Ah yes, we now have another back-N-forth issued from within our own borders. This NIE Report, which no one has even read yet, makes more trouble than it is worth. In fact, I believe that this latest NIE Report gives more ammo to scary world leaders like Putin and Ahmadinejad. And now, with “insightful?” commentary from StratFor’s writer George Friedman, proof is now up front that we’ve got a bigger problem listening to the likes of the NIE Report which has little HUMINT data.

Here, these two paragraphs just got me to sit up and read this article carefully:

With this announcement, the dynamics of the Middle Eastern region, Iraq and U.S.-Iranian relations shift dramatically. For one thing, the probability of a unilateral strike against Iranian nuclear targets is gone. Since there is no Iranian nuclear weapons program, there is no rationale for a strike. Moreover, if Iran is not engaged in weapons production, then a broader air campaign designed to destabilize the Iranian regime has no foundation either.

The NIE release represents a transformation of U.S. policy toward Iran. The Bush administration made Iran’s nuclear weapons program the main reason for its attempt to create an international coalition against Iran, on the premise that a nuclear-armed Iran was unacceptable. If there is no Iranian nuclear program, then what is the rationale for the coalition? Moreover, what is the logic of resisting Iran’s efforts in Iraq, rather than cooperating?

The second sentence in the second paragraph is where you should all begin to sit up and take note. If you believe that that sentence leads you to believe that we are wrong for being watchful when it comes to Iran’s nuclear weapons development program, I weep for you …

Be very careful, people - this isn’t just Israel we are talking about. In today’s world, Pearl Harbor is now your own backyard. Weapons can be delivered farther than a series of aircraft that can only reach the Hawaiian Islands. And we are only 2 days away from that ill fated day … take heed.

So, did you get on the Stand-To! mailing list? No? Hmmm … we need to talk.

The US Army has provided the second part of their discussion of battle command. Again, I’ll help those that are asleep at the switch and haven’t seen today’s installment:

“What continued efforts does the Army have planned for the future? The Army continues to focus on the synchronization of operations, logistics and intelligence in order to provide Commanders and leaders with the most accurate information needed to conduct combat operations and achieve mission success. The Army will use the Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN) process to field robust Joint Network Battle Command capabilities to the units as they prepare and engage in combat operations. The Army will use these new Joint Networked Battle Command capabilities to leverage information from intelligence, logistics, operations and medical sources, improve analysis, enable greater collaboration, to synchronize efforts quicker and reduce Commander’s decision cycles in the execution of operations to include Force on Force, Stability and Security Operations (SASO) and Counter Insurgency (COINS). The Battle Command systems will connect more soldiers to the network, and provide increased throughput, improve security, enhance collaboration, provide situation awareness, unit readiness status and Command & Control analysis. Battle Command will move toward closer integration with Logistics, including the Movement Tracking System. This system automates tracking of continuous, distributed, and Joint focused logistics across the battle space. Battle Command will also add gateways to US Marine Corps, joint, and coalition tracking systems. As with Blue Force tracker, the result will be a better integrated common operational picture.

Why is this important to the Army? Battle Command is an essential Warfighter Mission Area operational capability for both our current and future joint operations. Joint fully networked Battle Command capabilities will bridge to the Future Force and enable the Joint Force Commander to conduct fully interdependent, network-centric warfare. The Army must continue to work with the Combatant Commanders, Joint Forces Command, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Network and Information Integration to identify, align and develop Joint Force capabilities relevant to joint operations. Battle Command will align with Joint ground combat capabilities while simultaneously spiraling in proven Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Information, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) technologies.”

Is this approach new to the US Army, or the US Military as a whole? No.

Is there something missing that no matter the good intentions of the US Army and the entire US Military Command Structure, this is all for naught? Yes.

To wage an effective campaign in this 5th Generation Warfare watershed, the media is an integral component to success. Without getting too down on the main stream media (I know, fish in a barrel) an effective holistic campaign can only be waged with communications not just inward but outward. The Milbloggers are behind you and already on board, but multiple media outlets are still not working effectively together with the war. This war on terror is lacking a primary component and we are sacrificing the high ground by not executing in this area.

One can see the net-effect difference by comparing Al Jazeera teamed up with al Qaida and the terrorists currently in the field of battle. In a 5th Generation Warfare command structure, communications between soldiers and communications to the support structure, like the people sacrificing their sons and daughters, results in a highly effective overall campaign. Terrorists have a lock on that, albeit they utilize tactics that should nullify any effort, but theirs works very effectively. We are not to accept or emulate their approach, but it is clear without an outward communications component, all effectiveness is diminished to an unbearable level.

It is a fact that the main stream media is refusing to support our military, our politicians are thrashing to keep their jobs, and the counter-media (Al Jazeera) utilizing propaganda to shift opinion and mold fact to fiction. All of this gives testament to the lack of the US Military’s ability to effectively execute a holistic campaign in the global war on terror. We have technology that dwarfs the competition, yet we cannot use true shock and awe because we all know we’d be set upon by our own media and politicians. It is a given that the European Union is against us, they always will be, so move on, nothing to see here. But the negative energy from within our own boarders is continuously aimed inward thereby reducing the overall effectiveness of waging a true campaign. In the end, it is impossible to be effective in a 5th Generation Warfare watershed until the entire battlefield is conflated. Therefore, our US Military Command Structure needs to gain the high ground on this primary objective, take this last hill and hold it, or we will never be able to effectively field a successful force in battle.

For review, here are my 5GW posts, in order from oldest to newest:

Seems the family has a rift
We Blew Through 4th Generation Warfare!
Boundaries for the Fourth Generation
Clues to the 5th: Shorter Chains?
Yeah, 5GW Means Squat, Right?

Again, any 5GW stuff you find, forward on to me.

I had not heard that the terrorists who have their own snipers, that filmed a video (albeit which has been on the net), was played on CNN today. I’ll spare ya the link, ’cause it disgusts me and isn’t worth my time. I learned of this current ploy (yes, I choose that word purposefully) from Cop The Truth, then Op-For, and finally Black Five … and oh my, the comments vary, as well as the graphic reactions to this, stupid attempt at journalism.

I’m not a journalist, I only play one in the blogosphere.

I will say that this seems to me to be, a “blast from the past” of sorts. I’ll say just two words, and you tell me if this sorta fits: Hanoi Jane.

Now, she and Ted are divorced. But, they’re both socialists, and Hanoi Jane already has proven this sort of thing is just what she likes to see. I believe that she and Ted love the way that they, and CNN, presented this footage. In fact, even though I have not checked yet, I’m sure those left-wing socialist blogs that think Bush manipulates oil prices, are the same sites that just love this sort of thing.

Obviously, that’s just me … hey, this is a friggin’ blog, people!

But, if you take a moment to “follow the money” or in this case “follow the vote”, this does begin to ring true. For those that relish the “cut-N-run option”, showing the way a terrorist sniper had the hand up is a way to get those on the fence to vote for a Democrat - like Murtha. However, if you are on the fence, and say want to see someone like Diana Irey win, what would this footage do to you? Would it make you sit up? Would it wake you up to the reality that we are also fighting this fight FROM WITHIN!!!

Hanoi Jane has experience, I assure you.

If you don’t think that it is time to take the gloves off, you’re wrong. If you think that you’ll just sit this one election out ’cause some stupid RINO has pissed you off, you’re lost. And if you actually believe that Liberal Democrats are going to actually do the right thing for this country, wow, Katie Bar the Door!

Ya know, I think there really are some folks just wakin’ up and smellin’ the coffee.

Now, get out there and vote for a Republican!!!

Economy has looked pretty good lately, huh? Gas prices are falling again and getting closer to the semi-recent norm. The stock market is continuing to soar, breaking records again and again. Tax breaks have fueled this growth, and the more the merrier! But, if you live in California as I do, you’d see that businesses are leaving and so are the people - this blue state is blue ’cause she’s being strangled by Liberal Democrats that just love the tax ‘em ’til they die approach.

Have any of you looked at your sample ballots? Do you actually read the fiscal projections and cost estimates? Have you come to fear these terms: bond act, funding protection, trust fund act, tax on [enter free market product here], parcel tax, corporate tax, and regulation of private party (substitute eminent domain)? Have you added up everything they are throwing at you this November, not to include the costs that we will incur from their abysmal record on national security and the war on terror?

I did. Here’s this November’s Costs:

OK, so, some of those costs have been estimated over ten (10) years and some are distributed over thirty (30) years. The key to remember is that some are due now and some are per annum. For those that had a per annum value I multiplied by 10 - c’mon, you know these last forever, but 10 seemed sorta round and not too crazy. But …

THIS TOTALS $80.576 BILLION ! ! ! ! !

I hope you are reading your ballots, borrowing your kids calculator from their backpack, and realizing we’re being smacked right in the teeth again, and again, and again …

Vote NO on all bonds. Safest bet in the world people.

I was watching Special Report with Brit Hume Friday night. Jim Angle was sitting in for Brit, and things went smoothly along through various stories of the day and week. Then, we get to the Round Table, and Jim begins one of the segments discussing North Korea and their threats (which yesterday no longer was a threat). Did you happen to see this segment? If you did, were you aware that Bill Sammon lead Mort Kondracke right into Alice’s Rabbit Hole?

Oh yes, it was fun to watch!

The discussion was swirling around North Korea threatening to blow up a nuke. Bill Sammon and Bill Kristol were doing a great job laying down the path to how we got here, and why Democrats trying to blame this on Bush is just lame - well and flat out wrong. Mort decided it was time to get his views in and suggested that the United States needs to do something proactive and forceful. He was leaning, but not overtly saying, we need to go in with force.

Bill Sammon’s ears perked up on this one.

Bill started choosing his words wisely and leaving Mort time to answer. Bill was reeling Mort in, and I truly think Mort had no idea what was happening. I’ll paraphrase the conversation because I cannot, for the life of me, find transcripts or text on any other blog via Google search. I’ll continue to search the blogosphere, and if you see anything or you’ve posted on this, let me know! Anyway, here is a very loose account of how this went down:

Mort: We really need to get in there and show North Korea we mean business.
Bill: Mort, are you suggesting military action?
Mort: Well, we could provide a strong example of force.
Bill: Are you suggesting, Mort, that we use the US Military and enter, or bomb North Korea?
Mort: We could put military pressure on them …
Bill: Mort, are you suggesting that we enter a sovereign nation, one that has been torturing, murdering, and unafraid to use weapons of mass destruction, and fight there on their soil?
Mort: Well, I mean …
Bill: Mort, are you saying to invade …
Mort: Yes!
Bill: Mort, you’re saying we should invade a nation with a dictator who has no qualms killing his own people, taking over that nation, and return it to the people, like we are in Iraq and in Afghanistan?
Mort: Yes.

It was so striking, I still cannot believe I saw Bill Sammon suck Mort Kondracke in to such an admission. I believe that, as this conversation continued, even Bill Kristol went on to point out that even if we did what Mort was suggesting, we’d just have the same situation we have now with Liberal Democrats - Bush lied, people die.

Bill Sammon was great by slamming the door on the whole thing by closing it all up with the, “Democrats will be OK with action against North Korea for a couple of months, and then they’ll be demanding special investigations and impeachment proceedings for a failed policy with North Korea …”

Blah-Blah-Blah. Mort and the Liberal Democrats just don’t get it.

As Homer Simpson says, “Stupid Flanders!”

In my last two posts I have been writing about strong US Presidents of action and those who succumb to the “governing law of inaction.” In parallel I have been listening to the radio (Rush for one) as well as a few news shows (I especially like Neil Cavuto). What has been nagging at me, and has come out full force recently, is the current perception of the Bush Administration. In fact, I just received my e-mail missive, the Stratfor Geopolitical Intelligence Report: Bush and the Perception of Weakness, and George Friedman is quite, clear, on his perception of the President and our current situation:

“Whatever the perception in the United States, Bush’s enemies overseas are not impressed by his self-assurance, and his allies are getting very worried that, like Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, his political weakness will not allow him to control the U.S. course.”

“We believe that, in the end, reality governs perception. But we are not convinced that, in this case, the perception and the reality are not one and the same; and we are not convinced that, in the coming weeks, the perception is not in fact more important than the reality. And if the Republicans lose the upcoming elections, the perception that Bush lacks the plans and political power needed for decisive action will become the reality.”

“For Bush to be able to execute the foreign policy he wants, his party must win the midterm elections. For that to happen, Bush must get control of the political situation quickly. To do that, he must change the perception that his own administration is out of control.”

“Easy to write. Harder to do.”

These last paragraphs come after a long, and effusive, near-to-rant about Republicans, and the Bush Administration. I can care less if these guys at Stratfor are Liberal or Conservative, it’s just the fact that they are promulgating the perception of which this missive spells out quite, long-windedly …

And, as I read this, I’m thinking, “Hmmm. The Republican’s October Surprise … when does Karl Rove drop the lead shoe?”

I think that Mr. Rove is head-and-shoulders above James Carville when it comes to political gamesmanship. Karl Rove is the consummate politico - and I believe he’s OK with that assessment. If anyone can dust an opponent, I believe that man is Karl Rove. I also sense, and I know that’s not very Conservative/Logical, that Mr. Rove is timing his strike. I think that the salvo will be more than enough to trap the Liberal and Democrat squealers in a big ol’ fashioned hog tie.

And then, the field of battle went quiet.

It’s October, the air is getting colder, and the Democrats are starting to run out of stringers with good copy against Republicans. The Democrats have nothin’ when it comes to a domestic or foreign policy, except tax ‘em to death, kill SUVs, cigarettes are bad, Wal Mart is evil, and cut-n-run ’cause we liked it when Billy-Bob Clinton was making the US Military report to the United Nations! The Liberal Democrat platforms of today are nothing more than a shrill, socialist, terrorist loving, party politic wench dressed up in Diane Keaton dresses and Famolares from the 70’s!

(if you don’t remember those mountains of hard rubber with dainty straps known as Famolares, here’s a snap from their site)

Sorry, Famolare Co, I used to sell your shoes in the late 70’s. And, the double entendre here is PLATFORMS, people … Democrat platforms <=> clunky platform shoes. Git it?!

When we had shoe wars in the stock room, Famolares were considered the cruise missile of shoes! Dang things hurt like a - you know!

Anyway.

Wonder what Karl has on tap … how about you?

My previous post set a general theme. Let’s continue with a few questions that have been rattling around in my cranium after that post:

• Why does the Republican Leadership (?) keep sticking their hand out to help Liberals and Democrats?
• Why does the entire party let swindlers like the Gang of 14 get away with their slick and destructive tactics?
• What is it that makes Republicans in charge allow speeches on the floor support the rights of terrorists - rights that only apply to citizens of the United States of America?
• What’s the deal with making every effort to hide the fact that it really is amnesty, and we out here are not idiots, so stop bending over?
• Where did Republicans like Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Ronald Reagan happen to go?
• How did we end up with such lily-livered sap-suckers in the Republican party!?

Let’s be honest, the “Gang of 14″ are actually Liberals and should have to register as such.

It’s October again and you can hear the talking heads portending the Republican loss of the Senate and House. Fox News, of all places, and our local CBS or ABC News stations (even our independent Channel 2) have been spinning the trouncing of the Republicans this season. The baseless attacks that are allowed to be waged can make anyone launch their cookies! Where is the counter-offensive? Am I smokin’ crack here expecting some form of strength coming from the “Party of Lincoln”?

Or, maybe the new way of winning is keeping your message safe and middle of the road to keep your seat … ??? If that is the new way of maintaining power, then why have the Republicans been losing ground? For me, I see some very glaring examples of a lack of leadership: soft on their political opponents, immigration issues and laws, handling terrorists and prosecuting the Global War on Terror (GWOT), and listening to the United Nations. In every one of these cases there is an influence that has made Republicans they way they are today. Let me take a moment and use my last posts chronological look at Presidential show of power to answer your, as well as my own, questions and concerns.

This country has a long and proud history of taking it to their opponents. The reason that the rest of the world doesn’t like us is because when we go “all in”, there is nothing left but a US victory. It is hard to imagine what it must feel like to be handed a defeat such as those proffered by the United States Military. A sound victory is only achieved when the whole, and that means everyone, is working together to a common goal - going “all in”. Taking the fight to the enemy used to be the standard of the Republican party as we were always the first to stand up to defend Old Glory! And I might add, 100 years ago, that even used to be the Democrat party! But Democrat Presidents in the last five decades have been fostering a simplistic and myopic approach to how the United States deals with her enemy combatants, and leaving us all to less than stellar victories if not completely disastrous outcomes.

When we need to handle our combatants, and how we extract information from those combatants, we are the ones that think before we act. Think back, when the British were attacking us during our revolution, as well as during the War of 1812, do you HONESTLY believe we did not extract information from our combatants? AND, just remember, our people (US MILITARY and SECRET SERVICE) were extracting information from our VERY CLOSE BROTHERS of only 10-50 years past. We do not engage in acts that come anywhere close to how, say, the Islamofascists handle their captives. We use manipulation and psychological tactics to get information, they just chop off the head of their captive and put the whole thing on TV. The United States would never go to that extreme, and pundits and leaders are doing us all a disservice by alluding to such a thing - just to win an election.

Fast forward from the War of 1812 to the last five decades. You can see that how we, the United States of America, handle all threats and foreign aggression can affect situations happening in the very near future. The “information age” has propelled the entire world into a nearly instantaneous cause and effect maelstrom. The fact that we have been projecting a cyclic “force then weakness” approach to world affairs, anyone outside our borders has got to be scratching their heads, in real time! You’d think “the clapper” was plugged in to this country somewhere - clap on, clap off, clap on, clap off! It is this on-again off-again type of leadership that has brought about a cataclysmic effect so few had seen coming.

In my last post, I provided the backdrop to how al-Qa’ida has been able to wage such an effective campaign and strike us at home. The plan was building for a very long time, born from a few Presidents overwhelmed by their own “governing law of inaction”. After Ronald Reagan left office, we really left the door open to those wishing to harm us. And September 11th, 2001, all came about because the Democrat run House and Senate forced the Bush Administration (George H.W. Bush) to pull out of Iraq and Kuwait - oh, and to raise taxes, a HUGE No-No from a Republican worth his salt. I believe that those actions alone emboldened Islamofascists to say, “Hey, we can win against these guys if we put pressure on Democrats and the media! With those two snakes wrapped together, striking out on a daily basis, the American people will just lay down and take it!”

Once Clinton stepped in, it was a brand new day - for Islamofascists.

You see, the “Gang of 14″ have it all wrong. If we continue to follow the example of so many failed Democrat Presidents, the enemies of the United States of America will have a clear shot at our flank. In a world where force is the only moderator, and be honest with yourself this is a self-evident truth, why would anyone step into the fray armed for a pillow fight?

First, show them you mean business and bring your force to bear. Second, by and through leadership, bring compassion and structure to support growth. Finally, keep your word and honor this new friendship by staying by their side, even when things look grim and all just might be lost.

When has the United States Military EVER slacked off when things looked grim?!

Iwo Jima, Bataan, Valley Forge, Midway, Lexington, and Tarawa.

We’ll never stop fighting to keep Old Glory flying free!!!

If only those in Washington DC had the same, mettle …

UPDATE: Wow, hadn’t read Investor’s Business Daily in some time. Found this article with the same thread as this post - different take is the Editor utilizes Democrat Presidents at the outset whereas I posit all Democrat Presidents were “governed by the law of inaction”.

Thanks Cao for the OTBP there at Cao’s Blog!

Truman, JFK, LBJ, Carter … and yes William Jefferson Clinton. These men are the true impetus to the difficulties we now wrestle with in today’s Global War on Terror (GWOT). The progression to today’s current state of affairs is clear if one steps back to see where this country began to fall apart, and who pulled the strings - or failed to, actually.

Inaction is just as bad, if not worse, than any miscalculated action. Mistakes are commonplace when one leads. But mistakes do not have to end in disaster. Disaster is the result of a leader that compounds a mistake with inaction, and another mistake, or more inaction, as the leader thrashes to regain control - by not doing anything at all. Any leader worth his or her salt knows that the “governing law of inaction” is the fulcrum from which peace is quickly uprooted and propels the leader on a course of devolving into an irreparable state of chaos.

The following is not an exact record of history, but a look at the broader picture of influences that now plague the GWOT, and the current administration’s leadership. It is not, I submit, the leadership that is at fault, but the forces at work to construct a fulcrum from which chaos can take root. It is sad that those working to put this into action are focused on a political gain (political gains of all shapes and sizes) ignoring the fact that chaos hurts us all, no matter your party and no matter your religion.

We are all infidels, and the wave does not discriminate. It had used the “governing law of inaction” to benefit it’s cause. Today it faces not inaction but conviction, commitment, and a force that takes this battle seriously - that force is leadership.

After World War II, the United States was in a period of understanding and alignment with the USSR. We were, as a nation, focused on repelling any encroachment on our freedoms and especially those countries and political systems that threatened our survival. Even though we had great differences with the USSR we both fought the terrorism of that day, Adolph Hitler’s fascism. We both knew that Hitler envisioned a fascism that was not going to allow the US and USSR to be sovereign, ever. That great fulcrum would have plunged us all into a form of chaos that no one wanted, and we all fought to the death to prevent.

Reparations, political restructuring, and repatriation were the specials of the day which fostered a complacency that was slight, but still very much present. While the world wrestled with these huge responsibilities, taking their eye off the ball by building the United Nations, and cleaving two worlds with the use of “The Wall”, a greater power was beginning to emerge. “The Red Menace” began to spread across the great land masses and wastelands due to the vacuum of a missing war machine and the ravages of WWII.

Shift the stage and we move forward to 1950, and Harry S. Truman. Truman has been President for about 5 years and has been overseeing the signing of the armistice with Japan, he made the Berlin Airlift happen to bring comfort to the West Berliners, and he thrust free nations into the development of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization). However, what was looming in the background was “The Red Menace” on the move and manipulating actions in North Korea. When North Korea attacked South Korea, Truman wrote that there was:

“complete, almost unspoken acceptance on the part of everyone that whatever had to be done to meet this aggression had to be done. There was no suggestion from anyone that either the United Nations or the United States could back away from it.”

While that level of conviction and action resulted in the signing of an armistice between North and South Korea, Truman was plagued with a softer side, though not complete inaction. Even the White House Past Presidents biography of Truman shows:

“A long, discouraging struggle ensued as U.N. forces held a line above the old boundary of South Korea. Truman kept the war a limited one, rather than risk a major conflict with China and perhaps Russia.”

Enter Dwight D. Eisenhower, a true man of conviction and action. A show of force was the rule of the day, and that “governing law of inaction” not in Eisenhower’s lexicon. After Stalin died, tensions were high but lightened as Eisenhower pushed hard with power and acted as a leader. No second guessing. However, “The Red Menace” was at it again, building another fulcrum, and by the time Eisenhower left office there were 900 advisers in South Vietnam. It was beginning …

John F. Kennedy was dead set on fighting “The Red Menace”. This new “Red Menace” was a newer form derived from a burgeoning USSR that was being spread thin on an ever dwindling war chest. In the first 9 months of JFK’s presidency, the advisers in South Vietnam had grown to 2,000. Our presence was felt, but we were not committed - a slight inaction allowing for a larger fulcrum. The USSR was sensing a new, shift, in the United States - one that she could exploit to her ultimate gain. Cuba, then Vietnam, were to bring this to a head until a sniper’s bullet ended John F. Kennedy’s life on that ill fated day of 22 November, 1963. On the same day, Lyndon B. Johnson is sworn in as the Thirty-Sixth President of the United States of America.

By the end of 1963, there are 15,000 advisers in South Vietnam. Do you see a pattern? As these past Presidents are quick to demonstrate, except Eisenhower, inaction or the fear of risking a major conflict is beginning to rear itself and provide purchase for a new fulcrum - one no one sees just yet.

Lyndon B. Johnson assumed command of the fight against “The Red Menace” in the Southeast Asian Theater. LBJ’s administration was bent on continuing the situation in Vietnam, but finishing the job was an illusive achievement due to conflicting orders and overall theater mismanagement. Leadership is not left to the officer corps alone, it begins and ends in the White House, with the CinC (Commander in Chief). The failure of inaction in Vietnam took time.

The failure was aided by a grassroots groundswell of anti-military, anti-US sentiments fomented on US soil in our university campuses. To buttress that groundswell was another campaign being waged by daily reports served up from a media schooled in those very universities. This is where the soft underbelly of inaction began to show. It was being lifted up for all to see by the fulcrum constructed by academia and elitists afraid of doing their duty and serving their country (last sentence is my strong opinion, obviously). LBJ continued to be jerked back and forth by external forces, thereby succumbing to the “governing law of inaction”. The USSR lies in wait - but she shall soon be eclipsed by a far worse harbinger of chaos.

The USSR had dipped her toe into waters that were taxing her to great lengths and she was beginning to waiver. It was not overt, but her power was beginning to fracture. There were glimpses afforded to the entire world, even though the USSR was successful in North Korea and ultimately becoming so in North Vietnam.

Richard M. Nixon, again not a man of inaction, took control of a world theater in near chaos. By taking charge and going to China, President Nixon began a new front of operations that signaled a change in US strength. However, his conviction and take charge attitude in a sea of internal US strife being waged by an anti-US elite forced to the surface a strong desire to control the flow of information. The final blow, Richard M. Nixon’s impeachment and his resignation, further grounded a huge fulcrum that gave way to a new chaos - the fall of “The Red Menace” and the rise of Islamofascism.

Carter, and is failure to handle Iran, showed the world the inability of the United States to fight this up and coming new threat, Islamofascism. In those days, the late 70’s, only a select few saw the rise of this great tyranny. We were still focused on the great evil, “The Red Menace”. The “governing law of inaction” was in full swing, and the degradation of our US Military and our standing in the world as a super power was threatened - from within. Inaction was strangling leadership and we needed to remove the fulcrum and recognize there was a new one just beneath the surface waiting to pry open a new form of chaos.

Until Ronald W. Reagan broke the will of the USSR, “The Red Menace”, the world knew nothing of islamofascists. Reagan was the ultimate leader, one I am very proud to have served under. There was a man that truly understood leadership, and fostered it throughout his command (which we know is top to bottom, bottom to top). Throughout his Presidency the world saw the new United States of America - and so did the islamofascists.

It wasn’t until the US pulled out of the first Gulf War, too soon, that islamofascists began to see the underbelly truly emerge. George H.W. Bush made mistakes, I’ll grant that, but his was not one of inaction. Miscalculation was due to our focus being squarely on “The Red Menace” and an honest miscue in responding to the greater threat being promulgated by terrorists building their forces in the Middle East. The new battle was beginning, and the US was still looking in the wrong direction.

Enter William Jefferson Clinton on the heels of huge reforms in taxation and a growing economy compliments of the previous 12 years under Reagan and Bush 41. The focus of the new administration was to bring the Democratic Party back into power. The problem is that over the previous 50 years, Democrat Presidents succumbed to the “governing law of inaction”, never providing true leadership. At the same time, Clinton was busy breaking down the US Military and relinquishing control of US Forces overseas to the United Nations. Once the Monica Lewinsky scandal took hold, and the lies began, islamofascist leaders of terrorism began to take stabs at the soft underbelly of the United States of America. All the while, that lull of US supremacy in the world provided a vacuum into which islamofascism could rush in, unabated, securing the new fulcrum and introducing a chaos none but a few knew would come - September 11th, 2001.

And now, we have a full-on battle on our hands, a battle against those seeking to destroy us. Our new “old” enemy, in no way resembles a true force of any one nation or government. This enemy is one that does not follow the Geneva Convention, nor does it wear a distinct uniform carrying a standard from which all can determine a true combatant on the field of battle. And, there is an insurgency threatening the leadership in this battle which has roots within the United States. This insurgency is one lead by those that have grown up believing and succumbing to the “governing law of inaction”. They are in places of power and influence and are even members of the Republican Party (RHINOs)! Those of us that recognize true leadership and abhor chaos must stand firm and fight this new enemy to our last breath.

Because, in the end, making concessions, appeasement, lack of force, weak leadership, and ultimately succumbing to the “governing law of inaction” will be our demise. To promote and support such soft positions on tough subjects like interrogation of terrorists, full prosecution of actions in battle, securing our borders, surveillance of foreign persons, amnesty for illegal aliens, and ultimately the subjugation by the likes of “The Gang of 14″, well, we’ll be exposing our soft underbelly to those that have erected the newest fulcrum with the goal of wresting peace from within our grasp.

Make no mistake, if we let “The Gang of 14″ and their supporters, the Mainstream Media, and Liberal college professors and actors expose our flank, islamofascism will strike with such a force as to propel the whole world into a state of chaos no one can envision or even fantasize.

Do you want that to happen? Not I. Let us first start with the “Gang of 14″ and work our way outward. We, the Milblogging community, have a duty to take back this country.

It is time.

UPDATE: Wow, hadn’t read Investor’s Business Daily in some time. Found this article with the same thread as this post - different take is the Editor utilizes Democrat Presidents at the outset whereas I posit all Democrat Presidents were “governed by the law of inaction”.

Have ya ever tasted yellow cake? You know, that nondescript cake mix in your supermarket … not exactly the favorite of all but some like it. I, however, speak of a different variety. The one I like most is the one Saddam likes as well.

That wonderful cake mix that WMDs are made from.

As I was reading the Senate Intelligence Committee Phase II Report, I came upon this teensy-weensy little paragraph offered up by our august body:

PHASE II REPORT — PDF pg 16, printed pg 13
“(U) On October 6, 2002, the CIA sent a fax to the White House providing information on why the DCI had advised that a reference to Iraq seeking uranium from Africa be removed from a speech the President intended to deliver in Cincinnati. CIA offered three points: “(1) The evidence is weak. One of the two mines cited by the source as the location of the uranium oxide is flooded. The other mine cited by the source is under the control of the French authorities. (2) The procurement is not particularly significant to Iraq’s nuclear ambitions because the Iraqis already have a large stock of uranium oxide in their inventory. And (3) we have shared points one and two with Congress, telling them that the Africa story is overblown and telling them this is one of the two issues where we differed with the British.”

OK, one mine is flooded, fine, maybe that’s true, maybe it’s not. And, glaringly obvious above is the fact that Saddam and the Iraqi’s “already have a large stock of uranium oxide in their inventory”. Hello!!!

But am I to believe that the FRENCH are pure as the wind driven snow?! C’mon people, how can we listen to the likes of the “Gang of 14″ (you’d see in my previous post that Snowe and Hagle are more RINOs than Republicans - or just intelligence IDIOTS!) and these wanna-be intelligence officers? Sheesh! Even in Senator Snowe’s release regarding this Phase II Report, she says the committee unanimously voted to release this report.

ARRRGH! And she released this on the fifth anniversary of September 11th!

But, alas, she is wrong - there was one that refused to release the report - the Honorable Senator Trent Lott, (R) Mississippi, was the lone wolf against this travesty of grandstanding and nihilism! (i love that last word - i’m gonna keep using it anywhere i can!) The proof is in the vote tally; she should pay attention next time before she uses a word, like, unanimously.

I’ve posted before, and this is only one look into the fistula that is the GWOT (Global War on Terror), how Iraq was pushing very hard to work closely with France. In this FMSO doc, it is blatant and clear just what was a-foot (take a step with me, here - pun intended):

Tariq Aziz to Saddam on France
TARIQ ‘AZIZ: After the General Assembly, when meeting with the French Prime Minister in private, I asked him, “how is your relation with Guinea Bissau?” He replied, “very good”. Thereafter, I told him, “I would like you to take care of that … that is to say, for them to take our side. Therefore, he promises to do just that. We are expecting the atmosphere in the Security Council to change relatively from last year, to our advantage, especially if we achieve greater progress with Ekeus’s file. The French, was reserved [firm] in regards to Ekeus or to the issue of Resolution 986, that is to say, he has a firm attitude. He told me, “when you go to Paris you can discuss the issues”. Thereafter, when I arrived in Paris, two days before the official meeting, I observed through my discussion with their Ambassador and [UNINTELLIGIBLE] which they are our close friends from the French Foreign Ministry, that the atmosphere in France is firm, that is to say, it is firm with us … I told my friend, which is the person who we communicate through, to setup a secret meeting with Jacques Chirac, so we finish … [INTERRUPTED] … They said that it could be difficult. I told them to talk to him and see, at any rate, if he could not see me, let us talk on the phone … By God, the next day he contacted me and said, I am coming to see you right now, ahhh … meaning, I am on my way right now. He brought a phone with him when he came. However, Sir, this happened because of the stipulations on us to …
SADDAM: [Yes]
TARIQ ‘AZIZ: … [INTERRUPTED] Your Excellency, I must tell you this to complete the picture, he brought the phone with him and I talked with the President [Jacques Chirac] At the beginning, he started by saying, I want to help you. You are … [INTERRUPTED] Truthfully, I told him in so many words ahhh … what these issues require and what we are now asking. I also told him that we have not met for eleven months; we need to meet so we can provide you with information about Ekeus. He [Ekeus] will not present his report unless you apply pressure against the American pressure, which is the past Italian pressure. I explained other points to him and honestly, without hesitation, he said, “I will give instructions to the Foreign Ministry now to be completely open with you and to exchange and analyze the information, we will help you. We will call to give instructions to our Ambassador in New York to work in complete coordination with you in regards to this specific issue”. When I met with the Prime Minister on the evening of the next day, after my meeting with the Foreign Minister, during the private interview, he said, … I said, I ahhh … I mean, this issue was … I mean, when I met with the Foreign Minister, he was excited, I mean, not bad … [Laughing] … Foreign Minister? This is what we need from you, to pressure Ekeus, scrutinize him, and ask him when he will be finished and to tell him that this is what Iraq has provided, also for your Ambassador in New York to do whatever he is able to do. He told me yes, especially at the time when the Foreign Relations are warm, and the leadership is cold. Now it is the opposite, the situation has been reversed, the leadership is warm, and the Foreign Relations are cold, however, he told me that this has been solved. Chirac met with me today and told me to take the procedures and tell the Minister and the Ambassador and assure them that this issue has been solved. Therefore, the man was sure of his promise over the phone and put the Prime Minister in charge of giving the instructions. The Foreign Minister was friendly and serious at the meeting. We know the Minister, we met him before, however, we reached a level of understanding and he followed the instructions. I mean, at the end, when I was leaving, he assured me of his support, encouraged me, and said, if you are able, even by phone, call me and inform me if anything should happen. I mean, he encourages quick communications. Therefore, if they did not have the will for teamwork and cooperation, I believe, after my visit to Paris, the French position has been restored.

Again, are we all to believe that France is not a part in all this? Did you also take the time to follow the Oil for Food mess?

C’mon, we didn’t create that stupid “Freedom Fries” term for nothing!

These RINOs are killing this country, and the Liberals are shoving them in the back, right off the cliff! Are you gonna wake up and tell them they are on the wrong planet? ‘Cause, we’re all pretty much alone out here, folks - Senate Republicans left a loooooong time ago.

I have spent considerable time reading the recently released Senate report, Postwar Findings about Iraq’s WMD

Programs and Links to Terrorism and How they Compare with Prewar

Assessments. This document was written to give us, the people, a clear and objective account. The investigation and oversight process has always had a core value: to get to the truth and provide that to the people. However, it has been my experience (and in this report, the Honorable Trent Lott’s as well) that it is not the truth but grandstanding and agenda fulfilling nihilism that has infected the Senate and House.
This is the first post regarding this report. Near the end of the document you’ll find a tally related to amendments to this document. The tally is to record what someone wanted to change, and how all the committee members voted on that action, desire, or recommendation. It is amazing that for what it’s worth, there are really only 6 Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee (Roberts, Hatch, DeWine, Bond, Lott, and Chambliss). In the following tables I provide the sponsor of the change (BY:), what the sponsor wanted to do (ACTION:), the action to be taken (ADDED:), the result of the vote overall (RESULT:), and finally the vote for each committee member (A/N). The last two columns are the party of the committee member, and whether or not the member’s vote crossed (C = *) the majority party vote.
You’ll see, we’ve got two rogue Republicans. It is also noteworthy that not one Democrat caved. Clearly, the Democrats understand what it means to “hold the line” - even if they’re whacked. (note: i’ll get this into a table later - it’s late!)

BEG:: PDF pg 138, printed pg 135

END:: PDF pg 140, printed pg 137

———————————————————————–

COMMITTEE ACTION

Amendments to draft report, Postwar Findings about Iraq’s WMD

Assessments.

What is even more astounding is that only the Honorable Trent Lott, Senator, Mississippi, was against the entire report. I suspect the reason is because he has been privy to all the intelligence information since September 11th, 2001, and has found that this report is more an agenda paper than it is a true investigative report intended to support the oversight process.
Well, just to ensure you see what I mean, here are some “dissenting” remarks provided by four of the Republican Senators on the committee (Bond, Hatch, Lott, Chambliss):

“(U) We joined the Senate Intelligence Committee to conduct oversight, not to perform witch hunts; we serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee to make our Intelligence Community better, not to use it for partisan politics; we travel overseas to speak with our operators on the ground in order to gain insights in how to support them and make them successful. As such, we have endeavored to work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to accommodate as many concerns as possible, and we believe it is time to move forward with the active intelligence oversight.”

Yeah, he said witch hunt!!!
The above comments came much later in the document (pg 147). Right out of the gate, I believe that Trent Lott was trying to communicate to those of us reading this report how this committee’s action was all a waste. Here is the first paragraph to get the ball rolling:

“(U) Any investigation that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (Committee or SSCI) undertakes should ultimately improve the Intelligence Community (IC) and enhance our national security. Unlike independent commissions, panels and boards, the oversight committees of Congress have the power to effect change. The fifteen members of this Committee along with our counterparts in the House of Representatives and our Committee staffs comprise the only oversight bodies outside of the Executive Branch with the authority to execute a difficult, and much needed, intelligence transformation. This second report in a series of reports coming from a second round investigation into Iraq prewar intelligence comes at a critical juncture. Yet, rather than attempt to improve our efforts to combat terrorism and make our country safer, the results of this investigation were calculated to promote a partisan agenda. Thus, sadly, the Committee’s two-year-long, second investigation of Iraq pre-war intelligence has failed to heed a higher call.”

I know that that is long. But it speaks directly to how we are endangering ourselves as a nation by running around creating useless reports from the perspective of a Committee. Intelligence gathered in the field is by nature raw and without political impact. It does not care to what party you belong, it just says this guy did that to this guy and at the same time this happened over here to ignite an even more violent reaction … blah, blah, blah. It is our politicians that take the data and … retool it for their own benefit.
Check this out, my last paragraph, but this part is a good old fashioned throw down:

“(U) Immediately following September 11 as well as after our invasion of Iraq, a number of outstanding investigations were conducted that produced actionable findings and recommendations in seminal documents [a list is provided] …”
“… Yet, for the past two years, rather than pursue our oversight role to ensure that some of the key findings and recommendations of the reports and others were enacted, this Committee’s usefulness as an oversight body and as a key element in our national security apparatus has been consumed by a rear-view mirror investigation pursued for political ends. If this second round investigation had offered the Congress and the American people additional insights that the plethora of previous reports had overlooked, than we would have stood together in full support of it. The truth is, however, that it does not.”

So, we spend two years not uncovering one thing that makes this report stand out from the rest. Sure, Liberals are going to tell you that this report proves that we went to war on a lie - but it really doesn’t.
You just need to read it to know why the Liberals are wrong. Yet, sadly, no one is really reading this report they are just riffing on someone else’s half-baked analysis.
Until you truly take the time, do some work, you’ll remain someone else’s sock puppet.
TAGS: Fix4RSO, Milblog, Military, WMD, Iraq, Report

I know that this is becoming too much of a habit, but being away from the blog recently has been family related. Our youngest went through a required surgery - not too much fun for a little one. She’s getting better, so, today there are a few moments to post some comments regarding what I’ve been reading in the news and blogosphere lately.

In GrassFire.org’s latest project, there is a petition to sign that is VERY important. The border patrol has been our last bastion against wholesale stupidity regarding our porous southern border. Two border patrol agents are being prosecuted for capturing and attempting to arrest a drug smuggler from Mexico. Um, what a minute, we let the bad guy go free and we’re gonna put the good guys in jail?! Here’s Steve Elliott’s latest e-mail comments:

“Even though I’m familiar with this story, it still makes me angry that our nation seems more concerned with illegal aliens than with their own citizens–especially men of law who are trying to protect our borders!

It is absolutely insane that we would allow an illegal drug smuggler to literally walk away from his transgressions for his testimony against these two Border Agents. And to think this same illegal alien is now in the process of suing our government for millions because he believes his civil rights were violated?

What about the rights of us citizens? What about the rights of those he was going to peddle his drugs to?”

Can’t ya hear the awe and amazement, let alone digust, in his comments? I’ve read up on this story and there are numerous articles and posts regarding this situation. No matter your proclivity, this is completely unacceptable.

Head on over to sign the petition at GrassFire.org and keep the heat on!

I have one question: are many of you as vehemently in favor of protecting the right to kill the unborn as you are in violent disfavor of the fight we are in against terrorists today? Both are, to many of us, means to a short term end. The myopia to which you are a victim is actually perpetuating an end you do not, and cannot, foresee. OK, maybe you just refuse to see it ’cause you really want what you want - the “ends”.

If your answer is “yes” to this question, well, you are growing into more of the cause then you will ever be the cure. And, your “yes” confirms the impetus to the hate you spew at those that know the futility of your mission - you feel left behind and you are stuck in November of 2000. Jealousy is a deep wound that I hope you can some day heal. Yet, this scab will not heal if ya don’t stop pickin’ at it! Didn’t you EVER listen to your Mom?

Both of these, and so many of your means, result in the tragedy, travesty and the spiritual decay of humanity. That decay is a direct result of the destruction of every shred of morals in our society and your means getting to your ends. This all started in Europe hundreds of years ago. Today, our media elites and the willing sheep that allow this to continue ’cause it’s “cool” are harbingers of doom.

Here is what goes for art these days. I cannot even put the image up on my site. Michelle has a fine copy and you can hop on over if you so desire. I just cannot put into words how this photographer’s work is devoid of love and God. Her end, and the abhorrent means she employs, are right there on her site. She makes no point of hiding her hate for George W. Bush and all that support him.

And to what end is it, of all these means, that truly is causing the destruction of our society?

Is all this disregard for the unborn, disillusionment in ideals, disinformation regarding the Global War on Terror, hate for George W. Bush, and the continuous development of all this baseless art the means Liberals want as their legacy? The end, or the destruction of George W. Bush as payback for Clinton really the ends to which they strive, live, and die?

Wow. Bill Clinton was really that great of a president? He wasn’t really that great of a husband …

Every time I hear and see Madeline Albright on the TV, I just have to laugh out loud! I cannot believe that her cute stories are taken for great diplomacy! Everyone in the Clinton’s Camp Runamuk thinks they had the tiger by the tail when it comes to Hamas, North Korea, China, and yes, Iraq. Yet their brand of appeasement actually got them nothing but sneers, the bombing of the World Trade Center (the first time) and the USS Cole, and machinations behind their backs that proves they were lost.

Want some proof? Keep on readin’ folks!

I found a little gem, an off-handed remark, hidden deep within the Foreign Military Studies Office, Joint Reserve Intelligence Center - Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents. Saddam Hussein and Tariq Aziz are talking about the situation in the UN Security Council around Iraq’s hiding information about their chemical and biological weapons program. As they are sizing up the alliances in the Security Council, Tariq Aziz makes the following comment regarding the US, Argentina, and Madeline Albright:

The Ambassador of Chile appears to be an educated, wonderful person according to his representation. According to my observation, he is fair, imperial and has modern ideas and ahhh … if you will allow me to say, unlike the dog, the Argentinean, who used to be Albright’s servant.

Now, if I were the Ambassador from Argentina, and I were called, “Albright’s servant”, I think I’d be a bit tweaked. You? I mean, that there is some “head buttin’ fuel” wouldn’t you say?

This file store is chock full of amazing insight regarding Iraq’s political process. The way that Saddam’s team sized up their alliances, paid for some, negotiated some to stronger bonds, and ignored some. Obviously, those having tighter ties with the US and Britain were ignored or hopefully played into a tighter corner. Let me drop some comments on ya:

Tariq Aziz to Saddam on South Korea

TARIQ ‘AZIZ: … the meetings were good in general [ INTERRUPTED]
SADDAM: Except Korea
TARIQ ‘AZIZ: South Korea … The Ambassador of South Korea, we know each other, came and told me, I am here to visit you and to visit Baghdad. He appears to be one of the people who keep up with the bilateral relations and he said that we have an interest in Iraq and lifting the sanctions off Iraq and he said we want to buy oil from you. From the beginning, he has been supporting a company that is part of the Oil Ministry and he said, we are ready to pay you a down payment of $50 million dollars if you sign this contract … [INTERRUPTED]
MV ?: A Hundred Sir …
TARIQ ‘AZIZ: It is a hundred now! My information is outdated. Anyway, the possibility of this country being concerned about Iraq and lifting the sanctions, is because they have an interest in it [Iraq]. Ultimately, we can reverse the situation.

Tariq Aziz to Saddam on Eqypt

TARIQ ‘AZIZ: Sir, the new assembly for the Security Council next year, is clearly better than the current assembly is. I mean, Egypt will enter [the assembly], they report with us and you know, your Excellency, Egypt’s politics are much better. Their Ambassador, Nabeel Al-Arabi, is truly a good man, I mean, in the midst of the crisis, he used to come over and visit me years ago, for example, at my residence. By the way, he is also the brother-in-law of Hikeel, they are relatives and friends, I mean, and his demeanor as a human is good. I mean, his staff came over and they met … Dr. ‘Amir has told me that they all arrived, sat and prepared themselves to negotiate, which means that they are taking the issues very seriously, in a helpful way. Al-Arabi is the new replacement.

Tariq Aziz to Saddam on Guinea Bissau

TARIQ ‘AZIZ: When Guinea Bissau arrived, they said, “we are among the people who honor our relation with Iraq, and we remember when you helped us in our time of need”. When I asked them if they have close ties with France, their reply was yes.

Tariq Aziz to Saddam on France

TARIQ ‘AZIZ: After the General Assembly, when meeting with the French Prime Minister in private, I asked him, “how is your relation with Guinea Bissau?” He replied, “very good”. Thereafter, I told him, “I would like you to take care of that … that is to say, for them to take our side. Therefore, he promises to do just that. We are expecting the atmosphere in the Security Council to change relatively from last year, to our advantage, especially if we achieve greater progress with Ekeus’s file. The French, was reserved [firm] in regards to Ekeus or to the issue of Resolution 986, that is to say, he has a firm attitude. He told me, “when you go to Paris you can discuss the issues”. Thereafter, when I arrived in Paris, two days before the official meeting, I observed through my discussion with their Ambassador and [UNINTELLIGIBLE] which they are our close friends from the French Foreign Ministry, that the atmosphere in France is firm, that is to say, it is firm with us … I told my friend, which is the person who we communicate through, to setup a secret meeting with Jacques Chirac, so we finish … [INTERRUPTED] … They said that it could be difficult. I told them to talk to him and see, at any rate, if he could not see me, let us talk on the phone … By God, the next day he contacted me and said, I am coming to see you right now, ahhh … meaning, I am on my way right now. He brought a phone with him when he came. However, Sir, this happened because of the stipulations on us to …
SADDAM: [Yes]
TARIQ ‘AZIZ: Your Excellency, I must tell you this to complete the picture, he brought the phone with him and I talked with the President [Jacques Chirac] At the beginning, he started by saying, I want to help you. You are … [INTERRUPTED] Truthfully, I told him in so many words ahhh … what these issues require and what we are now asking. I also told him that we have not met for eleven months; we need to meet so we can provide you with information about Ekeus. He [Ekeus] will not present his report unless you apply pressure against the American pressure, which is the past Italian pressure. I explained other points to him and honestly, without hesitation, he said, “I will give instructions to the Foreign Ministry now to be completely open with you and to exchange and analyze the information, we will help you. We will call to give instructions to our Ambassador in New York to work in complete coordination with you in regards to this specific issue”. When I met with the Prime Minister on the evening of the next day, after my meeting with the Foreign Minister, during the private interview, he said, … I said, I ahhh … I mean, this issue was … I mean, when I met with the Foreign Minister, he was excited, I mean, not bad … [Laughing] …