I Guess It Depends On What Your Meaning Of The Word "Is" Is...

A politician named Clinton playing semantic games--now there's something you don't see every eight years.

Here's the headline for Hillary's speech to Iraq:

Clinton to Iraqis: US not going to abandon you

Unless by "abandon" you mean "take all of our soldiers and weapons and protection out of your country." In that case, yes, we are going to abandon you.

And let's not overlook this gem:

"We are very committed, but the nature of our commitment may look somewhat different because we are going to be withdrawing our combat troops over the next couple of years," Clinton said.

I'd love to see someone try that one in other aspects of life...

"Honey, I'm totally committed to you and the kids, but I'm taking my stuff and leaving and you won't see me again."

"Boss, I am completely committed to this job, but the nature of that commitment is going to look somewhat different because I'm clearing out my desk and not coming back."

And one last whopper:

On her first trip to Iraq as America's top diplomat, Clinton said the country has made great strides despite a recent surge in violence. High-profile attacks this past week primarily targeted Shiite worshippers. More than 150 people, many of them Iranian pilgrims, have died.

Ahead of her arrival, Clinton said the attacks are a sign that extremists are afraid the Iraqi government is succeeding.

"I think that these suicide bombings ... are unfortunately, in a tragic way, a signal that the rejectionists fear that Iraq is going in the right direction," Clinton told reporters aboard her plane.

Note that its a recent surge in violence. Maybe, just maybe, rather than being a sign the Iraqi government is succeeding, it's a sign that those responsible are ramping up in anticipation of our leaving. You know, that maybe they're invigorated by the thought of the U.S. going home.

Duck!

That's some damn fine reflexes on Dubbya, don't ya think?

Throwing something at the American president in Iraq has got to be right up there with running up to him and handing him a toy gun in terms of the "I have a death wish" scale.

But I Could Be Wrong...

I'm not just some guy who lives to bash the media (see below). I call 'em like I see 'em, and here's two that I think the AP did all right with.

Fact Checking the Debate
I have small issues with a few of the things said, but overall, I thought it was fair.

Who Won Debate? TV Pundits Don't Agree On a Winner.
Again, pretty fair overall.

For my money (I watched it twice) I thought it was mighty close. In the end, I have to give the smallest of margins to McCain for a couple of reasons:

1. He finished strong. He got better and better while Obama just seemed to become more and more flustered.
2. Unlike some others out there, I didn't think McCain had to wow people over with this debate. In fact, I think that although Obama was more eloquent "off-the-cuff" than he usually is, I'm not sure if he rose to the expectations people had for him. That performance was a far cry from a candidate who is supposed to lead us into the promised land, or send a tingle up our legs, or whatever. Is that, then, a failure? A letdown? I don't know. I'm not sure I want to watch either one of them for the next 4-8 years, honestly.
3. One moment that really stood out to me. After McCain talked about the bracelet from the soldier's mother, Obama tried to counter with his own "I have a bracelet" story. Unfortunately for him, he couldn't remember the soldier's name, and had to look down at his notes. It was a cringe-worthy moment, and made McCain look genuine while making Obama look too rehearsed and phony.
4. One last thought. It worries me that Obama argued that going into Iraq to remove Saddam created our problems today with Iran by taking away an enemy of theirs. I'm sure it's true, of course, that Iran becomes stronger when you take away their aggressive enemy, but is Obama really implying that we should have left a guy who was not only torturing and killing hundreds of thousands of his own people, but also participating in the largest scam in history (oil-for-food) in power simply because he might have kept his neighbor in line? That's genuinely scary. That's like the FBI saying "let's not bother going after Al Capone because he keeps the other families in check." First of all, I could make the argument that if we were to leave Saddam in power, that would have been an even more risky move as Iran still would have had plenty of reason (if not more reason) to pursue nuclear weapons with a psychotic dictator just over the border. Add to that that Saddam would likely have become even more aggressive in return, and you have a bit of a powder keg. Not good. Second, the only reason that Iran is stronger with Saddam gone is because the country (Iraq) is "in between" governments right now. I think the argument can be made that once a new government is firmly established in Iraq, especially one that is on friendly terms with the west, not only will Iran lose any strength they may have gained, they will lose some of what they originally had. Of course, all this is speculation, but as I said, that kind of logic, that kind of thinking, from someone about to take the oval office, really scares me. I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone else comment on it yet.

I'm Sure It Won't Be Long...

before we see a headline like this:

We're Pretty Sure Palin Would Be Lying If She Had Said Some Stuff That We Were Hoping She Would.

The latest, from CNN (big surprise there) has the headline "Palin Never In Iraq, Campaign Now Says."

As NewsBusters points out, though, she never actually claimed she was ever in Iraq!

This is getting ridiculous, and it's beyond excusable. Palin never claimed she was in Iraq. "Palin officials" never claimed she was in Iraq. It seems that the only one who ever actually claimed she was in Iraq is an unnamed "Palin aide in Alaska." So, let me get this straight--the credibility of the entire story rests on someone who could possibly be some high-schooler doing an internship in the governor's office after school and most likely didn't know the difference between Kuwait (where Palin did visit) and Iraq?

The Boston Globe has a little more, and handles it a little better:

Following her selection last month as John McCain's running mate, aides said Palin had traveled to Ireland, Germany, Kuwait, and Iraq to meet with members of the Alaska National Guard. During that trip she was said to have visited a "military outpost" inside Iraq. The campaign has since repeated that Palin's foreign travel included an excursion into the Iraq battle zone.
They still don't report when these things were said, or by whom, but I noticed that in one case, they use the term "Iraq battle zone," which it appears she did, by visiting a military installation on the border.

At least the Globe makes it clear that she only went to the border because she wasn't allowed to go any further.

But she did not venture into Iraq, Osborn said. "You have to have permission to go into a lot of areas, and [the crossing] is where her permissions were," he said.

The last thing that struck me is that both papers seem to imply that her occasional claim of traveling to Ireland, although technically true, should be discounted because it was only a refuelling stop. In nearly the same breath, though, even though she was in a potentially dangerous area on the border of Iraq, visiting troops that, as a matter of course, had to go into Iraq, she somehow can't count that because she technically didn't cross the border, as if she had somehow managed to do a hokey-pokey and put her left foot in and shook it all about, all of this wouldn't be an issue.

If anyone has any legitimate story with quotes from Palin herself or a named source, saying that Palin went into Iraq, would you send them to me, or post the links in the comments section?

UPDATE: I guess I need to read more carefully. It looks like Palin did cross into Iraq, however briefly. The NewsBusters uses a quote from the CNN article that appears to have been changed (another "stealth edit"?). The line in question, as quoted by NewsBusters, says

"The Boston Globe reported Saturday that Palin visited the Iraqi side of a border crossing -- but never journeyed past the checkpoint."

The CNN version?

"The Boston Globe, however, reported Saturday that in response to questions about the trip, Alaska National Guard officials and campaign aides said Palin did not go past the Kuwait-Iraq border."

I have no proof that CNN changed their copy, but the Globe article seems to indicate that she did, in fact, enter Iraq proper.

"Her visit to Iraq itself..." (bold mine)

"Palin did not stay the night in Iraq..." (bold mine)

Why say that unless she was there during the day?

Whatever. Maybe we should stop being nit-picky and look at the candidates for president. Can we start listing the trips that they've made? I guess we could start with Obama's vacation to Bali, where he worked on his book, or maybe his trip to Germany to speak in front of the Germans while electing not to meet with actual Americans...wait, do those count?

This Is News???

I really expected more from The Washington Post.

I mean, really? The thrust of the headline and the opening is that Palin somehow made a gaffe in her statements.

Gov. Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would "defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans."

The idea that the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaeda plan the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, a view once promoted by Bush administration officials, has since been rejected even by the president himself.

Yeah. Except that's not what she said. She said that they would defend people from the enemies (not the Iraqis) who did those things. The paper is making the assumption (or hoping that readers will) that since the troops were "Iraq-bound" that she was talking about "the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein." Obviously that's not true for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is that that government, and Saddam Hussein, no longer exist. So she's clearly not talking about them. The paper knows this, though, as the very next line explains:

But it is widely agreed that militants allied with al-Qaeda have taken root in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion.

Oh, so you mean al-Qaeda, which did plan, carry out, and rejoice in the deaths can actually be found in Iraq, where those Iraqi-bound troops seem to be bound for? And so the troops might defend the innocent (which I would argue includes the Iraqi people/government themselves) from al-Qaeda in Iraq?

Isn't that what she said???

Shit like this really pisses me off because it preys upon ignorance of both facts and language. And the Post should know better.

The rest of it has problems, too, but not as bad as this.

UPDATE: Ace (and others) beat me on this because I was doing stupid things, like e-mailing this info to Ken and going to work. As it turns out, that line about al-Qaeda taking root in Iraq? It was a stealth edit. It wasn't there in the first draft.

Person Sarah Palin

Right click for SmartMenu shortcuts

He Told You So!

I caught this article from Yahoo! news, about Senator Dick Durbin's assault on Donald Rumsfeld:

The incoming deputy leader of Senate Democrats demanded answers Saturday from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as to why U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan lack protective equipment for themselves and their vehicles.

Nothing sickens me more than when politicians use tragedy to grab a few headlines. And that's exactly what Durbin is doing here. If he really wanted to know why, he should have read this incredibly insightful opinion piece by Bruce "Nostradamus" Bartlett, from way back in 1999:

As a consequence, defense officials are scrambling to pull together the resources needed to sustain our operations there. Unfortunately, they are bumping up against severe limits resulting from the drastic deterioration of U.S. military capability during the Clinton Administration. In just fiscal year 1998 alone the Defense Department lost the following assets.

Aircraft. The number of combat aircraft fell by 434 or 4.8 percent. Sixty-two airlift planes were also retired, and 857 other aircraft. In total, 1,353 planes were taken from service, reducing the number of aircraft available by 6.6 percent.

Ships. More than 10 percent of all submarines were decommissioned, reducing the total to 123 from 137 the year before. Ten support ships were lost and 684 small boats. Overall, U.S. ship strength was reduced by 16 percent.

Combat vehicles. The number of tanks were reduced by 827 or 7.6 percent. Other combat vehicles fell by 6,360 or 14.5 percent. Overall, available combat vehicles declined by 13.1 percent.

He finishes with this:

In short, Bill Clinton's emasculation of the Defense Department is going to sandbag his successor, regardless of who it is. We can only hope that that person has the political will to do what is necessary in the face of inevitable opposition.

You may be asking yourself how the Clinton administration managed to gut our nation's defense so much. Maybe this will help. It's a few selection's from Dick Durbin's voting record. (from LexisNexis(TM))

Aye HR 2461 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR FY90-91
Terminate further production of the Stealth bomber.
(CR# 167; Tally: 144-279 Date: 07/26/89)

Nay HR 5006 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FY 1993
Pass H. R. 5006, Defense Authorization.
(CR# 172; Tally: 198-168 Date: 06/05/92)

Aye HR 5006 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FY 1993
Terminate the production of B-2 bombers.
(CR# 170; Tally: 162-212 Date: 06/05/92)

Aye HR 5006 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FY 1993
Reduce the authorization for SDI by $937.5 million.
(CR# 169; Tally: 161-211 Date: 06/05/92)

Aye HR 5006 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FY 1993
Ban domestic nuclear testing for one year.
(CR# 164; Tally: 237-167 Date: 06/04/92)

Nay HR 1530 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FY 1996
Pass H.R. 1530, authorizing appropriations for DoD military
activities for 1996.
(CR# 385; Tally: 300-126 Date: 06/15/95)

Nay HR 7 NATIONAL SECURITY REVITILIZATION ACT
Pass H.R. 7, to revitalize the national security of the United
States.
(CR# 145; Tally: 241-181 Date: 02/16/95)

Thanks a lot, Dick.

And So Did He!

Bartlett's not the only one who saw it coming. Decorated vet Col. David Hackworth sent an open letter to President Clinton in 1998:

Hackworth raises a series of excellent questions that should be addressed not only to Clinton but to every member of Congress:

Why are there more colonels than machine gunners in the U.S. Army?

Why are there 150,000 military personnel hunkered down around Washington, DC, when infantry platoons, who close with the enemy, are uniformly 30 to 40 percent under strength?

Why does NATO have 44 U.S. Army generals in Europe when we have but four fighting brigades there? This is roughly one general per rifle/tank company.

Why do the top generals and admirals in NATO have plush villas and fat staffs which require millions of dollars per year to support, while many of our warriors live in tin trailers and can't make it without food stamps?

"Sure we have 1.4 million military personnel on the books," continues Hackworth, "but we have only 29,000 trigger pullers -- the indispensable riflemen who put holes in enemy soldiers. Your politically correct civilian defense chiefs have eviscerated our force with their constant politicking, treating the profession of arms as though it were an 8 to 5 operation like the Post Office, rather than one whose life-and-death mission is to defend America."

Friendly Fire

Here's a fairly candid and in-depth account of Pat Tillman's final hours. Just heartbreaking. I can't even bring myself to quote from it.

Put Up Or Shut Up

I know I haven't been that political recently, and I apologize. It's a fairly hectic time for me, and I haven't been able to write as much as I'd like. However, I can't stress enough how good of a job people like antimedia have done in keeping me informed on the current goings-on.

One of his posts in particular has caught my attention. He links to My Soldier, an organization that allows individuals and groups to adopt a soldier. It's easy, and free, and I urge you to sign up. And when someone you know on the right gives thanks or offers a toast to our men and women in uniform, say "I'm glad you feel that way," and ask them to sign up for My Soldier. When someone you know on the left insists that although they are against the war, they support the troops, say "I know a non-political way you can do that," and ask them to sign up for My Soldier.

When a person enrolls in the My Soldier program, they agree to adopt a soldier. They receive a “starter kit” containing guidelines for letter writing and care package preparation, a red My Soldier bracelet, and a specially designed My Soldier baseball hat to include with the first letter they send to their deployed United States Armed Serviceperson. The first letter/care package they send is addressed to their soldier's platoon contact who then distributes it to their soldier. The soldier then replies and direct correspondence begins (about 80% of soldiers respond, but 100% appreciate getting the letters).

There's no good reason not to do it.