This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Author: Jonn Lilyea

  • Chavez plans a “Simon Bolivar Satellite”

    Over the past few weeks, I written about Hugo Chavez squandering his petro dollars on 5000 sniper rifles from Russia, subsidizing bus fares for Londoners and paying for elections in Argentina. Today he announced that China is building a “Simon Bolivar satellite” (Washington Times’ Martin Arostegui);

    Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez says his nation plans to launch “the Simon Bolivar satellite” now being built in China as part of plans to develop an integrated ground- and space-based air defense — presumably against the United States.

    “We have 100 satellite technicians training in China who be back in the next few months. The radars, tracking stations and air defenses are being installed right now,” Mr. Chavez said this week on his television talk show, “Hello President.”

    With the Chinese ambassador present for the performance, Mr. Chavez made extensive comments on Venezuela’s growing ties with China in areas such as oil exports and national defense.

    But that’s not all;

    Mr. Chavez, who claims the U.S. has attempted to assassinate him and often warns of an Iraq-style U.S. invasion of Venezuela, already has the most powerful air force in South America with his recent acquisition of 24 Sukhoi Su-30 fighters from Russia.

    He also is negotiating the purchase of nine Russian submarines.

    So with children starving, staples absent from supermarket shelves, and Venezuela’s trading paper struggling, Chavez is investing his new ill-gotten wealth in strengthening his military position in a relatively calm region – and attempting to strengthen ties with China in South America – all so he can stick his finger in the eye of the United States (which by the way is no threat to him) and wave the Uncle Sam boogeyman in the faces of his chavistas.

    China has invested heavily in Venezuela’s oil industry as part of efforts to gain ever greater access to energy sources.

    They are jointly planning a pipeline through Panama to pump 800,000 barrels of oil a day to Pacific ports. This would allow a vast increase in Venezuelan exports to China at the possible expense of the U.S.

    China is also assisting Cuba in oil exploration off the coast of Florida – another reason for them to build a pipeline through Panama. In Panama, they already control about 40% of the ports through their COSCO company (according my source there) and they’re assisting Panama in their endeavor to widen the Canal over the next 5 years.

  • New Converts to the Truthers

    I’ve bumped into a couple of foamy-mouthed conspiracy-theorists in my day, most recently at the anti-Israel demonstration a few months ago. The 9-11 variety are an especially heavily-spittled breed – probably because their theories are so outside of the realm of probablity that they figure emotion can replace actual facts.

    Well they’ve gotten some notable converts to their cause recently.

    Kamangir reports that the official Iranian government’s position is that it was an inside job. And they didn’t arrive at that decision without some hefty credentials;

    Fars News writes “130 American Experts: 9/11 was an inside Job.” Quoting an unknown Russian “expert”, the website writes “It is not imaginable that Muslim terrorists have been able to prepare in six months”

    Well, a Russian expert – that cinches it. Them Russians know stuff.

    Sweetness and Light’s Steve Gilbert reports that Fidel Castro is also a recent convert to the “Truther” cause;

    “Today one knows there was deliberate misinformation,” wrote Castro…

    “Studying the impact of planes, similar to those that hit the Twin Towers, that had accidentally fallen on densely populated cities, one concludes that it was not a plane that crashed into the Pentagon,” Castro said.

    “Only a projectile could have caused the geometrically round hole that allegedly was made by the plane,” he said.

    Science from a guy who has locked his country in a time warp that can’t progress past 1959. Babalu Blog’s George Moneo quips that the 4200-word dissertation is pretty ambitious for a guy who can’t summon the good health to appear in public for more than a year.

  • Rice vs. Pelosi

    I just saw this picture in the Washington Examiner and I wished I could be a fly and listen to that discussion;

    Hoyer looks worried.

  • Tell Democrats that Bush will not run in 2008

    I know it’s hard for Democrats to understand, but they won’t be able to run against President Bush next year in November. I don’t who they’ll be running against, but it won’t be President Bush  – so the fact that they’re campaigning based on their opposition to the Bush Administration’s policy in Iraq is fruitless. From the Wall Street Journal:

    The second day of congressional testimony by the two top U.S. officials in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, gave presidential contenders from both parties a chance to serve up views on Mr. Bush’s troop surge. Mr. Bush is expected to endorse the general’s plan for troop reduction in Iraq in a White House speech tomorrow night.

    After a relatively mild reception Monday in the House, Gen. Petraeus and Mr. Crocker yesterday faced heavy bipartisan skepticism in the Senate as they outlined plans to reduce U.S. troop levels in Iraq gradually through July. They reiterated hopes that Iraq’s warring factions will find ways to reconcile.

    The men went before two Senate panels heavy with presidential contenders. Three Democratic hopefuls — Sens. Joseph Biden of Delaware, Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and Barack Obama of Illinois — didn’t question Gen. Petraeus’s assessment that the larger presence of U.S. troops has lowered violence. Rather, they suggested that the American sacrifices were being made in the service of an overall strategy that has little chance of success. Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York was the most critical of Gen. Petraeus, saying his report on improving security conditions “required a willing suspension of disbelief.” She then cited other statistics that suggested little to no progress.

    Yeah, we get it, Democrats, you don’t like the War in Iraq – so what’s YOUR plan? All we hear is criticism and about plans for withdrawal (Gateway Pundit reports Bush is even ahead of them on that) – but how do we defeat the scourge of radical Islam? I know Democrats have been running against Bush for the last seven years, but now it’s time to run FOR something because president Bush isn’t going to be the opponent next year. I can’t emphasize that enough.

    Dana Milbank of the Washington Post tells us that even though Hillary opposes the Bush Administration and the Petraeus report, she doesn’t mind getting in on the photo ops that go along with them;

    Clinton, herself a member of the Armed Services Committee, at first entered the hearing room largely unnoticed; she then left and reentered moments later as part of Petraeus’s entourage — basking in the clicks of hundreds of camera shutters.

    Pretty damn petty and opportunistic if you ask me. And Obama used his seven minutes for a speech;

    In his seven minutes of questioning time, Obama seemed to be practicing for today’s speech. “This continues to be a disastrous foreign policy mistake,” he said. “And we are now confronted with the question: How do we clean up the mess and make the best out of a situation in which there are no good options?”

    He then ridiculed President Bush for “suggesting somehow that we are . . . kicking A-S-S. How can we have a president making that assessment?”

    Stump speech over, Obama observed that he was left with “very little time to ask questions.”

    So instead of asking questions, becoming informed, and appearing like he was interested in what the General had to say, Obama decided to perform for the cameras instead. Good move, Rock Star.

    Joe Biden, the only Democrat with a plan, a plan that harkens back to the days of the British Empire’s partitioning of the whole of the Middle East, but a plan nonetheless, couldn’t help but drag out the GAO report, leaked last week (S.A. Miller, Washington Times);

    Mr. Biden, who has proposed partitioning the country to separate Sunni, Shi’ites and Kurds prior to a U.S. troop withdrawal rather than a rapid pullout, challenged the general’s report of decreased sectarian violence.

    The senator pointed to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report last week that disputed Army statistics showing such a decrease.

    Gen. Petraeus said the GAO findings were based on data that were at least five weeks old, compared with his report, which used statistics compiled up until Friday.

    At least the general was kind enough to Joe Hairplugs not to mention that the GAO report was written from statistics by math geeks, not written by experienced warriors with dusty boots.

    Like I said, the Democrats have been running AGAINST Republicans so long, they still haven’t figured out that at some point they need to be FOR something. Simply saying that withdrawing a brigade every month will get us out of Iraq by the end of next year isn’t a plan – it isn’t a strategy.

    If the Democrats want to prove that they really are concerned about national security, we need to see particulars with hard facts that show us they know what they’re talking about.

    At this point, while they’re apparently getting their strategic advice from the Code Pinkazoids (commentary and photos courtesy of Wordsmith at Flopping Aces) and the Kozbots, they’d do well to stay away from anyone in uniform above the rank of recruit to keep from looking like idiots.

  • Vietnam Wall defaced; consider that shark jumped (Updated)

    SCROLL TO THE BOTTOM FOR UPDATE 

    My first task every morning (after a Winston and some coffee) is to check this corner of the internet for comments to my posts. This morning I found one from Robin at Chickenhawk Express who left this;

    Jonn – I don’t want to fire you up to much but you REALLY need to see this;

    The Vietnam Memorial Wall in DC Has Been Defaced

     

    Well, I went into a funk that I really can’t shake this morning. After I sent the links from Robin’s post and the post from tgslTakoma at Free Republic to several bloggers to get the word out, I tried to write on another subject but I just can’t assemble a coherent thought. I checked the Gathering of Eagles website and they have a link to the Free Republic report. 

    I’m writing this in hopes that the word gets out, I haven’t seen anything on the local news or in the local papers. This should be the death knell of the anti-war movement. This what they came to town to do back in March, and they finally got their opportunity before the Patriots came to town. I suspect that it was those idiot Black Bloc creeps – but really any of those cretins on the Left are capable of such sociopathic behavior.

    Redstate’s Bluey interviewed some park Service employee who claims the damage may be permanent;

    I spoke to a National Park Service employee who was livid that someone would vandalize the memorial. “It’s like defacing a grave,” he told me. When I asked if there were any clues as to who was responsible, he told me videotape was being reviewed. It is believed the damage was done on Friday night. Because the monument never closes, it could have taken place late in the evening when no one was around.

    I remember the email I got back when I covered the Gathering of Eagles I in March from some little immature weasel who claimed that the Left had a right to do what they want to the Vietnam Memorial because it was their monument, too. There are no monuments to cowardice in this country and there are no names of draft evaders or protesters on the Wall.

    As I predicted yesterday, the Left is pulling out all of the stops. They’ve begun their disparaging of the troops – it began this past weekend with our honored dead, and our hallowed ground. This weekend on Pennsylvania Avenue between 12th and 7th Streets, this crap ends. 

    UPDATE: Michele Malkin has an update that the Park Service has admitted that the Wall has been defaced. Funny how they denied it before the protest this weekend and then suddenly, the protest ends and they fess up.

  • War against terror; the 800 pound gorilla

    Washington Times’ Christina Bellantoni writes this morning how the Democrat presidential candidates are doing their best to make the war against terror a non-issue in the campaign;

    Six years after the September 11 attacks, the Democrats running for president have drastically different ways of addressing terrorism, with one calling the war on terror a “bumper-sticker slogan.”

    Most have avoided the phrase “war on terror” because Democratic primary voters consider it a Republican talking point, but Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois each have a version.

    “Here in New York, nobody needs to tell us that we are in a war against terrorists who seek to do us harm,” Mrs. Clinton said in a foreign-policy address in October.

    “The terrorists are at war with us,” Mr. Obama said in a major policy address last month.

    As the Democrats’ 2004 vice presidential nominee, former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina criticized the Bush administration for making “the wrong judgment to turn the focus away from the war on terror and the people who attacked us.”

    The closest one to getting it right is Obama – yes, they are at war with us. Too bad we can go to war against them. Edwards, apparently, isn’t even on this planet. If we aren’t killing terrorists in Iraq, then who are we killing? Why is Iran supporting a force of international thugs with training and arms?

    If no one is going to hold the Democrats’ feet to the fire on this issue we might just get a president who ignores the threat – like we did before – and just pays off their political connections with taxpayer money. While the threat remains;

    Chertoff said the bin Laden tape refuted any notion that al-Qaeda had “lost interest” in attacking Americans on their own soil. “The enemy is not standing still; they are constantly revising their tactics and adapting their strategy and their capabilities,” he said.

    Iraq is the central front in the war against terrorists, the folks who want to kill us, whether Democrats want to admit to that or not. Americans are beginning to realize that the Democrats have been fooling us;

    The case for cutting and running from Iraq has become untenable in recent months not just substantively but politically as well. Polls show that Americans increasingly believe not only that the surge is working, but also that permanent success in Iraq is possible. So the more intelligent opponents of the war have shied away from the explicit defeatism of Senator Harry Reid’s statement earlier this year that the war is lost. Instead, Democrats like Senators Carl Levin and Jack Reed are seeking to triangulate between the strategy of General David Petraeus and a complete withdrawal. The armchair generals in the Capitol want to find a course that reduces U.S. forces in Iraq rapidly but that (so they claim) does not assure defeat. Triangulation may be harmless in symbolic matters of domestic politics, but it can be dangerous, even fatal, in war.

    And from the Times’ story, we can see John Edwards inability to formulate a strategy – Hell, he can’t even admit there’s a war;

    He adds in stump speeches an accusation that President Bush uses the “so-called ‘war on terror” ” as an excuse for “trampling on our Constitution, and most perversely, for ignoring the demands of the actual struggle that exists against terrorism.”

    Those three thousand people who died about 6 years ago from the moment I’m typing this, wouldn’t call this a “so-called war”. In fact, six years ago from this very money, I stood in the conference room of this very office watching a replay of the second plane hitting the tower, when a column of smoke rose from the Pentagon out the window of the conference room. It wasn’t a “so-called war” then nor is it now. If Democrats can’t formulate an effective strategy – like the one that has kept the rest of us safe in the last six years – they’re not living in the here-and-now. They’re still living in those decadent 90s – when security was the last thing on anyone’s mind – except bin Laden;

    “So there is a huge difference between the path of the kings, presidents and hypocritical Ulama (Islamic scholars) and the path of these noble young men,” like al-Shehri, bin Laden said. “The formers’ lot is to spoil and enjoy themselves whereas the latters’ lot is to destroy themselves for Allah’s Word to be Supreme.”

    “It remains for us to do our part. So I tell every young man among the youth of Islam: It is your duty to join the caravan (of martyrs) until the sufficiency is complete and the march to aid the High and Omnipotent continues,” he said.

    At the end of his speech, bin Laden also mentions the al-Qaida leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was killed in an U.S. air strike there. Al-Zarqawi followed in the footsteps of al-Shehri and his brothers who “fulfilled their promises to God.”

    “And now it is our turn,” bin Laden says.

    Sounds like it wouldn’t fit on a bumper sticker.

  • How NOT to support the troops

    Stevie Wunder could see it from space. Anyone who remembers the late 60s and early 70s can spot the signs. The Left is gearing up to go after the troops since they can’t change the course of the war in Congress in hopes to discourage a new, young generation from considering a stint in the military.

    Of course, the early signs were that huge, stupid poster we all witnessed out in California or Oregon or some-damn-where hippies are allowed to be as stupid and smelly as they like that read “We support the troops when they kill their officers”. That was about as lame and intellectually vacant as anything the Left has ever written – encouraging soldiers to volunteer for life imprisonment.

    Last year, Joshua Sparling, an amputee soldier, was spat upon by an anti-war protester in DC. They can’t even be original sometimes.

    We’ve had politicians like Dick Durbin, John Murtha, John Kerry, John Edwards who have all taken turns slandering the troops and minimizing their sacrifice to this country. That sets us up for this coming weekend.

    Crotchety Old Bastard reports that the whole Haditha thing might be a complete fabrication from the NCIS investigators. (I never trusted that Mark Harmon anyway) It was the whole reason Murtha used on ABC to justify bringing the troops home (or redeploying them to Guam or some-damn-where).

    Robin at Chickenhawk Express has trolled the depths of the Democrat, anti-national security websites and assembled quotes from the various commenters that all seem to disparage General Petraeus – who, by the way is one of the troops. Notice his uniform? That’s how I recognize the troops whom I thank for their service around this town – regardless of their rank.

    Dadmanly goes after the ACLU and Time Magazine for blowing US committed atrocities out of proportion to turn the public against our sons and daughter.

    Gateway Pundit, Hang Right Politics’ Kathy and Michele Malkin catch MoveOn.org calling the good general a traitor. A traitor to what, for Pete’s sake? How utterly vacuous to call a general a traitor for merely reporting on the war. The same group of alleged people (alleged because I’m not sure they’re from this planet anymore) who were formed to prevent a president from being impeached on real and damning evidence has now stooped to calling a general a traitor BEFORE HE’S SPOKEN A WORD OF HIS REPORT!

    Pete Hegseth at The Weekly Standard reminds us that no general is an island;

    Let’s be clear: MoveOn.org is suggesting that General Petraeus has ‘betrayed’ his country. This is disgusting. To attack as a traitor an American general commanding forces in war because his ‘on the ground’ experience does not align with MoveOn.org’s political objectives is utterly shameful. It shows contempt for America’s military leadership, as well as for the troops who have confidence in him, as our fellow soldiers in Iraq certainly do.

    General Petraeus has served this country for over 35 years with honor, distinction, and integrity. And this is not just about General Petraeus. After all, if General Petraeus is “cooking the books,” then the entire military chain of command in Baghdad, and all the staff, military and civilian, who have been working with General Petraeus are complicit, since Petraeus did not write his report in isolation. They are all, apparently, ‘betray[ing] us.’

    They, the Left, just picked General Petraeus as their target because they think they did a clever job of misspelling his name so the sheep can bleat it in unison. They have trouble remembering stuff if doesn’t rhyme apparently. And he wears a uniform.

    The Left likes to use the Old Europe concept of generals being rich, connected royalty-types, when in fact the United States armed forces has always been made up of the kids in your neighborhood, the kids who played with your kids, the kids who delivered your newspaper (the VFW has put together a video on that very same subject). There’s no secret farm somewhere upon which are bred secret super-soldiers. They’re bred in your hometown. 

    Yeah, I see the Left getting ready for major league troop-bashing. Chickenhawk Express warned me to take my spit shield this weekend – I think I’ll bring my spit bat instead.

  • The surge comes to Washington

    The surge against the Administration has begun in earnest this week. Smelling a political defeat (instead of the military defeats they enjoy), the Democats have begun clinging to their only remaining weapons – deceit and the media. Eric Pfeifer in the Washington Times reports this morning that Joe Biden on Meet the Press yesterday, changed horses in midstream and declared that we need a date certain withdrawal;

    “I really respect him, but I think he’s dead flat wrong,” Mr. Biden said when asked about Gen. Petraeus’ expected recommendations. “I will insist on a firm beginning to withdraw the troops, and I will insist on a target date to get American combat forces out.”

    Mr. Biden voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq and previously advised against setting a specific timetable for the withdrawal of American forces.

    If he figures that Gen. Petraeus is wrong, why’d Biden vote for his confirmation a scant few months ago? Why is Biden bothering to listen to Petraeus?

    According to the Wall Street Journal’s Neil King and Greg Jaffe, Biden has been beseiged by reality, though;

    Senate Democrats, propelled by strong opposition to the war within their party, have tried for months to force a swifter withdrawal of U.S. forces. Those efforts won some Republican support, but not enough to overcome a presidential veto. Democrats now acknowledge there is little to no chance that enough moderate Republicans will defect to force a major change in strategy.

    “Unless we get 67 votes to override a veto there is nothing we can do to end this war,” said Sen. Joseph Biden, (D., Del.) on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

    Nothing he can do except keep talking down the war. The Washington Times’ Sharon Behn reports that the troops in Iraq say the surge is working but only barely;

    Many U.S. soldiers on the ground in Baghdad caution that improved security in the capital city will last only as long as the surge. If American troops were to leave, they say, the insurgents could be back within hours.

    U.S. forces broke up insurgent networks and curtailed the ability of terrorists to strike, said Sgt. Gregory Rayho, 30, of the 2nd Battalion, 3rd Infantry Regiment, Stryker Brigade Combat Team, the recipient of three Purple Hearts during his time in Iraq.

    His overall assessment is upbeat: “It is my opinion that the surge is working.”

    But he also said continued success in the Dora neighborhood of Baghdad, where his fellow soldiers patrol, depends on the continued presence of American troops. Should they be withdrawn, the future could be deadly.

    Why would the terrorists flow back into the void left by Americans? Is it because they anticipate a military victory? Of course not – they know the desparation of the situtation would only encourage the fifth columnists here in the US to whine and wring their hands and work against our victory with deception and lies.

    All for the sake of politics, according to Biden as quoted in the Washington Post;

    “What we have done is made it very difficult for Republicans to continue to hide on whether they agree with the president or not on Iraq,” said Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), describing the political gain Democrats think they have achieved since the beginning of the year. “Whether or not they’ll take that final step and actually break by actually overriding a veto, if we ever get to that, or break by supporting very tough language that constricts his movement, remains to be seen.”

    They haven’t made it difficult for terrorists in Iraq or terrorists in Afghanistan, or terrorists in Guantanamo – they’ve made it difficult for Republicans in Washington.

    And the Iraqis are asking us to stay, asking us for more time (hardly sounds like an occupation by “crusaders” does it);

    Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told lawmakers Monday that Iraqi forces were not ready to take over security from the U.S. military across the country.

    “There have been tangible improvements in security in the recent period in Baghdad and the provinces but it is not enough,” he told parliament.

    “Despite the security improvement, we still need more efforts and time in order for our armed forces to be able to take over security in all Iraqi provinces from the multinational forces that helped us in a great way in fighting terrorism and outlaws.”

    But the Democrats would rather heed the advice of bin Laden (who sounds more like Al Gore everytime he broadcasts a new video, by the way) and leave the Middle East – the source of most of the world’s problems for decades. The Washington Post puts more emphasis on Ambassador Crocker’s report – because it will show less progress in the last three months;

    Yet despite the spotlight focused on what has become known as the Petraeus report, the testimony of the man sitting beside Petraeus at the witness table, Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, may carry far more import for the long-term future of Iraq and the U.S. presence there. With little progress to recount in how the Iraqis have used the political “breathing space” that Bush promised his war strategy would create, Crocker’s inevitably more nuanced appeal for time and patience is likely to be the tougher sell.

    Yeah, cuz three months of piecing together a political solution for Iraq is an eternity, right? Petraeus will give the good news that the first part of the plan for Iraq is working - the part that needed to be accomplished first.

    According to Kamangir’s translation, the Democrats have already succeeded in emboldening the Iranians;

    The newly-assigned commander of the IRGC stated, “If the enemy succeeded in securing Iraq, they would definitely attack Iran. Fortunately, and thanks to Muslims of the region, they failed in this conspiracy.” He added “If they are not sure about their plans, that’s because of their failure in Iraq”. “The Islamic Iran has turned into a great regional power…and all world powers are anxious about the power of the Islamic Republic of Iran”