Captain's Quarters Backup Site

Flying Home, with France On My Mind

Today we're flying back to Minneapolis, after a great vacation with the family. These times are never long enough, but it will be great to sleep in our own beds again.

No other posting today, as I will be too danged busy, but you should check out this post at Jennifer's History and Stuff about France. I spent my blogging time today writing an extensive comment on why and how the French irritate the livin' snot out of me. (If you read this, Jennifer, sorry about the length.)

Tomorrow, we'll have the 500th post at Captain's Quarters!

From the Soldier's Perspective

Andrew Sullivan posts this e-mail from a soldier at the Thanksgiving celebration in Baghdad where President Bush made his appearance:

Mr. Sullivan, I was present for the surprise visit by the President. It was truly wonderful to be there, and my buddies and I really are grateful that President Bush would take a real risk to come see u. He flew about 12 hours to spend 2 hours with us, he served food to the troops, but he never got a chance to eat himself, at least not until he got on the plane, I'd imagine. For 2 hours, the President walked amongst us, not a receiving line where we came to him, stiff and formal, but coming to us, reading our names on our uniforms and greeting us by name. He looked me in the eye when he shook my hand, he joked with some, whispered to others, spoke a little Spanish to my friend. 2 hours of almost non-stop motion, how exhausting after a 12 hour flight! He did it to be with us, and we appreciate it.

It's amazing how well that compensates for the media elite currently blathering on about how the secrecy of the trip amounts to lying to the sainted press corps, as if security considerations were just an annoying afterthought. Howard Kurtz reports on the biggest whiners:

Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, criticized the White House correspondents who made the trip without spilling the secret. "That's just not kosher," he said. "Reporters are in the business of telling the truth. They can't decide it's okay to lie sometimes because it serves a larger truth or good cause."

So, Tom, let me get this straight: if a reporter decides to pose as a mental patient to blow the lid off of abuse in psychiatric hospitals, he's acting unethically -- correct? I mean, the reporter is lying, isn't he? If a reporter poses as a slaughterhouse worker in order to inform the public of substandard practices in food handling, he's lying, isn't he? Investigative journalists do this all the time -- and in the case of the Bush trip, it wasn't even lying -- it was keeping one's mouth shut for a finite, short period of time so that the story could be told safely. Explain to me how that's unethical and that's lying, but the two cases I mentioned earlier (Geraldo Rivera, 1969, and Upton Sinclair, 1906), explicitly lying about one's identity and purpose is somehow justified by the end result.

Philip Taubman, Washington bureau chief of the New York Times, said that "in this day and age, there should have been a way to take more reporters. People are perfectly capable of maintaining a confidence for security reasons. It's a bad precedent." Once White House officials "decided to do a stealth trip, they bought into a whole series of things that are questionable."

Philip Taubman and Tom Rosenstiel really ought to compare notes. On one hand, Rosenstiel says that reporters are obligated to tell what they know, but on the other hand, Taubman's insisting that the White House could have told the entire press corps and no one would have breathed a word of it. Oh, and the White House "decided" on stealth mode, too; it's not as though it were necessary to keep him alive, or anything like that. Kim Hume has a more realistic view:

She said the administration took a network pool crew, as it was supposed to, and "we didn't get any competitive advantage from it." Had more journalists been told, Hume said, "the story would have leaked in about two seconds" because "news people are the biggest gossips alive."

Of course, media leaks never occur; just ask about this incident, over at Rantingprofs:

Second, from this story, the cell wasn't captured in its entirety. Why? Wait for it -- media leaks. It would have been real nice if the Beeb had been a bit more, say, robust in their coverage of that part of the story. I'd love to know which outlet leaked information that made it possible for suspected terrorists to get out of dodge before the cops grabed them, wouldn't you? (But by all means, lets rehash whether it was unnecessary deception for the White House to put out a fake menu before the President left for Baghdad. I'm sure that information would never have leaked.)

The media are up in arms both because Bush didn't invite them all to his little party, and also because they're beginning to suspect that he's going to breeze to re-election next year, and they aren't happy at all about either one.

UPDATE: Demosophia has a good post on this same topic. Money quote: "I suppose they'd also have insisted on giving Hitler fair warning about the invasion of Normandy." And besides the one post I linked from Rantingprofs, you can read more about this story in several earlier posts as well.

Politburo Diktat Maps the Blogosphere

Comrade Commissar is not just good political enforcer -- he is Glorious Revolutionary Cartographer as well. If you click on just one link today, you must click on this one, Comrades.

I notice that KaptainEdsk is located in South-Central Reynoldssia, which suits me just fine. Nice place for good weather and a nice little dacha near the Volga, da? This is your one-stop blogroll; simply click where you want to travel, and faster than Glorious Revolution, you are transported to the blog of your choice. (Da, I know, Comrades, choice is counterrevolutionary plot, but we must peacefully co-exist for the moment ...)

Dana Milbank Spouts Off Again

Dana Milbank, whose reporting leaves no doubt about his feelings for the Bush administration, attempts an in-depth analysis and only manages to state that Bush is "indelibly" tied to results in Iraq -- as if that's breaking news:

Iraqis may be reassured that the United States will put down the insurgency and restore order in their country. Or they may take the image of Bush landing unannounced at night without lights and not venturing from a heavily fortified military installation as confirmation that the security situation in Iraq is dire indeed.

But one thing is certain. Bush's Thanksgiving Day surprise ties him, for better or worse, ever more tightly to the outcome of the Iraq struggle.

Well, excuse me for stating the obvious, but duh. "Insurgents" -- otherwise known as unreconstructed Ba'athists who would like nothing better than to re-install Saddamism/Stalinism -- have access to SAMs and explosives and relatively cheap cars that can be used as low-speed guided missiles. No one knows that better than the Iraqis, for Pete's sake. I suspect they are a lot more aware of their security situation than would be a pampered reporter typing out his "analysis" from the safety of his mid-Atlantic home office. I suspect that they are a lot more aware of their world now that they have over 150 newspapers free to print whatever they like, rather than Saddam's Minister of Information -- Comical Ali -- telling them that the camo-wearing groups of people arriving in armored vehicles through the middle of Baghdad didn't exist, and if you help these imaginary folk, the Fedayeen will kill you.

And if you don't already know that Bush's presidency is absolutely tied to the war on terror, and specifically to success in this radical intervention in Iraq, then reading Dana Milbank won't cure you from your obtuseness.

There is nothing novel about presidential visits to war zones at holiday time. Bill Clinton went to Kosovo for Thanksgiving in 1999, Lyndon B. Johnson went to Vietnam for Christmas in 1967, and President-elect Dwight D. Eisenhower visited Korean battle fronts in 1952. Richard M. Nixon also traveled to Vietnam, in 1969.

Ho ho ho ... oh, wait, he's serious. Nixon, Johnson, and Eisenhower visited the troops when the zones were hot, just as Bush did yesterday. Kosovo was hardly a hot zone in November 1999. This is an attempt to de-emphasize Bush's surprise visit to the troops. Don't get me wrong; Clinton did the right thing in 1999 by spending his Thanksgiving with the troops, and I'll assume that he would have made the trip if it was still a hot zone, like Baghdad is today. It's just that the two visits are hardly equal in terms of impact or security.

In contrast to Bush's carrier landing, which they immediately branded a stunt, Bush's critics yesterday did not begrudge him the trip to Iraq, nor the necessary secrecy, nor even the disinformation the White House used to lead people to believe he would be at home on his ranch in Texas all day.

This is pretty disingenuous, as critics spent most of the day yesterday begrudging him all of these things; they just didn't have the guts to go on the record. For instance, MS-NBC manages to get this into their story:

Upon hearing of the visit, Iraqis looked on with befuddlement and bemusement, saying they knew it was meant for U.S. troops but hoping he gained some insight into the country during his brief stay. ... Defending his decision to make the trip and the deception surrounding it [emphasis mine], Bush said: “I think the American people appreciate me going to express my sympathies to these kids.["]

In addition, while I was watching the news of the event on CNN, there was a good deal of discussion as to whether the administration had acted ethically in deceiving the White House press corps about the president's itinerary for Thanksgiving, as if he had decided to eat at his in-laws instead of at his ranch. Talk about missing the entire point! Also, if you want to see more carping about the Thanksgiving visit, feel free to lose 30 points off your IQ by visiting Democratic Underground, where they are inventing all sorts of weird motives and conspiracies, but in all fairness, they are hardly representative of mainstream opposition.

You can read the rest of Milbank's "analysis", but it contains little in the way of analytical thought. It's just a rehash of wire service quotes from yesterday and today. Why does the Post continue to allow Milbank to cover this presidency, anyway? If this trite and hackneyed piece is the best he can do, he should be reassigned to movie reviews and let someone else who understands the news cover it.

UPDATE: Power Line gives this a brief mention, but also links to a straightforward story at the Washington Times.

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished

Although this is not well known in many areas, it is popular in Minnesota to deep-fry turkeys for Thanksgiving; the process seals in moisture and cooks the bird rather quickly. However, it is not without its dangers, and it seems that every year brings stories like this:

Bill Fickett wanted to give his wife a break from the kitchen on Thanksgiving, so he offered to cook the turkey. His gesture ended up setting their garage on fire and causing about $14,000 in damage. ... Fickett was heating up about 3 gallons of oil for the turkey right before the fire started. He adjusted the temperature to the recommended 350 degrees, then stepped into the house to get the bird.

Smoke was pouring out of the garage when they came back.

When St. Cloud firefighters arrived about 2:15 p.m., the garage was in flames, said Gene Kostreba, acting assistant fire chief. The fire was contained to the garage, which was not attached to the house.

Fortunately, the Ficketts only lost the garage and its contents (no car was inside at the time), and not the house or anyone's life, and no one was hurt. But it underscores the danger of this process. If you are going to deep-fry your bird, you can't walk away, and you had better be clear of any structures when you cook. Bill Fickett has a better idea:

"I'll probably stick to baking them now.''

New Additions to Blogroll

Today, I'm adding a couple of blogs to my blogroll. First, I'm adding Blog Iran, a blog dedicated to freeing Iranians and establishing a true democracy in Iran, free of the control of the mullahs. Today I received an e-mail from Haleh at ActivistChat.com:

The news site provides pro-freedom and pro-democracy news - specifically in regards to Iran, and BLOG-IRAN is a Grassroots Campaign that is uniting Bloggers from around the world who support the Iranian struggle for freedom & democracy.

The goal of each is to provide much needed awareness of the struggle for democracy in Iran as well as support America's/Bush's vision of aiding people of the region and throughout the world in their battle for
freedom.

Here's a telling quote regarding Bush's commitment to spreading democracy, and our willingness to support that policy:

Food for thought: - Bush has greater support in Iran among the Iranian population than he has here in the states, lets hope he can act on the great speeches and defend freedom of Iranians, the only way for the war on terrorism to be won.

The only way to truly secure our freedom is to free as many people as we can from brutal, oppressive dictatorships and kleptocracies. Hopefully these changes can be peaceful; in the spirit of supporting peaceful change, I'm adding Blog Iran to the Int'l Waters list.

I'm also adding Eye on the Left to the Battleships list. EotL is a sharply partisan but always interesting blog, and quite frankly, I'm not sure why I haven't added them before. It's a great window on the opposition, especially its fringe elements.

Chickenhawk? I Think Not

President George Bush flew into a hot zone in order to spend Thanksgiving in Iraq:

President Bush made a Thanksgiving Day visit to Baghdad, appearing before delighted soldiers taken completely by surprise. After appearing before some U.S. troops in Baghdad and the Iraqi Governing Council, Bush left Baghdad at about 8 p.m. Iraq time, or noon EST. Air Force One stayed on the ground for just two-and-a-half hours, the White House said.

I can't tell you how outstanding it is to see a commander-in-chief spending a family holiday with the troops that he has, wisely or foolishly, put into harm's way. Obviously, this visit could not be announced to either the troops or the press before it was made. Here's how the troops found out:

Iraq's U.S. civil administrator L. Paul Bremer told the soldiers he wanted the most senior person in the room to read the president's Thanksgiving proclamation and asked who was there to do it.

Then Bush emerged, misty-eyed and wearing a U.S. Army exercise jacket. As soon as the soldiers spotted him, the room erupted in cheers. He told them he had arrived for a warm meal.

"I can't think of a finer group of folks to have dinner with," he told the troops.

The folks at the Democratic Underground are not pleased:

We can never underestimate Bush and Co. This will play *very* well on TV - not just Faux - it's breaking on all the networks. They're playing it up that Bush risked a great deal by flying into a hot zone (they're rehasing the SAM attack on the DHL plane from the weekend). All sounds very Bruce Willis (puke) ballsy. We can wail and gnash our teeth about how pathetic this is, but Bush scored some major points here. It's quite different that the aircraft carrier fiasco (where there was NO danger at all) - there actually was some danger here. It's high time that dems realize exactly what we're up against and act accordingly.

Perhaps it's time for them to understand that politics is not everything with this president. Bush is leading in all polls against all candidates without even airing a single ad, despite the months-long tirade his opponents have launched against him. Bush did not need to make this trip, and in fact the trip may not have been advisable from a national-security perspective. The fact that he did it anyway speaks volumes about his character and his motivations. We hear a lot from Democrats about supporting the troops; if this is the tenor of the reaction we see from this event, it will speak volumes about the character of the opposition. (Thanks to Eye on the Left for the story and the quote.)

UPDATE: Give a cheer to Senator Hillary Clinton; she spent Thanksgiving with the troops in Afghanistan.

Thanksgiving Greetings Around the Web

Here are a few good posts this Thanksgiving holiday:

Power Line has George Washington's original Thanksgiving proclamation. Definitely a good read today. They also link to a story in today's Strib that I read last night, about George H.W. Bush's Thanksgiving letter back home to his parents when he was stationed in Minneapolis in 1942.

The Sophorist continues the historical perspective with a proclamation from Abraham Lincoln making Thanksgiving official, in 1863.

Jon at QandO gives thanks for capitalism and its ability to produce freedom.

Lileks, who is about to pull a disappearing act in December [sob], has a small thought for today.

Venomous Kate's baking all day. My blood sugar went out of control just looking at her menu.

Guess who Matt Margolis is thankful for! (Me, too.)

Lastly, while we're at home with our families giving thanks, there's one family in the Upper Midwest that will be praying for the safe return of their 22-year-old daughter. DC at Brainstorming posts pictures and the story of Dru Sjodin. Here's one of them:

DC believes in the power of prayer; so do I. Let's all remember her and her family in our Thanksgiving prayers today.

Happy Thanksgiving!

A Happy Thanksgiving to all of you from Captain's Quarters! As we continue our vacation, I can't help but to think how blessed I am for my life and my family, even with all of our problems and challenges. Sometimes I think my life truly started when I got married ten years ago, even though I joke that it seems like 20, which usually earns me a slap on the arm.

Yesterday we spent a great day at Disneyland. Now, I grew up in Orange County; I went to Disneyland (and Knott's Berry Farm) about a thousand times when I was growing up, so except for the newly added attractions, it's been old hat for me whenever I go back. But my sister works for Disney -- we get in free, and so we've usually gone there on every trip back to California. At the end of the day, we've always had a lot to joke about: all the commercialism, the cheesy music, the prices (we pay for the food & merchandise!), the crowds, and the silly parades.

This time, though, we took the Little Admiral, even though at 18 months I thought she was a little too young to enjoy Disneyland. I was wrong. She loved Disneyland, the rides, the big characters walking around, and all of the sights and sounds I have been taking for granted. I got video of her riding Dumbo with Mommy and Daddy, and saw the surprise and delight in her eyes when that elephant took off at the beginning of the ride. We have video of her laughing and running up to Minnie and Goofy and giving them hugs (and I thought they'd frighten her -- ha!). Best of all, I got to hold her during two showings of the holiday parade and watch her as she saw Santa at the end, waving and saying "hi", and completely enraptured by the music. And there's nothing better than holding your granddaughter like that while she's in such delight of the world around her.

So, on Thanksgiving, I'm thinking that while it's good to be cynical with government and politics, perhaps I should be less so with the other things in life: family, friends, and places like Disneyland, where a young girl can be delighted with sounds, sights, music, and just being alive in the middle of a whole lot that's good and wonderful. Yesterday, "The Happiest Place on Earth" was not just a slogan, and you know what? I am so thankful I got to be there to see it.

Happy Thanksgiving to all of you. May your day be filled with wonder and goodness.

Magyar Blog: When and How Do You Call It a Night?

This may seem a bit cruel once you read Martin's entire post, but he does raise an interesting point of blog etiquette:

What is the etiquette for ending a blog? And not just a cessation of posts either, I mean taking it down completely. If this blog disappears, and all links lead to 404 errors (or even a message from me apologizing), is that some sort of Stalinist re-writing of history? It's not like a million people have linked to this site. I got one link from Instapundit, one from Serenity's Journal, a bunch from Frozen In Montreal, two from Sneakeasy’s, and a couple from Debbye in Toronto. Seriously, in seven months of blogging, that’s it. So no one will be crushed. But do I have some obligation to keep the content online?

Read the entire post. I admit that the thought has occurred to me in a theoretical sense, although I am very happy to be blogging at this stage. I would assume that some sort of valediction would be polite, even if your readership was small, just to let them know you're OK and haven't been hit by a bus. Since Martin is paying for his hosting, cutting off the funding would likely mean his stuff would go off line more or less instantly, while with Typepad, I'm not sure if that would happen or if I would no longer be able to access my blog if I stopped the service.

However, if you read Magyar Blog, you'll see that it is interesting and well-written. My advice would be to continue as long as you have the passion for it. If you feel like you need to go a different direction, create a new blog but keep your old one up in case you feel like returning to it.

And good luck!

UPDATE: Martin clarifies that he's not paying for the hosting, and that the Stalin-style purge would be self-inflicted. I didn't get that the first time around.