October 9, 2005

HOW LONG UNTIL SOMEONE CLAIMS IT WAS OUR NEW SUPER-WEAPON:

Militants' training camps wiped out (Rahul Bedi, 10/10/2005, Daily Telegraph)

Training camps used by jihadists battling with the Indian army for control of Kashmir were buried by landslides or left in ruins by the earthquake, bringing hope of a new opportunity for peace-making after a 16-year Islamic insurgency.

Of course, if the CIA were competent they'd start the rumor....

Posted by Orrin Judd at October 9, 2005 11:00 PM
Comments

The idea of artificially triggering earthquakes was concoted by the OSS.

Posted by: carter at October 9, 2005 11:19 PM

Our secret weapon? Elecrodes to the nipples, apparently. Or at least that's the first principle in five years worth our president's veto. Even if he has to deprive soldiers of bullets to do it. Nifty!

Who y'all with on this one, Frist or GWB?

http://tinyurl.com/d58w4

Bush will veto anti-torture law after Senate revolt
By Francis Harris in Washington
(Filed: 07/10/2005)

The Bush administration pledged yesterday to veto legislation banning the torture of prisoners by US troops after an overwhelming and almost unprecedented revolt by loyalist congressmen....

The amendment was attached to the $440 billion (£247 billion) defence spending bill and if Mr Bush vetoes the amendment, he would have to veto the entire bill.

That would leave America's armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan short of cash as early as the middle of next month.

Posted by: Rick Perlstein at October 9, 2005 11:53 PM

Our secret weapon? Elecrodes to the nipples, apparently. Or at least that's the first principle in five years worth our president's veto. Even if he has to deprive soldiers of bullets to do it. Nifty!

Who y'all with on this one, Frist or GWB?

http://tinyurl.com/d58w4

Bush will veto anti-torture law after Senate revolt
By Francis Harris in Washington
(Filed: 07/10/2005)

The Bush administration pledged yesterday to veto legislation banning the torture of prisoners by US troops after an overwhelming and almost unprecedented revolt by loyalist congressmen....

The amendment was attached to the $440 billion (£247 billion) defence spending bill and if Mr Bush vetoes the amendment, he would have to veto the entire bill.

That would leave America's armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan short of cash as early as the middle of next month.

Posted by: Rick Perlstein at October 9, 2005 11:53 PM

Why does Rick insist on posting off-topic items, which he thinks are "gotcha" moments.

Try emailing OJ, Rick if you want something posted.

Posted by: Jim in Chicago at October 10, 2005 12:21 AM

Thanks Rick, good news at last. The President should veto that stupid bill. The last thing we need is to have the courts involved with running military opperations.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at October 10, 2005 12:26 AM

When I read the first line I thought it was a porn troll commenting. Then I read down and it was Rick.

I wish Bush would veto it, but I doubt he will want his first veto to be a military appropriations bill.

Posted by: pj at October 10, 2005 12:30 AM

The CIA has started the rumor. Where do you suppose OJ got the idea?

Posted by: Kirk Parker at October 10, 2005 2:05 AM

So the Senate's taken the troops hostage, and Rick's on the side of the hostage-takers, and bragging about it. Now there's a surprise.

Posted by: joe shropshire at October 10, 2005 2:29 AM


Slighting This Greatest Generation
:
We Focus on the Bad Apples and Ignore the Courageous Heroes By Bing West, WaPo, Sunday, October 9, 2005; Page B07

"Over the next nine months, Fallujah grew into the stronghold of the insurgency and the vipers' nest for jihadists infiltrating from Syria. The fighting escalated in ferocity. Among the Marines, acts of courage became common. 1st Sgt. Brad Kasal, for instance, threw his body over a wounded Marine and shot jihadists two feet away. Cpl. Tim Connors, 20, battled inside two adjoining concrete rooms for four hours before killing five jihadists and recovering the body of a fallen squad member. So it went, day after day.

"Hundreds of gripping stories of valor emerged that would have been publicized in World War II. Although there are far more heroes than louts in the ranks, stories of the abuses at Abu Ghraib and now at Fallujah vastly outnumber stories of heroism and sacrifice.

"Not to take anything away from The Greatest Generation, but the behavior of our soldiers today will stand scrutiny when compared to the performance of those in any past war. The focus of the press on abuse is not due to any relaxation in military discipline or social mores. Why was valor considered front-page news in 1945 and abuse considered front-page news in 2005?

"Poor conduct, like shipwrecks, makes news. On the other hand, saving a ship should also make news. For saving a Marine in what is called "the house from hell" in Fallujah, Sgt. Kasal has passed into Marine legend. Yet Fallujah Redux as a front-page story is based on allegations of bad conduct, not of heroism. If a story about louts two years ago merits the front page today, then stories of heroes merit equal attention today and tomorrow."

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at October 10, 2005 2:37 AM

I guess Allah has the last laugh on this one. (And no, the show's not over, since we all know the entire west coast could tumble into the ocean tomorrow---gosh wouldn't that cause some world-wide jubilation?)

But might it just be that in this Clash of Civilizations, the culture (or counter-culture?)with the best sense of humor will prevail?

Ought certain groups be working on their material?

Posted by: Barry Meislin at October 10, 2005 3:10 AM

You test out the new secret weapons on foreign soil, then when they're perfected, like Karl Rove's hurricane machine, you use them for domestic purposes. Denizens of California, beware! You have far more to fear from the evil Bush/Cheney/Rove triumvirate than merely electrodes to the nipples (though I suppose in certain quarters of San Francisco, that might not be something to fear, anyway).

Posted by: John at October 10, 2005 3:32 AM

Rick:

With the troops, against the terrorists.

Posted by: oj at October 10, 2005 7:51 AM

Barry:

Well, they are all Blue States....

Posted by: oj at October 10, 2005 7:53 AM

Jim:

No, please, in the e-mails he adds profanity.

Posted by: oj at October 10, 2005 7:59 AM

A more effective rumor might be that Allah is unhappy with the Pashtun. America can get credit for the rescues and leave the killing to Allah.

Posted by: pj at October 10, 2005 8:34 AM

At the moment, the veto threat serves to buck up the House in the conference committee.

Posted by: David Cohen at October 10, 2005 8:34 AM

"Why does Rick insist on posting off-topic items, which he thinks are "gotcha" moments."

I think that's what in large part is motivating the shrieking you hear from National Review Online and The Weekly Standard and the like. They've been denied their "gotcha" moments with the naming of this particular person as Justice, and "gotcha" is what motivates the pundits on all sides, at it's what passes for intellegent discussion of a topic by many of them.

(There's nothing wrong with a pithy or snarky comment, but the real problem is when you think that ends the debate, that there's nothing more to be said.)

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at October 10, 2005 12:21 PM

Note that vetoing the defense bill would NOT leave any military units short of funds, since even if another bill sans an anti-effective-interrogation-thus-saving-lives amendment isn't speedily passed, Congress will continue to pass stop-gap bills authorizing a few weeks funding at a time.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 11, 2005 4:10 AM
« PARTY TIME!: | Main | I JUST KNOW THIS TIME IS DIFFERENT... (via Robert Schwartz): »