Natanz Fulfilled?

Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told the country's parliament the Natanz plant has succeeded in enriching nuclear material with 3,000 centrifuges. If so, this will significantly increase Iran's march toward achieving a nuclear weapon. Here's the story from the Jerusalem Post. Here's a look at what's under the ground at Natanz from GraphicLens.

Too Many Spoiled Brats

My brother sent me an e-mail with an article written by Craig R. Smith at World Net Daily. It's chock full of positive statistics you're not likely to see in the legacy media, or should I say the spoiled brat media.

Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S. Yet has a great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The most blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about what we don't have and what we hate about the country instead of thanking the good Lord we live here.

I know, I know. What about the president who took us into war and has no plan to get us out? The president who has a measly 31 percent approval rating? Is this the same president who guided the nation in the dark days after 9/11? The president that cut taxes to bring an economy out of recession? Could this be the same guy who has been called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled brats safe from terrorist attacks? The commander in chief of an all-volunteer army that is out there defending you and me?

Even though people in the United States of America enjoy unprecedented freedoms and affluence and haven't suffered a significant terrorist attack since Sept. 11, 2001, they complain. I agree with Smith that the media is primarily to blame.

Stop buying the negative venom you are fed everyday by the media. Shut off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York Times for the bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as a country. There is exponentially more good than bad.

Americans are already following Smith's advice by turning off the television and canceling their newspaper subscriptions. Unfortunately that won't be all that's necessary. The greatest generation and their children have a connection to help them understand and appreciate the sacrifices necessary to maintain the freedoms and stability that preserve this great nation and drive its economy. Succeeding generations have less connection, save for the small percentage of our population who are still volunteering for military service.

It's a great time of year for all of us to remember something other than what more we want and appreciate the sacrifices that have given us all we already have.

ISG Plan Zuckered

David Zucker has a new short video focusing on James Baker and the ISG report.

See Zucker on the Taxman.
On North Korea and Madeline Albright here.

A Hanson Plan

Victor Davis Hanson has a plan, and some perspective, on Iraq too. I especially like his thoughts on why we're coming unhinged but shouldn't be.

A media that makes Cindy Sheehan, Valerie Plame, Mark Foley’s email, or lies about flushed Korans in Guantanamo into headline stories is itself nearly lunatic.

The once quick victories in Afghanistan (8 weeks) and Iraq (3 weeks), following the easy wins over Noriega and Milosevic, unrealistically sent the message that the United States could almost simultaneously win wars without losses and continue to honor its global obligations with a vastly reduced Army and Marines.

And the problem in Iraq has not been so much the constant “mistakes” (such lapses happen in every war), as the inability of our government to articulate why we are there and how we will win.

The result is that we have almost worked ourselves into some sort of self-induced paralytic state. But on sober reflection, things in fact are hardly lost. There has been no repeat of 9/11. The U.S. military has killed thousands of jihadists. The Taliban and Saddam are gone. There are still democratic governments in Afghanistan and Iraq struggling to make it, the first in the history of the region. Our troops in the field have high morale and believe they can secure Iraq. And the world, especially in Europe, has become vigilant against Islamic fundamentalism.

We are in much better shape that during any of the crises that Churchill, Roosevelt, or Truman all weathered. And while 50 dead every month since 9/11 is a high toll in this war against jihadism, it does not compare to the 8,000 plus killed from December 1941 to August 1945, a war that similarly started out with a surprise, though less lethal attack on the United states.

Episcopal Secession in Virginia

Conservatives in the Episcopal Church are jumping ship. The New York Times has an article worth reading as part of understanding the underpinnings of this nation.

“The Episcopalian ship is in trouble,” said the Rev. John Yates, rector of The Falls Church, one of the two large Virginia congregations, where George Washington served on the vestry. “So we’re climbing over the rails down to various little lifeboats. There’s a lifeboat from Bolivia, one from Rwanda, another from Nigeria. Their desire is to help us build a new ship in North America, and design it and get it sailing.”

A Plan for Iran

There are so many noteworthy plans for victory around it's a wonder why anyone put so much stock in the ISF's aged surrender monkeys. Commentary Magazine has a suggestion by Arthur Herman, noted author and professor of history at George Mason University, for bringing Iran's mullahs to heel.

The first step would be to make it clear that the United States will tolerate no action by any state that endangers the international flow of commerce in the Straits of Hormuz. Signaling our determination to back up this statement with force would be a deployment in the Gulf of Oman of minesweepers, a carrier strike group’s guided-missile destroyers, an Aegis-class cruiser, and anti-submarine assets, with the rest of the carrier group remaining in the Indian Ocean. The U.S. Navy could also deploy UAV’s (unmanned air vehicles) and submarines to keep watch above and below against any Iranian missile threat to our flotilla.

Our next step would be to declare a halt to all shipments of Iranian oil while guaranteeing the safety of tankers carrying non-Iranian oil and the platforms of other Gulf states. We would then guarantee this guarantee by launching a comprehensive air campaign aimed at destroying Iran’s air-defense system, its air-force bases and communications systems, and finally its missile sites along the Gulf coast. At that point the attack could move to include Iran’s nuclear facilities—not only the “hard” sites but also infrastructure like bridges and tunnels in order to prevent the shifting of critical materials from one to site to another.

That sounds pretty similar to the suggestion by John Hinderaker at Power Line which I blogged about here. Herman, as have others, points out that Iran's military is pretty well toothless beyond their own borders. They'd be even less capable without gasoline.

One of Herman's books, How the Scots Invented the Modern World: The True Story of How Western Europe's Poorest Nation Created Our World & Everything in It, is an obvious indication of his intellectual genius. Check his other titles here.

A Not-So_Calm Day in Adhamiyah

Stars & Stripes has an interesting report of a battle that took place Nov. 5 but got little attention in the media. On that day Saddam was sentenced. The media had predicted lots of violence but instead reported the general calm. They missed what happened to Company C of the 1st Battalion, 26th Infantry Regiment operating in Baghdad’s mostly Sunni neighborhood of Adhamiyah. The troops of Company C took out an estimated 38 bad guys.

For troops often targeted by roadside bombs and snipers, it was a rare chance to fight the enemy in the open and take advantage of superior firepower.

“They were basically fighting on our ground, and they lost,” said 1st Lt. Ryan Marvilla. “It was a lopsided victory.”

TIME's Man of the Year: Me

Well, not just me. Time named anyone using or creating content on the World Wide Web the "Man" of the year. I'd say TIME's a little late but their recognition is appreciated. Now, where's my Major Award?

This is a good reminder of something I've been saying at work for years. Here's what I said in one of my first posts on this blog on Dec. 31, 2005.

The world is in the midst of what many believe is the most significant media reformation since Gutenberg invented moveable type. Before Gutenberg, monks transcribed important texts at great expense. Who can really afford to hire or maintain monks? So only the very rich, mostly the Catholic church, had access to publishing the written word.

Today the mainstream media are like monks a few years after Gutenberg. They can either embrace the new technology and the market changes that come with it or ...
... not.

I am one of the journalist monks who is actively encouraging adaptation from within the little MSM monastery where I scribe, or more precisely, edit photos and graphics. This blog and a business site, GraphicLens, a joint effort with my son-in-law and wife, are where I participate in the new media order.

The Way to Win

Fred Barnes at Weekly Standard takes a look at a plan for victory in Iraq offered by the American Enterprise Institute. Read a summary of the AEI plan, called "Choosing Victory," here. Or you can download a longer look at the plan from AEI's summary page in PDF.

The plan, primarily written by Retired General Jack Keane, the former vice chief of staff of the Army, focuses primarily on proven counterinsurgency strategy and calls for a surge of U.S. troops to secure Baghdad.

We must act now to restore security and stability to Baghdad. We and the enemy have identified it as the decisive point.

There is a way to do this.

• We must change our focus from training Iraqi soldiers to securing the Iraqi population and containing the rising violence. Securing the population has never been the primary mission of the U.S. military effort in Iraq, and now it must become the first priority.
• We must send more American combat forces into Iraq and especially into Baghdad to support this operation. A surge of seven Army brigades and Marine regiments to support clear-and-hold operations starting in the Spring of 2007 is necessary, possible, and will be sufficient.
• These forces, partnered with Iraqi units, will clear critical Sunni and mixed Sunni-Shi’a neighborhoods, primarily on the west side of the city.
• After the neighborhoods have been cleared, U.S. soldiers and marines, again partnered with Iraqis, will remain behind to maintain security.
• As security is established, reconstruction aid will help to reestablish normal life and, working through Iraqi officials, will strengthen Iraqi local government

AEI's proposal will require sacrifice and commitment by our military service members, which I believe they are already giving and will continue to do so long as the goal is victory. It also requires sacrifice and support from the nation as a whole to support a significant increase in military manpower and equipment and reconstruction aid.

This approach requires a national commitment to victory in Iraq:

• The ground forces must accept longer tours for several years. National Guard units will have to accept increased deployments during this period.
• Equipment shortages must be overcome by transferring equipment from non-deploying active duty, National Guard, and reserve units to those about to deploy. Military industry must be mobilized to provide replacement equipment sets urgently.
• The president must request a dramatic increase in reconstruction aid for Iraq. Responsibility and accountability for reconstruction must be assigned to established agencies. The president must insist upon the completion of reconstruction projects. The president should also request a dramatic increase in CERP funds.
• The president must request a substantial increase in ground forces end strength. This increase is vital to sustaining the morale of the combat forces by ensuring that relief is on the way. The president must issue a personal call for young Americans to volunteer to fight in the decisive conflict of this age.

That's a tougher problem, especially in light of an opposition party and media that don't seem to understand the stakes or the need for present sacrifice to ensure long-term stability and freedom at home.

AEI's plan has much in common with other proposals mentioned by this blog here, here and here.

I also like some elements of this bold proposal by John Hinderocker at Power Line.

Most of our readers know the story of Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain at Gettysburg. Ordered to hold Little Round Top at all costs, Chamberlain's 20th Maine fended off one attack after another. Finally, Chamberlain's men were nearly out of ammunition and it was clear they would not be able to withstand another assault. Prudence counseled retreat, but Chamberlain's orders forbade it. The Maine regiment could neither fall back nor stay where it was, so Chamberlain took the only course open to him: he told his men to fix bayonets and prepare to charge.

John suggests Bush take on Iran to stem the flow of IEDs and training for insurgent/terrorist forces in Iraq.

You should say that Iran's supplying of weapons in order to kill Americans is an act of war. In the dramatic finale of your speech, announce that thirty minutes earlier, American airplanes stationed in the Middle East took off, their destination, one of the munitions plants or training camps of which you have shown pictures. That training camp, you say, no longer exists. You say that if Iran does not immediately cease all support for, and fomenting of, violence in Iraq, we will continue to strike military targets inside Iran.

It's obvious that while our Army and Marine Corps ground forces are stretched our Air Force and Navy are available for important missions. U.S. Navy forces ended Iran's control of the Shat Al Arab, Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz in the late 1980s. They can do so again. Iran imports about 40 percent of its gasoline because of a deficiency in refining capacity. Air Force and Navy aircraft and missiles could turn off the 60 percent produced in Iran while the Navy shuts off the 40 percent coming in. Couple that with a clear message that the U.S. is in this fight to win and Iran and it's clients would back down.

Mendacity

Alicia Colon, writing in the New York Sun, chides the New York Times and Drudge for mendacity. Mendacity is the state of being mendacious: given to or characterized by deception or falsehood or divergence from absolute truth

Unfortunately, we live in a society where untruthfulness is routinely accepted and even mandated by politicians, union leaders, and members of the press. New York is the headquarters of the biggest producer of mendacity, the New York Times.

Colon goes on to cite some of the times Drudge has splashed untruthful N.Y. Times headlines on his site. It's something I've been a bit bothered by but let it go as Drudge giving fair time to the opposition or using the biased headlines as a means to point out the bias in the N.Y. Times.

I'm beginning to think Colon is more right. The mainstream media needs no help spreading its mendacity. What IS needed is the truth — loud and repeated often. Colon closes her article with a succinct summary of today's truth we should hear more often.

We are at war. Our military is the best in the world and the smartest we've ever had. Our enemies are barbaric beheaders who want us dead — period. You cannot negotiate with them. They exist on mendacity.

Yet Another Man With a Similar Plan

Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli offered some sound insight into winning in Iraq during a press conference last Friday at his departure from duty commanding all U.S. ground forces. A report in the San Antonio Express-News points to some commonalities with previous posts about plans for success needing to include all the might of the U.S. military and economy.

Yet even now, Chiarelli believes in the success of the mission in Iraq if the proper diplomatic, military, economic and political strengths of the United States are brought to bear "against an enemy that we can destroy."

Civil-military integration is the key to that effort, even if it means realigning "our organizations and systems" so that military success on the ground can be matched by economic and political achievements. He said that 130,000 jobs added to the Iraqi economy might achieve more than 130,000 new soldiers.

The paper explains why you might not have seen this upbeat assessment and plan in your local or national media.

But you might not have seen Chiarelli's news conference because our hyperactive media outlets were busy focusing on the report of the Iraq Study Group. There, the main thrust of the story line seemed to involve the willing suspension of disbelief.

So, in contrast to the media-hyped non-plan by aged, uninvolved surrender monkeys, the media ignores an assessment and suggestion by a military man who's been there and in charge. Typical.

Exploring AP's Heart of Darkness

Confederate Yankee posted a great update on the AP Jamil Hussein saga two days ago but I missed it. He deftly navigates the murky appearances of Jamiml Hussein in AP stories and thus the extent of AP's troubles. He asks, as many have before him, why AP isn't working to put this to rest.

In just eight months, Iraqi Police Captain Jamil Hussein was cited as a source in stories by 17 named AP reporters, and also appeared in several stories where no byline was given. To the best we can determine, he has never been cited by another news organization, at any time.

Since his authenticity was thrown in doubt, the fabled Iraqi Police Captain has completely disappeared from AP reporting, except for the AP's denials that he is the fraud that the Iraqi interior ministry says he is. The captain, if he is real, would have likely come forward by now to clear his name. He has not.

So, did 17 AP reporters actually talk to Jamil Hussein or did 17 AP reporters simply accept an Iraqi stringer's word that they spoke with Jamil Hussein and not credit the stringer? If AP's leadership doesn't care about the organization's credibility it's hard to believe the 17 bylined reporters don't care about their own credibility. It's certainly not the kind of transparency media-watchers have been calling for.

Perhaps an expedition into AP's heart of darkness by Curt (Flopping Aces), Michelle Malkin, Michael Yon and Eason Jordon will be able to clear this up.

Another Man With a Plan

Blackfive has a tribute to Army Capt. Travis Patriquin, 32, who died Dec. 6 in Ar Ramadi, victim of an IED that also killed Marine Major Megan McClung. (Watch a tribute to her atHot Air.)

Patriquin was, in the vernacular of the special forces, an operator and he was great in the woods. He also spoke a number of languages including Arabic and Pashtun. And he was beginning to learn Farsi to prepare for our next military necessity, Iran. Just another one of JOn Carry's poor, dumb soldiers.

Patriquin was good in the woods because he understood the people and the situation in Iraq. Unfortunately, as is obvious in the ISG report, most decision makers don't understand. Do Patriquin put together a very brief presentation that even Jon Carry can understand titled "How to Win In Anbar" (PDF).

His plan fits perfectly with Newt's plan. I hope President Bush looks beyond the hapless ISG and needy generals of the JCS for some real ideas like these.

Hunting Jamil Hussein

An unlikely expedition seems to be forming to do what AP should be doing on its own, find and verify the existence of Jamil Hussein, the oft-quoted Iraqi who AP says is a police captain and the Iraqi Ministry of Interior says it doesn't know. Former CNN VP Eason Jordan has offered to pay the expenses for Michelle Malkin and Curt (Flopping Aces) to join him in the hunt. Both have accepted. Lots of links in the latest post at Flopping Aces.

Man With a Plan

While President George Bush ponders an array of advice from the ISG's students of Neville Champerlain and top military leaders News Gingrich offers his own plan. Befitting his vast knowledge and reverence for history, Newt offers a plan that's hybrid of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and Harry Truman's Marshall Plan according to Matt Towery at Townhall.com.

It would provide economic resources in Iraq to create jobs and rebuild infrastructure. Gingrich proposes giving "every able-bodied person" a job to do and a wage to receive. Money and personal security, he says, bring stability. For all the talk of religious strife, Iraqis want food to eat and safety on their streets as much as anyone.

Gingrich says the region should then be flooded with goods that would first be given to and later, ultimately, bought by Iraqis, with money from their new paychecks.

It's a plan that would be very expensive and require the buy-in of a large majority of both Iraqi and American citizens. But it would be far less expensive than failure in Iraq and the war against Islamic radicalism.

Newt has a history of effective plans I admire. His "Contract With America" put the GOP in control of Congress 12 years ago and set lots of journalists' teeth on edge.

AP's Transparency

Kathleen Carroll, the Executive Editor and Senior Vice President of the Associated Press, says AP is being transparent. I'd say transparently arrogant. AP has posted at least seven photos supposedly taken in Ramadi by an unnamed stringer. All are closeups of masked "insurgents" who don't seem a bit bothered by the photographer's presence. None are action shots, unless you consider groups of "insurgents" riding in two cars to be action. Here's a typical caption and credit.

Armed militants drive through Ramadi, Iraq, Tuesday, Dec. 5, 2006. Ramadi, 70 miles west of Baghdad, is located in Anbar province, where many Sunni-Arab insurgent groups are based. It has been the scene of some of the fiercest fighting between U.S. forces and insurgents. (AP Photo)

Or this one posted Saturday:

A militant armed with a machine gun takes a position in central Ramadi, a hotbed of Sunni insurgency, 115 kilometers (70 miles) west of Baghdad, Iraq, Friday, Dec. 8, 2006. (AP Photo)

If I turned in a photo with a caption like that it'd never be published. Journalists deal in specific, verifiable facts. Stories and photos carry credit lines so readers can see who provided the material.

The AP and the rest of the mainstream media is certain to include a disclaimer when a photo is provided through the U.S. military but seems to give a big pass when the photographer is chummy with "insurgents" or "militants."

Things Are Better IN Ramadi

Michael Fumento has an interesting perspective on the reason for a fundamental difference in four articles on Ramadi. Articles written from Baghdad or Washington, D.C., are predominantly negative while articles written from Ramadi are far more positive. That's called "ground truth." There's no substitute for seeing it with your own eyes.

I observed that three articles on conditions in Ramadi and al Anbar Province had appeared within a week of each other giving entirely different points of view. Mine and one in the Times of London said we're winning the war in Ramadi; a Washington Post A1 story co-authored by "Fiasco" author Thomas Ricks claimed exactly the opposite. The difference, I said, could be explained simply. I and the Times writer reported from Ramadi. Ricks and his co-author have not only never been to Ramadi, they wrote their piece from Washington. Well now the WashPost has printed another article on the city, this time an upbeat one. What gives? You guessed it.The second one was reported from Ramadi. Case closed, thank you very much. Unfortunately, it's little solace knowing how few journalists ever leave their safe little hovels in Baghdad hotels or Washington, D.C.

Bill Roggio is in Anbar province now, his second self-funded trip as an independent journalist to Anbar. You can check recent reports from Fallujahhere, here and here or look for the latest here.

AP's Quality Journalism

Confederate Yankee follows up on AP's latest dismissal of criticism of it's reporting from Iraq. AP claims it's being thorough, open and honest in its reporting.

The AP has been transparent and fair since the first day of our reporting on this issue. We have not ignored the questions about our work raised by the U.S. military and later, by the Iraqi Interior Ministry. Indeed, we published those questions while also sending AP journalists back out to the scene to dig further into what happened and why others might be questioning the initial accounts.

Here's part of CF's takedown:

And yet in all of those trips to this intimate Sunni enclave, there are a few things the largest news organization in the world hasn't been able to discover... for instance, how the militiamen "burned and blew up" four mosques in the initial report, only to see that number dwindle to one mosque partially burned, without a retraction being issued. For that matter, which mosque were these six men dragged out of? Basic reporting, Editor Carroll. Eighth-grade school-paper who-what-when-where-why.

While we're on the subject of basic journalism, it would seem simple to find names for the six victims in such a tight-knit community. So why, after AP journalists went to this neighborhood three different times to investigate a story under a cloud of suspicion, has the Associated Press been unwilling or unable to provide that basic information?

If AP is correct and Jamil Hussein is a continual source for stories I agree with CF that AP's way out of this is easy.

Jamil Hussein isn't just a one-off source, but an on-going, continual source for the Associated Press over the past two years, being used as a named source no fewer than 61 times in the past year. If Captain Hussein is a legitimate Iraqi police officer as Carroll insists, then inviting him to meet with his own superiors and representatives of U.S Central Command in front of Associated Press cameras would not only be uneventful for Captain Hussein, who could clear charges that he is an insurgent operative, but it would vindicate the Associated Press completely. The Associated Press can end this controversy by merely producing Captain Jamil Hussein.

Ball's in your court, AP. Time for some transparency.

ISG Report: The Adults Weigh In

I read the ISG report as soon as it was available on the internet but have refrained from significant comment here until thoughtful analysis, rather than grandstanding for the press, emerged. Hugh Hewitt has a roundup from the adults.

Hewitt quotes from and links to an open letter on the front page of the Center for Security Policy. Senator Jon Kyl and R. James Woolsey, former CIA director, offer a specific and pointed recommendation against following the ISG's recommendations, especially the one to negotiate with Iran.

In short, Mr. President, we encourage you to follow your better instincts. By all means, review, assess and, as appropriate, adopt the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group and those of the executive branch agencies you have commissioned. We urge you, however, to continue to reject any course of action that would signal that America has become a country that, to quote thescholar Bernard Lewis, is “harmless as an enemy and treacherous as a friend.”

Mark Steyn also weighs in with a Chicago Sun-Times column.

Why would anyone -- even a short-sighted incompetent political fixer whose brilliant advice includes telling the first Bush that no one would care if he abandoned the "Read my lips" pledge -- why would even he think it a smart move to mortgage Iraq's future to anything as intractable as the Palestinian "right of return"? And, incidentally, how did that phrase -- "the right of return" -- get so carelessly inserted into a document signed by two former secretaries of state, two former senators, a former attorney general, Supreme Court judge, defense secretary, congressman, etc. These are by far the most prominent Americans ever to legitimize a concept whose very purpose is to render any Zionist entity impossible. I'm not one of those who assumes that just because much of James Baker's post-government career has been so lavishly endowed by the Saudis that he must necessarily be a wholly owned subsidiary of King Abdullah, but it's striking how this document frames all the issues within the pathologies of the enemy.

Steyn's conclusion offers this hope and caution.

If they're lucky, this document will be tossed in the trash and these men and women will be the laughingstocks of posterity. But, if it's not shredded and we embark down this path, then the Baker group will be emblematic of something far worse. The "Support Group" is a "peace conference," and Baker wants Washington to sue for terms. No wonder Syria is already demanding concessions from America. Which is the superpower and which is the third-rate basket-case state? From the Middle Eastern and European press coverage of the Baker group, it's kinda hard to tell

UPDATE: The Washington Post editorializes that "The Iraq Study Group imagines a Middle East that doesn't exist."

Talking with Iran(ians)

Regime Change Iran has photos of a large protest in northern Iran. President Ahmadinejad had to stop his speech several times.

Hugh Hewitt has insight into what the President should do regarding Iran instead of the ISG's recommendation.

Meanwhile, unrest is growing in Iran (and not just the students),and if indeed Iran's maximum leader is headed for this world's exits, that means an already roiling Iran will enter a period of potential instability. Put down the ISG Report, Mr. President, and figure out a way to help the good guys --the majority of the Iranian people-- throw off these despots. Surely if Iran can use the porous border to send trouble into Iraq, a reverse flow can be arranged. Ditto Damascus.

The government of Iran may be our enemy, but its people surely aren't.

There are opportunities for improvement in relations with Iran but they're not with it's nutty leaders. It's with the people who are oppressed and, like most of Heavenly Father's children, yearn for freedom and the opportunity to be the best they can be. Recent demonstrations, like this one, continue to be ignored in the mainstream media.

Jeane Kirkpatrick

One of the great defenders of democracy and one of the two women most responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union, Jeane Kirkpatrick, has died. Part Maggie Thatcher, part John Bolton, all her own, Kirkpatrick has a sure place in history.

Though I never met her I feel a personal connection. In the fall of 1983 she displayed photos of Soviet interference with U.S. search efforts for Korean Airlines Flight 007, shot down by the Soviets. The photos she waved were mine.

I witnessed and documented the lengths the Soviets would go to to hide the truth. Jean Kirkpatrick made sure the world saw what I and hundreds of U.S. sailors saw.

In this age of appeasement, of suggestions of negotiating with those who impede freedom, it's good to remember the lessons of Jean Kirkpatrick who said,

"We have war when at least one of the parties to a conflict wants something more than it wants peace."

While serving as Ambassador to the United Nations under President Reagan she was still a Democrat. the experience completed her conversion and she later said,

"Democrats can't get elected unless things get worse, and things won't get worse unless they get elected."

Other favorite quotes:

I have no doubt that the American people generally believe the world is safer, and that we are safer, when we are stronger.

I think that it's always appropriate for Americans and for American foreign policy to make clear why we feel that self-government is most compatible with peace, the well-being of people, and human dignity.

What takes place in the Security Council more closely resembles a mugging than either a political debate or an effort at problem-solving.

And from her most famous speech, at the 1984 Republican National Convention:

When the San Francisco Democrats treat foreign affairs as an afterthought, as they did (in their 1984 convention), they behaved less like a dove or a hawk than like an ostrich - convinced it would shut out the world by hiding its head in the sand.

They (the Democrats) said that saving Grenada from terror and totalitarianism was the wrong thing to do - they didn't blame Cuba or the communists for threatening American students and murdering Grenadians - they blamed the United States instead. But then, somehow, they always blame America first.

AP Credibility Update

Powerline links to Mark Tapscott's post staying on the AP's case about fabricated stories by Iraqi stringers quoting non-existent sources.

It's time for AP to take the same sort of approach [CBS eventually took when it convened an investigation of Rathergate] to resolve the Captain Jamil Hussein controversy. But there is one big difference between the present issue and the Dan Rather/"60 Minutes" ordeal - AP provides news to virtually every daily newspaper in America. AP is a cornerstone of the mainstream media. If AP's credibiilty is harmed, every news organization that uses its products also suffers.

Thus, AP should ask the American Society of Newspaper Editors to oversee the appointment and conduct of an independent panel of respected journalists and outside evidentiary experts to determine the truth behind Captain Jamil Hussein and all other sources similarly in doubt.

To allow this controversy to continue to fester without taking decisive actions to resolve it to everybody's satisfaction could be disastrous for journalists everywhere.

War coverage is tough but AP has taken what it thought was an easy path to "covering" the war by hiring unquestioned stringers who quote unreliable or bogus sources. That's a recipe for defeat. It'd good to see mainstream journalists Tapscott and Jules Crittenden speak out.

Wreaths at Arlington

Michelle Malkin points to a new video by Wreaths Across America on YouTube, not on your local or national TV news or in your local newspaper. It's yet another example of why so many people are choosing the alternative media. Watch the video and be proud. The song is written and performed by the Right Brothers.

Jimmy Carter, Still Wrong After All These Years

Our worst ex-President, Jimmy Carter, continues to plague U.S. foreign policy with his personal malaise. Powerline received an e-mail from Professor Kenneth Stein of Emory University and the Carter Center. Stein is ending his relationship with the Carter center over what he sees as significant problems with Carter's new book.

President Carter's book on the Middle East, a title too inflammatory to even print, is not based on unvarnished analyses; it is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments. Aside from the one-sided nature of the book, meant to provoke, there are recollections cited from meetings where I was the third person in the room, and my notes of those meetings show little similarity to points claimed in the book. Being a former President does not give one a unique privilege to invent information or to unpack it with cuts, deftly slanted to provide a particular outlook.

I enlisted in the Navy under President Ford but began my service under Carter. His complete ineptitude in foreign and economic affairs and a disdain for the military matched only by Bill Clinton was nearly lethal. During his administration my buying power shrank by about 20 percent in spite of four advancements in rank and four annual cost of living raises. Some servicemen were even openly speaking of a strike.

I wish he'd choose to shut up so others wouldn't have to wish for something to shut him up.

Hyping Climate Change

The Washington Times notes in Inside Politics

Sen. James M. Inhofe, Oklahoma Republican and chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, will hold a full committee hearing tomorrow on "Climate Change and the Media."

The hearing will look at how the media has presented scientific evidence regarding predictions of human-caused catastrophic global warming, the senator's office said.

"Senator Inhofe believes that poorly conceived policy decisions will result from the media's nonstop hyping of 'extreme scenarios' and dire climate predictions," said committee Communications Director Marc Morano. "This hearing will serve to advance the interests of sound science and encourage rational policy decisions."

Among those who are scheduled to testify at the hearing are geologist David Deming of the University of Oklahoma; paleoclimate researcher Bob Carter of Australia's James Cook University; Dan Gainor of the Business & Media Institute; Naomi Oreskes of the University of California at San Diego and professor Daniel Schrag of Harvard University.

You can watch the hearing on the internet here.

Portfolio

Here's a small portfolio of what I do, photography and informational graphics.