So....what's wrong with nationalism?

Especially when it's very much needed.

Iraqi children in Baghdad revel in the nation's soccer victory, July 25. The successful run in the Asian Cup has been a cause of much joy in this wartorn country, with Iraqis saying the mixed makeup of the team showed the country's rival ethnic and religious factions can unite.- Ali Yussef, AFP/Getty Images, via Washington Post

Like the 1980 U.S. Hockey Team victory over the favored Soviet Union, an injection of national pride.


Blogging:
Marie's Two Cents

Saturday Morning Schoolhouse Rock- The Shot Heard 'Round the World

The Kerrymandering of The New Republic

First, a definition of "gerrymandering":

ger·ry·man·der (jr-mndr, gr-)

tr.v. ger·ry·man·dered, ger·ry·man·der·ing, ger·ry·man·ders

To divide (a geographic area) into voting districts so as to give unfair advantage to one party in elections.

n.

1. The act, process, or an instance of gerrymandering.

2. A district or configuration of districts differing widely in size or population because of gerrymandering.

I'll leave it up to the readers to define what "Kerrymandering" could possibly be.

The New Republic doesn't support the troops; but they do support any John Kerryesque disgruntled grunt who will bolster their anti-war campaign of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Enter Scott Thomas Beauchamp.

I think Dean Barnett is spot-on with his assessment:

the real story here isn’t “Thomas” or “Beauchamp” or even the accuracy of his “reporting”, but rather The New Republic’s crass effort to besmirch the war effort with the former “Thomas Diarists”. It’s interesting that Beauchamp writes, “My pieces were always intended to provide my discreet view of the war; they were never intended as a reflection of the entire U.S. Military.” While it’s hard to take this claim at face value, in TNR’s hands they served exactly that purpose.

TNR isn’t the New Yorker; it doesn’t publish articles solely for their artistic merit. Rather, as we learned yesterday, TNR under Franklin Foer’s command aims to “explicate ideas.” The idea in need of explication regarding the "Thomas Diarists" was just how sociopathic and depraved our military has become. TNR made no effort to put Beauchamp’s writings into context of the 160,000 men and women who, unlike Private Beauchamp, are serving honorably and nobly in Iraq. What’s more, Franklin Foer’s subsequent comments that Beauchamp’s tales represented “mild practical jokes” implied that the diaries were really just the tip of iceberg regarding American malfeasance in Iraq.

The simple fact is that up until now the American left has done everything possible to discredit the war effort in Iraq. Except for one thing – they’ve at least publicly professed to “support the troops.”

Once again, as I’ve said all along, you can’t “support the troops” while publishing agitprop that suggests the troops are a bunch of sociopaths. The Nation went after the troops a couple of weeks ago; the “Thomas Diarists” were The New Republic’s tepid entry into the field. As regards the accuracy of Beauchamp’s charges, I’m sure we’ll be hearing from his superiors before the sun sets in Iraq.

This may have already happened, as one Malkin reader writes in,

I’m active Army & an Iraq vet.

I just pulled up “Scott Thomas Beauchamp” on the secure “Army Knowledge Online” website. It lists his current rank as “PV2″. (That data is kept accurate via pay records on that website.)

In his Sep 06 blog post he listed his rank as “Private First Class”. That indicates that without a doubt he was busted at least one rank as part of Article 15 proceedings under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and he likely has a strong ax to grind with his chain of command.

Michelle Malkin also points out the following lines of poetry written by Scott Thomas Beauchamp, which ends with a John Kerry moment of "look-to-the-future-political-self-interest" reason for military service:

I cant do it without getting through this army experience first, which will add a legitimacy to EVERYTHING i do afterwards, and totally bolster my opinions on defense, etc, and of course its making me a lot less lazy, just because im not use to being lazy any more, etc.

Malkin has much more.

How was Your Sunday? (or: A Summer Weekend Day in the Life of a Blue-State Conservative)

I've been without car for 3 weeks now. The Wordsmithmobile V4.0 broke down and needs a new engine. I made the mistake of not having roadside service take it to my regular mechanic (at the time, I didn't realize it would be this severe). At the recommendation of the phone operator, I let the tow service drop my vehicle off at (AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAarrrrrgh!) Pet Boys.

I feel like I am being royally screwed. But anyway, bottomline is I am putting in money for the new engine, rather than investing in a new gas-guzzler.

Meanwhile, I've been bussing it to work. Part of the reason why my commenting on other blogs has been so light is because I'm gone from about 7am to 9pm, most weekdays.

To add cherry to the top of my "good" fortune, my phone slipped out of my pocket on the bus a week ago. I figured it out next morning and called my phone. Whoever had it, hung up on me. Obviously that person did not have the honorable intention of returning it back to the rightful owner- me! So I now have a replacement phone. It's amazing how much of my life depends upon that Razr Motorola. I lost all my contact information, as I never write any numbers down anymore. Some numbers are irrecoverable. (I have not had a landline for over 7 years).

Today, one of my clients picked me up to go to the gym, for her gymnastics class. She then went to see Harry Potter, and I got dropped off by a coworker at the bus stop, so that I could go to the mall. Ever since my trip to NYC and a trip to Sbarro, I have had cravings for their lemon chicken. At the mall, there is a Sbarro's, and I ordered 3 lemon chickens, to eat for later. I struck up a conversation with the woman in line next to me, as she had her Harry Potter book with her. I grew up on C.S. Lewis, Tolkien, Edgar Rice Burroughs, and Robert E. Howard. I have not gotten into HP. But it's the talk of the town.

I sat down with a slice of pizza and a coke. I wanted to relax, perusing the pages of Lawrence Wright's "The Looming Tower" for a future post, as well as making origami out of print outs of blogposts and articles. Since I'm not able to be on the computer as much during the summer (I'm working long hours, because I signed on to work a lot of summer camp hours, at my gymnastics club), I have to print out the previous night, reading material to take with me for the next day.

I figured I'd leave the origami there on the table when I left, folded out of right-wing "propaganda", for others to find and enjoy.

I entertained one little boy with some origami. Periodically, people will pause and take an interest in what I am doing, compliment the paper models, or stare and point.

While I was relaxing in the mall eatery, one of my favorite kids, whose family I have grown close to, spotted me. She was with her grandmother, and they sat with me for lunch. I'm happy to say, the girl's family leans conservative (a hard find in the City of Angels). I talk openly with the grandmother and mother about my political views, and they tend to side with me. The grandmother thanked me for a couple of Thomas Sowell articles on pharmaceutical companies and fixed costs that I had sent her. After they did their shopping, they took me home. I just adore the girl, and spoil her with affection every chance I get.


I took a walk down to the local grocery market; stopped at a used bookstore along the way. It was saturated with anti-Bush, leftist, Marxist books. Hmm...maybe they were being resold because they were rejected in the first place by the original buyers? Anyway, I did end up paying $6 for a paperback of Robert Kaplan's "Warrior Politics". I was interested in Richard Clarke's "Against All Enemies"...but not for $15.

Now I'm doing laundry, and eating some of that lemon chicken from Sbarro's at the mall.

And now, right this very moment...time for a little blogging....

So...how was your day?

Saturday Morning ABC Schoolhouse Rock

Iraq: A Bleeding Ground for Terrorists.

From Hugh Hewitt's interview with General Petraeus, yesterday:

Iraq is not a breeding ground for terrorists, but a burying ground. General Petraeus, from my interview with him this morning:

[A]s you know, we try to avoid body counting, but inevitably, obviously, it is something we keep track of, because we're trying to have some sense of the damage we are doing to al Qaeda-Iraq, its affiliates, other Sunni insurgent groups, and also certainly to the Shia militia extremist elements. And the answer to that in a general sense is that they are losing many, many hundreds of their, of these different elements each month, certainly since the onset of the surge.

Even though the MSM likes to highlight every U.S. soldier that dies in Iraq (not to honor the fallen, but to will the American public into defeat), underscore the negative setbacks, and selectively reports on the bad news, we are not "losing"; unless it's in our own fevered minds. Perception and perspective is everything.



In wars, people die. Good people. Our people.

We are in a war with Al Qaeda. And Islamic hirabahists.

In Iraq.

And around the world, yes; but Iraq is the central front in a broader war, where we occupy center-stage with the enemies of civilization. Will America fold like a paper tiger? Or will America have the intestinal fortitude it takes to sustain losses in order to win wars? The world is watching.

Al Qaeda's monsters are being killed in droves. No, I'm not going to refer to them as "someone's father/brother/son". They are human rot, and enemies of civilization. Killers of children:

At first, he said, they would only target Shia, but over time the new al Qaeda directed attacks against Sunni, and then anyone who thought differently. The official reported that on a couple of occasions in Baqubah, al Qaeda invited to lunch families they wanted to convert to their way of thinking. In each instance, the family had a boy, he said, who was about 11 years old. As LT David Wallach interpreted the man’s words, I saw Wallach go blank and silent. He stopped interpreting for a moment. I asked Wallach, “What did he say?” Wallach said that at these luncheons, the families were sat down to eat. And then their boy was brought in with his mouth stuffed. The boy had been baked. Al Qaeda served the boy to his family.

Iraqis love their children.

Over here, the fact of al Qaeda murdering children is just that: it’s a fact. How they chose to commit the murders is a variable that changes from incident to incident. I’ve written often about how Iraqis, as a rule, love and greatly value their children. This makes the children especially vulnerable as targets for terrorists. That is a brutal fact.Al Qaeda drinks and uses drugs here. This is not propaganda. This is not even news, it’s a fact that I wrote about back in 2005.

Religious extremism- that has no equal in any other major modern religions- has made human beings into human aberrations. Even Iraqis once allied to them are seeing who the real killers of Muslims and Iraqis are. And it's not us.

Al Qaeda’s ultimate failure in much of Anbar and now in parts of Diyala relates back to one of the pillars of success—or failure—in this war: Values. People who understand how to tamp down this war realize the critical pillar that values can play into success or failure in counterinsurgency, or COIN.

~~~

Abu Ali said that on 1 April 2007, he and his people attacked al Qaeda in Buhriz for their crimes against Islam. He also said something that many Muslims have said to me: al Qaeda are not Muslims. (Both Sunni and Shia have said nearly the exact same words, at times on video.) Abu Ali said they fought hard against al Qaeda, and on 10 April, they asked the Americans to join the attack. It worked.

~~~

Before the tape was running, I asked Abu Ali why he and the 1920s turned against al Qaeda in Buhriz. Speaking through LT David Wallach, a native Arabic speaker, Abu Ali said that “al Qaeda is an abomination of Islam: cutting off heads, stealing people’s money, kidnapping . . . every type of torture they have done.”

The recent stories of baked children came to mind. I asked if Abu Ali had heard about children being baked. Ali said no, he had not heard such a story, but he would not be surprised if it were true because al Qaeda had done so many crimes, such as cutting off a man’s head, putting it up on a stick and parading it around town.

In the aftermath of major combat in Operation Arrowhead Ripper,

The big news on the streets today is that the people of Baqubah are generally ecstatic, although many hold in reserve a serious concern that we will abandon them again [*cough*Harry Reid whiteflag RepublicansDemocrat surrendermonkeys *cough*- ws]. For many Iraqis, we have morphed from being invaders to occupiers to members of a tribe. I call it the “al Ameriki tribe,” or “tribe America.”

Does any American deny that we are fighting evil in Iraq? Is this the fight that we want to "cut and run" from, with our tail hanging between our legs?

We need to "stay the course" in Iraq not only for America's security- the only reason America's military should ever be used- but because it's the right, and noble thing to do. The only course to take. All options should remain on the table, save that which advocates for defeat and retreat.



Al Qaeda is losing in Iraq. Unless we let them win. If the battle for Iraq is lost, it will be lost back here in the States. Not on the battlefield of Iraq. Our brave military is doing its part with distinction and honor on the battlefront. Are we doing our part, back here at home?


Presidents don't win or lose wars. Neither does the military. Nations win or lose wars. So, it begs the question: Do we win....or lose?

Cross-posted at Flopping Aces

New Resource for Countering Media Myths

During the Jamil Hussein story, I happened to follow a "behind-the-scenes" e-mail discussion amongst Curt and a group of top-tier and low-rent (low traffic) bloggers, who decided in light of the Burning Six incident, Fauxtography, and other stories that the mainstream media has gotten wrong, a wiki would be a valuable resource to have. And so today, Media Mythbusters is launched.

On the Right Side of History

Victor Davis Hanson vs. The New York Times

Burkean Reflections, Conservatism with Heart, Hugh Hewitt, and Flopping Aces all posted recently on the Bush legacy, linking to Bill Kristol's op-ed in the Washington Post. Go to one of the 3 blogs, for my own comment on the matter. In addition, Matt Lewis notes the following:

4. Or it could be our modern media world (cable, blogs, talk radio), means that no president can make it through two terms without getting banged up...

I think Lewis touches upon something vitally important, in the changing world: the information flow. Before President Bush took office, we had never had the kind of access to information at our fingertips, the likes of which we now possess. It has been a mixed bag of good and bad; and I think the nature of warfare is forever changed, due to today's technology in the hands of ordinary folk.



Bless Dean Barnett for thinking Peggy Noonan's BSD piece was creepy; and David Limbaugh for countering her criticism.

Bush Derangement Syndrome is not something that "used to" exist. It is alive and well -- and apparently growing. While Peggy says that no one thinks anymore that those afflicted with the syndrome are unhinged. I do, as do many others, and I deeply lament that Peggy is giving cover to the vicious, indefensible assaults against Bush from the left since 2000.

Donald Lambro has a good piece on why history will likely vindicate President Bush.

It's been a bit hard, finding myself at odds with some of my favorite conservatives on key issues for the last 3 years- Laura Ingraham, Michelle Malkin, Tammy Bruce (conservative Democrat/classic liberal)....from Harriet Miers, the Dubai Ports deal, immigration, to the current situation in Iraq. It's not so much that I didn't and don't share some of their concerns. I believe that the Republican Party should be a big tent party, with disagreements showing the health of the Party, and not the sickness. Sometimes, though, in airing our dirty laundry, I think we've shot ourselves in the foot by beating up on ourselves to the point of political harm, as exemplified in the '06 Election. We've weakened President Bush's political power, as much as his "true" political enemies have done. And in so doing, we've hurt the conservative movement- yet lay the blame squarely at the feet of the President, and behave like victims, abandoned by our Party.

Midnight Blue and Flopping Aces have important posts to be read today, regarding Vets for Freedom who will confront the surrender monkeys on Capitol Hill, face-to-face.

Let your voices be heard.

Other articles of note:
Rich Lowry's Last Hawk Standing

Thomas Sowell asks, "And then what?" Here's an excerpt:

But how many countries will continue to cooperate with the United States when they know that the terrorists are in this for the long haul, while the U.S. can abandon them to their fate at any moment, whenever it becomes politically expedient at home?

Here is an excerpt from Part II of Sowell:

What has gone right is that the Iraq war is already over. Our troops won it. But our politicians may once more lose the peace -- and with disastrous consequences for us and for the world.

Peace has not been achieved in Iraq, though pacification continues -- always at a cost in American lives -- and shows signs of progress, much to the dismay of those who have bet their political future on an American defeat.

Defeatists have not yet had the courage to directly ensure defeat by cutting off the money to continue military operations in Iraq.

That would be taking responsibility for the defeat.

Sometimes, Dennis Prager can be the Caliph of Clarity:

The sad truth is that moral courage is rare -- whether among private citizens or among political leaders. Even opponents of the war have to admit that, given the polls, it takes no courage for a politician to call for American withdrawal from Iraq. Whether or not you agree with those who want American forces to stay in Iraq, that is a far more courageous position in today's America -- just as, right or wrong, it admittedly took more courage for a politician to oppose the war when America deposed Saddam Hussein's regime.

Should America fail in Iraq, I will not hold President Bush up as the cause for failure. He has remained firm and unwavering, even as those around him seem to either blow with the breeze, like paper tigers knocked down by windbags; or suffer the contagion of "Bush fatigue" under the constant, unrelenting onslaught of BSD from the MSM. It's shaped perception, even amongst those of us who remain supportive of our President. We may still support our efforts in Iraq, but we are not unaffected by the saturation of negativity and pessimism.

More from Prager:

And how often in history did the right thing not take courage? And how often was the right position the most popular position?

I may be ridiculed for being in the minority position, amongst the 20-30 per centers....that I am out of touch with the mainstream. Good. I am proud to stand in the company of those who understand the consequences of withdrawal and defeat; of those willing to do what's right, even when it's not what is popular.

Sunday Music Video Break: Bonny Portmore

The only scene worthwhile in Highlander 3, for which I had first discovered the music of Loreena McKennitt, lo these many moons ago.....

Saturday Night at the Movies: Batman Dead End

Love the interchange between Batman and the Joker- and this is how Joker should be played:



And if you liked the "Aliens vs. Predator" bit, check out my previous post on the "real" aliens versus Predator.

Of course...nothing beats campy Batman.

Goodness....thank Heavens they happened to pack along the shark repellent Bat spray. Never leave home without it.

All Options Must Remain on the Table...except for Retreat and Defeat

“This conflict was begun on the timing and terms of others. It will end in a way, and at an hour, of our choosing.”
-President Bush, on the Day of Remembrance and Prayer, following 9/11

To those suffering from BDS: Is a President Bush defeat really more important to you, than an American victory? If you think we are "damaging America's credibility" and "throwing away American lives" right now, what do you suppose will happen by surrendering to our enemies in Iraq? Will things get better, or worse?

Their rhetoric is all political posturing bait-and-switch grandstanding, anyway. What bill proposal actually calls for the complete withdrawal of American forces from Iraq?


To the white flag Republicans who are throwing in the towel before September: You are sending a clear and prescient message to our enemies. A message that tells Al Qaeda and the rest of the world that Democrats and Republicans are both cut from the same cloth; and that America as a whole lacks the intestinal fortitude needed to sustain losses to win wars. Declare war on America and hang in there long enough, and America will fold, like a paper tiger.


To all those who are choosing to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory:

Shame on you all for not putting on America's war face and for failing to stop political bickerings and maneuverings at the water's edge....this coming at the expense of America's security and national interests, as well as at the expense of worldwide civilization at large.

Further Blog-Reading:
After the next attack: Will U.S. Become Spain?
McCain's Speech on Iraq
You Can be Replaced
Progress being made in Iraq
Lindsay Graham: "I don't want the Congress to be the cavalry for Al Qaeda"
Winning in Iraq and Losing in D.C.
The Bush Press Conference & More
Learn Nothing Democrats

Articles:
The media lied; public support died by Thomas Lifson
The War about the War by Herbert E. Meyer
Who is Losing What in Iraq? by Paul Schlichta
Not Worth Fighting For: Defeatist Republican Senators by Hugh Hewitt

Pelosi Slam Punk'd

Al Kamen of the Washington Post:

And the Speaker During the Price Spike Was . . .

An eagle-eyed Senate GOP aide, perusing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's Web site, calls attention to her assertion there that "Americans are paying more than double for gas than when President Bush first took office."

She says the average price per gallon when he took office in 2001 was $1.47 and had reached $3.22 by May 21.

So that means gas prices went up by $1.75 a gallon over six years. But more than half of that increase, 90 cents, our source says, has come in the past six months -- the six months that she's been speaker of the House. Our source says the average price per gallon on Jan. 3, the day before she became speaker, was $2.32.

Maybe Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-Minn.) can lend her a bike.

Hat tip: Thomas Lifson of American Thinker

Going Jihad on the Hirabahists

This is the FOX special, Muslims Against Jihad, covering the film, Islam vs. Islamists, PBS wanted to suppress:
















Previously posted:
One Muslim's Jihad is another Muslim's Hirabah
Screening of Islam vs. Islamists in Los Angeles

Others blogging:
Conservatism with Heart

The Hypocrite's Oath: "Do as I say...."

07/07/007: To offend or not to offend...that is the question

"The word terrorism is a political word which always seems to be used to demonise people."- British professor at the University of Chester, 2006

On this, the anniversary of the London bombings, and in wake of the recent terrorist activities in Britain, Gordon Brown should be applauded for divorcing the offending word "Muslim" from our lexicon when using the label "terrorists". After all, "Muslim terrorist" is just too specific a term, and can't describe just anybody.

I am appalled, however, that Gordon Brown has not stricken "doctor" from the referencing of the five who have been charged with the plotting. After all, not all of those in the medical profession are terrorists! And more importantly and incredibly: Not all terrorists are even doctors!

And let's not offend terrorists by referring to those responsible for the London bombings as "terrorists". but call them for what they accurately are: "disaffected" "bombers". I mean, c'mon...."terrorist" is such an extreme, inflammatory word. It isn't loaded with the same explosive connotations and political baggage as the term "bomber" is.


So meanwhile, Gordon Brown and the British government continues to offend a whole class of citizens by not condemning the media's flawed description of the...um...attackers, and their failed attempts at curing killing Londoners and Glasweagian. The mass media continues to offend by describing those who attempted to carry out the attacks as "doctors" and as coming from "wealthy, priveleged" backgrounds.


Whatever it is we are allowed to call them at the moment, let us not forget that we are currently in a struggle with those who want to kill us, even though we can't seem to name them, for fear of offending a whole group of people. Perhaps....even referring to them as "people" is going a bit too far? Alright: monsters. Oh, no...wait: God forbid, I should be offending any monsters out there reading this. I'm so sorry....just forget I ever said anything at all, here.


Also blogging:
Michael Medved

Saturday Morning ABC Schoolhouse Rock

"No More Kings"

Still Eyeing the National Guard

I e-mailed my recruiter just now. She had told me before to "just be patient". But it's been late February since I took my medical exam, and a couple months after that since I last talked to my recruiter. My dad said it took 3 months for him to get a medical waiver for his gout medication.

Perhaps this explains a little why it's taking so long...

Sgt. Dana Kline holds an oversized check for $62,000 at his Georgia Army National Guard armory in Macon, Ga., in March 2007. The check is a portion of the $94,000 he'll receive for recruiting 47 new Guard members. By Elliott Minor, AP

Looks like there's no shortage on recruitment. Of course, that's good news. I just don't understand why it takes so long to hear back on a medical waiver- whether it goes one way or another. Is it just bureaucratic inefficiency?

Meanwhile, on the anniversary of our nation's Declaration of Independence, almost 600 U.S. soldiers re-enlisted at Baghdad's Camp Victory, with 161 serving also becoming naturalized citizens.

The military is starting to offer free LASIK. If I were already in, I might consider using my recruitment bonus to pay for LASIK, myself. I'd hate to serve under combat conditions, and have my contacts melt into my eyeballs from flash burns during a firefight.

I can't help but wonder if this too, might not be another motivating factor for the non-shortage in enlistment. That's a really nice smile. Enough to make any American suddenly feel an overwhelming sense of patriotism and a dutiful desire to serve in 1st Battalion, 211th Aviation Regiment, Utah National Guard, just to bask in the radiance of those teeth, and in those eyes whose warm glow eclipses the sun.

An Unpatriotic American

I don't ever recall labeling any leftie I disagree with, "unpatriotic" no matter how often their paranoid oversensitive conscience tells them that their "patriotism is under attack". But after reading Howard Zinn's "Put away the flag", how can any American- from the left or right- read that piece of misguided rubbish and not think "unpatriotic" perfectly defines it? After all, how can one be a patriot by calling for the dissolution of boundaries and all concept of nationalism and sovereign identity? How is his op-ed not "un-American"? Does the simple act of exercising one's freedom of speech qualify one as being a patriotic American?

On this July 4, we would do well to renounce nationalism and all its symbols: its flags, its pledges of allegiance, its anthems, its insistence in song that God must single out America to be blessed.

Is not nationalism -- that devotion to a flag, an anthem, a boundary so fierce it engenders mass murder -- one of the great evils of our time, along with racism, along with religious hatred?

These ways of thinking -- cultivated, nurtured, indoctrinated from childhood on -- have been useful to those in power, and deadly for those out of power.

National spirit can be benign in a country that is small and lacking both in military power and a hunger for expansion (Switzerland, Norway, Costa Rica and many more). But in a nation like ours -- huge, possessing thousands of weapons of mass destruction -- what might have been harmless pride becomes an arrogant nationalism dangerous to others and to ourselves.

If that's not enough bit of self-hatred, please convince me on how the following bit of "intellectual thinking" is "supporting our troops":

We see in Iraq that our soldiers are not different. They have, perhaps against their better nature, killed thousands of Iraq civilians. And some soldiers have shown themselves capable of brutality, of torture.

Yet they are victims, too, of our government's lies.

And those on the left wonder why they are constantly stigmatized and baggaged with labels like "un-American", "unpatriotic", and accused of "not supporting the troops"?