About
Captain Ed is a father and grandfather living in the Twin Cities area of Minnesota, a native Californian who moved to the North Star State because of the weather. He lives with his wife Marcia, also known as the First Mate, their two dogs, and frequently watch their granddaughter Kayla, whom Captain Ed calls The Little Admiral.
Read More
The Crows Nest
Rule 1: Drag The Corpse On Over First
If I've learned anything in four years of blogging, don't try to be out in front of the death rumors, especially with the villains of the world. Saddam died a hundred deaths before we caught him alive in his spider hole, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi almost as many before his demise last year. Osama may or may not be alive, but everyone's avoided speculating on his fate for a while now. Maybe Val at Babalu Blog will get luckier with his "Castro Is Dead" story. We all hope so. I'll wait for the announcement ....
Hobbs Choice
Volunteer Voters is holding its annual "Best of Nashville" on-line polls, and one of the categories is for the best political writer. Our friend Bill Hobbs, now posting at Newsbusters, and he'd like his on-line fans to cast their votes. Drop by and put one in for Bill if you get a chance!
Murtha Getting Backlogged On Apologies
Gary Gross of Let Freedom Ring sees another case collapsing on the Haditha charges. He's called for Murtha to apologize earlier, and adds another reason to the tally.
No Such Thing As 'Moderate' Islam?
Turkish PM Tayyip Erdogan told a television interviewer that he finds the label "moderate Islam" offensive. Shrink Wrapped has a lot more on this, but at least in the same interview Erdogan acknowledged that "radical Islam" exists, and that it's been a catastrophe. Be sure to read the whole post.
MS-NBC Gets Punk'd
Power Line has a great post on a lack of journalistic effort on the part of MS-NBC. In covering the Michael Vick story, they reported on what they thought was Al Sharpton's website proclaiming Vick's innocence. I guess Alex Johnson and two other MS-NBC reporters couldn't bother to read the title bar of the site, which proudly proclaims it as a "parody site".
New Instapundit Podcast On Pharmaceuticals
I just caught this e-mail from Glenn Reynolds about his new podcast with Richard Epstein, the author of Overdose: How Excessive Government Regulation Stifles Pharmaceutical Innovation. Haven't had a chance to listen to it yet, but the topic is important enough to make sure I carve out time for it tomorrow. Get their first and tell me what I'm missing ....
Fed Trying A 'Stealth Easing'?
The Federal Reserve seems to have conducted a quiet campaign to steady markets that started spinning out of control, according to King Banaian at SCSU Scholars. He thinks that the Fed has conducted a "stealth easing". Be sure to read his explanation and follow his lnks.
A Shameless Bit Of Sel-Promotion
Gateway Pundit and Val at Babalu Blog note a crass PR move by Hugo Chavez. Venezuela has responded to Peru's eathquake disaster with food shipments -- and with Hugo's smiling picture on the cans. He also uses the tuna-can label to undermine President Garcia of Peru, who narrowly defeated Chavez' pal Ollanto Humalla, whom the labels extol for his "solidarity" with Chavez.
Tacky beyond belief.
Bush Going After Palestinian Terror Financing?
George Bush's new orders to USAID forces them to review the executive management of all NGOs to ensure that they have no terrorist connections. Carl in Jerusalem says at Israel Matzav that the order specifically intends to target Palestinian front groups for terrorists. Let's hope he's right.
Slow Start!
Yes, I'm off to a slow start today, thanks to some scripting issues, a bad back, and an alarm clock that needs replacing. Bear with me -- I'm ramping up, I promise...
And Now, In Little League Action Last Night ...
I once played in a Little League game where we lost, 30-1, obviously before mercy rules came into being. The only comfort during that shellacking was that 13-year-olds don't have to justify their salaries for being on the field. You have to wonder what the Baltimore Orioles have to feel without that caveat today, after losing 30-3 to the Texas Rangers. Sixteen of the runs came in the last two innings .... (via TMV)
Bush Speech On Iraq
I got a couple of e-mails wondering why I haven't linked to George Bush's speech today. I liked it; I just didn't have much to add. Rush Limbaugh covered it well on his site, and Power Line also links approvingly but has nothing much more to say. Michael Goldfarb notes that the Weekly Standard had made a similar argument regarding Vietnam a year ago.
Rove Fears Me -- No, Really!
Hot Air notes the latest fundraising letter from John Edwards. No longer content to indulge his paranoia when Ann Coulter mentions him, now he wants to indulge it when Karl Rove doesn't. Has any candidate seemed this desperate before now?
Racism Or Hard Truth?
Angela Winters looks at an editorial cartoon and the controvery it has caused in Jacksonville, Florida, especially in the black community. Truth or racism? When rap artists tell young listeners not to cooperate with the police, how much responsibility do they have for the victimization that follows? Read all of the essay at The Moderate Voice.
Support Citizen Journalism
Bill Ardolino at INDC Journal reminds us that there is a reporter shortage on the front lines. The best way to solve that problem? Donate to Public Multimedia, the citizen-journalist organization that supports Bill Roggio, Bill Ardolino, and others. (And a direct donation to Michael Yon would be much appreciated as well.)
Comments (19)
Posted by NoDonkey | May 16, 2007 3:15 PM
"now want to rig the rules so that the GOP cannot demand roll-call votes on tax increases."
I'm sure our helpful lefty trolls will explain why this is all kosher (or should I say "Halal").
Because you see, the 2006 elections gave the Democrats a wide reaching mandate. The American people want Nancy Pelosi to be able to pass legislation without Democrats having to go on record. Why do we need to know how our representative voted? All we need to know is that they care.
The American people "sent the message" that Democrats should retain office for all eternity. No further votes are needed in fact.
Democrats - because they're more equal than you are.
Posted by Chris | May 16, 2007 3:34 PM
The 2006 election also demonstrated how badly the American People want the Fairness Doctrine reinstated. It's not fair that the American people can bypass the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-liberal MSM by simply turning on a $5.00 AM radio purchased at Wal-Mart. Liberals already control TV, Hollywood, most major newspapers, and scores of magazines. George Soros contributes millions of dollars to left-wing front groups like moveon.org and the Daily Chaos (K-OS). But that's not enough. The Left will not be satisfied until it controls ALL media. But that's the way Stalinists like Kucinich and Pelosi and Reid operate, isn't it?
Posted by Nancy Coppock | May 16, 2007 3:47 PM
If Republican who didn't serve in the military are called chicken hawks, could Democrats without the spine to vote their anti-war rhetoric be called Chicken Doves?
Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs | May 16, 2007 3:52 PM
How is someone that didn't serve a chicken hawk? You don't have to be a veteran (though I am one) to know that the Islamists wish to kill you, and that pulling out of the region is certain suicide.
Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs | May 16, 2007 3:53 PM
How is someone that didn't serve a chicken hawk? You don't have to be a veteran (though I am one) to know that the Islamists wish to kill you, and that pulling out of the region is certain suicide.
Posted by RBMN | May 16, 2007 3:59 PM
So many Democrats are willing to be a Harry Girl in the Senate or a Nancy Boy in the House. I just don't get it. I think it goes without saying that history will not be kind to today's Democrat leaders. Historians will read the other side's war journals some day, and we're going to find out that Al-Qaeda can't believe their good fortune right now, having Democrats do their work (demoralizing America) for them. They must think it's the "hand of Allah" at work.
Posted by Tom_Holsinger | May 16, 2007 4:10 PM
This is a test to see if I can post at all.
Posted by Pho | May 16, 2007 4:24 PM
Does this mean we can bring up this vote later... when several of those folks, who are actual candidates for President, say they "support the troops" after voting to abandon them in the field?
Posted by Lightwave | May 16, 2007 4:53 PM
That's just it, Ed.
Benchmarks are not a compromise. They are a slippery slope that leads to our defeat in Iraq and a crisis that can only end in another larger, bloodier, and possibly nuclear war.
This bill wasn't pointless however. It put all the major Democrat candidates on record as wanting to end the war precipitously, not just Edwards and it spells out the difference between the two parties in '08. As you pointed out, Hillary flipflopped on the war issue...again. She will be the nominee, and she cannot win a Presidential election.
The only relevant issue now is who the GOP candidate will be, for he'll be our next President.
Posted by SDN | May 16, 2007 5:28 PM
Captain, you seem surprised that Democrats are a) liars and b) Fifth Columnists. Given their record since 1968, why?
Posted by docjim505 | May 16, 2007 5:50 PM
Nancy Coppock wrote (May 16, 2007 3:47 PM):
If Republican who didn't serve in the military are called chicken hawks, could Democrats without the spine to vote their anti-war rhetoric be called Chicken Doves?
I prefer either "quislings" or "Benedict Arnolds", myself.
For those who, like Lightwave, think that the dems will somehow pay for this... I only hope you're right. Unfortunately, I don't think that you are.
The dems' rabid base is interested in exactly one thing: getting George Bush. After that, they want the usual laundry list of dem policies: higher taxes; bigger, less efficient government; regulation upon regulation upon regulation; a nanny state that gets as many Americans as possible on the government dole; a smaller, emasculated military; and as many steps toward true socialism as they can swing. They couldn't care less about the troops (whom they alternate scorn as idiots or despise as murderers), and they damned sure don't want to win in Iraq and validate George Bush's leadership.
As for much of the rest of the country, they only know what's beaten into their heads by the MSM 24 / 7: the economy's going to hell, we're losing in Iraq, old people are eating dog food, etc, etc, etc. The dems have been fooling them with their class warfare rhetoric, race baiting, and economic scares for years, and I see no reason to think that this will change significantly.
Remember: the dems knifed our troops in the back thirty-five years ago and never paid a price. I'm sure that they're convinced that, with the willing help of the MSM, any unpleasantness in Iraq after we surrender will be blamed sole and squarely on George Bush.
Posted by Shoprat | May 16, 2007 7:05 PM
The Donks think that the war on terror is a distraction from the class-struggle or it is a manifestation of the glass struggle. Until the Donks and others even further to the left realize that the Class Struggle is nothing but a pile of Pasture Pudding we are going to have this problem.
Posted by Lightwave | May 16, 2007 8:19 PM
For those who, like Lightwave, think that the dems will somehow pay for this... I only hope you're right. Unfortunately, I don't think that you are.
Yes, the Dems have gotten away with it before when we left Vietnam. I'm not going to argue that. But this time will be far different if we leave Iraq.
For starters, the resulting civil war will end up making horrendous headlines as the 100 sectarian violence deaths that occur on a particularly bad day in Iraq now become 1000 deaths on a daily basis when we are gone.
Then you'll have to factor in the pocketbook. Americans will be able to understand very simply the personal consequences of withdrawal when oil prices double or triple. $3 a gallon is bad, I admit. How would America fare at $6 or $8 a gallon? Do you think your average voter would have any trouble making the connection of "The Democrats made us leave Iraq and the Middle East melted down, and now I can't afford to take my kids to soccer practice. Bush's Iraq plan was right after all."
The Democrats would be destroyed for that. They would have no choice but to send the troops back in to a much much worse situation.
And now, let's add in increased terror attacks around the world thanks to the fact the terrorists now know they can directly affect US policy.
Finally, let's finish up with Israel and Pakistan. Let's add nuclear weapons to the mix just to really help the situation.
No, the Democrats would pay almost immediately...and nobody would forget the results of our leaving Iraq.
Posted by markg8 | May 16, 2007 8:49 PM
From Steny Hoyer:
"Despite Republicans' claims, no rule change to end this political gamesmanship has been formally proposed.
"Yet, for the last six hours, Republicans have unfortunately and irresponsibly delayed consideration of a bill critical to our nation's defense.
"I have told Leader Boehner that I will continue my discussions with him and that there will not be a change before the Memorial Day recess."
You've been misled by the Republican party and Drudge. Again. If Repubs insist on shutting down the House they'll suffer the same fate Newt Gingrich did. Won't that be fun?
Posted by markg8 | May 16, 2007 8:56 PM
It's not patriotic to leave our soldiers in Iraq to fight and die for a Shiite theocracy. That is the "victory" they're fighting for. Whether this president or the next withdraws from Iraq there will be dancing in the streets of Baghdad. Shiites and Sunnis alike will celebrate their "victory" over the occupiers. As soon as the aid money buyoffs run out the stooges who run the country, whether it's Maliki or another set of Iranian backed goons will start making public anti-American pronouncements in order to hang onto their phony baloney jobs or just to keep from getting strung up from lamp posts if they don't. They'll tear up that godawful hydrocarbon law forced down their throats by Cheney in a New York minute.
Why would they be so ungrateful? First of all because they're Arabs and live in the ME. The US has been getting bad press in those parts for decades. Secondly because Bush 1 told them to overthrow Saddam in 1991 and then had coalition soldiers stand idly by, sometimes as Republican Guard troops moved right through their ranks to massacre them. Then we sanctioned the whole country into the poorhouse for over a decade for Saddam's sins. Now we've invaded, occupied and destroyed their country. We locked them up without trial soemtimes without even recording their names and tortured them. 4 million are displaced. 2 million outside the country. Probably a million have died. 53% in the last poll said they have a close friend or family member who has been killed or wounded by the violence. 60% are unemployed. 70% think killing Americans is justifiable.
Bush knows all that and it's the reason he won't withdraw. If he can just hang on til January '09 he can get someone else to take the fall. There will be someone else left holding the bag as has been his modus operan\di his whole life.
Anybody who advocates staying in Iraq cares more about Republican political fortunes and George Bush's legacy than they care about US troops or the good of this country.
Posted by sam pender![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| May 17, 2007 6:33 AM
Has anyone else heard the leftist rant that the insurgency in Iraq needs the support of the locals to survive? It's a classic, but like so many other talking points, it's a half truth (and we all know a half truth is not the whole truth so a half truth is not the truth). Opponents of the war are eager to suggest that the US leaves because the war is lost because the Iraqi people are keeping the insurgency alive. I agree that an insurgency needs local support to survive, but the other half of the truth that goes unspoken is that it needs the submission of the enemy population to succeed.
...submission that the Democrats are not only providing, but are eagerly promoting.
Posted by Nancy Coppock | May 17, 2007 10:58 AM
I've updated my nomenclature of Democrats to Chicken Nugget Democrats because they are completely boneless and capable of only squawking and flapping around. When it comes to their re-election, they are completely political. In using liberal words of yesterday against them, "How many more troops must die? If you are against the war, why wait? Bring them home this afternoon."
In the words of Doc Holiday in Tombstone, "My (their) hypocrisy knows no bounds."
Posted by Nancy Coppock | May 17, 2007 12:35 PM
I've updated my nomenclature of Democrats to Chicken Nugget Democrats because they are completely boneless and capable of only squawking and flapping around. When it comes to their re-election, they are completely political. In using liberal words of yesterday against them, "How many more troops must die? If you are against the war, why wait? Bring them home this afternoon."
In the words of Doc Holiday in Tombstone, "My (their) hypocrisy knows no bounds."
Posted by Nancy Coppock | May 17, 2007 12:40 PM
I've updated my nomenclature of Democrats to Chicken Nugget Democrats because they are completely boneless and capable of only squawking and flapping around. When it comes to their re-election, they are completely political. In using liberal words of yesterday against them, "How many more troops must die? If you are against the war, why wait? Bring them home this afternoon."
In the words of Doc Holiday in Tombstone, "My (their) hypocrisy knows no bounds."