Friday, April 04, 2003

He Shoulda Said ...

I caught an interview with Gen. Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Fox "News" yesterday. The Fox talking head (far as I'm concerned, they're almost all identical) asked a question to the effect of "Sen. Bob Kerrey, a Democrat who wants to be President, for cry'n out loud, said that we need 'regime change at home'. Should this kind of irresponsible statement be allowed In Time Of War? Isn't this irresponsible when Our Troops Are At Risk?"

Myers responded with about three minutes of Beltway doubletalk that translated as "    ".

Unfortunately, the tendency toward public doubletalk is ingrained in the folks at the policy level. Basically, you know that anything you say will be used against you later, so you say as little as humanly possible, while making it as difficult as possible for the questioner to break in with a question, like "Hunh??"

What he should have said:

So you're saying we should cancel the 2004 Presidential election? Or that Democrats shouldn't be allowed to campaign? What he said was, essentially, that a Democrat should win the 2004 election. Do you really expect a Democrat to say anything else? Politics in the US is conducted at a high volume; get used to it.

Remember, we're fighting for freedom of speech and free elections. There's no reason to give up our most fundamental feedoms because we're actively fighting for them for the Iraqi people.

Also, I find your implication that our fighting men and women would allow their performance to be affected by legitimate, peaceful protests to be the single most disrespectful statement I've heard in a long time. Saying that our troops will not perform at their peak levels because of a few protests impugns their character, intelligence, and professionalism. It's worse than the people who scream "baby killer!" at our troops. That's just an insult, and says more about their own anger and ignorance than anything else.

Too much to hope, I guess.

Monday, March 31, 2003

War Sites

I've added an extra link block over on the right for useful war sites. Problem is, there are a bazillion sites talking about the war (including this one!), and it's hard to figure out where to look for information. The sites here, I think, are a good starting place. Most of the usefiul stuff, of course, is in the links. The information comes from "conventional" media sites, but those sites are so poorly organized that it's almost impossible to figure out what is going on without spending a huge amount of time digging.

  • Sean Paul Kelly (The Agonist) -- Grand Central Station. News as it happens, at least as long as Sean can stay awake. He makes a real effort to simply digest and report, without slant. IMHO, he does a darn sight better job than the conventional media. (Note -- this site is extremely popular. This link points to one of the mirror sites.)
  • Kos -- Thoughtful, in depth analysis and discussion of various points, especially logistics. Center/left politics.
  • Sgt. Stryker's Daily Briefing -- A military point of view. Again, people who know what they're talking about, without too much political baggage. Politics, what there is, is middle-of-the-road military.

These sites have comment sections that are very much worth the effort to check out. All have a policy of throwing out dribbling loons of all political stripes; sadly necessary.

Enough with the Omens, Already!

Okay. We've had the biggest snowstorm in many years. Iraq had its biggest sandstorm ever. We have a brand-new plague. Chicago got hit by a meteorite. And to top it all off, today the temperature in the Washington,DC area was in the mid 60s, with snow flurries.

Awright, already! Enough with the omens! We get the idea -- we know this war is a bad idea. Now how about some hints about what to do about it?

What to look for? Bird carrying a snake? Plague of frogs? Rooster crowing at midnight?

How about a burning bush ... ?

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by