I doubt I am the only one who finds the “debate” leading up to the November elections incredibly tedious.

From Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: te·dious
Pronunciation: ‘tE-dE-&s, ‘tE-j&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin taediosus, from Latin taedium
Date: 15th century
: tiresome because of length or dullness : BORING
- te·dious·ly adverb
- te·dious·ness noun

I am coming to believe the the Left’s reptetitious approach to events, be it Iraq, the economy, taxes etc may be deliberately tedious. It is possibly calculated to turn off the electorate thus allowing the moonbats minimal numbers to have a greater impact.

Their arguments are so factually challenged that one could spend every waking hour trying to bat them down. John Kerry gives a lovely example when he says American troups terrorize women and children in the dark of the night. Dick Durbin compares Guatanamo to the Gulag and Hitler’s concentration camps. Multitudes of Lefties think listening in on enemy communications in pursuit of intelligence is somehow a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Cutting taxes for the highest rate payers is somehow unfair to those who pay little or no taxes. They seem to think that saying the same ridiculous thing over and over again makes it so. In this they are aided and abetted by many in the media. The media uncritically disseminates the Left’s views without context or analysis… because it suits their agenda.

And if that isn’t tedious, I don’t know what is.
(continue reading post »)

Just when I thought I was done writing op eds for a few days, Senator Chuckie Schumer and the the Usual Suspects jumped on the news that the Iraqi government was considering amnesty for insurgents who killed American soldiers.

What incredible cynicism. The Senator should know, and probably does know, that amnesty is routine at the end of a war or revolution. If it were not so, Robert E. Lee would have danced at the end of rope. The good Virginian who is held in nearly universal high esteem was responsible for the deaths of more than a few American soldiers, to the tune of several hundred thousand. Without it, peace is nearly impossible.

Like it or not, we are in a war. The men on the other side are doing exactly what we are doing, killing the enemy. That is what combatants do in war. War crimes are a separate issue, for instance the beheading of hostages. The placing IEDs or sniping at Americans is the only way they can fight their war given our overwhelming technical superiority. the will be deemed soldiers Geneva nothwithstanding. When the war ends, in the name of peace, amnesty univerally follows. Even the South Africans found it in their hearts to give amnesty and reconcile when their conflict came to an end. (continue reading post »)

With Zarqawi dispatched to the Brothel Eternal and the president safely back from Iraq, it seemed a good time to take a sober look at a serious subject, what we have paid in Iraq in human terms and where we might be going.

For months I have thought about a post on the subject of casualties we have sustained in Iraq. It is not an easy subject upon which to post. Afterall, one death or maiming is awful. Any attempt to put casualties in historical perspective has an apparent element of calousness. But without such perspective it is difficult to ascertain where we are. Casualties are one of the standards by which we measure success and failure in warfare. With the approaching 3,000th death of an American soldier, and knowing full well what the MSM and their allies on the Left will do when we reach that number, I felt compelled to say something to try to bring a bit of perspective.

Let us pick some incidents or engagements at random, say September 11, 2001. How many Americans were killed that day? 3,000 or so? How about June 6, 1944 (D-Day), roughly 4,000 killed on the first day. Battle of Gettysburg, approximately 25,000 casualties of all kinds over three days. Battle of Fredericksburg, 15,000 in one day. Antietam? Shiloh? Anzio? Ardennes?

Truth be known, the casualties suffered in Iraq in over three years of fighting, less than 20,000 of all kinds, less than 3,000 killed, are incredibly light. One can find fault with much about what has been done militarily in Iraq, but casualties is not one of them. (continue reading post »)

Last week as the Secretary of Defense’s critics emerged from the ranks of a few retired general officers, my first reaction was to take their criticism of Rumsfeld seriously. These were not pencil pushers. They were officers from some of the finest units in the military, including the 82nd Airborne, the 1st ID and the Marine Corps. They had led some of the very units that brought our smashing victory over Sadam. These were folks who had been there and done that. Their opinions were worthy of respect.

So what brings to mind George McClellan? Who was George McClellan? Why does it mater? What do these general officers have in common with McClellan?

McClellan was the head of the Army of the Potomac, the major Union Army in the East during the Civil War. He had an enormous ego and a shockingly low opinion of President Lincoln. When he failed to perform, Lincoln sacked him. Lincoln was willing to tolerate his insubordinate attitude but not his lack of victories on the battlefield. Lincoln sacked him when he failed to followup on the one victory he did achieve and destroy the Confederate Army after the Battle of Antietam.

McClellan became Lincoln’s most outspoken critic. He said total victory was neither possible nor desirable. He eventually ran for president as a Democrat in 1864. Mercifully, he was trounced by Lincoln and the North went on to total victory.

What these six generals who are now Rumsfeld’s, and Bush’s by extension, critics have done is to enter into the same politcal realm that McClellan did. They are not, as is their right, entering onto the battlefield of ideas, i.e. how do we go about getting the best military result, but rather have entered into the political arena. (continue reading post »)

The “big news” last week was that the president “leaked” classified information via Scooter Libby.

Joe Wilson (no relation, thank God), penned an article for the New York Times. The article, in part, dealt with the yellow cake uranium issue mentioned in the State of the Union in 2003. Wilson asserted that what the president said was false. The vice president’s office was aware of classified information that contradicted what Wilson said.

Rallying public support for the war in Iraq is part of the president’s job. What Wilson did was detrimental to the war effort. The vice president counseled that some of that classified information should be made public in order that the nation would have a more complete picture of the facts than was presented by Wilson.

What remains classified is clearly in the president’s authority to decide, he is the commander in chief. Someone needs to make that decision. When the vice president took the matter to the West Wing, the president authorized its release in order that the public have a more complete picture of what had happened.

Was it more important that the information remain classified or was it more important that the public know? A cost/benefit analysis is made, probably rather quickly in this case as it appears no sources were at risk

It seems that whenever the administration takes any steps to protect itself or the country from attack or to correct misinformation, the first reaction on the part of the media and other administration foes is to look for some impure motive, corrupt purpose or illegality. Such was the case last week. While the issue will fade away, mainly because nothing wrong was done, another cut of the thousands of cuts thus inflicted over the last three years or so will remain.

A fine lawyer from Massachusetts once asked Senator Joe McCarthy, “Have you no shame?” I think the same can be asked of much of the main stream media and many in Congress. They seem to be willing to say and do anything for no better purpose than to inflict yet another cut on this president.

I am a San Francisco native. I love the town, or at least what it once was. When I had an opportunity to come back to California after many years “out there,” I was thrilled. Home to Northern California, my heart soared.

My brother, a few years older than me, recalled fondly the fleet’s homecoming after World War II. The parade of the glorious ships parading under the Golden Gate. San Francisco had had such an important role in that time. It was a history in which we all took pride.

I even took a sort of perverse pride in the San Francisco of the 60s. The Summer of Love, The Filmore, The Jefferson Airplane all were a testament to what a welcoming place the town was. The birth of gay political power with Supervisor Milk, though he held political views way to the Left of my own, was a welcome coming forth of an abused segment of the population. The years of the 49ers brought another side of the community to light. It seemed Joe Sixpack and the aging hippies co-existed. Dirty Harry… ah, Dirty Harry! And then the was Zodiac, something dark and terribly frightening. All of it was part of my town. Colorful, cosmopolitan, beautiful, forward-thinking.

But what do we have now under Major Nuisance and the Stooges?

Let’s look at some recent votes of the Board of Stupivisors:
(continue reading post »)

Time for the morning venting: I’m sick of politics as usual.

I have little or no idea about the merits of the Dubai/Ports deal. I say that as the son of one of the men who had a significant hand in engineering several facilities in the Gulf. I watched for years as my dad traveled to the region to work on Kharg Isle and several plants in Saudi. I listened intently to the stories he would bring home from his travels. I even had a minor hand in some dealings there myself. I gained a passing familiarity with what was going on in the region. I know enough to know I don’t know squat about this deal.

And that is about the level of expertise the President’s critics have demonstrated during the last week, only I am pretty sure I am better informed than most of them.

The noise is all for political effect, and for that they should be ashamed, very ashamed.

Nothing is beyond schoolyard politics, not even international relations that are critical to our securtiy, and I am sick of it.

Just shut the *&%@ up unless you have something significant to contribute to the discussion, and for God’s sake, stop flaunting your ignorance and venality.

Thank you.

Posted by John Wilson, aka MontereyJohn.

The opinions expressed in this column represent those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, or philosophy of CaliforniaConservative.org

As I write this, I am watching Flight 93 on A&E. Lord, how I hate our enemy. I know it clouds my judgment, and I will not let the beast of hatred have me for long. But for these few short moments I need to remember.

In the anger born of hatred is the energy that will see me and all of us through.

For you Lefties out there, you friends of the Islamo-fascists, watch this movie. Watch and remember. And then tell me you think it wrong to hunt them all down and kill them. Tell me there is another way to deal with these people.

The hatred and anger brings back the clarity.

I doubted the war in Iraq was the way to go. Hell, I still doubt it. But the war has brought our enemy to that place like cockroaches to a dirty kitchen. If nothing else, we are going to kill a hell of a lot of them. Maybe some other good will come of it, like deposing that, in the words of Patton, “paper hanging son of bitch,” but for me I see it as the chance to destroy the enemy, and destroy them we must.

I hate them. They have earned that hatred. I will support this president until he has hunted them all down and killed them.

And anyone who gets in the way of that great cause, and yes I mean you Teddy, Durbin, Reid, Kos and your ilk, you will be but a greasespot on the highway of history.

I needed this reminder.

“Let’s roll!”

Post by John Wilson

I really have to start drinking de-caf before watching Russert.

Again the discussion of the NSA surveillance of terrorists came up. And again it is cast by the MSN, in this case Tim Russert, as some sort of domestic spying. I know Russert knows that is not what this program is. So why perpetuate that idea?

Is it because they know if people hear the same thing over and over again that it will be accepted as fact?

Where on earth did the idea come from that it is illegal to listen in on enemy communications?

Did we listen in on the Germans during WWII? The Japanese…

Now there is an interesting thought… the Japanese.

The Battle of Midway was won for one reason, successful signals intercepts. We KNEW where they were going to be when. Though we were hugely outnumbered, we won a smashing vistory.

Would the Lefties insist on a court warrant before obtaining such information or acting on such information once obtained?

So, when I listen to Tim Russert advancing such a bizarre notion as though it was somehow ipso facto so, my blood pressure elevates.

Pass the decaf!

Posted by John Wilson (aka Monterey John)

The idea, as I understand it, was that if “democracy” broke out in the Mid-East that a new era of peace and prosperity would emerge in the region and thus our national security situation would improve.

Well, how is that working out for us?

In Iraq we have a parliament dominated by Islamists of a distinctly Iranian flavor even as we are heading into a showdown with Iran. In Afghanistan things seem to be going somewhat better. In Palestine? Disaster.

The argument is emerging that democracy is not an end-result but rather a method. It is a method for the thinking of the voters to be reflected in their government. I guess we now know what the people of Palestine think.

History teaches us that the German people elected Hitler. Something similar seems to be going on in the MidEast. The truth is, what the people of the region think, and the reflection of that thinking in the governments they elect, does not necessarily represent an improvement in our national security. It seems the folks “out there” do not care a bit about what we think and want.

The MidEast is not the only place where we are seeing this sort of thing emerge. Bolivia is a recent example. Before that Venezuela elected a government distinctly hostile to our national interests.

I fear that at some point in time we are going to have to do something about these democratically elected governments.
(continue reading post »)