lg colloquium

Syria pwned.

2007-10-06T17:37:00.000-04:00

Assuming the information in this article is accurate, Israel did more than attack Syria: it also sent a message to Tehran.

OpFor:

Ahhh makes me think of Patton: "Fixed fortifications are monuments to the stupidity of man." Integrated anti-air defenses haven't really been all that effective since the Vietnam era, and I'm starting to think that they're obsolete technology.

They're talking about this article in Aviation Week:

The big mystery of the strike is how did the non-stealthy F-15s and F-16s get through the Syrian air defense radars without being detected? Some U.S. officials say they have the answer.
U.S. aerospace industry and retired military officials indicated today that a technology like the U.S.-developed “Suter” airborne network attack system developed by BAE Systems and integrated into U.S. unmanned aircraft by L-3 Communications was used by the Israelis. The system has been used or at least tested operationally in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last year.
The technology allows users to invade communications networks, see what enemy sensors see and even take over as systems administrator so sensors can be manipulated into positions so that approaching aircraft can’t be seen, they say. The process involves locating enemy emitters with great precision and then directing data streams into them that can include false targets and misleading messages algorithms that allow a number of activities including control.
A Kuwaiti newspaper wrote that "Russian experts are studying why the two state-of-the art Russian-built radar systems in Syria did not detect the Israeli jets entering Syrian territory. Iran reportedly has asked the same question, since it is buying the same systems and might have paid for the Syrian acquisitions."

No kidding. I'll bet the Iranian regime thugs are crapping their pants, and the Russians too. "The process involves locating enemy emitters with great precision and then directing data streams into them that can include false targets and misleading messages algorithms that allow a number of activities including control." Sounds like Star Trek stuff, don't it?

The system in question is thought to be the new Tor-M1 launchers which carries eight missiles as well as two of the Pachora-2A system. Iran bought 29 of the Tor launchers from Russia for $750 million to guard its nuclear sites,

and I'll bet they want their money back. Oh well. Caveat emperor, or whatever.

Debka seems to believe there's a dirty bomb in the works. For whatever it's worth (and yeah, I know, it's Debka, the guys who breathlessly reported a nonexistent Turkish-Iraqi war last summer), their latest DNW [paid subscription service] claims:

Iran, Syria and North Korea are believed to be the first nations in history to have acquired dirty bombs as operational weapons, stowing their main stock in northern Syria. This discovery has injected fresh urgency into the Bush administration’s approach to the nuclear issue. Policy-makers have been running around in circles for a strategy and options to scotch the new threat at source.

The Sept. 6 air strike over Syria was the first result; it also carried a warning to Tehran, Pyongyang and Damascus that they had better hurry up and do away with any stocks of such weapons they may have or else incur the treatment meted out to Damascus at its “agricultural research center.”

Syria was targeted for the air strike both as the hiding place of the bulk of the RDD stock and because there is no way its presence could be hidden unbeknownst to the ruler. The buck clearly stopped at the presidential palace in Damascus. No one therefore believed President Bashar Assad’s hasty message to Washington through undercover back doors denying he had any personal knowledge of the nefarious operation at the Beir al Harj site and had ordered it investigated.
I'm not going to excerpt any more lest I bring down the wrath of the Debka Copyright Mossad, but you get the idea.

Anyway, that about sums it up. So who do you think is gonna win this thing - the guys who can barely manage to put their toxic waste on a rocket or plane, or the guys who can "include false targets and misleading messages algorithms that allow a number of activities including control"?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Mad In America

2007-07-03T18:09:00.001-04:00

"They keep sending our jobs away."

Here's a great song from the brother of an old friend of mine.

Troubled by the rising tied of offshoring around the country musician and CSEA Local 2001 member Steve Dube put pen to paper and wrote an anthem called “Mad in America” for his band ETX.

[Dube]: The song was written as a protest basically, just because of all of the engineering and IT jobs going away.

Dube is now trying to bring that protest via song to music lovers everywhere by landing on ITunes top 100 on July 4. How? Dube is calling on everyone to log into their ITunes player on the Independence Day holiday and download the song. If enough people do it, the song should hypothetically find a place among the Avril Lavignes and Fall Out Boys of the world.

[Dube2]: We’d like to just get a grassroots effort going where the song could become like an anthem for American workers just to show Washington in an election year that we don’t want the middle class to go away and we want jobs in the United States.

I've just downloaded the song to iTunes and I can personally and enthusiastically recommend it. "Mad in America" raises important questions about globalization and the outsourcing of American jobs. And it's a great song, too.

My friend Chuck comes from a family of patriots and is also a musician, having performed with Leigh Gregory. Go have a listen to Mad in America by ETx - and you can download the whole thing for just 99 cents.

Memorial Day

2007-05-27T21:52:00.000-04:00

The day that America has set aside to commemorate our fallen warriors is upon us. To those who have given the ultimate sacrifice for our country and the world I can not adequetely express our gratitude. For the widows and orphans I don't have the eloquence to properly console. I can only ask that my fellow citizens take one day to properly honor those who have fallen. Be respectful of the soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen who have laid down their lives so that you can enjoy your life, and don't use it in an attempt to make political points.

Israel, the Palestinians, and the Cyber-Donks (Part One)

2007-05-10T15:27:00.000-04:00

Yesterday Charles Johnson linked to a Daily Kos diary in which the diarist – an Israeli - calls it quits, with one of the best door-slammer endings ever: “I came to this site with Leftist Zionist Environmentalist Pro-Peace ideology (Meretz style). I leave it with a heavy doubt of the entire ‘Progressive’ ideology, morals and goals.”

I briefly skimmed the comments to this diary and something caught my eye. I don’t usually read the comments at Kos, partly because the signature lines tend to be longer than the comments and it is very annoying to be subjected to the same tag-line slogan over and over. But what caught my eye was this:

“Israel/Palestine is not a germane topic for this site to begin with. The Kos himself has said so many times, and I agree with him. … It's been said here many times - it is a THIRD RAIL that blogsites touch at their peril. Kos blocks diaries that try to bring this topic up … Pro-Israel and Pro-Palestinian arguments HAVE NO PLACE HERE. Most people here, frankly, are not interested in discussing this chronically intractable subject.”

It’s a stunning admission for “progressives” who claim to speak credibly on world events to say that they are not interested in talking about Israel and the Palestinians. Besides being a salient feature of the international landscape, it is a very important part of American political culture – the culture that the progs are trying to harness and ride for a saddle-pony. The comment claims that “The Kos himself” tries to steer Kos away from such discussion, even to the point of deletion. And I found that very strange.

I already knew, as most people who read the blogs know, that one does not turn to the left for detailed discussion of Israel and the Palestinians. As the departing Kos diarist noted, there are an unnerving number of people over there who seem to assume that Noam Chomsky has said the last word on the subject. Still, the left has articulated lots of pro-Israeli - and even pro-Zionist - opinion in the past. For many decades there has been a lot of left and center-left interest in a positive future for Israel, so why does it suddenly and emphatically HAVE NO PLACE HERE? And above all, SAYS WHO?

More to come.

Civics 101: The Logan Act

2007-04-09T22:11:00.000-04:00

Should our elected representatives know where their authority begins and ends, or does that only apply to Republicans?

I know, rhetorical question, but humor me.

Today I stumbled upon and article written by Robert Turner that was published by OpinionJournal.com. In the article, Mr. Turner asks the question, "Did Nancy Pelosi commit a felony when she went to Syria?"

The answer is, yes, she did.

He goes on to inform the reader about the history and reasons behind the Logan Act, the very law Nancy Pelosi broke.

In our litigious society, that is also keen on making excuses for law-breakers when it suits their world view, the press, democrats, and sadly the current administration are all looking the other way in an effort to avoid the hot potato issue that is burning a hole in the carpet of our political society.

First question. Did she knowingly break the law? We are often instructed and reminded that ignorance of the law is no excuse, and as a "law maker" she should know the law, or at the very least, be informed about the law by her staff or do her own homework.

Mr. Turner goes on to explain the non-to-subtle difference between the perfectly legal "fact finding mission" and what she did... actively carrying out foriegn policy discussion (negotiations) without permission of the Executive branch of our government (i.e. President Bush's permission/blessing) and making a royal mess of it. I guess Nancy is so used to being able to manipulate public opinion and having her "world view" blessed and accepted by the press and her supporters, that she must have thought she could do the same with the Israeli Prime Minister and Syrian President Assad.

Second question. Will this administration refer the matter to the Attorney General for investigation? Somehow I doubt it. And I doubt the press will make an issue of it either, unless of course the matter is refered and then it will be deemed a retalliatory witch hunt (at least they will get the witch part right). I doubt anyone that reads this blog will be surprised by any of this either.

I'm wondering when will the Republicans grow a set and do what is right regardless of how it looks; politics be damned. When a federal law has been broken by an elected member of the US Congress we should not look the other way, especially when that representative made the promise to oversee the most ethical US congress in history. So far the democrats have a dismal record and we haven't even gotten through their first year in office. Representative Steele's freezer money, Feinstein's conflict of interest that dwarfs any allegations of wrong-doing on the part of Haliburton, Delay, Chenney, Gingrich, and Abramoff combined. But the press isn't interested because the parties involved have a "D" after their names.

Well, you learn something new every day. At least I did, but I don't think the press is capable of learning anything new, least ways not until they take off their blinders.

The War Within and the War Without

2007-03-05T02:02:00.000-05:00

We are at war. Our enemies are within and without. Without, we have the global islamic jihad against Western Civilization. Within, we have the traitors on the left........
http://herbertsobel.blogspot.com/2007/03/war-within-and-war-without.html

Torture By Any Other Name...

2007-02-26T20:41:00.000-05:00

What is torture? Or should I ask, what would you classify as torture?

If you ask Eric Fair, torture is:

Depriving a detainee of sleep during a 12 hour shift by opening his cell door every hour.
Forcing the detainee to stand in a corner.
Stripping a detainee of his clothes.

Hum... this is torturing someone. Oh, and I guess I should mention this "abuse" or should I say "these horrors" were inflicted upon a suspected Baathist party member and associate of Khamis Sirhan al-Muhammad, the Baath Party leader in Anbar province, and not some unsuspecting innocent by-stander civilian Iraqi.

Oh the horror of it all.

Eric states he has nightmares and visitations from this man whom he "tortured" and that he (Eric) cannot forgive himself for having... "failed to protect a prisoner in my custody, and to uphold the standards of human decency." He goes on, "I intimidated, degraded and humiliated a man who could not defend himself."

Let us pause for a moment and ask ourselves a few questions. When did the above become equated with torture? When did the above become an example of exceeding the bounds or standards of human decency? When did this man, and anyone that of similar disposition, become such candy-assed girly-men? What the hell is wrong with this picture?

Let us attempt to gain some perspective, shall we.

The men in question were and are very much involved with the insurgency, and at the very least were part of Saddam's ruling class; a ruling class that inflicted real torture on the people of Iraq. Anyone remember the home movies Saddam took of the tortures he and his elite inflicted on the populace including: cutting out tongues, beatings, tossing people off buildings, putting people though a plastic shredder, raping and maiming the women and children of those who went against him or merely offended him; hell, just because he could do it and it would scare the rest of the populace into submission?

Okay, anyone remember what the Marines who liberated Fallujah found in some of the buildings they entered? Anyone remember people chained to walls, beaten, starved, deprived of water or basic hygiene (bathroom facilities), given no treatment for the cuts and trauma their captors inficted on them, and who were left to die? Why were they treated so badly? Because the jihadis wanted to keep the population of Fallujah in line, to punish those who did not go along with them, and just because they are sadistic fascist who get off on inflicting pain and suffering on others.

Did America, as this man who has nightmarish visitations, violate the Geneva Convention? Were the detainees deprived food, water, or the "facilities?" No, they were embarrassed and forced to stand naked in cold cells all night. Their "severe" treatment, which did not equate to 3 hots and a cot, this inhuman treatment, reduced our enemy (who has vowed to kill every last one of us) to pleas of help from their captors because they were cold and naked, and sleepy. Hell, Seals endure a week of this sort of stuff during Hell Week don't they? Again, let's get a healty dose of perspective here. As I recall, jihadi captors ignored the pleas of many of their "detainees" (kidnap victims) to not kill them. Nope, they didn't embarass them or make them stand naked and shivering all night long, nope, they raped the women, beat the men, then brutally chop, hack, saw and otherwise remove their heads from their bodies... while the video cameras rolled.

Torture... I'll let you be the judge. As for me, I think Eric needs to grow a set, grow up, get some help for his emotional problems, and stop whining.

Is it any wonder our enemy thinks we are weak?

Lessons Not Learned... A 60's Redux

2007-02-16T19:37:00.000-05:00

Today, in an unsurprising move, the US House of Representatives passed their "resolution" against the war in Iraq. I'm quite sure they are all busily patting each other and themselves on the back over this bold step of sending a message to President Bush and the evil Karl Rove, but in true ingorance they've missed the point entirely. The they have sent message to:

To our enemy (Islamofacists, jihadis, haters of freedom in this country who lend sympathy and direct support to our enemies) that the US Congress is ready to cut and run, and had them a victory they cannot win by any other means.
To our BRAVE, Heroic, and Self-sacrificing troops, that they cannot count on the US Congress to back them. That they are turning them and their fight, into another Vietnam in the same way that the US Congress, and Democrats did in the 60's (by under funding and undermining our troops in everyway possible, and turning them into political pawns and poryias in civilian society).
To President Bush that he'll have just ignore them and exercise his Presidential powers through Executive Orders (the way Bill Clinton did during his two terms).

The forces of revolution and anarchy that tore this country apart in the 60's are at work now, and most of them have gotten themselves elected to public office.

Be careful America. While what they say may sound good and right, just, and sensible, many who joined the White Knights of the KKK were deceived into thinking they were joining a patriotic, God-fearing, law-abiding organization that was going to make American a stronger, and a better place to live. After reading the literature the Klan put out during that time, I can see why they believed it was a good thing, but what they said was a far cry from what they actually did and who they really were. Just look at what the Klan did, and at how many people were deceived, killed, threatened, and had their lives destroyed behind the rhetoric. Actions do speak louder than words, and those in charge, the force and brains behind the Klan were far more dangerous and interested in ceasing power and keeping it, than they were in making America a better and stronger place to live.

All that glitters is not gold. Socialism was not the answer in Eastern Europe and Russian, and it won't be the answer here. Beware of Greeks bearing gifts, but be especially cautions of Democrats (and Repubilicans) bearing anti-war resolutions.

Sic Semper Tyrannus, Baby

2006-12-30T15:58:00.000-05:00

Our public intellectuals are struggling to explain Saddam’s demise to us folks in the bleachers. This is important to them, because they think that we believe everything they tell us.

Historical parallels with Nuremberg have been suggested. But Saddam’s situation was nothing like that of the Nuremberg defendants. They were tried by a multinational court (not an international court as it is often miscalled) which employed unique and unprecedented legal procedures. The Soviet members of that court were unabashedly prejudiced against the defendants, and voted to convict and execute nearly all of them – they even insisted on charging them with a crime the Soviets themselves had committed: the Katyn Forest Massacre. (Much to the annoyance of our gallant Soviet allies, the Nuremberg defendants were exonerated on that particular charge.)

Saddam, on the other hand, was convicted of pure and simple murder by a national court of his own countrymen. Although it is characterized as a “war crime” or a “crime against humanity”, those terms are mostly rhetorical. These abstract definitions were introduced by Nuremberg in order to establish an unusual culpability, but they were unnecessary in Saddam’s case. Saddam was convicted of the murder of specific people, for which he was directly responsible. No one can claim he was subjected to any kind of “Victor’s Justice”.

What makes Saddam’s case unusual is that a dictator was deposed, tried in a court of law by his own people, and humanely executed. This is far from being typical. Most fallen dictators escape into exile; if they are captured, they are dealt with in a summary and often brutal fashion. Mussolini and Ceausescu were shot after being sentenced by tribunals that convened just long enough to pronounce the death sentence.

Slobodan Milosevic was not a dictator of Saddam’s stature, but his fate was exactly what some liberals would have awarded to Saddam. He was trundled through an international trial at the Hague, which was magnificently bungled, and finally died in custody. Until the day they die, his partisans will believe that he was murdered in prison, just as Napoleon’s followers did. Just as radical leftists believed that the Baader-Meinhof terrorists were murdered in prison. There’s a lesson in that, boys and girls. You don’t get a single iota of credit from the enemy for coddling their heroes. Unless we had figured out a way to make Saddam Hussein live forever, we’d get blamed for killing him anyway.

Unfortunately, the most typical career trajectory of all for a dictator is this: kill your enemies, loot your country, bask in the absurd flattery of your foreign apologists, and die in your bed at a ripe old age. The number of dictators who manage to do this is obscene.

When historians look back on us, they won’t be shocked at the one dictator that got hanged, but at the scores of them that weren’t. How, they will ask, could we believe that the life of one brutal man is worth more than the life of an entire nation - decimated, enslaved, and robbed of decades of normal human existence? Could there be a greater crime than inflicting the living death of totalitarianism on millions of people?

Tyranny, lay thy foundations sure, for goodness dare not check thee – but maybe the times are changing.

Saddam to Die Soon

2006-12-29T13:18:00.000-05:00

Mohammed at Iraq the Model:

Year 2007 will definitely be without Saddam walking on the ground….
It's very imminent now and might become a fact at any minute.
The situation in Baghdad is tense now and US and Iraqi forces are heavily deployed on the streets.

We're hearing and reading more confirmations that US military has already turned Saddam in to the Iraqi authorities and I don't think the government is willing, or able, to keep him in custody for too long. ...

Go to ITM for the rest, with updates.

Why it matters:
The Iraqi Holocaust

The Best Man We Never Elected

2006-12-27T14:09:00.000-05:00

As a boy, I remember hearing adults make this "joke" several times: "You know, I don't know how that guy got to be president, because I've never met anybody who voted for him."

They were talking, of course, about Gerald Ford. They took a lot of cheap shots at Ford. He was clumsy, he was dumb, he was boring. His critics presumed themselves to be intelligent and adroit, I suppose, even when they were disgracing themselves and their country. They replaced him with Jimmy Carter, which is surely one of the dumbest fall-on-your-butt blunders that a free nation has ever made. God protect us from the intelligent people, because they won't be happy until they get us all killed.

Gerald Ford was a good man who faithfully served his country in war and in peace. He was never elected to the highest office he held, but he never demeaned or besmirched that office - not while he held it, not for as long as he lived. He was a major public figure for 40 years of tumult and controversy, and it's remarkable how few bad things people can say about him now. That has to be one of the most graceful performances in American history. Go with God, Mr. President.

THE GREATEST STORIES EVER TOLD: HOW TO LIE ABOUT CHRISTMAS

2006-12-27T02:47:00.000-05:00

So, how was your Christmas? Tired of hearing that? Tired of explaining how the cat climbed the Christmas tree and knocked it over on top of your aunt, and how the kids poured the punch bowl down the laundry chute? If people insist on sticking their noses into your Christmas business, pick one of the following lies and see if they ever ask you about your holiday again.

An old friend you haven’t heard from in years invites you to spend Christmas with him, on his 200-foot yacht anchored off the Florida Keys. He’s a major investment broker and all of his best clients are on board for the holiday, including Nicole Kidman, Richard Petty, and the Beach Boys. The Braes of Glenlivet send a boatload of French Oak Reserve as a Christmas present.

The party is so great that people from the Keys try to swim out to the ship, but a nasty rip current keeps the crashers at bay. You see Katie Couric clinging to a lounge chair, just before a freakish three foot swell hurls her back onto the beach.

On Christmas morning you are awakened by the Coast Guard, who are responding to noise complaints from the US Naval Station at Guantanamo. Fortunately, the anchor cable parted during the festivities and the yacht has drifted out past the three-mile limit. Unable to arrest you, the Coast Guard joins the party.

On the way back, the Coast Guard offers to race you with their cutter. Your friend has had so much to drink that he’s sneezing Egg Nog, and when he declines the Coast Guard makes chicken-clucking noises at you. So you take the helm, and totally make that cutter eat your wake.

You were just about to sit down to turkey and cranberry sauce with the whole family, when you get an urgent call from your best buddy. He’s been trying to repossess Burt Reynolds’ car for six weeks with no luck, and the finance company has been slam-dancing on his butt. He’s finally located the car, parked in front of Burt’s lawyer’s house in Oakland. He wants you to drive him out there so he can nab it. He knows it’s Christmas Eve and he wouldn’t ask if you weren’t such a great friend, but damn it, he needs you.

So you and your friend head out to Oakland in your Dodge Viper. Sure enough, there’s the lawyer’s house and there’s the car: a twelve-cylinder Pagani Zonda. Even before the car comes into view you can smell the analine leather interior, and see the bottle-fly green paint job reflected in the night sky like the Aurora Borealis.

Unfortunately, there’s lots of other cars parked there, too, and an under-strength platoon of bodyguards are walking around with MAC-10 submachine guns in full view. “Don’t worry,” your friend assures you. “We’ll do this fast. Just follow me. No matter what happens or where I go, just stay on my tail lights.”

Your friend rolls out in the alleyway and jacks that Pagani right out from under their noses. As he speeds away and you pull out to follow, you can see the security guys piling into their Cadillacs, which you figure are probably armored and relatively slow. As long as you stick to the upscale residential areas they won’t be able to shoot at you very much.

So you head south out of Oakland faster than a raped ape, and you start getting the idea that the Pagani is a little too much for your friend to handle, because he's bobbing and weaving all over the road. (Later you will learn that he had to break off the wheel to jack the car, and he's trying to steer it with a pair of Vise-Grips.) Finally he misses a curve completely and goes tear-assing right through somebody's huge Christmas display. You ramp the curb and follow him, figuring that he did it on purpose to throw off your pursuers. So now you're crashing through a fake Winter Wonderland, dragging strings of lights and the lower torso of Frosty the Snowman behind you, when a life-size Santa sleigh with all twelve reindeer looms in front of you. Guiding the sleigh is a kangaroo with a blinking red Rudolph nose. You figure it's just plastic, and it's too late to swerve anyway, so you punch it.

Big mistake. The damn thing is mounted on a steel and concrete framework. You ramp five feet into the air as your undercarriage is shredded like cheese in a grater right under your butt. When you come down again all four of your tires are flat, so you sled along in the grass until enough turf piles up to bring you to a stop, leaving a forty-foot smoldering trail of oil and transmission fluid behind you.

You friend doubles back and scoops you up. Shaking the last of your pursuers, you finally roll into the repo yard, where an angry confrontation ensues between your friend, the finance company, the Alameda County Sheriff's Department, and - for some reason - Mel Gibson's groundskeeper.

Just as there seems to be no hope for Peace on Earth, in walks Burt Reynolds. Burt takes full responsibility for the entire incident, apologizes to the finance company for falling behind on the payments, and he writes them out a fat check right then and there. He also promises to buy you a new Dodge Viper.

"Merry Christmas, everybody," Burt Reynolds says.

"God bless us, every one," you add, and the guys from the finance company start crying.

You all pile into the Pagani and head to Union City for pancakes. You get pulled over three times on the way, and Burt Reynolds talks the Chips out of giving you a ticket every single time.

It's Christmas Eve and your relatives are due to arrive any minute, so your wife dispatches you on an emergency run for last-minute relative supplies: deodorant, Kaopectate, beer, and cheap Frothy Sputum champagne. But on the way home, while you're waiting at a stop light, two guys run out into traffic and jump into the back of your Buick. One of them sticks a gun in your ear and says, "Drive!"

You quickly calculate that you can't unbuckle your seat belt and kick their butts before they shoot you, so you drive. As you head down the road, they explain the situation to you. They are contract agents for the CIA. Top Secret intercepts have just revealed that former President Jimmy Carter is a commie-terrorist spy. They apologize and promise that they will not expose you to any more danger than is absolutely necessary, but national security demands that they commandeer you and your vehicle to drive them to Atlanta, Georgia. They have to watergate the Jimmy Carter Library and secure vital evidence.

So you drive all night to Atlanta, singing Handel's Messiah, with the CIA guys backing you up on the chorus parts. You know you sound really great, too, because everybody you pass is honking and blinking their lights at you. The beer runs out on the wrong side of the Mason-Dixon line, but miraculously you find a liquor store in Georgia that's open. This reminds you of the very first Christmas, when Joseph managed to find an open manger in Bethlehem. It's like history repeating itself.

A few hours before dawn you reach the Jimmy Carter Library, which looks like a UFO that crash-landed on a Greek ruin. Security is totally pathetic and you easily breach the north perimeter of the compound. Your target is the Arafat Microfiche Vault on the lower level, so one of the CIA agents kicks in a basement window with his cowboy boots and you're in like Flynn. Everything is going according to plan until you turn a corner and run face-first into a totally naked woman, who starts screaming her enormous lungs out.

As luck would have it, the General Reference staff is having an unauthorized Christmas party on the premises, complete with strippers and a brass band in Santa suits. Fortunately the CIA has professional expertise in these matters, and the agents quickly figure out a way to turn this unexpected setback to your advantage. They explain to the naked woman that the three of you are also festive librarians, who just ran out to get more Frothy Sputum. You infiltrate the party for the next several hours, while the CIA guys stuff microfiche into empty champagne cases.

As you're trying to find your car the next day, who should you run into but Jimmy Carter! Carter tells you that he is on his way out of the country for good, and he just stopped by the library to get some Chapstick he left in the restroom. The former president sadly explains that he is tired of being an outrage to decent folk everywhere, and he has decided to spend the rest of his life in Tibet, bugging the Chinese. Before he goes to Tibet, however, he plans to address a special session of the Knesset, in which he will apologize to the entire human race for being such a jerk.

You give Carter a ride to the airport, and he pays for the gas. Plus, you get a fat reimbursement from the CIA for the use of your vehicle, including a triple per diem for both Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. You wind up making over $1500 out of the whole deal.

Joyous Tidings of this Holiday Season!

2006-12-24T14:52:00.000-05:00

To all, may this holiday season be filled with happy memories, love, and the true spirit of the season.

Infantile Liberalism Vs. Mary Cheney’s Baby

2006-12-22T17:03:00.000-05:00

This is what I get for being on the New Republic’s e-mail list. An idiot-gram entitled “Mary Cheney’s Baby”:

Dick Cheney's daughter is an open lesbian-and now she is pregnant. Her presence would seem to pose a problem for conservatives. How can they decry gay unions and then fail to decry Mary Cheney's lifestyle? In this week's cover story Andrew Sullivan explores the conundrum represented by Mary Cheney and then dissects the conservative reaction to her pregnancy.

Here is my open letter of retaliation:

Dear TNR:

I did not know that Mary Cheney was going to have a baby. Still less did I know that this baby presented a personal problem for me – a conundrum, no less. In a time of war and momentous ideological struggle, thank you for taking a moment to warn me of this fresh unforeseen threat. Forgive me if my reaction seems ungrateful.

Mary Cheney’s baby is none of your damn business. Who the hell do you people think you are, the Gay Standards & Practices Committee? Why don’t you keep your sheet-sniffing ferret noses out of other peoples’ laundry?

However many things I have failed to decry in this life, and however profound my baby-induced existential crisis is, I must decline your offer to have Andrew Sullivan dissect me for nine bucks and some change. In fact, if Andrew is looking for something to do, why don’t you tell him to get his own head and ass wired back together into some kind of functional apparatus? If he did he might start making occasional sense again.

Feel free to contact me if you have anything to say that isn’t utterly moronic.

It’s not the fact that the New Republic has decided to pester a baby that makes me mad, per se. It’s the fact that so many responsible liberals, for whom TNR once served as a flag ship, still insist on retreating into frivolities like this one. It is for this reason that our Popular Front against terrorism, which held so much promise a few years ago, has so far failed to keep that promise.

Not everybody turned out to be a gutless wonder, of course. Democrats, liberals, and even the left have contributed some real paladins to this fight. Their efficacy is demonstrated by the hysterical hatred that the anti-American mosh pit shrieks at them. Their moral courage is second to nobody’s.

But for too many, the petty little world of Democrats and Republicans - locked in eternal metaphysical struggle over some stupid-ass remark somebody made on Face the Nation last week – remains the ruling paradigm. Everything else is unserious.

We’ll get to Appomattox some day. Right now we’re still in a bar in Washington after First Bull Run, bitching at each other like cranky children.

Robert Altman's Latest Death Trip

2006-12-10T03:48:00.000-05:00

There aren't too many directors I would immediately recognize if I walked into the middle of one of their films, but there are a few. If two characters use the word "n-gger" thirty-seven times in one conversation, it's Quentin Tarantino. If David Mamet's wife is in it, it's David Mamet. If I've already seen it, it's Joel and Ethan Coen. And if it has a HUGE ensemble cast of utterly unsympathetic characters, zero plot, and is totally devoid of anything resembling either comedy or drama, it's Robert Altman. And even though I've walked into the middle of it, it's probably going to last another three hours.

I'd like to salvage something from all the hours of Robert Altman I've seen, but it's not going to be easy. Start with his most popular film, M*A*S*H. M*A*S*H is, in fact, a perfectly vile piece of work. It's cynical, mean-spirited, misogynistic, and doesn't have three jokes in it that are actually funny. The idea of a comedy set in a blood-soaked surgery in Korea is supposed to be a fine artistic juxtaposition, I suppose. But the endless television series that followed proved that a military surgery is no different from a Boston bar, or Seinfeld's living room. And it's disturbing how easily the corrupt and cynical characters of the film were so easily transformed into conventional Hollywood liberals on television. Just as the dismal, barren scrub hills of Korea were perfectly mimicked by the dismal, barren scrub hills of central California. Overall the effect is ultimately depressing, but being depressing is not the same thing as being profound.

Moving right along to Altman's critical masterpiece, Nashville. Here we are invited to think that we are experiencing a parody - of Nashville, of course, but Nashville as an effigy of Amerika. The clues start right at the beginning with the first of the hundred characters we'll meet: Haven Hamilton (Henry Gibson), a nudie-suit nightmare with Elvis hair who is in his studio recording a bicentennial song called "We Must Be Doing Something Right (To Have Lasted 200 Years)". This is a canned-laughter cue for liberals to jerk their knees - patriotic country music? Bleeeech! Afterwards Haven warns his piano player to get a haircut. "You don't belong in Nashville (Amerika)." Once again Altman picks a big, fat, slow-moving bogeyman and aims low.

Maybe I'm reading too much into Nashville. Or too little. At the end of the film, singer Barbara Jean (a Loretta Lynn stand-in, played by Ronee Blakely) is senselessly gunned down during a performance by a guy who looks like Clark Kent. "Thank yuh, thet song was fer Mommy an' Daddy ---" BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! A hippy and a soldier wrestle Clark Kent to the ground. As Loretta Lynn's body is carted off the stage, Barbara Harris takes the microphone and sings a pretty, meaningless tune: "You may say that I ain't free, but it don't worry me." Everybody happily claps and sings along. Roll the credits.

That has to mean something, right? After all, Nashville was nominated for four Oscars in 1975, and is a perfect fossilized specimen of the Seventies: brainless music, brainless clothes, brainless art, high gas prices, Arabs running amok, crazed gunmen running amok, Jimmy Carter running amok, cynical films with no plot - okay, maybe that's what's happening right now. Maybe that makes it prophetic, or timeless. I find it hard to care. I just want my six hours back - at least, it seemed like six hours. Maybe I want that whole decade of my childhood back, without the sordid details. Without this goddamn picture in the middle of it.

But I gave Altman another chance, with Short Cuts. When dealing with a Robert Altman film, it's best to focus on one of the thirty different storylines and spend the rest of the time taking cigarette breaks and replenishing the Milk Duds supply. The part of the film I chose to watch dealt with a small boy who is accidently hit by a car (driven by Lily Tomlin). The boy seems to be unhurt, but he collapses a short time later and eventually dies. This unpleasantness is reinforced by the appearance of the boy's grandfather (Jack Lemmon), a painful failure of a man who threw his life away with a marital infidelity, and by a twisted pastry chef (Lyle Lovett, minus the Large Band) who harasses the dying boy's mother with nasty phone calls. All of this is every bit as much fun as it sounds, and I don't know if I can take any more cinematic experiences like that one.

Ingmar Bergman supposedly said, "I could always live in my art, but never in my life." I guess Altman finally achieved in his life what he did in his art: Death by sheer indifference. I can't think it will be much of a change for him. Resquiat in Pacem, friend.

Squid Music Videos

2006-12-08T09:55:00.000-05:00

There's a whole genre of art coming from the combo of bored service people and vid cameras.
Here's a nice use of one of those big, grey, floaty things:

Those crazy squids pumpin it

Thanks for linking those, Dave.

All we had last year was an MWR tent with one side open to a very cold and wet Louisiana winter. Mud & rain & snow. Snow! There ain't supposed to be snow on the Gulf of Mexico.......oh yeah, booze and pyrotechnics (off-post, of course): New Year's Eve

Changes ahead

2006-12-04T18:20:00.000-05:00

I have been thinking about lgc and what it means to me and what I think it is. After some time away from a computer, because I don't own one and I access the web now using public computers at the library, I have decided to make some big changes.

It will be some time before I am able to get a computer, so, what I envision for lgc is a little while off. But briefly, I intend to greatly diminish the size of the contributors list. Many on the list haven't contributed and a couple don't think to highly of me, so, I'm going to trim down the list. Then I intend to grow the list again. Some of you know that I have made a lot of friends in the Middle East/Muslim world. These friends have points of view and insight that I believe is important for all of us to view. I want to invite a few of these friends to contribute as members.

I don't like the way the page looks so I'll probably make changes there and also grow the link list into something that isnt so LGFcentric. I love lgf and will continue to see lgc as a kind of tribute sight to LGF. But I dont think it has to be so busy in tribute.

Okay well theres some of my thoughts. Stay well everyone.

Get Us Out of Iraq

2006-11-05T20:56:00.000-05:00

This statement seems to be the driving issue in this 2006 election cycle. When and how do we get out of Iraq.

The Repubilcans say we'll leave when the job is done. That we must stay the course. Some even readly acknowledge that we need to change our stategy, because what we are doing now isn't working, but that doesn't mean leaving.

The Democrats also say we need a change in strategy, but they say we need to leave now, or give a time table (2 years at the most) for our leaving. That's it. That's the plan. Leave.

President Bush says leaving before the job is done would embolden the enemy, and we'd be leaving a bigger mess. Why doesn't anyone seem to believe him?

Nancy Pelosi and her ilk say, "The jihadists (are) in Iraq. But that doesn't mean we stay there. They'll stay there as long as we're there." Of course, after her 60 Minutes interview she dropped off the radar and has not been seen nor heard from in the national press.

More moderate Democrats seem to be echoing the same sentiment. I hear Democrat after Democrat insist we are off base being in Iraq, we've taken our eye off the ball, and that we are in more danger now than before; they just love quoting that briefing as proof. One can easily see and understand their meaning -- if we leave Iraq, the threat to us goes away. Right. And I have some swamp property in Louisiana for sale for anyone dumb enough to believe them.

It seems no one wants to listen to what the jihadis are saying themselves.

This past weekend, Fox News bravely aired "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West," which laid out the intention and objectives of radical Islam towards the west and American in specific. It is clear to anyone with any sense at all, that appeasement and "backing away" is not a viable option for dealing with them. Yet that is what the Democrats want to do.

WND.com published an article Mideast terror leaders to U.S.: Vote Democrat which includes the following comments by several jihadi and terrorist leaders:

Regarding our election and how the terrorist want us to vote:
"Of course Americans should vote Democrat."

"This is why American Muslims will support the Democrats, because there is an atmosphere in America that encourages those who want to withdraw from Iraq. It is time that the American people support those who want to take them out of this Iraqi mud."

Jaara said an American withdrawal would "mark the beginning of the collapse of this tyrant empire (America)."

"Therefore, a victory in Iraq would be a greater defeat for America than in Vietnam."

Jaara said vacating Iraq would also "reinforce Palestinian resistance organizations, especially from the moral point of view. But we also learn from these (insurgency) movements militarily. We look and learn from them."

Jihad Jaara, Senior member of Al Aqsa martyrs Brigade, leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity

Regarding the Democrats talk of withdrawal from Iraq:

"As Arabs and Muslims we feel proud of this talk.Very proud from the great successes of the Iraqi resistance. This success that brought the big superpower of the world to discuss a possible withdrawal."

Saadi, laughing, stated, "There is no chance that the resistance will stop."

He said an American withdrawal from Iraq would "prove the resistance is the most important tool and that this tool works. The victory of the Iraqi revolution will mark an important step in the history of the region and in the attitude regarding the United States."

"Unfortunately I think those who are speaking about a withdrawal will not do so when they are in power and these promises will remain electoral slogans. It is not enough to withdraw from Iraq. They must withdraw from Afghanistan and from every Arab and Muslim land they occupy or have bases."

He called both Democrats and Republicans "agents of the Zionist lobby in the U.S.."

Muhammad Saadi, a senior leader of Islamic Jihad in the northern West Bank town of Jenin
Regarding the policy of withdrawal from Iraq:

"[it] proves the strategy of the resistance is the right strategy against the occupation."

"We warned the Americans that this will be their end in Iraq. They did not succeed in stealing Iraq's oil, at least not at a level that covers their huge expenses. They did not bring stability. Their agents in the [Iraqi] regime seem to have no chance to survive if the Americans withdraw."

Abdullah argued a withdrawal from Iraq would "convince those among the Palestinians who still have doubts in the efficiency of the resistance."

"The victory of the resistance in Iraq would prove once more that when the will and the faith are applied victory is not only a slogan. We saw that in Lebanon (during Israel's confrontation against Hezbollah there in July and August); we saw it in Gaza (after Israel withdrew from the territory last summer) and we will see it everywhere there is occupation."

Abu Abdullah commented once Democrats are in power "the question is whether such a courageous leadership can [withdraw]. I am afraid that even after the American people will elect those who promise to leave Iraq, the U.S. will not do so. I tell the American people vote for withdrawal. Abandon Israel if you want to save America. Now will this Happen? I do not believe it."

Abu Abdullah, a leader of Hamas' military wing in the Gaza Strip and one of the most important operational members of Hamas' Izzedine al-Qassam Martyrs Brigades
On the comparison of Iraq to Vietnam:

Abu Ayman, is "emboldened" by those in America who compare the war in Iraq to Vietnam.

"[The mujahedeen fighters] brought the Americans to speak for the first time seriously and sincerely that Iraq is becoming a new Vietnam and that they should fix a schedule for their withdrawal from Iraq."

Abu Ayman, Islamic leader in Jenin

I'm not saying all Democrats are traitors, nor am I saying they are in league with the terrorists, but after hearing the statements of these terrorists, Democratic party leaders wanted to dismiss it as unimportant and would not budge off their stated position.

This Tuesday is election day.

It is true that the Republicans have squandered the opportunties given to them and, in some cases, spit in the faces of those who voted them into office. The guilty have been punished, while the rest have been tainted by the scandal, but, the platform of the Democrats is not going to keep us safe. It is not going to improve the situation in Iraq or anywhere else in the world. Sadly, the only real choice appears to be to hold our noses and pull the lever for the Republicans.

If by some miracle the Republicans maintain control of the House, or Senate, or both, then we need to be in their faces and on their cases to get it right this time.

For anyone reading this that is disgusted and disinterested in voting, please, vote like your life depends on it, because it does.

Bring a clothes pin for you nose or a perfumed hankie, but get in that booth and vote for your best chance for our Nation's security... vote for the Repulican. Then keep on their lazy butts to make sure they do it right this time.

Who Are The Most Beautiful Women In The Middle East?

2006-10-25T09:23:00.000-04:00

The Middle East is filled with ugliness. Wars rage, Dictators dictate, Terrorists terrorize. Human rights are few and far between. So worrisome and wearisome are the issues eminating from the region, we have to take a break every now and then and look for beauty in that part of the world.

And Great Beauty there is. The Women in the Middle East are Beautiful.

To decide for yourself and check out the many lovely ladies of the Middle East go here...

The Al-Durah Trials, Part 1

2006-10-24T21:32:00.000-04:00

The image of Muhammad al Durah, "gunned down in a hail of Israeli bullets at the very beginning of the Al Aqsa Intifada", was one of the most potent icons of the recent Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The Belmont Club explains:

The Augean Stables tells the story of how French bloggers are now on trial for questioning France2's account of the murder of Muhammad al Durah, who the network portrayed as having been murdered by IDF soldiers. At the time the charges were filed there was widespread French public approval of the action. But new information which emerged since has shifted the ground. ... The Augean Stables notes that whatever the charge sheet says, the media is a defendant too. "In the final analysis, these are not arcane French legal matters at stake, but tests of the French ability to meet 21st century challenges." In fact, a constitutional challenge. Without anyone noticing, in the years between World War 2 and the present the Press has acquired the power to be the arbiter of a great many events: the success or failure of public enterprises, the guilt or innocence of the accused and even the power to declare defeat or victory in war.

A media watchdog group founded by Philippe Karsenty alleged that the images were staged, with the knowledge or participation of France's France2 network. More questions followed:

By 2002, two investigative documentaries, one German and one French, had raised questions about the veracity of the tightly-shot footage and the claims accompanying it. Raw footage from that day was released and separate instances of the staging of injuries were clearly seen. The documentaries alleged that there was no sign of blood on the ground where the father and son were supposed to have bled for 20 minutes and questioned why there was no footage of an ambulance evacuation or records of an arrival at the hospital or autopsy for the boy.

France 2 refused to air the German documentary, but the French one sparked a demonstration in Paris outside the company’s offices. At that point, Karsenty wrote an article calling for France 2’s Enderlin and France 2 chief Arlette Chabot to resign. In response, Enderlin and France 2 itself sued Karsenty and two others.

Many of those who followed the first trial expressed optimism that the case would be judged in Karsenty's favor. The Belmont Club:

Nidra Poller completes her coverage of the Mohammed al-Dura libel trial against France2 at Pajamas Media. France2 comes off very, very badly in the evidence. And the prosecutor has already recommended that France2's suit against the first defendant, Karsenty, be dropped. Personally I don't think the trial is so much about the relative justice of Israeli and Palestinian causes so much as the absolute depths to which the modern broadcast media may have plunged.

Here's an excerpt from Nidra Poller's coverage of the September trial:

Philippe Karsenty takes the stand. The judge’s questions are pertinent, Philippe’s answers are clear and compelling. Does he personally think the scene was staged or simply questionable? Philippe replies that he was initially convinced by the Schapira film, but realized after further investigation that the incident had to be staged. He gives an example: when it became clear from ballistics tests that the al-Duras could not have been hit by direct fire from the Israeli position, it was claimed they were hit by ricochets. But the father says he was hit 9 times, and the boy 3 times. Twelve ricochets? It’s impossible.

Then comes the ten-gun question: why don’t Israeli officials protest? Karsenty’s answer is plausible: they think it would do no good to bring the image back to the forefront. Even if the truth could be established, it would turn against them.

Q: Denis Jeambar and Daniel Leconte, who viewed the 27-minute outtakes, said (Radio Communauté Juive) all the scenes were staged except the al-Dura scene. Jeambar cited a video of the father displaying his scars, a new element of proof shown by France 2 at a press conference.

A: I did not see the film because I was not allowed to attend the press conference. Leconte told me he was interested in the affair, and intended to investigate it. But Arte [French-German-Spanish cultural TV channel] warned him they would not work with his production company, Doc en Stock, anymore if he didn’t drop the subject. Jeambar was under pressure from inside l’Express, notably Jacques Attali. Alexandre Adler told me that Charles (who is his brother-in-law) was tricked by his fixer. Many people have told me privately that they know the scene was staged, but they won’t say it in public.

The judge’s features tighten as if he is trying to hide his surprise…or distress. ...

But despite what observers saw as a strong performance by the defense and a weak one (or none at all) by France2, the court ruled in favor of French TV:

Four years later, the trials have begun and the first verdict was received Wednesday. At his trial, Karsenty presented four expert witnesses backing up his claim that not only were Al-Dura and his father not killed by the IDF, the entire scene was most apparently staged with the knowledge of the cameraman.

The procureur de la republique, a court-appointed officer in the French legal system charged with assessing the case in the interests of civil society, recommended that the case be ruled in Karsenty’s favor. He said that Karsenty had offered enough evidence to make such assertions a legitimate part of public discourse. The judge ruled that Karsenty had not checked other sources thoroughly and had used unwarranted strong language.

Nobody from France 2 even showed up for the trial. The TV station’s lawyer called no witnesses to the stand and declined to cross-examine any of Karsenty's witnesses or comment on the evidence displayed. The plaintiff’s summation asserted that the honor and reputation of France 2 is beyond reproach and submitted a letter of praise from President Jacques Chirac.

The court ordered Karsenty to pay Enderlin 3,000 Euro and awarded a symbolic 5 Euro to France 2 Television. He plans to appeal the decision and the next trial is due to begin on October 26th.

The Augean Stables reflects:

To say that the decision was disappointing is obviously putting it mildly. But it was not unexpected. Numerous people wrote me to say, watch out. As one American blogger who lives in France wrote:

I followed closely your reports on the first part of the trial. I’m still pessimistic. The reason I’m pessimistic is because they’re only asking for the symbolic euro. France2 wants the case just so they can say the courts ruled in their favor, not in order for sanction actually to be applied. I’m afraid the French courts are so politicized that they will give them what they want.

Others noted that the absence of any effort on the part of France2 — no witnesses, no questions for hostile witnesses, no presence of either Enderlin or Chabot — could indicate not a lack of preparation (alone), but a secure knowledge that they need do nothing since they knew they’d win. Several people who claimed to know, informed me and Karsenty independently, that the fix was on before the trial. When I suggested that to an Israeli lawyer I know after the first trial but before the decision, she responded indignantly, “No. The French judiciary is really independent.” I wanted to believe that.

The Augean Stables has a comprehensive introduction to the Al Durah affair at this link.

All of TAS's Al-Durah-related posts may be found at this category link.

Neo-Neocon will be covering the second part of the Al Durah / France2 defamation trial.

If the Guard Doesn't Change, Will They Change the Guard?

2006-10-24T00:42:00.000-04:00

I have a much more in depth post on this at my own blog, (linked to here), but in the event that the Democrats don't take over the House of Representatives, will they change their leadership? In 2002. they had a disappointing showing, and Dick Gephardt "resigned" as minority leader. So, do the Dems similarly throw Pelosi under the bus if they don't take over the House? If Pelosi is gone, do they choose a more moderate minority leader, or will they go to another leftist like Murtha?

That makes me think, if the Republicans do hold on, is Hastert still the Speaker? I would surmise that Hastert's days in leadership are soon to be over, but Pelosi keeps her leadership role no matter how the election turns out.

The In T View: Bill Putnam, Combat Photographer On Iraq, War, Photography, And Blogging

2006-10-19T09:31:00.000-04:00

Bill Putnam from Portland, Oregon, today's guest in the In T View, served for eight years as a photojournalist with the American military in both Kosovo and Iraq. After his tour of duty with the Army's 122nd Mobile Public Affairs Detachment in Iraq ended, he returned to the country as an embedded Photojournalist working for the Zuma
Press and as a freelancer for Time Magazine.

Bill, who has written for newspapers, journals, and magazines, besides doing radio reports for North Country Public Radio, is also the proud proprietor of the very fine An independent look at Iraq blog, where you can peruse his wide range of beautiful photographs and his thoughts about Iraq. Bill will soon be moving to a new photographic assignment in Washington D.C., where he'll be covering the White House and Capitol Hill.

THE JOURNEY THERE

Mister Ghost: Should the United States have gone to War against Iraq?

Bill Putnam: That's a hard question to crack. I never thought about the grand political schemes or conspiricies that drove the war. I just know from the trench level, where I spent 99 percent of my time, that the Iraq was wasn't what we were told. So the question of whether we should've gone to war or not really, to me, is unanswerable. Everyone has their own opinion on the subject. The tough answer whether we like it or not is that we're there, we're stuck and we have to do what we can.

Mister Ghost: In one of your blog entries, you said your tour of duty in Iraq was over in about five months and you were never returning to Iraq. You were pretty emphatic about it. And yet, there you were, less than a year later, back in Iraq as a civilian photojournalist. What motivated you to return to the country?

Bill Putnam: I went back to cover the biggest war of my generation. It took a chance meeting with a veteran war correspondent to motivate me. Then I started thinking about photographing war. My first bit of conflict photography came during my deployment to Kosovo in 1999. I just felt like I was photographing something real, something tangible. Having the opportunity to photograph the war wasn't an easy one to decide upon. So the decision to come back was a big one that only happened after a bit of luck and a lot of thinking.

Mister Ghost: How difficult was it to actually return to Iraq? What obstacles did you face?

Bill Putnam: Going back wasn't too difficult. The only obstacle I faced was getting the mental stamina to go back. I'd been there for a year before and was thoroughly exhausted by it.

Mister Ghost: Had you had any prior combat photography experience in a War Zone before you got to Iraq?

Bill Putnam: The only experience I had in a war zone was my two deployments to Kosovo in 1999 and 2001. But I can't really count that second trip as a war zone. Kosovo was calm by then.The first trip though, I think, prepared me mentally for the stresses of it very early in my career.

IMPRESSIONS OF IRAQ

Mister Ghost: Did the Iraq of reality match up to the Iraq of your fantasies or dreams?

Bill Putnam: Fantasies or dreams... I never had dreams or fantasies of Iraq.

Mister Ghost: Iraq, the Hot. You were there in the Heart of the Dragon's Breath. Describe the Heat to us?

Bill Putnam: Ok, I can sink my teeth into this answer. The heat is unimaginable to anyone from the West. Imagine sitting in a sauna set at 140F. You're wearing anywhere from 25-50 pounds of gear. Now, hold up a hair dryer going full blast to your face. You're obviously sweating, a lot. The sweat chafes your skin almost raw. Your face, hands and feet swell up from the heat too. You drink water and gatorade all the time but the sweat never ends. Now put a 5-pound kevlar helmet on. Soon your head gets hot. Yes, it really is hot and I'm not sure I can even adequetly describe it. Hopefully this answer does it some justice.

Mister Ghost: You were a Corporal in the Army's 122nd Mobile Public Affairs Detachment. Can you tell us what your role in Iraq was and how it was different from your experience in Kosovo?

Bill Putnam: Comparing Kosovo and my first time in Iraq is hard. Both missions were different. Most of the Kosovars loved NATO's presence. Most Iraqis don't want Americans or foriegners there. Job wise it wasn't that different. I covered the military and dealt with the civilian media a lot.

Mister Ghost: Baghdad is?

Bill Putnam: A Hobbesian landscape of the strong eating the weak.

Mister Ghost: Mosul was?

Bill Putnam: A place where the fault lines of Iraq lie completely naked. Sunni Arabs, Kurds, Christians... all groups live there and all are vying for control. I only regret not being able to stay longer and explore them.

Mister Ghost: You mentioned garbage, garbage, everywhere in the neighborhoods of Baghdad. Piling up next to tidy houses, blowing in the hot breeze, children jumping over it, trash being burnt by the Iraqis... and the Raw Sewage wafting out in the open.. So, what type of impression did this leave on you?

Bill Putnam: The immense amounts of garbage... was a sign of the war and the collapse of Iraqi society. Its also a sign that humans can adapt to almost any situation. At first I wondered why anyone could live hat way. Its obviously unhealthy so why not clean up your block? But the ironic thing was every home's courtyard was clean. Some even had a small patch of grass. Then after a time I understood the trash and sewage outside was a sign of Iraqi society. It had devloved into something like anarchy. In other words it had become "I don't care about you, just about me and mine." That understanding helped me deal with it. That trash was also a sign the Coalition was swimming against the current.

Mister Ghost: Bill, Iraq receives such negative publicity: bombings, killings, unrest, kidnappings, civil strife...It's sort of portrayed as Hell on Earth by the Media. Having experienced Iraq from both a soldier's and photojournalist's perspective, what did you like about the country?

Bill Putnam: My experiences with Iraqi civilians was fairly limited at first. Either they worked for the Coalition or I met them during a raid on their homes. It wasn't until I came back as a civilian and lived downtown that I really met them. So I can say I miss the people I met over there.

Mister Ghost: And conversely, what did you dislike about Iraq?

Bill Putnam: The fact I could be kidnapped and murdered simply because I'm a westerner.

Mister Ghost: What didn't you have in Iraq, that you had in the States?

Bill Putnam: I didn't have a lot of alcohol in Iraq.

Mister Ghost: In the end, do you feel that Iraq was worth your time and effort?

Bill Putnam: I do feel Iraq was worth the time and effort. It was the biggest war my country has fought since Vietnam. Covering it, even if my bit of it was small, means I'm part of the historical record.

Mister Ghost: You said in an interview with David Sommerstein on NCPR that, "I just wanted to tell the story of Iraq." Do you think you succeeded?

Bill Putnam: I think I told one small part of the story. Unfortunately I couldn't move around downtown and talk with individual Iraqis and photograph them going about their lives. I believe I would've done a better job telling the story of Iraq as it goes through this war if movement around the country didn't make me a target.

IRAQ AND ITS PEOPLE

Mister Ghost: Are the Iraqis a likeable people?

Bill Putnam: Yes, I like the Iraqi people.

Mister Ghost: Tell me about someone you met in Iraq who impressed you and why?

Bill Putnam: The Iraqis who really impressed me were the journalists or those who worked with Western journos. They risked a lot to tell the story of Iraq.

Mister Ghost: The Iraqis are known to be hospitable. Can you give us an example of this?

Bill Putnam: Sure. One day in January I was out with an infantry platoon from 1-10th Mountain north of Abu Ghraib. We arrived at a house in the ville and this old man, he said he was the ville sheik, invited us in for tea. We sat in his house for a couple of hours talking with him about his home, his family and the recent elections. A couple of months before that in Mosul, I was out on an operation with squad from 2nd of the 1st Infantry. We were out on a rooftop and the family came up and offered us tea and cookies. Little things, sure, but worthwhile to remember and experience.

Mister Ghost: You were worried about the Interperetors or "Terps" and other Iraqis that worked with the Coalition forces. The insurgents were threatening them and killing them off. You had a good, brave Iraqi friend Leon, who served as an interpretor for your unit and you tried to help him and his family emigrate away to a safer place. Can you give us an update on Leon?

Bill Putnam: I've lost track of Leon and its impossible for me to figure out where is right now.

Mister Ghost: Bill, you're a big guy at 6-5, 250 pounds, do you think your size intimidated the Iraqis you encountered, since they lived and still live, in a fear and respect-based society?

Bill Putnam: Mmmm, you know that's a good question. My hope is no, my size didn't intimidate anyone. I liked to talk with the Iraqis and made my body language open to them. I smiled and laughed with them as well. I also tried speaking very, very rudimentary Arabic. If they said something to me I would say "na'am, na'am" or 'yes, yes.' Or I would say 'mer-haba' or which usually means 'welcome' or 'hello' This, I think, helped me talk with them.

Mister Ghost: During your time in Iraq, you had a chance to meet with American and Iraqi soldiers, but because of the security situation, you felt you would be a big target if you tried to interact with Iraqi civilians. Do you regret that you weren't able to have a friendly relationship with the regular Iraqis?

Bill Putnam: Yes, very much so. I have a whole list of things I want to do with Iraqis that I couldn't because of the security situation. Maybe one day I'll be able to do that stuff. The locals have a saying for that hope too: "insha' allah."

IRAQI WOMEN AND CHILDREN

Mister Ghost: You said in an early post in your blog, Grown women in this society are ghosts, seen and not heard; they seem so relegated, sadly, to nothing in this society. Did you find this was the case throughout Iraq, or were the Iraqi women in the larger cities like Baghdad a more visible open presence?

Bill Putnam: Iraqi women were always visible but speaking to them wasn't really an option. The only time I did talk to them was the random encounter I had with women journalists.

Mister Ghost: Didn't you mention that the Coalition forces were going out of their way to be kind to the Iraqi women, trying to win them over, because they possessed a great deal of influence in the domestic sphere?

Bill Putnam: The relationship I saw between men and women was a skewed one. Much of the time I was around regular Iraqis the men were sheltering the women to protect them.

Mister Ghost: "La chokalota - la chokolata," the Iraqi kids screamed out, as the American soldiers handed them candy. "Mistah! Mistah! Give me chockalot! Give me Pepsi!" they said to you. Did you get the sense the Iraqi children were starved for attention and niceties?

Bill Putnam: It depended on where I was but I had a sense kids were starved for attention and niceties, espcially in places around Baghdad like al-Dora, a generally poor mixed neighborhood.

Mister Ghost: In Baghdad's al-Rashid neighborhood, you saw a father with his child's blood on his hands. It was the night of the church bombings, and the Iraqi man apparently panicked and ran his car through the military checkpoint. The soldiers opened fire and one of the bullets grazed the child's temple, causing a blood clot and eventual death. Bill, what can you say about something like that? Is it a memory that haunts you, or after witnessing so much violence, you become desensitized to another death?

Bill Putnam: Its funny you ask that question. I was just looking at those photos last night. Sure, that night does haunt me to a degree. What I remember most are the sounds. Of men trying to save this boy's life. Of a father wailing in anguish. Of radios. Of Humvees idling. I don't think I'm desensitized to death. I've seen a lot of it and its all tragic. What bothers me, what haunts me really, is the seeing this boy fighting a losing and ultimately unnessacary fight.

Mister Ghost: Are you optimistic about the future of Iraq's children?

Bill Putnam: No, I'm afraid not. Life for them in the forseeable future is going to be hell.

A Photo of Bill in Staff Sgt. Aaron Lefeat's sunglasses April 25, 2006, during Operation Swift Sword, Day 3. by Bill Putnam

EMBEDDED

Mister Ghost: You spent time embedded with the 1st Brigade of the 10th Mountain Division, I believe in Mosul. How many different units were you embedded with in Iraq and did you have a favorite?

Bill Putnam: The 1-10 Mountain was around northwest Baghdad. My first embed was in Mosul with the 172nd Stryker Brigade. I was embedded with... *counting on my fingers* five different units of brigade (about 3,000 soldiers) or battalions (about 600 soldiers). My favorite, if I had to pick one, was the 187th Infantry Regiment of the 101st Airborne Division. Most of the grunts were veterans of the March 2003 invasion. A few of the first deployment into Afghanistan in late-2001. One battalion commander I met jumped into northern Iraq during the 2003 invasion with the 173rd Airborne Brigade. I spent about four months with one company, Abu Company, 1-187th Infantry, who were stationed in and around Bayji, Iraq.

This unit really understood counter-insurgency warfare and approached it with a good vision. Instead of just patrolling, which is something most units are guilty of, they actually got out and interacted with the locals. It resulted into a situation that could've been a very hard insurgency in the middle of the Sunni Triangle into something more manageable. Of course, there was some bang bang and that made life interesting. But I believe it could've been a lot worse and the unit did everything they could to difuse the situation.

Mister Ghost: How much freedom were you given as an embedded photojournalist? What restrictions were placed on you?

Bill Putnam: I was given pretty much open access to the units I embedded with. Obviously I could hear but not talk about certain things because they would violate operational security. Other times photographed detainees and couldn't transmit photos with their
uncovered faces; that would violate the Geneva Conventions.

Mister Ghost: As a former soldier yourself, how tough is the job the soldiers do?

Bill Putnam: The job these guys and gals face over ther is incredibly difficult. It was very, very difficult in 2004. By late 2005 and early 2006 the situation had become almost untenable. Sectarian violence had reared its ugly, distorted head. The individual grunt down in the trenches sees all this going on and is trying his best to stop it. Whether this Herculean effort can stop all the violence won't be decided down at their level. That's to be decided by the Iraqi people.

Mister Ghost: From your own perspectives as first a soldier, and then a member of the Media, do you feel your fellow members of the American Media are doing a good job of accurately portraying what's happening with the American Military in Iraq?

Bill Putnam: Yes, I think they are. Its a tough tough situation for both sides and covering that isn't easy. I still marvel that it still gets done.

Mister Ghost: Can you tell us what your scariest experience in Iraq was? What gave you serious heart palpitations?

Bill Putnam: My first raid as a civilian journo was by far the scariest. During my time as a soldier-photog, I carried a weapon. This time I was naked. Nothing. Approaching that house in the dark with just my cameras was the scariest thing I'd ever done.

Mister Ghost: You were staying near the Al-Hamra Hotel in Baghdad when it was bombed. When you are close by to a large explosion like that, what do you feel at the time? What thoughts are racing through your head?

Bill Putnam: The first reacion I had was "what the fuck was that?" Then I woke up and walked out into the living room of the house. The local staffers were there and kept telling me to go into my room. I was about to turn when the second -- and much bigger -- bomb went off. My only thought when the shock wave hit and the room brightend up considerably was "hoooollly fuuuck!"

At that point, with gunfire going off in the near distance, I ran into my room threw on some clothes, grabbed my cameras and ran out the door. I was one of the first two photogs on the site. As you can imagine, it was incredibly chaotic. I just wanted to capture what was going on around me. Doing all that I had one thought running through my mind like a tape reel: "this is unbelievable..."

I still think about this first minutes after the bombing and wonder who we got out of it alive.

BLOGGING

Mister Ghost: Could you tell us about the genesis of your blog, An independent look at Iraq? How did it come about, and why you became interested in blogging?

Bill Putnam: I first started blogging in 2004 during my time in Baghdad as a soldier. I kept it very low-key and didn't tell anyone in my unit about it. It was interesting to me because it was the advent of a new type of journalism, something immediate and what I thought was pure.

How I found them originally is something I'm not sure about.

Mister Ghost: When you were in Iraq, did you have a chance to read any of the Iraqi blogs? If so, did you think their perceptions of life there, concurred with your views of the situation?

Bill Putnam: I had a chance to read some blogs occassionally. But nothing on a regular basis.

Mister Ghost: Back in 2004, the US Military cracked down on Military Bloggers like Colby Buzzell of My War, because they were allegedly revealing sensitive information. Did this have any effect on your blogging? Was it an overreaction by the DOD and do you think they were trying to filter the news coming out of Iraq?

Bill Putnam: Yes, I do think this was DOD over-reacting. But I don't think this was direct attempt to filter the news coming out of the war. That was just an unintended benefit.

I remember reading about Colby's blog, reading it myself and liking it immensely. Here was a guy who trully reflected life in a war for what it was: brutal and boring.

The problem with shutting blogs down is the justification is its entirely subjective. Cobly's blog went against the grain... ie "this war sucks ass" then someone who believes in the war and is a position of power can shut you down. This happened to Colby.

What I don't think has been discussed is this reaction by DOD might be an echo of Viet Nam. In Colby's case he was actively saying what war was like. His command probably saw this is a threat to good order and discpline in the unit.

After all, if he felt this way how many others did?

What commander would want a bunch of guys breaking down the order of a unit in the middle of a fight, even if the fight was probably unjustified? This happened in Viet Nam. This may sound simplistic but commanders saw this happening in Viet Nam. The Army didn't want that happen. So they cracked down on it the first time something similar came up. They justified it by saying ti was about operational secrity. If they were really concerned about "op sec" they'd censure our emails and listen to our phone calls.

Mister Ghost: Do you have any favorite blogs you like to read and can recommend?

Bill Putnam: The one I actively followed was Chris Allbritton's blog www.back-to-iraq.com. Chris has moved on to Lebanon so there's not so much Iraq coverage anymore. Other times I'd run into blogs and read them but nothing like dedicated reading because I didn't have the time. Now I have the time and NBC News' blog is a good one. I've also read Bill Roggio's blog too. Iraq The Model is a good one as well. Recently I started tuning into The Angry Arab News Service.

PHOTOGRAPHY

Mister Ghost: How did you hook up as a free-lancer with Time Magazine?

Bill Putnam: This is pretty funny story. About five or six days before the Jan. 30, 2005, elections I was on Camp Liberty where the rest of my unit was stationed. Coming back from a detail I saw Michael Ware and Franco Pagetti standing by a Humvee. They'd just been picked up after a long embed with the 1st Cavalry Division's 2nd Brigade. I walked up to Michael and introduced myself.

"I liked your stuff with the insurgents," I told him. He looked geniunely surprised to hear that from an American soldier. That was when I had the brilliant idea of wanting to come back. I'd kicked the idea around a bit but never thought about just asking someone for help. So I did.

Michael said he could help me out so I could come back and photograph for the magazine. A few weeks later a letter arrived from Michael. So I went back with that one and my agency letter.

Mister Ghost: What do you think you are saying through your photography? What exactly are you trying to tell us?

Bill Putnam: My approach to photography is to make people think about war and conflict. I want people to think about what we're doing to ourselves.

Mister Ghost: Good Photography. A Science? An Art? Hard Work? Intuition? Experience?Or all of the above?

Bill Putnam: Definitely all of the above and I'm still learning it. I'll never stop learning it because no image is perfect. Nor is any photographer.

Mister Ghost: Is there an act of creation involved in taking a photograph?

Bill Putnam: Yeah, I think there is an act. You're capturing one/one-thousandths of a second of time. It takes a bit of preperation and luck to capture that time.

Mister Ghost: You carried about 45 pounds of equipment and three cameras while on assignment in Iraq. Did you really need all those cameras? Is combat photography really that rough on the equipment?

Bill Putnam: I definitely needed all that equipment and it really was rough on my gear. I've spent around $1,500 cleaning and readjusting it all.

Each of my cameras did a different job. One was my Leica M6; I shot film with it. Shooting it caused me to think a different way and try and capture moments the differently. My main body was my Nikon D1x with a 17-35mm lens. I used that in close in moments. The other body was my Nikon D2h with an 80-200. I hardly ever used it.

Mister Ghost: The last thing the insurgent saw before he died was you taking a picture of him. Were there some photographs that you didn't make public, and could you tell us why?

Bill Putnam: I didn't release that photo for personal reasons. Early in my career I read about photogs who'd done that very act and wondered how they could live with themselves. I never intended to take that man's last moments alive.

There were also other photographs I took that couldn't be released because they'd violate my embedding ground rules.

Mister Ghost: Combat photography is a dangerous occupation. Would you put your life on the line to get the perfect shot, say a "Pulitzer Prize" winning photograph?

Bill Putnam: I don't know if I would risk my life for a shot like that. Most Pulitizer winning shots aren't readily apparent. Its only during the post-processing work that you realize that.

FUTURE ENDEAVORS

Mister Ghost: So, what does the future hold for Bill Putnam?

Bill Putnam: I'm moving to Washington, D.C. this winter to finish up my degree in History. I'll continue my photography there by covering Capitol Hill and the White House for my agency, ZUMA Press.

Mister Ghost: Would you like to go back to Iraq?

Bill Putnam: I never say never but the chances of me going back to Iraq are slim.

Mister Ghost: Will you be covering any more wars?

Bill Putnam: My next trip will be to Afghanistan next summer in between semesters.

Mister Ghost: Final question Bill, and thanks very much for a gracious In T View: Do you have any advice for a crazy person like myself, who would like to go to Iraq unembedded and blog from all around the country?

Bill Putnam: Yeah, don't do it unless you have a lot of money for security and just general living. Thanks for having me.

Debka: Terrorists Planned Synagogue Massacre in Prague

2006-10-06T09:21:00.000-04:00

Here's the report:

Arab terrorists planned mass murder of Jews in a Prague synagogue after taking them hostage, according to Czech intelligence

October 6, 2006, 10:28 AM (GMT+02:00)

This plot, according to the Prague Daily Monitor, triggered the special security measures announced in the Czech capital for the first time two weeks ago. According to the sketchy information released, unidentified “Arab extremists” planned to penetrate a synagogue during a Jewish holiday, pose unspecified conditions that would not be fulfilled and then blow up the synagogue with explosives they would have had ready for use. They intended killing scores of Jewish worshippers inside. On Sept 23, the Czech government deployed armed guards around dozens of buildings and on the streets of the capital after security services announced an unspecified attack was imminent. They have not divulged any further information. The country’s once flourishing Jewish community was decimated by the Nazis during World War II.

What is it going to take for Western liberals to get a clue?

Arutz Sheva:

According to a report appearing in the daily Mlada Fronta Dnes on Friday, Islamic terrorists in Prague planned to abduct tens of Jews and then execute them.

According to the newspaper, the leading paper in Czech Republic, the terrorists planned to kidnap the victims, hold them hostage in a synagogue and make outrageous demands that would not be met. The hostages would then be killed.

Quoting unnamed intelligence community sources, the report indicated the terror plot was foiled.

Czech Chief Rabbi Ephraim Sidon stated the terrorists planned to strike Central Prague’s Jerusalem Synagogue, not the Jewish Quarter, a popular spot for tourists.