Missile Defense

Michael Ramirez

The 'why's' of torture

An incredibly thoughtful article by Noemie Emery of the Washington Examiner:

In the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln was offered the use of a bullet that exploded inside the body, doing the victim incredible damage. Lincoln approved it: It would shorten the war. For the same reason - to shorten the war – President Harry S Truman incinerated not one but two Japanese cities. Neither man is considered a war criminal (except by Bill Maher), as they took some lives to save more lives, specifically those entrusted to them, and to preserve a political system less unjust than the ones they were fighting.

 

Their guilt is absolved by their intent, which was to save lives, and a more benign social order. Yet liberals, who apply the motive defense in trying to exonerate perpetrators of criminal violence - the accused was stressed out, he ate Twinkies, he was deprived as a child, etc. - seem strangely unwilling to extend this to those who made use of ‘harsh’ tactics to forestall further attacks after thousands had perished in the most torturous manner on Sept. 11, 2001.

Just who is crazy?

John Bolton or Allison Kilkenny?

Maybe Nukes Aren't So Bad

Thomas P.M. Barnett, writing in Esquire, is certain to make the anti-war crowd apoplectic:

George W. Bush had his "axis of evil," while Obama seems to find nuclear weapons to represent a kind of natural evil unto themselves — no matter who possesses them. Now the twentysomethings in Prague may have cheered his invocations of "hope" and "change," and others may be jumping on board, but I've discovered something in my years of global-strategy analysis, and it's not the deadly fatalism Obama describes — it's the modern realism he ignores: Nuclear weapons are the single best thing that has ever happened in mankind's long history of war.

Barnett is no raging neo-con, and he has been highly critical of Bush on more than one occasion.

Has Interrogation Produced Results?

Marc Thiessen tries to answer that question at The Corner, and totally dismantles the opposition in the process: "And the whole chain I have just described began with the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah."

Since his capture, Abu Zubaydah had provided the CIA with the critical link that had identified KSM as “Muktar” and the mastermind of 9/11, as well as information that led to the capture of Padilla and the disruption of a planned attack on the American homeland. The CIA knew he had more information that could save American lives, but now he had stopped talking. So the CIA used enhanced interrogation techniques to get him talking again — and these techniques worked. 

Zubaydah soon he began to provide information on key al Qaeda operatives, including information that helped us find and capture more of those responsible for the attacks on September the 11th, including Ramzi bin al Shibh. At the time of his capture, bin al Shibh had been working in Karachi on follow-on operations against the West — including a plot to hijack passenger planes in Europe and fly them into Heathrow airport. Bin al Shibh had identified four operatives for the operation, when he was taken into custody. 

Together Zubaydah and bin al Shibh provided information that helped in the planning and execution of the operation that captured KSM. KSM then provided information that led to the capture of a Southeast Asian terrorist named Zubair — an operative with the terrorist network Jemmah Islamiyah, or JI. Zubair then provided information that led to the capture of a JI terrorist leader named Hambali — KSM's partner in developing a plot to hijack passenger planes and fly them into the tallest building on the West Coast: the Library Tower in Los Angeles. Told of Hambali's capture, KSM identified Hambali's brother "Gun Gun" as his successor and provided information that led to his capture. Hambali's brother then gave us information that led us to a cell of JI operatives that were going to carry out the West Coast plot. 

KSM also provided vital information that led to the disruption of an al Qaeda cell that was developing anthrax for attacks inside the United States. He gave us information that helped us capture Ammar al Baluchi. At the time of his capture, al Baluchi was working with bin al Shibh on the Heathrow plot, as well as a plot to carry out an attack against the US consulate in Karachi. According to his CIA biography, al Baluchi “was within days of completing preparations for the Karachi plot when he was captured.” 

In addition, KSM and other senior terrorists helped identify individuals that al Qaeda deemed suitable for Western operations, many of whom we had never heard about before. These included terrorists who were sent to case targets inside the United States, including financial buildings in major cities on the East Coast. They painted a picture of al Qaeda's structure and financing, and communications and logistics. They identified al Qaeda's travel routes and safe havens, and explained how al Qaeda's senior leadership communicates with its operatives in places like Iraq. They provided information that allowed the CIA to make sense of documents and computer records that we have seized in terrorist raids. They identified voices in recordings of intercepted calls, and helped us understand the meaning of potentially critical terrorist communications. It is the official assessment of our intelligence community that “Were it not for this program, our intelligence community believes that al Qaeda and its allies would have succeeded in launching another attack against the American homeland.” 

And the whole chain I have just described began with the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah.

When the Press mounts a baseless attack, just respond with the facts.

Watchmen Review

Like any comic book junkie past or present, I had to see "Watchmen" on opening night. As a bonus, I was able to watch it in IMAX, thanks to my wife's forethought. There has been a lot of hype surrounding the movie, not least because of the huge marketing push, or the "visionary" label bestowed upon the film's director, Zack Snyder.

For this reason, "Watchmen" quickly became a target of many film critics. However, the film was probably a target long before the hype and the marketing campaign due to Snyder's second film,"300," which drew a great deal of controversy. Not only critics, but Iranian politicians halfway across the world condemned the movie on the basis that it negatively represented the Persian hordes as merciless invading monsters. I chronicled some of the controversy here.

As for "Watchmen," I have little doubt many critics were salivating at the prospect of tearing Snyder's third film to shreds. "300" offended their politically correct sensibilities, so "Watchmen" was condemned from the start. Critics have incessantly jabbed the film, arguing the movie was too faithful to the graphic novel.  Never mind the perennial refrain we hear from film aficionados that films are completely unfaithful to the book.

Now the offense is just the opposite.

We hear that there were too many "flashbacks," and there were no allusions to 9/11 and terrorism (?). Malin Akerman was either Jar Jar Binks, or gave a solid performance, depending upon whether you read Newsweek or the New York Times.

Most puzzling of all, NPR's Kenneth Turan boldly declared that "Watchmen" would not make much money at the box office. The film grossed $55 million dollars its opening weekend. Based on this prediction, I question the efficacy of an egregious proclamation in place of sober reflection.

Leaving the critics aside - and their agenda, there are plenty of things to love about "Watchmen," and there are things the film could have done without. Visually, few could argue the cinematic heights achieved by Snyder; the costumes were impeccably crafted, the landscape was grand but beautiful, and there were no awkward, convoluted camera angles. Furthermore, one could argue the film produced some of the finest acting performances of any superhero movie to date. Jackie Earle Haley effortlessly depicted Rorschach's brooding condemnation of humanity's vices, and his own fatalism. Patrick Wilson was utterly believable as the meek Nite Owl II; unsure of himself, but trying to break out of his shell. Billy Crudup's aloof monotone leaves the viewer piteous for Dr. Manhattan's inability to feel, but convinced of his seeming omniscience. Similarly, Matthew Goode's stoic, geeky idealism reflects Ozymandias' ethos - misguided as it may be.

I am no impartial observer, but a long time fan of the graphic novel. Then again, so are most of reviewers, self-proclaimed as they are. There is much more to like about this film than to dislike, but not everything worked. Dr. Manhattan's full-frontal nudity was just unnecessary, and in no way contributed to the plot. Neither did the sex scene between Nite Owl and Silk Spectre. Adding a bit of intimacy and romanticism to a film may add depth and complexity, but the sexual yearning and frustration was present without the gratuitous depiction aboard "Archie," 5,000 feet above the city.

The brutal and choreographed fight scenes were similarly representative of Snyder's excess. Despite the fast-paced brutality, each second of hand to hand combat seemed like an eternity drained from the more important goal of establishing a complicated story line.

Lastly, I cannot comprehend the need to change the denouement. The reason to replace alien corpses with Dr. Manhattan as the cause for the worldwide holocaust escapes me. As a movie goer, I'm un-phased, as a "Watchmen" fan, I'm annoyed. Knowing that the final act is essentially unchanged, what is the point of swearing such fealty for the entire film, only to change its ending? That, perhaps, might be Synder's biggest sin.

So who watches the Watchmen? Apparently, a lot more people than critics would have you believe.

"Al Qaeda in Iraq has been subjected to a battlefield defeat at our hands"

Christopher Hitchens:

If it is true, as yesterday's three-decker front-page headline in the New York Times had it, that "U.S. Considering Stepping Up Pace of Iraq Pullout/ Fall in Violence Cited/ More Troops Could Be Freed for Operations in Afghanistan," then this can only be because al-Qaida in Iraq has been subjected to a battlefield defeat at our hands—a military defeat accompanied by a political humiliation in which its fanatics have been angrily repudiated by the very people they falsely claimed to be fighting for. If we had left Iraq according to the timetable of the anti-war movement, the situation would be the precise reverse: The Iraqi people would now be excruciatingly tyrannized by the gloating sadists of al-Qaida, who could further boast of having inflicted a battlefield defeat on the United States. I dare say the word of that would have spread to Afghanistan fast enough and, indeed, to other places where the enemy operates. Bear this in mind next time you hear any easy talk about "the hunt for the real enemy" or any loose babble that suggests that we can only confront our foes in one place at a time.

This is not the least of what he says. Note his three points with regard to those who argue Iraq as a "war of choice," versus Afghanistan as a "war of necessity."

How to risk your Freedom

According to Bill Whittle:

"When I was a starving college student, I was all in favor of massive income redistribution through taxes and benefits. I personally had no income to be redistributed, so it was a good deal for me. Now that I actually have to pay taxes and give up things, I find the entire idea a little more problematic. The sales tax checks I write go to the California State Board of Equalization, not the California Department of Coerced Larceny – but the effect is precisely the same. The people my money is going to did nothing to earn the money that is being taken from me. And if I don’t give it to them, I lose my freedom."

Similar to a realization I once had as an idealist.

The Fewest Deaths Since The Start Of The War

U.S. military deaths plunged in May to the lowest monthly level in more than four years and civilian casualties were down sharply, too, as Iraqi forces assumed the lead in offensives in three cities and a truce with Shiite extremists took hold.

And the AP headline?: Deaths in Iraq plunge, but will it last?

I think it will. Military and civilian deaths, along with attacks, are at record lows. I see a trend. Even the Washington Post jumps in.

Maybe the war isn't lost after all.

"On the margins of their consciousness"

Wretchard of The Belmont Club writes:

I suspect that in the minds of many, the question will be begged. A large percentage of public policy debates are determined not by winning intellectual arguments but by forming attitudes. A friend of mine wrote in a private email that many people in his San Francisco office don't even think about the War on Terror or the fact that America hasn't been attacked by 9/11. All that is a hum on a distant planet; something on the margins of their consciousness. Arguments invoking the numbers of Iraqi Government divisions, the Anbar Awakening, etc might as well be a recitation of track lengths in a obscure railroad. A certain percentage of people have made their minds up. 'America has lost. The TV says so. And besides, so what?'

Reconsidering Bilal Hussein

Michael Totten on why the AP should reconsider its vigorous unquestioned support of accused terrorist conspirator Bilal Hussein:

I’m sure media companies are careful about who they hire, but it’s hard to make the right call every time in a bewildering and inscrutable place like Iraq. Terrorists and insurgents are and have been supported by a substantial percentage of the local population. It’s nearly impossible to build a firewall thick enough to keep them all out.

Even the U.S. military can’t do it. I spent a week with the 82nd Airborne at a small forward operating base in Baghdad where three thoroughly vetted translators were caught working for the enemy. If such people can infiltrate the Army, how much easier must it be to infiltrate the likes of the Associated Press and Reuters? The military is more motivated and more able to screen its employees than a multinational corporation. Media companies don't have the same caliber of intelligence assets, nor do newspapers and wire agencies depend on reporters, photographers, and stringers for their own security.

Free Tibet, America?

"Free Tibet, I mean, actually, I mention this in America Alone. It’s not really what the book’s about, but I just happened to mention it in passing. Free Tibet is the classic liberal cause. It’s the all-time great bumper sticker. You go to any college in America, they’ve got a Free Tibet society. Everyone’s got the bumper stickers. The left, God bless them, got the bumper sticker in 1957, they put it on the Ford Edsel, and every time they buy a new car, they peel the Free Tibet bumper sticker off and put it on the new car. It’s the quintessential liberal cause in that nothing has happened. Nothing is done. It’s a bumper sticker, and that’s where it ends, and Tibet is less free than it ever was, and in fact, has been comprehensively wrecked and undermined by the Chinese. Butthey don’t mind as long as they get their little bit of posturing out of it."

The above is Mark Steyn on Hugh Hewitt's radio show. We've been tryin got "free tibet" for how long?

I write this as a former card-carrying member of "Students for a free Tibet" back in high school.

Columnist to the world Mark Steyn, the Pulitzers, Petraeus, Iran

"...occasionally, people have talked about putting me in for a Pulitzer for this, that and the other, and it turns out an undocumented American can do almost anything in this country. He can get a fake driver's license and all the rest of it. But apparently, the Pulitzers still maintain, it's like an old-time country club. It's very hard to get into."

Mark Steyn on Hugh Hewitt, discussing his book, America Alone.

Here is Hugh later on in the show, making an excellent point about the Petraeus testimony:

"I’m struck by the fact that when he [Petraeus] goes about methodically telling people on the Hill that Iran is killing Americans, and it doesn’t seem to register, I mean, Joe Lieberman was on the program yesterday, and it registered with him, and it registered with some of the Republicans. But the fact that Iran is killing Americans doesn’t seem, Mark, to make an impression on Democrats."

Steyn responds:

"I think essentially, Iran is at war with us, and we’re pretending not to notice."

A Biased Juxtaposition

What do the 9/11 attacks and US military funerals have to do with one another?

Little Green Footballs asks the same question of the Associated Press.

"When the facts change, I change my opinion"

"...what do you do, sir?"

The quote comes from David Mamet, paraphrasing John Maynard Keynes, in a recent New York Post article describing Mamet's conversion from a "brain-dead liberal" to the right:

"I began reading not only the economics of Thomas Sowell (our greatest contemporary philosopher) but Milton Friedman, Paul Johnson and Shelby Steele . . . and found that I agreed with them: A free-market understanding of the world meshes more perfectly with my experience than that idealistic vision I called liberalism."

Reading of Mamet's conversion, while I cannot speak of his theatrical work, reminded me of the philosophical political conversion I underwent during the fall of 2006, just after the mid-term elections. I was pretty solidly a Kerry guy in 2004, although I wasn't entirely sure why, other than he wasn't Bush. Yet, I realized soon after that I had done little in the way of research on Kerry the candidate. But what really triggered my political conversion was the war in Iraq. The valiant efforts by the soldiers and Marines on the ground, coupled with the determination of many Iraqis to rid themselves of the entrenched insurgency prevented me from seeing the deliberate Democratic ignorance and opposition as anything but disgraceful. Once the surge was put in place and real gains were evident by mid-summer 2007, I felt personally vindicated and resolved that my beliefs and intuition were true.

Political posturing is one thing, but woeful ignorance, fraud, and the tacit hope that your own country will lose in combat overseas pushed me to ever new heights in my distaste of the shameful sophism and baseless prognostications among the left. They seemed to hope for a Pyrrhic victory, a position that is simply unacceptable.

I tell friends that I am largely a single-issue voter, and that is true. "Partisanship must end at the water's edge" said Harry Truman. That is one maxim that should never be broken.

Once I reached an opinion regarding the American-led effort in Iraq, my analysis of the situation led to further inquiry in the realm of foreign policy - North Korea, Iran, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, China. And if one can accept that the United States does not act solely for its own benefit, that Americans have and continue to die in order to support the birth of infant democracies across the globe, and that our government is not inherently evil, solely determined to gobble up the world for shareholders - then we have a place to begin a debate.

Unfortunately, because of the combination of military success overseas, and the political impotence of its leaders at home, the American left has largely resorted to incendiary ad hominem attacks against all that is honorable about our military, to the most baseless of US motives in the middle east, to the conviction that America deserves each terrorist attack perpetrated against it.

Social security, Medicare, highway spending, and taxes will sort itself out here domestically. These problems are daunting but secondary to security and the world energy supply located in the least stable region of the world.

A series of poor choices, political rhetoric, and desperation have lead the American left toward its current political positions, costing it pragmatic centrists like myself, patriotic realists who can no longer stomach the anti-American sentiment coming from home, nor the obvious weakness manifest in its own inability to pass legislation while holding the majority.

Facts from Iraq the media fails to publish

As redundant as it may seem to state the obvious failure of the media with respect to depicting the full picture in Iraq, the following list (which I received in an email forward) is still an eye-opener:

-Did you know that 47 countries have reestablished their embassies in Iraq ?
-Did you know that the Iraqi government currently employs 1.2 million Iraqi people?
-Did you know that 3100 schools have been renovated, 364 schools are under rehabilitation, 263 new schools are now under construction;and 38 new schools have been completed in Iraq ?
-Did you know that Iraq 's higher educational structure consists of 20Universities, 46 Institutes or colleges and 4research centers, all currently operating?
-Did you know that 25 Iraq students departed for the United States in January2005 for the re-established Fulbright program?
-Did you know that the Iraqi Navy is operational? They have 5 - 100-foot patrol craft, 34 smaller vessels and a naval infantry regiment.
-Did you know that Iraq ' s Air Force consists of three operational squadrons, which includes 9 reconnaissance and 3 US C-130 transport aircraft(under Iraqi operational control) which operate day and night, and will soon add 16 UH-1 helicopters and 4 Bell Jet Rangers?
-Did you know that Iraq has a counter-terrorist unit and a Commando Battalion?
-Did you know that the Iraqi Police Service has over 55,000 fully trained and equipped police officers?
-Did you know that there are 5 Police Academies in Iraq that produce over3500 new officers every 8 weeks?
-Did you know there are more than 1100 building projects going on in Iraq?
They include 364 schools, 67 public clinics, 15 hospitals, 83 railroad stations, 22 oil facilities, 93 water facilities and 69 electrical facilities.
-Did you know that 96% of Iraqi children under the age of 5 have received the first 2 series of polio vaccinations?
-Did you know that 4.3 million Iraqi children were enrolled in primary school by mid October?
-Did you know that there are 1,192,000 cell phone subscribers in Iraq and phone use has gone up 158%?
-Did you know that Iraq has an independent media that consists of 75 radio stations, 180 newspapers and 10 television stations?
-Did you know that the Baghdad Stock Exchange opened in June of 2004?
-Did you know that 2 candidates in the Iraqi presidential election had a televised debate recently?

Source: http://www.defenselink.mil/

Ironically, far left anti-war blogs like DailyKos continue to take the position that the media operates as "a wide-open spigot for the propaganda of the Bush-Cheney administration." In reality, the significant reduction in violence has simply dampened the media's appetite for more in depth coverage. In reality, terrorist organizations, such as al Qaeda in Iraq, have found their area of operations significantly reduced. This is a product of the surge. Unfortunately, that has not lead news agencies to instead focus on progress, as listed above.

Daily Show: Marines in Berkeley

"If only there was an organization sworn to defend that free speech."

Ha.

Courtesy Neal Boortz.

"Far away in the Persian Gulf...

"Bush is creating facts on the ground that the next president may not be able to ignore."

DailyKos Slams Democrats

Is there a Civil War still going on in Iraq? Perhaps.

But there is another Civil War brewing... within the Democratic party.

From the DailyKos: Promises, Promises...

The past few days haven't been kind to Senate Democrats. They had their asses handed to them on habeas corpus, the Webb dwell time amendment became a joke, and Feingold-Reid went down in flames, with each defeat prompting an, "oh well, let's move on."

That's not the only bad news for the "progressive" blogosphere. If the left has also been following reports on Iraqi civilian casualties, they will have learned that violence in Iraq has plummeted, dropping to its lowest level in 18 months.

The "progressive" left has become so pathetic, they have to resort to outrageous, disgraceful blogging, with posts such as: Kansas cemetery ‘full’ because of Iraq war.

It is bad enough that Harry Reid can't get Republicans to vote for his legislation, but 22 Democrats recently crossed the aisle and sided with Republicans in condemning the MoveOn.org ad.

This Democratic "sectarian" disagreement is nothing new, but it is getting nastier as the Iraq war is getting better.

Update: The Levin-Reed amendment failed to pass. Yet another Democratic shortcoming... no surprise there. DailyKos once again full of woe: Where's Congress?

"The NYT's editorial page is on a quest, along with all of us, for an effective Congress"

Also no surprise.

In Case There Was Any Doubt

...that some Democrats, including presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, were complicit in the
smearing of General Petraeus, the Daily Kos Thanks Hillary for Calling Petraeus a Liar.

If that still isn't enough proof, Senator Clinton also voted against the Senate bill condemning the MoveOn.org ad which accused General Petraeus of betrayal. This should come as no surprise, considering the accusations the Senator made to General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker during the hearings:

"I want to thank both of you, General Petreaus, Ambassador Crocker, for your long and distinguished service to our nation. Nobody believes that your jobs or the jobs of the thousands of American forces and civilian personnel in Iraq are anything but incredibly difficult... Despite what I view as your rather extraordinary efforts both in your testimony both yesterday and today, I think that the reports that you provide to us, really require the willing suspension of disbelief."

To score political points, and to fire up her base, Senator Clinton and other leading Demcorats took shots at the General.

That is shameful pandering.