other parents who lost loved ones to guage their opinion. Here is one of the responses:

Karen Long is the mother of Spc. Zachariah Long, who died with my son Kyle on May 30, 2003. Zack and Kyle were inseparable friends as only soldiers can be, and Karen and I have become inseparable friends since their deaths. Karen's view is that what Mrs. Sheehan is doing she has every right to do, but she is dishonoring all soldiers, including Karen's son, Zack.

It amazes me how people who lost their loved ones can keep on giving.
That's the fabric of our country folks. Its how we value freedom above all else.

Mother supports war, and it was reported!

Somehow, a mother of a lost soldier actually supports the war. I know that sounds unbelievable, but she seems to know what it is that soldiers do for a living. CNN wrote:

At the funeral at Tri-County Baptist Church, Kathy Dyer delivered what she believed would have been her son's own message: "It has been with the greatest pride I have served ... fighting to preserve freedom."

Lance Corporal Christopher J. Dyer, you may rest in peace knowing that your mother is fighting to preserve your honor.

Matt Lauer was in Baghdad for the Today show, and asked a soldier for his thoughts on troop morale. After the soldier said that it was good, Matt doubted it, and asked for more. According to Newsbusters:

Asked Lauer: "What would you say to those people who are doubtful that morale could be that high?"

Captain Sherman Powell nailed Lauer, the MSM and the anti-war crowd with this beauty:

"Well sir, I'd tell you, if I got my news from the newspapers also I'd be pretty depressed as well!"

Yes, Captain Sherman Powell, you couldn't be more right. Matt has been interviewing the Hollywood and NY left for too long.