Progress in Iraq

On the ground in Fallujah, we've found one of the insurgency's major weapons caches and command centers. There was a short time when it appeared we had found sarin gas (labeled in German and Russian, no less), but it turns out to be a sarin gas test kit. This isn't exactly a smoking gun. On the other hand, the main reason for carrying a sarin gas test kit is because you expect to encounter sarin gas, and there's little reason for anyone to believe the U.S. would be using sarin. While the terrorists and their outposts are being cleaned up in Fallujah, Iraqi forces invaded a mosque in Baghdad, backed by U.S. Troops. Note the order of the wording - Iraqi forces invaded, U.S. Troops supported. I point this out because headlines like "U.S., Iraqi Troops Storm Baghdad Mosque" might give you the opposite impression. That link also has a good summary of the reasons for going into the mosque. Powerline has a letter from one of their readers detailing the response from local Iraqiis:

I just got of the phone with my father in Baghdad. I asked him what is the reaction of the Marine killing the injured Iraqi in the Mosque in Felujah. His first words were "Good riddance." People are not giving it a second thought. Any terrorist who attacks soldiers from Mosques has no sanctuary. Any terrorists who fake death to kill in a mosque deserve no mercy. He says Iraqis (including Sunnis) are fed up with the terrorists and want them eliminated... Please spread the message, let America Know that the Iraqis are with us, grateful and want us to stay strong and get stronger so that we can all defeat terrorism.

An update to this same story on Powerline references an op-ed piece at the Washington Times, defending the infamous video of a Marine shooting an injured combatant inside the mosque in Baghdad.

What I'm getting at, in this land of free speech and home of brave Marines, is my unequivocal belief that Marine X committed no "war crimes" in that fortified Fallujah mosque last week where he shot and killed a prone and wounded terrorist. He was just doing his job — his hellishly dangerous job — and thank God for him... "Enlightened" people everywhere are clucking — but not over the heinous execution of CARE's Margaret Hassan, the mutilated bodies found on Fallujah's streets, the beheading chamber discovered by U.S. soldiers, the Taliban-like decrees threatening death for Fallujah women who don't "cover," or the bomb-making workshops seized before creating more craters of carnage. They emote over the death of a terrorist dedicated to all of the above... "In a combat infantry soldier's training, he is always taught that his enemy is at his most dangerous when he is severely wounded," commented Charles Heyman, a senior analyst with Jane's Consultancy Group in Britain. And the jihadist enemy we find in Iraq — comrade in both faith and arms with the terrorists of Beslan, Bali, Jerusalem, Madrid, and Manhattan — are even more dangerous wounded than others. Some are rigged with suicide-belts to detonate in extremis. Boobytrapped corpses — a Judeo-Christian taboo Muslim jihadists overcome, I suspect, in their perverse belief that killing infidels on earth earns them virgins in paradise — are a common hazard in hotspots. Even one of our beheaded hostages in June, poor devil, was packed with explosives designed to detonate at an American soldier's touch. Who, among the global millions who have watched NBC's videotaped-shooting, realize that a comrade of the Marine in question was killed by a booby-trapped corpse the day before? That same corpse-bomb wounded five others in the unit. And who, among those same millions, realize that even as Marine X, NBC's global anti-hero, was shooting the enemy he suspected was playing possum, just a block away, another explosive-rigged corpse was killing another young Marine? In that split second of fear and indecision, our guy made the right call...

I think the point about a wounded enemy applies double here. Not only was the combatant wounded, but the organization he stands for is being dealt some mortal blows. It seems that whenever the media report our troops are actually, like, killing people, there's a mad rush of people who rush in complaining that we aren't following the Geneva Convention. This is pure hogwash. The Geneva Convention only applies to those countries -- countries mind you -- who sign on to it. Last I checked, neither al Qaeda nor the insurgents in Fallujah are a country. Furthermore, the articles of the Third Geneva Convention which are so often used as argument all refer to the treatment of prisoners after capture. No guarantees of humanitarianism are afforded those who are still fighting. Call me a Hawk, but in my mind disabling or killing enemy combatants is absolutely on-task to fighting a war. In this scenario, Marine X felt threatened, and had recent and frequent experience with other wounded or dead posing a serious and immediate threat to his well being. Make no mistake, we are winning the war. The eyewitness reports show that our soldiers get it, the Iraqi people get it, the insurgency gets it. Only our own press doesn't get it. Oh, and the French, of course.

French President Jacques Chirac says he is "not at all sure" the world has become safer with the removal from power of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. In a BBC interview, Mr Chirac suggested the situation in Iraq had helped to prompt an increase in terrorism. President Chirac also maintained that any intervention in Iraq should have been through the United Nations. "To a certain extent, Saddam Hussein's departure was a positive thing," Mr Chirac said when asked if the world was safer now, as US President George W Bush has repeatedly stated. "But it also provoked reactions, such as the mobilisation in a number of countries, of men and women of Islam, which has made the world more dangerous," he added.

"There's no doubt that there has been an increase in terrorism and one of the origins of that has been the situation in Iraq. "I'm not at all sure that one can say that the world is safer."

I just don't see how replacing throughly trained and indoctrinated terrorists with new green ones makes us less safe. Even a devout Muslim would require some amount of indoctrination to have the determination to blow themselves up, I would think. If there was no need for training, why did al Qaeda have so many training camps? On the other hand, if killing the terrorists in Iraq draws the already-present-but-waiting-for-orders terrorists from other countries in to join the fight, then our efforts in Iraq are working to make those other countries safer as well.

Veterans Day

As Tricia's youngest brother Chris is going on active duty this Saturday, on his way to Iraq, the President's proclamation for Veterans Day, 2004 couldn't be more fitting. I've included the entire proclamation here.

Veterans Day, 2004 By the President of the United States of America A Proclamation In Focus: Veterans Americans live in freedom because of our veterans' courage, dedication to duty, and love of country. On Veterans Day, we honor these brave men and women who have served in our Armed Forces and defended our Nation. Across America, there are more than 25 million veterans. Their ranks include generations of citizens who have risked their lives while serving in military conflicts, including World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, and the war on terror. They have fought for the security of our country and the peace of the world. They have defended our founding ideals, protected the innocent, and liberated the oppressed from tyranny and terror. They have known the hardships and the fears and the tragic losses of war. Our veterans know that in the harshest hours of conflict they serve just and honorable purposes. Through the years, our veterans have returned home from their duties to become active and responsible citizens in their communities, further contributing to the growth and development of our Nation. Their commitment to service inspires all Americans. With respect for and in recognition of the contributions our service men and women have made to the cause of peace and freedom around the world, the Congress has provided (5 U.S.C. 6103(a)) that November 11 of each year shall be set aside as a legal public holiday to honor veterans. NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim November 11, 2004, as Veterans Day and urge all Americans to observe November 7 through November 13, 2004, as National Veterans Awareness Week. I urge all Americans to recognize the valor and sacrifice of our veterans through ceremonies and prayers. I call upon Federal, State, and local officials to display the flag of the United States and to encourage and participate in patriotic activities in their communities. I invite civic and fraternal organizations, places of worship, schools, businesses, unions, and the media to support this national observance with commemorative expressions and programs. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ninth day of November, in the year of our Lord two thousand four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twenty-ninth. GEORGE W. BUSH

Hate as a political ideology

And no, I'm not talking about the Klu Klux Klan. The liberal elite seems to be beating a new drum - secession from the union. Read Secession from the Washington Times:

This dominant sentiment of the Democratic Party elite — that scores of millions of Americans are categorically unacceptable as fellow countrymen — is evidence of a cancer in the soul of that party. These Democrats, quite expressly, are asserting that "Christers," people who believe in the teachings of Jesus as described in the inerrant words of the Bible, are un-American, almost sub-human. Some of these Democrats would rather secede than stay in the same country with such people. If they were in the majority with no need to secede, what would they do? Their bigoted and absolutist view of religious people is at least a second cousin to the Nazi view of the Jews.

Somehow, vocal democrats from bloggers to the New York Times are just alright with the idea that it's better for the blue states to split off and form their own country than to stay in the same country with such backward-thinking people as voted in the majority in the last election. Powerline has a summary of several such points of view, here and here. They are so convinced their viewpoints are the only right ones they cannot fathom the idea they may have lost because they are in the minority. I've read more than one blog which sees the flood of red as a barometer of the cluelessness of "flyover country" (the red states between New York and Los Angeles). A perfect example is Barbra Streisand, who managed to offend both parties with her blog entry of a November 8. Michelle Malkin dissects the flaws in her logic, and also links to several other pages with more info. I am continuously amazed at how much credence is given to the opinions of both reporters and Hollywood personalities, without regard to their credibility. (I use the words credence and credibility together intentionally.) I haven't uploaded images here until now, but I feel these deserve some special treatment. The first is the image Michael Moore posted on his website November 3. This is a photomosaic of all the American soldiers killed in combat in Iraq. Moore intended this to be a slam on our President, but much of the blogosphere has taken this instead to be a tribute to our soldiers and their Commander-in-Chief. The next is the response, composited from pictures of some other Americans from a slightly different camera angle. The third is a retread from the 2000 elections which seems to apply more now than ever before.

Sweet victory and sour grapes

It's a huge load off my mind knowing that the election is over, and without major litigation. To be sure, there were some tense moments. In the end, Kerry behaved like a gentleman (apparently learning some lessons from Mr. "I used to be President-Elect" Gore). I found it amazing that Kerry still had the nerve to mention the 6-year-old child who gave money to his campaign in his concession speech. Doesn't Kerry realize it's illegal to accept money from a minor? The most liberal parts of the mainstream media seem to be scrambling to figure out where they went wrong. At least some parts of the blogosphere seem to be "getting it" about the reason one party wins and another doesn't. Hint: it has nothing to do with a Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.

I've sat through aproximately 8 zillion heated conversations about how the reason libertarians don't have more power is that the electoral system is stacked against us, when it's crystal clear to me that the reason we don't have more power is that a clear majority of Americans don't agree with us.

I heard second hand that some of the commentators on CNN and MSNBC were talking about what the Democrats will have to do to reconnect with moral values to win the next election. I think the same mental disconnect is happening here as with the VRWC nuts - that disconnect being the assumption that everyone thinks like them. I hate to tell them, but with +51% of the country voting one way, that puts the MSM right splat in the minority. (Republican employees of the big networks are regularly told "you should be working for Fox" according to Powerline). Some of the MSM seem concerned that with a clear mandate, President Bush will "push the Republican agenda". Apart from the question of whether a Republican agenda is a good thing or a bad thing, when you've got over 51% of the popular vote (the highest popular percentage in history), how exactly is that going against the will of the people? Of course the President should see it as a mandate, because that's exactly what it was! Part of the media scramble is to figure out what went wrong with their exit polling. Powerline posts one theory then dispells it with something more realistic. To my way of thinking, the most damning argument against exit polls is the way the actual vote is tabulated. If it was reasonably accurate to take a sampling of the voters by any of the methods used by thousands of pollsters, we would certainly be looking at this method for the next election. The fact is that a sample is only accurate to within a margin of error, and even then the error can be magnified by factors not considered before taking the poll. In short, if exit polls worked, we wouldn't need a full ballot. Between both the media's spin on things and the problems this year with removal of Bush/Cheney signs, it seems to me that the left has gone too far, supporting free speech only as much as it supports their candidate. Even here in red-state Indiana, someone had removed the Bush/Cheney sign on the curb by our polling place. I fail to see how that helps the Kerry/Edwards cause one iota - might someone forget their names and vote the other way? A posted comment on Michael Moore's site said something to the effect of "when I look at all the red states, I realize I'm trapped in a country of idiots". (I wish I could find the page now.) So much for Patrick Henry's "I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it." Blaming the voters won't get you any closer, in any case. Logic Times has an in-depth analysis of double-standards in the reporting of red and blue states last night. Blaming this phenomenon on bias would require the ability to read minds, but that seems like a likely possibility. Profit may be another - would a news network intentionally delay announcing the ending just so they could hang onto their viewers as long as the other networks? Michelle Malkin seems to be getting a bit peeved with the new rhetoric taking the place of the pre-election rhetoric. My favorite line is the last:

Yes, the country is divided. Divided between gracious winners and mud-slinging, hypocritical whiners who have nothing else to do now but point to their emotional boo-boos and decry the dirtiness of politics.

It is also interesting how many of the so-called "campaign issues" advanced by the Democrats have now evaporated. If President Bush had really alienated so many countries, why would the leaders of these countries now be so quick to praise, not denounce, the election outcome? France and Germany jumped on this ship without much prompting:

French President Jacques Chirac, a strong opponent of the US-led war in Iraq, expressed hope that Bush's second term "will provide an opportunity to reinforce France-American friendship" and the transatlantic partnership.

"On behalf of France, and on my personal behalf, I would like to express to you my most sincere congratulations for your re-election to the presidency of the United States of America," Chirac wrote in a letter to Bush. "I hope that your second term will provide an opportunity to reinforce the Franco-American friendship."

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who also clashed with Bush over Iraq, voiced hope that his country would continue its "good cooperation" with the United States.

As did Egypt, where we are seeing the population find their voices to speak out for a more democratic government. Russia's Putin even called Bush's reelection "a victory over terrorism". After all this, a few things are clearer to me now than at the start of this election:

• Most voters and news consumers are willing to be spoon-fed the facts as presented by the MSM without questioning it.
• The networks have learned this and, intentionally or not, are taking advantage of it to affect perceptions.
• Blogs have become an important part of a well-rounded news diet. Without a critical examination of the story as presented, it's too easy to believe lies.
• When selecting news sources, it's important to include some sources with which you don't agree. Listening only to people you agree with is one of the factors that gave us Dan Rather and most of the MSM movers and shakers.
• Always remember that you are one of the people who can be fooled some of the time. (Hopefully not all the time.) Actively searching for arguments against your own beliefs can be an intensely educational process, and just might save you from holding forth on something that sounds plausible but might turn out to be false. If nothing else, it will give you lots of information to blog about.

The count by county

Michelle Malkin discovered some maps at USA Today which show the red/blue map by county rather than state. You can view both the 2000 and 2004 maps. 2004 is still incomplete, but I expect it will be updated soon. On the one hand, this doesn't take into account population, so it can't be used to extrapolate the vote. On the other hand, notice where all the blue counties are, especially in states that went blue like California, Oregon, Washington. Maybe this isn't news to anyone else, but I find it striking how much of the Democrats vote comes from big cities, and how few rural areas vote Democrat. It appears the only states where more than half of counties voted Democrat are in the New England area: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and these three states are completely blue in 2000. I wonder if any Dems are nervous that the GOP seems to have picked up a county in Connecticut this year? Also interesting that the New York Times shows 100% of counties in Iowa counted, but still won't call it for Bush, and yet was able to call Maine for Kerry with 95% of precincts tallied and still enough open votes for Bush to win. Rumor has it that the outstanding precincts tend Republican. Perhaps there's a rational reason for this, but it looks to me as if they're trying to give Bush a win without showing any more votes in the Electoral College than they have to.

Some light reading

As you're waiting for polls to close, you can review this very extensive review of the Kerry campaign by A Large Regular. This is a very comprehensive review, with full references back to new stories. Show it to your favorite liberal and ask them to explain the flip flops.

One more quickie

I couldn't resist posting this link from ScrappleFace. In case you're not familiar with them, they post fake news releases closely tied to the news of the day. This one's a day or two old, but very relevent. Read it and weep (with laughter) at Bush Admits He's Hiding Bad News.

Kerry protecting the democratic process?

This quote from an AP news story really gets to me:

"I expect this election is going to be decided Tuesday night," Kerry told The Associated Press on Sunday, "but, given experience, I would be irresponsible if I wasn't prepared to be able to protect every person's right to vote."

If we take this statement at face value, it sounds like he intends to jump in to ensure the votes for all parties are counted equally. I guess he's been too busy campaigning to protect the rights of the Bush supporters who were taunted and harrassed while waiting to vote, or to speak out against the gauntlets of Kerry supporters who were all but blockading at some polling places. Am I supposed to be comforted that Kerry is calling into question the integrity of the very system he expects to elect him to the highest office in the land?

Income tax statistics

It's probably too late for this to factor into anyone's voting decisions, but I just learned some shocking statistics about income taxes in this country. According to the IRS, the top 50% of wage earners pay over 96% of all income tax in the U.S. while earning about 86% of the income. This top 50% represents families earning $26,000 or more. The top 5% of wage earners (income over $296,000) pay a little over 53% of all income tax but earn only 32% of the income. I haven't found a link back to the IRS document - this is all from Rush Limbaugh's site. Rush extrapolates that the top 1% of wage earners (together) pay more than ten times as much as the bottom 50% together! This puts a different face on Kerry's proposal to increase taxes for the top 2% of wage earners. It's not as if these folks aren't carrying their share of the load. How much can you really expect to tax these people without impeding growth and success? What kind of incentive does this give a small business owner to climb to the next tax bracket?