Monday, August 3, 2009

Dogging Lloyd Doggett: 'Just Say No' to Obamacare!

Via The Astute Bloggers, here's the video of the eruption of protest against Congressman Lloyd Doggett's town hall at a supermarket in Austin on Saturday. Listen to the angry demonstrators chanting, "just say no":

Here's this from Bob McCarty Writes:

Rep Doggett met with constituents outside a grocery store in south Austin regarding the health care bill. Apparently the event was mostly advertised in liberal leaning local publications. He did not bring a megaphone, so hearing what he had to say was difficult. When he started making the move to leave, the crowd erupted chanting “Just say no!” His worker got the car ready to shuttle him away but the crowd surrounded it and it took a while for him to get out of the parking lot. The whole time, the “Just say no!” chant continued. It probably won’t matter – from his facial expression, body language, and what was heard to come out of his mouth, he’s for the the health care bill in its present form and has no openness to change on that.”
Also, check CBS News, "Rally Interrupts Dem Rep.'s Health Care Town Hall."

Note how the left is in full panic mode, e.g., at Think Progress, "Angry Right Harasses Rep. Lloyd Doggett With Anti-Health Care Chants," and "Durbin Responds to Lobbyist-Run Efforts to Harass Town Halls …"

But as Phillip Klein indicates:

The liberal effort to discredit American citizens who are expressing their views on an issue of vital importance is completely without merit, but it is instructive. It tells us that liberals know that despite their tremendous advantages in terms of resources and power in Washington, they are losing the health care messaging war. It’s becoming clear that Americans are not ready for a government takeover of the health care system, and they aren’t going to sit by idly while Democrats ram it down their throats.
More at Memeorandum. And, Ed Morrissey, "Three Videos Show Why ObamaCare is in Trouble."

Addendum:

Local O.C. organizers are preparing a protest against Representative Loretta Sanchez tomorrow morning - and lobbyists are not organizing the event! Here's the information (get there early):
Aug 4 Tuesday 8am-9:30am, Newport Beach: Breakfast with Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez! Balboa Bay Club 1221 West Coast Hwy., Newport Beach
Special Guests: Members of Congress to be announced! Suggested contribution: Individual Tickets $100 Table of 8 $1000 Individual Sponsor $2400 PAC Sponsor $5000 Please RSVP to Kelly Martinez at 714-832-4431 or
kmartinez@loretta.org.
Also, here's the Merriam-Webster entry for "dogging" (I'd never heard of Urban Dictionary's version before, so I wanted to be clear).

'Have You Read the Book, Joy?' Michelle Malkin on The View!

Michelle Malkin tore it up on The View this morning!

Allahpundit's got
the details:

The boss clearly went in there with a game plan, though: Knowing that she’d be interrupted at every opportunity, she set out to dominate the conversation, and knowing that Joy would be hostile, she made no pretense that they were just having a friendly chat. The tone is set from the get-go, with MM quizzing her about whether she read the book and Behar looking at Whoopi and smirking ostentatiously. Best part: The groans from the audience when Michelle referred to Hasselbeck as “the friendlier side of the aisle.” How dare she impugn Joy’s scrupulous impartiality.
The video is pure gold! Joy is really upset, squirming uncomfortably in her seat.

And here's this from Michelle Malkin herself: "Best part: Every single member of the audience got a copy of the book!"

Classy.

More at
Memeorandum.

P.S. Michelle wasn't introduced until 45 minutes after the hour. The cast gabbed about the "hot topics," including
Ryan O'Neal hitting on own daughter Tatum at Farrah Fawcett's funeral." I couldn't believe! But ...
Ryan O'Neal admits that he was so frazzled at Farrah Fawcett's funeral that he hit on his own daughter, Tatum O'Neal.
Man, I gotta watch The View more often. Go Elisabeth!

Town Halls Get Results! 'Audience Shouts Down Sebelius, Specter at Health Care Town Hall in Philadelphia'

The story's at Fox News, "Audience Shouts Down Sebelius, Specter at Health Care Town Hall in Philadelphia."

But watch it for yourself!

Freaking amazing ... video of a town hall meeting yesterday at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia. Arlon Spector and Kathleen Sebelius are loudly heckled. Sebelius' extremely frustrated body language @ 2:05 minutes? Priceless:

Photos at the Fox News story, here.

Glenn Reynolds has more: "This kind of thing keeps happening. And it’s happening all over."

Hat Tip: Atlas Shrugs, "Town Halls Grow More, Hostility too: Arlen Specter and Kathleen Sebelius Heckled, Jeered at Town Hall."

Why the Obama Birth Certificate Story Won't Go Away

Steve Benen has a new post up attacking those who want the truth about Barack Obama's birth, "They'll Never Stop" (via Memeorandum):
Last week, Hawaii's health director apparently checked the president's birth certificate again, and discovered that Obama was, in fact, born in Hawaii on Aug. 4, 1961, and "is a natural-born American citizen." A nutty right-wing website, however, produced an obviously-fake document purporting to show that Obama was born in the "Republic of Kenya" in February 1964.
The problem, actually, is that the "birth certicate" has never been formally released. The public's only seen the "certificate live birth," and there's a real difference.

I posted on this last night, "
Obama's Kenyan Birth, or Indonesian Citizenship? Shoot, I Can't Keep Up With This Stuff!"

I got a couple of responses, from RaDena at
Blasting Caps and Dynamite and Stogie at Saber Point. Also, just now Dave at Dave's Notepad made a comment.

My position is pretty much captured by Doug at Political Pistachio, "
Responding to Critics of Obama's Kenyan Birth Certificate" (with minor edits):
I don't know if Obama was born in Hawaii, Kenya, or on the moon. I wasn't there. I will not take a position that states I know for sure Obama is ineligible for President of the United States. That said, the reason I entertain the possibility that he is not a Natural Born Citizen of the United States is not primarily driven by the spurts of evidence, but by Obama's response to the challenge. His response to the accusations has been to seal all of his records, spend $900,000 on defending himself, and to refuse supplying documentation to verify eligibility and be done with it.

A man with nothing to hide does not take these kinds of actions.

This issue is not just about birth certificates and the U.S. Constitution, but about the honesty, integrity, and character of Barack Obama. I believe he fails on all counts ...

Go to Political Pistachio, here. Doug also runs a popular Blog Talk program as well, here.

Also, from a few days ago, see Hot Air, "Poll: 28% of Republicans don’t believe Obama was born in America? Update: Skeptics mostly southern."

Robert Stacy McCain is All Over 'Gryphen' Smear Campaign on Palin

Robert Stacy McCain has been putting his inside reporting skills to good use in breaking open the Palin divorce-smear story. Not only are the latest attacks on Sarah Palin demonic in their attemps to destroy the from GOP vice-presidential candidate, they're almost hillarious in their rank idiocy.

Check Robert's story, "
CNN Bozo Accidentally Outs His Source; Palins Threaten LegalActionOn Divorce Smear":

An attorney for Sarah Palin has delivered a letter threatening legal action against an anti-Palin blogger who was the source of a divorce rumor that the attorney for the former Alaska governor called "categorically false."

Publication of the letter at a Web site that repeated the rumor has uncovered circumstantial evidence that the anti-Palin blogger "Gryphen" is a kindergarten teacher at an Anchorage elementary school.

Saturday, the rumor that Todd and Sarah Palin were divorcing created an online uproar. CNN stringer/anti-Palin blogger Dennis Zaki published a thinly-sourced "news" item asserting that "multiple sources" had confirmed the rumor first published by "Gryphen" at his Immoral Majority blog.

Zaki obtained a copy of a letter from Palin attorney Thomas Van Flein, ordering "Gryphen" to retract the allegations -- calling them "complete fabrications, false and defamatory" -- or face legal action. The Van Flein letter, published by Zaki with the name of the recipient blacked out, ended with this sentence ...

See also, R.S. McCain, "LEAVE JESSE GRIFFIN ALONE!"

Dan Riehl has more, "Is This Sarah Palin's Gryphen?"

There's so much to this story!

I'm going to read around a bit and write new post, but will add the updates here ...

Sunday, August 2, 2009

Obama's Kenyan Birth, or Indonesian Citizenship? Shoot, I Can't Keep Up With This Stuff!

Some readers on the left of the spectrum have ribbed me about when I'd be blogging on the Obama birth certificate conspiracy.

And that's the thing, it's a conspiracy; and as much as I love my fellow conservatives, I'm' not touching this story: "
BORN IN THE USA? Is This Really Smoking Gun of Obama's Kenyan Birth? Attorney Files Motion for Authentication of Alleged 1960s Certificate From Africa."

Actually, this little clipping below is the main reason I don't bother with this stuff. It's from the Honolulu Advertiser. As
Ed Morrissey noted last July:
Unless someone wants to argue that the Advertiser decided to participate in a conspiracy at Obama’s birth in 1961 to provide false citizenship on the off-chance that an infant from a union of a Kenyan father and a teenage mother would run for President, then I’d say the “mystery” is over.



But wait! There's more, a lot more.

Andrew McCarthy's got a penetrating essay at National Review, "
Suborned in the U.S.A.: The Birth-Certificate Controversy is About Obama’s Honesty, Not where He Was Born"

The theory that Obama was born in Kenya, that he was smuggled into the U.S., and that his parents somehow hoodwinked Hawaiian authorities into falsely certifying his birth in Oahu, is crazy stuff. Even Obama’s dual Kenyan citizenship is of dubious materiality: It is a function of foreign law, involving no action on his part (to think otherwise, you’d have to conclude that if Yemen passed a law tomorrow saying, “All Americans — except, of course, Jews — are hereby awarded Yemeni citizenship,” only Jewish Americans could henceforth run for president). In any event, even if you were of a mind to indulge the Kenyan-birth fantasy, stop, count to ten, and think: Hillary Clinton. Is there any chance on God’s green earth that, if Obama were not qualified to be president, the Clinton machine would have failed to get that information out? ....

So, end of story, right? Well, no. The relevance of information related to the birth of our 44th president is not limited to his eligibility to be our 44th president ....

Shortly after divorcing Barack Obama Sr., Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, married an Indonesian Muslim, Lolo Soetoro Mangunharjo, whom she met — just as she had met Barack Sr. — when both were students at the University of Hawaii. At some point, Soetoro almost certainly adopted the youngster, who became known as “Barry Soetoro.” Obama’s lengthy, deeply introspective autobiographies do not address whether he was adopted by the stepfather whose surname he shared for many years, but in all likelihood that did happen in Hawaii, before the family moved to Jakarta.

Under Indonesian law, adoption before the age of six by an Indonesian male qualified a child for citizenship. According to Dreams from My Father, Obama was four when he met Lolo Soetoro; his mother married Soetoro shortly thereafter; and Obama was already registered for school when he and his mother relocated to Jakarta, where Soetoro was an oil-company executive and liaison to the Suharto government. That was in 1966, when Obama was five. Obama attended Indonesian elementary schools, which, in Suharto’s police state, were generally reserved for citizens (and students were required to carry identity cards that matched student registration information). The records of the Catholic school Obama/Soetoro attended for three years identify him as a citizen of Indonesia. Thus Obama probably obtained Indonesian citizenship through his adoption by Soetoro in Hawaii. That inference is bolstered by the 1980 divorce submission of Ann Dunham and Lolo Soetoro, filed in Hawaii state court. It said “the parties” (Ann and Lolo) had a child (name not given) who was no longer a minor (Obama was 19 at the time). If Soetoro had not adopted Obama, there would have been no basis for the couple to refer to Obama as their child — he’d have been only Ann Dunham’s child.

In any event, the records of the Catholic school and the public school Obama attended during his last year in Indonesia identify him as a Muslim. As Obama relates in Dreams from My Father, he took Koran classes. As Obama doesn’t relate in Dreams from My Father, children in Indonesia attended religious instruction in accordance with their family’s chosen faith. Moreover, acquaintances recall that young Barry occasionally attended Friday prayers at the local mosque, and Maya Soetoro-Ng, Obama’s half-sister (born after Lolo and Ann moved the family to Jakarta), told the New York Times in a 2008 interview, “My whole family was Muslim, and most of the people I knew were Muslim.” In fact, back in March 2007 — i.e., during the early “Islamic ties are good” phase of Obama’s campaign — the candidate wistfully shared with New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof his memories of the muezzin’s Arabic call to prayer: “one of the prettiest sounds on earth at sunset.” Kristof marveled at the “first-rate accent” with which Obama was able to repeat its opening lines.

The point here is not to join another crackpot conspiracy, the “Obama as Muslim Manchurian Candidate” canard. Obama was only ten years old when he left Indonesia; there is no known evidence of his having made an adult choice to practice Islam, and he is a professed Christian. The point is that he lies elaborately about himself and plainly doesn’t believe it’s important to be straight with the American people — to whom he is constantly making bold promises. And it makes a difference whether he was ever a Muslim. He knows that — it’s exactly why, as a candidate, he originally suggested his name and heritage would be a selling point. Obama’s religious background matters in terms of how he is perceived by Muslims (Islam rejects the notion of renouncing the faith; some Muslims, like Libyan strongman Muammar Qaddafi, make no bones about regarding Obama as a Muslim; and — as the mainstream media took pains not to report during the campaign — it is suspected that significant illegal donations poured into the Obama campaign from Islamic countries and territories). Obama’s religious background also matters in terms of how he views American policies bearing on the Muslim world.

There's more at the link.

It's pretty compelling. I'm not going over into "birther territory" after reading McCarthy's essay. But the piece does confirm what I already know about our president - the guy's a sneaky con-man who snaked his way into the Oval Office by pulling the most grandiose hoodwink on the American people in history.

More at
Memeorandum. See especially, Confederate Yankee, "Another (Faked) Obama Birth Certificate Found."

Trina Thompson Sues College After Bombing on Job Market

Dr. Melissa Clouthier wrote about it last night: "College Grad Can't Find Job, Wants $$$ Back."

The women, Trina Thompson, is suing Monroe College to get her tuition back, $ a beefy!

Well, it turns out my young friend Suzanna Logan's got something to say about it, "
Entitled to Succeed? Two letters: BS":
Newsflash, Ms. Thompson, it's not anyone else's responsibility to ensure your success, especially your college, post-graduation. It's your school's job to offer you a competitive education, feed you crappy cafeteria food, and keep you perpetually sleep-deprived for four years. At least those were the rules when I was an undergrad.

Maybe the rules have changed since then? Or, maybe I don't get the girl's beef because
my school didn't even have a "career" center. Or, maybe I don't get it because my class schedule didn't include Bogus Lawsuits 101 or the Meta-Physics of Whiners.

Hey, at least, are two areas she seems to have excelled in.
Well said, Suzanna!

And keep up with the posting!

See also, "Jobless Grad Sues College for 70g Tuition!."

Also check Memeorandum and Joanne Jacobs.

Ruthlessness in International Politics!

I just love this tip from Glenn Reynolds!

Over at
Volokh Conspiracy, Kenneth Anderson links to a research paper by Brad Roth of Wayne State University: "Coming to Terms with Ruthlessness: Sovereign Equality, Global Pluralism, and the Limits of International Criminal Justice."

Anderson adds this, "This article pulls no punches and must have caused a stir among the genteel precincts of academic international law when it was presented at the Santa Clara conference."

Well, I can't speak for law professors writing on international relations, although by reading the paper I get a sense that scholarly norms are much kinder on that side of the disciplinary divide!

Here's
a clip from the paper. It's not too bad:

International law represents – not exclusively, to be sure, but vitally – an accommodation among entities prone to conflict rooted, not only in competing interests, but also in systematic and profound disagreement about justice. Political conflict’s much-lamented intractability is largely owing to its moral component; contestants are least willing to back down from positions taken as a matter of principle. Although human beings rarely disagree about the most fundamental moral principles in the abstract (e.g., “murder is wrong”), they all too frequently disagree about the application of those moral principles to unmediated struggles over the terms of public order (e.g., “one person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter”). While the specific configurations of contemporary international conflict can be ascribed to historical contingencies of the “Westphalian” state system, the animating tendency toward moral disagreement is endemic to the human condition.

In the absence of commonalities of substantive moral principle, participants in the international community need to find common ground on a different plane. The imperative to honor agreements – and other forms of accommodation on which others are led to rely – is not reducible to a pragmatic concern of the “repeat player” to maintain a reputation that will enable her to obtain cooperation on subsequent “plays,” but is a duty, owed to the community, to maintain an expectation of compliance with established institutions. Moreover, “honor” itself is not without moral significance, as it reflects integrity and respect for the other. One honors agreements made with the unjust, mostly because it is irresponsible to do otherwise when morally important interests depend on maintaining one’s own and others’ ability to trade on the convention of agreement in similar future contexts, but also because treachery, even when employed against actors who are themselves immoral, incurs a moral taint. The point is not that considerations of extraordinary injustice, even unilaterally conceived, may never override the duty to honor one’s formal commitments. It is that positive obligations may be morally binding even where they demand forbearance from the single-minded pursuit of one’s unilateral moral ends. Whatever the exceptions, they do not swallow the rule.

Thus, however paradoxical it may seem, restraint on the pursuit of justice is not only central to the mission of existing international law, but also central to any sound theory of international political morality that pertains to the development of international legal institutions. Unilateral impositions, deriving from a particular, empowered conception of universal morality, are more likely to be the problem than the solution. What Prosper Weil stated a quarter-century ago remains valid today:

"At a time when international society needs more than ever a normative order capable of ensuring the peaceful coexistence, and cooperation in diversity, of equal and equally sovereign entities, the waning of voluntarism in favor of the ascendancy of some, neutrality in favor of ideology, positivity in favor of ill-defined values might well destabilize the whole international normative system and turn it into an instrument that can no longer serve its purpose."

Interestingly, among human rights-oriented scholars, this argument has considerable (though by no means universal) appeal as applied to unilateral threats and uses of force, and perhaps even to unilateral coercive economic measures such as secondary boycotts.
Yet some of the same scholars who embrace restraints on those categories of exertions by individual states or coalitions of the willing” appear to see national courts’ exercises of extraordinary extraterritorial jurisdiction, nullifications of the immunity of foreign officials, and creative circumventions of nullum crimen sine lege as not only exempt from the pitfalls of such unilateral executive measures, but actually as a peace-building and law-developing alternative to such executive measures.

This is a fundamental mistake. Extraterritorial prosecution of foreign-state actors and forcible impositions upon foreign political communities are both conceptually and practically intertwined. Because the legal limitations on the two derive from the same jurisprudential concept, the likely consequence of the loosening of constraints in the former realm will be the erosion of constraints in the latter.

International legal constraints on the use of force are predicated not on a principle of non- violence, but on a principle of respect for a foreign state’s authority within its boundaries. To put the point colorfully, but without substantive exaggeration, the right against coercive intervention is the right of territorial political communities to be ruled by their own thugs and to fight their civil wars in peace.
It reflects a pluralism that self-consciously sacrifices one set of genuine moral imperatives to another. It favors the creation and maintenance of a stable platform for peaceful and respectful accommodation among territorial political communities – which may be ruled, for the time being, by governments bearing incompatible conceptions of political morality – over licensing unilateral projections of power across borders in service of what might objectively be a just cause.

Although considerations of human rights may ground episodic exceptions to the non-intervention norm, human rights do not constitute a general qualification of the norm; rather, a state’s right against dictatorial interferences in its internal affairs presumptively withstands the state’s own violations of international legal norms, including human rights norms. To the extent that extraterritorial jurisdiction licenses the vilification of foreign state officials, it has the potential to undermine the platform that undergirds peaceful and respectful international relations. International efforts to secure the bases of human well-being routinely require the cooperation of political leaders to whom significant human rights violations can be attributed. Even recourse to force, both international and internal, must often be directed toward creating the conditions for a compromise that will respect the honor of the opposing party, notwithstanding the opponent’s ruthless acts. Moreover, where ruthless acts have been committed with substantial popular support, particular leaders cannot be singled out for vilification without impugning underlying constituencies, thereby further complicating efforts to establish cooperation going forward. These are morally important reasons to forbear from the pursuit of retributive justice across borders, even though countervailing considerations may outweigh them in a limited set of circumstances.
Maybe international lawyers are inclined, let's say, to a more cooperative way of looking at relations among nations. From my perspective, the Roth piece isn't that revelatory. It could be that the norms of transnationalism and the legalization of international politics have gotten to the point of simply ignoring the enduring verities of self-interest in global life. That said, the Roth piece is a kicker.

White House Boasts of Obama Cairo Apology Speech: Axelrod, 'Musical Impulse' to Grovel to Islamist Fanatics; America's Muslim Conversion Continues!

Today's Los Angeles Times pieces together the thinking that went into preparing President Obama's disastrous Muslim apology speech in Cairo in June.

See, "
The Crafting of Obama's Cairo Speech to World's Muslims."

The speech was roundly criticized at the time. Nice Deb has a roundup, "
Obama’s Muslim Speech In Cairo." Atlas Shrugs has the text, "TEXT: Obama's Speech to the Muslim World." Also at Atlas Shrugs, "Obama to Ummah: 'America is not – and never will be – at war with Islam' Usama: Called for 'Long War Against Infidels'."

Read the Times piece
here.

The President knew the Cairo address was pushing major political incorrectness. But he was determined to continue with his agressive global-groveling apology tour. This passage on the final revision of the speech really captures how badly the administration is working to appease our Islamist enemies:
'A musical impulse'

Obama went over the new text on Air Force One as he flew to an overnight stop in Saudi Arabia. As he read, he nodded, pausing now and then to ink in a thought or a suggestion.

That night, at the Riyadh ranch of King Abdullah, Obama had cardamom tea with the Saudi ruler. Emanuel went for a run in the 110-degree heat. Then Obama holed up with him, Axelrod and other senior staffers. Their buffet dinner simmered over cans of Sterno as they studied the text.

At midnight, the door to the staff work space creaked open. The president and his personal aide, Reggie Love, were delivering more changes.

On the two-hour flight to Cairo the next morning, Obama continued to tinker with the words and whisper parts of the speech to himself.

"He's very focused on both content and cadence," said Axelrod, "so he'll move the order of words around in order to get the cadence that he wants. . . . It's almost a musical impulse -- how the words play against each other."

Rhodes would punch each change into his laptop, then walk to the back of the plane and read them to the Arabic translator.

"You've had a tough job," Obama said as they landed in the Egyptian capital.

A motorcade sped them through the streets. Then, surreally, the frenetic pace was interrupted as the president paused to tour the Sultan Hassan Mosque, one of the world's oldest.
"Rhodes" is Ben Rhodes, the lead speechwriter for the Cairo apology.

At one point,
Obama told Rhodes:
"I know you've been under a lot of pressure to get this right," he said. "But this speech is way too cautious. We have to say everything and say everything candidly. I'm not going all the way to Cairo to do anything else."
Yes, Obama didn't want to waste a chance to lay America prostrate once more before our enemies, and to sell out Israel while he was at it. As Anne Bayefsky put it:
President Obama’s meticulously planned and executed Egyptian speech marks the lowest point in the U.S. presidency’s understanding and appreciation of the Jewish state, its history, and its people’s future. Added to his administration’s evident infirmity on Iran, the speech of June 4, 2009, by the supposed leader of the free world will be remembered as a major decline in human history.
It's heart-sinking stuff. And all the more reason to get this man out of power ASAP.

As
Pamela Geller noted at the time of the speech:
Little did America know that Obama's objective would be a conversion of this nation to 'the largest Muslim country in the world'. From the moment he spoke as President, in the inaugural address, Islam was falsely given a preeminent place in the creation of America. In this speech, he quoted from the Koran three times. Why doesn't anybody comment on this? Why doesn't anyone ever comment on what he projected vs. what he is? Why won't all those talking heads state the obvious?
We're seeing more evidence of that this afternoon.

Michelle Malkin on Bill Maher: 'When They Can’t Attack the Message...'

From Michelle Malkin, on Bill Maher's attack on her book, Culture of Corruption:
... they attack the messenger.

This is
all they’ve got (vid at link if you can stomach it) ...

That’s it. Not a single refutation of a single fact in the book. Bill Maher can’t bring himself to open it and read what’s in between the covers. Why? Because he and all of his enablers in Hollywood, D.C., and Manhattan are in a state of denial about Obama’s Culture of Corruption. They don’t want to hear it, see it, or smell it. Unlike many brave whistleblowers who worked in the Obama trenches and who have seen the light, the liberal elites don’t want to know the truth.
Read the whole thing, here (via Memeorandum).

Remains of Missing U.S. Pilot Michael Speicher Found After 18 Years

From Fox News, "Remains of U.S. Pilot Missing 18 Years in Iraq Found"
Remains of the first American lost in the 1991 Persian Gulf War have been found in the Anbar province of Iraq after a nearly 20-year search, the U.S. Navy said Sunday.

The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology has positively identified the remains of Captain Michael "Scott" Speicher, whose disappearance has bedeviled investigators since his jet was shot down over the Iraq desert on the first night of the 1991 war.

The Navy said the discovery illustrates the military's commitment to bring its troops home.

"This is a testament to how the Navy never stops looking for one of its own. No matter how long it takes," Commander Cappy Surette, a spokesman for the U.S. Navy, told FOX News.

Admiral Gary Roughead, Chief of Naval Operations, added, "we owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to Captain Speicher and his family for the sacrifice they have made for our nation and the example of strength they have set for all of us."

The Pentagon initially declared Speicher killed, but uncertainty — and the lack of remains — led officials over the years to change his official status a number of times to "missing in action" and later "missing-captured."

Family spokeswoman Cindy Laquidara said relatives learned on Saturday that Speicher's remains had been found.

"The family's proud of the way the Defense Department continued on with our request" to not abandon the search for the downed pilot, she said. "We will be bringing him home."
Dan Riehl has a very thoughtful post on this, "Let's Forget Sarah Palin":
I suspect we'll be defending her against unhinged attacks from the Left for some time. But have you noticed how often she invokes the military and has already shown serious devotion to supporting them? ....

And today is Sunday, after all. So, while we'll be back involved in what amounts to almost silly fights in comparison,
take a moment to pause and remember someone who has been all but forgotten for far too long.
Also, William Jacobson shares his sentiment, "Welcome Home Capt. Scott Speicher:
Much like the disappearance of Etan Patz, the Speicher case has been weighing on my mind. While every missing person and serviceman is important, some cases take on a special meaning in our consciousness. I'm glad that Capt. Speicher's family has the certainty of knowing what happened, and of burying him in the U.S.A.
Also, the Defense Department's statement is here, via Memeorandum.

Behold the Awesome Power of 'Sources'

Robert Stacy McCain adds his unique perspective on the rumors of Sarah Palin's divorce:

Many Republicans have been heard to complain recently, “Hey, what’s wrong with you conservative bloggers? How come you can’t just make stuff up the way those left-wingers do? You need to get with this 21st-century Web 2.0 thing, OK?”

Yesterday, we discovered the problem: Conservative bloggers don’t have “sources” the way progressives do. Take for instance, the highly influential blog called Immoral Minority, which has been rockin’ the Site Meter lately. Their secret? Sources:

Earlier this week one of my best sources claimed to have explosive new information for me . . .

According to my source Sarah is finished with Todd and has decided to end their marriage . . .

As for the babygate story . . . my sources are still working on it, and the information is becoming more accessible . . .

It’s all about ”sources,” you see. Which is a big problem for conservative bloggers, because for some reason we can’t get any sources with intimate details of the marriages of prominent Democrats. Whereas the lefty bloggers make it look easy to find sources who know everything about Todd and Sarah Palin. Just check out CNN stringer/blogger Dennis Zaki:

AlaskaReport has learned today that Todd Palin and former Alaska governor Sarah Palin are to divorce. Multiple sources in Wasilla and Anchorage (including a former Palin staffer) have confirmed the split.

Wow. So Friday night, the Immoral Majority gets this big scoop from one of their “best sources,” posts it at 6 a.m. Saturday morning, and within hours, Zaki’s story with “multiple sources” is the top item at Memeorandum!

Behold the awesome power of “sources,” ye conservatives, and tremble in fear!

But wait, what’s this? Palin spokeswoman Meg Stapleton issues a statement:

There is no truth to the recent “story” . . . that the Palins are divorcing. The Palins remain married, committed to each other and their family . . .

Ah, but Stapleton is not “sources,” is she? Nor is this person quoted by some conservative bloggers:

Divorce Todd? Have you seen Todd? I may be just a renegade hockey mom, but I’m not blind!”
SARAH PALIN, 5:35 p.m. ET

Sorry, Mrs. Palin, this simply won’t do the job in the New Media environment. Anything said by someone with an actual name can never trump “sources,” as the amazing Immoral Minority demonstrated with a subsequent update:

More at the link.

And check Rick Moran, "
Did Sarah Palin Just Pwn the Media With Divorce Rumors?":
As someone who doesn’t consider himself a journalist but who has been around newsrooms for many years, let me just say that if this had come across my desk, I would have smelled a set up. It’s too pat, the pieces fit too nicely together (an “explanation” for why she resigned) not to raise alarms with real journalists. So I think there is at least the possibility, that either someone in the Palin camp with an ax to grind with the media - or, less likely, Palin herself - whispered a few words to a birdie they were sure would get the word to people who would publish it.

The definition of “pwn” is “1. An act of dominating an opponent, and 2. Great, ingenious; applied to methods and objects.” If this was a set up by the Palin camp, it worked magnificently. Now, most of the lefty blogosphere has egg on their face.

Several Alaska bloggers hounded the former Alaskan governor with bogus ethics complaints while she was in office - Alaska Report being one of them. Could a little payback be at play here?

Stranger things have happened.
See also, The Politico, "Sarah Palin Beats Press to Blog Claim," and all the fuss at Memeorandum.

Saturday, August 1, 2009

Palin Knows the 'Magnitude of her Political Capital'

From the Wichita Falls Times Record, capturing my thoughts pretty well (except it's not "four years" until the crucial testing ground):

Sarah Palin will not go away.

And for many, that’s a good thing.

Even though the former vice presidential candidate has resigned as governor of Alaska, none of us fully believes she’s walking away from politics.

That would be a stupid move altogether.

Palin might not have been able to tell a probing journalist all the countries in NATO, but she does know the magnitude of her political capital.

At the time of the Republican National Convention last fall, when she undoubtedly shined in the spotlight, Palin boasted a tremendous favorability rating — six in 10 Americans, regardless of party, had a favorable opinion of her.

She has slipped recently, specifically since her surprise resignation as governor with more than a year left in her first term. Most notably, according to The Washington Post, her support within the GOP “has deteriorated from its pre-election levels, including a sharp drop in the number holding ‘strongly favorable’ impressions of her.”

And yet, she still ranks right up there with other potential presidential candidates in 2012. That’s a long way off, especially since one doesn’t have a built-in, democratically elected soapbox from which to project.

Four years from now, Palin could be a leading candidate for the Republican nomination.

The key for Palin is Iowa and New Hampshire in January 2012 (about two and a half years from now). She's on track for fundraising - and I've alreadly laid out the kind of wonkish travel agenda she should pursue - but if she can't win either of those momentum-building states, she'll be done (see, "Can Palin Win the 2012 GOP Nomination?").

The Times Record piece was written before the big news broke today on the Palins' alleged "divorce." The editorial sure holds up well in light of all this controversy. Sarah Palin was really savvy in preempting the mainstream press in not just scuttling the rumors, but in keeping her celebrity kindling in the media glare.

See the Christian Science Monitor, "
Sarah Palin STILL not getting a divorce (in case you don’t believe it)."

Related: Saber Point, "
Must Read: The Destruction of Sarah Palin."

About That Flame War...

... Radley Balko's, that is ... the one he's having with Patterico.

Radley's snippet is here (the creepiness reminds me of Repac3):
I blocked Patterico from reading my Twitter feed because he has a strange obsession with me. My Twitter feed is where, in addition to linking to my other work or the occasional news story, I write about my dogs, or complain about the WiFi at whatever airport I’m at, or write about a delicious dinner I just ate at some restaurant. When he tried to subscribe to it, I didn’t see a reason why a guy who clearly hates me would or should have any interest in what I’m eating for dinner. Nor did I really feel like reading a blog post in which he meticulously explains why what I ate couldn’t possibly have been as delicious as I described it on Twitter, calls me a liar, and demands a retraction. I’m exaggerating, but only a little. In the past, Patterico has referenced a blog post I once put up about an event in my personal life to try to delve into my psychology to explain why I have the opinions I do.

So I really didn’t feel like having the guy use old Twitter posts in some future attack on me. I figured if Patterico wants to see what I’m writing about politics or news events, or what I’m reporting, he can read my blog. So I blocked him. This was many months ago. That he has saved up my blocking of him all this time to now throw up with a giant graphic and expose! at the top of his latest blog post is weird. That he found a way to get around the block and is reading my feed anyway is, again, obsessive and creepy.
Skipping a section, then:
You’d think I’d have learned by now that responding to this guy in any way invites hours of wasted time delving into tedious parsing, rehashing months- or years-old debates, and responding to personal attacks. And, apparently now, discussion of my Twitter feed. Lesson (finally) learned. This idiot doesn’t merit a response. If one of his inevitable future attacks on me includes allegations meritorious enough that a blogger or commentator I respect picks up and reposts, I’ll respond. Otherwise, it’s just not worth it. I’m sure Patterico will respond to this post, and will then take my failure to respond to that response as a concession of defeat. And I will let him.
I read about half of Patterico's post. Too much to weigh right now, although he's been around this block before, not successfully, I might add.

Boy, the conservative blogosphere's a nasty place sometimes.

More Democratic Demonization of Israel: 'Someone Explain to Me Why We Need to Make Israel Happy?'

Why today's Democratic-leftists continue to berate American support for Israel is beyond me sometimes.

The centrality of the Jewish state in U.S. foreign policy goes back to 1948 and the founding of that country. Indeed, it was the Democratic Party that worked to establish and guarantee the survival of Israel, as Ron Radosh tells it in his book,
A Safe Haven: Harry S. Truman and the Founding of Israel. As the New York Times book review put it, Harry Truman was a "Zionist in the White House."

But today's Democrats have abandoned the moral clarity of earlier generations. Indeed, a large contingent of the mainstream Democratic Party has sought to excoriated Israel and cast off the Jewish state to extermination. One of the most ugly examples of this is found in the notorious anti-Semitic Daily Kos post, "Eulogy Before the Inevitability of Self-Destruction: The Decline and Death of Israel."

The entry recounts all of the historic anti-Semitic conspiracies against Israel. The essay notes, for example, that Israel embodies "the vessel of boiling blood of horror and perfidy in demonic vileness for its pattern of terrorism and murder in the name of Zionist ideology."

Most right-thinking folks abhor such evil talk. But what we do see is a more subterranean discourse on the left that excoriates Israel by questioning U.S. support for the regime. The end result, much like the uglier side of the debate on The Israel Lobby, is ultimately a crude repudiation of Israel as a hegemonic oppressor whose people are undeserving of American support.

We see this despicable meme yet again in an essay by the slithering Dr. Hussein Biobrain, "Appeasing Israel":


'Would someone care to explain to me why we need to make Israel happy? I don't even buy into the idea that having them in the middle-east is some great strategic advantage for us, and think it's the exact opposite. Israel is one of the biggest problems we have in the middle-east. That's not to say I don't support their existence or anything, merely that I fail to understand their strategic importance to us or why we need to keep appeasing them. As with our embargo of Cuba, I believe our support of Israel is more about domestic politics than foreign policy and anyone who suggests otherwise is selling something.'

Actually, what others are "selling" is moral clarity of world historical importance. Melanie Phillips can "explain it" to Dr. Hussein Biobrain:

... the reason why Israel figures so heavily in any discussion about the predicaments of our era is that Israel is the defining moral issue of our time. It is Israel, and the century-old existential onslaught against the Jewish people in its ancient homeland, which stands at the very centre of the titanic fight by truth against lies, fact against propaganda, freedom against totalitarianism, liberty against slavery, justice against injustice and reason against irrationality in which the entire free world is currently engaged. Israel is the quintessential canary in the mine. It is the front-line in the defence of the free world. If it goes down, the rest of us will go down. Those who are on the wrong side of the Israel issue are on the wrong side in the great struggle for civilisation against barbarism. That is why I return to it again and again.

And that is why I return to it again and again.

And to answer Dr. Hussein Biobrain, yes, it is about domestic politics, for the preservation of Israel remains central to the partisan debates in the domestic politics of U.S. international security.

See also, Ed Lasky, "
The Democratic Party and the Jews."

Sarah Palin to Divorce? Left's Biggest Fantasy-Smear Dead on Arrival - UPDATED!! Atlas Shrugs: Time to 'Ratchet Truth' on Obama Predilections

From the Christian Science Monitor, "Palin Getting a Divorce? Nope":
Word of a pending divorce between former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and former First Dude Todd is gaining a lot of traction in Internet land.

“Palin divorce” is the fourth-most searched topic right now on Google Trends.

There’s only one problem with that. It’s not true. Palin spokeswoman Meg Stapleton is shooting down the story by an Alaskan blogger who claimed to have inside information on a split.

Stapleton posted a response to the charge on Palin’s
Facebook page.

“Yet again, some so-called journalists have decided to make up a story. There is no truth to the recent “story” (and story is the correct term for this type of fiction) that the Palins are divorcing. The Palins remain married, committed to each other and their family, and have not purchased land in Montana (last week it was reported to be Long Island),” Stapleton wrote.

“Less than one week ago, Governor Palin asked the media to ‘quit making things up.’ We appreciate that the more professional journalists decided to question this story before repeating it,” she said.
The article links to Ace of Spades HQ, "Team Palin: Um, No, We're Not Divorcing; Please Stop Makin' Things Up." Ace then links to Conservatives for Palin, "Palin Camp Shoots Down Ridiculous Divorce Rumors Spread by CNN Stringer Dennis Zaki."

For the smears, check
Memeorandum. Here's one, for example, "Todd and Sarah Palin to Divorce: Affairs on Both Sides":

According to C4P:
The release is in response to a ludicrous rumor being spread by Alaskan CNN stringer Dennis Zaki. Zaki, who previously bought into rumors of Trig Truth, picked up these allegations from the same source - the rabidly anti-Palin, Trig Truth-espousing anonymous blogger "Gryphen" of the blog "Immoral Minority". Gryphen is a friend of Zaki's, along with fellow Team Truth members Shannyn Moore, Phil Munger, and "AKMuckraker" of the Mudflats.

The rumor was already being picked up and spread around the echo chamber of the Alaskan Team Truther blogs...not only by Zaki, but by fellow Trig Truther "
Doctor Phil" Munger of Progressive Alaska.Sounds like the Palins are cutting these rumors off at the knees.

Good for them.
More at Memeorandum.

**********

UPDATE! From Pamela Geller, "
CNN Tells, Sells More Lies About Palin, it's Time to Expose the Truth About Obama" (FULL CONTENT WARNING: PRESIDENT OBAMA'S MOTHER ANN DUNHAM SOFT-PORN PICS AT ATLAS SHRUGS!! LINKS BELOW!! - CLICK AT YOUR OWN RISK!! - REPEAT!! CLICK ANN DUNHAM NUDE PICS AT YOUR OWN RISK!!):


The Palin camp has issued a statement decrying rumors of a Palin divorce being spread by Alaskan CNN stringer Dennis Zaki, sourced to an anonymous Anchorage blogger and the National Enquirer.

Let's understand this, CNN won't touch the birth certificate issue, the Rezko/Auchi corruption, his anti-semitism, ACORN/SEIU ties and corruption and legitimate stories that need investigation. But they write fiction about Palin. Daily. So why not tell the truth about Obama and his reported strange sexual predilections? My question is, it is well know[n] that Obama allegedly was involved with a crack whore in his youth. Very seedy stuff. Why aren't they pursuing that story? Find the ho, give her a show! Obama trafficked in some very deviant practices, where's the investigation?

Why isn't CNN pursuing the nude pornographic of Obama's mom, Stanley, (untouched pictures
here and here and here) - I never ran the pics as it was unseemly and wasn't relevant. But this assault on Palin is too disgusting. It's time to tell the ugly truth about the enemy in the White House and their whores in the media. It's Obama operatives spreading the Palin lies. They know we won't play dirty, so it's time to play dirty.

I strongly recommend that conservatives start sending emailing these family pictures taken by Obama's spiritual father, Frank Marshall -
child rapist and famous communist. I say when they ratchet up the lies, then we ratchet up the truth.
Now that's what I'm taking about!

See, "Democratic Stimulus Funds Go to Perv-Porno Promotions: 'Four Men, Three Women and a Gorilla'."

Added: Robert Stacy McCain:

QUOTE FROM SARAH PALIN

"Divorce Todd? Have you seen Todd? I may be just a renegade hockey mom, but I'm not blind!"

-- SARAH PALIN

Yes, that is her OFFICIAL response, which I got via phone at 5:35 this afternoon. Take that to the bank [original typos corrected].

**********

UPDATE II: Actually, I didn't know the Ann Dunham nude shots were published in October. See, Astute Bloggers, "Naughty Obama Mamma."

I guess I
wasn't the only one.

The Truth About Obama’s Pressure on Israel

There's some considerable debate flying under the wire regarding some recent editorial comments on the Middle East peace process. See for example, the Los Angeles Times, "Obama's Evenhanded Mideast Policy," and the New York Times, "The Settlements Issue."

Well, check out Jonathan Tobin's response on this, "
Editorials Skewer the Truth About Obama’s Pressure on Israel":
Yesterday the Washington Post stated the obvious when it noted that under President Obama, America’s relations with the state of Israel had deteriorated. In contrast to the administration’s desperate efforts to curry favor with Venezuela, Russia, and Iran, the focus of American foreign policy in the past seven months has been to heighten tensions with the Middle East’s sole democracy.

A day later, as if on cue, the
Los Angeles Times and the New York Times responded with their own editorials in support of Obama’s blundering.

The L.A. Times’s stance, titled “Obama’s evenhanded Mideast policy,” is a straightforward defense of an abrupt change toward Israel while disingenuously claiming that Obama’s friendship with it ought not to be questioned. The editorial endorses the downgrading of the U.S.-Israel alliance from one of close cooperation and support to a more equivocal relationship, in which Israel would be subjected to pressure to conform to specific ideas about achieving peace. Considering “evenhanded” a good approach means ignoring the isolation that would ensue if the United States abandons Israel: the Jewish state would be effectively left without an ally in the region and surrounded by a hostile Islamic culture that still rejects its legitimacy even in those few states that have officially come to terms with it.

But the claim of evenhandedness is itself a falsehood since it is very clear that Obama’s public pressure on Israel far outweighs Washington’s gentle urgings that the Palestinians should cease their support for the infrastructure of terror and to halt the official incitement of hatred toward Jews and Israel that is the hallmark of Palestinian political culture. Nor has the administration’s call for Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations to tone down their hostility toward Israel been either energetic or successful.

The L.A. Times goes as far as to say that Obama is right to scrap George W. Bush’s commitments to Israel, which recognized that a complete withdrawal to the 1949 armistice lines would be unrealistic in any peace agreement. Israel paid for this promise in hard currency through a complete withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 and was rewarded for this concession with the creation of a sovereign terrorist Hamasistan that remains free to bombard southern Israel with rockets. If Obama repudiates this promise, why should Israelis trust him when he makes his own guarantees about their country’s safety once a Palestinian state is put in place?

But even more to the point, the notion that as a prerequisite for peace, the U.S.’s demand for an absolute freeze to all building over the green line in both the West Bank and Jerusalem is as absurd as it is unfair. Israel has proved time and again that it will uproot settlements in exchange for peace or even for the false hope of quiet, as was the case with Gaza. The demand for a freeze does not advance negotiations; it is a substitute for talks, since squeezing Israel in this manner predetermines the outcome in favor of the Palestinians. That is not a negotiation but rather a dictate.
There's more at the link.

See also,
The Astute Bloggers, Israpundit, Power Line, and Yid With Lid.

Hat Tip:
Memeorandum.

Glenn Greenwald Confirms 'Win' for O'Reilly Factor

Here's an update to last night's report, "Peace Plan Brokered in Olbermann, O'Reilly Cable Flame War!"

According to the The Agonist, "
Fox Wins"!

Well, Glenn Greenwald thinks so too, "
GE's Silencing of Olbermann and MSNBC's Sleazy Use of Richard Wolffe" (via Memeorandum). But what he really hates is how the "corporate media" are controlling news content:
The New York Times this morning has a remarkable story, and incredibly, the article's author, Brian Stelter, doesn't even acknowledge, let alone examine, what makes the story so significant. In essence, the chairman of General Electric (which owns MSNBC), Jeffrey Immelt, and the chairman of News Corporation (which owns Fox News), Rupert Murdoch, were brought into a room at a "summit meeting" for CEOs in May, where Charlie Rose tried to engineer an end to the "feud" between MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and Fox's Bill O'Reilly. According to the NYT, both CEOs agreed that the dispute was bad for the interests of the corporate parents, and thus agreed to order their news employees to cease attacking each other's news organizations and employees.

Most notably, the deal wasn't engineered because of a perception that it was hurting either Olbermann or O'Reilly's show, or even that it was hurting MSNBC. To the contrary, as Olbermann himself has acknowledged, his battles with O'Reilly have substantially boosted his ratings. The agreement of the corporate CEOs to cease criticizing each other was motivated by the belief that such criticism was hurting the unrelated corporate interests of GE and News Corp ...

This is hardly the first time evidence of corporate control over the content of NBC and MSNBC has surfaced ....

And now we have an example of GE's forcibly silencing the top-rated commentator on MSNBC - ordering him not to hold Fox News accountable any longer - because, in return, News Corp. has agreed to silence its own commentators from criticizing GE. The corporations that own our largest news organizations have extensive relationships with the federal government. Anyone (like Charlie Rose) who denies that those relationships influence how these news organizations "report" on the government - driven by the desire which corporate executives have to avoid alienating the government officials on whom their corporate interests depend, or avoid alienating potential customer bases for their products -- is completely delusional. GE's forcing Keith Olbermann to cease his criticism of Fox News and Bill O'Reilly is a clear and vivid example of how that works.
Giving Greenwald credit, he's been a vociferous critic of the Obama administration's anti-terrorism policies (see, "The Obama Justice System"). But it's hard not to think that his indictment of "corporate media control" might be a bit less strident had the focus of this story been on Rupert Murdoch capitulating to pressure from Keith Olbermann.

More at
Memeorandum. And note how Joe Gandelman summarizes things, "in the end it seems as if Fox News O’Reilly 'won' in his ongoing feud with MSBNC’s Keith Olbermann."

At UC Santa Barbara, 'Sociology of Human Sexuality'

Breaking!

This is serious news, plus it's another chance to blog about my party-school Ph.D. alma mater!

From the Los Angeles Times, "
At UC Santa Barbara, Sex as a Matter of Course: Sociology Professors John and Janice Baldwin, Married for 41 years, Are Trusted Voices on Love and Lovemaking for Thousands of Students at the Beach-Side Campus":
How well should people know each other before they have sex?

In the biggest classroom at UC Santa Barbara, sociology professors John and Janice Baldwin are reeling off survey results showing that male and female students are almost equally willing to sleep with someone they love. But the hall erupts in knowing laughter as a gender gap emerges: Men, the long-married couple reports, remain eager for sex through descending categories of friendship and casual acquaintance. Women don't.

By the time Janice Baldwin gets to the statistic on sex between strangers, the din from the 600 students is so loud, they can hardly hear her announce that 37% of men would have sex with a person they had just met, compared with only 7% of women.

"So you can see, males are a little more likely to go to bed with somebody they don't know very well," Baldwin says dryly.

"Or at all," she adds, to guffaws.

By turns humorous and deadly serious, "Sociology of Human Sexuality" has been an institution at the beach-side campus for more than two decades. So have the Baldwins, unflappable sixtysomethings who are trusted voices on love and lovemaking for thousands of current and former UC Santa Barbara students.

Today's undergraduates have easy access to X-rated Internet sites, and many have watched television gurus dissect troubled marriages. But there are often gaps in their knowledge of biology and sexual behavior, the result of squeamish parents and less-than-candid high school health teachers.

The Baldwins step in with data about orgasm, birth control and infertility -- and, implicitly, with their own example of a 41-year marriage that seems to work well.

"We don't feel we are the sex king and queen of the world," Janice Baldwin, 63, said recently in the cramped office the couple share, their desks touching. "So this is not about us. It's about the students, and we are privileged to get to teach a class that can help them avoid the downsides of sex and increase the positives."

John Baldwin, 68, said he and his wife do not aim to be role models. "We are not trying to teach them to be like us," he said. "But we are going to be talking about relationships, and a lot of them want relationships. Even though there is a lot of casual sex, they want to find somebody special . . . So we are little hope signals."

Students say the class is fun, eye-opening and altogether useful. Clearly, many of them pay attention: Lectures on sexually transmitted infections can trigger a stampede to the campus health center.
This is a serious class, of course. And popular too - 600 students! Geez!

And recall previously, "UCSB Makes Top-Ten in Latest Party-School List."

It's hard out there for UCSB alum!

Hey, maybe Smitty can get new series started with some of this stuff! Could be educational!

'Turning the Tide of Battle': The Surge: A Military History

Between breaking scoops, I'm actually reading a number of books; next up is Michelle Malkin's Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies."

Well, add another to my list, thanks to my good friend Courtney at Great Satan's Girlfriend: Kimberly Kagan's, The Surge: A Military History.

Courtney, herself a young neocon-hottie, is getting some traction as an up-and-coming blogger-analyst. She's linked at Small Wars Journal, and the folks over there liked her eye-grabbing visuals: "... the post caught my eye more for the visual, rather than the written word - so sue me."

I wonder if that dude reads Robert Stacy McCain!

Plus, the Wall Street Journal had a piece on Kagan a few weeks back as well, "
Turning the Tide of Battle: Why, After So Much Carnage and Pessimism, A New Strategy Worked in Iraq."

It must be something about those tenacious neocons!

More hot neoconservative commentary at
GrEaT sAtAn'S gIrLfRiEnD.