Thursday, April 08, 2010

I'm going to start off this morning by repeating 'Screw you' to Wikileaks

Part of that claim is based upon the fact that two Reuters employees, embedded with a band of armed militants, were destroyed by 30mm cannon fire from Apache helicopters. The Apaches were providing support for ground forces that had been under sporadic rifle and RPG fire throughout the morning. Wikileaks would have us hold the pilots responsible for not discerning the armed militiamen from the identically dressed Reuters employees that so comfortably moved with them.

WikiLeaks would also have us believe that the presence of camera equipment should have stayed the guns of the American aircraft. Dishonestly, WikiLeaks does not mention the well-known fact that cameras are an integral part of the war for both sides, and that video and still cameras are commonly carried by militants. A few seconds of searching on the Internet would reveal militants filming attacks, from IED strikes to the alleged sniping of American and Iraqi soldiers and police.

We aren’t attempting to establish that these Reuters employees were terrorists — despite their “relaxed” behavior with the armed militants, which even WikiLeaks is forced to recognize. It is enough to note that even if the presence of cameras had been detected earlier, it in no way suggested that the armed men were anything other than terrorists.

As to the two kids wounded, the question is "What kind of lousy bastard brings a couple of kids along on something like this?" But apparently Wikileaks doesn't worry about that; it's easier to blame our troops.

Speaking of women and children and other noncombatants,
...When terrorist leaders do travel, they use public transport, surrounded by women and children. The terrorists know that American ROE (Rules of Engagement) discourage "collateral damage" (civilian casualties), so the terrorists try to have women and children around at all times.
...The main obstacle to using all this information was the Pakistani president (Pervez Musharraf), an army general who did not want to anger the tribesmen by letting the Americans launch a lot of Hellfire missiles from their UAVs. Musharraf insisted on personally approving each Hellfire strike, and he did not approve very often. Musharraf lost his job two years ago. The U.S. and the new civilian Pakistani government agreed that it was now open season on al Qaeda. The new Pakistani government asked the Americans to be as discreet, and accurate, as possible, and then hunkered down for the public outrage over this American "attack on Pakistan." But in fact, the Hellfire attacks were killing men who were responsible for terrorist attacks that had killed thousands of Pakistanis.
And the Pakistanis know it. Do they like us whacking terrorists on their soil? Not much; even less do they like the terrorists and radical islamists who support them.

Both the above found at Insty

Among the consequences of the Government Motors bailout(i.e. 'buying union votes with other peoples money'),
GAO notes the complicated role played by the federal government, which guaranteed those pensions and now owns GM and Chrysler. GM and Chrysler bought union peace by overpromising pension benefits, knowing that the taxpayers stood behind those promises. Now what should the government do, take it out on the auto workers or hit the taxpayers to benefit the auto workers? Your elected officials will have little difficulty making this decision, invariably hitting future taxpayers to benefit favored constituents, like the auto workers.

The California Democratic Party has arbitrarily decreed that all the duly qualified primary election opponents of Sen. Barbara Boxer are not "viable"--and that therefore only Boxer will be allowed to speak to the state Democratic party convention.

"This is the natural reaction of a dying party machine. They don't want any debate at all," says Mickey Kaus, who is on the June 8 ballot as Boxer's opponent in the Democratic primary.

"It's a perfect illustration of why I'm running. Boxer and the machine don't want a discussion about the effects of an illegal immigrant amnesty on American wages. They don't want a debate on how public employee unions are bankrupting the state, or how teachers' unions have helped destroy the public school system.," he says.

"We intend to give it to them anyway."

"They must be very scared of anyone who brings up these issues. After all, voters might agree."


Lesson to the Stupid Party: the tea party people aren't automatically going to support you; you're going to have to earn it.
Update: just round this at Michelle Malkin:

The questioner, unfortunately, is a 9/11 Truther. Sigh. Well, even Truthers can expose real truths once in a blue moon…

Twitter reader Paul Stagg quips: “…so a crazy 9/11 truther has a better understanding of the Constitution than a congressman? I’m not really surprised.”

A lot of people have remarked on the latest idiocy/insult/bullshit that came out of Pelosi's mouth; I'm going to give you a polite version from Neoneocon:
What an oily, condescending, manipulative, lying piece of work she is. Referring to the HCR bill, Pelosi says:

It’s like the back of the refrigerator. You see all these wires and the rest. All you need to know is, you open the door. The light goes on.

I don’t mean to be anti-female, but Pelosi’s suggestion strikes me as something only a woman could have come up with. I have that attitude myself to most mechanical and/or electrical gadgetry and appliances, including computers: don’t tell me how it works, just make it work.

But for a supposed servant of the people to use such a metaphor to refer to a bill that affects us all in such important ways is outrageously and offensively paternalistic (or should I say “maternalistic?”) and flies in the face of what the relationship between the citizens and Congress in this country is meant to be.

Oh, for God's sake, this crap came from a science advisor?!?

On that note I must go hook my brain up to a charger. Or something. Damn.

No comments: