The flow of history... around Sen. John F. Kerry

History is that series of events which have led to the ever fleeing present. This present moves forward, ever forward, no matter how much we may wish for it to stop and take a break for a moment or three. The present is built on history and the future is built from that history and the ever changing present. The future is unknowable, although it becomes firmer and firmer and firmer until the present overtakes it.

"The future is not set." - message carried by Reese from John Connor to Sarah Conner, The Terminator

But we can be haunted by the possible futures, even high probability ones:

Reese stated to Sarah that he came from "one possible future." - The Terminator

Which lets us choose from our actions to make a better future, thus ensuring that there is no predestination paradox from the future to the past and that only the present guides events. That said predestination beliefs are put forth by many in strange ways, some by politicians:

"Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives concerning the Iraqi Governments campaign against the Marsh Arabs of Southern Iraq.

Whereas the government of Saddam Hussein has a long and well documented history of brutal repression of the population of Iraq;

Whereas Saddam Hussein carried out a methodical campaign of genocide against Iraqi Kurds, including extensive efforts to render large areas of Iraqi Kurdistan uninhabitable and the use of poison gas in violation of international law;

Whereas Saddam Hussein is now conducting a massive campaign of repression against the population of Shi'ite Arabs in southern Iraq known as the Marsh Arabs or the Maadan;

Whereas this campaign includes an enormous effort to drain the wetlands at the confluence of the Tigris and the Euphrates which have sustained the distinct Marsh Arab civilization for thousands of years;

Whereas, in addition to draining the wetlands, Iraqi troops have extensively shelled villages in the marshes;

Whereas the campaign against the Marsh Arabs appears to constitute an effort to drive the entire civilian population out of the marshes and to destroy the way of life of a distinct community within Iraq;

Whereas there are recent reports that Iraqi troops have employed chemical weapons against the Marsh Arabs in violation of international law and United Nations Security Council resolutions concerning Iraq; and

Whereas prior to the Persian Gulf War the world community did not stop Saddam Hussein from employing similar tactics against the Kurds:" - House Resolution 583, October 7, 1994


First, let me join with others in expressing support for the American men and women in our armed forces who executed the strike against Iraq. Saddam Hussein continues to viciously persecute his own people and deserves the civilized world's scorn and condemnation. It is clear from our experience in the Gulf War that Saddam Hussein only responds to direct, unambiguous and decisive action. I hope today's strikes in the South of Iraq compel Hussein to withdraw his troops from the North. If not, today's strikes may mark the beginning of escalation in the use of force, with or without strong allied support. - STATEMENT BY CHAIRMAN FLOYD D. SPENCE (R-SC) ON THE U.S. ATTACK ON IRAQ, September 3, 1996


"In light of these recent events, it is certainly appropriate to begin the committee's end-of-session review by discussing our strategy and policy toward Iraq. Coming on the heels of the collapse of the Soviet empire, the coalition victory over Iraq in the 1991 Gulf War seemed to hold the promise of a new era. Our crushing defeat of the Iraqi army seemed to codify America's standing as the world's "sole superpower."

Eight years later, the promise of those heady days has not been fulfilled, and our troubles with Saddam Hussein seem to reflect our troubles elsewhere in the world. The past eight years have seen Saddam increasingly able to claw his way out of his diplomatic, economic, military and strategic isolation. Despite the devastation it suffered during Desert Storm, the Iraqi military still maintains significant capabilities. And if Saddam finally succeeds in creating and fielding an arsenal of chemical or biological weapons "in perhaps as little as six months" he will pose an even larger threat to the region and to American interests." - OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN FLOYD D. SPENCE HEARING ON U.S. IRAQ POLICY September 16, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinsteing, Barbara Milkuski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998


"Finally, the Administration has repeatedly failed to answer the "what's next" question. As long as Saddam Hussein remains in power he will continue to threaten our interests and our friends in the vital Persian Gulf region. In fact, allowing Saddam to acquire weapons of mass destruction combined with his determined efforts to field a ballistic missile capability, poses a serious regional and global threat. Yet, by the President's admission, these strikes are unlikely to oust Saddam from power. Until we craft a credible strategy that achieves that goal, we will likely be conducting such strikes again and again, and reaping diminishing returns." - CHAIRMAN SPENCE STATEMENT ON MILITARY ACTION AGAINST IRAQ, December 17,1998

And then summarizing of Senate Joint Resolution 54 detailing dates and number of times Saddam's regime stopped UNSCOM Weapons inspectors from doing their jobs:

June 1991 - Iraqi forces opening fire on IAEA inspectors,

January & February 1992 - Iraq refusing to install monitoring equipment and found in "material breach" of its cease fire agreement, and in "continuing material breach" and "further material breach" on failure to allow destruction of ballistic missile equipment,

July 5, 1992 - Iraq denies UNSCOM inspectors access to Agriculture Ministry sites and is found in "material and unacceptable breach" of UN obligations,

December 1992 & January 1993 - Iraq violates southern no-fly zone, moves SAMs into zone, raids depot in Kuwaiti territory, denies landing rights to UN weapons inspectors and is found in "unacceptable and material breach" of its UN obligations,

June 10, 1993 - Iraq prevents UNSCOM installation of sensors and is found in "material and unacceptable breach" of UN obligations,

October 6, 1994 - Iraq threatens to end cooperation with weapons inspectors and masses 10,000 soldiers on the Kuwaiti border,

April 10, 1995 - UNSCOM reports Iraqi concealement of biological weapons program and fails to account for 17 tons of bio weapons to the UNSC,

July 1, 1995 - Iraq admits to full scale bio weapons program, but denies weaponization and threatens to end cooperation with UNSCOM,

March 8, 11,14 & 15, 1996 - Iraq bars UNSCOM from inspecting sites conaining documents and weapons and has "clear violations by Iraq of previous Resolutions 687, 707 and 715",

June 11-15, 1996 - Iraq bars weapons inspectors repeatedly from military sites and is again found in "clear violation" of multiple UN obligations,

August 1996 - Iraqi troops overrun Irbil in Iraqi Kurdistan, using 30,000 troops,

December 1996 - Iraq prevents UNSCOM inspectors from removing 130 Scud missile engines for analysis,

April 9, 1997 - Iraq violates southern no-fly zone,

June 4 and 5, 1997 - Iraqi officials on UNSCOM aircraft interfering with controls and inspections and endangering the lives of inspectors along with obstructing the mission,

September 13, 1997 - Iraqi official attacks UNSCOM inspectors engaged in photographing Iraqi illegal activities,

October 29, 1997 - Iraq announces it would no longer allow American inspectors working with UNSCOM in Iraq, in contravention to its UN obligations,

November 13, 1997 - Iraq expelled US Inspectors leading to UNSCOM withdrawing from Iraq,

January 16, 1998 - UNSCOM team barred for three days from entering Iraq in clear violation of all its UN commitments,

June 24, 1998 - UNSCOM Director Richard Butler presents information to UNSC indicating Iraq had weaponized VX nerve gas.

All of that from S. J. Res. 54, July 31, 1998.

And gets you to the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998. Which has this lovely little piece in it:

"SEC. 7. ASSISTANCE FOR IRAQ UPON REPLACEMENT OF SADDAM HUSSEIN REGIME.

It is the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq's transition to democracy by providing immediate and substantial humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, by providing democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, and by convening Iraq's foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to Iraq's foreign debt incurred by Saddam Hussein's regime."

So the Congress supports Iraq's transition to democracy. In 1998.

Now a person could just go *wild* at the Thomas site for multi-congress research! Just search for "Iraq" and the hits are lengthy! Clearly Congress knew *something* about Iraq under Saddam... why support the overthrow of the regime if you had no evidence or at least continued demonstration of circumstantial evidence that eliminates all other reasons?

And a predestination sort of person would have seen the following coming: AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

Luckily for us, someone has realized that the past is all a pack of lies! None other than Senator John F. Kerry is now saying that he and all of Congress was being lied to all during the 1990's and the lead up to the 2002 Congressional Authorization for the Use of Force against Iraq! I mean, what else can he be saying when he says this:

U.S. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts on Tuesday told an audience at the liberal Take Back America conference that he was sorry for voting to authorize the war in Iraq, calling the entire mission "a mistake.""We were misled, we were given evidence that was not true," Kerry said. "It was wrong, and I was wrong to vote [for it]." - Senator John F. Kerry, June 13, 2006, CNSNews

And then hits us with this:

Kerry, who led an unsuccessful bid for the presidency in 2004, said it was necessary to admit mistakes because "you cannot change the future if you''re not honest about the past." - Senator John F. Kerry, June 13, 2006, CNSNews

So, I expect the Good Senator will now start telling us each and every Agency, each and every individual, each and every staff member on both the House and Senate Armed Services and Intelligence Committee, each and every individual who testified about Iraq under Saddam before the Senate to include all heads of Agencies, Cabinet members and Executives, all UN inspectors and agency heads, and, indeed, all the people who misled him all the way from, say, 1994 to 2002.

All of them, Senator Kerry. Democratic and Republican and Independent and unaligned and casual observer and your personal waterboy if he was fibbing to you, too.

Otherwise you will be seen in a light better known by George Orwell:

Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past. - George Orwell, 1984

You are entitled to your own opinions, Senator Kerry.

You are NOT entitled to your own historical facts.

Unless you are trying to control the future.

An Army of Translaters: The Saddam Dossier

A major Hat Tip to Hugh Hewitt on this item!

Intelligence analyst Roy Robison will be getting his own space on Fox News to look at The Saddam Dossier of files and all of the files captured during the fighting over the last few years. And while I have been sick and unable to properly follow things the last couple of months, advances have been going on in many, many areas with more translators showing up for the job. My hat is off to all of them "to do the work Our Government will NOT do". Now if only they will make a weekly PROGRAM about it!

Some quickies:

1) Ray Robison looks at the veracity of the documents given that a critic denies that they hold up. Mr. Robison points out that there is verifiable evidence of things that went on in these documents actually happening.

2) An Iraqi memo from the Vice President of Iraq to an islamic leader in Pakistan and attachments on how to go about enacting security for their organization. It reads directly like a counter-intelligence manual of operations to secure people, places and movement so as to be difficult to follow. Strange that an islamic leader would need this sort of thing...

3) And more on that VP and Talibani meeting. Not that, you know, Iraq under Saddam actually had any contacts with the Taliban. Or al Qaeda... *heh*

4) Iraqi Intelligence Service and Hamas to join up "in a war against the US".

5) A memo on Saddam's plans for US KIA and POWs. And I will tell you that Guantanamo is heaven compared to Saddam's plans.

6) Excerpts from an Iraqi Intelligence Officer's diary. And no little black book was found, unfortunately.

7) Saddam's nuclear programs and how he was going to deal with the IAEA. And compliance seems to be missing from the conception.

8) How the Iraqi Security Directorate planned to deal with the Kurds and undermine them. By-the-by they were using the Iraqi Communist Party as a front operation for this. Also note that chemical weapons and al Qaeda are *not* scratched out in the original document.

9) Top Secret plan to recruit suicide bombers to go after US targets of interest. And verification of the document.

10) Plans on how the Iraqis intend to mislead UN inspectors about chemical weapons. Really they are quite inventive!

11) Document from 1998 on secret plans for working on WMDs.

12) Anonymous Iraqi comes forward with documents on Syrian and Russian help to Saddam. But those Russians are *so* trustworthy!!

13) Another interviewer with Gen. Sada.

14) A 23 NOV 2002 document on Russian military aid to Iraq.

15) Iraqi Intelligence Service on how to recruit people in the West as spies and use them.

16) 'Hydrogen' trailer labs were not well outfitted for this purpose. Well, I have always had a problem with this... with a petroleum industry you do not NEED traveling hydrogen production. Hydrogen is a byproduct of petroleum cracking and is usually gathered by the ton and liquified at the plant. And just where were all the telemtry and tracking equipment for these supposed 'weather ballon' trailers?

17) More information on the IIS using foreign influence on a global basis.

18) Transfer of 'Special Weapons' document. Now what sort of things would *these* be?

19) A document from a Senior Chemist on how to train the Fedayeen. Make sure to take your vitamins and ammonium nitrate daily!

20) How Saddam was looking to hide mass graves in 2001... that were really related to something much, much fresher and not 1991. Lets just say that a geiger counter may serve as a good way to find the grave.

21) More support for Saddam having nuclear testing conducted.

22) Hiding a chemical weapon's cache by burying it in concrete. This is a big one and should be thoroughly ground-truthed. From the locals reporting noxious odors coming from the area, they should be happy to help!

23) IIS actively hiding prohibited items from inspectors. Not that this is about the sixth separate document to detail different places, times, and means to do so! But it is at least sixth and probably in the 10th or 12th range....

24) Saddam and the payments of cash to suicide bomber families amongst other things he was doing.

25) Some of the basic plans on how to run an insurgency. Put this in the 'contingency planning' folder by Saddam.

That gets me up to May from Mr. Robison... there are links aplenty to other bloggers in the articles and those doing the actual translations.

More to come.... lots more...

The Republic owes a debt of gratitude to Mr. Robison for his fine analysis skills!

The Greatest Generation and the Ingrate Generation

Today we can use the lens of history to look back upon events and see a stark difference between the Depression Era to World War II adult population and their Baby Boom Post-War children. Interesting, to say the least.

The First World War, the War to End All Wars, saw the finality of the era of Imperialism as only the British and US staggered away with any semblance of their former realms. Japan had solidified itself, however, but still did not like playing second fiddle to the British and Americans, and took to intimidation and the idea of a greater sphere of influence for themselves. While the First World War was one that started gleefully, to end the awfulness of the Kaiser/King/Ottoman/Russian rule, it left Europe at sea and a shambles, along with the Middle East. Soon, uprising in Africa, India and Asia started to make any holding of overseas possessions untenable and thus the European powers divested themselves of their trade Empires and suffered as a result. These colonies soon fell into disarray and stagnation and that went up the food chain to the industrialized nations and a Global Depression resulted. That first World War ended in the resignation that future war would be a grinding, tedious and killing affair. Even though the end tactics showed that this was only a temporary phenomenon.

The 20th Century started with the US being an up-and-coming power in a world dominated by Empires: British, French, German, Austro-Hungarian, Russian, Ottoman, with the Japanese doing their hardest to 'play in the big leagues and get some recognition'. The United States, for all of its jingoism and other faults, proved to be relatively benign compared to any of the other Great Powers. A recognized and sturdy junior leaguer that tended to keep to its own and do the 'opportunistic expansion' game pretty well. But, along with that went the concept of liberty and freedom, although perhaps more in talk than deed, even that was far more than 'The White Man's Burden' that the other Empires so gleefully took up.

So that generation that grew to adulthood had seen the collapse of Empires, vast global economic decline and had the certitude that any future war would slowly drain all nations to a bitter end. In the US, pragmatism set in along with some establishing of Socialism to try and change the Capitalist system which was seen as the cause of all these problems. While it played a large part, leaving out Nationalism, Imperialism and Military power made Socialism a one-note band that played so-so in the new Soviet Union. Although shorn of its imperial holdings, the Soviet Union soon dominated its interior differences with a bloody and iron rule. Twisting Socialism and Nationalism together, the Fascists in Italy and then Germany started to revive their economies somewhat and looked like they had a key to the future.

By the mid-1930's the world had generally climbed out of the Depression, although pockets within industrialized nations still remained, and those nations supplying raw materials were badly left out. From this mix came the Second World War and the Greatest Generation.

This Generation knew hard work and the ability to continue on going even when everything seemed bleakest. And they had weathered the great tempest that was post-World War I and by the late 1930's the future was bright again. The rise of that funny man in Germany did give many pause, but in the US the tradition started by Washington of keeping out of European and Foreign entanglements came back. If Europe wanted *another* war, they could very well bleed themselves dry for it. Most people overlooked what Japan was already doing in China and its expansion to gain control of resources necessary to an industrial economy. Plans were assuredly drawn up, but never expected to be put into action. The actual dawn of World War II was well under way by the time Germany invaded Poland. China was collapsing, Russia was being hard pressed, although willing to expend men and goods to keep its integrity, those supply lines were tenuous. The spread of the War to Europe started in a blaze that soon smoldered as the Soviet Union was hard pressed and the British fought to keep their skies so they could neutralize the land and sea forces of Germany.

Pragmatism by the US population and adhering to Washington changed inalterably on December 7, 1941. That pragmatism reflected something far deeper in the American psyche than mere isolationism. It was a reflection of belief that we keep to ourselves as a Nation and help our friends as we can as a peaceful people. Many fumed at this 'wrongheadedness', including the President who saw what was happening and knew where it would lead. But the People of the United States firmly and solidly believed that the Nation would do well so long as we kept to our knitting.

But when attacked, you fight to Victory.

And you accept NO half-measures.

The logic of industrialized warfare is one that made the entire Nation State a target as it supplied the military might that protected it. No longer was defense in the hand of individuals alone, but in the hands of corporations and industry. The logic of warfare is that you want to cripple fighting forces, and airpower allows that to be done at its root. You bomb industries as they supply the warmaking material. And you bomb civilians as they are part of that war effort, and, thus, legitimate targets. This is a hard and nasty logic that ends when one delivers the hardest blow with the least use of materials.

Nuclear devices are the end of that logic and delivered by aircraft it makes the killing potential of a solitary bomber beyond all of what had come before in the previous years of the war.

And with that, the world had to change *again*, and the Greatest Generation built the foundations of the Cold War so that those who followed could retain their rights and freedoms, or at least ensure that tyranny would not enslave a Free People.

The Baby Boomers grew up in prosperity, as the soldiers came home and married and built new houses and carried for the dream of making things better for their children. The world was advancing into a New Era, in which modernization and mechanization changed the flow of goods and supplies rapidly. The final shift of the US from rural to industrial nation had happened in the 1930's. The realization of this was solidly stamped in the 1950's. And that generation grew up in fear of a far off Soviet Union and instant destruction from *anywhere*. The Korean War was a distant conflict that involved this new UN deal and seemed to be on the side of stopping Communism from spreading. But the involvement of Red China changed it into a possible flare point for a larger conflict and it was, perhaps, wisest to leave off where it all began.

By the end of the 1950's, however, the newly educated men and their families were starting to shift US politics away from its tradition Urban/Rural outlook towards one of more suburban and middle-class perspective. For the blue collar working class was shifting, slowly but surely, as the old enemies of WWII started to stand up their economies, and the very first thing they did was remake their industrial core. Still, fast cars, a generally care-free life, except for sudden nuclear annihilation and good jobs were driving things in a different way by the 1960's. That decade started out like the 1950's, but on a steeper slope of affluence. The last of the Greatest Generation were now moving into positions of industrial and social sway and were influenced by their knowledge to look at the US differently than their parents. And while many core values were still there, the Civil Rights movement had shown that the US was not a perfect Nation in its implementation.

As if it EVER was.

This educated generation became disenchanted with the lack of perfection for the ideals espoused for the Nation and set about, along with their children, to remake the Nation along more fair lines. And maybe actually get to perfection. And so the protests for Civil Rights waned as actual laws to make it so were put in place and the path to societal change was seen as: demonstration, invective, incitement, and then actual social turnover of the 'old order'. And top of that list was the Vietnam War, which was taking young people via the draft and sending them to yet another far off land to fight for containment of Communism. And the first stirrings of that made the Executive twitch.

As most folks point out the 1960's actually happened in the early 1970's, but the slow rise of unrest of young people who could not drink or vote, but could be asked to die for their Nation unwillingly was seen as a rallying point against the War, against the Administration and against the 'old order' in general. The idea that the Soviet Union was actually a bad Nation was slowly demonized and said to be a misunderstanding of their goals. That was part and parcel of this change which would slowly inculcate itself into the psyche of those doing the protesting, the marching, getting high, listening to acid rock and, generally, disdaining the mass culture of the United States. And they looked very hard for the 'wrongs' of America and, lo and behold, they were there!

An ill-defined war that was being misrepresented to the average person, having young people who did not volunteer to fight a dubious war being drafted to fight same, unequal representation for those who could fight and not vote, and an Administration that was headed by a man who, for all of his political savvy, was egotistical and self-centered enough to believe he could actively abuse power and use the Government to his ends alone. Soon things came to a head with Congress feeling pressure and pulling funds from the War, a movement to move the voting age down to 18, and a movement to start an all-volunteer military. Watergate was icing on this cake and this generation that put pressure on for these changes felt 'empowered' to reshape the world.

The greatest change to American politics happened during this era. The two party system, in which both parties stood for the Republic and defending it, was seen as being corrupt in espousing that. One party changed heart to embrace this new generation and retain the power they had enjoyed for decades in Congress. The Democratic Party renounced its National Defense policies for ones that were for appeasement and anti-war outlook. The 1974 Congress represented this influx just as the Republicans were stuck in the pit of Watergate and the final loss of South Vietnam. By cutting all funding for *any* aid to South Vietnam, even just controlling the airspace, the United States left its ally to be demolished by the North Vietnam regime and its Soviet and Chinese backers. And the Congresses that did that were Democratic.

As this generation aged into the 1970's, they were coming hard against the fact that the United States, while giving you much freedom, does not ensure things are given away for *free*. Actual jobs were needed to earn actual money and 'join the rat race'. After the end of the war, the end of the Nixon Administration, the passage of the voting age amendment and the all-volunteer military, this generation was forced to the hard realization that these were surface manifestations of the entire social structure. And much of that structure remained intact, although the damage done to the ideals of the Nation formed a serious problem within the social fabric of the United States.

First and foremost, the idea that far off people in different lands were no better than Citizens of the Republic took hold. This was a rallying point against the war, but ignored the basic fact that the Other Side had NO value upon human life at all. By encouraging a one-sided, superficial set of ideas the concept that freedom and liberty were enshrined in the Nation that governed was set aside. Those that came out of the protests, rallies and marches now saw the United States as the *problem* for not living up to its ideals. By not allowing a cross-comparison and calling that 'unfair' they would not tolerate the concept of perspective on this. 'Cultural relativism' was born and the feeling of honoring the traditions of your own Nation were tarnished as being built upon a poor enaction of ideals.

Second, and worse, the follow-on to the first is that there is no difference between *any* form of government. The shallow reasoning is that if all people are basically the same, then all of their governments are the same, too. No cultural outgrowth was better than any other. Thus such things as treasuring human freedom by making a government to protect them, no matter how poorly, was seen as being *exactly* equal to a system which denied rights to individuals and used them in an destructive way to achieve economic ends. And so the refrain of: 'Those people in the USSR are *so* nice, their government is bad but basically as bad as ours.' Liberty and slavery were thus made equal.

Third, and finally, if no government was better than another, then there is, really, no need for Nations. Just 'Imagine'. By yelling and screaming and protesting and marching you can make the world a better place for everyone! Just 'Imagine' it! So very simple. And so very simplistic. This attitude forgets that the world is *not* a nice place, that Nations actually have real meaning behind them and that, quite often, tyranny arises because it is SO simple that it is often seen as an *answer* to a complex world. But, really, that was no different than a representative democracy in a Republic now, was it? We could be one, big, happy world and get rid of all of these mean people....

This was the birth of Transnational Progressivism: that the Nation State is a hindrance to social progress and the highly educated elite must guide that progress to a Final State.

Of course to be one of those highly educated individuals you either needed to have some real education OR fake it with some sort of mental/spiritual/social enlightenment. Both would pass muster for education and the easier ways won out. This generation now turned into the ME generation and sought perfection on the inside of themselves that they needed to have to be an elite. To be above everyone else. To be *above* We the People.

In this Nation you are given many rights and freedoms and liberties, but the one thing that *must* be done is to ensure that the Nation, as a whole, is not diminished in their use. By turning inwards people neglected the social compact of the Nation and gave rise to social segmentation as some 'more educated' individuals were better than others. And those espousing the ideas of a commonality within the Nation... well, they were just fossils that would be overturned by this new and enlightened age. Of course to actually *get* to that age, all of these bad thoughts had to be sidelined and language itself should not be discriminatory.... in fact no language was better than any other so actually having just one language meant you were really in a side-water and doomed to be forever forgotten.

This is the Ingrate Generation.

They do not believe that any individual is better than any other, no action is better than any other, and that bad thoughts lay behind every action they disagree with.

While it is true that bad actions are attributable to an individual, their problem is seen as an outgrowth of a corrupt and evil society. Unless they happen to *like* you, then your action is good and worthy and uplifting and should be praised.

And this whole idea of actually having a military to protect this antique idea of a 'Nation'? Well, it is just an old left over from imperialism and needs to be chucked in order to bring in the new social order... No war done by a rich Nation can have good ends and is just plain old Imperialism at work. We can make peace EVERYWHERE.

Somehow they never get to the point where they tell you how they will actually *end* conflict.

Nor, indeed, what will replace the Nation State system.

Nor how equality of justice will be achieved under the benign guidance of those with too much social education.

But they will tell you that you are no longer an individual and belong to a group or groups, and then apply labels to those groups and then slander the individual with those labels. Obviously this more enlightened set of folks now can read minds to determine these things, and tell us *what* the intention of any action is so that an entire psyche may be thus determined.

I seem to have missed that in my physics class.

Ah, and science? Well, its all culturally relative! There is *no* right way to observe the universe and there is no right way to determine laws of nature because everyone approaches it differently and will come up with different answers!

Don't let that bus hit you when you cross the street now! Just 'believe' you adhere to a different set of physics than it does...

It took me some years to figure out most of what they espoused was wrong. Very difficult to do growing up in a Socialist family! By the time I was a late teen, I had figured out the problems with Socialism and all of its cascading offshoots, which include Transnationalism. This Ingrate Generation was becoming disenchanted by then, and seeing that early social changes could not be rolled up year after year after year. They had lost their trust in Government, in their fellow Citizens and, in the basis of Civilization. As a whole they institutionalized their corrupt vision of the world, even as the world was proving it wrong, time and time again.

'People Power' as they saw it would sweep the world, instead of just the repressive regimes. They firmly believed it would happen in the US, first... not come quaking out of the Philippines and Poland to fracture the Cold War and cause the end of the Soviet Union. The 'obvious choice of liberty and freedom' turned out to be only as obvious as the People could make it. All of the People. In a Nation. Together.

Not just an elite.

We the People.

While lionizing those words, the Ingrate Generation forgot the concept and what it REALLY means.

Not 'We the Enlightened Elite over the People but kinda benignly for them'.

Not 'We the few social segments that can get a large plurality together now and again'.

And definitely not 'We the pacifists who will spread flowers around as we protest so sweetly and please don't shoot us or run us over with tanks'.

They are *still* trying to make a Golden Age of Perfection. And are putting the world at risk in the doing.

No matter its faults, when compared to any other age or era of mankind THIS is the promised Golden Age. But by its lack of *perfection* it is evil to the Ingrate Generation, and must be abolished, along with all that makes it possible. Because, you know, just comparing now to the past is just so chauvinistic and racist... we have to compare it to the *perfect* and yell about the flaws.

Unfortunately for them, We the People of the United States are charged to do one thing above all else.

Make a more perfect Union.

It is a job that can never be finished, for when it is, that will be the end of us all.

A note to those saying that Iraq is having a Civil War

Now getting a handle on the actual number of guns owned in Iraq is a difficult proposition... In theory Saddam set up laws against gun ownership, but, just as clearly, his own military at the personal level pilfered many weapons and sold them. Further, the Kurds not under Saddam's control, are pretty well armed and may have infiltrated arms into other parts of Iraq. And even more was that Saddam, by having so many secret police and secret military also distributed weapons caches, many of which were most likely found by locals wondering 'what the hell is in them and can we sell it?' The NYT claims that at least every Iraqi family owned a gun of some sort, even if it was a 1903 Lee-Enfield. But even beyond that, Saddam distributed thousands of AK-47s to his 'Citizen Militia'... probably closer to millions of them, given his penchant for mass purchasing.

So the final is a dim memory I have of one US officer during a briefing saying something along the lines of 'just about every family has or has a relative that has an AK-47'. In theory everyone was supposed to turn those in to the new Government, but that is unlikely to have happened as in that part of the world burial in the desert for later retrieval is the way of life for weapons. And as was found in the north african desert, if you wander by an old WWII era battlefield, you will still find canteens with water that is potable and weapons that you can still fire, so desert storage is not wonderful but half-way decent out in the open. A bit of cleaning and they become reliable again.

The answer is no one really knows how many automatic weapons are owned by the Citizens of Iraq. At the high end it could be as high as 35-40%, including distribution by Ba'athist redentists, terrorists, sectarian militias and supplies from Syria and Iran. The low end I would put in the neighborhood of 15% with many hidden in out of the way places, disassembled or just generally kept out of sight and out of mind.

Time for fun with numbers!!

So, total population of Iraq: 28.807 Million people
Minus Kurds: Use the high end of ~6 Million

So, Southern population of Iraq, and lets use 5.807 as a Kurdish estimate to make the numbers nice: 23 Million

Number of children 0-14, 40% of General Population: 9.2 Million

Adult Population of Southern Iraq: Call it 14 Million for round numbers.

At the low end of 15% for automatic weapons: 2.1 Million
At the high end with, say ~35%: 4.9 Million... Round up to 5 Million

So, here is the question: If a Civil war breaks out in the South and it is a true Civil war involving, say 50% of the population, how many automatic weapons will be used?

Answer: 1 Million to 2.5 Million.

What does a Civil War in Iraq look like?

Answer: bloodbath.

Now add in RPG dissemination at only one-tenth that of AK-47s and you get 100,000 to 250,000 of those *also* roaming around in a Civil War.

Just loverly!

Throw in a small percentage of other oddments, like fragmentation grenades, WP grenades, the old family heirloom rifle, handguns, a left over recoilless rifle from WWII here and there, and the odd UXB and what does a Civil War in Iraq *really* look like?

Yes, hell on earth.

The odd bombing and such at a rate a bit higher than that of Egypt and Turkey and Jordan combined?

Par for the course. It is the Middle East, not Des Moines, Iowa we are talking about.

For those folks saying Iraq is having a Civil War, please demonstrate the dead on the streets in so many places in so many cities and the constant rapid fire of automatic weapons making them all impassable and *then* you can claim Iraq is having a Civil War.

What they have now is standard for the Middle East, believe it or not. You may not like it. But do remember that this is *not* the United States we are talking about but Iraq.

If the US had an africa sized land mass abutting on the east full of folks not liking us and wanting to take us down, and another good sized island hitting on Oregon and Northern California full of people being armed to get into the US to cause trouble, and a Southern Neighbor funding religious insurgents and a Northern Neighbor that was politely well armed, yet somewhat hostile and with ethnic instabilities, then WE would not look like the United States as it is today EITHER.

So, show me the numbers.

Show me the Civil War in Beirut spread across all of Iraq and corpses rotting on the streets for days and weeks.

Show me the numbers.

For they are NOT THERE NOW.

Dumb Looks time on Zarqawi, then and now

Ahh... that most able of terrorists Abu Musab Zarqawi is history and so, it appears is the memory of those not lamenting him over much. So let us take a bit of a walk down memory lane... Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Then & Now.

Richard Clarke, then (10 NOV 2005, ABC News):

"I think we have to consider the possibility that Zarqawi will attack the coalition in other countries, perhaps in Europe, Australia or even the United States," said Richard Clarke, a former White House counter-terrorism advisor who is now an ABC News consultant.

Zarqawi's bold and brazen acts of terror, including personal involvement in the beheading of Western hostages and the hundreds of Iraqi bomb attacks, have catapulted him into a dominant leadership role in al Qaeda worldwide.

"He has a following now that is much, much larger than it was before the war," Clarke said.

Richard Clarke, Now (8 JUN 2006, ABC News):

Clarke said the modest size of the terrorist leader's organization and his minimal involvement in the daily bomb attacks on coalition forces made that claim unlikely.

Though al-Zarqawi was a symbol of terrorism, he commanded only a few hundred people out of tens of thousands involved in the insurgency, Clarke told "Good Morning America."

The Jordanian-born terror leader was behind many high profile attacks and beheadings, Clarke said, but was not involved in most of the roadside bombings that have made Iraq so dangerous for coalition troops.

"Al Qaeda in Iraq was probably the smallest of the 14 major insurgent groups," Clarke said.
Despite the name of his group, al-Zarqawi acted independently of Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda terror network, Clarke noted.

"He had his own group that he was making a network in Europe and the Middle East."

Clarke doubted, however, that al-Zarqawi's death would be an effective recruitment tool to lure new terrorist and insurgent recruits.

So which is it, Mr. Clarke: A leading threat to new attacks or a small and ineffectual group with a few folks scattered around? You make the call because, apparently, Mr. Clarke cannot.

From the folks at Kos, Then:

Hong Pong, 10 APR 2006: Iran War is on; "Zarqawi" is a Pentagon PSY OPS operation!! Really!

Balzac, 5 APR 2006 Zarqawi is a Hoax, 8 APR 2006 Zarqawi Jumps the Shark, 10 APR 2006 Zarqawi Jumps the Shark, Part 2

Ludd, 16 MAR 2006: Saddam Trying to Capture Zarqawi

lapin, 27 DEC 2004: Scott Ritter on the Zarqawi Myth

BooMan23, 10 APR 2006: The Myth of Zarqawi Confirmed

ECH, 29 MAY 2006: The Pentagon orders an emergency deployment of troops to Iraq , and this priceless quote from that poster's diary....

In Ramadi, "Zarqawi is the one who is in control," the sheik said, speaking to a Washington Post special correspondent in Ramadi. "He kills anyone who goes in and out of the U.S. base. We have stopped meetings with the Americans, because, frankly speaking, we have lost confidence in the U.S. side, as they can't protect us."

ReddHedd, 5 SEP 2005: Al Qaeda Controls Key Iraqi Border Region... , to be fair this poster does care somewhat about things going on, but has little strategic perspective, and so gives this wind-up quote:

Think about that: Zarqawi has HIS OWN BANNER for Al Qaeda in Iraq. Guess that's to distinguish it from Al Qaeda in Afghanistan or Pakistan or the US or whatever. But he has organized things to the point where he has had time to design a banner for his Al Qaeda cell and have it reproduced and then hung it around town in Qaim. Un-freaking-believable. I swear, this news story had better hit the MSM on television tomorrow. The incompetence just keeps on giving in this Administration.

wah, 21 OCT 2004: The Kerry Campaign Has Made a HUGE Strategic Blunder in which this quote is sublime:

It's curious that Bush would mention 'Zarqawi' in such stark and fearful terms as many people consider 'Zarqawi' to be something of a phantom himself.

Dump Terry McAuliffe, 16 APR 2006: Experts: Iraq War Increased Likelihood of Attack on U.S

How Zarqawi Got Away

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has become the administration's latest bogeyman in Iraq. What the mainstream media haven't reported is that the U.S. had a chance to take him out before the Iraq war started. At that time, he was at the terrorist camp at Khurmal, a part of Iraq nominally within Kurdish territory not controlled by Kurdish authorities either. The camp was producing ricin, and the U.S. knew it, but did our military didn't wipe out the camp until after the war began. One possible explanation was that the administration wanted to use Zarqawi's presence there as "proof" of a Saddam-al-Queda connection. Another is that it saw Zarqawi as a lower-order threat than Saddam and chose not to deal with him. If either of these explanations is true, it was ineptitude of the first order.

That poster never explains why the US should have paid attention to him when there were real forces to fight. It was not planned that the Iraqi Military would *disintegrate*. If we could have planned that we might have had time to drop some extra ordinance on every place a terrorist *might* be holding out. Then again, that might cause civilian casualties... to be avoided if you can do so. Can't win for losing, I guess.

I guess the folks at dKos will simply say that Zarqawi is a "mostly dead myth" now and complain about why the soldiers haven't caught a man and a few associates playing 'hide and seek' in the mountainous border regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Like this post. That is what happens when you kill a mystical creation of no real substance whatsoever.....

Scott Ritter, Then (07 JAN 2005, Aljazeera):

Al-Zarqawi was everywhere, his bombers striking in Mosul, Baghdad, Samarra, Najaf, Baquba, Ramadi and Falluja. Islamist websites published accounts of al-Zarqawi's actions, and the western media, together with western intelligence services, ran with these stories, giving them credibility. The al-Zarqawi legend, if one can call it that, was born.

The problem is, there is simply no substance to this legend, as US marines are now finding out. Rather than extremist foreign fighters battling to the death, the marines are mostly finding local men from Falluja who are fighting to defend their city from what they view as an illegitimate occupier. The motivations of these fighters may well be anti-American, but they are Iraqi, not foreign, in origin.

I do await Mr. Ritter's pronouncements on the 'Myth of Zarqawi' and how he was really just a front for Saddam's secret police to be extolled from him. Or to admit, at this late date, that Mr. Zarqawi was a thug, a brutal terrorist and one who used fear and intimidation and some number of killings to keep people in line. Which squares pretty well with what he did and with outside funding he was even able to channel funds *back* to Osama. Not bad for a myth!

Dr. Sanity is covering this angle very well... I am just adding my couple of pennies into it.

So, whenever you hear any *good* news, expect the Leftists to say: "Yes, its good, but....."

And never, ever, leave well enough alone and smile at something good actually happening in the world. The term for this: NAYSAYERS.

And they have all EARNED it.