Phil Yo Pain

Take My People Back!

Wed, 23 Feb 2005 05:15:53 GMT

You know, with our liberals - who needs a scrappleface? Check this out - the shop at the UnemployedDemocrats.com. Ladies and gentlemen, behold the exhibit A. Described by the seller as "outrageous and over-the-top". Just in case the image is too small, the line on the T-shirt says:

The last time someone listened to a Bush, folks wandered around the desert for 40 years

Can you believe this? They actually think that this shirt is making fun of Bush. How can those people be so outrageously dumb and over-the-top ignorant on so many levels? Unbelievably delicious. Thank you, guys.

When in Belgium...

Wed, 23 Feb 2005 02:51:07 GMT

This is a sticker designed by one Laurent Winnock, president of the official youth branch of the Belgian governing Socialist Party. Translating into the terminology we remember since our childhood, he's Secretary General of the Belgian "Komsomol". The stickers are distributed for free on the official web-site of, again, governing Socialist Party under the "give piss a chance" headline. An idea is for those stickers to be placed in urinals - so that any Belgian can engage in a free speech by pissing on the American President and the American Flag. Obviously this is an example of the sophisticated European diplomacy, famous for its nuanced approach - to distribute those stickers just as they welcome George Bush on his official visit. Well, we guess, it's their call. We never had any illusions of how cultured and refined lefties are.

Anyway, after a bit of pondering, we have to say that in itself an idea that piss is speech does have merit. We are libertarians, right? We wouldn't do it in just any bathroom, of course. But, if the owner welcomes this kind of expression, why not? If we ever find ourselves in a bathroom like that - we will make ourselves heard. Loud and clear. If peeing in the urinal is speech, so is peeing on the floor, right? We intend to take full advantage of those freedom-of-piss bathrooms. When in Belgium - do as the Belgians do.

About Them Blogs

Tue, 22 Feb 2005 02:52:12 GMT

We are not going to repeat all the things that were said about the democratization of the media. We just wanted to make a couple of points.

The Internet is not the first revolution in the information technology. The first one was an invention of the written word. Once it became possible to preserve the information and to transport it - the first step was made. The second step was in the invention of the printing press. Now people could replicate the information at a low cost and in big volumes. But still those costs were prohibitive to many and the one who wished to publish in volume needed sizeable sums to be able to do so. The Internet does not just make information dissemination quick, it makes it instantaneous and, more importantly - it makes it virtually free. This is bigger then just being about the change in politics. That said, the change in politics caused by the Web will be profound.

First of all, the discussion of the free speech related issues is going to change. Remember, just a couple of years ago Senators McCain and Feingold decided that is about time to take away some more of the freedom of speech. Their argument? Oh, it was an old one - if they don't regulate political speech, then people will donate to candidates they like and once elected, those politicians will do their donors' bidding to ensure their support for the next term. In McCain's opinion (that mirrors that of Marc Twain's) and his claimed first hand knowledge - no US Senator can possibly resist the urge to be corrupted. So, McCain and Feingold figured that the best way to remove the temptation was not to limit the term of service for the Federal Legislators. Instead, they decided that the best thing to do is to prohibit some political speech. Of course, they made an exception - a special category of people were allowed to voice their opinion. Yep, you guessed right - those were journalists. Some people are more equal than the others. Journalists had always liked McCain, but now an appreciation of him by the MSM just soared. For many years those guys felt that they were different from the rest of us, that theirs were the voices of reason, wisdom and compassion. They just knew that they had been send to this Earth by some sort of providence to do good, to care, to watch over corrupt politicians, to tell the Truth, to enlighten those dumbass morons American people are and to make sure no Republican gets elected. And now, all those feelings were confirmed by the Law. Oh, and, of course, the Congress was just happy to pass it - there was the bill that ensured that you are praised by the Media and, at the same time you, as an incumbent, were going to get a huge advantage in the next elections cycle. Was there a downside? Well, the people were about to lose their essential liberty for the safety of the congressional seats of their representatives, but who the fuck cares? George Bush? The Supreme Court? At the moment George Bush did not feel any political strength to just veto the new liberty-grab by the usurpers and face the wrath of the Main Stream Media, so he cowardly went along. As for the Supreme Court... they decided that phrase "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" clearly means that the Congress has the power to set limits to the political advertisements before the elections. After all, political speech, unlike pornography, is not something that Founding Fathers really meant to protect, right?

Nowadays… remember the Swift Boat Vets? How many of them were there and what was their budget? Two hundred fifty guys with a donation of just two hundred thousand dollars. It’s nothing. Compare that to the many tens of millions of dollars moveon.org, “not in our name” and other liberal outfits got from George Soros and other patrons. Do you think Swift Vets played any lesser role in the elections? The MSM never forgot to report that Bush is accused of being a deserter. Dan Rather and his producer went on a four-year long (!) search of any confirmation for the story, that ended with them showing and then defending some forged military documents – all in coordination with Kerry’s campaign. Yet, no reporter ever asked Kerry if he plans to sign the form 180 and release his full military history (that is – not until four months after the elctions). And yet – the Swift Vets managed to get their message through. Thousands of people donated to their cause when they read about them in the blogs. Can anyone who still remembers this story claim that an unrestricted speech gives an insurmountable advantage to the rich people like George Soros? Ok, how about - can someone claim this honestly?

Besides the campaign finance issues, the blogs change the situation with the other freedom of speech related issues. Consider libel. For a long time it was argued that we need to impose certain penalties on a libelous speech since it is the only way in which a person can defend his good name. We believe that now anybody has enough means to defend himself openly and publicly in front of an audience of an unlimited size. Enough so to make the added benefits of the libel laws smaller then harm they do by placing a restriction on speech. Think about it this way - when the libel case goes to court, the person who was wronged is supposed to clear his name by convincing a jury. Why just a jury? Why present you case to a jury, when you can present it directly to us? Anyone can set up a web page and put up whatever they want. It will even cost less then a trial. And as for a jury, we are absolutely convinced we can pass a judgment as well as any one of those people. Because we are some of those people.

Second, for the first time in human history nobody controls an access to what people hear. From now on they decide this on their own. Whoever they trust they will listen. Not too many people in the Main Stream Media can easily come to terms with the idea that their access to the microphone is no longer a unique privilege. Unhindered access to publishing and reading in an unlimited volume is as big a change for humanity as translation of the Bible from Latin was for the Christians. And, just as it was in that case, there is going to be some long struggle by the orthodoxy who wants to keep the monopoly on opinion making. It is not the competition they are afraid of. They know how to compete - you do not get in Dan Rather's seat by being a wuss. The problem is - now that this seat is not on the top, but one of the many, - they do not feel it is worth that effort no more. They won’t give up though. They will still complain that bloggers are not true, real journalists, they will still complain that some of those guys get undeserved press passes and TV time, they will scoff at their names and mock their web nicknames - but the writing is on the wall. Don't get us wrong - the main stream journalists are not going to disappear. Only their exclusive standing in the news business will.

One last thing. Comparatively speaking, conservatives in the Media are much more enthusiastic about the whole blogging phenomenon. FOX is regularly inviting bloggers, conservative talk-show hosts quote from them. Conservative journalists like Michelle Malkin or Hugh Hewitt quickly became ones of the most prominent bloggers. Only few blogs are visited or linked to more often. All the whining about the unwashed pajama-clad bullies taking their toys - comes from the liberal corner. They have more to lose, haven't they? We agree. Given how fast the center of the mass in mass media shifts toward the Internet - we wonder how much role will be left to play for CBS, ABC, CNN, NBC, NYT and so on - in the next elections. Without their support - how do liberals plan to win?

The Gates

Sun, 20 Feb 2005 03:32:10 GMT

For some unknown reason Christo decided that if there is a color New York needs more of - it is orange. I do not know if he ever saw taxi-filled avenues of Manhattan before. Anyway, I have heard some negative reviews, but decided to go and take a look of my own - if I do not give a damn what New York Times says about politics, why would I care about their or anyone else's in this town snobbish "oh, it's not a true art" bullshit? They can shove that "true art" up their... actually, that in itslef would be an act of art.
Enough of day dreaming. Back to The Gates. They look great. It was fun.

Update: here is the link to the official page with photos. Check out the aerial views at the bottom of the photos page - those are the cool ones

And no, it has nothing to do with Ukraine.

Iraq. Sobering Up.

Tue, 15 Feb 2005 03:49:26 GMT

I can tell you right now how the history of Iraqi war will be taught twenty years from now in liberal colleges on both coasts - there will be a lot of assertions that Saddam was getting ready to liberate Iraq a la Gorbachev and then some complaints about how George Bush almost ruined that liberation by an uncalled for intervention. Luckily, Iraqi people saw through him and then rejected his attempt to steal their oil in the elections of 2005 that George Bush tried to block, but through the selfless actions of the freedom fighter Zarqawi – failed. Great credit belongs to John Kerry, who through negotiations with Zarqawi and Ted Kennedy helped those elections to happen and then in a most courageous act did not overhype them, thus removing the greatest threat there was.

You do not think the events can be interpreted so? Just check out this article - an author apparently thinks that George Bush hoped that the free elections would be won by a small minority and now is surprised and disappointed that Shiites and Kurds rule the day.

Anyway, now that the elections are over, it is time to get our shit together a little bit. No, I am not going to be Kerry-like – that guy is among those who do not hear the music to begin with. Our problem is we are all too familiar with euphoria that comes with an event like this. We remember all the adrenalin that fueled us in the August of 1991 and then was slow to wear off for many months. Certain sobering up is due. No, I do not mean we need to discuss Turkey's or Kennedy's critique of the elections. Who cares? I mean - for real.

Iraqis made just one crucial step – they won over their own fears. They got their liberty through courage. The next part is to preserve it. That takes even more courage. And patience. And tolerance. And years. They are off to a good start though. The Shiits did not win the clear majority, so they will have to learn the hardest lesson of them all – building coalitions, negotiating and sacrificing. Kurds are more experienced in this, having some sort of local democracy they successfully ran for a dozen years behind the invisible border, enforced by America. Sunnis seem to admit a mistake they made and are trying to fix it the way this things ought to be fixed – through negotiations. Shiits will be wise to accept.

Of course, nothing is certain yet. It won't become certain overnight. Any tradition takes years to take. And liberty is one of the hardest of them all. To learn to accept a defeat in an election is hard. Harder still is to learn to never give a government any power you are not ready to accept in the hands of your worst opponents. American liberals could not figure this one out for many decades, but Iraqis have already showed they understand freedom better.

Anyway, we will see how it plays out. We will definitely make many mistakes in the years to come and so will Iraqis. However banal it sounds - so is life. Ours is better then the one that our friends on the left lead. Theirs has no adrenaline rush, no euphoria of victory, no satisfaction, - only the paranoia and depression. They are going to waste their days waiting for some bad thing to happen so that they will be able to crow for a while that they've told us so. For such is the fate of those with no vision, no dreams, no balls and yes, - no ears for music.

To Hear The Music

Sat, 12 Feb 2005 15:08:54 GMT

Since we mentioned idealism in the previous post.

John Kerry, speaking on "Meet the Press" about the Iraqi elections, opined with all the sour envy of the liberals in his eyes: "No one in the United States should try to overhype this election." James Taranto responded in his "Best of the Web" column with a beautiful quote from Friedrich Nietzsche. One that we can not better. Nor need to:

"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music"

This wraps up the whole dialog on the war with terrorism, the war with Saddam and the discussion of the Bush's "liberty is our realpolitik" line.

Marshall Plan II.

Sat, 12 Feb 2005 07:37:14 GMT

Lately there has been a lot of talk in the Main Stream Media about Condi Rice trying to mend the strained relationship with Europe. Well, here is the thing. Although Dr. Rice does try to mend things, it's not what it looks like.

First of all, when in this context the MSM says "Europe", they really talk about "France and Germany". We need not to mend anything with either UK or Italy, we are quite friendly with Poland, we are on a first name basis with Czechs and with many other friends we have there.

Second, we are not exactly "mending". Not in a sense "trying to get them to help us" anyway. We agree with Kenneth Timmerman who said that "going to war without France is like going deer-hunting without an accordeon."

Let's review what just happened between us and France, and Germany. What happened was, for the lack of a better word - a war. Not a "hot" war and not even a Cold War. But - a war of sorts. A war by proxy. We wanted the murderous dictator out, they wanted him to stay. We thought that he threatened everyone; they hoped he threatened just us. We were blamed for trying to grab Iraqi oil; they were taking oil bribes from the dictator, who bought them all with the money that were supposed to be used to feed the children. We bet on the Iraqi people wanting their liberty; they were firm in the conviction that Arabs neither need nor want it. We won. They lost.

One thing we need to remember is that they have not a single drop of idealism in them. For them, the World is not about kings and cabbages, shoes and sealing wax, dictators and liberties. For them, the World is the spheres of influence. They do not see millions of Iraqis being freed. They do not see the nation born. They see their influence lost.

We've been over this before. Not once - couple of times. After the First World War we made the biggest mistake - leaving Germany choking in the dust of the battlefield, strangled with reparations, defeated and bitter. We left France... not very highly praised and so - even bitterer then Germany. The lesson was learned and after the Second World War the mistake was not repeated. We helped Germany to rebuild and restore and we elevated France to the status of a Victorious Ally, even though officially they were allied with the losing side. Who cares? We needed them to be happy lest they start killing each other in the millions again.

The feel-good thing to do now would be just to go on without them. We have real friends - friends in need. Problem is - however satisfying it would have been watching them running around screaming "sour grapes" - it would have been the same mistake we made after the First World War. And we did learn the lesson, didn't we? So, Dr. Rice goes to Europe with a new Marshall plan. This time, instead of the money, we offer some dignity.

We hope they accept.

Bad Days for Liberals

Thu, 10 Feb 2005 04:00:35 GMT

The original plan was to write a long article about the State of the Union. We were going to talk about Bush betting on people's desire to live free of fear. And about Iraqis who delivered the fatal blow to the "insurgents", reducing them from the most feared enemy to the level of a car crash, a drowning or a lightning strike - lethal, yet not feared and not life-controlling. We were going to talk about the stunning success of the elections that went better then we hoped in our more optimistic hours. However, other people managed to say it all and where is the fun in just repeating what has been said already?

Let's just take a quick look at out liberal friends. After all - they are going nowhere. We can get rid of Saddam, Assad and Kim, we can help Iranians get rid of their mullahs like we helped Afghanis to deal with the Taliban, but liberals - or, they will be with us for a long time. So, let's see what's brewing there.

Liberals are not having a good time. You know how sometimes you wake up and right away you feel - this is one of those days? You spill the coffee on your white shirt, slip and fall in the mud near the bus stop, erase all the work you've done over the last week and then you lose you wallet... when I have a feeling like this - I stop. As soon as the coffee stain is on my shirt, I call the office and take a personal day. Then I climb back into bed and watch TV, trying not to make any sudden moves. Right about now Democrats are wishing they spent the last two weeks in bed. A month, actually. Make it a year. Or may be five. But the last two weeks - definitely.

First of all - the Iraqi elections. They shouldn't have bet on Zarqawi. There are times when a little pessimism is ok, but this was not one of them. Not only were they wrong, but they could not have been wrong in a more obvious way. Instead of being Moore's "minuteman" freedom fighter, Zarqawi pronounced himself to be an enemy of liberty and democracy. Then, the Iraqis went to vote - against the death threats and bombs, making it clear who the freedom fighters are. This was one of those moments when the smart ones among Democrats start reevaluating their beliefs. How many people quit the Democratic Party when the Berlin Wall fell? How many are doing it now? I am not saying they will become Republicans, but it is unlikely they will vote for the "Iraq's a debacle" party.

Add to that the State of the Union, to which they responded with sour faces and warnings that investing money in the Social Security pyramid scheme is a "safety net", while a personal investment in the American market is "gambling". Of course, if they were a party in power, then their warning that people should not bet on American economy giving any returns in the long (looong) run - would have some weight. To make matters worse, their most electable man Kerry gave an interview, where he asserted that we are less safe now. As is his habit, he decided to support his opinion with... (drum roll) yes, of course - the opinions of foreign leaders! This time he was relying on the assertions of some Arab dictators that Iraq is a failed nation. He did not mention names (again, a habit), but we hope that Saddam was not one of those "leaders". He also mentioned that he is not feeling sorry for himself and then bragged that he raised more money than Bush and actually won a popular vote in the battleground states. What will they brag about after 2008? Winning a popular vote in California? He also... ah, later. He is too much fun, and we want to be brief.

I wish I remembered who said that the Democratic party nowadays has two wings - a schizophrenic one and a paranoid one. Looks like the latter (think Dean and Moore) is taking over. Expect fast radicalization of the party. After they elect Dean their leader, there will be just the thunder of hoofs until they get to the edge of a ravine. Then there will be screams. If noting stops liberals from the inglorious charge, they will go on loosing elections to Republicans until the latter split into the two new parties along the "big government - state rights" line. At which moment the Democratic Party will become the third largest in America

Disclosures. Kind of.

Sat, 05 Feb 2005 16:35:57 GMT

Lately people seem to be obsessed with disclaimers and disclosures. For some reason, whenever you speak, you must warn your listeners of your political preferences, your affiliations, funding sources, suppliers, personal friends and sexual preferences - otherwise, they may not be able to correctly evaluate your opinion. Ok, fine, here it goes.

First of all, since the authors present a united front to the World, we will disclose as a single entity:

We are libertarians... or so we think. Overall, our political philosophy is build entirely on the premise that all people are endowed with their rights by their Creator and thus no human being is entitled to violate those - other than in defense. We believe that a government is something instituted by the people (rather then by the Creator) and as such it can have only those powers we, the People, delegated to it. That also means that a govenrment can not have the powers we could not delegate to it. For example - those we did not [individually] have ourselves.

We do not receive any money for what we do here. We support ourselves by being gainfully employed as computer professionals. If you doubt this, you are welcome to try and enrich yourself: you can make us an offer of a one-time payment in exchange for all the money we received for blogging - all of it. An exact sum you offer will, of course, depend on your estimates of our alleged profits and a degree of your believe in those estimates. Your offer shall also stipulate that you will cover all the additional expenses we will incur in the process of the settlement. We reserve the right to decline an offer made in a bad faith and an offer of a sum insufficient to justify the distraction

We donate money to certain charities, some of which are mentioned in our blog. We also contributed to "Swift Vets and POWs for Truth" organization.

We consider all information about our sexual lives, histories, experiences and preferences to be irrelevant to what we do here (in general). Same applies to our medical, family and professional information. Such information will be divulged only when we decide that we want to do it - because it is interesting, or because it is relevant, or because we are a good witness of some event, or because we want to prove our credentials, or because we just want to brag or complain. We do not consider ourselves under any obligation to disclose it and will not entertain challenges to do so.

We do not post anything locked, restricted and so on. We will probably add no more friends (we use other journals to do our readings).

English is not our native language. Our grammar is far from perfect. Stylistically we are also far from where we wish we were. You are invited to help us out and point to our mistakes. We will not be embarrassed. If you still think that we will be and is willing to spare us an experience - you can offer a correction in an anonymous commentary. Those are screened and moderated.

We do not possess all the knowledge available to humans. We can make factual mistakes as well as grammatical ones. Please, feel obligated to correct our factual mistakes.

we are done so far

We prefer not to discuss our political views right here. If you have issues with what we should disclose, - go ahead.

Brothels and Government.

Mon, 31 Jan 2005 05:38:04 GMT

To make the long story short: after the prostitution was legalized in Germany, brothels became legitimate businesses just like all the others: they hire personnel, they pay taxes, they pay for the health insurance for their workers, they get access to the governmental database of people who receive unemployment benefits... Which means they can pick from the lists those who fit their profile of prospective employees. Basically, they pick young women, who then must choose between taking a position or losing their unemployment benefits.

arbat likes to compare sexual freedom to all other kinds. He keeps saying that a government has no right to regulate consensual business transactions - no more then it has any business regulating how and with whom he has consensual sex. I have seen him ridiculed for this comparison and I have thought on quite a few occasions that it really was pushing it too far. Well, (even though some may consider this at least partially a shameless self-promotion) my hat's off to him. What a vindication. arbat is a prophet after all. When a government starts directing people's lives, sooner or later they do try to get you on all fours and have their way with you.

Here is the link to the story (via drudgereport.com)

The Best Thing Since the Berlin Wall

Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:15:27 GMT

Iraqi elections are a huge success. Much better then expected. Iraqis showed up in huge numbers and voted - despite the threat of bombs. Thus proving the point that any human being chooses freedom when given such choice. People who claimed that Arabs neither need nor understand democracy, that it is not in heir culture - are bigoted idiots. It was said before, now it's proven.

Those who did cast votes got their fingers marked with purple paint - a simple measure to prevent fraud. This paint-covered fingers are as much a symbol of these elections as orange-colored items are the symbols of what happened in Ukraine. Check this out: here, here, here (thanks to instapundit.com), here (scrappleface), here (from the powerlineblog.com)

And, for those of us who do not trust FOX news, check this out, from the New York Times: "Amid Attacks, a Party Atmosphere on Baghdad's Closed Streets":

Thirty civilians and six police officers died in mortar attacks and suicide bombings around the country, the Interior Minister reported, according to A.F.P. Twenty-two of the deaths occurred in Baghdad, Reuters reported, where mortar attacks took three lives and 19 people were killed by suicide bombers. At least 29 were wounded in the attacks in the capital, Reuters said. But if the insurgents wanted to stop people in Baghdad from voting, they failed. If they wanted to cause chaos, they failed. The voters were completely defiant, and there was a feeling that the people of Baghdad, showing a new, positive attitude, had turned a corner. No one was claiming that the insurgency was over or that the deadly attacks would end. But the atmosphere in this usually grim capital, a city at war and an ethnic microcosm of the country, had changed, with people dressed in their finest clothes to go to the polls in what was generally a convivial mood

"Iraqis Brave Bombs to Vote in Their Millions" by Luke Baker, Reuters
"Quotes on the Iraqi elections" from the Associated Press
"'This Is Democracy' Say Delighted Iraqis" quotes at scotsman.com
"I am voting for peace. I would have crawled here if I had to" by Jenny Booth, Times Online
"Reporters' log: Iraqi elections" many reporters from the BBC.

Overall, quoting the scrappleface.com

"Journalists struggled to put a positive spin on the day's events, but the video images of tyranny's traitors choosing a future of freedom overwhelmed the official story of bloodshed and mayhem."

Terrorists failed to stop the election and liberals who were counting on them to do that - failed too. Check this thread from the DemocraticUnderground.com (to be fair, check also responses from joatsimeon). Well, as liberals said (again, to be fair - with the notable exception of two Senators Liberman and Miller) - it was definitely "not in their name". One more thing not in their name. Democrats never missed an opportunity: the emancipation of slaves, the Civil Rights Act, the end of the Cold War and now - this. Suckers never learn. Ah, screw them.

Let's celebrate. So, read the articles. Look at the pictures of people crying of joy, women crowding polling stations, painted fingers that nobody is going to cut off no more. Islamofascist lost. Iraqis won. So did we. No, it is not over yet. But one more mission is accomplished. The Big One.

Iraqi Elections, American Liberals

Sat, 29 Jan 2005 07:31:05 GMT

Abba Eban once said that Palestinians "never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity". This Sunday American liberals will miss theirs. Big time.

While the Main Stream Media managed to mostly avoid reporting on the success that Afghani elections were - Iraq is a whole new ballgame. These elections are huge. This is the moment of truth. Democracy in Iraq - if that happens, it is going to change the face of the World. The fate of the whole region, the fate of people yearning to be free in every neighboring country, safety and stability of people close by and far away - all rides on these elections. So clear is this that even New York Times noticed. So, let's not waste time on this. Let's just review how much damage our liberal friends are about to suffer.

* * *

First of all, remember them telling us stories about it being our fault that terrorists and islamofascists hate us? Liberal's instinct to blame America first, their anti-american feelings proved to be even stronger then that of Zarqawi's. Just a few days ago he crossed the t's and dotted the i's - for anyone who could not figure this out for themselves. He made the most unambiguous declaration that the main thing he opposes is the democracy itself, and the worst thing that he sees happening is the success of these elections. He promised to do what he can to disrupt it. His band of terrorists are making an all-out effort (1, 2) knowing that this fight is for the most important thing in this war. They do know it. Too bad Ted Kennedy does not. He had just reminded us. As if we forgot how liberals like to step on the rake, - hey, look, everyone, look, I am stepping forward... look, here, watch the handle, here... whoooooshhh... bang!

* * *

Second, how about liberal's phenomenal conviction that Arabs neither need nor want freedom. Not just Arabs, actually. Remember Senator Kerry's "let them have bread and circuses" statement?

"I think that politically, historically, the one thing that people try to do, that society is structured on as a whole, is an attempt to satisfy their felt needs, and you can satisfy those needs with almost any kind of political structure, giving it one name or the other. In this name it is democratic; in others it is communism; in others it is benevolent dictatorship. As long as those needs are satisfied, that structure will exist."

What else would you expect from someone who has no moral clarity? And that was the liberal's choice for the Presidency. Liberals firmly believe that liberty, freedom, democracy - are not universal values, but merely colorful local customs. Like rain dance. We decided to have elections, in some other countries people chose to live in slavery - and it is all good. We should not think that we know the Absolute Moral... Well, Iraqis beg to differ. Like in Afghanistan people there are going to polling places under the threat of terrorists' attack. Candidates and electors risk being killed. Remember, liberals complaining that big bad Republicans are trying to intimidate their voters by demanding that they showed an ID in order to vote? Compare this to a chance of being blown up and you might figure out who wants democracy more. Puts things in perspective, doesn't it?

* * *

How about their predictions of the terrible, terrible civil war that only Saddam could possibly prevent? Only the brutal genocidal dictator can prevent these barbarians from killing each other. Of course, by killing them. Remove Saddam and you threaten stability. Oh, stability. This word is so much liked by the people who can't care less about liberty. Ask any old Russian communist what he thinks about Stalin - what word would come out of his mouth first? Wanna bet? Now, listen, again, to Senator Kerry:

"I have always said from day one that the goal here … is a stable Iraq, not whether or not that's a full democracy... I can't tell you what it's going to be, but a stable Iraq. And that stability can take several different forms."

Wow. Liberal's vision of the stability in the Middle East includes Saddam terrorizing his people to keep them obedient. This is what they accept as one of the "forms" of stability. Same form is usually found in a graveyard. Compare to Bush's new doctrine of freedom and liberty being the only possible guarantees of peace. Discuss.

Meanwhile, yet again, Zarqawi weighs in. Iraq where Sunnis, Shia and Kurds live in peace with each other is most definitely not on his "top ten wishes" list. He is trying to provoke a civil war by specifically targeting Shias. Unfortunately for him and for the reputation of our liberal experts - civil war does not materialize. Somehow they manage to resolve things politically.

* * *

Ted Kennedy managed to pick this exact moment, just couple of days before the elections to say that "The U.S. military presence has become part of the problem, not part of the solution". He also thinks that "We need a new plan that sets fair and realistic goals for self-government in Iraq, and works with the Iraqi government on a specific timetable for the honorable homecoming of our forces." Kennedy still thinks that Iraq is Bush's Vietnam and is trying to loose the war as hard as he can. Apparently, he thinks it is about time to give up, to withdraw and to ask the UN for help. Apparently, Zarqawi and Kennedy are two people who feel most desperate about how things are going.

It actually begins to look borderline comical. It is the old adage that history repeats itself - first time as a tragedy, second as a farce. This time the tragedy and the farce go on in parallel. Just as Zarqawi makes his final bloody push against freedom and democracy, liberals in the US are trying their darndest to make sure we do not resist. It is as if they want to wash their hands off any victory for liberty. So strong is their desire to denounce and complain that they think nothing of putting themselves in the most terrible position - making their political future to depend on the Iraq's and America's misfortune.

A dozen of liberal ~~idiots~~ Senators took an opportunity at Dr. Rice hearings to refight the elections past and lost. They desperately wanted to blame Bush one more time. In their opinon, American presence in Iraq is "inherently destabilizing", the war should be lost, the troops withdrawn. Zarqawi could not wish for better spokespeople.

Liberals screwed up. They effectively rejected any credit for the Iraqi elections. "Not in our name". Well, guys, you missed your biggest opportunity this century. Leaving aside the moral part, what you did was as smart as making a "not in our name" proclamation sixty years ago - at the moment when Nazi Germany signed unconditional capitulation.

* * *

American liberals are not the only ones who are going to loose a goodly chunk of what's left of their credibility. Have you heard about any Europeans willing to play human shields to protect polling places? Any demonstrations of protest against those who killing Iraqis in an attempt to disenfranchise the whole country? How about their Governments - any words of support? No? We did not think so.

On the other hand, ayatollahs in Iran, Baathists in Syria, all the dictators big and small in the Middle East and beyond it - they do notice. And so do their people. Remember the "Arab street" that our liberals kept whining about? As in "we must appease the Arab street"? Make no mistake - the proverbial "Arab street" is watching. With great interest. So does "Persian street". It would not be long until they ask a question - how come that the only Arabs that decide their fate in the course of free elections are those "occupied" by Israel and America?

Do I need to even spend time analyzing liberal's claim that this war may be made World safer, but made America's position in the World so much worse? You really think that having big, strong, America-friendly democracy in the center of that region as an example to the World - makes America's position weaker? Why? Who are the people that now think of America worse then before? French? Germans? Russians? Aren't those the same crowd who helped Saddam to rob Iraqi people to the tune of 20 billion dollars? Guess what - they never liked us. Who cares what they think anyway? Like arbat says - "if you walk down the street and see someone raping a woman - are you going to help, or you are going to first worry what would your French neighbor think about it?"

* * *

Finally, Main Stream Media. Those guys are still trying to figure out what to do. Remember their coverage of the previous Iraqi "elections". Oh, you seem to be puzzled? What elections? Well, here is a reminder: in October 2002 Saddam won "elections" that NBC reporter Keith Miller covered like this:

"All 11,440,638 eligible voters went to the polls with one thought: Yes to Saddam Hussein! The government proclaimed it a victory of light over darkness, good over evil. It seemed more like a political miracle"

On one hand, MSM can not merely deny things that are going to happen. Even less they can cooperate with terrorists. The media world is changing and when Associated Press reporters embed with bandits to film "the brutal killing of 2 Iraqi heroes whose only mistake was trying to organize an election in their country" - people notice. But to acknowledge what happened, to simply report it - means to acknowledge Bush and they do have a mental block that prohibits this.

Expect many articles that would look all the same "yes, it happened, but..." - and a long list of complaints afterwards, hoping that we forget how huge, how tremendously huge this "it" is. Lives saved, liberty restored - and, yes, at a big price. But, unlike 60 years ago we did not wait for a do-nothing approach to cost us thousands times more. Iraqis deserve our help no less then Germans and Japanese did. They deserve their freedom. Everyone does. Good luck

Barbara Boxer, the Victim.

Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:47:09 GMT

Here is the by now famous exchange (actually, a part of it) between Senator Barbara Boxer and Doctor Condoleezza Rice that took place during the confirmation hearing for Dr. Rice last week (transcript):

Sen. Boxer: ...And I personally believe -- this is my personal view -- that your loyalty to the mission you were given, to sell this war, overwhelmed your respect for the truth...

As you can see, Senator Boxer was just doing her job - asking questions, raising issues, trying to get to the bottom... Little did she knew that she was about to be brutally victimized

Dr. Rice: ...Senator, I have to say that I have never, ever lost respect for the truth in the service of anything. It is not my nature. It is not my character. And I would hope that we can have this conversation and discuss what happened before and what went on before and what I said without impugning my credibility or my integrity....

Any reality-based person would share Senator Boxer's feelings - this nasty attack by Dr. Rice was totally unprovoked, it was a dirty trick - changing the subject like that. As for the rest of us - we have somewhat different take.

People like to discuss the differences between conservatives and liberals. They like snappy soundbites along the lines of Krauthammer's "Republicans think Democrats are wrong and Democrats think Republicans are evil". The truth is: Republicans are not always right. Nether are they always wrong. Many Republicans are good. The others are various shades of evil. Now, Democrats... You'd understand their behavior patterns best if you assume that Democrats are self-involved narcissistic idiots. They live in a make-believe hollywood "reality-based" world, that has nothing to do with the actual reality. In that world saying to a conservative things like "you were lying to sell the war" is not an insult. It is not an attack on one's integrity. It is a sound discussion of an important issue. Honestly. Senator Boxer is absolutely, positively sure she said nothing wrong - she was just sharing a deep thought. However, a response "please, refrain from insulting me" - oh, that was just rude.

"I gave Dr. Rice many opportunities to address specific issues. Instead, she said I was impugning her integrity... She turned and attacked me..."

Do you think Senator Boxer noticed the rest of what Dr. Rice said? You think that addressing those "specific issues" that were so important to her would register, don't you? Nah. You do not get it. The only specific issue for her is the fact that Bush is still the President and she is a part of the Senate's minority. The only way she wanted it addressed was to attack Bush by proxy. The only opportunity she saw was to claim yet again that Bush lied. The only response she would have been satisfied with is "yes, oh noble Senator, we Republicans are lying sons (and daughters) of a bitches, forgive us and take over the power that is rightfully yours".

She would have even accepted it if Dr. Rice merely answered the questions without defending herself or her Boss - Senator Boxer would not know what those answers mean anyway. You think I exaggerate? Esteemed Senator could not figure it out over the last few years - was there a chance she would get it in a short few minutes of the hearings? But Dr. Rice said "don't impugn my integrity" - and that was the sentence that Senator Boxer understood just fine. She felt violated.

"When you really don't know what to say about a specific, you just attack the person who is asking the questions"

I guess this is all Democrats are left with.
How much more pathetic can this party get, we wonder.

Update: arbat insists that we should soften our description of the Democrats. We are having a sort of an argument over this. On one hand we do not wish to engage in mindless name-calling. On the other, "idiot" being a medical term, we feel we can use it as long as it "was not intended in a contemptuous sense but purely as one of factual narration". We also realize that many otherwise good and decent people consider themselves Democrats, but this is a topic of a bigger discussion. We promise to get back to it soon enough.

Inaugural

Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:45:13 GMT

Here is the text of the second Inaugural Address by President George W. Bush. Now, check these passages out:

After the shipwreck of communism came years of relative quiet, years of repose, years of sabbatical - and then there came a day of fire. We have seen our vulnerability - and we have seen its deepest source. For as long as whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny - prone to ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder - violence will gather, and multiply in destructive power, and cross the most defended borders, and raise a mortal threat. There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom. We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world. America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one.

This is big. Huge, actually. The Biggest Thing since Evil Empire. We presume Natan Sharansky was particularly happy to hear this address - that after his discussion on the subject with Bush and Rice. If you want a very long-winded explanation of the idea, you can get Sharansky's "The Case For Democracy" book. Alternatively, he explains it in a much shorter format in this interview with the David Horowitz' FrontPageMag.com magazine.

This inaugural is already being compared to Kennedy's. However, there is someting more important in this address then an idea that we should "pay any price, bear any burden, … to assure the survival and the success of liberty..." - those were kind of wishes. Kennedy wanted it this way, but he did not mean that he would really go for it. Not at any price. Sharansky's and Bush's idea is that freedom is not merely a good and noble idea that has to compete with the realpolitic viewpoint. They proclaim that survival and success of liberty is realpolitic. We need others to be free not merely out of the kindness of our hearts, but more cynically – to ensure our own safety.

We also presume (and we are bored to make this obvious predicition) that this speech will cause quite a stir in liberal circles. Radicals among them simply hate America more than anything and react this way to absolutely everything we do. The moderates will feel what they usually do feel in times like these - fear of anything unconventional, especially anything big. And intense jealousy of this Big Thing being done by Republicans. Expect many discussions in the Main Stream Media of a wisdom of such a bold move. Or how it can alienate... I am not sure who, since by their account by now we already alienated everyone we possibly could - twice. Or how wrong it is to see only two shades of "free" and "not free" when there are so many wonderful semi-freedoms in between. Or how controversial it is. Pay no attention to this one too. In their lingo "controversial" simply means "more conservative then Senator Lieberman". It is a non-word. This will go on till the policy succeeds. Then, after a short pause for a head scratching, the theme will be promptly replaced by "ah, but we all knew that this will happen", "we also played a role" and "no, it was not Bush - it is just that the terrorism defeated itself, it was never viable - just like the communism".
Ah, they are so boring.

Go, America! Tyrannis Delenda Est. Yeee-haaaaa!

Need a Funeral.

Thu, 20 Jan 2005 05:19:46 GMT

Remember "Halperin Memo"? Apparently, Captain's Quarters is right, the memo is still in effect. Check this ABC's announcement:

For a possible Inauguration Day story on ABC News, we are trying to find out if there any military funerals for Iraq war casualties scheduled for Thursday, Jan. 20. If you know of a funeral and whether the family might be willing to talk to ABC News, please fill out the form below.

Yep. Hey, people... we need a corpse for a story. Anybody has one? No? Damn, people! Someone badly mutilated at least?

Here is a couple of happy thoughts: at least ABC did not use a fake corpse. Neither did they try to order a fresh one from the Iraqi terrorists, like the Associated Press guys do when they need a story. May be "A" in ABC still means something regardless of however many graduates of the Columbia School of Journalism work for the company.

* * *

P.S. Via Hindrocket of the PowerLineBlog. ABC pulled the page from the web, but here is a snapshot preserved by Captain's for your viewing pleasure.

2004 in Quotes

Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:09:46 GMT

Tomorrow George W. Bush will be inaugurated for a second term. Year 2004 will be analyzed and over-analyzed for many years to come and will remain in the history of the American politics as one of the most interesting and defining years. It did not change any trends but it was quite revealing so to speak.

Anyway, here is a collection of 2004 quotes from Tim Blair:

`January`	`February`	`March`	`April`
`May`	`June`	`July`	`August`
`September`	`October`	`November`	`December`

Enjoy.

George Bush, The Fighter Pilot.

Mon, 17 Jan 2005 22:16:18 GMT

This is kind of an experiment. Dan Rather and Mary Mapes spent 5 years looking for the story about George Bush service in the National Guard. We do not have that much time and neither do we have the resources. On the other hand, we do not have to go around, looking for people and asking questions. We do not even have to sit in a library, going through the old newspapers. Google and the Internet make life so much easier. Also, we are not aiming for an exhaustive picture, rather for a clear one.

Just in case someone has not figured it out yet - we voted for Bush in the last election. We do not think that he is the best thing since sliced bread, but definitely - since Reagan. His signing McCain-Feingold political-speech restriction law and an unheard of increases in social programs demonstrate that he does not put human rights and freedoms above all else. So, we chose him as the lesser of the two evils. On the other hand, we think that Kerry was not merely the bigger evil, but one of the worst candidates ever. Actually, close to the worst possible (chances of a true Chomsky-style Stalinist winning are close to nil, so we do not consider those). If Kerry were elected every one of us would have considered that to be very unfortunate for the country and for the World. So, now you know where our sympathies are.

If someone thinks that we missed something that alters the picture, we will make a correction. One thing though - we will not accept anything like "by now it is well known that Bush went AWOL" or "Michael Moore said that Bush is a deserter". We need evidence. Below we tried to give direct quotes from the named witnesses, sometimes going for a journalist's narration - but only if a direct quote could not be found and only if a narration was retelling the witness' story. Again, we are prepared to make corrections if any mistake is found.

So, what do we have here?

Hiding Place

First of all, it has been suggested that an Air National Guard was some sort of hiding place for those who did not want to go to war. Well, it was not. National Guard is under the authority of the Federal Government and can be called to an active duty by the President of the USA on a moments notice. Bush knew that when he enlisted. He also knew that some units of the ANG had been flying supply missions in Vietnam since 1965.

Col. Bill Campenni (ret), Bush's squadron mate and flight instructor

"There was one big exception to this abusive use of the Guard to avoid the draft, and that was for those who wanted to fly, as pilots or crew members. Because of the training required, signing up for this duty meant up to 2½ years of active duty for training alone, plus a high probability of mobilization. A fighter-pilot candidate selected by the Guard (such as Lt. Bush and me) would be spending the next two years on active duty going through basic training (six weeks), flight training (one year), survival training (two weeks) and combat crew training for his aircraft (six to nine months), followed by local checkout (up to three more months) before he was even deemed combat-ready. Because the draft was just two years, you sure weren't getting out of duty being an Air Guard pilot. If the unit to which you were going back was an F-100, you were mobilized for Vietnam. Avoiding service? Yeah, tell that to those guys." (link)

Lincoln Heritage Institute
	`"It is a common misconception that the Air National Guard was a safe place for military duty during the Vietnam War. In actuality, pilots from the 147th Fighter Interceptor Group, as it was called at the time, were actually conducting combat missions in Vietnam at the very time Bush enlisted. In fact, F-102 squadrons had been stationed in South Vietnam since March 1962"` (link)

Something Safe

Now, since we talk about hiding - we see that Bush's chosen service was a demanding one. Yes, but was it dangerous? Fighter pilot does sounds dangerous. In the "Top Gun" movie mortality rate was very high - one aviator from the bunch of less then a hundred in under an hour and a half. But that was in the Hollywood World. Liberals nowadays refer to that as "reality-based". Question is - how was it in actual reality?

Col. Bill Campenni
	`"The F-102 was underpowered and, unlike modern fighters, had a split front view through the canopy. It literally had a bar down the center, so you'd have one eye on each side of the bar. It also had a built in altimeter error of up to 500 feet, which made it interesting when you were at 500 feet out over the ocean at night."` (link)
	`"The Bush critics do not comprehend the dangers of fighter aviation at any time or place, in Vietnam or at home, when they say other such pilots were risking their lives or even dying while Lt. Bush was in Texas. Our Texas ANG unit lost several planes right there in Houston during Lt. Bush's tenure, with fatalities. Just strapping on one of those obsolescing F-102s was risking one's life."` (link)

Col. John Wambough (ret), 28 years of service in the USAF

"...our flying assignments were inherently dangerous -- Lt. Bush's because of the high performance nature of the fighter interceptor aircraft he was flying, the training required to fly the F-102, and the high risks that come with all weather (night and day) intercept missions... ...I can say from my experience that flying operational fighter jets is highly dangerous. People don't strap fighter jets to their backside if they are overly concerned for their future." (link)

Colonel Ed Atkins (ret), USAF, flew fighters for 20 years
	`"Anybody who thinks that flying fighters is not exhausting physically, demanding intellectually, and tough emotionally just has no clue about the complexity of air combat."` (link)

Brig. General Charles D. Youree, Jr. (ret), USAF pilot

My 1952 West Point class sent approximately 100 graduates to the Air Force jet pilot training program. We experienced five fatalities (5 percent) in the first 20 months due to air crashes. By 1964 our numbers fell to 70 due to fatalities and resignations. From then until 1968, the year Lt. Bush joined the Air National Guard, we lost 10 more Air Force classmates, a 14 percent fatality rate. One was due to hostile action; eight were due to accidents. In total, we lost 18 classmates (18 percent) during our flying careers. In contrast, of our 397 West Point classmates commissioned in the Army, 11 were killed in action or died in training accidents during their military careers, which included Korea and Vietnam. This is a fatality rate of 2.77 percent, versus the 18 percent fatality rate of the class of 1952 flyers in the Air Force. Additionally, during the entire Vietnam conflict, Pentagon records show 3,403,000 military personnel served in Southeast Asia. The United States suffered 58,205 fatalities, a rate of 1.71 percent. Fatality rates varied substantially from unit to unit; nevertheless, over 98 percent of those serving in that conflict returned home. (link)

Also, here is safety data from the Air Force Safety Center for the F-102 Delta Dagger show that in the five years immediately before George Bush enlisted (1963-1967), 85 planes and 26 pilots were lost. That roughly gives a 0.84% probability to go down in just 100 hours of flight and a chance to die was 0.26%. And Bush, as we shall see below did not plan on spending too much time on the ground. And, just in case someone thinks that 102 was old, useless and never used in Vietnam - here is some information about that.

Ah, Vietnam! How about Vietnam?

Finally, quite a few witnesses say that George Bush did, in fact try to volunteer for a duty in Vietnam, but was turned away by a commander due to his lack of experience:

Col. Ed Morrisey (ret)
	`"The Air Force, in their ultimate wisdom, assembled a group of 102's and took them to Southeast Asia. Bush volunteered to go. But he needed to have 500 [flight] hours, but he only had just over 300 hours so he wasn't eligible to go..."` (link)

Fred Bradley, Bush's squadron mate

"There were four of us lieutenants at the time, and we were all fairly close. Two of them had more flight time than the president and me, said Bradley." All four volunteered for Vietnam (Bradley doesn't remember whether he and Bush actually signed paperwork, but he specifically remembers both Bush and himself trying to get into the Palace Alert Vietnam program.) Bush and Bradley were turned away, and the two more senior pilots went to Vietnam. (link)

Col. Bill Campenni (ret)

"A pilot program using ANG volunteer pilots in F-102s (called Palace Alert) was scrapped quickly after the airplane proved to be unsuitable to the war effort. Ironically, Lt. Bush did inquire about this program but was advised by an ANG supervisor (Maj. Maurice Udell, retired) that he did not have the desired experience (500 hours) at the time and that the program was winding down and not accepting more volunteers." (link)

Col. Maury Udell (ret)
	`Udell, who trained Bush to fly the F-102, has no doubt his pupil was willing to go to Vietnam. Udell agreed that Bush was too inexperienced for Palace Alert, but he said the young man did become a good fighter pilot` (link)

Remember our calculations above? 300 hours that Bush had by the time were giving one a 2.5% chance of loosing a plane and about 0.78% chance of dying. 500 hours meant 4.1% and 1.3% chances respectively.

Interestingly enough, although in his autobiography Bush recollects the episode, he does not think that he can claim he volunteered. On February 8, 2004, in the interview with Tim Russert, Bush was asked "But you did not volunteer..." - to which he responded: "No, I didn't. You're right. I served. I flew fighters and enjoyed it, and we provided a service to our country."

A Pilot

That, however, begs another question - is he being modest because there is nothing to brag about, or is he just genuinely like that? He does not talk much about his service, and during the campaign he always deferred to Kerry on the subject, saying that his opponent's service is so much superior to his own. So far we established that George Bush's service was serious, demanding and dangerous. However, how did he do? Did he just do a minimum, merely viewing the TexANG as a way to avoid a real duty?

Let's check what people who served with him and his commanding officers say. Also, let's do some calculations. Actually, forget it. Let someone else do calculations for us. Let's be just like Dan Rather and limit ourselves to just regurgitating whatever someone gave feeds us. Why not? If he can do that and claim to be a story-breaking journalist on a prime-time TV, why not us in the obscurity of this here blog?

So, he joins in May 1968. To meet the TexANG requirements he needed to accumulate 50 "credit" points a year for a total of 300 over six years. In his first year (till May 1969) Bush earns 253 points. His next year he earns 340 points, 137 points during his third year, 112 points during his fourth and merely 56 in fifth and just as many in sixth. This is basically what Michael Moore called a deserter and Terry McAuliffe called "AWOL". So, the guy spends two years training full time and earns a total of 954 points where he was required to get 300. Many of you went to college - imagine someone who finishes full five-year classwork in his first year on campus. Imagine him taking in six years 3.2 times more classes then required. Now imagine him being called a slacker. Or, imagine someone insinuate that this guy got in not on merit, but due to his privileged birth. Oh, wait, I see - you think that may be he had to do that to compensate for his poor skills? Or, may be it was nothing uncommon? Well, let's see...

November 3, 1970 recommendation for a promotion from Lt. Colonel Jerry B. Killian

"Lt Bush is a dynamic outstanding young officer. He clearly stands out as a top notch fighter interceptor pilot. Lt Bush is possessed of sound judgment, yet is a tenacious competitor and an aggressive pilot. He is mature beyond his age and experience level .... Lt Bush's skills far exceed his contemporaries. He is a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership. ... Lt Bush possesses vast potential and should be promoted well ahead of his contemporaries." (link)

May 1971 evaluation by Major William Harris and Lt. Colonel Jerry B. Killian

Lt. Bush is an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot. After completing the F-102 all weather interceptor school in November 1969, he came to this unit as a highly qualified fighter interceptor pilot. Lt. Bush possesses sound judgment and is mature beyond his age and experience level. ... Lt. Bush performed in an outstanding manner following the test project requirements set forth. ... He exceptionally flies intercept missions with the unit to increase his proficiency even further. Lt. Bush is a natural leader but he is also a good follower of military discipline. Lt. Bush has outstanding growth potential and should be promoted well ahead of his contemporaries. STRENGTHS: Lt. Bush’s main strengths are his eagerness to participate in the unit activities and his ability to work harmoniously with others. SUGGESTED ASSIGNMENTS: At the present time Lt. Bush should continue to serve as a squadron pilot. This will enable him to gain valuable knowledge of the Air National Guard’s role in the defense of this country and experience as a pilot. SELF IMPROVEMENT EFFORTS: Lt. Bush makes an effort to learn more about the all weather interceptor’s mission and capability by attending squadron briefings and studying available material in his spare time. OTHER COMMENTS: Lt. Bush is employed by Statford of Texas. He is on the managerial staff of this diversified company and tells the story of the Air National Guard and the USAF to the public at every opportunity. Since completing pilot training in November 1969 and F-102 all weather school in June 1970, he has made a concentrated effort to improve proficiency as a pilot. (link)

May 1972 evaluation by Major William Harris and Lt. Colonel Jerry B. Killian

Lt. Bush is an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer. He eagerly participates in scheduled unit activities. ... His conduct and professional approach to the mission were certainly exemplary and apparent to observers. His skills as an interceptor pilot enabled him to complete all his ANG intercept missions during the Canadian deployment with ease. STRENGTHS: Lt. Bush’s major strength is his ability to work with others. He makes a welcome addition to any group or team effort. SUGGESTED ASSIGNMENTS: Lt. Bush should be retained in his present assignment. He has gained valuable experiences in the operations area and would be a welcome addition to any fighter squadron. SELF IMPROVEMENT EFFORTS: Lt. Bush is presently enrolled in the Squadron Officer’s School by correspondence and progressing satisfactorily. He also participates in unit ground schools and briefings to stay abreast of the F-102 weapons deployment and the ANG mission. OTHER COMMENTS: Lt. Bush is very active in civic affairs in the community and manifests a deep interest in the operation of our government. He has recently accepted the position as campaign manager for a candidate for the United States Senate. He is a good representative of the military and Air National Guard in the business world. His abilities and anticipated future assignments make him a valuable asset. (link)

Joe Glavin, member of Bush's squadron
	`"There were always a core of the guys who were the "in guys" and [Bush] was in the middle of it...George's difference was that we all knew that his daddy was rich and that he was smarter than the rest of us." ... "George was a smart man, an excellent pilot, and I'd fly with him again tomorrow, and I will vote for him in November."` (link)

Col. Maury Udell (ret)
	`"George got really good in air-to-air combat," he said. Udell, now a 270-pound judo expert who describes himself as a "war-type guy," said Bush had an extraordinary memory and ability to process information.` (link)

Alabama ANG

Now, the famous evaluation the liberals like to quote. Of course, they do not quote it in full, just the first sentence.

May 1973 evaluation by Major William Harris and Lt. Colonel Jerry B. Killian
	`Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of report. A civilian occupation made it necessary for him to move to Montgomery, Alabama. He cleared this base on 15 May 1972 and has been performing equivalent training in a non flying status with the 187 Tac Recon Gp. Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama.` (link)

Yes, for a person who knows nothing else (and Dan Rather did what he could to make sure that we don't know much more) it sounds quite telling - George Bush "was not observed" by his commanders. Hmmm. Do I need to explain the idiocy here? Apparently, I do. With respect to this particular quote - the idiocy is easy to see when you read not just the first phrase, but the whole "evaluation". Then you realize that it states the obvious - Bush was not in Texas, he went to Alabama (apparently, all this geography leaves liberals thoroughly confused). In the spring and summer of 1972 Bush works on political campaign in Alabama and in September he asks to be assigned to a 187th Tactical Recon Group in Montgomery. Liberals really wanted to believe that he did not show up there. Aside from the quote above that proves that one can not be observed in Texas while staying in Alabama - what do they have?

Well, mostly speculations. Besides those, in May of 2000 retired Gen. William Turnipseed, the former commander of the Alabama Guard unit, said Bush did not report to him:

Gen. William Turnipseed
	`"Had he reported in, I would have had some recall, and I do not,... I had been in Texas, done my flight training there. If we had had a first lieutenant from Texas, I would have remembered."` (link)

Other people, however, do remember Bush:

Lt. Col. John "Bill" Calhoun
	`"I saw him each drill period... He was very aggressive about doing his duty there. He never complained about it. ... He was very dedicated to what he was doing in the Guard. He showed up on time and he left at the end of the day."` (link)

Calhoun was not the only one. At least three other people remember Bush there (that does not count a girl he was dating by the time). There are also records that show that Bush went for a dental exam and some paystubs. As for the Turnipseed, in 2004 he said:

"I don’t even remember if I was there. All I was trying to do is tell the truth about it. I’m beginning to find out my memory is not any good anymore. I’m 75 years old and getting Alzheimer’s."(link)

Oh, well. Anyways, besides dental records some other records found showed that Bush did attend NG drills.

Premature discharge and all that

So, it was 1973. George Bush was finishing his last year in ANG. The plane he was trained to fly was going out of service. The number of pilots were more and more exceeding the number of available planes. The war in Vietnam was winding down since 1971. He fulfilled his requirements. So, he decided to ask for an early discharge. Preferential treatment?

Col. William Campenni (ret)
	`“In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots, the Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In ’72 or ’73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem.”` (link)

John Wambough

"Just as Lt. Bush's supervisor released him from the ANG to go to Harvard, I released a pilot from the Air Force months early (when I was commander of the 4442nd Tactical Control Group) so he could participate in the pilot-hiring cycle of Delta Airlines. I could have held this pilot to the end of his service commitment but chose not to--since letting him go early created no hardship to our unit. Rather, it gave a pilot (who had served his country well) an immediate opportunity for a future career. I point out this fact so that the public knows that commanders have the prerogative to make decisions that take into consideration the needs of the unit and the needs of an individual ready to make a career transition out of the service. Having been a squadron commander, I can tell you this: we know the status of our assigned personnel all the time, and everyone is accounted for." (link)

So, all things considered - premature discharge seems like a non-issue. Someone who served five and a half years out of six and done 3.2 more work then required, at a time where there was hardly anything else for him to do - it is very hard to claim that he received a preferential treatment. The opposite is true: if they tried not to let him go - that would have been a sign of a special treatment of a very different kind. Like the one George Bush received from Dan Rather.

Some last thoughts

So, as you can see, Bush did serve just fine. At the very least, there is no evidence, none whatsoever, that he did not. The opposite is true, - his record is one of the finest in the Air National Guard. He spend two full years in training, pursuing one of the most dangerous military occupations. He ridiculously exceeded requirements for the Guard duty. He excelled in what he was doing. Claims that his father helped him to get in... well, one has to believe that tons of Yale graduates were applying for the position. Besides, if he was not worthy - father's help can get only that far. It does not help you in actual piloting and dog-fighting.

This whole story with the fake memos is usually described in terms of Dan Rather making a mistake. Or Dan Rather and Mary Mapes being overzealous. Or even in terms of Dan, Mary, and whole CBS being zealous and biased. This is not it. CBS was not all alone. The whole Main Stream Media was in on it. Yes, surely, once the Rather made a mistake and blood was in the water, they went for him and bitten him. Once or twice. And, they certainly published some of the data that showed that Bush did serve just fine. However, they never made it a top story. All the allegations and suspicions were on the front pages. All exonerations and proofs of service - were in the back. The allegations were very definitive and certain "1-year gap in Bush's guard duty. No record of airman at drills in 1972-73", the corrections were always hesitant and unclear "Bush credited for Guard drills. But time frame leaves questions". Media concentrated on one year, one episode, concentrated so hard that many readers without a mind of their own were left certain that Bush never showed up for any duty.

Were they just in search of a juicy story? Hardly. No Main Stream Media publication was that eager to go for Kerry. Do we need to retell the story of Kerry and those who served with him? I mean - if you still read only New York Times and think that Kerry disclosed all his military records, or that he was honorably discharged at the end of his service, or that he never missed a single day, or that he did not admit to lying about his service... Honestly, do you think that if a journalist keeps talking about Bush skipping a medical exam at the time when he was no longer going up flying and never mentions Kerry secretly meeting with the enemy while still being on duty... Do you think that that reporter, or actually - all of them just might be a little bit biased?

Dan Rather was just more arrogant then the others. He tried too hard and went too far.

* * *

P.S. Have you noticed the difference between those who served with Bush and those, who served with Kerry? In one case we have unanimous support of the old buddies and commanding officers, in the other - almost as unanimous rejection. What does it tell us, girls and boys, oh, what does it tell us... Nah. Let's not try to think for ourselves. Eventually they will appoint a replacement for Dan Rather and he or she will tell us what to think.

Rathergate.

Mon, 10 Jan 2005 19:32:51 GMT

Ok, finally. You remember that independent commission... or was it panel? The one that was supposed to investigate that 60 Minutes episode when Dan Rather showed forgeries, trying to smear the US President two months before the election? Oh, come on, you must remember! The Panel?! They said it would produce results in weeks, not months - well, in less then 15 weeks they did deliver.

Here are the CBS announcement, the Report and the Exibits.

What I liked most about this report - is its careful way of stating things. Consider this:

The most serious defects in the reporting and production of the September 8 Segment were: ... The telephone call prior to the Segment's airing by the producer of the Segment to a senior campaign official of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry - a clear conflict of interest - that created the appearance of a political bias

Yeah, that's right. Mary Mapes and Dan Rather created an appearance of a political bias - by calling John Kerry campaign. What did they need to do to make it past "appearance"? What can possibly demonstrate bias more then airing forgeries from a questionable source, without any authentication - against a candidate while coordinating the whole thing with his political opponent?! Why do you think it was merely appearance? Some people think otherwise. Bernard Goldberg, broadcast journalist, winner of the Emmy award, an author of "Bias", who worked for almost thirty years with those very people in CBS - did you talk to him? Why not talk to the guy who all but predicted this thing happening? He seems like an expert on the issue. Who did you talk to? Ah, I see, section X.B, page 214, hilarious subtitle:

Factors that Support a Conclusion that a Political Agenda Did Not Motivate the September 8 Segment ...The Panel asked Rather directly to comment on whether he was motivated in any way by a political animus in pursuing the September 8 Segment. He responded: “absolutely, unequivocally untrue.”... Mapes told the Panel that she was motivated by “proximity, not politics.” ... The Panel was told by many at 60 Minutes Wednesday and CBS News who worked with Mapes that she was motivated by reporting on a significant story and that they did not believe that political ideology became a part of her stories...

So, they were just pursuing an interesting story, eh? Here is another interesting story they could try to pursue: "someone smears sitting President by airing forged documents in prime time"! Is it significant enough? Dan Rather said that "If the documents are not what we were led to believe, I'd like to break that story". So, where is that breaking?

Rather informed the Panel that he still believes the content of the documents is true because “the facts are right on the money,” and that no one had provided persuasive evidence that the documents were not authentic.

Oops. Wait a second... Now, this is just a gift that keeps on giving. So, Rather thinks that facts are right on the money, and yet he backs off from the story? What kind of a journalist is he - publicly proclaiming that he will not defend his story? Why? Is it what he does under pressure? Another question - why does he believe those documents are true? Is there any piece of evidence he knows about that we haven't seen yet? Does he hide it from us? One single piece of evidence - just so we know WHY Rather believes in the story. On the other hand - he says he saw no persuasive evidence that documents are forged. Do I need to comment? Is this guy for real? Does he know how to read? Does he know how to browse the web? Besides, why should we prove that he was using forgeries? Is it his MO that any piece of paper is to be trusted, until proven otherwise? What other stories that he told on TV were based on un-authenticated evidence from shady sources without any corroboration? Is he the only one, or this is how CBS operates in general?

...Mapes stridently believed in both the authenticity of the documents and their content, and, indeed, told the Panel that she still does... The senior producers and management, Murphy, Howard and West, as well as the other vetters, all told the Panel that they were comfortable in broadcasting the September 8 Segment because they believed at the time that the Killian documents and their content had been authenticated.

Interesting. Seems like trusting unverified documents is just what CBS does. Apparently, they do it all the time, not just in this case. Otherwise it would have meant that they are anti-Bush biased. And we know that they are not biased, because they said so! Panel asked them directly and they denied - case closed. They were merely interested in a story. And they all sincerely believed that the documents were fine. With no experts, no corroboration, no nothing - they all just immediately believed that Bush was a deserter, defended this story against all expertise that showed that the documents were forged, and some of them continue to believe it now. And they, of course, are not ~~alcoholics~~ politically biased. Ah, they are innocent, borderline naive people, babes in the woods of the big bad ugly politics:

Mapes informed the Panel that she did not think that her request to have someone from the Kerry campaign call Lieutenant Colonel Burkett would result in anything that would assist the Kerry campaign

Damn... I am all in tears.

Wait, how about Rather and Mapes looking for this story since 1999 despite the lack of evidence? I mean - why would they? They did not pay that much attention to Kerry's war exploits, despite lots, LOTS of eyewitnesses who were quite willing to tell the story... They did not show same interest even after Kerry admitted that he lied about Christmas in Cambodia - the very event that he said shaped his political being! Kerry admitted that he lied repeatedly. He admitted that he lied in the Senate when he tried to use this lie to influence US foreign policy - doesn't this deserve 60 Minutes? 30 minutes, may be? What do you think about that?

The Panel does not view the length of Rather and Mapes’ pursuit of this story as persuasive evidence of a political agenda.

Ah. Well, if you say so. Let's move on.

Among the more egregious shortcomings during the Aftermath were:...The inaccurate press statement issued by CBS News after the broadcast of the Segment that the source of the documents was "unimpeachable" and that experts had vouched for their authenticity

Interesting. I do know that they lied that the source was unimpeachable. I do know that they lied that experts had vouched for anything. However, this is the first time I hear that something was inaccurate. What was it? Spelling?

Now, here is something truly interesting:

The Panel was not able to reach a definitive conclusion as to the authenticity of the Killian documents.

One may wonder - why not? Is there anything wrong with Dr. Newcomer's analysis? It seemed quite knowledgeable and extremely thorough and his credentials do look formidable. Was Dr. Newcomer wrong? Did you talk to him? You mention his name only once, in passing, not even calling him Doctor... Oh, wait, guys, did you try to establish the authenticity at all? Page 31, "Process of investigation" - it mentions that you reviewed loads of documents, talked to people who had "knowledge of relevant events", talked to all people in CBS, who played any role in production of the segment, but, guys, did you talk to any expert? I mean - when you say that you "was not able to reach a definitive conclusion", it kind of conveys an impression that you did try, doesn't it? Yes, I have seen the section VIII, subsection B. I understand that you reviewed documents yourselves, that you had serious doubts, but could not find definitive, beyond reasonable proof that those memos were forged. Could it be that Dr. Newcomer has this proof? He has been offering it for all to see since October. Since you were aware of his existence - why not talk to him? Do you remember what was one of the "more egregious shortcomings" of the CBS treatment of the story? Well, allow me to remind you:

The efforts by 60 Minutes Wednesday to find additional document examiners who would vouch for the authenticity of the documents instead of identifying the best examiners available...

So, the Panel did what the Panels do: awash in the most condemning evidence, it sided with the accused. All of a sudden what was supposed to be an account of what and why happened turned into a shy explanation of how it did, full with euphemisms and excuses. To be thorough and honest, Panel needed to state only two obvious truths:

Those documents are forgeries.
CBS and Dan Rather tried to use them to harm G.W.Bush before the elections

That's it. Instead, the Panel produced 200 pages of mumbling. Oh, it is hard to figure out if the documents are forged. Oh, it is not that Rather, Mapes and many others are shameless political creatures who would do anything to push their agenda, oh, no - it was a "breakdown of fundamental processes". Yep. Processes are at fault. Bastards broke down. Just like the Soviet Union that kind of defeated itself and lost a Cold War all on its own - those damn processes just broke themselves. It's nobody's fault. After all,

CBS News has an historic and deep-seated commitment to accurate and fair reporting, and the Panel was impressed by the fact that so many of its personnel have been with CBS News for many years and appear fully committed to the Standards of accuracy and fairness that CBS News has articulated. That makes it all the more difficult for the Panel to understand how this breakdown could have occurred.

Yep, that's a puzzle.

* * *

P.S. Previous art: here are some arbat's writings on the issue:
Dan Rather. Last Stand
Dan Rather. Deja Vue all over again
Dan Rather questions Bush
Also, here are roundups of the "blogosphere" reaction from instapundit and in DC Journal

Helping Hand

Sun, 02 Jan 2005 04:15:47 GMT

Here is a puzzle for you: if you want to help some people, should you try to patronize their businesses, or should you boycott them? For example, this incredible tsunami disaster in South Asia where tourism is a major part of the economy - do you go there on vacation? Some people think it is in an incredibly bad taste: here and here.

Interestingly enough, for those who actually live in a disaster-affected area, this question seems to be a no-brainer. Remember Rudi Juliani, who after the September 11th insisted that New York is open for business and that people should come visit? Well, people in the South Asia feel the same way right now: "If you want to help Phuket and people living here, come back for holidays! "

It used to be worse then that. It used to be that after some natural disaster or other in a developing country we helped them by dumping lots of free food on the population. For a country where agriculture is The Industry - help like this can be worse then an earthquake. But, hey, so what? It makes us feel really good about ourselves - which is the only thing sensitive people we are care about.

Here are some debates at
Tim Blair's
InstaPundit.com
The Truth Laid Bear.

U.N.dermining

Fri, 31 Dec 2004 05:27:23 GMT

Oh, dear. Check this out. An article in scotsman.com:

United States President George Bush was tonight accused of trying to undermine the United Nations by setting up a rival coalition to coordinate relief following the Asian tsunami disaster. The president has announced that the US, Japan, India and Australia would coordinate the World’s response.

That conniving bastard! We knew he is up to no good! Oh, it is so typical - trying to undermine U.N. by helping people through illegal, unauthorized means, totally violating all international laws and in the face of the community. We would not be surprised if it turns out that it was Bush who personally ordered this earthquake to happen in order to undermine the U.N. in the first place! Is there nobody out there who will put an end to this nightmare? Yes! There is -

But former International Development Secretary Clare Short said that role should be left to the U.N. “I think this initiative from America to set up four countries claiming to coordinate sounds like yet another attempt to undermine the UN when it is the best system we have got and the one that needs building up,” she said.

Oh, darling, yes, it is soooo true! U.N. is the best system you got, you poor, poor thing. Trust me, we feel your pain.

“Only really the UN can do that job,” she told BBC Radio Four’s PM programme.

It pains me to tell you this, but - no. Not really. I mean - we are terribly sorry for not telling you this before, but U.N. is not the only entity that can do that job. It is not even one of them. To be totally honest - I do not think there is a job that U.N. can do...

“It is the only body that has the moral authority...

Actually, U.N. is the body that has as little moral authority as any body can possibly have. Come on, after that body stole twenty billion dollars worth of food from the Iraqi children and sold its support to the brutal dictator for oil profits? As of late even Arafat's body has more moral authority.

...But it can only do it well if it is backed up by the authority of the great powers.”

You meant - only if great powers give some more money to the U.N., since those oil-for-food dollars ain't coming no more, right?

Ms Short said the coalition countries did not have good records on responding to international disasters. She said the US was “very bad at coordinating with anyone” and India had its own problems to deal with. “I don’t know what that is about but it sounds very much, I am afraid, like the US trying to have a separate operation and not work with the rest of the world through the U.N. system,” she added.

I wonder if more pitiful complaint is actually possible. Let's be honest here. US is not trying to not work with you, or to undermine you, or whatnot. We just do not ~~give a flying fu~~ think that we need you - that all. We have too many real problems and too little time to spend it on making you feel relevant.

Happy New Year, everybody.

* * *

Update: help european-style (again, from scotsman.com)

TSUNAMI-struck Thailand has been told by the European Commission that it must buy six A380 Airbus aircraft if it wants to escape the tariffs against its fishing industry.

Update II: hey, not only European governments know how to regulate business! We can subsidize and tax too (link):

Less than two weeks after a 40-foot wave flattened massive swaths of Southeast Asia, the United States slapped a tariff on millions of dollars worth of seafood imports from India and Thailand.

One Poem's Story

Fri, 31 Dec 2004 00:28:06 GMT

Here is another anniversary for the Hussars. The story happened 150 years ago and 20 years before the most famous Hussar has been born, on October 25th, 1854 near Balaklava in Crimea. In the middle of the battle that was going rather well for the Brittish, an order either hastily given, or misunderstood, sent a Light Brigade of the 11th Hussars for an attack down the valley - to recapture the guns, held by the Russians. They rode down the long valley, on both sides of which there were other Russian batteries and riflemen. Loosing men and horses, they reached their goal - only to be confronted by the heavy Russian cavalry. They had to go back the same way they came, through the intense fire from the both sides of the valley. The brigade was destroyed. The battle near Sapun-Gora ended in a defeat.

The two things that most people remember about that war, even those, who do not remember the war itself, are the name of Florence Nightingale and The Charge Of The Light Brigade. The latter one in no small measure thanks to Lord Alfred Tennyson:

Half a league, half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
"Forward, the Light Brigade!
"Charge for the guns!" he said:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

"Forward, the Light Brigade!"
Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Someone had blunder'd:
Their's not to make reply,
Their's not to reason why,
Their's but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the six hundred.

Flash'd all their sabres bare,
Flash'd as they turn'd in air,
Sabring the gunners there,
Charging an army, while
All the world wonder'd:
Plunged in the battery-smoke
Right thro' the line they broke;
Cossack and Russian
Reel'd from the sabre stroke
Shatter'd and sunder'd.
Then they rode back, but not
Not the six hundred.

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon behind them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
While horse and hero fell,
They that had fought so well
Came thro' the jaws of Death
Back from the mouth of Hell,
All that was left of them,
Left of six hundred.

When can their glory fade?
O the wild charge they made!
All the world wondered.
Honor the charge they made,
Honor the Light Brigade,
Noble six hundred.

P.S. On the 150th anniversary of the Charge of The Light Brigade, the Colonel in Chief of the Queen's Royal Hussars visited the Crimea to commemorate the event.

One Hussar's Story.

Thu, 30 Dec 2004 04:31:22 GMT

I have started this journal too late to do this on the actual anniversaries of the events, but better late, then never. I am going to do it in the last few days of the 2004.
Here is the first brief story, celebrating the 130 years since our hero was born (photos are not credited, but will be if you tell me to whom they belong. Sorry):

One Hussar's Story

1874 November 30th, Born to an american mother and the third son of the seventh duke of Marlborough.
1884-93 Harrow School.

1893-94 Cavalry cadet at Sandhurst Royal Military Academy
1895 commissioned as Second Lieutenant, 4th Hussars. Served with Spanish forces in Cuba (1st Class [Spanish] Order of Military Merit)

1897 Malakand Field Force, 31st Punjab Infantry (despatches, medal with clasp)
1898 orderly officer to Sir W. Lockhart with Tirah Expeditionary Force (clasp). Served, attached 21st Lancers with Nile Expeditionary force, present at Battle of Khartoum (medal, with clasp)
1898 published his first book "The Malakand Expeditionary Force"
1899-00 acted as correspondent Morning Post South Africa; taken prisoner, but escaped; served as Lieutenant South African Light Horse; present at actions of Acton Homes, Venter's Spruit, Hussar Hill, Cingolo, Monte Cristo, and at battles of Spion Kop, Vaal Krantz, and Pieters, and at engagements of Johannesburg and Diamond Hill, and capture of Pretoria (medal with six clasps).
1899 Two volumes "The River War", which was a story of his journey with the Tirah Expeditionary Force

1900 retired from Regular Army
1900 Books: "London to Ladysmith via Pretoria", "Savrola", and "Ian Hamilton’s March"
1900-04 Elected M.P. Oldham (Conservative)
1901 commissioned as Captain, Queen's Own Oxfordshire Hussars, Territorial Army

1904 moved from Conservative Party to Liberal Party,
1904-06 Reelected M.P. Oldham (Liberal)
1905 Promoted Major, and appointed in command of the Henley Squadron of the Queens' Own Oxfordshire Hussars, Territorial Army
1905-08 Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies
1906-08 Elected M.P. Manchester N.W. (Liberal)
1907 Privy Councillor

1908 Married, September 12
1908-22 Elected M.P. Dundee (Liberal)
1908-10 President of the Board of Trade
1910-11 Home Secretary
1911-15 First Lord of the Admiralty
1915 Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster
1915-16 served western front with Grenadier Guards; appointed Lieutenant-Colonel, commanding 6th Battalion Royal Scots Fusiliers, France (medals)
1916 September, transferred to Territorial Reserves of Officers

1917-19 Minister of Munitions

1919-21 Secretary of State for War (and Air till Apr 1921)

1924 Book: "The World Crisis"
1924 Awarded Territorial Decoration, resigned from Territorial Army
1924 returned to Conservative Party
1924-45 elected M.P. Epping Div. of Essex (Conservative)
1924-29 Chancellor of the Exchequer
1931 Lecture tour in the United States
1932-1938 Books: "Marlborough: His Life and Times, Great Contemporaries", "Arms and the Covenant"

1939, September - 1940, May First Lord of the Admiralty

1940-45 Prime Minister, First Lord of the Treasury and Minister of Defence

1941 Book: "Into Battle"
1942 Book: "The Unrelenting Struggle"
1943 Book: "The End of the Beginning"
1944 Book: "Onwards to Victory"
1945 Book: "The Dawn of Liberation"
1945-64 Elected M.P. Woodford (Conservative)
1945-51 Leader of the Opposition
1946 Books: "Victory", "Secret Session Speeches", "The Sinews of Peace", "Painting as a Pastime"
1946-1954 Six Volumes of "World War II"
1946 "Iron Curtain" Speech, Fulton, Missouri, 5 March

1951-55 Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury (also Minister of Defence Oct 1951 - Jan 1952)

1953 Knight of the Garter

1953 Book: "Stemming the Tide", Nobel Prize for Literature
1954-1962 Four Volumes of "A History of English-Speaking Peoples"
1963 The first British subject to become an honorary US Citisen

1965 died, January 24

P.S. I may have gotten some years wrong, so - do not hesitate to point it out.
P.P.S. I am not sure about the copyright of some of the photos. Will remove or credit, if the rightful copyright holder so demands.

U.N. Collection I : Oil-for-Food.

Tue, 28 Dec 2004 03:19:54 GMT

Sometimes it is useful to make a note for yourself. Just for some future reference. Imagine, for example, that in two or four years from now some new and not-so-improved John Kerry will start talking about passing a “Global Test”. He will suggest that we should first and foremost secure a UN resolution before doing some thing or other. He will suggest that UN and only UN can annoint us with legitimacy. Or he will raise his voice and howl... We mean – wail for the allies we lost because we dissed them. Or he will sing now forgotten but popular in its days “it’s all about oil” tune.

Now, when it happens, we shall come back to this page where the quotes and facts will be waiting for us – just as those weird-looking guns in “Man in Black II”. (I have to say - that was one disappointing movie, but... ah, forget it. arbat). Anyways, here are some stories about the most beloved organization of the American left, about Kofi Annan, his son, our incorruptible "allies" and twenty billion dollars stolen from the Iraqi people.

Senator Norm Coleman
Chairman of the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
"Kofi Annan Must Go". WSJ, December 1, 2004.

While many questions concerning Oil-for-Food remain unanswered, one conclusion has become abundantly clear: Kofi Annan should resign. The decision to call for his resignation does not come easily, but I have arrived at this conclusion because the most extensive fraud in the history of the U.N. occurred on his watch. In addition, and perhaps more importantly, as long as Mr. Annan remains in charge, the world will never be able to learn the full extent of the bribes, kickbacks and under-the-table payments that took place under the U.N.'s collective nose.

"The U.N. Oil Scandal". NY Times editorial. December 5, 2004.

Mr. Annan, who drew the wrath of Republican Washington for opposing President Bush's war in Iraq, will have to face the judgment of United Nations members on how much responsibility he bears. But before the call for his scalp gains more political momentum, it is important to disentangle the mélange of charges swirling around. The United Nations bureaucracy does not bear the primary responsibility for letting Saddam Hussein amass a secret treasury estimated by official investigators at $10 billion to $21 billion.

TigerHawk "Apologia for Kofi". tigerhawk.blogspot.com, December 05, 2004.
	`The New York Times is proposing a defense of Kofi Annan's administration, hoping to deflect "political momentum" that might lead to his defenestration removal from office. ... But the oil-for-food scandal is not primarily about the lining of Saddam's pockets - it's about the manipulation of, and therefore the legitimacy of, Security Council decisions.`

Glenn Reynolds
"Time for a Kofi Break".Opinion Journal, December 05, 2004.

Things are going badly for Kofi Annan. The Oil for Food scandal has revealed U.N. behavior regarding Saddam Hussein's Iraq that ranges from criminally inept to outright corrupt. Rape and pedophilia by U.N. peacekeepers haven't gotten the kind of attention they'd get if American troops were involved, but the scandals have begun to take their toll. And the U.N.'s ability to serve its crowning purpose--the "never again" treatment of genocide that was vowed after the Holocaust, and re-vowed after Cambodia and Rwanda--is looking less and less credible in the wake of its response to ongoing genocide in Darfur... ...If the comparison is damning to Kofi, it's even more damning to the U.N. Mr. Havel once wrote Czech dictator Gustav Husak, "So far, you ... have chosen ... the path of inner decay for the sake of outward appearances ... of deepening the spiritual and moral crisis of our society, and ceaselessly degrading human dignity, for the puny sake of protecting your own power."

"The Price of Credibility". Editorial, New Dem Daily, December 6, 2004.

(CORRECTION: the original sub-headline of this New Dem Daily mistakenly summarized the piece as calling for Kofi Annan's resignation. Actually, in calling for the secretary general to "step aside," we simply meant to convey that he should remove himself from any involvement in the oil-for-food investigation, and let Paul Volcker, a man of unquestioned integrity and ability, conduct it independently and publicly release his findings. We deeply regret this error.)

Evelyn Leopold
"UN Members Back Annan with Lengthy Standing Ovation". Reuters, December 8, 2004.

Secretary-General Kofi Annan received an unusual standing ovation in the 191-nation General Assembly on Wednesday following calls for his resignation from conservative U.S. lawmakers. Annan has been accused by some Republicans in the U.S. Congress of presiding over corruption in the U.N. oil-for-food program for Iraq, administered by the United Nations but supervised by the 15-nation Security Council. "I interpret this long ovation as an acknowledgment of your actions and also an expression of confidence in yourself and also of the work you have undertaken at the helm of the United Nations," Assembly President Jean Ping of Gabon said after the applause, which lasted nearly a minute.

Hindrocket
"A Heart-Warming Display of Support". powerlineblog.com, Dcember 8, 2004.

Inasmuch as Annan has worked for the U.N. since 1962 and has been Secretary General since 1997, perhaps he could begin by explaining why the organization has, until now, "resigned itself to watching passively until it is too late." No hard questions will be coming from Reuters, however. The left-leaning news service concludes its account with a bizarre misprepresentation of the oil for food scandal...

Anton Chrenkoff
"The coalition of the crooked and unfree?". chrenkoff.blogspot.com, December 10, 2004.

The recent expressions of support for Kofi Annan by the European Union, China, the African Union (and half-heartedly by the United States and Australia), as well as indeed the General Assembly as a whole which gave him a "rare standing ovation" suggest that, at least as far as the "international community" is concerned, the main mission of the United Nations is not to uphold and promote the highest ethical standards within the world body politic, but to try to provide a block to any actions by the United States.... To put it in simple terms, we are asking countries with their own freedom and democracy deficiencies to be enthusiastic about the spread of democracy and liberty around the world, and we are expecting countries which are corrupt and ethically challenged at home not to tolerate corruption at the highest levels of international governance.

John O'Sullivan
"U.N. Power Play". NYPost, December 10, 2004.

Americans ... look at the multiplying scandals around the United Nations and wonder how the man in charge can avoid being held responsible for any of it by other countries. But the explanation is simple: Kofi Annan is the symbol of the United Nations' lack of accountability. He is never held responsible for what goes wrong, because the United Nations is never held responsible, either. [United Nations] remains an undemocratic and unrepresentative body. Most of its member-states are despotisms of one kind or another.

Niles Lathem
"City, Fed probes eye pardongate billionaire as a 'Major Player' in Saddam's scam". NYPost, December 13, 2004.

[Mark] Rich, the fugitive Swiss-based commodities trader who received a controversial pardon from President Bill Clinton in January 2001, is a primary target of criminal probes under way... Under the scam, hundreds of international political and financial figures from France, Russia and other countries were awarded middleman vouchers allowing them to purchase set quantities of Iraqi oil at discount rates

Jefferson Morley
"Kofi Annan's Army". Washington Post, December 13, 2004.

It was only last week, after U.S. conservatives, led by Sen. Norman Coleman (R-Minn.), called for the resignation of U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan that international leaders and pundits started to focus on the story. Most commentators rallied to Annan's defense. When Nobel laureate Annan arrives in Washington this week to meet with Secretary of State Colin Powell and his designated successor, Condoleezza Rice, he will have virtually the entire international community behind him.

Philip Gourevitch
"Power Plays". The New Yorker, December 13, 2004.

The air of corruption that clouds the United Nations these days cannot simply be fanned away by forcing the resignation of Kofi Annan as Secretary-General, as a growing number of prominent Republicans have been urging. Their pretext is the accumulating allegations of complicity of U.N. officials in scams that transformed the oil-for-food program in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq into a racketeering enterprise whose single greatest beneficiary—to the tune of twenty billion dollars—was the tyrant himself. Last week, Annan was obliged to admit that his son Kojo had “disappointed” him by taking payments from a Swiss firm that the U.N. had hired to monitor Iraq’s imports while under U.N. sanctions. Annan bristles at the insinuations of corruption in his ranks, but, in truth, his tenure was tainted from the beginning. In the mid-nineties, when he was head of peacekeeping, he presided over catastrophically failed missions in Bosnia and in Rwanda, where he ignored detailed warnings of genocide, then watched them come true, while the world did nothing to stop it.

Nile Gardiner
"The White House Should Call on Kofi Annan To Resign". The Heritage Foundation, December 15, 2004.

Danforth’s surprise pronouncement stands in sharp contrast to the position of President Bush, who has declined to express his confidence in Annan. In his only statement on recent scandals at the U.N., President Bush demanded a “full and open disclosure of all that took place with the Oil for Food program.”[5] A distinction must be drawn between the statements of an outgoing U.S. ambassador to the U.N. and the American head of state. The developing scandal surrounding the U.N.-administered Oil-for-Food program has done immense damage to the world organization. As Chief Executive Officer of the United Nations,Kofi Annan must take responsibility for what is undoubtedly the biggest scandal in the history of the U.N. and the biggest financial fraud of modern times The idea that the U.N. is playing a vitally important role in bringing democracy to Iraq is a myth that has been blown out of all proportion. Annan not only failed the people of Iraq, but also, while head of U.N. peacekeeping in the 1990s, let down millions of the world’s weakest and most vulnerable people in Africa and the Balkans. The U.N.’s failure to prevent the slaughter of thousands of Muslims at Srebrenica in 1995 and the mass killing of hundreds of thousands of Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994 are shameful episodes that will haunt the United Nations for generations. There are echoes today of Bosnia and Rwanda in the killing fields of Darfur in the Sudan, a tragedy that the U.N. refuses to categorize as genocide. Once again, Annan’s leadership has been found to be lacking at a critical moment in history.

Carroll Andrew Morse
"The UN: The World's Greatest Trade Association". TechCentralStation.com, December 20, 2004.

Once it is understood that the United Nations is a trade association for the promotion of executive authority, its behavior becomes almost rational. The trade association extends professional courtesy to its members -- its cardinal rule is not to step on the toes of another executive... But looking to the UN to protect individuals who are not government executives from abuses of government power makes as much sense as looking to the International Tobacco Growers' Association to protect individuals from the dangers of smoking.

Kenneth L.Cain "The Real Reason Kofi Annan Must Go". OpinionJournal.com, December 20, 2004.
	`A debate currently rages about whether Kofi Annan enjoys the moral authority to lead the United Nations because the Oil for Food scandal happened under his command. That debate is 10 years too late and addresses the wrong subject. The salient indictment of Mr. Annan's leadership is lethal cowardice, not corruption; the evidence is genocide, not oil.`

Benny Avni
"Key Aide to Annan Retires Abruptly Amid U.N. Scandal". NYSun, December 23, 2004.

Mr. Riza, 70, who has been chief of staff since January 1997, is considered the most influential policy adviser to the secretary-general, and many feel he was a leader in a policy that is perceived as adversarial to Washington, especially on issues related to Iraq and Israel. A U.N. insider said Mr. Riza leads a group of advisers who have called on Mr. Annan to take a hard line, urging him to refuse to share information with the congressional oil-for-food investigations.

Sam Cage "Ghost Firms Hinder Oil-For-Food Probe". Associated Press, December 25, 2004.
	`Major oil trading companies and individuals - from American businessmen to French, Chinese and Russian politicians - are suspected of benefiting from lucrative Iraqi oil contracts that involved kickbacks, according to the independent panel's initial findings.`

Interestingly enough, we keep seeing references to some American companies. We wonder - why mention them? This scandal is not, as TigerHawk noted as much about people buying and selling oil. It is not even about profiteering from it. It is about Saddam buying influence through oil bribes. We can not easily see what was that he gained from "bribing" Americans, although we do have an idea of what kind of influence Saddam bought from French, Chinese and Russian politicians. Perhaps our "allies" are going to compensate Iraqi people for the 20 billion dollars they stole from them. And, just in case - we do not mean those people, who bought the oil. We mean those who allowed Saddam to spend the money on weapons and marble for his palaces.

And, oh, we almost forgot! That correction from the New Dem Daily - was that priceless, or what?!

We plan to create yet another stockpile of UN stories - not about oil this time, but about Israel, Palestine and how UN sees those who throw bombs in schools and pizzerias, and those who build walls to protect thmselves.

To be continued.

Terms of Use

Sat, 25 Dec 2004 20:04:37 GMT

This journal is a joint project. Group blog, if it pleases the court. So we shall refer to ourselves in plural "we" - not to be mistaken with a royal one. After observing some web-battles we concluded that we need to set terms of use. arbat was adamant on this subject. He said that even though we do not have any obligations before those who might come to read us (and even less before those who don't), decency requires that we warn them upfront about the way we intend to run things. And prudence demands that we shield ourselves - just in case. The following terms of use heavily borrow from these Terms at instapundit.com. After reviewing those Terms, we decided that nothing in them prohibits us from such borrowing. However, if the author and/or copyright holder objects - we shall remove borrowed parts.

So, without further ado, three for the price of one:

Terms of Use, Policies and Disclaimer

In the following text we shall use names Phil Yo Pain and Phil interchangeably.
Same applies to the terms blog, weblog, journal.

By reading, linking to, quoting, printing out, or in any way making use of our weblog's content in any means, place, or forum, you agree to the following:

All original content of Phil Yo Pain's blog is copyrighted by blog's owner (presently Phil) and its authors, and is not to be used without permission except as provided herein. In using Phil's blog you recognize that all content is provided on an as-is basis. We do not and can not check all our sources, though we shall try to provide links to all quoted material. No factual statement on this site should be relied upon without further investigation on your part sufficient to satisfy you in your independent judgment that it is true. These terms of use are subject to change, and should be reviewed regularly.

Permission is granted to read, quote, cite, link to, print out or otherwise use Phil's blog content, so long as you comply with the terms below.
1. All quotations from Phil Yo Pain’s blog will include credit to Phil’s blog or to Phil Yo Pain, and/or to the author of the quoted text and, wherever practicable, a hyperlink of to the blog.
2. In exchange for the access to Phil’s blog content described above, you agree not to sue Phil, Phil’s blog, any of its authors, and livejournal.com or livejournal.com owners and operators for its content, whether original or linked or quoted from another source, in any court, on any grounds whatsoever in law or equity. Should you violate this agreement by filing such a lawsuit, you agree to pay Phil Yo Pain blog's owner or owners the sum of one million US dollars ($1,000,000) as liquidated damages, in addition to all attorney's fees, court costs, and other expenses associated with this litigation, and to indemnify and save harmless Phil’s blog and its owners from any damage award made against them in such an action. Should this agreement not to sue be held unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, you agree to binding arbitration, with all arbitration expenses to be paid by you. The arbitration panel shall be composed of three (3) weblog operators selected by Phil’s blog's owners or operators from those in the links list on the Phil’s blog site. The award in such arbitration shall be limited to (1) a monetary sum not to exceed ten US dollars ($10); and (2) the publication of a retraction on the Phil’s blog site. Should this arbitration provision be held uneforceable in a court of competent jurisdiction, you agree to accept as liquidated damages in any lawsuit against Phil’s blog the sum of ten US dollars ($10), and you agree that you will be entitled to no other relief of any kind in law or equity. You agree that all disputes concerning these terms of use or the content of Phil’s blog are to be resolved in the courts of Jersey City, New Jersey under the laws of New Jersey and the United States of America.
3. You agree that efforts to obtain Phil Yo Pain blog content in violation or circumvention of these terms of use constitute a violation of Phil’s copyright and you understand and agree that (1) by virtue of this agreement you are estopped from arguing otherwise: and (2) such violations may lead to civil or criminal penalties.
4. If you are a corporation, you agree to provide, upon the filing of any lawsuit or the mailing of any letter threatening legal action, a bond in the amount of one million US dollars ($1,000,000) as security against the liquidated damages provided for in paragraph 2.B. above. If you are an attorney or law firm representing a party filing such lawsuit or causing such a letter to be sent, you agree to provide a bond in the same amount as security against the liquidated damages provided for in paragraph 2.B. above unless you have never accessed, viewed, read, or otherwise made use of Phil’s blog content in any form.
5. We can not possibly hide our identities, but we are not eager to exibit them either. You agree not to disclose or distribute our personal and/or private information unless it is published by us in this blog.
6. Freedom of speech is one of the liberties that we respect and treasure. However, just in case (hopefully, rare) and as a fair warning, we wish to explicitly state the following: this blog is not a public place, but our own private club. Your right to free speech does not imply our obligation to provide you with a forum. Your comments, thoughts, arguments - are welcome. However,
  - We require that any comment posted in our blog met at least one of the following four criterea:
    - smart: at least one of the blog authors must see in it at least some intellectual value
    - polite: must be considered as such by all the authors - unanimously
    - signed: i.e. done by a registered LiveJournal.com user, even if under a nickname.
    - done by someone especially near and dear to at least one of the authors
  - We make no promise to be bound ourselves by the reqirement above or any other requirements we impose on our guests
  - We reserve the right to reveal IP addresses of the users who post unsigned and/or impolite comments (IPs provided by LiveJournal.com)
  - We reserve the right to delete any and all comments in the blog
  - We reserve the right to ban anyone from posting in the blog
  - We reserve the right to be unfair and downright discriminatory in making said decisions. We believe that we are free to associate with whomever we want. We believe that we are free to listen to whomever we want
  - We reserve the right not to provide any explanations for comments deletion, bans on users and other actions we take in our blog. We believe that we are under no obligation to justify or explain our personal views, likes and dislikes.
If you do not agree to these terms of use, exit the site immediately, destroy all copies of Phil’s blog content remaining in any form on your computer, any other computer or network device under your control, in print form, or on any information storage or retrieval device that you possess or control.

Update: please, disregard the file name in the permanent link to this post.
It's not the name. It's in the details.

Self-Evident Truths

Sat, 25 Dec 2004 04:16:53 GMT

Let's start from the beginning:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."