Posts Tagged George Bush

It’s Coldest Before the Dawn

I just handed in a research paper on the sandstorm that hit Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom last year. You’ll all get to read this paper when I post it on the web after the professor grades it. The dust storm was most intense on March 25, 2003, so I looked up some old news accounts of what was going on then. Basically, the U.S. Army and Marines were approaching Baghdad, and the Iraqi Republican Guard were getting into position to defend the city. What was most interesting to find were the opinions expressed by correspondents and bloggers on both sides of the conflict.

There was a lot of pessimism on the coalition side. Many observers thought the siege of Baghdad would be long and brutal. The media worried that a lot of Iraqi civilians would get killed, that every block of the city would be defended.

There was also a lot of bravado from the Iraqi government, and not just from Information Minister Mohammad Saeed al-Sahaf. Defense Minister Sultan Hashim Ahmed had this to say (posted on March 28):

Asked what kind of battle he expected, Defense Minister Ahmed said: “Baghdad is the cradle of civilization. Iraqis inherited this history from their forefathers. They will defend this inheritance in a way that will satisfy God.” 

“God willing, Baghdad will be impregnable. We will fight to the end and everywhere. History will record how well Iraqis performed in defense of their capital,” Ahmed said. 

Ahmed said that the U.S. supply lines were overstretched and reached as far as 300 miles and called a sandstorm that slowed the U.S. push northwards toward Baghdad in recent days “a gift from God.” 

You can read the rest of the story at rense.com.

Remember that? It was only last year. I was kind of discouraged myself at that point, wondering how we would go about capturing Baghdad. I even discussed some options with a former tank commander friend of mine. 

As it turned out, Ahmed was exactly right. History did record how well the Republican Guard performed in defense of their capital. I saw pictures of Republican Guard soldiers stripping off their uniforms and running away in their underwear. 

If the sandstorm was “a gift from God,” then Ahmed’s expression of theistic meteorology did not work out the way he expected. General Tommy Franks and his staff made a military move during the sandstorm that drastically altered the war in our favor. That’s a teaser – you’ll have to read about it in my paper. The historical facts show that U.S. forces soon captured Baghdad after a series of armed incursions. The statue of Saddam Hussein in Firdos Square was toppled on April 9. 

The point is this: On March 25, 2003, things looked pretty bleak in Iraq. But a major military turning point came during those few days, and Saddam Hussein in bronze fell to the ground just two weeks later. Sometimes when things look the worst, there comes a turning point that nobody realizes until later. 

The news from Iraq was depressing until about a week ago. It seemed that our side was losing cities to the insurgents, as more and more “no-go zones” developed. I think we were actually losing progress, as defined by the measures discussed here several months ago. 

Take courage, my friends! Najaf is peaceful once again, even though too many of the al-Sadr militants got away. The shrine’s okay. Samarra has been re-liberated from anti-Iraq forces. By now many Iraqis have had it up to here with militants turning their neighborhoods into battlegrounds. I expect Iraqis have also realized that people who sabotage pipelines aren’t doing squat to defend Islam or fight for Iraq or improve anyone’s lives. Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi is holding tough. And most people who make the decisions have recognized that Kevin was right back in April when he said that the right thing to do in Fallujah is to take back the city from the terrorists, not withdraw. 

If John Kerry is elected president he will follow basically the same plan in Iraq as Bush is following now. Kerry says he will execute the plan better, and any voter can decide if they believe him or not. The Democrats made the choice of Kerry over Howard Dean in the primaries, and with that choice they rejected the option to withdraw from Iraq. Tony Karon at TIME Magazine can complain that Kerry doesn’t offer a choice on Iraq, but that choice is off the table now because it was already rejected. No matter what happens in November, America plans to finish the job that we started in Iraq. And finish it right. 

Thank you, Tony Blair and the United Kingdom and Australia for being there with us all the way! Thank you also to the other coalition countries. 

By my count progress in Iraq is at about 85%. Progress is at 50% automatically because Allawi is in charge and Iraq is sovereign. When I look at the map of Iraq I see about 30% of the population and land as “no-go zones”, meaning 70% is relatively stable and functional. So 50% + 70%*50% = 85%. You do the math. 

Meteorologically Speaking: 

The old saying that “it’s darkest before the dawn” is incorrect. Night is relatively constant in darkness, except for the hour after sundown and before sunrise when blue photons are scattering over the horizon and lighting up things a bit. Surface temperature pretty much follows a sinusoidal curve during the day, with the peak temperature at about 2pm. Surface temperatures are coldest before the dawn because the earth’s surface undergoes radiative cooling all night, at pretty much a constant rate. 

So it really is coldest just before the dawn.

Tags: , ,

Going And Going And …

Rathergate just keeps getting bigger, weirder, and more corrupt. It’s reminds me of when I first saw Independence Day: You think you’re watching just another disaster epic, some character starts talking about Roswell and area 51, and the next thing you know all the crazy conspiracy theories about aliens are coming true. Well, that’s where we’re at on this story, we started off with a story of sloppy journalism and all of a sudden CBS news is just another cog in the Kerry Campaign — and it sure seems like we’re still closer to the beginning of the story than the end.

The story as of now – CBS learns by means/people unrevealed that Bill Burkett has some info on Bush’s National Guard service. Despite the fact that Burkett had already fabricated a story about Bush’s TANG files, CBS talks to and believes Burkett (he must be mighty persuasive in person). Burkett tells them he has some documents, gives one to them, and then names as his price for the rest that CBS has the Kerry Campaign talk to him. Mary Mapes, CBS producer, calls Joe Lockhart and Max Cleland, tips them off that Burkett is their source on a big story about Bush’s National Guard service complete with documentary evidence. Lockhart talks with Burkett, but he claims he only humored him, talking about how Kerry could respond to the Swift Boat Veterans ads, and never discussed what Burkett was telling to CBS. It’s pure coincidence that the Kerry campaign had ready that whole “Fortunate Son” theme ready to go immediately after the 60 minutes report. Oh that’s right, Burkett slipped Cleland a copy of the documents (perhaps when Cleland was down at Bush’s ranch?) so why should Lockard spend time yaking with the guy when he can look at the documents for himself.

Gee, I wonder why CBS didn’t also contact the Bush campaign to let them know about the report they were going to do. That way they too could have their comments ready following the show. Maybe CBS found it too hard to think with all those alarm bells going off. I mean, Burkett had lied before about something and cited George Conn as someone who could back him up, and here he tells CBS he got these documents from Conn again (did Burkett pick him for the name alone?). CBS is apparently so dazed and confused that they can’t figure out what their document experts are telling them, don’t bother to check with George Conn to see if they are getting conned, rely on noted liar Ben Barnes to be the face of the piece, and then seemed defensive and shocked that anyone would question CBS authority. I mean, if CBS says they have authenticated the documents (they didn’t), have an unimpeachable source (I guess he’s certifiable, not impeachable), and airtight chain of custody (so airtight they don’t need to check it), who but partisan idiot scumbags can question them? And just because they already told the Kerry Campaign who they’re top secret source is doesn’t mean they should tell the public.

USA Today also received the documents, but seemingly they could hear the alarm bells well enough they didn’t run with the story like CBS. And when they went back to Burkett, they got the greatest shaggy dog story ever told: Lucy Ramirez gave them to me, and I burned the originals because, well, Ramirez didn’t want forensic evidence coming back to name her. Who’s Lucy Ramirez? Apparently USAT doesn’t know either, but didn’t think to ask.

If this were a movie, people would think it too contrived. Sadly, it’s not, it’s the network news in action. I suppose this way they can go out with a bang, not a whimper.

Tags: , , ,

Who Watches the Watchmen?

CBS and the Boston Globe have decided if you can’t dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your B.S. Put your waders on boys and girls, because it’s getting deep around here.

Dan Rather’s response on national TV: “Today, on the internet and elsewhere, some people — including many who are partisan political operatives — concentrated not on the key questions the overall story raised but on the documents that were part of the support of the story.” I have to question Dan Rather’s news judgement (please note, not his patriotism), since he thinks allegations of activity that wasn’t either illegal or unethical that happened 30 years ago is far more important than allegations of outright fraud that happened 2 days ago.

I can almost see the thought bubbles above Dan Rather’s head “must tough it out — if I can just tough it out long enough, it will all go away.” Since I’m not a journalist, I won’t go the extra mile and claim I really can see them.

CBS put on the lamest defense: an expert witness on handwriting who has said in the past that you can’t positively authenticate a signature from a photocopy. Well, guess what, he positively authenticated a signature from a photocopy. CBS had no expert on documents themselves though — not that they’ve named yet. As I said before, if they can’t name one, can’t produce his or her work, I have to doubt they exist. There’s far more evidence for Santa Claus than there is that CBS did a thorough investigation of these documents.

The Boston Globe took up the slack on that and announced that a top expert on documents authenticated the documents. This one will blow your mind. They used the expert that Bill at INDC first contacted and who said 90% chance of forgery. After a Globe reporter talked with Dr. Bouffard, they ran the following headline:
Authenticity backed on Bush documents
OK, we can all get back to pummelling President Bush for his actions 30 years ago. Well, not so fast. It seems the good Dr. is “pissed” at the Globe for misrepresenting his views. What he told them was that he was still looking into it, getting more information, somethings he thought at first weren’t quite true, and he was still considering it. But he still thinks the documents are most likely forgeries.

The guys at Powerline are ahead of the curve on all this (why not, they’ve been at the head of the pack so far) and have come out with a great idea:

“The next question is, how old are the “first-generation” copies that CBS has? If those copies, based on testing the paper, are themselves twenty or thirty years old, it would add considerable plausibility to the claim that there were, in fact, authentic originals, even if those originals cannot now be recovered. But I’ll bet they’re not. I’ll bet that if tested, the CBS copies would be very, very recent. (I don’t know how precise dating of paper can be. If any readers are experts in this, let us know.) So, here is the bottom line: if the CBS copies are recent, then the alleged originals were recently in existence. So where are they? Were they recently destroyed? If so, why and by whom?

If CBS would make its purported first-generation copies available for testing, it could go a long way toward verifying their authenticity, or–much more likely–proving that they are recently-created fakes.

One loophole in this approach: a clever forger could obtain thirty-year old paper, and use it to create the fake memos. So if the originals (or CBS’ copies) are on old paper, it wouldn’t necessarily prove they are authentic (they could, of course, have been forged long ago, but it’s hard to see why anyone would have done that). But if CBS’s copies are new, and they can’t explain what happened to the originals, it would be the last nail in Dan Rather’s coffin.

So let’s get CBS’s copies and test the paper.

I wouldn’t worry about that clever forger too much – nothing has been particularly clever about it so far.

Wouldn’t it be nice to put the whole sorry mess in front of an investigative inquiry, put everybody under oath, have CBS and the Globe put all their cards on the table, and get to the bottom of this? Maybe Lord Hutton is available. After all, when Hutton spoke, heads rolled.

Tags: ,

I’d Rather Not

It’s deja vu all over again. Last year a star reporter makes blockbuster accusation; when his story is questioned, his company backs him to the hilt saying that his source was reliable; an inquiry is launched which discovers that the reporter distorted the information of the source and that his company didn’t provide adequate oversight and then blindly backed the reporter; the chairman of the board, the CEO, and the reporter then resigned. In that case it was Andrew Gilligan and the BBC; today’s case is Dan Rather and CBS.

The big difference (aside from the sexier accents across the pond) is that what the blogosphere did in a day took a government agency months. OK, that and we haven’t gotten to the punishment of the guilty yet. Here’s hoping that doesn’t take too long either – a matter of days rather than weeks. 

The first thing that strikes me about the whole thing is how bad a forgery the documents are. The forger don’t even bother to spend a couple of bucks and buy an old typewriter to type them up. They then used the most common word processing software in the world, Word, and they just left all the standard defaults on. They didn’t even change the font to Courier, which looks like a typewriter. They didn’t even bother to proofread and so you have a “th” superscripted next to a number, and you have “th” not superscripted one space away from a number? Can you make it any more obvious that this was done on Word on a computer?

It’s more understandable that the forgeries didn’t get the military details correct. But I don’t understand why LTC Killian would have written these in the first place. They seem to dovetail nicely with what some Democrats are saying today, but they make no sense in the context of LTC Killian writing them in 1973. For instance, why would an officer ever write a memo that says he caved to pressure from a superior, and title it CYA? Who’s A is he trying to cover here? Not his, because he was admitting he lied in an evaluation. That wouldn’t be covering his A, that would be uncovering his A, and waving a big red flag while doing so.

So I convinced that these are forgeries, and amazingly lousy ones at that. 

Only blinding partisanship would let Dan Rather be deceived by such lousy forgeries, and put at risk both the reputation of CBS news and John Kerry. Those reputations were put at risk for claims that George Bush’s superior really didn’t think he was that good a pilot, that George Bush refused a written order to get a physical, and that George Bush didn’t get permission to go to Alabama. Really, who cares? We’ve been throught this a dozen times already. At least Gilligan provided a blockbuster accusation of “tarted-up” dossiers (you got to love the brits, especially when they talk French). Rather provided a snooze fest of accusations, and did so with both skill, aplomb, and nothing but liars. The documents – fake. Ben Barnes – a liar. This is what passes for journalism these days?

But there is a certain deja vu with previous Bush scandals. Joe Wilson – liar. Richard Clark – liar. Michael Moore – liar. This latest non-scandal has the familiar ending: the accuser turns out to be a liar and the accusations baseless.

CBS has claimed they did a thorough investigation before they went to air. If CBS really did a thorough investigation of the documents, why aren’t they able to release the results immediately? Why can’t they simply provide their expert typologists report where they tracked down which typewriters in use by the TANG were able to use a proportional font and a superscripted th? Where is their comparison of other documents that have nothing to do with Bush also written by the LTC around the same time? They haven’t even provided a name. Why can’t they provide the chain of possession of the documents in question? Since they haven’t, I’m forced to conclude that there was no thorough examination of the documents. Instead, they relied on people believing on CBS’s say so. We don’t live in 1973 anymore where just because Cronkite said it, we believe.

Dan Rather has responded and sadly provides no new information or a shred of support, just more of the same ‘trust me’

“I know that this story is true. I believe that the witnesses and the documents are authentic. We wouldn’t have gone to air if they would not have been. There isn’t going to be — there’s no — what you’re saying apology?.”

I think there’s a lot of credit to go around: the guys at Powerline, Charles Johnson, INDC journal and Pacetown just to name a few. Hayek would be proud of the display of distributed intelligence in the internet — how no one source has all the answers, but the flood of information coming from all directions arrived at a conclusion. The forgery wouldn’t have been detected before the rise of the internet. Not just because of bloggers or skeptics, but because the documents wouldn’t have been released to the public before. Now you have everything input into the network and the distributed intelligence standing by. But back then the documents might have been flashed up on the TV briefly, and then never seen again. And if the White House did dispute the authenticity, well, that would be just what you would expect, and by the time it was resolved, the election would be long over. 

And of course, the blogosphere as befits a super intelligent being has a sense of humor.

Tags: ,

No Trumans Here

The Post ran one of my letters to the editor after a long absence. I would have liked to have written at greater length, but brevity is the soul of wit (and the secret to getting a letter printed). I wrote in response to both letters and editorials – it was a Post editorial that labeled Zell Miller’s speach “vituperative.” I suppose I labor under the illusion that anybody, and I include the paper’s staff, reads the editorials or opeds or letters to the editor. I barely know anbody who gets the paper, let alone reads anything beyond sports and everyday (comics). 

I reproduce the letter for your reading enjoyment:

The responses to the Republican National Convention make it clear that the Democrats are no longer the party of Harry Truman; they can’t stand the heat. The Republicans told the truth, and the Democrats thought it was hell.

The Democrats can’t tell the difference between ad hominem attacks and factual takedowns. Pointing out that John Kerry was on the wrong side of a number of issues and votes is called vituperative; calling George W. Bush a moron, a fascist, a liar and AWOL and Dick Cheney a war profiteer and a coward for obtaining draft deferments passes as reasonable debate. 

Considering the identical responses of mainstream media and partisan Democrats, it’s clear that the media represent the view of partisan Democrats and not unbiased reporting. 

Tags: , , ,

Bush’s Speech

After School Night For Scouting and Open House at school I was too tired to take on Andariel, so I watched TV instead while I unloaded the dishwasher. I didn’t get home until about 9:20, so when I flipped on the TV President Bush was in the middle of the domestic laundry list. He was taking about partial privatization of Social Security, which made me simultaneously think “Amen, brother!” and “Quit talking about it and do something about it.” 

I hate that State of the Union Style speech — promises mixed with applause — so I flipped over to the ballgame. No, not the Rams losing to the Raiders (I bet Dodd’s happy), the Cardinals stomping on the Padres again (oh yeah, the Cardinals sure did look “beatable”). I was happy my wife and son got to see a good game, but I was surprised when they got home at about 9:35 — I thought it would be closer to 10. So after I got my sons take on the game and he went off to bed, we flipped back to the President and got to the good part.

I thought he did a fine job – he poked fun at himself, always a plus for me (although that shoulder shake thing he does when he laughs is either deeply annoying or deeply endearing, sometimes both at the same time), he was serious and determined, and he was clearly teary eyed when he talked about the sacrifices soldiers and their families were making in the war on terror.

George Bush could be a cub master – you have to like being the butt of most of the jokes. I just can’t imagine John Kerry making jokes at his own expense let alone having fun with it. While I’ve always said it’s easy to fake sincerity, it’s spontaneity that is hard to fake, I do think Bush’s teary eyes were sincere. I know Bill Clinton among others could turn the waterworks on and off at will, but I don’t think Bush can (I don’t think Kerry’s that good a fake, either).

I can’t make any predictions or claims about the effects on the famed swing voters, but I don’t think Bush hurt himself with the speech, and I do think he’s pulling ahead of Kerry. I’ll be honest, I don’t see how anybody but a hard core Democrat could vote for Kerry. But I know perfectly reasonable sane and smart people who think Kerry is the better of the two for President. Bush wouldn’t be my first pick out of everybody for President, but there’s only two in the race. 

Tags:

And In Other News

I haven’t seen much of the Republican convention. I’ve been too busy with important stuff. Monday I night I helped on my cub scout pack’s parade float (I’ll be doing the same thing tonight). My wife and I were mystified to flip on the TV and see McCain booed by the audience and a reaction shot of a large hairy man who bore a striking resemblance to Michael Moore. Fortunately, McCain repeated the line that started the booing and so we realized that we were seeing Michael Moore being booed by an audience (he ought to be getting used to it by now). I didn’t find the rest of the speech too riveting so I caught up on my reading of Science News. We then caught the beginning of Giuliani’s speech and boy, it was good, but we went up to bed about the time he started detailing how Germany failed humanity by releasing the terrorists from the Munich Olympics. My wife doesn’t need her beauty sleep, but I sure do.

Last night I had to do some scout paperwork/planning, and I did manage to squeeze in some demon slaying with my Paladin before the Amazing Race, so all I saw of Schwartzenneger’s speech was the walk backstage from the podium. We watched the Bush twins, who don’t even look like sisters, and I thought that they were better than 99% of celebrity award show banter, which isn’t exactly high praise. When George introduced Laura — who seems to have more sense than to be a politician herself — my wife and I wondered if anybody in the game going on behind him realized they were playing in front of a national audience. Laura was Laura, which means I’d vote for her for any office, but I can take only so much speechifying, especially those that have constant applause lines. So after discovering there wasn’t much else on TV, we toddled off to bed.

Fortunately, Conrad has some insightful observations of his own.

Tags:

The Big Picture

Donald Sensing reminds us why it’s the war on terror, not the war on al-Qaeda. 

One of the problems if you think President Bush is a smirking chimp, or a moron is that you may miss what’s going on because you can’t credit the president for having the vision to wage a war of transformation. Now there are arguments to be made against such a war, but if you can’t see the nature of the war, you can’t make them.

Tags:

Leadership?

Phil Carter has a post (and op-ed) about why he thinks President Bush’s National Guard service record matters.

“Leadership by example is a principle that’s hammered into every newly minted American military officer. … Above all else, it means never asking your soldiers, sailors, airmen or Marines to do something that you wouldn’t do yourself.”

Armed Liberal at Winds of Change replies:

“It’s well written, serious, accurate, and amazingly wrong.”

I have to agree with Armed Liberal. Is Phil really saying that you can’t be the civilian commander-in-chief if you weren’t in the military, and you can’t go to war as the CinC if you weren’t in combat yourself? That sure seems to the be the logical conclusion of his statements. I guess Phil won’t be able to vote for Edwards since John won’t be able to provide leadership to the Armed Forces as his role of President requires.

In an earlier post Phil said “Was he really the kind of junior officer that we now want to be Commander-in-Chief?” And I also have to agree with Jeff Medcalf when he says:

“Would it not be better to ask, “Has he been the kind of Commander-in-Chief that we would want to be Commander-in-Chief?” It’s not like he’s Kerry – with no record as CinC to run on. You can actually judge the President by how he’s actually performed his duties. Why do you need or even want to look at his record as a junior officer in performing such an evaluation?”

Bush has amassed a pretty clear record as CinC, and as far as I can tell, people are not having a hard time making up their minds about how he’s doing — love it or hate it.

Assuming Kerry is the Democratic Nominee, how should I judge how he’ll do? By then man he was thirty years ago, or the man of today?

John Kerry won his Silver Star for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action while in charge of a three-boat mission. As the force approached the target area, all units came under intense automatic weapons and small arms fire from an entrenched enemy force less than fifty-feet away. Unhesitatingly, Lieutenant Kerry ordered his boat to attack as all units opened fire and beached directly in front of the enemy ambushers. The daring and courageous tactic surprised the enemy and succeeded in routing a score of enemy soldiers. Later, the boats again were taken under fire from a heavily foliated area and B-40 rocket exploded close aboard PCF-94; with utter disregard for his own safety and the enemy rockets, he again ordered a charge on the enemy, beached his boat only ten feet from the VC rocket position, and personally led a landing party ashore in pursuit of the enemy. Upon sweeping the area an immediate search uncovered an enemy rest and supply area which was destroyed. 

The John Kerry of then took swift and decisive action. Does that sound like the John Kerry of today who seems to be on both sides of every issue?

Would the John Kerry of today have earned that Silver Star? The John Kerry of today when comming under fire would keep on going without returning fire so that nobody else would have a cause to attack Kerry’s boat, and leave it up to the Justice Department to bring his attacker to justice. He would carefully review his actions to determine why they hate his boat, and ultimately conclude it is because the French aren’t on board. Then he would denounce his men as war criminals.

Tags: ,