Rambo, McCain: It's only a coincidence

Sylvester Stallone today endorsed John McCain, Vietnam POW, for President. I'm sure it absolutely, positively has nothing to do with a certain film that's opening tomorrow. I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

Stallone said of McCain, a Vietnam war veteran who spent more than five years as a prisoner of war, that "there's something about matching the character with the script."

"And right now, the script that's being written and reality is pretty brutal and pretty hard-edged like a rough action film, and you need somebody who's been in that to deal with" it.

...I think.

Same movie, different actors

I don't know about you, but I'm sick of remakes. I don't quite get the purpose of remaking old films with different actors. They remade "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" for no damn reason, Keanu Reeves is remaking the classic "The Day The Earth Stood Still," again for no damn reason. They're remaking "The Hulk" just three years after the last time they released it. And is it just me, or have we already seen this movie:

Israel believes that North Korea has been supplying Syria and Iran with nuclear materials, a Washington defense official told the New York Times. “The Israelis think North Korea is selling to Iran and Syria what little they have left,” he said.

The official added that recent Israeli reconnaissance flights over Syria revealed possible nuclear installations that Israeli officials estimate might have been supplied with material from North Korea.
More...

If only there were some way to know when it's real and when it's fiction. If only we had some sort of, oh, I don't know, let's call it "News Media" for lack of a better term, that would reliably and doggedly seek out the truth and tell us what they've found. Somebody should invent something like that.

Amazing animation: A patrol in Iraq

This is simply incredible (animation and handling of the subject matter):

McCain jokes about bombing Iran

"Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb [Iran]..."
-John McCain


All I have to say about that is:



Thank God this guy has little chance of winning the primary, let alone the election.

It's all in the timing.

In 2001, according to former terrorism czar Richard Clark, he and others in the government demanded that President Bush pay attention to the threat from Al Qaeda. The White House ignored the demands (instead focusing on apparently more pressing matters, such as Internet pornography), and the entire world is familiar with the results of that negligence.

In 2001 and 2002, millions of Americans demanded an investigation of 9/11. The President and his party refused for months before finally relenting. But by then it was too late, and those who were shown to possess questionable intelligence - in every sense of the word - had already taken us into Iraq. Had we known prior to invading that we were trusting the word of the incompetent, thousands of American troops, not to mention hundreds of thousands (most likely) of Iraqi civilians, would still be alive today, and we wouldn't have spent half a trillion dollars in order to create an Islamic failed state in a formerly secular dictatorship.

In 2004, Mr. Bush dismissed John Kerry's plan to increase the number of troops in Iraq in order to try halting the slide toward civil war. Bush dismissed the notion that a slide toward civil war was even occurring. Two years, and untold deaths later (untold because we and our puppet government in Iraq now refuse to count them), George Bush has changed his mind. Yet again, coming around to what may be the right conclusion only when it's far too late to matter.

Democrats have been calling for additional troops for years. Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) proposed an increase of 40,000 troops during his 2004 campaign against Bush, only to be dismissed by the administration. As recently as June, the Bush administration opposed adding more troops because restructuring "is enabling our military to get more war-fighting capability from current end strength."

But Bush yesterday had changed his mind. "I'm inclined to believe that we do need to increase our troops -- the Army, the Marines," he said. "And I talked about this to Secretary Gates, and he is going to spend some time talking to the folks in the building, come back with a recommendation to me about how to proceed forward on this idea."

Most outside the White House, including Colin Powell, seem to believe additional troops at this point wouldn't help. It's too little, too late. It's all in the timing. Perhaps a surge of troops would have made a positive impact a couple years ago when everyone else first thought of the idea, but today it's likely to do nothing but give insurgents more targets for their resentment and their IED's. Furthermore, although the military seems to have largely met its recruiting goals this year, those goals were lowered a couple years ago. They've struggled to meet their goals, and there's no telling exactly where Bush thinks he's going to find an additional 70,000 troops, unless he were to propose reinstituting the draft (which ain't gonna happen). Perhaps through more stop-loss programs, shifting more troops from elsewhere, conscripting the Coast Guard, calling up the Girl Scouts, and recalling the last living World War One veteran to duty. I'm sure they'll try some combination of the above.

If only I were on the White House staff, I'd solve the problem in no time. I'd empower the President to fulfill his wish in the quickest way possible -- by walking into the Oval Office and uttering three simple words: Work release program.

Not only would a work release program allow the President to proceed with his troop increase, it would also solve our chronic prison overcrowding problem. In fact, if we were to send nothing but death row inmates to Iraq and put them on the frontlines, it may even save us a buck or two on all those needles and electric bills.

But, it's all in the timing, and this President's habitually late to the game. Odds are my phone'll be ringing two years from now.

Winning Hearts and Minds, example 29,987

Disclaimer: Spotted this on SmirkingChimp.com; I have no idea what the source of this video may be, but verified stories coming out of Iraq make this look tame by comparison, so odds are it's legit. It seems more like a sure-fire method for creating an insurgent, rather than a way to instill a sense of justice. When the punishment doesn't fit the crime, you're just asking for rebellion. And when you stick a bunch of kids with guns in the middle of someone else's civil war and don't give them the planning, training and tools they need to do their job (whatever the hell that is), you're just asking for punishments that don't fit crimes.

Calling all spinners -- explain how Bush has "made us safer."

There are times when being right makes you the happiest person in the world, and then there are the times it makes you crap your pants. Guess which one of those times this is. I want every angry, slogan-spouting flag-waiver who's ever written in ordering me to "leave the President alone, he's making us safer" to take a second, put down your copy of the National Review (the one with the Sean Hannity centerfold), and write to me again. Write to me and explain why our intelligence agencies now say the Iraq occupation has increased the threat of terror.

WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document.

The intelligence estimate, completed in April, is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by United States intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began, and represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government. Titled “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,’’ it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.

An opening section of the report, “Indicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement,” cites the Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology.

The report “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,” said one American intelligence official.

More than a dozen United States government officials and outside experts were interviewed for this article, and all spoke only on condition of anonymity because they were discussing a classified intelligence document. The officials included employees of several government agencies, and both supporters and critics of the Bush administration. All of those interviewed had either seen the final version of the document or participated in the creation of earlier drafts. These officials discussed some of the document’s general conclusions but not details, which remain highly classified.

Officials with knowledge of the intelligence estimate said it avoided specific judgments about the likelihood that terrorists would once again strike on United States soil. The relationship between the Iraq war and terrorism, and the question of whether the United States is safer, have been subjects of persistent debate since the war began in 2003.

National Intelligence Estimates are the most authoritative documents that the intelligence community produces on a specific national security issue, and are approved by John D. Negroponte, director of national intelligence. Their conclusions are based on analysis of raw intelligence collected by all of the spy agencies.
More...

Candorville on Stem Cell Research

Chuck posted the following:

I'd like to make a comment on today's strip--but I'm afraid it would take too much time. Suffice it to say: We apparently value our own citizen's lives over those of other country's citizens. But 10000 in 4 years is less of a holocaust than millions over 30 years.

First of all, it's not 10K in 4 years. John Mcglaughlin stated the current tally of dead Iraqi civilians at more than 160,000. The lowest estimates, as of 2004, were in the mid 30,000's. As a percentage of Iraq's population, it would be the same as if at least 3 million American civilians had been killed. Feel free to check me on that - I was never great at math.

The stem cell research issue has nothing to do with abortion. Scientists are not using aborted fetuses, they're using excess blastocysts left over from in vitro fertilization. Blastocysts that would be thrown away anyway. They're never - never - going to become living, breathing human beings. They're going to become rotten dead cells sitting at the bottom of a dumpster under banana peels.

I don't know about you, but if I were a blastocyst, I'd sure want them to use my stem cells to save countless lives before I rot. At least I would want that, if I had a brain.

UPDATE...And then there were the e-mails like this one (I've included my responses below):

"What a fake comparison!   The US military did not kill ONE civillian on purpose.   Most of the civillians killed were killed by  terrorists.  The only reason some were ACCIDENTLY killed  by allied forces is that the cowardly terrorists hide behind civillians after they set off rockets.  They are followed to housing which may or may not contain civillians.  
Then the allies send a rocket to the house where they hide.     Some of the civillians killed are terrorists own families (who ought to run from them).   Others are just innocent victims of terrorist cowardice.   Sometimes people dressed in civillian clothes carry weapons or run toward our soldiers or Iraq's and are killed because they are perceived to be threats.  Our soldiers have to make split second decisions to kill or be killed.  In a few cases, these were innocent people, but again, understandably perceived to be threats.    Sometimes the terrorists have even sent children with bombs or grenades toward our military!   This is a clever way to kill our military and a child, and blame US!   Many of those killed were teens in civillian clothing with weapons.   Are these INNOCENT civillians?   No.  Is this OUR fault?   Of course not!  Terrorist wars are not like others where civillians are nowhere near." 

I'm sorry, I thought you were complaining about Monday's cartoon. You seem to be complaining about something else entirely, because Monday's cartoon said nothing about the US military killing civilians on purpose. The cartoon spoke of innocent civilians killed during the war. It doesn't matter who killed them, it only matters that they were killed, and people such as yourself think that their deaths were worth it if it'll save more lives in the long run. That's all the cartoon said. I have no idea why you're trying to pretend that I said what I didn't say, unless you're doing it because you can't dispute what I actually did say.

"But terrorists have to be stopped.   What would you suggest?   That we allow them to get strong and confident, take over Israel, and finally take over our country?  (Do you know any history of what happened after we chickened out of the VN war?   Would you have wanted to live in Cambodia?  Laos?  VN?)    You liberals never have a solution of your own!!!!  All you know how to do is criticize others."

"Chicken out" of Vietnam, a war we had no business fighting in the first place? How old are you, by the way? Adults don't usually speak this way about life and death matters. The solution would have been to not invade Iraq, a country that had no WMD, no ties to Al Qaeda, had never attacked us, and was not about to attack us. The tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians who are now dead would still be alive, and because our manpower wouldn't have been diverted from Afghanistan, we might have actually caught Osama bin Laden.

"Also, your figures are greatly exaggerated.   "Tens of thousands" of Iraqi civillians have not been killed.  This is a baldfaced lie!   Get your figures straight!"

I never state anything as a fact unless I've researched it. If you have a problem with the numbers, take it up with the Administration whose invasion caused chaos in Iraq. You can also take it up with the Stars & Stripes (the military paper that reported on the death toll reaching 50,000 - http://tinyurl.com/ejz6s), or with CNN, which reported that 14,000 of those deaths happened just this year (and the year's only half over) - http://tinyurl.com/mr6pl

  You call our presence "occupation".  It's true that some in the Sunni party wants us out (Of course!   They were benefitting from Saddam's reign and living like kings.)  but the people of 3 ethnic groups who got saved from Saddam's evil death plan do not consider our presence "occupation".    They know that if we leave before the present administration is strengthened, they (and the Israelis) are all dead ducks, just as if Saddam were still ruling."

    
The definition of "occupation" (from something called a "Dictionary"):

1. Invasion, conquest, and control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces.
2. The military government exercising control over an occupied nation or territory."

If you have a problem with that, don't bother me with it, take it up with the good folks at Brittanica.

" (By the way, I suppose you have ignored all the news about  finding the more than 500 weapons of mass destruction, some with mustard gas, and some with sar  --- (news which certain people have been trying to suppress for a couple of years.)   You liberals all owe the Bush administration an apology.   Wasn't it kind of stupid to assume that Saddam had gotten rid of his WMD's when we KNEW he had them during the gulf war?"

No, I didn't ignore it. I did something called "paying attention," which you may want to take a stab at some time. Those 500 "weapons of mass destruction" were pre Gulf War weapons that were useless, and that were disposed of exactly as we instructed Hussein to do in 1991 - by burying them deep in the desert. You've been suckered by Rick Santorum, who was so desperate to hold on to his Senate seat that he fabricated this WMD find. The Defense Department denied that these 500 shells were the WMD we were looking for, and went on to say that they could never be launched because they were already degraded and useless prior to our invasion.

By the way, that's the second time you've spewed "liberal," as if it's something bad. Do you even know what "liberal" means? Are you aware that our Constitution is a liberal document written by our liberal Founding Fathers, based on the liberal principles of the liberal Enlightenment? Anyone who believes in that Constitution - and in the separation of powers, separation of church and state, and Bill of Rights protections it enumerates - is a Liberal.
 

The second fallacy of your fake comparison is that there is absolutely no proof that stem cells from embryos (which are tiny baby humans!) are superior to stem cells from the placenta (which is the tube connecting mother and baby when the baby is in the womb.)   The placenta cells can be harvested without killing anyone!!!!!  (This is because the placenta is discarded after the birth)  So there is no need to kill a baby human!!!!!  There should be no argument about this!   It is absolutely not necessary to kill baby humans!    And these are truly innocent, unlike some of the "civilians".  
 
Carol Barnes

Again, your arguments would be taken more seriously if you were actually talking about something the cartoon said, rather than making up strawman arguments (look that up) to knock down. The cartoon doesn't say embryonic stem cells are the only way, or even the best way. The cartoon is about the argument against embryonic stem cell research contrasted with the argument rationalizing the death of tens of thousands of civilians. The cartoon is about hypocrisy, and none of the red herring issues you've raised disputes what the cartoon actually said.

And by the way, there is no proof that placentas provide stem cells that are as useful as those found in embryos. That's not for you or I to say, that's something only the scientists can determine - if only people such as yourself would allow them to do their work in peace. And NOBODY IS KILLING A BABY HUMAN. These are excess blastocysts that are going to be thrown away. Not a single one of them is ever going to be allowed to grow into a human, unless hundreds of thousands of Carols across the country volunteer to be inseminated with them and give birth to them.

...Have you done that, Carol?
  

More Fake Outrage, More Wimpy Democrats

A few days ago, the Democratic Party posted an ad on their website. For once, it was a powerful, effective ad, full of emotional imagery that succinctly presented an unmistakable message: The past six years have been awful, and it's time for a change. Naturally, the Republicans in Congress and Republican bloggers were outraged! Outraged that the ad was effective, but the official line was they were outraged that the ad showed images of flag-draped coffins coming home.

The Democrats who created that ad stood up and faced the latest bout of fake rage. Naturally, they then tucked their tail between their legs and ran as fast as they could in the other direction, but not before they removed the ad from their website.



Instead of giving in (yet again), why didn't the Democratic Party respond by saying the real outrage is that these young men and women are dying in the first place in a war that didn't have to happen, and that it's their duty as patriotic Americans to point that out?

Why didn't they point out that, to some people, it's only ok to feature soldiers in campaign ads when they're alive or when their widows are staring at George W. Bush in adulation?: