Extradition contradiction

So let me get this straight.  We will pre-refuse to extradite CIA agents who did what was asked of them…

The United States will refuse any Italian extradition request for CIA agents indicted in the alleged abduction of an Egyptian cleric in Milan, a senior U.S. official said Wednesday.

‘We’ve not got an extradition request from Italy. If we got an extradition request from Italy, we would not extradite U.S. officials to Italy,’ John Bellinger, legal adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, told journalists after meeting legal advisers to EU governments.

...but we can’t seem to say no to extraditing Duane Dog Chapman no matter what good he did for the world.  Right…

Posted by JimK at 02:41 AM on March 01, 2007
Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email to a friend

Categories: News,  International Events,  The Federal Government
Tags: CIA Dog Chapman

Joe gets it right again

I’m certainly not gonna say anything better than Joe Lieberman did.

What is remarkable about this state of affairs in Washington is just how removed it is from what is actually happening in Iraq. There, the battle of Baghdad is now under way. A new commander, Gen. David Petraeus, has taken command, having been confirmed by the Senate, 81-0, just a few weeks ago. And a new strategy is being put into action, with thousands of additional American soldiers streaming into the Iraqi capital.

Congress thus faces a choice in the weeks and months ahead. Will we allow our actions to be driven by the changing conditions on the ground in Iraq--or by the unchanging political and ideological positions long ago staked out in Washington? What ultimately matters more to us: the real fight over there, or the political fight over here?

The new strategy at last begins to tackle these problems. Where previously there weren’t enough soldiers to hold key neighborhoods after they had been cleared of extremists and militias, now more U.S. and Iraqi forces are either in place or on the way. Where previously American forces were based on the outskirts of Baghdad, unable to help secure the city, now they are living and working side-by-side with their Iraqi counterparts on small bases being set up throughout the capital.

We of course will not know whether this new strategy in Iraq will succeed for some time. Even under the most optimistic of scenarios, there will be more attacks and casualties in the months ahead, especially as our fanatical enemies react and attempt to thwart any perception of progress.

But the fact is that we are in a different place in Iraq today from even just a month ago--with a new strategy, a new commander, and more troops on the ground. We are now in a stronger position to ensure basic security--and with that, we are in a stronger position to marginalize the extremists and strengthen the moderates; a stronger position to foster the economic activity that will drain the insurgency and militias of public support; and a stronger position to press the Iraqi government to make the tough decisions that everyone acknowledges are necessary for progress.

Unfortunately, for many congressional opponents of the war, none of this seems to matter. As the battle of Baghdad just gets underway, they have already made up their minds about America’s cause in Iraq, declaring their intention to put an end to the mission before we have had the time to see whether our new plan will work.

There is a lot more.  Read it all.  I (and the WSJ Opinion Journal!) report - you decide.  One thing I know for certain...as of this day, i am proud and glad that I voted for Joe.

Posted by JimK at 06:42 PM on February 26, 2007
Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email to a friend

Categories: News,  Politics,  The Federal Government,  War,  U.S. Military
Tags: military war iraq media congress Joe Lieberman

Another side of Iraq, presented without commentary

Medical operation helps soldiers build trust

The opportunity to help the residents in the area is a way the Soldiers from COP Callahan are trying to build a relationship with the Iraqis so they can help provide better security to the area.

“It shows them another side of us,” Gregory said. “It shows them we are not here to shoot up their town. We’re here to help, and we hope that leads to information; information we can use to help clean up the streets for them, so they can have a better life.”

...Providing medical assistance for those who need, Gregory said, is what makes the deployment worthwhile.

“It felt great to help these people, it gives us a sense of purpose,” said Gregory. “We can go out there five times a day, but to actually help someone makes it feel worth leaving your family for.”

More

The Real News Behind “The Surge”

Perhaps the most encouraging aspect of the new security plan is the increased aggressiveness of the Iraqi Army as it conducts counterinsurgent operations. The Iraqi military defeat of the cultist “Soldiers of Heaven” planned attack on Najaf in late January provides a dramatic example. With coalition backup, Iraqi forces launched a spoiling attack and killed or captured several hundred militants.

Maliki’s national reconciliation program remains the key Iraqi political endeavor. That program began well before “the new security plan,” but no security plan will succeed unless reconciliation occurs.

The Office of National Reconciliation conducts “engagements” with the entire spectrum of ethnic, religious and political groups. Last week, in a phone interview with journalists and commentators, coalition spokesman U.S. Maj. Gen. William Caldwell discussed how his Strategic Effects Office works with the Iraqi government on this issue.

“In the last three months on any given day of week we’re doing (numerous reconciliation) engagements,” Caldwell said. His office has helped coordinate the meetings. Caldwell said that the reconciliation office had also been “talking to insurgent groups.”

That makes sense. Maliki’s “new security plan” includes a reformed “de-Baathification” program designed to permit former members of the Baath Party, on an individual basis, to integrate into the new, democratic Iraq.

An Open Letter Home by CSM James Pippin

We win every time whenever they stay and fight. But mostly, they hit us, then run away and blend into the crowd. We’re winning a day at a time. And we are taking the fight to them.

...

We need our nation’s support and prayers, not criticism, second guessing, and Monday morning quarterbacking.

Five Sadr militia members arrested in Baghdad

The statement said a special Iraqi forces, supported by Multi-National Force (MNF) consultants, raided Al-Karada area and arrested on Wednesday two people from the Mahdi militia.

The force also raided an undisclosed location and arrested three other militants specialized in working with explosives, the statement added.

According to the statement the arrested were in responsible for sectarian violence, kidnapping, torture, and civilian killings in Baghdad.

Eastern and southern Baghdad has witnessed a drop in violence since the start of new Iraqi security plan on February 14.

Soldiers On The Ground Hopeful For The Future Of Iraq

There are hundreds of missions going on EVERYDAY that you all back home do not hear about. It does not meet the media agenda I guess. We have teams here that specialize in rebuilding Iraq, and they carry out tons of projects to better this place. They are repairing sewer systems, building wells, building schools, even repairing the roads in this country. The truth is that there are hundreds of them going on everyday in this country without the media attention reserved for the “blood and guts” coverage. We have even started women’s schools for the advancement of the women in this country, which is a far cry from the treatment of women throughout the Middle East.

...

To win, it takes commitment, and if you are TRULY “for the troops” then you cannot be against the war. If you are “for the troops” then what people need to say is “get the job done, then come home” rather than trash the efforts we are sweating and bleeding for over here. See the positives in bringing freedom to a decimated people and creating a democracy in the middle east. We know this is serious business, but making it into a quagmire isn’t going to help- it will only make this thing drag on.

JUDGING BRITAIN’S PULLOUT PLAN

Sadr has withdrawn to Iran, apparently to wait until the British, and maybe even the Americans, leave Iraq. He’d then be able to return to Iraq at the head of a new “volunteer army” that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard is raising for him in Iran. That, in turn, could plunge the “deep south,” now relatively calm, into a bloody guerrilla war.

Years To Go

So, yes, we’ve built a few schools and done some work on the electrical grid.  That’s excellent news and should be commended.  But all the new schools in the world aren’t going to win hearts and minds if parents are worried about their children being blown up on the way there.  There can be no peace without security.  Let’s give it a few more months, see if Petraeus can pull off a Hail Mary.  If he can that would be wonderful.  But if it doesn’t work, we need to be prepared to deal with that forthrightly without looking for convenient scapegoats.

Less

Posted by JimK at 07:26 PM on February 23, 2007
Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email to a friend

Categories: News,  Politics,  The Federal Government,  War,  U.S. Military
Tags: military war iraq politics

Success and failure in Iraq

I’ve always had a weird ride as a reader of Daily Pundit.  I often find myself agreeing with Bill Quick - in fact almost all the time - but the few times I’ve opened my mouth in disagreement, we end up calling each other names and acting like kids.  It’s weird and frustrating because I almost always like what he writes, like 99.95% of the time.  But then I get all jerkstore at times I guess and he is not one to take kindly to things you can buy at the jerkstore.  :) Anyway, I read him (and his co-authors) every day, and once again, I find myself in lock-step with something he wrote.  Bill quotes Instapundit saying the following in regards to this New York Times article:

This sounds promising. Unfortunately, too many members of the U.S. political classes have now put themselves in a situation where success is politically more dangerous than failure.

Bill’s response, chopped.  Obviously you should hit the link for the whole thing…

You know, I’d take this sort of thing considerably more seriously if those burbling on about both “success” and “failure” in Baghdad and/or Iraq would define precisely what they mean by the words.

...

Sure, I’ll go first.  Success in Iraq means an Iraq able to exercise self-determinism without fear of terrorist or other types of violence sponsored either by Iran or Saudi Arabia, and possessing a government that poses no terrorist threat to anybody else.

...

Failure is anything appreciably less than the definitions of success.  Defeat is cutting and running without ever really trying to achieve success in the first place.

I agree with this definition, but would add one thing; We need a permanent (yes, I said permanent) military presence in the Middle East, in a friendly country that isn’t Israel.  We need another Rammstein or Okinawa, only a little more hot and dry ifyougetmydrift.  I think success in Iraq depends not only on a stable government that is out of the terror business, but is also dependent on that stable government being not only friendly toward us, but acting in partnership with us.  I think Iran is all too well aware of what a stong-ish Iraq backed by a permanent US military base or two would mean.  I think that is why Iran is running this puppet insurgency.  Syria wouldn’t be too happy with that kind of success either.

Anyway, I don’t expect too many to agree with me, and I certainly don’t expect a single politician to say the words “permanent military base” out loud until it’s already built and staffed and has had its first bake sale courtesy of the Fort Green Zone Military Wives Auxiliary or whatever it will be called.

This is my definition of success; A stable-enough-to-run-itself Iraq, no funding or training or support of terrorism, and a military base that is nicely situated between Rammstein and Kadena (or maybe Pine Gap in Australia when they eventually relocate the Okinawa facilities).  If we can walk away with those goals achieved, no one, not even John Murtha or John Kerry could say that we lost.

Posted by JimK at 03:17 AM on February 18, 2007
Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email to a friend

Categories: News,  Politics,  The Federal Government,  The Middle East,  War,  U.S. Military
Tags: military war iraq

Another reason to be mad at Bush - Hillary Clinton

Have I lost my mind?  Mad at Bush because of Hillary?  Am I crazy? Nope. 

Mrs. Clinton’s belief in executive power and authority is another factor weighing against an apology, advisers said. As a candidate, Mrs. Clinton likes to think and formulate ideas as if she were president — her “responsibility gene,” she has called it. In that vein, she believes that a president usually deserves the benefit of the doubt from Congress on matters of executive authority.

...

Her approach to leadership and national security was forged during her eight years in the White House: She believes in executive authority and Congressional deference, her advisers said, and is careful about suggesting that Congress can overrule a commander in chief.

Bush has made more of an effort to consolidate executive power than any other President in our history, save maybe for Lincoln and even that is debatable.  He has taken powers that do not belong to him, usurped the checks and balances of Congress at his whim and used signing statements so egregiously as to be damn near criminal.

I do not believe that he has used all the power he has gathered.  In fact, a lot of what he is accused of is nonsense.  The thing of it is, you don’t have to abuse your authority to be in the wrong to take it in the first place.  The office of President is a permanent one - the occupant of that office is transient.

I do not want Hillary Clinton - or anyone else for that matter - having the power that George Bush has taken for the office.  That has always been the point if trying to combat executive power grabs...it’s not necessarily what this executive might do, it’s what the next one might do.  It’s a slippery slope...once we’re all used to _X_ amount of power in the Executive Branch, it’s easy to take a little more, and the next President takes a little more, and the one after that a little more, until one day our children’s children wake up to find their only recourse is to rise up under force of arms, or beg Britain - or by then, China - to invade the United States and overthrow the tyrant king.

Hat tip: Dan Riehl

Posted by JimK at 07:25 PM on February 17, 2007
Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email to a friend

Categories: News,  Politics,  The Federal Government
Tags: executive authority Bush Hillary Clinton

Un-motherfracking-believable - Duane Chapman (Dog the Bounty Hunter) can be extradited to Mexico

Our government SUCKS.

A federal court has cleared the way for TV bounty hunter Duane “Dog” Chapman to be extradited to face charges in Mexico, but the decision can still be appealed.

Norma Jara, a spokeswoman for the second district court in Guadalajara, said Thursday the court rejected Chapman’s injunction request, ruling there was no reason not to try him on charges he illegally arrested Max Factor makeup heir and convicted rapist Andrew Luster in 2003.

“We only just heard about the Mexican court’s decision to continue with the extradition proceedings, and are still in shock,” Chapman and his wife, Beth, said in a statement issued Thursday night in Honolulu.

“Our attorneys have not even been formally informed of the court’s decision, as of yet. We are obviously deeply disappointed and fearful of what will happen, and are currently absorbing the news and discussing our options at this time.”

Once Chapman has been formally notified of the decision, he has five days to file an appeal that could block his extradition.

Mexican authorities have already asked for Chapman’s extradition from Hawaii.

Chapman’s lawyers argue he would not be guaranteed a fair trial in Mexico.

When are we going to get tired of being treated like this?  Why the hell are we sending this guy back to Mexico when the Mexican government doesn’t give a shit about the millions of illegals that come over here and commit REAL crimes every day?  Dog took a rapist off the street.  Where is the State Department trying to protect an American citizen from an overzealous asshole Mexican prosecutor and a police force that is just pissed that Dog outsmarted them and probably cut off the bribes Luster was paying?

I swear to God we need an armed revolution in this pitiful fucking country.

You know the drill.  Find your Congressjerk and email and fax them.  Call the local and Washington office.  It won’t take but a minute of your time and could make a big difference.

Posted by JimK at 06:57 PM on February 16, 2007
Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email to a friend

Categories: News,  International Events,  The Federal Government,  The Stupidity Of Man
Tags:  Andrew luster

The drug war

I would normally spend some time articulating my belief in legalization of soft drugs whenever the subject of the War On Drugs comes up.  If nothing else, legalizing marijuana would be a great moral and social victory for Americans.  Here’s where I feel completely comfortable in turning this one over to Lee, because he clearly and articulately illustrates why the War On Drugs is a waste of time and why those who support it are hypocrites.  Lee takes on John Hawkins and simply obliterates John’s stance (Hawkins favors the War On Drugs).

One thing I noticed in reading the piece: John’s arguments are, in flavor and tone, much like the arguments in favor of gun control - which have been proven, again and again in state after state, to utterly fail in the face of legalizing gun possession to the average citizen.  I’ll bet John doesn’t even see the similarities.

I should say that I like and respect John Hawkins and do not mean to insult him as a person.  I simply disagree completely with his positions, as does Lee.

Posted by JimK at 07:49 PM on January 28, 2007
Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email to a friend

Categories: News,  Crime and Criminals,  The Federal Government,  Guns - 2nd Amendment
Tags: War On Drugs Right Wing News gun control

Hey FBI - How’s about doing some work domestically on that War On Terror I hear so much about?

Can someone explain to me how the FBI has time to raid mainstream porn companies like Wicked (and some of the “gonzo” companies like Diabolic) trying to catch them in 2257 violations?  Is there or is there not a threat of foreign and/or domestic terrorism in this country?  Has everyone applying for visas already had a background check?  Are all the students here on visas accounted for already?  Any violent federal crimes that haven’t been solved?  Anything at all we could be doing with five federally trained and funded FBI agents other than having them sit at the offices of various porn companies and stare at titties and birth certificates all day?  No?  Oh, well, sorry I asked.  What the fuck was I thinking, being concerned about how our tax money was being wasted at the same time I’m being reminded that terrorists want to blow my face off.

Some days I wonder just how in the hell we got here.  How we got to a place where the leader of my country looks me in the eye and tells me that the terrorists hate us for our freedoms, then he either personally, or through his backwater fundamentalist asshole administration, proceeds to eliminate as many of those freedoms as he possibly can.  What difference does it make if the terrorists keep threatening us to remake us in their image?  We’re doing it for them.

LEAVE.  THE.  TITTIES.  ALONE.  Go hunt terrorist, you useless fucking pieces of government shit.  FBI is Justice, right?  That means I can say “Fuck Alberto Gonzalez” on this one.  Because seriously, fuck Alberto Gonzalez.  With one of those Pyrex glass dildos.  On camera.  And burn his 2257 paperwork just for spite.

Asshole.

Source (NSFW)

Posted by JimK at 03:06 PM on January 26, 2007
Permalink | Trackbacks (1) | Email to a friend

Categories: Entertainment,  News,  Politics,  Crime and Criminals,  The Federal Government
Tags: FBI 2257 Wicked Pictures Alberto Gonzalez.

State of the State Of The Union

I realize that tonight’s State Of The Union address is mandated by the Constitution, and by no means do I mean to imply that we should eliminate it, but…

Does anyone really think this matters at all?  Is Bush really going to tell us the State Of Things, or is he going to bluster and promise and vaguely speak of sacrifice and freedom and spreading democracy and the American People and perhaps even wave his hand and nod knowingly?  Will he pay lip service to the soldiers that are securing his place in history - good or bad - while intentionally leaving behind those who survive the hell of war, only to come home to find that there is not enough money to care for their wounds, both physical and mental?  Will a single new idea that has a snowball’s chance in hell of A. succeeding or B. getting implemented in the first place be announced?  And for the “other side” (some Union, huh?) will they listen to anything he has to say on any subject with any purpose other than to be contrary and to criticize?

Somehow I think the very idea of the State Of The Union has been so corrupted as to be meaningless.  It’s become a campaign speech, even when there’s no campaign in sight.  I find it almost impossible to care about the entire affair.  The contents have already been released.  The words have already been spoken and sides already chosen.  Tonight’s speech is just for show.

Posted by JimK at 07:33 PM on January 23, 2007
Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email to a friend

Categories: News,  Politics,  The Federal Government,  War,  U.S. Military
Tags: politics Bush war iraq Congress

Ding dong, the witch isn’t dead - Hillary Clinton declares she’s in

And with one announcement, Democrats felt a great disturbance in the force, as if dozens of candidates cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, hounded for months with questions about her presidential ambitions, gave a two-word answer today to voters: ``I’m in.’’

In an Internet video statement, the New York Democrat and former First Lady said she would be forming an exploratory committee to determine whether she will become a formal candidate for the Democratic nomination in 2008, the first step in launching a full-scale campaign.

Say goodbye to Al The Cigar Store Indian, The Breck Girl, Jesus H. Obama, Lurch Q. Vietnam and anyone else who fancies themselves a candidate.  This woman plays for keeps, boys.  If you thought the Republican machine played dirty...The Wicked Witch of the East doesn’t play around.

Of course there’s no way she can win the actual presidency, but man, the Democrats will be letting some blood amongst themselves over the next couple of years.  Should be fun to watch.

Posted by JimK at 07:38 PM on January 20, 2007
Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email to a friend

Categories: News,  Politics,  The Federal Government
Tags: Hillary Clinton Election 2008