The League of David

Staged and Inaccurate

I've been in semi-retirement since November because of health reasons, but NYT's fake photo debacle is getting out of hand, and it was enough to motivate me to come out of retirement even if it's just for today.  Little Green Footballs and American Thinker noted that Slate ran with the same image that the NYT ran with this weekend. The image is of two Pakistani men -- one old, one young -- standing with a supposed missile part between them.  I also received my copy of Time magazine today where on page 17 the supposed missile fragment is described as"detritus."   I commented at LGF on its use of the image, here, here, here and here.  It's then  that I noticed some other elements to the story that cause me to question the photo's provenance. 

The photo is not only staged, it may just pre-date the January 14th attack.

I searched the GettyImage archive for the name Thir Khan. There are seven images in Getty's database News/Editorial section:

The image in question could easily fit into a small group taken in the December from the "work accident" that killed several Al Qaeda bomb makers. 

The group of photos includes this one with the prerequisite dead child:

HAISORI, PAKISTAN: Pakistani tribesmen look at the body of Mohammad Aziz (13) who died when alleged bomb-making equipment detonated in Haisori village in the restive North Waziristan region, 01 December 2005. Five suspected militants, three of them foreigners, died when bomb-making equipment detonated at their house in a Pakistani tribal area near the Afghan border, officials said. But residents launched protests, saying that two of the dead were children and that the army had fired missiles at the building in Haisori village in the restive North Waziristan region. AFP PHOTO/Thir KHAN (Photo credit should read THIR KHAN/AFP/Getty Images)

Thir Khan is a local stringer for AFP and has taken pictures from the region, including this one from Sept 2005 that features artillery shells strikingly similar to the one pictured in the now-infamous picture:

MIRANSHAH, PAKISTAN: Pakistani paramilitary soldiers arrange a display of seized weapons, recovered in a search operation near Miranshah, 28 September 2005. Pakistani troops rounded up eight suspected militants during a search operation in a remote tribal town near the Afghan border, officials said. AFP PHOTO/Thir KHAN (Photo credit should read THIR KHAN/AFP/Getty Images)

I first saw the NYT  image about the same time everyone else did, probably within 24 hours of the news reaching US media sources.  Like the way it appears in Yahoo News archive:

Pakistani tribesmen stand by missiles that were fired at their house, a day after US air strike in Bajur tribal zone near the Afghan border. Pakistani officials have said that Al-Qaeda deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahiri was probably not killed in a US air strike, as anger mounted over the deaths of 18 villagers in the attack.(AFP/Thir Khan)

AFP - Jan 14  7:14 AM

The caption was edited later

Pakistani tribesmen stand by a unexploded ordinance at their house which was damaged in an alleged US air strike the day before in the Bajur tribal zone near the Afghan border. Pakistani officials said that Al-Qaeda deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahiri was likely not killed in a US air strike, as Islamabad protested to Washington the deaths of 18 villagers in the attack.(AFP/Thir Khan)

AFP - Jan 14 10:01 AM

The image appeared to be one of those staged "for the Pulitzer committee" images, but there was nothing else worth noting about it until I saw the Michelle Malkin's post on the now-obvious inaccuracy in the original caption information.   Noted above, AFP changed the caption to reflect the image more accurately, but not enough.

Probably relying on AFP, NYTimes and Time used their own biased captions for the image without ever securing its source and date.  None of this would have mattered, but both MSM outlets were using the image to cast in a bad light America's attack on Al Qaeda leadership.  Time leads with the image, describing the precision attack, targeting senior Al Qaeda leadership as a "blunder." Slate's article is titled, "Were the missile attacks in Pakistan illegal?"

Doubts about the accuracy of the caption coupled with a brief background into the photographer creates more questions about the provenance of the image than previously thought.  All of the images from December appear to be taken at the same time of day, and there's nothing in the NYT image that clearly marks the area as Damadola.  That image could have easily been taken on the rubble of the house destroyed in December.  The image is ambiguous enough to imply practically anything you want from it.

This isn't an earth-shattering revelation, but it does show how little background MSM editors are willing to do.  Thir Khan could have taken that picture January 14th, but it's hard to say for certain where or when it was taken.  As I said, none of this would matter if the image wasn't being used as an example of America's "blundering" war on terror.  With such a questionable provenance, some editor somewhere should have exercised some caution.  That didn't happen.

UPDATE:  My bad.  Unlike the MSM, I'll admit it when I f-up.  Time magazine doesn't descrie the Damadola attack as a "blunder."  Instead, they describe as "a blunt insturment"  the precision use of hellfire missiles targeting specific senior Al Qaeda operatives in specific houses in one of the remotest regions on earth using intel from locals and/or insiders.

Never Trust A Reporter, My .00002 on Plamegate

So I was listening to Jed Babbin, who's filling in for Hugh Hewitt this week.  This woman calls, saying that she read Judith Miller's 2001 book, Germs:  Biological Weapons and America's Secret War [check out the Philistine reviewers who haven't read the book and are just posting bad reviews because they didn't like her reporting on Iraq].   Later on, the woman's husband calls and reads the book's acknowledgements.  At the heart of the book is a collection of unnamed sources from the loosely knit network of WMD experts scattered throughout the various federal intelligence agencies.  Could it be that she met or knew of Valerie Plame long before her husband's 2002 trip to Niger?

WMD is not like a major industry with thousands and thousands of analysts and researchers. It's a tiny cadre of experts, some at CIA, some at DoD, many at DOE (and the labs), and a few at the FBI.  It's possible to have one or two folks who are the only experts in their analytical areas.  This means that an energetic reporter could ID and contact practically all of the analysts who work on any one WMD issue.   This was probably more the case before 9-11 than after.  The federal government has hired, or brought out of retirement, many more since then.  It's still a rolodex-size group, not a phone book.

Is it possible that Judith Miller knew Valerie Plame long before the Wilson Niger visit?  You bet.

On a related note.  Judith Miller began writing about Iraq and WMD issues in the 1990s.  It's obvious that her late 90's work for the New York Times became the basis for the 2001 book.  I've looked over a few of her late 90s WMD articles and, well, what can you say?  Can you name a source every once in a while, Judy?

Here are two of my favorites.  I'd like to call your attention to the second article, dated February 2000, on the difficulties collecting info on Iraq's WMD program:

C.I.A. Is Said to Find Iraq Gives Contracts to Nations That Want to End Economic Sanctions
7 September 2000

The Central Intelligence Agency says Iraq has consistently used the United Nations' oil-for-food program to reward countries that call for ending economic sanctions against Iraq, and to punish those that oppose lifting the embargo, administration officials familiar with the findings have said.

The officials said the C.I.A. stated in a new report that President Saddam Hussein of Iraq has given the bulk of contracts in the program to China, France and Russia, as well as to other vocal champions of lifting the sanctions...The Council instituted the oil-for-food program in 1996 to let Iraq sell some of its oil to help ease the suffering of ordinary Iraqis reportedly caused by the sanctions. But the C.I.A. study shows that Iraq has also used the program as a lever to pry open the sanctions by rewarding allies with contracts, especially those on the 15-member Security Council...

''Over the life of the program, Baghdad has awarded one-third of the contracts to France, Russia and China,'' the report states. ''Besides these Security Council members and neighbors, Iraq has given substantial oil-for-food business to others that deliver antisanctions rhetoric.''

The two-page report is accompanied by charts and graphs that demonstrate the strong correlation between support for lifting sanctions and the awarding of contracts under the program, which is now in what the United Nations accounting system calls Phase 8. Each phase corresponds to a period of 180 days.

Copies of several of the graphs and charts were provided to The New York Times, and sections of the report were read to a reporter by officials who had read the report and thought that its conclusions should be more widely known.

The report, which was completed last month and is secret, is little surprise to the Clinton administration, Iraq's most vocal critic on the Security Council and the chief advocate of continuing the sanctions until Iraq proves that it has abandoned its programs for nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. But the report is quite likely to reinforce administration frustration over the mounting pressure among nations and aid organizations to lift the sanctions on the ground that they inflict undue hardship on the Iraqi people.

Flying Blind in A Dangerous World
6 February 2000

CONSIDER the following:

The Central Intelligence Agency says there is so much nuclear black market activity in the former Soviet Union that the C.I.A. cannot rule out the possibility that Iran has acquired enough fissile material for a nuclear bomb.

Satellite photographs show that in the past year Iraq has rebuilt the Al Taji missile complex north of Baghdad and many other military sites damaged by American air strikes in late 1998. Officials admit, however, that they don't know whether Iraq has reconstituted its chemical and biological weapons programs.

The Clinton administration acknowledges that aid money to Russia's civilian germ research may have been secretly diverted to Biopreparat, a shadowy organization that once directed the Soviet Union's germ warfare program.

These developments, worrisome enough by themselves, have led experts to a larger and still more troubling concern that America's intelligence services may be incapable of monitoring the proliferation of chemical, biological, and nuclear expertise and technology.

Testimony on Capitol Hill last week by George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, was hardly reassuring. Now, more than ever before, he glumly warned members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, ''we risk substantial surprise.''

While the C.I.A. and American law enforcement officials have thwarted plots by terrorist groups against American targets in the past, Mr. Tenet bluntly told the senators, ''I must be frank in saying that this has only succeeded in buying time against an increasingly dangerous threat.''

Leslie H. Gelb, president of the Council on Foreign Relations and a former journalist and senior government official, agreed with Mr. Tenet, noting that terrorists and rogue states were making it harder for anyone to monitor them. ''People now commercially encrypt sensitive communication and don't talk over cell phones,'' he said. Countries bury telephone lines and rely less on microwave transmissions. ''A lot of what N.S.A. [the National Security Administration] used to get simply isn't gettable now,'' Mr. Gelb said. ''And we don't know how to reacquire it.''

Hoo-ray.  A named source.

The spread of so-called dual-use technology -- guidance and control equipment, electronic test equipment and speciality materials -- all of which can be used for legitimate and illegitimate purposes, has also complicated matters. For example, there is ''substantial overlap,'' says Mr. Tenet, between what is needed to make a vaccine and a biological warfare agent.

Yet another area of concern is that the pool of skilled weapons technicians is larger than ever, administration officials say. The end of the Soviet germ warfare program alone left tens of thousands of former employees in desperate financial straits, and tracking their whereabouts is difficult, intelligence officials say. Iran, for one, continues to recruit such talent with some success, American and Russian government officials agree.

RICHARD N. HAASS, the director of foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution and a former member of the Bush administration, adds that proliferators are extremely ''tough targets.'' Iraq's unconventional weapons programs, he said, ''were in every sense of the word hidden.''

Gathering information in countries with which the United States lacks formal relations is also challenging. ''We have very few people going in and out who can tell us things,'' Mr. Haass says. He adds that American intelligence is now paying for ''years of underinvesting in 'humint,' '' -- intelligence collected by people rather than by satellites or monitoring devices.

Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former C.I.A. analyst and writer, says, ''The C.I.A.'s clandestine service, a highly bureaucratic, sclerotic institution that still remains most at home on the diplomatic cocktail circuit overseas, is structurally, culturally, and linguistically ill-prepared to undertake the long-term, unconventional work needed to place an agent inside a critical weapons facility.''

As a result, the agency came to depend on ''walk-ins'' who freely come to the agency. But exceptional walk-ins -- ''the sources of our finest espionage'' -- are rare, Mr. Gerecht said, ''which is why our human intelligence on hostile weapons-of-mass-destruction programs has always been, and probably will remain, poor if not nonexistent.''

Some analysts also blame the agency for withholding information it does have. When two government agencies made grants between 1995 and 1997 that benefited Biopreparat, the Russian joint stock company that the United States fears may still be tied to covert Russian germ research, officials responsible for the grants said they had not known that Biopreparat was under a cloud. But the C.I.A. had known about that entity ever since the defection of a key Russian scientist in 1992.

CONGRESS, too, has helped to reduce America's intelligence effectiveness. Over the past two years it cut nearly by half funding for Russian scientists, whom the Administration says have provided invaluable insights into the Soviet Union's germ warfare programs and the current status of those once involved in it.

Nor is the Clinton administration blameless. Senior officials, citing their need for better information to assess whether Iraq is reconstituting its unconventional weapons programs, last month supported a new inspection program created by the United Nations Security Council. But Daniel Byman, a policy analyst at the Rand Corporation, writes in the latest issue of the journal ''Foreign Affairs'' that the United Nations' system is so enfeebled that it will probably do more harm than good.

The inspectors themselves will most likely be an inexperienced group, deprived of Security Council backing and a strong director, Mr. Byman wrote. As such, the inspection agency will in all probability find ''only what Saddam wanted them to.''

Mr. Hussein could then claim Iraq is certifiably free of weapons of mass destruction, which could ultimately cause sanctions against his country to be lifted. At that point he could easily import whatever he needed to rebuild his arsenal.

The Administration's acceptance of the impotent inspection regime, meanwhile, is a timely reminder that the United States usually comes to depend most upon the nighttime world of spies and spying only after failing to pursue effective policies in broad daylight.

TANG the Rematch? Hooah!

If on the first day of her nomination hearings Harriet Miers opens her mouth and she sounds like a dollar store clerk, I'll say the President made a bad choice.  Everything else is meaningless, and tedious.  Luckily, I'm not the only one.  Strata-sphere has a link to a recent poll that pretty much shows that most conservatives are withholding judgment.

I just heard WSJ columnist John Fund talk ominously about the inevitable return of the President's air national guard service, because of something, I forget.  This apparently is a bad thing to Mr. Fund because, as you know, the President didn't follow his advice and choose an imminent scholar with impeccable credentials from such conservative institutions as Harvard and Princeton and vetted by the folks at the Corner and Laura Ingraham's radio show.   The implication seemed to be that if Bush doesn't listen to him and Rush and the fools at NRO right now then he's going to have to deal with more questions about his time as Texas governor and (shocka!)  his ANG service. 

I guess this is a bad political move for him, since he may run for local office when he gets back to Texas in 2009?

Spare me.  TANG the Rematch  would be a hoot!   If Philistines want to bring up Bush's ANG service again and again and again and again, then let them.  It didn't help them last year;  I can't image it's going to help them now.   Perhaps they'll drag Dan Rather out of "retirement" so that he can blather on and on about the memos' fake accuracy.

Oh, man, this would great.  Let's remind the world why George Bush won reelection in 2004.  Can we drag the nomination hearings out for six months?

Why I'm Not Listening to Laura Ingraham

I work from home most of the time.  As a result, I get to listen to what I want to during the day, including a lot of  talk radio.  Lately, however, talk radio has bored me. 

You see, since I'm not part of the Stop That White Trash Woman  Harriet Miers crowd, I'm not much interested in listening to those who are talk about it constantly.   Unfortunately, that means I've had to stop listening to Laura Ingraham.

All-Miers All The Time is  not acceptable content for those of us who are not part of the Over-privileged and Perpetually Aggrieved crowd.

Not One Named Source?

Al-Reuters published a bizarre article this morning, linked at the Drudge Report, that has not one named source.   I never comment on these lapses of journalistic judgment because I could be here all day doing only that, but this one is so blatantly bad that I can't let it go.

CIA faces spy shortages as staffers go private
By David Morgan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - As CIA Director Porter Goss tries to rebuild the agency's global operations, he faces a shortage of experienced spies created by a post-September 11 stampede to the private sector, current and former intelligence officials say.

Okay.

Goss, who a year ago inherited a CIA wracked by criticism of intelligence failures over Iraq and the September 11, 2001, attacks, has come under fire from critics about the publicized departures of several high-level clandestine officers.

Okay.

Reform advocates see the loss of senior officials as a natural consequence of changes intended to root out an old guard blamed for lapses that prompted Congress to put the CIA under a new director of national intelligence, John Negroponte.

Okay.Then it starts getting funky.

"The CIA and the intelligence community failed this country pretty badly. That's why there's new leadership at the CIA. Change is not easy," said Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the Republican chairman of the House of Representatives intelligence committee.

When I read this quote, my librarian's sense for news started creaking into action. After many years of reading article, after article, after article, in an endless stream, day-in, day-out, you can tell if a quote is canned or if it comes from a real interview.  This looks like an official statement, not a quoted source.  I may be wrong on this one, but it just sounds like something a Congressman would say "in committee."

But current and former officials say Goss does face problems stemming from the agency's reliance on a robust private contracting market for skilled intelligence and security workers that has grown more lucrative since the September 11, 2001, attacks and the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

As a member of the vast military-industrial complex I can agree with this to a point.The Agency, like many federal agencies, is losing staff. However, it's much more complex than big bucks.  Many bureaucrats are leaving because they're reaching retirement age, and these folks are bailing with a 20-year pension and the hope of making even better money in contracting. This article doesn't mention the retirement-phenom, only market pressures.

"Goss realizes he has a major problem in the (clandestine service) because he's having major bailouts among the old guard and also retention problems all the way down the ranks," said a former clandestine officer.

[Unnamed source #1].

I don't buy this. Most former clandestine officers are...in their late forties or older, and I'm not sure folks in that age group would use a phrase like "major bailouts."That's an idiomatic expression more often used by Xers, like me.

Experienced spies have been surrendering their blue staff badges and leaving the CIA in droves, often to return the next day as better paid, green-badged private contractors, current and former officials say.

[Unnamed Sources #2]

Again.Who?

But as contractors, they can no longer supervise fresh recruits at a time when the CIA is pursuing a 50 percent  increase in spies. Nor can they supplement a pool of experienced operatives from which the agency traditionally draws its top leaders.

Sure...

"You've got a seismic shift with the contractor issue," said a intelligence official who views the trend as byproduct of low morale among clandestine staff officers.

[Unnamed Source #3]

"It's frankly scary to look at the number of middle managers that are diving out with 10, 15, 20 years in because they're going to make $175,000 or $200,000. It reduces what we  call the 'blue badges' -- government people with clearances.

This quote isn't very clear, and leave me asking more questions.  Clandestine (DO) or Analytical (DI) middle managers?  What kind of jobs are they taking? What kind of jobs are offering that much? Are they security consulting? Straight analysis? IT work? I've been in and out of contracting for fifteen years, and the 175K salary for a "middle manager" seems more like science fiction to me. Unless you're well-connected, you're not making an easy 200K. A salary like this in defense/intel contracting usually comes with a dozen or more employees and multi-million dollar budgets.  And you're going to have to bring in a steady stream of business.

If this source exists, then I would say his/her golf buddies are lying about their salaries.

PAY IS BETTER FOR PRIVATE CONTRACTORS

A $200,000-a-year contracting salary compares with annual  pay of about $135,000 for experienced CIA staffers at the very top of the scale used to set federal salaries in Washington.

"Often you leave behind the deadwood. The deadwood gets in charge, and then even more people move on," the official said.

This could be just sour grapes from a former DO/DI official (again, it isn't made clear) who was forced out, or was smart of enough to know the writing on the wall.  I've been through several downsizing/management changeovers, and it's always been the case that the safest managers are the ones that share the new management's goals. A new leader in any kind of organization is going to have men and women around who are going to forward their vision and agenda.  If you don't like it, then you can leave.  Sometimes a manager who is too closely associated with the "old" management is going to be compelled to leave.

Reading articles like this, I'm always surprised at the incessant griping that government bureaucrats do when faced with an all-too-common situation in the private sector.  The sense of entitlement can be brutally obvious. 

CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Millerwise Dyck said Goss is determined to stem the trend toward private contracting by rebuilding the blue-badged workforce as CIA operations expand worldwide.

Good.  And I hope they find folks from private industry.  Is Donald Trump available?

Officials say the U.S. Congress set the stage for today's shortage of experienced staff by ordering a 17 percent across-the-board reduction in agency personnel in the mid-1990s after the Cold War.

Who’s fault is that?  Let me guess: George Bush.  He and Karl Rove used their Jedi-mind trick powers on Clinton-era policy makers and compelled them to cut the Agency’s work force.  However, they didn’t get rid of enough whacked-out Philistine analysts, according to this Frontpage article.

The Directorate of Operations, which runs CIA clandestine activities, has dwindled to fewer than 5,000 staff members from a peak of over 7,000 in the 1970s, intelligence sources say.

Quality, not quantity.

To supplement the clandestine ranks, Goss issued an appeal to former senior intelligence officers over the summer to consider returning to help train new recruits.

But already, inexperienced clandestine officers have shown up at the CIA's Baghdad and Kabul stations in numbers that some current and former officials find worrying.

Again, who?  And how do we know how many “inexperienced clandestine officers” are showing up in Iraq and Afghanistan?  Do they wear name tags?

"They're great places to learn. But where are the people to lead?" complained a former senior clandestine officer. "Running around Afghanistan trying to recruit Afghans is a piece of cake compared with trying to recruit an Iranian nuclear scientist."

[Unnamed Source #4]

I’m sorry.  They weren’t doing that over the last 20 years.  Now the folks who weren’t doing that ten years ago (when we still had a chance to stop the Iranians) are complaining that no one is around to do that.

Please stay retired.

But Goss' success could depend on how he is perceived by the remaining clandestine staff.

He has been portrayed as a director struggling against opposition from clandestine officers who some say are offended by his reliance on a personal staff known to insiders as the "Gosslings."

Oh, spare me.  The old-timers are just frustrated they can’t get access to the big man.  They resent that they’re not in loop.  This is not necessarily a problem.

"We hear people feel like there's no strategic vision coming out of Goss. He's behind a wall of staff and his staff are disruptive," said a congressional aide briefed by CIA officials.

[Unnamed source #5]

Added a former clandestine officer with long experience in world hot spots: "The old CIA is finished. What happens now, I don't know."

[Unnamed source #6]

”The old CIA is finished?” Good.  It didn’t protect us on 9/11, why would I or any reasonable America boo-hoo the demise of an organization that won the Cold War (despite its Marxist analytical work force), but couldn’t pull the trigger on a crazy Arab in the Hindu Kush?

But I also have to ask the question again:  who is saying this?  If they're former, why won't they come forward?  The fact is if these are real people they are probably unwilling to name themselves because they are working in the vast military/intel complex themselves.  They're contractors.  I doubt, however, they’re all making 200K.

Communism is Dead. Die with it.

I went downtown today to meet up with a friend, and I decided to stop by the Support Our Troops rally on the Mall and test out my new camera phone.   It was a small rally (they usually are).  I've noticed over the years that conservatives and Republicans don't generally "rally."  They vote.

I listened briefly to the speakers, but to be honest, the stories of losing children to war were too heart-breaking to listen to for too long.  I decided, instead, to take pictures of some of the signs, and some of the people.  Then I began to hear a group of people chanting, at one point they were drowning out the folks on the stage.  I looked over and saw a group of protesters standing across the street and screaming to drown out the rally speakers.  I snapped a few pictures, and then let go.

I thought for a minute, "what do I say?"  "USA!"  No.  "Support the Troops!"  No.  Then I thought about what would really get them going.  What is the one characteristic that each and every Philistine/moonbat shares?  They still believe in the Revolution.  They still believe the people are going to rise up and establish the grand socialist Utopia.  It gives them strength.  It feeds their ever-wackier fantasies.

I said the one thing I know would drive them crazy:

Communism is Dead!  Communism is Dead!

I never say anything, My Three Readers.   Everyday the Philistines shove their angry, incoherent, frivolous "attitude" into every aspect of my life.   From the repulsive, obese "wymyn" with the CATS NOT KIDS bumper stickers, to the endless condescending, biased media stream, to the self-absorbed posturing of the liberal Boomers I deal with every day,  I bite my tongue, and ignore it.

But not today.

Communism is Dead.

You want to drive an aging Philistine crazy?  Remind them that their lives are dedicated to a barren, lifeless ideology.   Remind them that they've failed.

Communism is Dead.

And I was having so much fun.  I have a very loud voice when I want to, and I think I was louder then all of the them combined.  I know that some of them were stunned at my first chant.  Some woman was videotaping me.  I don't like that, and I'm sure I came off looking like a rabid idiot, but I couldn't help myself.  I was having fun.  If I had more time I would have stayed behind and made faces at the Philistines, but I needed to get back to meet my friend.  I screamed it a few more times, and a cop came by and asked me to stop goading them on.  Of course, I'm going oblige a police officer.  I turned and left.

The fact is, we didn't ask for this.  They declared war on us.  And if it's war, then, so be it.  Fighting a war involves the scariest, ugliest, and evil tasks that good people are forced to do.  It involves sacrifice of every kind: the lives and limbs of young men and women, the lives and minds of young analysts, and the long, sleepless nights they spend exposing themselves to the basest, most vile states of human nature. 

This is what war requires. Not frequent shopping at Whole Foods and another set of tongue piercings.  The Philistines are fighting a different war from the rest of us.  They're still fighting the Cold War, and they're willing to say and do whatever it takes to win, even though the Good Guys won over a decade ago.

Imagine if they put their hearts and minds to fight the terrorists rather then their fellow Americans.

Warning:  the pics are quite awful.  They remind me of the grainy shots I used to take with my old Kodak disk camera.  Sorry.   I'll link to better pics later.

The Philistines:

Here's one for the road:

Amen, sister!

UPDATE:  A few days too late, but Instapundit has a link to a few pictures much better than mine.  Here are a few from FreeRepublic.

New Orleans, 1960

In 1960 my father went to New Orleans... and took a few pictures.

Italy's Next

And they know it.

Officials have boosted security on Italy's transport system.

Nearly 33,000 people had been questioned in recent days as part of the nation-wide investigation that involved all branches of Italy's security and police forces, the ministry said.

Owners of money transfer agencies, call centre and Internet cafes had been investigated and two of the people arrested were brought in under newly-approved anti-terror laws, it added.

Parliament last month passed measures that give the Italian state greater powers to combat terrorism after Interior Minister Giuseppe Pisanu said terrorists were "knocking on Italy's door".

The package makes it easier for police to detain and deport suspects, increases penalties for terror-related crimes and gives approval for greater surveillance of Internet and telephone traffic.

Some critics argue the measures impinge on civil liberties, while others, including some commentators close to the centre-right coalition, have voiced concern Italy is not prepared to deal with the aftermath of an attack.

The ministry said in September there would be a trial run of emergency procedures in several areas of the country. Italy in the past has named Rome, Milan, Vatican City and towns like Florence and Venice as potential target.

Hey!  I have an idea.   Let's strum guitars and sing kumbaya. That'll convince the Islamists no to kill us. Or better yet, let's apologize for the Crusades again!

A Thread to Enjoy

You can go to Amy Wellborn's blog and read clueless and enjoyable comments as readers attempt to justify a pacifist morality that would have destroyed the United States during WWII  if it had been taken seriously.  Here's an example of one comment  to the "morality" of dropping the A-Bomb:

I don't get it. If you're Catholic, this is a non-issue, you know that deliberately targetting civilian populations if wrong. Period. To argue otherwise is to argue against the Church.

Yeah, ya know, this dude is, like, so correct.  We shouldn't drop any bombs, you know, like, during wars and stuff.  And we shouldn't use guns.  Just in case, you know, a civilian is,like,  killed.  Omigod!  Yeah, I know, sometimes we're attacked, sort of, and American civilians get killed, but that doesn't mean we should respond with force.  We should apologize and forgive and pray for them just like Sister Mary Cupcake told me.  Sure, they'll rape and kill us.  They'll raze our civilization and religion, but who cares?  We've followed the Catechism, and so we're all going to heaven!

Duh! don't you, like, know that ends never, ever justify means, especially if Americans are involved.   Or if Koreans and Filipinos and Chinese are being slaughtered.  Or if Jews are being gassed.  Or if blacks are being enslaved.   And those Vietnamese Communists they weren't so bad.  Evil American warmongers used mind rays and made them bad.  Didn't you know that?

Remember, war has never solved anything.

Some things don't change.  Pacifism in the face of total war is one of those things.

Please note:  Dr. Seuss was a typical leftist of the period.  He certainly was no war-monger.  However, like practically everyone with a modicum of commonsense back then, he knew war when he saw it.

"… We will control the land of the Vatican; we will control Rome and introduce Islam in it. Yes, the Christians, who carve crosses on the breasts of the Muslims in Kosovo - and before then in Bosnia, and before then in many places in the world - will yet pay us the Jiziya [poll tax paid by non-Muslims under Muslim rule], in humiliation, or they will convert to Islam…"

The Price of Oil

I wrote this at a great Catholic blog, The Cafeteria is Closed:

You don't invade a country in order to get cheap oil. You do business with it. Stability keeps the price down. If the United States wanted cheap oil from Iraq, they would have done what the French, Chinese, Russians and Germans did. They would have done business with Saddam.

The price of oil is a GLOBAL price. There are many, many issues involved. Since practically every person I meet is clueless about this, they tend to fall back on the "Evil Corporate Conspiracy" theory. But it has nothing to do with the Iraq war or Iran (as long as nothing really bad suddenly happens). Instability in those countries is partly expected. It's the UNEXPECTED that defines the price of oil.

Over the past two weeks, the US has seen two refinery fires, an increase in the estimate number of Atlantic hurricanes, an Islamist coup in Mauritania, the death of Saudi King Fahd, a serious threat of terrorism activity in Saudi Arabia, and good economic forecast numbers here in the US.

All these bring up the cost per barrel on the global market.

It has nothing to do with insane, murderous regime in Iran or the latest roadside bomb in Iraq. There's no conspiracy. There are no closed-door, smoke filled rooms where the A-rabs and evil Texas Republicans get together and plan their next rate hike on The People.

Way too many people feel that we invaded Iraq for cheap oil.  They've been listening to the Philistines and terrorists.  It's imperative for each of My Three Readers to get a handle on this issue.  The price of oil is a freakily complex phenomenon that affects every part of our lives.  It's based on market prices, however.

The Energy Information Administration has som educational material on it.  Here, for instance, is the latest list of top oil importers for the US.  You may be surprised at who sends us oil.  But perhaps I'll post something later today.