Victory in Iraq

I'll make this brief, because if, as I suspect, President Bush reads this, I don't want to waste a lot of his precious time.

Had I been asked before the war in Iraq began, I would have said that victory in wars against Arab countries is an impossible standard, because the only real victory is to kill every single one of them and exterminate the Arab presence in the Middle East. Anything less than that and what you have is a continuum of goals to be accomplished (e.g., push one Arab country out of another Arab country, destroy one Arab country's nuclear facilities, etc.), some of which are more important than others. But because the Arabs deal with things in a generational manner, a "victory" is impossible, as the defeated Arab is just waiting for the next battle, probably to be fought by his son or grandson, which he'll likely lose.

There was a story in the past few weeks about a new idea for dealing with asteroids. I guess the old theory was that if there was an asteroid headed for earth, we'd have to send up a nuke and blow the asteroid to bits. The new theory is that we could send up a craft that would begin orbiting the asteroid and the slight change in gravity that resulted from the craft's orbit would cause the asteroid to slowly and slightly shift its path. The end result would be that the asteroid would be intact but we'd be able to alter its course in such a small and gradual manner that it was both possible and effective. The asteroid would no longer be on a course to impact our planet and we'd have effected the change without having to resort to the use of weapons of mass destruction (I guess that's the theory, I'm still not sure what's wrong with using nukes).

Was that just a non-sequitur? No...I think the way to deal with the Arabs is a lot like the way we'd deal with an asteroid. I still like the blow the thing to bits with a nuke theory and I'm sure it would work. But if we're not willing to follow the total destruction path, partial destruction just doesn't work. We'd be better off being very firm and committed, but acting more to change the path of future generations than to have something that looks like a victory (but doesn't function as one).

What I'm saying, and I learned this by observation from my time in Israel in the 80s and 90s, is that you can't occupy an Arab nation and then pick a day to declare victory and withdraw your forces. Well, you can, but it's not a good idea. It's likely to lead to the Arabs seeing a victory, but for them, not us. The better method is a slow, gradual, almost imperceptible transition from one stage to the next. The way to win in Iraq is not to have timetables. It's to stay there, fighting and winning the battles, and slowly, without any fanfare or publicity, transitioning a new generation of Iraqis into leadership and security positions, such that before anyone has a chance to notice, there's a fully functioning Iraqi system and the last American soldier has left. No parades, no six month or six year timetables. Just a plan that is executed over time without any tangible milestones. Before anyone notices, Iraq has been changed from a military dictatorship to a quasi democracy, just like the asteroid's course was shifted by sending a probe to orbit it. We accomplish it by being a part of the Iraqi system, imbueing the people with a sense of the American way of doing things, with American values and norms. That's not to say that we would convert them to be Arab Americans; rather, we'd shift the momentum of their new system away from the unwanted existing course of Islamic terror, just as the probe changes the trajectory of the asteroid into a more harmless path.

That's how to achieve a victory in Iraq. Well, we could also just kill every single person in the country, but you pussies don't have the stomach for that kind of victory.

Imitation, flattery and Diane Feinstein's Ignorant Cunt

I usually don't copy and paste entries from other sites, but because I'd like to have ready access to this information and I'm too lazy to bookmark it on all of the computers I use, you, my loyal reader, must suffer through this bit of sloth. This was originally linked to by Instapundit (with a secondary link to this brilliant piece, which tracks the evolution of NY Times' editorials on Iraq from Clinton to Bush, and reveals the not so subtle changes).

The topic was the lies told about the war on terror and it's essentially a point by point debunking of just about every NY Times editorial on the topic of the war. The original can be found here at the American Enterprise website.

Urban Legends About the Iraq War

In recent weeks, by claiming that President Bush lied us into the Iraq war, many on the Left have restarted their efforts to rewrite history. But this revisionism isn’t new. In the midst of the 2004 Presidential election, the cries were just as loud. The Bush Administration is finally pushing back, and many conservative bloggers are asking their readers to Google Clinton, Iraq, 1998 for all the information they need. Last fall, The American Enterprise debunked many of these same urban legends.

Urban Legends About the Iraq War

Urban Legend: The Bush Administration in general, and the Vice President and his office in particular, pressured the Central Intelligence Agency to exaggerate evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Reality: Here is the verdict of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s bipartisan Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq: “The Committee did not find any evidence that intelligence analysts changed their judgments as a result of political pressure, altered or produced intelligence products to conform with administration policy, or that anyone even attempted to coerce, influence, or pressure analysts to do so. When asked whether analysts were pressured in any way to alter their assessments or make their judgments conform with administration policies on Iraq’s WMD programs, not a single analyst answered ‘yes.’”

Urban Legend: The President and his administration intentionally misled the country into war with Iraq—and the “16 words” that appeared in the 2003 State of the Union are the best proof of it. In the words of Senator Ted Kennedy, “The gross abuse of intelligence was on full display in the President’s State of the Union…when he spoke the now infamous 16 words: ‘The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.’… As we all now know, that allegation was false….”

Reality: On July 14, 2004—after a nearly half-year investigation—a special panel reported to the British Parliament that British intelligence had indeed concluded that Saddam Hussein was seeking to buy uranium from Africa. The Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction, chaired by Lord Butler, summarized: “It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium…. The statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that ‘The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa’ was well-founded.”

In the U.S., the Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq revealed that the CIA considered it important that the Nigerian officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerian Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.” The Select Committee on Intelligence also noted that the CIA reviewed and cleared the President’s State of the Union address....


Urban Legend: Helping democracy take root in Iraq was a postwar rationalization by the Bush administration; it was an argument that was not made prior to going to war. In the words of a November 13, 2003 New York Times editorial, “The White House recently began shifting its case for the Iraq war from the embarrassing unconventional weapons issue to the lofty vision of creating an exemplary democracy in Iraq.”

Reality: The President argued the importance of democracy taking root in Iraq before the war began. A February 27, 2003 New York Times editorial shatters the very myth the paper was perpetrating just nine months later: “President Bush sketched an expansive vision last night [in an American Enterprise Institute speech] of what he expects to accomplish by a war in Iraq. Instead of focusing on eliminating weapons of mass destruction, or reducing the threat of terror to the United States, Mr. Bush talked about establishing a ‘free and peaceful Iraq’ that would serve as a ‘dramatic and inspiring example’ to the entire Arab and Muslim world, provide a stabilizing influence in the Middle East, and even help end the Arab-Israeli conflict. The idea of turning Iraq into a model democracy in the Arab world is one some members of the administration have been discussing for a long time.” President Bush’s 2002 State of the Union made the same case….

Urban Legend: Saddam Hussein posed no threat. In the words of former Senator Max Cleland, “Iraq was no threat. We now know that. There are no weapons of mass destruction, no nuclear weapons programs, no ties to al-Qaeda. We now know that.”

Reality: Upon his return from Iraq, weapons inspector David Kay, head of the Iraq Survey Group, said in Senate testimony: “I think the world is far safer with the disappearance and the removal of Saddam Hussein…. I actually think this may be one of those cases where it was even more dangerous than we thought…. After 1998, it became a regime that was totally corrupt…. And in a world where we know others are seeking WMD, the likelihood at some point in the future of a seller and a buyer meeting up would have made that a far more dangerous country.”

Dr. Kay’s report noted that, “We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002.” He concluded, “Saddam, at least as judged by those scientists and other insiders who worked in his military-industrial programs, had not given up his aspirations and intentions to continue to acquire weapons of mass destruction…. Saddam intended to resume these programs whenever the external restrictions were removed. Several of these officials acknowledge receiving inquiries since 2000 from Saddam or his sons about how long it would take to restart CW [chemical weapons] production.”


Urban Legend: There were no links between al-Qaeda and Iraq.

Reality: The 9/11 Commission Report indicates that a senior Iraqi intelligence officer met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan in late 1994 or early 1995 and that contacts continued after bin Laden relocated in Afghanistan. Iraq harbored senior members of a terrorist network led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, an al-Qaeda associate. CIA Director George Tenet told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (in a 10/7/02 letter), “We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade.” Senator Hillary Clinton stated on October 10, 2002 that Saddam “has given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members.” The Clinton administration tied Iraq to al-Qaeda back in 1998, arguing that Saddam Hussein had provided technical assistance in the construction of an al-Qaeda chemical plant in Sudan….

Urban Legend: President Bush and his administration wrongly tried to link Iraq and Saddam Hussein to the September 11 attacks. “President Bush should apologize to the American people” for this “plainly dishonest” effort, insists a New York Times editorial.

Reality: Neither President Bush nor any member of his foreign policy team has ever said Iraq was linked to the attacks of September 11. On September 17, 2003, for example, in response to a question from a reporter, President Bush said: “No, we’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September 11.”

Urban Legend: President Bush has shown an “arrogant disrespect” for the United Nations on Iraq, according to Senator Ted Kennedy.

Reality: The administration devoted enormous time and energy to pass five separate U.N. Security Council Resolutions on Iraq, each by unanimous vote.... President Bush personally addressed the U.N. General Assembly in September 2002. The administration supported the work of Lakhdar Brahimi, the U.N. special envoy in Iraq, and a continued U.N. role in Iraq’s political transition.

Urban Legend: The President launched a “unilateral attack on Iraq,” to use the words of former Vermont Governor Howard Dean.

Reality: The coalition that liberated Iraq ranks among the largest war coalitions ever assembled. President Bush in his 2004 State of the Union address: “Some critics have said our duties in Iraq must be internationalized. This particular criticism is hard to explain to our partners in Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands, Norway, El Salvador, and the 17 other countries that have committed troops to Iraq…. There is a difference, however, between leading a coalition of many nations, and submitting to the objections of a few. America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country.”

Urban Legend: Flights out of the country for members of the bin Laden family were allowed before national airspace reopened on September 13, 2001; there was political intervention to facilitate the departure of the bin Laden family from America; and the FBI did not properly screen them before their departure.

Reality: Here are excerpts from The 9/11 Commission Report: “First, we found no evidence that any flights of Saudi nationals, domestic or international, took place before the reopening of national airspace on the morning of September 13, 2001. To the contrary, every flight we have identified occurred after national airspace reopened.

Second, we found no evidence of political intervention. We found no evidence that anyone at the White House above the level of Richard Clarke participated in a decision on the departure of Saudi nationals....

Third, we believe that the FBI conducted a satisfactory screening of Saudi nationals who left the United States on charter flights.... The FBI interviewed all persons of interest on these flights prior to their departures. They concluded that none of the passengers was connected to the 9/11 attacks and have since found no evidence to change that conclusion. Our own independent review of the Saudi nationals involved confirms that no one with known links to terrorism departed on these flights.”

(If you've read this far and are wondering what Diane Feinstein being an ignorant cunt has to do with anything above, well, mazel tov. If you don't understand that everything wrong with this world is rooted in the fact that Diane Feinstein is an ignorant cunt, I can't help you. You'll understand one day.)

Something you don't see everyday.

If you look closely, there are two turkeys in the tree (the one with the red leaves), fucking. In my front yard. Two days after thanksgiving. It must mean something.

The New York Times has gone to the dogs

I feel bad about including my beloved dog in the same line as the New York Times, but he was laying on top of it this morning when I took the picture. Yeah, I still read the Times every day. I hate a lot of what they write and I think they've gone way off the deep end in their left wing agenda and their hate of President Bush. I also like knowing what the enemy is up to, so I read the Times. Sue me.

More important, though, and the purpose of this post...I went mountain biking this morning and have pictures up. See my other blog for these pictures as well as all my other biking, gun and other pictures.

What every good Zhid should have

Even though I live in a part of the San Francisco area that is still close enough to its rural roots that it isn't hostile to a person's right to keep and bear arms, the recent nonsense in San Francisco (see post below) has caused me to be on the alert that there may come a day when I have to take action to protect my rights. I'm not sure what I can do to perfect my rights, to use a term of art that is not really applicable, but I figure at the very least I should be able to get to my weapons quickly and have them ready for transport.

I've separated my weapons, as a result, into two batches. The long weapons (rifles and shotgun) are in their cases in one part of the house and the weapons that are highly mobile and constitute my "all hell breaks loose, get the hell out of the house and grab some weapons quickly on the way out" are in a bag in another part.

Here's what I have in that bag


That's a S&W 6904 9mm and a Taurus .357 magnum (modified with Pachmayr grips). I have 300 rounds of 9mm ammo in the bag (some hollowpoint, some fmj) and 100 rounds of .357 magnum (all hollowpoint). It's not enough forever, but having 400 rounds of handgun ammo in a bag with the weapons will likely allow me to put up a good enough fight, whether or not it gets me out of whatever trouble I've found myself in. If I run out of ammo, there's also a nice knife in there. It's a Cold Steel Recon Tanto. Though I really don't favor knives (and really don't like getting cut), knives don't run out of ammo.

(and anyone who knows me will understand the irony of source of the bag).

Update: I went to the range today to test out the Schmidt Rubin. Very interesting rifle...It lived up to its reputation. The one thing I didn't like was the trigger, as there was too much travel before it engaged, but otherwise it's a very sweet shooting rifle. I have two swiss rifles now, the Schmidt Rubin K31 and the SigArms SHR 970 and they are my favorites. For a country that refuses to go to war, they sure as shit make some of the best weapons around.

A hearty congratulations to the city and people of San Francisco!

I know, many of the tens of thousands of loyal VengefulZhid readers are wondering what I, the Vengeful Zhid, the man who beat Bill O'Reilly to the punch in wishing a terrorist attack on San Francisco, the man who has stated that he'd be happy to see San Francisco reduced to a rubble and corpse strewn smoking pit, would ever congratulate the people and city of San Francisco. Why, some of you may be asking, has the Zhid gone soft? Perhaps.

I'm congratulating San Francisco for passing Proposition H in the recent election, a Proposition that will, if allowed to stand, essentially ban the private ownership of firearms and ammunition within the borders of the city of San Francisco. Nearly 60% of San Francisco residents approved this proposition.

So what gives? Why would a man who hates San Francisco and adores guns be so happy to see San Francisco enact a law that bans private ownership of firearms?

Because it's what the people of San Francisco want. I'm all in favor of majority rules and the majority of San Francisco (probably closer to the entirety of San Francisco) are insane left wing extremists. Take a look at the other things they approved-banning military recruiters from schools, for example. This is a city that hates America with such a passion that the city government sponsors anti-American riots in conjunction with groups like ANSWER. San Francisco, in it's last mayoral election, had two candidates that received a split of the votes-an extreme left winger (Matt Gonzales) and a left of center liberal (Gavin Newsom). Those were the candidates who got virtually 100% of the votes, with Newsom winning by a miniscule margin. The voters say it loud and clear-half of San Francisco is extreme leftist, the other have is run of the mill liberal, tilting towards the leftists. No center, no moderate conservative, certainly no conservatives. It's a city of closed minded, liberal/left traitors. That's why I applaud them for doing what would have been impossible in any other case.

San Francisco, a city full of insane terror supporting leftists, chose to disarm itself. Wars have been fought to get radical populations to disarm themselves and the people of San Francisco saved us all that trouble and cost. They handed us a gift.

Yes, I don't like the legal ramifications of a ban on private gun ownership, but hopefully this can be somehow distinguished so it doesn't set a precedent. We can consider it the San Francisco exception to the Second Amendment. It doesn't apply anywhere else (other than maybe Berkeley and Oakland).

I'm THRILLED that in a few months, San Francisco's population will be without any means to defend itself or to cause problems outside of its borders. It will have been totally pacified, by its own hands. What will be especially interesting is the next natural disaster or public order breakdown. On the one hand, I'd love to go in there to do a little hunting, but on the other hand I'd rather let them tear themselves apart, caveman style.

The bottom line is that I do NOT want people who support our enemies to be armed. I do not want people who cling to extremist beliefs to be armed. San Francisco did us all a very big favor.

And just think of where it all can lead. Chris Daly, a SF supervisor who was a prime force behind the disarming of San Francisco, said this:

Supervisor Chris Daly, who proposed the measure, said the victory showed that "San Francisco voters support sensible gun control."


Citing statistics that show most homicides in the city involve handguns, Daly said "every life that's saved with Proposition H is a big win."

Imagine the possibilities. All it takes to justify a law that strips basic rights of the people is to show that it can result in a life being saved. All private ownership of automobiles will be banned! Knives will be banned! Violent video games and movies will be banned! Even negroes will be banned, under the Bill Bennett theory that is apparently endorsed by Chris Daly!

And get this...under the Chris Daly sponsored, San Francisco voter approved theory of rights, homosexuality will be illegal, as we can prevent AIDS by banning homosexuality!

Remember, dear readers, it is acceptable to strip people of their rights if you can save a life as a result. Just think how much easier the war on terror will be now that San Francisco has endorsed the "whatever it takes to save a life" theory of individual rights.

So congratulations, people of San Francisco, you'd done an outstanding job. I will continue to stock up on ammunition, if you don't mind.

And for those few people who are caught behind enemy lines, I encourage you to do what I did. Move. Leave the leftist city. Let them have their way and move to a place, like I did, where you are surrounded by similar thinking individuals. I live a mere 40 miles from San Francisco and have no local restrictions on my gun or ammunition ownership. In fact, there's a shooting range a few miles from my house, newly re-opened and crowded with good Americans! Houses and taxes are cheaper out here and you get to keep your basic rights. What a bargain!