Comments Posted By Fresh Air
Displaying 11 To 20 Of 44 Comments
AN "ALTERNATE VERSION" OF 9/11
Rick--
You've potted these a-holes in the kisser. What an unbelievable load of rubbish! As if, instead of remembering the appalling events of that day as they were--as we saw them with our own eyes--we should view them through the inscrutable lens of the New York Slimes editorial board. We must, after due reflection, decide there was some mitigating factor in their evil. Cultural sensitivity my ass!
The Slimes' embracing of victimhood as the only morally pure position is such a tired old liberal trope one wonders if they pulled Anthony Lewis out of the deep-freeze and duct-taped his bony, tabescent fingers to the keyboard of a Smith-Corona manual to wheeze this editorial out.
I am increasingly believing there are two kinds of people in America: liberals and Americans.
Remember the Whig Party!
Comment Posted By Fresh Air On 27.06.2005 @ 11:21
SUPPORT THE TROOPS: BASH THE PENTAGON
Rick--
This is one of those stories that I can't quite believe. Remember the "courageous" soldier who raised his hand at a (Tenn?) National Guard meeting with Rumsfeld and asked why his jeeps weren't up-armored? Rumsfeld, floored, said "You go to war with the army that you have..." It later turned out that 90-some percent of the Hummvees in the soldier's unit had in fact been up-armored or would be by the time he shipped out, and that the question was planted by a partisan in an effort to make the administration look bad. Given the NYT's past estrangement from the truth in all things military or related to Don Rumsfeld, I am not willing to buy this until I see further proof.
I will say, however, if it turns out to be true and if turns out that Pentagon bureaucracy is at fault, this would be a crime.
Now then, allow me to offer a modest defense of the failure to up-armor every Hummvee in theatre. As Linda points out, there seem to be enough Hummers available (at least there are now) for soldiers on patrol to take one with auxilliary plating. Second, there is a significant trade-off between weight, speed and maneuverability. Many soldiers prefer speed in Iraq, like Command Sgt. Major Michael Mellinger. Also keep in mind the Hummvee is a glorified Jeep, not a APC. Furthermore, if an RPG or large IED can disable an APC or even a tank, how would it ever be possible or practical to protect soldiers with extra plating on a Hummer? I'm not saying it isn't a worthwhile exercise to try, but I don't believe it's a perfect or even mostly perfect defense against IEDs.
One another thing. You are quite right about the stupidity of kitting the armor. Evidently the Pentagon has figured it out, too. Better late than never.
The company, by the way, is not a pipsqueak; it is a division of Armor Holdings, a $1 billion public company traded on the NYSE (AHI).
Anyway, I don't think the war planners are at fault, given the serial assumptions one would have to make about the insurgency to divine that up-armor kits would be needed throughout the theatre.
Comment Posted By Fresh Air On 26.06.2005 @ 23:52
GOD BLESS OUR (BANANA) REPUBLIC
This decision may be merely another step in a long march towards government ursurpation of private property rights (as several commenters at NRO and elsewhere have pointed out), but that doesn't make it any less harmful.
One of the NRO commenters pointed out the Bush Administration was AWOL on this case, and, if it had filed amicus briefs, they would have been on the government ("taking") side. Okay, fair point.
But what is to prevent Congress from taking the lead on drafting a Constitutional Amendment to end this kind of crap? It would be a great populist move, and I see absolutely zero downside to it. The only parties adversely affected would be the cities and towns engaging in takings and the New York Times editorial board.
Comment Posted By Fresh Air On 24.06.2005 @ 11:27
The way to inflict the worst injuries on the liberals is to quote them. That's why the MSM is so important.
Comment Posted By Fresh Air On 23.06.2005 @ 19:21
DURBIN KEEPS SPINNING: LEFT KEEPS DIGGING
Except the U.S. never "financed" Saddam. We sold him less than 10% of his weapons more than 20 years ago. Any case for the U.S. as partially culpable for Saddam's behavior is laughable.
To say Kos is an asshat, un-American, nincompoop would be too kind.
Comment Posted By Fresh Air On 22.06.2005 @ 01:56
I have two suggestions: (1) We rend these bastards back to their homelands via static line jump from 600 feet out the back of a C-130. With a nice round canopy and some smoke flares attached to their boots, the locals could track their progress so they could, er, welcome them home, Afghani-style. With light winds, they would be strung up and fed to the buzzards before lunchtime. (2) Shoot the bastards on the battlefield after ascertaining they are illegal combatants. (Buzzards could still participate afterwards.)
The downside is we couldn't squeeze them for intel. The upside is we wouldn't have to listen to the acolytes of William Kunstler, and associated asshats like Dick Durbin mouth off every day. Seems like a fair trade--especially given that the lower-rung grunts probably don't have much intel to begin with.
Comment Posted By Fresh Air On 18.06.2005 @ 22:47
P.P.S. No disrespect to your prognostications intended. I just think the crystal ball is awfully hazy right now. Detailed mathematical analysis might help clear things up a bit. Ultimately, however, we'll have to see who the horses are in order to handicap them.
Comment Posted By Fresh Air On 17.06.2005 @ 09:54
Are you saying Virginia is becoming a blue state? I hadn't heard that. As to Latino voters: Don't make the George Will mistake of assuming it is a static voting block like blacks are for the Democrats. (Last year, he kept repeating this inane statistic he found somewhere about how if George Bush got the same percentage of Hispanic votes, blah, blah...he would lose by X million votes.) Latinos are more mobile, pro-life and, in general, a much more complicated "sell" than black voters are. I'm not saying what you are describing can't happen, but I am skeptical that Latinos will provide the "tipping point" you describe.
Jay Cost will have a lot to say on this in a couple of years--maybe sooner--and I look forward to his analysis.
P.S. There may be some blue states trending red to think about as well: Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Minnesota.
Comment Posted By Fresh Air On 17.06.2005 @ 09:52
I think you made a typo about the 6-point loss; you mean to say the GOP shouldn't nominate a pro-choice candidate--I think.
Anyway, it all depends upon events. No terrorism on U.S. targets means someone like John McCain or Bill Frist has an opening. A terrorist attack or the prevention of one benefits Rudy. What about Jeb? Aren't voters experiencing "Clinton fatigue" too?
I have to disagree on the Hill. Hillary is not a good candidate. She is wooden on the stump. Her voice sounds like a bitchy librarian. Her positions are hollow to the core. She is a political neophyte who telegraphs her punches continually. (See Jay Cost's Red State analysis of her.) She may get the nod, but I don't see the same level of excitement you do. Many women don't like her. She is despised in the South. And the Teamster guys who supported Kerry aren't likely to stand in deep lines to vote for Hillary. I say you've got the swing states wrong; with Hillary at the top of the ticket, the Dems get creamed.
Comment Posted By Fresh Air On 17.06.2005 @ 09:20
ILLINOIS FINEST MOONBAT: SENATOR DURBIN
Rick*--
I'm from Springfield and am not proud to say that Durbin was my Congresscritter at one time. However, back then he was viewed as a "moderate," and IIRC he was more or less moderate in a mainstream-member-of-the-Mommy-Party sort of way.
But his behavior in the past couple of years has just veered so far left he's approaching Ted Kennedy-level delirium. I don't know if he thinks this sort of thing will get him Harry Reid's job or what. It's really quite bizzare. The Tedster has been unstable for years. But Dick, while increasingly fixated on liberal hobbyhorses and obstructionism, has never struck me as out-and-out stupid and clueless--until now.
He's really becoming Nancy Pelosi in drag. It is true; people exit the Senate a lot stupider than when they arrive.
* Since there is no preview function, I am not responsible for any typos that may appear in this post. Besides, the UN can take care of my spelling mistakes.
Comment Posted By Fresh Air On 15.06.2005 @ 19:09
