Target Centermass

Author: Gunner

  • The Best Debate Live-Blogging

    From somebody who didn’t even watch (and justified it well):

    I’m sure Bush kicked Kerry’s ass all over the stage if you give a farthing about terrorists and killing those who undeniably and without quarter want to kill you. Outside of that, who could possibly give a flying eff at a rolling donut about stem cells or deficits or the opinions of the French or Germans? Western civilization is at war. If those dipsticks don’t care to defend it, that’s their call and their shame. But don’t tell me America can’t do it, not when we’ve got the Aussies, the Brits, the Poles and 30 more freedom-loving countries on our side.

    Holy crap, Scott, you are the man. If the world goes to hell and Bush loses, I’m nominating you for President of the reborn Republic of Texas.

  • The Elections that MAY Decide the Election

    Can Afghanistan pull off an election? Will the appeasement win in Australia?

    This will be an interesting weekend. Dems will be spinning for Kerry; the worst of Afghanistan will get more play over the historical enormity of the moment; a Howard affirmation in Australia will be relatively quiet while a slight upset will be portrayed as a brutal rejection of Bush.

    Let’s sit back and watch. And hope. I honestly believe much of our civilization hangs in the balance. I have faith in the Aussies, though; for some reason, there’s always seemed a sort of kinship between Texans and Australians.

  • Post-Debate Aside on Defeatist Terminology

    While reading through other sites for their debate opinions, I came across this line from Blogs of War‘s live blogging by John Little:

    8:20pm CST – Is it just me or is “Win the peace” one of the most annoying phrases of all time.

    Well, I’ll rank it right up there with “exit strategy,” a phrase I’ve stated my opinion on previously.

    EDIT: Yes, you can plan to “win the peace,” you can plan on every single contingency. However, war is chaos and perfect planning for peace would require paralysis of action. The same with having an exit strategy short of absolute victory. Win the campaign, deal with the actual results; win the war, achieve the established goals and make the peace and exit strategy desired.

  • Bush-Kerry 2: The Awakening

    My thought after the first debate was style (Kerry) vs. substance (Bush). After the conclusion of this debate, I thought both improved in their weaker areas. I felt Bush’s style improvements were dramatic in that he seemed awake. Kerry held some more substance, but he’s still on the wrong side of too many of my views. I’m quite certain that Kerry has a plan to change that. If not, he’s got a plan to address the lack of the other plan.

    Slight Bush win, because Bush wasn’t just President Bush tonight, he was also Dubya. And Dubya plays well in the vast distance between New England and California. It should be noted that, at this point, a slight Bush win is a huge Bush win; it’s the equivalent of grabbing back homefield advantage in a playoff series.

    I typed up a few questions that I want to run against the transcript, so a more thourough look later.

  • Is Fallujah Next?

    After the combined Iraqi-American pressure on al-Sadr’s criminals in Najaf, after the American and Iraqi success in Samarra, after the apparently-effective strikes on Sadr City and Fallujah, the question has been raised: is Fallujah next for the ground onslaught?

    Well, not if Fallujah has a say.

    Iraqi insurgents from Fallujah are in intense negotiations with the country’s interim government to hand over control of the city to Iraqi troops, according to representatives of both sides, in hopes of averting a bloody military battle for the city of 300,000 that has become a haven for foreign guerrillas and a symbol of the limits of Baghdad’s authority.

    “We have met representatives from Fallujah,” the interim deputy prime minister, Barham Salih, said Wednesday. “We have had detailed discussion with these representatives, and we have agreed on a road map or a framework to facilitate the resolution of this conflict in Fallujah.”

    The talks apparently gained momentum Wednesday after the mujaheddin shura — or council of holy warriors — that now governs Fallujah voted overwhelmingly to accept the broad terms demanded by Iraq’s government. By a vote of 10 to 2, the council agreed to eject foreign fighters, turn over all heavy weapons, dismantle checkpoints and allow the Iraqi National Guard to enter the city.

    In return, the city would not face the kind of U.S.-led military offensive that reclaimed the central Iraqi city of Samarra from insurgents last week, a prospect that one senior Iraqi official said clearly grabbed the attention of the Fallujah delegation.

    U.S. troops would remain outside the city and end the airstrikes that have shaken residential neighborhoods on an almost daily basis in recent weeks, according to one account of the terms now on the table.

    Meanwhile, Iraqi Interim Prime Minister Allawi continues a tough-love outreach to Sadr City.

    Iraq’s interim prime minister, Ayad Allawi, told reporters Wednesday that a committee was being formed to hash out the final terms of a deal to dismantle the Mahdi Army, Sadr’s militia. Allawi’s government, which authorized a U.S. offensive against Sadr’s militia in the southern city of Najaf in August, has been trying to persuade Sadr to join the political process.

    “No cease-fire,” Allawi cautioned. “We responded positively to the request of the people of Sadr City. They will surrender their weapons to the authorities. They will dismantle any armed presence in the city. They will respect and abide by the rule of law in the city. They will welcome the police to go back, patrol the streets of the city.”

    Peace through strength, in a microcosm.

    The international Islamist terrorists should quickly realize that they need something other than status quo Iraqi incidents before Nov. 2 or they are in great danger of losing any homefield advantage. Probably something spectacular. Otherwise, any local support in Iraq is soon going to give way to their closest enemy, the people of Iraq.

  • Da Man is Back!

    The first blog that made me consider the life of the blogosphere is back from hiatus.

    Go. Read.

    Thanks to Scott for catching the resurrection.

  • VP Debate Postmortem

    I promised it so here it is.

    After reviewing the transcript, Cheney won. Simple as that, and not surprising at all. Cheney edged on the domestic latter half and dominated on the security issues.

    I’ll keep this post brief because my timing sucks. In retrospect, I probably should’ve gone with the nom de keyboard of the DelayedPundit.

    The reason I give the VP a decided victory is simple: Kerry and Edwards are wrong about the war against Islamist terror. When they talk about the centrality of bin Laden, when they show their blinders allowing nothing but a focus on bin Laden, when they condemn any other effort in the war that does not expressly address bin Laden, they are wrong. Yes, Osama bin Laden attacked us. All parties are interested in busting his ass. Apparently only Bush-Cheney are interested in stopping other reiterations of bin Laden by attacking the Islamist culture and offering the alternative of freedom and democracy. Do Kerry and Edwards honestly think we would be magically safe from the Islamist bastards if Osama’s head was stuck atop a star-spangled pike? If so, they are wrong and American lives could be the cost. That is the reality of a post-9/11 world.

  • House Shreds Draft Legislation

    In a maneuver to quash the current draft rumors, the GOP leaders in the House of Representatives forced the proposed draft legislation to face a crushing vote.

    With the Internet abuzz with rumors that a military draft would be reinstated after the November election, House Republicans yesterday forced a surprise vote on the issue and blamed Democrats for scaring young people.

    “We’ll … see who trusts the volunteer military and who is practicing the dishonest politics of fear,” said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay in moving to get lawmakers on record on a bill by Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y. to revive the draft.

    ….

    The final vote was two “yeas” and 402 “nays”, with 29 members not voting.

    Even the primary sponsor of the legislation rallied against it.

    Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) did something a little unusual yesterday. First he protested when Republican leadership scheduled his own bill for a vote.

    Then he sent out a letter encouraging his Democratic colleagues to vote against it.

    Rangel’s bill, which the leadership had placed on the suspension calendar, would create a national-service draft under which all 18- to 26-year-olds would serve in the military or perform two years of national service as determined by the president. Rangel has been advocating a draft for several years, but he argued yesterday that the bill was too important for the suspension calendar, “which is reserved for non-controversial items,” he said in a statement.

    Bills on the suspension calendar cannot be amended on the floor and require two-thirds of the House to clear the chamber.

    Rangel accused Republicans of using his bill to assuage fears that President Bush had plans to reinstate the draft, stating, “The Republican leadership decision to place the draft legislation on the suspension Calendar is a political maneuver to kill rumors of the President’s intention to reinstate the draft after the November election.”

    He went on to urge Democrats running for reelection to vote no.

    “I am voting no, because my bill deserves serious consideration,” his statement continued.

    Rangel is wrong and his crap does not deserve even light-hearted consideration. His support for a draft is based exclusively on class politics, and he gave absolutely zero consideration to the best interests of the military when he proposed this legislation.

    As I pointed out when the Kerry-Edwards campaign first co-opted the internet draft rumors as part of their anti-Bush innuendo, the draft may well be needed again one day, possibly even in the war against the Islamist bastards. However, it is not needed now and there is never a justification for using fear tactics to politicize the military or our national defense interests. Rangel, Kerry and Edwards have been equally disgusting in this affair.

  • Kerry Says Franco-German Troops Unlikely

    John Kerry has finally admitted what should’ve already been known — despite all of his global support, diplomatic skills and internationalistic stances, he simply would not be able to get French and German boots dusty in Iraq.

    Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry conceded yesterday that he probably will not be able to convince France and Germany to contribute troops to Iraq if he is elected president.

    The Massachusetts senator has made broadening the coalition trying to stabilize Iraq a centerpiece of his campaign, but at a town hall meeting yesterday, he said he knows other countries won’t trade their soldiers’ lives for those of U.S. troops.

    “Does that mean allies are going to trade their young for our young in body bags? I know they are not. I know that,” he said.

    Asked about that statement later, Mr. Kerry said, “When I was referring to that, I was really talking about Germany and France and some of the countries that had been most restrained.”

    “Other countries are obviously more willing to accept responsibilities,” he added, as he took questions from reporters in a school yard in Tipton, Iowa.

    Let’s briefly review. The Kerry campaign insults the sacrifices of the friendly Iraqi troops and police by not counting their losses with those of the coalition. Kerry cannot deliver the in-country aid of our French and German “allies.” Kerry personally has insulted our current allies, calling them the coerced and the bribed.

    Given this track record, how would Kerry get more allies? His plan apparently is to actually coerce and bribe them. Here, from the opening Bush-Kerry debate, is what he said should have been done:

    If the president had shown the patience to go through another round of resolution, to sit down with those leaders, say, “What do you need, what do you need now, how much more will it take to get you to join us?” we’d be in a stronger place today.

    There you have it, Kerry’s diplomatic magic — do what he has accused Bush of doing. And it ain’t going to be good enouch for Germany or France.

  • Cheney Convicts Kerry And Edwards

    I’m not quite sure, but it seems that David Frum is at least a slight lean towards Dick Cheney’s debate performance over John Edwards.

    Ok, just caught debate rerun on CNN. What can one say about John Edwards’s performance? He certainly did not make Al Gore’s error in 1996: With his repeated and worshipful descriptions of John Kerry — not to mention Edwards’s moist good looks — you have to say that he would fill the role of First Lady much better than Teresa Heinz is likely to do. It would all have been very impressive — if Cheney’s scalpel had not so swiftly and mercilessly sliced Edwards’s living liver out of his body, impaled it quivering on a stick, and paraded it before Edwards’ soulful eyes before the poor man expired.

    Ouch!