Wednesday, December 28, 2005

Dying for Perfection

Major Mike

ShrinkWrapped has perhaps the most coherent analysis of the NYT’s publishing of the electronic surveillance of phone calls (either generated within the US and connecting abroad, or originating abroad and connecting within the US) of suspected al-Queda operatives in the US. He clearly points out that the pursuit of the ultra-perfect application of the Fourth Amendment (protection against unreasonable search and seizure), is a somewhat altruistic adventure that has potentially harmful (read …deadly) consequences to the opinion holder. (HT: Hugh Hewitt)

ShrinkWrapped real life example…

The breakthrough came when she casually mentioned toward the end of one session that her ankle was bothering her and she was annoyed (she was almost always annoyed about something, I might add) that she wouldn't be able to jog that night. Since I knew that she was living in a marginal area of Manhattan and this was at a time when crime was at high levels and much in the news, I had concerns that her jogging might be putting her at risk. When I asked her where she jogged, she confirmed that she jogged in a relatively dangerous area. Her response to my comment to that effect was that women should be allowed to jog wherever and whenever they wished without fear of men and that nothing and nobody, including me, was going to stop her from doing what she wanted.

I was greatly relieved that it did not take long for her to recognize that her angry feminism (which had roots in long term feelings of disgust with her mother and envy of her brother's exalted position in her family) was inadvertently providing her with a rationalization for dangerous and self destructive behavior.
ShrinkWrapped superb analysis on the “illegal Bush wiretaps” …

The fact that those who cry loudest about the Bush administration abusing civil liberties (in the absence of any real evidence for specific abuses) are doomed to lose no matter what the outcome, is evidence that they are expressing, through often elegant and elaborate rationalizations, a true self-destructive wish which is hidden and unrecognized. The fact that they are willing to risk the lives of others in order to hold onto their ideological position is further evidence of the aggression that contaminates their purity of vision.
Remember this corollary from the original MOOSEMUSS (scroll
to the end)… Perfect can be the enemy of good enough.

Those in pursuit of perfection are usually overwhelmed by myriad of factors before they can achieve their goals. They…run out of time, and are overcome by events. They…are outmaneuvered by a more nimble opponent and their perfect solution in neutralized by someone else’s action. They…become paralyzed when the perfect solution is not achievable.

They also use the pursuit of perfection as a refuge from taking real action. This “pursuit” becomes a harbor from critics, as the purity of their mission supersedes the production of results in importance. The non-productive search for perfection is ticket is enough to criticize those who have long ago put into action a workable, but non-perfect scheme. Finding a workable solution is not nearly as important as perfectly framing the question…in fact, the perfect question requires no answer. Perfectionists forget the objective and become lost in their search for Shangri-la, Nirvana, or Xanadu…whichever you prefer.

The rest of us live in the real world, where non-perfection is the order of the day. Our efforts usually result in passable, but non-perfect, solutions that balance out many competing interests and move us down the road a bit further than we were yesterday. And, OBTW, these non-perfect answers still make our companies profitable, allow us to raise our families, and help us live in the “real” world.

Perfection rarely exists outside of “perfect” environments, and it is rarely sustained for periods that exceed the half-life of a McDonald’s cheeseburger. This being the accepted case, why would we as a nation, risk all to overly protect the rights of those who intend to kill us and ruin our democracy, by trying to present a “perfect” or pure interpretation of the Fourth Amendment at this critical time?

This IS a case of the Left trying to over-protect rights. Omitted in all of the southpaw analysis, is the clear differentiation that at least one end of these calls was taking place outside of the United States. Presidential surveillance powers outside of US boundaries in times of war has not challenged, so why would we slice the hair so fine here as to greatly increase our vulnerability to those who have infiltrated our society (Syracuse, Portland, etc.) and intend to use the protections that we provide our citizens to kill us?

The Left’s refusal to “connect the dots” here, in favor of trying to run down the President’s numbers, via this red-herring of a Fourth Amendment argument, is the shallowest of hypocrisies when compared to the cries for Bush’s head post-9/11. You cannot cry out for the President’s head for failing to stop 9/11, then take away his ability to exploit critical elements in the enemy’s C4I (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and Intelligence) systems in a declared war. At the very time the Left is complaining about nail clippers finding their way back onto airplanes, they are offering the enemy a secure communications link. The e`-pee-tome (as Jim Varney would say) of hypocrisy.

And I would think that the MSM, the vanguards of truth and journalistic values, would be happy to point out these hypocrisies in a fair and balanced way, yet they are neck deep in it in the NSA case, and they are purveyors of it in the Valarie Plame case. At what point do hypocrites lose their audience because of their obvious biases and lack of standards? At what point do responsible editorial boards step in and stop this journalistic death spiral and salvage their papers’ respect and credibility? At what point do their Boards of Directors reset the culture in order to preserve shareholder value and salvage these companies? Apparently …never.

Sorry, got off on a rant there.

As ShrinkWrapped suggests… it is either the Left’s blind pursuit of perfection that is causing them to advocate policies that will increase our vulnerability to harm, or their well-documented, blind hatred of President Bush… in either case, it is demonstrative that they should not be trusted with the well-being of this nation, for their personal ambitions and altruistic goals will never be more important than our lives.

© Michael McBride 2006

Oppression v. Treason


The Left is going ape-nuts about “Bush’s domestic spying.” For some reason, this wasn’t an issue, and likely wouldn’t be an issue now, with a Democrat in the White House. Why?

Somehow the Left has gotten the impression that Republicans, and especially Bushitler, secretly want to oppress anybody that doesn't agree with them. It’s as if Republicans want nothing more than to spy on everybody that isn’t like them and find a way to ostracize and/or oppress those people for being different.

Take gay marriage, for example. Based upon the rhetoric, you’d think that Republicans want to wiretap, round up and send to the gas chamber all homosexuals. Please allow me to set the record straight.

I don’t have a problem with gay marriage: if your church will perform the ceremony, that's just fine with me - you have the freedom to do that. If you want me to bless said union, monetarily or otherwise, then you'd better look somewhere else because it is of no value to me, nor do I believe it is of value to so society. I will only bless it in as much as I wish for you to be happy. Heterosexual marriage, however, does have value to me and society. More often than not, those marriages result in offspring. Children need a stable home environment to grow in to well-adjusted adults. Mind you, I have many gay and lesbian friends and think very fondly of them. And I’m pretty sure that my opinion here reflects the basics of how most conservatives feel about it.

An individual’s negative evaluation of another person’s life choices does not immediately lead to the desire to eliminate that choice or the person that makes that choice.

I submit to you that because many conservatives come from a system of belief/faith we feel strongly that it is our right to believe and act according to our own conscience, and we will oppose anybody that prevents us from doing so. Individual conscience and belief is the basis of our thinking. From that basis must come the idea that everybody else is also free to think and act according to their own conscience. We don’t, however, expect others to bless or support our choices unless their consciences compel them to.

I further submit to you that the antithesis of individual conscience, rooted in socialist nihilism, is what the Left bases its actions and policies upon. I use the word policy in place of belief because policy is used in the context of applying rules to a group, whereas belief at its core applies to an individual. Therefore I have to think that it is much more likely for a Leftist to oppress a population than a conservative, simply because conservatives apply the (seemingly oxymoronic) universal rule of individual self-determination.

If I’m communicating with a foreign power (nation-state, religious group, etc.) that intends to do harm to American citizens, I would fully expect that the U.S. government is trying to intercept said communication. Hell, I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a file on me at the FBI, CIA and/or Secret Service, for various reasons. And I don’t have a problem with that, in spite of how freakish I might appear in the eyes of others.

There is a yawning chasm between 1. disagreement with individual choices and 2. acting to prevent willful acts of treason. Listening to the Democrats, you’d think a single step separates the former from the latter.

Update 1/03/06

If we are to believe Mark Steyn (HT: Wretchard), nihilist socialism will not die as a result of overthrow by an oppressed populace, but for want of “civilizational confidence.” In nihilist socialism, culture and ethics (faith?), shared or otherwise, are without value. Nothing much matters other than what the government can give you today. If you have nothing to live for but the present, and don't value yourself or your culture, why bother to take steps to continue their existence, i.e. procreate and teach the next generation that they have value?

The future belongs to people that decide they actually want one. Much of the West is deciding that, since their society is not perfect (HT: Major Mike), it is not worth preserving.

Friday, December 23, 2005

The Shepherd's Gift...


T'is the season of joy and sharing in recognition of a gift Man once received in the presence of shepherds and wise men.

Now, with wise men in short supply at home, the shepherds remain at watch over the flock out on the cold, distant frontiers of chaos.

Their's is the gift...

... and the sacrifice this season.

Do let us remember it.

M e r r y C h r i s t m a s!

Thursday, December 22, 2005

Calling Treason Treason

Major Mike

There have been many great posts covering the NYT leaking of a highly classified intelligence gathering program…only mushrooms, time travelers, and ganja smoking Rickie Williams clones could have missed it. Great stuff from Hugh Hewitt, John Hinderaker and many others for their great legal and constitutional analyses. Not much on that I can add…each piece correctly supports the idea that the President is well within his rights in attempting to protect the American people from those who are harboring themselves in the freedoms of our democracy, while at the same time doing their utmost to destroy it.

Yesterday Hugh hit upon a portion of this topic that has not yet garnered enough serious discussion. At what point will this nation come to use its treason laws against those seeking fame and notoriety at the expense of safety and security?

Key here is the vulnerability of such programs to leaks in operational security. While in the Corps, I was read into a couple of “black” programs. Of course I won’t discuss those in any detail, but what I can say is that each were fairly simple applications of technology, that gave us huge tactical advantages in the air, BUT each would have been reduced to rubble had the nature of the program been carelessly exposed. Sometimes the simple leveraging of an existing technology allows the imaginative person to gain a superior operational advantage over those who have yet to conceive of the idea. Rifled muskets, automatic weapons, tanks, airplanes, etc., etc., etc..

Such was the case with the two programs I was familiar with. Someone used their imagination, and we had a significant tactical advantage going forward. But, had those programs been exposed, that huge, and simply acquired advantage would have been negated by simple operational adjustments by our enemies...and, by the way, not to be regained.

That is what concerns me here. Have we, for the sake of some short-lived political hi-jinks, surrendered a huge operational advantage, which we will never be able to reclaim? My answer is …likely.

The Islamafacists have made countless operational adjustments over the years to counter our methods. Box cutters, IEDs. Nuff said. So it is extremely likely that by simply watching the gyrations over the past seven days, they have figured out what the NSA was doing, and taken measures to protect themselves. And even if they didn’t figure it out completely, they have certainly re-examined their operational security practices enough to diminish our previous advantage.

Hello, MSM, this is how people who fight wars play between firefights.

So, to follow Hugh’s question about what would we have done during WWII had the NYT compromised the highly classified Enigma program, what are we going to do about this?

I suggest that we need to start viewing the conscious publication of known classified documents what it truly is… TREASON, and not some mythical right to “FREE” speech that comes with a magic First Amendment Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free card.

This deliberate leak has jeopardized the citizens of this country, likely made the tracking of terrorists more onerous, and set us on a needless, and distracting path towards a constitutional crisis (started by NYT, and driven forward by the spineless amoebas in the Congress…both sides of the aisle) regarding Presidential powers that has been previously decided many times. Sorry, but someone should pay…both the leaker, and the NYT.

Treason is treason. No namby-pamby defense about checking the president’s power…on the facts, this is treason and it should be rightly, and harshly dealt with.

OBTW…for those in Congress trying to leverage this opportunity to strip the president of his rightful wartime powers see …SHEEPDUNG previously posted. P- Politicize Strategy. Once you morons start futzing with the war, it will be lost. So stay off the net and let the warfighters…including this President, do what they are trained and sworn to do… “defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign AND domestic (including incompetent and impotent, Congressmen and Senators, who would sell their moms at a chance to hand out keys to Camp David cabins).”

Monday, December 19, 2005

Heads, I Win; Tails, You Lose


Imagine being able to set yourself up for a political victory in a given situation, regardless of the outcome. It seems that the Left is smart enough to actually have pulled it off. Mind you, this is all a ‘what if’, but based upon the rhetoric I’m hearing from the Left, they can’t possibly lose this (currently) theoretical ideological battle.

Let’s say that, before George W. Bush leaves office, not a single terrorist attack occurs inside the United States. The reason couldn’t possibly be that the President was smart enough to allocate intelligence, law enforcement and military resources correctly. Clearly the only reason such a thing would happen is that the Paper Tiger threat of Islamic Terrorism was overblown by a fear-mongering President and his eee-ville Republican minions. This, of course, allowed Bush to justify lying about intelligence and going in to Iraq to make his oil buddies rich.

Let’s say that, before George W. Bush leaves office, a terrorist attack, of any significant magnitude, occurs inside the United States. The reason couldn’t possibly be that Islamic Militants are effective unconventional operators, using the enemy’s greatest strengths against them, just as in what occurred before 9/11/2001. To the Left, fault will clearly lie at the feet of the President, because everything he does is stupid. If Bush had not lied about intelligence to go in to Iraq in order to make his oil buddies rich, recklessly whacking the metaphorical hornet’s nest of Islamic Militants, and if he had just allocated intelligence, law enforcement and military resources correctly, such a catastrophe never would have happened. That is, assuming he’s still alive. If not, there are still all of the Republicans to blame for supporting him. If that’s not a recipe for political opportunism, i.e. the quest to regain power at any cost, I don’t know what is.

Can the Left have it both ways? Of course! Restoring power to the rightful owners on the Left is what matters most. Especially since W is such an idiot.

And that’s the commonality between these two scenarios. W is an idiot. Really? Tell me why. Because he’s a Christian? Because he wasn’t a Rhodes Scholar? Because he’s a Texan? Because he’s a Republican?

Name-calling is the refuge of the person that has just lost the argument. If you wish to call in to question the intelligence of somebody’s actions in a given situation, by all means, tell me what would be an intelligent alternate action.

To the U.S. Congress: if you believe that the President is behaving monarchical, bring up your problems on the floor of your legislative body rather than throwing out amorphous accusations of “troubling questions” about his behavior on your favorite networks' Sunday morning "news" program. You want to impeach him? Go ahead - don't wait 'til you have regained the majority.

But that would show the world exactly who you are and what your intention is: that political victory, i.e. revenge for the Bush v. Gore injustice, trumps national security. Thomas Dewey, a Republican, had the decency to hold off investigating the Roosevelt/Truman administration regarding the Pearl Harbor attack until after the Second World War had been won. He, a Republican, regardless of whether or not he was right to demand an investigation, believed that national security trumped political opportunism. Do you have such decency? I doubt it.

Sunday, December 18, 2005

Who Is Being Watched?...


"14 members of Congress are like the husband who berates his wife for not shoveling the today's snow...yesterday." - Paul Harvey December 19, 2005

The Old Busted Media is abuzz with the news that the Administration has authorized the NSA to conduct conditional cases of domestic surveillance. In a strategically and suspiciously timed move, the New York Times broke the story on its front page, one day after historic elections in Iraq and hours prior to a critical Congressional vote on the Patriot Act. A typical knee jerk reaction reflected concern and consternation from both sides of the political aisle with both Harry Reid and Arlen Specter suggesting Congressional hearings. Yet as the story unfolded over the weekend, people actually read the Times article beyond page two to find that members of both Congress and the Judiciary were consulted and involved in the conduct of domestic security operations that were intensified after the terrorist attacks of September 11th. Others analayzed the history of implementation of the program and its legal justification. Hugh Hewitt points to the 1972 decision in United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan et al, (407 U.S. 297) which is where, he suggests, "the debate over the president's executive order ought to begin and end."

Overlooked in most of the commentary on the New York Times article is the simple, undeniable fact that the president has the power to conduct warantless surveillance of foreign powers conspiring to kill Americans or attack the government. The Fourth Amendment, which prohibits "unreasonable" searches and seizures has not been interpreted by the Supreme Court to restrict this inherent presidential power. The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (an introduction from a critic of the Act is here) cannot be read as a limit on a constitutional authority even if the Act purported to so limit that authority.
The facts are not where this story began and the will certainly not influence its end, even as the damage has already been done... no doubt as expected. The story was cited as a reason for concern when a successful Senate filibuster on Friday blocked the extension of key aspects of the Patriot Act which will now terminate at the end of the year. Sixteen provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire on Dec. 31, including the key information-sharing ones. It will effectively revert security conditions in the U.S. to a pre-9/11 stance.

In an
op-ed column in the New York Times over the weekend, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said the Senate action "represents a grave potential threat to the nation's security..."

"The central provisions of the Patriot Act allow law enforcement and the intelligence community to share information. This might seem elementary, but for years law enforcement had been stymied by a legal wall that prevented agencies from sharing information. For four years now, inter-agency collaboration, made possible by the Patriot Act, has played an important role in preventing another day like Sept. 11. The act's provisions helped make possible the investigations in Lackawanna, N.Y., and Portland, Ore., in which 12 people were ultimately convicted for attempts to aid Al Qaeda and the Taliban."
Last year, Federal authorities dismissed their case against the ringleader of the Portland militant Islamic group after the FBI officially confirmed the death of Habis Abdulla Al Saoub in a shootout in Pakistan where he had joined Al Qu'aida. Portland's KATU news also reported over the weekend on the idictment of another member of the Portland terrorist ring.

A 39-year old Hillsboro man facing terrorism related charges appeared in front of a federal judge in downtown Portland this morning. Maher Hawash, a software engineer, was charged Monday with conspiracy to levy war and two counts of conspiring to provide material support to the two groups. He has been in custody since late March. The judge has now set a preliminary hearing for Hawash on Monday. Meanwhile, a US district attorney said he expects to present the case to a grand jury on Friday. If he is indicted by a grand jury, he will be arraigned Monday...

The government alleges Hawash flew to Hong Kong in October 2001, then traveled to China and tried to enter Afghanistan, but failed. They say his intent was to join Taliban and al Qaida forces in a jihad against the US. Federal officials also say they have evidence Hawash traveled with five of the so-called Portland six.

The attacks on September 11th caught America off guard and in transition after an 8 year Federal moratorium on brains. In the aftermath, the Mainstream Media was quick to condemn the new Administration for a failure of intelligence while exclusively dismissing the previous one of all responsibility. Armed with the courage of hind-sighted omniscience, Congress assembled an investigative commission to find out how it happened... relieving themselves of the burden of both introspection and responsibility. The conclusion, in short, was a tragic lack of seriousness in face of a clear and emminent threat. It is a condition that the New York Times and Congressional Democrats are attempting to ensure our return. Giuliani further explains,

"It is simply false to claim, as some of its critics do, that this bill does not respond to concerns about civil liberties. The four-year extension of the Patriot Act, as passed by the House, would not only reauthorize the expiring provisions - allowing our Joint Terrorism Task Force, National Counterterrorism Center and Terrorist Screening Center to continue their work uninterrupted - it would also make a number of common-sense clarifications and add dozens of additional civil liberties safeguards.

Given these improvements, there is simply no compelling argument for going backward in the fight against terrorism. Perhaps a reminder is in order. The bipartisan 9/11 commission described a vivid example of how the old ways hurt us. In the summer of 2001, an FBI agent investigating two individuals we now know were hijackers on Sept. 11 asked to share information with another team of agents. This request was refused because of the wall. The agent's response was tragically prescient: 'Someday, someone will die - and wall or not - the public will not understand why we were not more effective."
The MSM would have us agonizingly concerned about who is being watched in America - imagining ourselves, of course, to be the subjects of relentless observation among the innocent trappings of our daily activities. Four years have passed since that bloody Tuesday in September with no additional attacks. Perhaps it is the very success of domestic security efforts that have induced a renewed sense of safety ... and complacency. And yet, the threat lurking within our borders is both real and acute. It hides now in places like Lodi, California and Portland, Oregon and anywhere else it can nest and plot mass murder a la Madrid, Bali, London, Beslan. Thanks to the New York Times and Congressional Democrats, the issue at hand is not who is being watched... but now, who is not.

As Giuliani concludes,

"How quickly we forget."

It is soberingly clear that the United States Senate is simply not a serious representative body. Democrat insanity or Republican fecklessness notwithstanding, they are going to get Americans killed... again. In mass!

Hint: integrity, constitution, fortitude, courage, and determination.

Unfortunately the determination part exists exclusively on the Left side of the aisle... the insane side.

Thursday, December 15, 2005

Applying the Principles of Defeatism to the Iraq War

Major Mike

How to Lose a War…S.H.E.E.P.D.U.N.G

After publishing the highly successful Applying the Principles of War to the Harriet Miers Nomination, I have spent two months in deep strategic thought. I have decided that with Rep. Murtha’s many brilliant strategic proposals, and Hanoi Jane’s attempt to grab a 16th minute of fame (to go with her 30 years of infamy), I should begin a treatise on defeat.

You know, go out and lose one for LBJ, John Kerry and Rep. Murtha. I thought I could develop a guide which nations, and high school football teams, could use as a guide, so that they could ensure that losing, and the loser mentality, could be perpetuated forward, for the good of all mankind. No small feat, but buoyed by my previous, highly regarded strategic analysis, I felt I was up to the task.

I thought S.H.E.E.P.D.U.N.G. After hours of onerous research, toiling over the best that UC Berkeley and the University of Michigan, and Yale Law school had to offer, I came across an obscure treatise , published in the archives of the French Army War (?) College entitled The Art of Losing by General Gaston de Drapeau Blanc-he. S.H.E.E.P.D.U.N.G.

The General outlines the basic principles to follow should losing a war be your desired outcome…S.H.E.E.P.D.U.N.G.

S –Slanted press coverage. By garnering the opposition of your home country press to your warfighting efforts, you can rapidly accelerate and magnify the negative aspects of war, and mobilize hundreds of poorly informed, marginal moonbats to begin a groundswell of opposition to your war…no matter how righteous the cause. The MSM can distort the facts, avoid positive stories, and publish reports of possible atrocities against animals on the endangered species list…all of which they can further distort to garner even more opposition and drive the hated leader’s poll numbers into the cellar.

This is a vital step in beginning the downward spiral to defeat. It is possible to show the same burned out C-130 hundreds of days in a row, so that your viewers will believe that one C-130 gets shot down everyday. You can get the public to confuse humiliation with atrocity. You can quote liberal lawmakers and their exaggerated claims of grave wounds to thousands of our military personnel. (All wounds are serious, but not all result in amputations and gross disfigurement, as many would have your believe).

You can really gain some momentum through your editorial bias, your superior numbers over neutral or right leaning mediums, and the constant pushing of your anti-military values on to the rest of the country. This is job number one!

H – Half-hearted Congressional support. Once the Slanted Press Coverage has begun the pendulum against the war, it is time to change your Congressional posture. This will help cause confusion about your true beliefs and come in very handy at re-election time. Your dumb constituents will actually believe that you were “for the war, before you were against the war,” and that your waffling is less a measure of your lack of principle and more a representation of your political guile; which will eventually garner you a great committee chairmanship sometime out into the future…should you and the rest of your unprincipled partymates ever gain a majority in either house. It may well come in handy for a Presidential run, if the Media slackers could be more effective in their anti-war effort.

Additionally, the dumb sots who are actually getting shot at will blindly believe that you support them, while you are diminishing the value of their efforts. This will eventually confuse them to the point that millions can be spent on VA projects, and you will be able to create a new strain of loser malaise that can be studied for decades, and will call for a whole new government favoritism program that will eventually bring you a whole slew of life-long, anti-war, confused veterans that the Slanted Press can exploit for many wars to come.

Supporting the troops while diminishing their efforts has a long term payback that is incalculable. This is a must.

E – Equivocate on the Mission. The righteousness of the strategic mission can always be twisted by the Slanted Press to confuse the dumb masses and dilute the focus of the country. No matter that 3000 Americans died at the hands of Islamofascists, who undoubtedly received various types of aid from a regime that was known to possess nerve agents and possibly other WMDs. The focus can be diluted with off-target discussions on Valarie Plame, yellow-cake, UN inspectors, casualty lists, Texas redistricting, Supreme Court nominations, the housing bubble, and myriad of other red-herrings that will take the focus of your population off of the fact that there are bad (mostly mis-understood) people out there that will kill you and your family for no reason. And besides, nothing has happened in four years, so 9/11 was an isolated incident…not in any way related to the numerous terrorist activities of the past…USS Cole, World Trade Center Bombing 1.0, US embassy bombings, etc…all unrelated horoscopic events that were unpreventable, either by previous administrations or by those who carried them out.

If the country begins to succeed in its mission…redefine the measure of victory. Eventually, the Slanted Press will help define victory in some impossible combination of immeasurable activities that ensure the word “victory” cannot be applied. Who cares who won the race, the race was not won with a hybrid vehicle, and so it really wasn’t a victory for the environment, was it?

No mission-no victory. No victory = defeat.

E- Endless rhetoric, sloganizing and cliché development. Nothing focuses the masses for defeat better than a good, defeatist slogan. Who can forget the classic, “Hell No We Won’t Go?” A lot of real effort needs to be focused here. Eventually a political opportunist will grab one of these slogans, carry it nationally, and bring momentum to the defeat movement.

Additionally, superficial treatment of serious issues allows the dialog to be kept at a level that entertains the average schmo, and keeps any serious discussion at bay. A good PR firm can package dozens of these slogans a day…sooner or later one will stick, and totally distract efforts at a serious dialog. might make an excellent on-line partner. Soon the debate can be defined along a very narrow issue that the defeatists can win…proving the valid nature of their pure cause, and propelling defeat to the forefront of the political agenda.

“Lose now; before we miss the opportunity.” Love it.

P – Politicize Strategy. The surest way to lose a war is to closely manage it from any political arm in Washington, DC. This necessitates the losers having control of at least one branch of government. If the losers are in the White House then the war can be expertly mismanaged from the Oval Office ala LBJ.

If the President is with the winners, then Congress must begin to grab for control of the strategy. This can be done through endless rounds of “Who Did What Wrong” investigations. Dozens of “I Support The Troops” votings. And the ultimate losing move…the setting of a timetable for the defeat. Once Congress has approved the defeat date, the is no stopping the momentum…Giap and Ho Chi Minh understood this perfectly.

Additionally, a vigorous discussion in Congress is bound to snag at least one former military type who wants to shove his vast strategic experience down the throats of the incompetents at the Pentagon. This can be leveraged many times over, as the poor fool will get his 15 minutes in the spotlight, and lend some real weight to the defeat movement. This is the epitome of the defeat pyramid.

And if the winners control Congress…go to the courts. Granting battlefield combatants legal standing in our courts, re-defining terrorists as POWs, stripping the President of his War Powers can all be garnered through aggressive use of the courts. Balance of power and democratic principles can take a holiday here; the courts are the underground railroad to defeat. By slowly stripping the President and the military of their warfighting tools, we can eventually ensure defeat. Anyone care to sign my anti-land mine petition?

Transferring Strategic Command to a defeatist is the surest way to defeat!

D - Democrat Party Election Manuevering. If a war carries across an election cycle, it is imperative that the Democrat Party attack all aspects of the war, in order to place as many negative images into the minds of the brainless. It is perfectly normal to be for, and against, the same thing at the same time. Don't feel trapped by convention. The Slanted Press will not only ignore this behavior, but in many instances will help you "clear up" your messaging by pretending that your bi-polar maneuvering is somehow savant thinking from another generation.

Additonally, this is the perfect time to call those in the military mindless robotons who terrorize and kill blindly for the government. Quickly follow this message with "...I support the troops, not the mission." and the Slanted Press will let your incongruity slide with this cleverly pre-packaged diametric position that they have already "approved" as possible. Brilliant.

The infighting generated around a Democrat Primary season will bring the national negativity scale to a new low reading. This negativity can be leveraged to grow the seeds of defeat, and when combined with many of the other Principles, may result in defeat AND a four year span with a Democrat President...ultimate defeat!!

U – Underestimate. There are no limits here. We should constantly be underestimating the capabilities, the valor, the tactics, and strategy of our military. This should be done publicly as much as possible. These idiots are too stooopid, to make adjustments in equipment, tactics and strategy as they go, so we should play a few more rounds of Band of Brothers and start spouting what we have learned all over the MSM. This will cause self-doubt to set in among the troops and soon they will begin to question the wisdom of their superiors, then they will all start smoking dope, and fragging officers…then defeat will follow. Underestimation, like camouflage, must be continuous to be effective.

Never underestimate the lack of resolve among the truly weak. This is an underutilized source of negativism that can be valuable at any time. The truly spineless weep for undocumented numbers of “civilian” casualties, while allowing abortion to kill millions a year here at home. They make particularly good TV, as they can cry on command and shake at the mere suggestion of an arduous task. Their behavior can induce lemming like behaviors in the simply mild-mannered or lesser affected weak-willed…both groups who are usually eager to be part of a “Million Man” march for their 30 seconds of fame, and 30 years of back slapping about how they changed the world. These groups can always be re-invigorated with a whiff of defeat dozens of years later, and they act as a strategic reserve of defeatism. Cultivate this resource.

Lastly, to truly set up for defeat, underestimate your enemy. Underestimate his direst of intentions as a mere “lack of understanding.” Underestimate his lack of activity as a move to reconciliation. Underestimate his ability to manipulate the inherent, open weaknesses of democracies to gain lethal access to our government and our institutions. Underestimate his ability to evolve his weapons, strategies, and tactics. Underestimate his ability to leverage technology and sophisticated warfighting techniques such as encryption, psy ops, and WMDs. Frequent and quantitative underestimate of the enemy by those who seek control of the strategy is a sure recipe for defeat.

N – Negativism. A constant stream of negativism from enlightened liberals will soon wear down the resolve of the centrist fence sitters. This fickle group can easily be moved to defeatism with a constant stream of nimble, negative messaging. If negativism is countered by logic, simply find another area to concentrate the negative information flow onto…Artic drilling, prison scandals, gas prices, our growing economy…skip that one…anyway, keep the negaflow going at all costs. Once the apathetic get moving, through constant messaging, defeat will follow. Truth and balanced argumentation have no place here…Bush Lied People Died.

G - Gong Show Contestants. Have a healthy supply of Gong Show contestants to parade before the liberal media. Nonsensical ideologs, Fifteen Minuters, college students, the professional marching crowd, and ego-centric grieving parents careful to embarrass the memories of their courageous sons and daughters can fill the bill here. Jesse Jackson, Jane Fonda, Pat Hayden, John Kerry, Jimmy Massey, John Murtha, and Ron Kovic are all likely available on short notice. They will provide a continuous stream of anti-military rhetoric and circus antics, which will keep the slanted press occupied for months, while the droolers from middle-earth watch mesmerized from their Laz-y-Boys.

These types of distractions keep the focus off the real issues and the dangers to the country, and force the Neo-cons to engage the opposition, off issue, and on neutral turf. This can go on for months, until some errant Congressional investigation turns up the fact that Halliburton paid $7 for a $5 hammer, and allows the left to capture the national Slanted Press’ limited attention span for months.

Certain defeat must be won (lost?) through dedication and a coherent defeatist strategy. In combination, these principles can be a powerful enough force to move public opinion, and lead the way to defeat. Although singularly they will have some negative effects, a fully coordinated strategic implementation of these principles is the surest way to defeat. S.H.E.E.P.D.U.N.G.

ant. M.O.O.S.E.M.U.S.S.

Fools and Damned Fools...


McCain is a Goddamned Fool!

... posing for his foolish worhippers as a statue of liberty.

Reuter's photo antics, the real Statue represents a sincere trust in the nature of men to be noble and virtuous given the opportunity and the freedom. Quite the opposite, the prima donna McCain assumes the worst visage of his countrymen that the Devil can portray. Does he think the Satan will repaint the picture, now that he's purchased it in the name of America? of torturing barbarians?!

Go ferment in your own rotten perspective of America, Senator. But, do not represent me with your stink.

Wednesday, December 14, 2005

Purple Reign...


Bumped to the top for relevance.

Its an epic day in Iraq. Michelle Malkin has the round-up.

The Purple Revolution is at hand. Bill Bennett points the way.

Iraqi Voter to Harry Ried and Howard Dean and the rest of What is Being Left, "Go to Hell!" (Compliments The Political Teen, HT: Michelle Malkin)

...And the Ass you rode in on!

Thanks to this talented artist for the use of his base image.

Questioning Domestic Spying?...


NBC reports that the Pentagon is monitoring "Anti-War" activities in the United States. Where MSNBC see's nascent objectors, Hitchcock saw potential Sabotuers. Is it possible that the Pentagon has a legitimate concern, given the contemporary nature of what is being Left?

Should we be concerned? About which?

And how exactly does NBC News come across these "Top Secret Databases?" Might that be more concerning to the general population considering the fact that Mrs. Myers and her investigative team used Top Secret intelligence information to tip off the groups in the United States currently under investigation. How many Lodi cells have they just assisted?

These are questions NBC never considered.

Wednesday, December 07, 2005

Spiral to Irrelevancy

Major Mike

Adam Lashinsky does a fantastic job of pointing out the cluelessness of today’s MSM paper pushers. Covering the USB Global Media Conference in New York, he does a great job of ticking off their long list of woes…declining stock prices, declining circulations, declining revenues, and the fierce competition they face… from blogs to Craigslist.

Analyzing the article a bit further, it demonstrates how current paper media is failing as a business. As
Hugh Hewitt has often pointed out, paper MSM’s failures to adapt to the new media, and to energize their businesses will eventually lead to their demise. Even McDonald’s offers salads; the paper MSM has not innovated in dozens of years.

The boom of investigative journalism post-Watergate, has been tainted with fabricated stories and reporter abuses…crippling, perhaps the only growth sector of their business. Well documented newsroom bias, selective (liberal) editorial slants, and journalistic snobbery have centered their marketing to the left-center one-third of our population. Their liberal, elitist choices have diminished their product’s marketability and collapsed their markets, and they don’t seem to care. They will sail their liberal Titanics, and their shareholders, into bankruptcies.

Follow that with this delicious, but not unexpected piece about a
PBS hatchet job on domestic violence, children, and custody fights, it is little wonder that these media outlets are shrinking faster than the Wicked Witch of the West in a thunderstorm.

This article points out how the producers ignored the arrests of one of its “heroines” for domestic violence and the multiple investigations centering around her for child abuse.

“The documentary is accused of mischaracterization. For example, Sadia Loeliger is featured as a heroic mom and survivor of domestic violence. But the extensive court documents, findings and reports reveal Loeliger to be guilty of multiple acts of child abuse which led to her losing custody of two daughters.

Police documents reveal she was arrested and jailed for felony domestic violence. No similar documents exist regarding the accused father.”

Now, how is it conceivable that the leftists at PBS could defend this type of work? This piece could only serve as an opportunity for PBS to police itself, and spur it to avoid repeats. But as we have seen with a multitude of other “journalistic” endeavors, they will simply gloss over it, insert some highly ineffective editorial screens in their future processes, and continue turn out the same kind of biased, agenda driven garbage that this “documentary” represents.
It is further evidence that the journalistic elites feel that they should be driving the culture and issues in this society, because the rest of us are too stoooopid to figure it out for ourselves. I am sick of the words journalist and journalism. Let’s call these endeavors what they are… movies, novellas and tabloids.

Friday, December 02, 2005

Shotgun Friday

Major Mike

Hating the Military

Scott Johnson at Powerline has another good post regarding the arguments surrounding the Solomon Amendment.

First. I entirely support the rights of the Yale student groups to protest the Solomon Amendment, but as clearly pointed out, in protesting or banning individual military members from campuses these groups are aiming at the wrong target. Congress passed the law…congress should be the target. This is not lost on the protest groups however; they fully comprehend this and choose to protest anyway. When this simple logic is ignored, it becomes evident that the Solomon Amendment is just an excuse for campus liberals to protest the military, its culture and its values.

When they choose to protest against those who protect their very right to speak out while hypocritically praising a Rep. Lowey’s efforts for equality in spite of the fact she voted for “don’t ask, don’t tell”, they tip their hand beyond logicaldefense. Let’s state it plain…they loathe the military.

As neophyte intellectuals, with little worldly experience, they feel entitled to believe that pockets of the world can operate in a vacuum. They feel that by isolating Yale from the military culture, they somehow improve the campus experience. They believe that all those who serve are robotic automatons without brains or compassion. They believe that all activity in the military is executed by dunces, fools, and conservative shills. They believe that their discrimination is justified because of the moral superiority of their cause, and that this in itself, is enough to discriminate against those who die to defend their right to protest. Naive hypocrisy at its finest.

Scotts’ final bit about Tom Ricks is entirely true. Tom had dinner at my house while he was doing his initial WSJ piece that evolved into the book, Making The Corps. He had...