COLLECTIVE MADNESS


“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."

Friday, June 06, 2008

"Strong smelling, but smoooooth." Trish.





Beyond The Rhetoric And Resignations
By THOMAS SOWELL

It is amazing how seriously the media are taking Sen. Barack Obama's latest statement about the latest racist rant from the pulpit of the church he has attended for 20 years.

But neither that statement nor the apology for his rant by Father Michael Pfleger really matters, one way or the other. Nor does Sen. Obama's belated resignation from that church.

For any politician, what matters is not his election-year rhetoric, or an election-year resignation from a church, but the track record of that politician in the years before the election.

Yet so many people are so fascinated by Obama's rhetorical skills that they don't care about his voting record in the U.S. Senate, in the Illinois state Senate, the causes that he has chosen to promote over the years, or the candidate's personal character and values, as revealed by his actions and associations.

Despite clever spin from Obama's supporters about avoiding "guilt by association," much more is involved than casual association with people like Jeremiah Wright and Father Pfleger.

In addition to giving $20,000 of his own money to Jeremiah Wright, as a state senator, Obama directed $225,000 of the Illinois taxpayers' money for programs run by Father Pfleger. In the U.S. Senate, Obama earmarked $100,000 in federal tax money for Father Pfleger's work.

Giving someone more than 300 grand is not just some tenuous, coincidental association.

Are Barack Obama's views shown by what he says during an election year or by what he has been doing for decades before?

The complete contrast between Obama's election-year image as a healer of divisions and his whole career of promoting far-left grievance politics, in association with America-haters like Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, are brushed aside by his supporters, who talk about getting back to "the real issues."

There is nothing more real than a man's character and values. The track record of what he has actually done is far more real than anything he says, however elegantly he says it.

There is no office where the character and values of the person in that office matter more than the office of president of the United States. He holds the destiny of 300 million Americans in his hands and the fate of generations yet unborn.

That was never more true than today, with Iran moving ever closer to a nuclear bomb, while the United Nations wrings its hands and Congress fritters away its time on things from steroids in sports to earmarks for pet projects back home.

Does anyone seriously consider what it would mean for Iran to have nuclear weapons? They already are supplying terrorists with the means of killing people in other countries, including killing American troops in Iraq.

Sen. Obama has been downplaying the Iran threat, saying that they are just "a small country," not like the Soviet Union. The people who flew planes into the World Trade Center were an even smaller group than the Iranian government.

Half a dozen terrorists like that with nuclear weapons would be a bigger danger than the Soviet Union ever was, because the Soviet leaders were not suicide bombers. They could be deterred by the threat of what we would do to Moscow if they attacked New York. You cannot deter suicidal fanatics. They are not going to stop unless they get stopped. Rhetoric is not going to do it.

Not only Sen. Obama, but too many other Americans, seem to have no concept of the seething hatred that can lead people to destroy their own lives in order to lash out at others. But terrorists have been doing this repeatedly, not only in Iraq and in Israel, but in other countries around the world — including the United States on 9/11.

Have we already forgotten how the Palestinians were cheering in the streets over the news of the attack on the World Trade Center? How videotapes of sadistic beheadings of innocent people by terrorists have found an eager audience in the Middle East?

Are we going to leave our children hostages to hate-filled sadists with nuclear weapons? Are we to rely on Barack Obama's rhetoric to protect them?

Sen. Obama's foreign policy seems to be somewhere between Rodney King's "Can't we just get along?" and Alfred E. Neuman's "What, me worry?"


79 comments:

  1. Sowell wrote:
    "Sen. Obama has been downplaying the Iran threat, saying that they are just "a small country," not like the Soviet Union. The people who flew planes into the World Trade Center were an even smaller group than the Iranian government."

    ******************
    Obama at the AIPAC convention said:
    " The world must work to stop Iran’s uranium enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy. And while we should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons.

    Iranian nuclear weapons would destabilize the region and could set off a new arms race."

    *****************************
    Which is it, Senator?

    ReplyDelete
  2. "...sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons."

    They have been our primary means, Senator. You see how well that's worked.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Senator answers: Which one gets me to the White House?










    You do realize, bob, that your Colombia murder stats are eight years old? Pre-Uribe.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I just want to say how fortunate we are to have such a new hopeful candidate this year, that new man, Alfred E. Newman. Suave, elegant, and with boyish good looks, too.

    No, I didn't realize that, Trish, but I'm always about 8 years or more behind the times. I'm having a new gasket put in my 1960 Ford F-600 today, for instance. Which I got to go pick up now.

    "What, me worry?"

    ReplyDelete
  5. I know if I'm standing up in front of an AIPAC crowd, I'm not gonna be poking nobody with any sharp sticks.

    If I'm standing up before an AIPAC crowd, you better believe I'm cribbing from that bitch I spent ten months outmaneuvering.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Roger that, Trish, but does the crowd buy it? Or is everyone enthralled?

    I mean literally enthralled. As in mesmerized.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I don't think any of the doo-goos on the left stop and consider that the odds of a war they don't want increase rather than decrease in an Obama administration.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The Israelis don't buy it.

    The Israelis are beside themselves at the whole prospect of President Obama. And preparing for it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. From the AIPAC speech:"As the U.S. redeploys from Iraq, we can recapture lost influence in the
    Middle East."

    Middle East Times
    AMMAN -- Palestinian and Arab hopes were dashed by a speech that U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama gave to a pro-Israeli lobby, in which he promised his full support to Israel and went further by adopting Israeli policy that sees Jerusalem as the "undivided capital" of the Jewish state.

    Erekat told reporters: "We reject the positions of Barack Obama because they are in contradiction with the traditional positions of the United States, which considers East Jerusalem under occupation."

    Hamas, which ousted the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority from Gaza last June, has now changed its mind about Obama after Hamas aide Ahmed Yousef was widely quoted as saying in April that "we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will win the election."

    ******************
    Yeah baby, that's how you win friends and influence people.

    ReplyDelete
  10. trish said...
    "I don't think any of the doo-goos on the left stop and consider that the odds of a war they don't want increase rather than decrease in an Obama administration."

    That's kinda funny trish given the two wars the right has already delivered.

    trish said...
    The Israelis don't buy it.


    While I'm inclined to believe that may be the case I haven't seen any scepticism expressed as of yet. Have you? If so, where?

    Traditionally the democrats have been more favorably disposed to Israel then the realist republicans but then the republicans got hijacked by the bible thumping second coming folks and now they are bestest friends, so ya, Israelis might viewing anything replacing them with some trepidtion.

    ReplyDelete
  11. JOHN McCAIN came to AIPAC with far less political baggage, yet aware that no matter what he said, most US Jews would maintain their historic allegiance to the Democratic Party. A recent Gallop poll shows that 61 percent of Jewish voters intend to vote for Obama.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Have you?"

    Yes.

    And skepticism isn't the word for it.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Why are they so sceptical? Blacks traditional ire?

    ReplyDelete
  14. "That's kinda funny..."

    No. It's only counterintuitive for a lot of folks.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Blacks traditional ire? As a source of their complete incredulity? And fear?

    I'm not even gonna dignify that with a response.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Bush and his pals on the right have delivered two wars, unfinished still, and he's spoken very strongly about engaging Iran and you are suggesting that Obama is more likely to engage attack then "Bomb, Bomb, Iran" McSame. No, I guess its not funny, more like sad.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Well, your making factual statements with no backup. What other reason would be on offer?

    ReplyDelete
  18. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  19. From the Jeruslem Post, more on the AIPAC speech:
    "I will never compromise when it comes to Israel's security," he declared.

    He argued that by pressuring Israel to allow Palestinian elections with Hamas participation, and by going to war against Iraq when "Iran was always the greater threat," administration foreign policy had made Israel less secure.


    So now, Iran was always the greater threat? I thought that bin Laden was the bigger fish. Apparently, whichever fish we didn't go after or catch was preferable to the ones we did.

    Obama is running a shell game.

    ReplyDelete
  20. (AGI/REUTERS) - Washington, 6 June - Flip flop by Barack Obama on Jerusalem, after having assured that "it will remain the undivided capital of Israel". Pushed by Palestinian critics and specifications by the US State Department, the Democratic candidate to the White House assured that the status of the Holy City will be decided by peace talks. "Obviously it will be up to the negotiating parties on the issues and Jerusalem will be part of this negotiation", he declared to Cnn. His declaration on Jerusalem to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) were highly valued by Israeli Premier Ehud Olmert and were defined by the Jewish State Press as more Zionist than "Likud in the times of Menachem Begin". The opening was probably destined to counter John McCain's accusations that defined Obama as "the preferred candidate of Hamas", but risked becoming a boomerang for future relationships with Palestine and the Arab world.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "...he's spoken very strongly about engaging Iran..."

    Which. We already do. Never having stopped doing it.

    Petraeus has spoken very strongly about possible further engagement as well, should the opportunity arise.

    But as part of a larger strategy. Call it parry and thrust.

    Petraeus (and Gates) I trust to finesse an extremely thorny situation.

    Not so the man who rushed out of the gate singing the praises of unconditional STATE LEVEL meetings.

    With any number of ways to blunder into war, a naive faith in your antagonists ranks right up there.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Talking with one's adversary, even at the uppermost level, does not imply faith in them. It strikes me as a far better strategy then doing what Bush has done where he has stipulated that they must cease the enrichment (our prime goal) before any talks may occur.

    ReplyDelete
  23. ...that's basically saying "cave and then we'll talk". Well, the likely response, which is what we've received is "F-You"

    ReplyDelete
  24. they must cease the enrichment (our prime goal) before any talks may occur.

    Fri Jun 06, 06:04:00 PM EDT

    Before any STATE LEVEL talks occur. Because those talks ARE A REWARD.



    You wear me out, ash. You really do.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Yep, that's my darlin'. 292, five speed, 2 speed rear end. Cept I've got grain racks and a hoist, and bigger mirrors. Red, instead of green.

    We'll have a lot more influence in the middle east when we are totally out of the middle east, for sure, just like we'd have more influence in Colombia if we weren't there.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Why in heavens name would they give up enrichment in order to TALK with our glorius leader? Answer, they won't.

    ReplyDelete
  27. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "Why in heavens name would they give up enrichment in order to TALK with our glorius leader?"

    Legitimacy.




    I'm gonna set you up with a diplomacy 101 course.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Hell, Ash, there isn't that much to talk about and it's already been said. They know what the west wants, they're not gonna do it. Plenty carrots have been offered. If you think Obama is going to get them to give up nukes you're out of your mind. What's he going to offer them that hasn't been offered? What's he going to threaten that hasn't already been threatened?

    He'll make the situation worse because they'll figure he won't back up the Israelis. And we'll be out of Iraq.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Bob

    and that is precisely why Abracadabra wants him elected. Hugo Boss too, for that matter.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Right Gag.

    And let's not forget Bill Clinton--

    President Bill Clinton, 1998:

    "The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

    The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort."

    President Bill Clinton, 1998:

    "The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

    The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else.

    The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life."

    Former President Bill Clinton, 2003:

    "Let me tell you what I know. When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know. So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions."

    "It is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in '98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn't know it because we never got to go back in there. And what I think -- again, I would say the most important thing is we should focus on what's the best way to build Iraq as a democracy?"

    "We should be pulling for America on this. We should be pulling for the people of Iraq."

    ReplyDelete
  32. Trish, they have no legitmacy problems in their eyes. It is not an ego thing where an audience with the President is good enough. They may have conditions under which they would forgo enrichment and we may not find them acceptable. We participated in the multiparty talks with North Korea, there is no reason why we can't engage Iran in a similar fashion. No guarantee of success but far better then the precondition laden approach of today.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Trish, they have no legitmacy problems in their eyes.

    - ash

    Bullshit. They have a big one and it's pressing heavily on their economy.

    ReplyDelete
  34. and an audience with the POTUS won't alleviate that.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Or as Rufus (who is unaccountably voting for Obama) says, "Horseshit."

    Good, sturdy word, that.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "...won't alleviate that."

    We (and the Europeans) deliberately occasioned it. We can fix it.

    If you're going our way.

    ReplyDelete
  37. or we can make it worse hence the need for all parties to get together and negotiate. Our failure to negotiate has not been productive.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Our failure to negotiate has not been productive.

    ah jeez

    ReplyDelete
  39. The odometer says 42,800 and I think it's right. It's in great shape for 48 years old. I bought it toward the end of my farming career when all of a sudden I was desperate for another truck. Paid $2,200. Has a CB radio too!

    ReplyDelete
  40. You got to double clutch to keep the gears from grinding, and don't forget to pump the brakes. 10-12 miles per gallon, average.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Well, sure, we'll depend upon Barack's rhetoric, if he's elected.

    Now, granted, all the bad things that are postulatedm they could happen. Maybe, if ...

    If as this morning's reports are accurate, that al0Sistani and al0Hakim have announced against the the Alliance agreement and the timetable.

    If this is accurate, the shoals of non-reconciliation will have been struck. The ship of State will be taking on water.

    whit posted a poll result, month or so ago, 40% of military officers thought Iran's position in the region had been enhanced by US actions in Iraq.

    A sizable minority, if accurate.
    Fellows that might not see the forest, for the trees. On both sides of that perception split.

    I'd venture that on the politico side, 60% believe Iran's position has been enhabced.

    Where, in 2000, Iran had no centrifuges in operation, they have many operational, now.
    Those eight years did not pass in a vacume, there was cause and effect, in play.

    There has been very little deterence put nto effect. There is the weakest sanctions program imaginable in effect.

    The World Bank is still doing business in Iran, to the tune of hundreds of millions in underwriting and loan guarentees.

    There has been no serrious US effort to press Iran. There are no signifigant sanctions in place. To claim that their failure dooms any future opportunity is non-sensical.

    The US, the GOP and Team43 did not have hot and are not pushing financial divestiture through the Congress. They've had eight years to do it. Performance counts.

    So well I would not trust Obama's rhetoric, the McCain/Bush/Republican record is one of veing none to trustworthy, either.

    Based upon the grave threat that Iran poses to Israel, today, things have gone from bad to worse, on the present course.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Well, sure, we'll depend upon Barack's rhetoric, if he's elected.

    Now, granted, all the bad things that are postulated, they could happen. Maybe, if ...

    If as this morning's reports are accurate, that al-Sistani and al-Hakim have announced against the the Alliance agreement and the timetable.

    If this is accurate, the shoals of non-reconciliation will have been struck. The ship of State will be taking on water.

    whit posted a poll result, month or so ago, 40% of military officers thought Iran's position in the region had been enhanced by US actions in Iraq.

    A sizable minority, if accurate.
    Fellows that might not see the forest, for the trees. On both sides of that perception split.

    I'd venture that on the politico side, 60% believe Iran's position has been enhabced.

    Where as, in 2000, Iran had no centrifuges in operation, they have many operational, now.
    Those eight years did not pass in a vacumn, there was cause and effect, in play.

    There has been very little deterence put nto effect. There is the weakest sanctions program, against individual Iranians and some Government agencies imaginable in effect.

    The World Bank is still doing business in Iran, to the tune of hundreds of millions in underwriting and loan guarentees.

    There has been no serrious US effort to press Iran. There are no signifigant sanctions in place. To claim that the sanctions failure dooms any future opportunity is non-sensical.

    The US, the GOP and Team43 did not and are not pushing financial divestiture through the Congress. They've had eight years to do it. Performance counts.

    So well I would not trust Obama's rhetoric, the McCain/Bush/Republican record is one of being none to trustworthy, either.

    ReplyDelete
  43. It becomes so tiresome, Rat:

    Whatever we're doin, we're losin'.

    There's a kind of lazy emotional indulgence in it, not terribly different I don't think from the flip side at BC.

    At any rate it's Friday. And I'm not buyin' those drinks.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Maybe we need to bring Democracy to Canada next, Bobal.

    ReplyDelete
  45. If as this morning's reports are accurate, that al-Sistani and al-Hakim have announced against the the Alliance agreement and the timetable.

    Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, on Friday rejected an agreement for the US long-term presence in Iraq...

    Muqtada al-Sadr, the Shiite leader of the Mahdi Army, also has called for the demonstrations after Friday prayers to pressure the Iraqi government into abandoning the proposed agreement.

    Last week Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's most revered Shiite cleric, also expressed his anger, saying he would not permit the Iraqi government to sign a deal with "US occupiers" as long as he lived.


    Fancy that! A united Iraq at long last!

    ReplyDelete
  46. That's right, trish.
    What ever we're doin' we're losin'

    By any reasonable standard of judgement, to an existental threat.

    We cannot even keep live nukes under lock and key. Do not know the difference between helicopter batteries and nuclear triggers.

    No cause for confidence, there.

    You say we must discount the SoA episode, in regards the Mexicans. I fully disagree

    That episode stands in illustration of where we are at.

    WE ARE LOSIUNG.
    You are right.

    ReplyDelete
  47. It is tiresome, losing.

    The Goals of the Iraqi Occupation, the reconstruction of their culture and society, failed.

    Totally, unequivicably, FAILED.

    US Policy, FAILED.

    It FAILED US and Israel.

    There may be a recoery, we may be able to mix up some lemonaid, but make no mistake, the military adventure in Iraq has FAILED to meet the mission parameterrs set out at the outset.

    That is tiresome, to say the least.
    That we are going to be losing in Mexico, too.
    Well that's worse than tiresome, as the refugees, from there, can walk here.

    With but four strands of barbed wire to keep 'em out.

    ReplyDelete
  48. French army apart, documents show:

    "According to confidential defence documents leaked to the French press, less than half of France's Leclerc tanks – 142 out of 346 – are operational and even these regularly break down.

    Less than half of its Puma helicopters, 37 per cent of its Lynx choppers and 33 per cent of its Super Frelon models – built 40 years ago – are in a fit state to fly, according to documents seen by Le Parisien newspaper.

    Two thirds of France's Mirage F1 reconnaissance jets are unusable at present."


    So goes the second best army in Europe (UK).

    ReplyDelete
  49. I didn't even bother to read your second post, Rat.

    Have a nice weekend.

    ReplyDelete
  50. While the NYTimes, Congress and Mr Bush seem to think we can revamp the Mecican culture, their legal system, for $1.4 billion USD, over four years.
    Nine days worth of cash flow from oil exports to the US.

    That is not even a serious proposal.

    Like the "Sanctions" imposed upon Iran, not serious. Or that World Bank deal would have been scuttled.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Blogger desert rat said...

    That's right, trish.
    What ever we're doin' we're losin'

    And that's quoting you trish. A 'sane' person (i.e. insanity doing same thing over and over expecting different results) might just conclude that doing the same thing won't achieve the desired result.

    ReplyDelete
  52. You haven't begun to see losing, until Obama gets in there. Then we'll be losing.

    ReplyDelete
  53. They still haven't told us what winning is.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Not if he redefines the Goals, then achieves them, bob.

    That's winning.

    We've been down so long, it looks like up

    ReplyDelete
  55. MONICA
    CROWLEY


    Article has some amazing stuff about Nixon.
    Monica hosted Ingraham yesterday and today.

    Listened to today, and noticed she had really done her homework on global warming.

    Turns out Monica ain't no bubbleheaded Media Moron!
    ...to say the least.

    ReplyDelete
  56. "You say we must discount the SoA episode, in regards the Mexicans. "
    ---
    Anybody willing to tell me what that refers to?

    ReplyDelete
  57. School of Americas/Turncoat Mexican special forces, I think.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Man, you're still sinless!
    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  59. Many of the Zeta leaders have been identified by Mexican officials as former members of an elite paratroop and intelligence battalion known as the Special Air Mobile Force Group, formerly assigned to the state of Tamaulipas, which borders southern Texas, to fight drug traffickers.
    Several of them, according to the Mexican government, were trained at the School of the Americas in Fort Benning, Ga. The school, now known as the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, is the U.S. Army's principal Spanish-language training facility for Latin American military personnel.
    A core of 31 former battalion members are thought to lead the Zetas, but the gang's total membership is not known. The name Zeta was taken from the Mexican federal police in Tamaulipas, who used it in the late 1980s as radio code to locate high-ranking battalion commanders.
    Several members deserted the Special Air Mobile Force Group in 1991, aligning themselves with drug traffickers and establishing their own smuggling routes into the United States.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Los Zetas were originally ex-Army special forces trained in locating and apprehending drug cartel members. The founding 31 members of Los Zetas were trained in small-group tactics, mission planning, aerial assaults and sophisticated communications methods at army bases throughout the world. Though it is widely rumored that these soldiers were originally trained at the military School of the Americas in the United States.[4][5] It is believed by Mexican Law Enforcement that the original members are rogue GAFE (Airborne Special Forces Groups) soldiers. Zeta training locations have been identified as containing the same items and setup as GAFE training facilities, it is also further believed the group employs the same internal organizational structure. Current estimates place Los Zetas around 200 members strong. The name "Zeta" comes from the Federal Preventive Police radio code for high-ranking officers.[1][2][3] The Zetas are unique among drug enforcer gangs in that they operate as a private army under the orders of the Gulf Cartel [6].

    Or this piece of info

    Elite Mexican commandos, trained by U.S. forces to combat the drug cartels have switched sides and are working for the drug smugglers in the border area posing a special hazard to American law enforcement and Border Patrol agents, according to a U.S. Justice Department memo.

    The commandos, trained by the U.S. Army at Fort Benning, Ga., are known as "Los Zetas."

    The Justice Department warning was sent to law enforcement agencies throughout the Southwest.

    Using the commando training, Los Zetas are known to be extremely violent and have been blamed for an outbreak of violence along the Mexican border.

    There are reports of the commandos making cross-border runs into U.S. territory in military-style vehicles, armed with automatic weapons.

    The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars training Los Zetas to intercept drugs, some of them coming from Mexico's southern border, before they could reach the U.S. The U.S. government has also sent U.S. Border Patrol agents to Mexico's southern border with Guatemala to train law enforcement and military forces to intercept human smugglers destined to reach the U.S.

    "Things like that are a concern to us, especially trained here on the U.S. side," Pima County Sheriff Tony Estrada told KVOA, channel 4 in Tucson, Arizona. "They've gotten pretty special training. ... Now, they are working with drug traffickers on the Mexican side."

    Lt. Ron Benson added: "Not only did they receive some early military training but they developed their own internal training as well increasing their violence far beyond their own original capabilities."

    Benson has worked with the Department of Homeland Security and tracked the rogue Mexican commandos. He is now retiring from the Pima County Sheriff's Department and will be working with the FBI.

    ReplyDelete
  61. When the Generals are dining in foreign capitals, they tell each other of their mutual successes.

    Their failures are laid at others doorsteps. Other Departments, Agencies or what have you.

    But to lay any blame of failure on themselves, never happen. The Generals have no clothes, but no one will tell them they're naked.

    Instead they claim success, given the circumstances they find themselves. But the unbiased can see the reality of their ineptitude show through.

    But for Los Zetas to be operating along the US/Mexican frontier is a MAJOR failing of the Spec Op forces of the United States.

    They have loosed the dogs of war, and the wives club says it does not matter. No news there, move along please.

    Let us check up on the usual suspects!

    ReplyDelete
  62. These Zeta fellows are not 2nd generation street thugs, like MS-13, but trained in combat leadership, at Fort Benning.

    Trained in Counter Insurgency and patrolling, no doubt.

    But their case, just doesn't matter, if you're in the General's Club.

    Working towards a unified America, no matter the collateral damage.

    ReplyDelete
  63. It's easy to attain success if you put the goal low enough. All this stuff about Mexico I agree with. I don't see Iraq as the big disaster many people do. A tough situation, no doubt. I think if McCain gets in, it will turn out not perfect but passable, if Obama gets in, it will deteriorate from where it's at. It's not an easy thing to do to make progress in a country like Iraq. We went in, best stick with it.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Canada slips further into Big Brotherism

    I'm trying to get on Ash's nerves.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Mexico On
    the Road to a Failed State



    Mexico Examining Cartel War Violence Through a Protective Intelligence Lens


    Unfortunately, many people believe that the presence of armed bodyguards — or armed guards combined with armored vehicles — provides absolute security. This macho misconception is not confined to Latin America, but is pervasive there. Frankly, when we consider the size of the assault team employed in the Guzman Beltran hit (even if it consisted of only 20 men) and their armaments, there are very few protective details in the world sufficiently trained and equipped to deal with that level of threat. Executive protection teams and armored cars provide very little protection against dozens of attackers armed with AK rifles and rocket-propelled grenades, especially if the attackers are given free rein to conduct surveillance and plan their attack.

    Indeed, many people — including police and executive protection personnel — either lack or fail to employ good observation skills. These skills are every bit as important as marksmanship — if not more — but are rarely taught or practiced. Additionally, even if a protection agent observes something unusual, in many cases there is no system in place to record these observations and no efficient way to communicate them or to compare them to the observations of others. There is often no process to investigate such observations in attempt to determine if they are indicators of something untoward.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Los Zetas: the Ruthless Army Spawned by a Mexican Drug Cartel

    The several dozen drug bands that operate in Mexico furnish the lion’s share of cocaine, marijuana, heroin, and methamphetamines that enter this country.
    They also accounted for more than 4,500 deaths during the past two years—with the figure spiraling to 961 by April 18 of this year.
    Mexican scholar Raul Benitez insists that “Los Zetas have clearly become the biggest, most serious threat to the nation’s security.”

    ReplyDelete
  67. We are not yet at the worst-case scenario, and we may never get there. Mexican President Felipe Calderon, perhaps with assistance from the United States, may devise a strategy to immunize his government from intimidation and corruption and take the war home to the cartels. This is a serious possibility that should not be ruled out. Nevertheless, the events of last week raise the serious possibility of a failed state in Mexico. That should not be taken lightly, as it could change far more than Mexico.

    Good articles,
    Doug.

    Can anything more be done to suppress the demand side?

    ReplyDelete
  68. Ash, here's a guy that points out what everyone but you seems to know, that we and the EU have been negotiating with Iran for years--

    Mr Obama might not know it, but this is precisely what Europe has been trying to do these past four years. The so-called EU3 - Britain, France and Germany - has done nothing else but talk to Mr Ahmadinejad's regime in an attempt to negotiate a solution to the nuclear crisis.

    Obama Is Jimmy Carter Redivivus

    ReplyDelete
  69. It is not the demand that fuels Los Zetas, bob.

    It is the supply chain that built up, to supply the demand.

    End the prohibition, in the US, and the legal supply chain would elomonate the need for the Cartels.

    ReplyDelete
  70. The EU, the story goes, bob, does have the Gravitus, to deal with Iran.

    Only the US has the power and influence, to stem the tide. Yet the US refuses to get involved, directly.

    Look at the French military capacity, posted eariler, to see why yhe EU has no credibility, with Iran.

    ReplyDelete