Kerry Comments on the US Military...says US Military is uneducated.

Senator John Kerry speaking before California students at a Democrat rally on Monday said “You know education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you don’t you get stuck in Iraq.” Needless to say, this has raised many eyebrows of many in the military.

Actually, this reminds me of a study by Tim Kane, PhD titled “Who Bears the Burden? Demographic Characteristic of the US Military Recruits Before and After 9/11” which says the opposite. Indeed recruits in the US military tend to be much more highly educated than the general public and that this education disparity increased after the war on terrorism began.

The fact of the matter is this: 98% of all enlisted recruits who enter the military have an education level of high school graduate or higher compared to the national average of 75%. Here are the other facts:

In summary, the study found that, on average, recruits were more highly educated than the equiv­alent general population, more rural and less urban in origin, and of similar income status. The Report did not find evidence of minority racial exploitation (by race or by race-weighted ZIP code areas). It did find evidence of a "Southern military tradition" in that some states, notably in the South and West, provide a much higher proportion of enlisted troops by population.
The household income of recruits generally matches the income distribution of the American population. There are slightly higher proportions of recruits from the middle class and slightly lower proportions from low-income brackets. However, the proportion of high-income recruits rose to a disproportionately high level after the war on ter­rorism began, as did the proportion of highly edu­cated enlistees

"the power of marriage lies in its capacity to establish collective rules of conduct that help reinforce our commitment to our spouse when temptation calls." -Nathaneil Frank, professor at NYU, nf15@nyu.edu

So the good professor believes marriage is important not because one person's love for another but for the handcuffs put on the marrried wrist? This is part of the bio-argument that many self-described "intellectual elites" believe when they devalue marrriage by defining it by what marriage prevents one from doing. I think marriage is most important because of what it allows us to do.
That is to say, we stand before our spouse and proclaim a higher abstract belief that the sum of our union is greater than our parts. What we do as husband and wife is far greater than what we can accomplish individually.

On the Star Ledger Editorial Board's endorsement of Robert Menendez in New Jersey's Senate race...

First, the state's largest newspaper decided to back Menendez even though he has "ethical questions...but that's not reason to disqualify him".

Secondly, the paper backs this candidate because "NJ is a pivotal state in the struggle for control of the Senate. A Republican victory in NJ would tip the balance toward the GOP".
In other words, the Star Ledger is so extremely liberal that it would rather have a serving Senator indicted for a crime than to have a Republican-controlled Congress.

Anyone wonder why New Jersey's politicians (and its major newspaper) are the butt of so many jokes?

911 Commission Report…as Presidents of Afghanistan, Pakistan and USA recently dined together:
With all this back-and-forth on who to blame for inaction or wrong action pre-911, everyone should read the 911 Commission Report – the authoritative work on the subject.

On page 63, 64, this is what it says regarding bin Laden’s travel from Sudan to Afghanistan in 1996:

“Though Bin Ladin’s destination was Afghanistan, Pakistan was the nation that held the key to his ability to use Afghanistan as a base from which to revive his ambitious enterprise for war against the United States”
“It is unlikely that bin Ladin could have returned to Afghanistan had Pakistan disapproved. The Pakistani military intelligence service probably had advanced knowledge of his coming, and its officers may have facilitated his travel. During his entire time in Sudan, he had maintained guesthouses and training camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan. These were part of a larger network used by diverse organizations for recruiting and training fighters for Islamic insurgences…” Pakistan intelligence officers reportedly introduced Bin Ladin to Taliban leaders in Kandahar, their main base of power, to aid his reassertion of control over camps near Khowst, out of an apparent hope that he would now expand the camps…”

-9/11 Commission Report

And then there is this prescient statement from page 78:

“The relationship between al Qaeda and Iran demonstrated that Sunni-Shia divisions did not necessarily pose and insurmountable barrier to cooperation in terrorist operations. As will be described in Chapter 7, al Qaeda contacts with Iran continued in ensuing years”

-9/11 Commission Report

9/11 Commission Report:

“The failure of the strikes (cruise missile strikes in August 1998 against Afghanistan, Sudan), the “wag the dog” slur (slur: President Clinton fired the missiles just to deflect attention away from him being caught lying about the Monica Lewinsky affair), the intense partisanship of the period, and the nature of the al Shifa (pharmaceutical facility in Sudan hit with US missiles on concern it was producing nerve gas) likely had a cumulative effect on future decisions about the use of force against bin Ladin.” -911 Commission Report, page 135

One question to the New Jersey Supreme Court and all other same-sex marriage proponents:
As a matter of principle, why should polygamists not be afforded the same “right” that same-sex couples claim when it comes to marriage?
If same-sex couples believe they have a “right” to marriage, then why not, as a matter of principle, shouldn’t polygamists? I have never had anyone make a logical argument that same-sex marriage is a “right” and at the same time not argue that two consenting adult polygamists do not share the same “right”.
The plaintiffs in the NJ case didn’t want go there. Plaintiffs “concede that the State can insist on the binary nature of marriage, limiting marriage to one per person at any given time”. The plaintiffs, recognizing the question surely would come up, obviously didn’t want this corollary. However, remarkably the dissenting NJ Supreme Court justices think the majority “defined the right too narrowly”. The majority justices stated that if the minority justices’ opinion prevailed “…it would eviscerate any logic behind the State’s authority to forbid incestuous and polygamous marriages”. I could not agree more, but I also believe that the majority opinion has the same repercussion.
Though the plaintiffs don’t want to address the consequences of the NJ Supreme Court, the rest of society may very well have to in the future.
“Times have changed”, NJ Supreme Court declared yesterday is an observation best left for the people and their chosen representatives to decide.

Gay Marriage Issue To Enter this Race?
That’s what we think given the NJ State Supreme Court’s decision yesterday. We would expect that Karl Rove and Co. will bring out those pre-2004 election ads en masse once again as it rallies the base. We look at the NJ Supreme Court ruling - which can be described as the Court ruling that marriage should be defined by the elected representatives of the people and not by judges as an important perhaps tide-turning issue. It puts the spotlight right back on legislatures. Now millions of Americans – especially in NJ where the two Senate candidates are in a dead-heat, will be asking a question heretofore not considered:

What does the candidate think about gay marriage?

Voters asking that question in the 2004 election hurt the Democrats. Also, consider this poll which shows how important an issue this is for voters. Even if a candidate agrees with 99% of the issues of a particular voter BUT not on the issue of gay marriage, that voter will not vote for him. A critical issue which a majority of Americans think gay marriage should be illegal.

"If you agreed with a candidate for U.S. Congress on other issues, but not on the issue of same-sex marriage, could you still vote for him, or not?"

Could
50%

Could Not
41%

Not sure
9%

ABC News Poll. May 31-June 4, 2006

Opposition to gay marriage surged in 63% in February 2004, when opposition spiked following the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision upholding gay marriage was ruled and remained high throughout the 2004 election season. It stayed high with the conservative ads and Pres Bush pushing a constitutional amendment.
It has consistently stayed in the high 50% since then. 77% of Republicans favor a Constitutional ban, while Democrats are more divided on the issue, with 52% in favor and 44% opposed. So if you take the 41% that won’t vote for their candidate if he/she doesn’t agree with them on gay marriage, then one can see this being a trouble issue for Democrats.
We would expect the Republican Party to push this issue once again.
This comes with the trend since the immediate aftermath of the Foley-scandal has swung to the Republicans favor. Consider,
Republican base is returning to the fold, just as Karl Rove, the president’s close adviser and electoral strategist, predicted that they would. The state-by-state polls reflect GOP gains in Tennessee, New Jersey, Montana, Missouri, Virginia and in the national generic ballot tests. Since the Democrats must win two of the Senate seats in Tennessee, New Jersey, and Missouri and they are trailing in all three, there is a new possibility that the Republicans could pull out a midterm win. In John Zogby’s generic ballot polling, the Democratic margin has collapsed from +9 two weeks ago to only +3 today.
If the gay marriage issue helps the Republicans the way it did in 2004, than the Republicans may surprise.

US Naval Intelligence Belief
One senior US naval intelligence source is stating that he believes “the Israelis will strike soon”.

The quote that the Israeli govt issued following the 1981 attack on Iraq’s nuclear facility and the recent quote from the current PM Olmert:


“Under no circumstances will we allow an enemy to develop weapons of mass destruction against our people."
-Statement of Israeli government following the June 7, 1981 attack on Iraq’s nuclear power plant

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told visiting members of the Senate Armed Services Committee that "for the first time in my life I feel that there is an existential threat against the state of Israel."-PM Olmert, Sept 30, 2006

The Point Being: While the West and the USA consider Iran’s nuclear program a foreign policy issue, the Israelis think of it as a survival issue.
A senior US naval source states that for the Israelis, a first strike that wipes out the Iranian uranium processing facilities is needed. He believes, that unlike in 1981 where the Israelis used just 8 F16s, the Israelis would use Jericho missiles and the submarine-launched nuclear-tipped Tomahawks to conduct their attacks. Most of the factories are 150 meters underground and too deep for bunker busters

“In the 1990s, the Clinton administration used a mix of tough sanctions and incentives to keep North Korea and Iran from becoming urgent threats to global security. Though imperfect, that approach produced results. Under President Clinton, for instance, the North Koreans produced no new plutonium, conducted no nuclear weapons tests and produced no new nuclear weapons.”-Rosa Brooks, LA Times 10.13.06

Do you really believe that the North Koreans did nothing to advance their nuclear weapons research in the 1990s? The North Koreans signed the worthless piece of paper dubbed “the crowing achievement by the Clinton admin team on North Korea” The DPRK ignored “Agreed Framework” the moment it was signed. Just consider these facts:
In 1998, continued concerns about North Korean proliferation-related activities – including a ballistic missile firing over Japan and suspicions that an underground facility discovered in the North might be used for nuclear purposes – also threatened to derail the Agreed Framework. Just to name two.

Also, there are many who believe the Kim Jong-Il would not have been able to hold onto power (his father, “Great Leader”, died in the middle of the talks) if not for US support and aid. Who knows what kind of government North Korea would have now.

"There are various U.S. government sources that provide clues as to when North Korea began its uranium-enrichment program, but disagreement among the sources makes it difficult to determine the exact start of the program," concludes a 2003 report from the Arms Control Association. "Most information, however, indicates it began between 1997 and 1999."

You also forgot to mention the “help” that Clinton got from the likes of Jimmy Carter, who in 1994 visited Kim Jong-Il and gave him all sorts of nice gifts like the novel “Gone With the Wind”. How much did it help?
In October 2000 when Sec of State Albright –the highest level American official ever to travel to North Korea , visited Kim and after giving him an autographed basketball from Michael Jordan they clanged champagne glasses. What good did that do other than give prestige to the younger Kim?

“Hear no evil, see no evil” is not a safer way for the world.

It is very revealing to read Sept 12, 2006 New York Times editorial titled “The Fictional Path to 9/11” describe ABC’s movie “The Path to 9/11” as “fictional”. NY Times editorial board had one suggestion: “…when attempting to recreate real events on screen, you do not show real people doing things they never did.” NY Times needs to explain why it did not make the same suggestion to Michael Moore two years ago.

In the NY Times May 6, 2004 editorial, this same paper described Michael Moore’s movie “Fahrenheit 9/11” as a “documentary that clearly falls within the bounds of acceptable political commentary.” The film was in fact anything but a documentary and the film’s tactics is simple ridicule and most of the criticism was cheap and petty.
Words do mean something. The American Heritage Dictionary© defines “documentary” as “A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration.” There are so many misleading and fictitious implications* by Moore’s film that the word “documentary” should never be used in the same sentence as “Fahrenheit 911”.

One suggestion to the NY Times: appoint a fact checker for all editorials. I would do it for free!

Who would have thought in August 1998, that a “simple affair” between a president and one of his interns would have such dire consequences for our country….

“The failure of the strikes (cruise missile strikes in August 1998 against Afghanistan, Sudan), the “wag the dog” slur (that President Clinton fired the missiles just to deflect attention away from him being caught lying about the Monica Lewinsky affair), the intense partisanship of the period, and the nature of the al Shifa (pharmaceutical facility in Sudan hit with US missiles on concern it was producing nerve gas) likely had a cumulative effect on future decisions about the use of force against bin Ladin (emphasis added).”
-911 Commission Report, page 135

Much was said about the importance of the Monica Lewinsky affair, pro-Clintonites would say it was “much ado about nothing” and an action that did not rise up to the level for an impeachment. But according to the 9/11 Commission, the affair made the then Commander in Chief, in effect vulnerable to his critics and had the tragic consequence of influencing in part “…future decisions about the use of force against bin Ladin”.

This is why a president’s moral character is as important as any other attribute.

In September 27, 2006 New York Times editorial titled “The Fine Art of Declassification" the editorial staff of the New York Times makes the following opening statement:

“It’s hard to think of a president and an administration more devoted to secrecy than President Bush and his team. Except, that is, when it suits Mr. Bush politically to give the public a glimpse of the secrets. And so, yesterday, he ordered the declassification of a fraction of a report by United States intelligence agencies on the global terrorist threat”.

Interesting how the editors of the NY Times don’t seem fit to mention that the person(s) that leaked the secret information to them last weekend committed a crime for selfish political purposes only.

Anyway, anyone interested in freshening up their memories on the subject of secrecy of governments might want to read the late-great Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s book titled “Secrecy: The American Experience”. Moynihan was the authority on the subject with his experience as the chairman of the 1995-1996 Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy. Moynihan believes that starting with the Wilson Espionage Act of 1917, governmental secrecy became institutionalized. He then argues that it is inherently counterproductive for a civil democratic society.

Moynihan, by the way, wrote the book in 1998 long before President George W. Bush took office.

“Maintain Course”

Much is made of this phrase in regards to US military changing tactics and perhaps strategy in Iraq. But consider this to be very normal and military-historical speaking, modus operandi.

Famous 19th century German Field Marshal Helmuth Moltke's main thesis was that military strategy had to be understood as a system of options since only the beginning of a military operation was plannable. As a result, he considered the main task of military leaders to consist in the extensive preparation of all possible outcomes. His thesis can be summed up by two statements, one famous and one less so, translated into English as

Quote of the Day

“No battle plan survives contact with the enemy” and “War is a matter of expedients.”

- Field Marshal Helmuth, Graf von Moltke



Can US marines adapt to a new expeditious battle plan? I think the answer is self-evident....