Monday, February 26, 2007

First "Fair" Quake of 2007 Hits the Area

A moderate earthquake occurred at 4:19:54 AM (PST) on Monday, February
26, 2007.The magnitude 5.4 event occurred 52 km (32 miles) W of Ferndale, CA.The hypocentral depth is 0.4 km (0.2 miles).
Event ID# nc40193932

I had just woke up and was still lying in bed when the quake hit. First few seconds were very mild and I knew it would build before it subsided. It did, and then it continued for the better part of 15 seconds descending as the time went by. Nothing fell off the shelves here, but the ground did move as well as the bed I was in.
Most people in Humboldt County would call this a "fair" quake because usually these (that are out in the ocean) don't do much damage to our area structurally. Nothing like the three we had back in 1989, that were 6.4's and two 6 point aftershocks that made a mess of things around here or the 7.1 in '92Links to todays quake here and here

Friday, February 23, 2007

Defeatist Dems at it Again.....

Dana, over at Common Sense Political Thought, (CSPT), has posted on the relentless agenda of our "new leadership" that intends to proclaim defeat:


The current tactic comes from the Democrats in the Senate, who want to amend the Authorization for the use of force. It was signed into law by President Bush on October 16, 2002.

If you follow the links to the authorization, you’ll see that it is Public Law 107-243, otherwise known as 116 Stat. 1498. For the Democrats to repeal the law authorizing the use of force, they’ll need not just a majority in both Houses of Congress, but will also need to be able to override President Bush’s certain veto — and that requires a two-thirds supermajority in both Houses of Congress.

Oh, but the Democrats have a way around that one as well! Ed Morrissey noted:

Nor are they opting for an honest method of floating this unconstitutional nonsense. The Democrats plan to attach the reworked AUMF as an amendment to a Homeland Security funding bill rather than allow an up-or-down vote on it in the Senate. They want to dare the Republicans to filibuster the spending bill or Bush to veto it if it passes with the new AUMF intact.

Read Dana's complete post

Others blogging:

Scrappleface, Powerline, Captain's Quarters

Thursday, February 22, 2007

Always Faithful Works.......

To my darling husband,

Before you return from your overseas trip I just want to let you know about the small accident I had with the pick up truck when I turned into the driveway. Fortunately not too bad and I really didn't get hurt, so please don't worry too much about me. I was coming home from Wal-Mart, and when I turned into the driveway I accidentally pushed down on the accelerator instead of the brake. The garage door is slightly bent but the pickup fortunately came to a halt when it bumped into your car. I am really sorry, but I know with your kind-hearted personality you will forgive me. You know how much I love you and care for you my sweetheart.

I am enclosing a picture for you. I cannot wait to hold you in my arms again.

Your loving wife,

P.S. Your girlfriend called.

Ouch!........that's gotta hurt

(h/t Mark)

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Blackfive has a post up refering to NRO's must read about Murtha and the White Flag Repubs: Soldier's Mom sets it straight:

Comment below written by: Some Soldier's Mom

I have said it many times and in many forums these last few months: the sacrifice and courage of our troops and their families is NOT a Dem talking point, punch line or sound bite. Whenever I hear a Dem (and in some cases Republicans) start out by saying "I support the troops..." or "I'm doing this for the troops" THEY LIE. It's the only thing I know for certain when they speak. THEY ARE LYING.

If they want to be truthful, they should start out and say, "I am doing this because I'm hoping it will improve my re-electibility" or "I'm doing this because I need to toe the line with the Party and the DNC and it's war che$t..." (and a few might want to say "because I'm too checkensh*t/deluded/lamebrained to say anything else") THEN I might believe what else they say. Only the first statement could account for white flag Republicans' lying about "supporting the troops". You do not support the troops. YOU LIE

Posted by: Some Soldier's Mom Feb 20, 2007 4:35:33 PM
@ Blackfive

And Now Only the Criminals Have Guns

From the Editorial:

None other than former Mayor Marion Barry, now representing Ward 8 on the D.C. Council, is waving the white flag of surrender by introducing legislation to provide potential victims a limited window of opportunity to arm themselves in self defense. “We are in the midst of a gun-violence epidemic,” Barry said. Everybody but the criminals are abiding by the city’s gun control laws [which] have long been among the toughest in the nation. Not only are District residents forbidden from owning firearms not registered before 1977, they must also keep legal rifles and shotguns at home, unloaded, disassembled and useless against an armed intruder.

Damn, I was hoping the bolded part of this statement was by Barry himself. But it appears that it is from the editors.

What can we say.........Duh!

(note: the link has now some how been broken or lost, Rovinsworld is working on it's restoration) please stand/sit by.

UPDATE: Found some links to this story here and here, but still trying to fix editorial...

Monday, February 19, 2007

Iraq is Not Vietnam

Iraq is Not Vietnam, It's Guadalcanal
Learning the real lessons history has for today's war on terror.
by Powl Smith

In one of our first counteroffensives against the Japanese, U.S. troops landed on the island of Guadalcanal in order to capture a key airfield. We surprised the Japanese with our speed and audacity, and with very little fighting seized he airfield. But the Japanese recovered from our initial success, and began a long, brutal campaign to force us off Guadalcanal and recapture it. The Japanese were very clever and absolutely committed to sacrificing everything for their beliefs. (Only three Japanese surrendered after six months of combat--a statistic that should put today's Islamic radicals to shame.) The United States suffered 6,000 casualties during the six-month Guadalcanal campaign; Japan, 24,000. It was a very expensive airfield.

Which brings us to the next lesson of World War II: Totalitarian enemies have to be bludgeoned into submission, and the populations that support them have to be convinced they can't win. This is a bloody and difficult business. In the Pacific theater, we eventually learned our enemies' tactics--jungle and amphibious warfare, carrier task forces, air power--and far surpassed them.
But that victory took four years and cost many hundreds of thousands of casualties.

Iraq isn't Vietnam, it's Guadalcanal--one campaign of many in a global war to defeat the terrorists and their sponsors. Like the United States in the Pacific in 1943, we are in a war of national survival that will be long, hard, and fraught with casualties. We lost the first battle of that war on September 11, 2001, and we cannot now afford to walk away from the critical battle we are fighting in Iraq any more than we could afford to walk away from Guadalcanal. For the security of America, we have no recourse but to win.

Lieutenant Colonel Powl Smith, U.S. Army, is the former chief of counterterrorism plans at U.S. European Command and is currently in Baghdad with Multi-National Forces-Iraq. Link

(note: This analogy was of special interest to me because my father landed, (and survived) at Guadalcanal. I am sure he would be ashamed of the actions by our cut and run politicians who refuse to see the bigger picture on a war against those who have proclaimed to destroy us.)

Friday, February 16, 2007

The Party of Defeat............

(cartoon borrowed from Wordsmith at Flopping Aces)

While General Petraeus has been in the theater for most of two weeks and already has one of the biggest thorns (Sadr) fleeing into Iran with his band of thugs, the democrat party of the United States is about to claim defeat and failure. Rather than standing behind this final campaign that may give the Iraqi government a chance to become stable and secure, our friends on the left are putting their concerns for a political non-binding resolution ahead of the safety and security of our troops on the ground.

Also in the news, (but with little coverage by our biased left wing media), al-Qaida in Iraq leader Abu Ayyub al-Masri was wounded and his aide, identified as Abu Abdullah al-Majemaai, was killed. Sources tell NBC News that al-Masri is in custody.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats stepped up pressure on Thursday for President George W. Bush to halt his Iraq troop buildup, and the president warned Congress against undercutting his military strategy. Rep. John Murtha, a war critic who chairs the House of Representatives panel that oversees military spending, said he planned to restrict war funding in a way that would effectively stop the 21,500 U.S. troop buildup, and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid scheduled a new vote to confront Bush over Iraq.

From Captain's Quarters:

"The new surge in Baghdad and Anbar intended on making the lives of terrorists more difficult. It seems to have succeeded in the case of the two leaders of large terrorist organizations in its opening days. Moqtada al-Sadr took off for Iraq, and Masri finds himself in the hands of a government he hated.

What will Congress do now? David Petraeus has a huge scalp on his belt and his enemies are fleeing before him. Is this the time for Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to demand passage of resolutions that claim that no victory is possible in Iraq?"

From Iraq the Model, there are signs that the Operation in Baghdad is ramping up and (so far) the "gloves" are still off:

Back in Baghdad the most significant raid conducted yesterday was the one on Buratha mosque, one of the most important Shia mosques in Baghdad which is also considered a SCIRI territory. The raid ended without blood but the preacher of the mosque, a lawmaker from the SCIRI, expressed his dismay about the raid "because it was American soldiers who searched the mosque" and this seems to be one of the changes in rules of engagement. I recall that there was some kind of a rule that said only Iraqi soldiers or police were allowed to walk into places of worship while American troops would have to stay outside.This raid too is of political significance as it can be used to prove to that the operation is impartial and not directed against one sect without the other.On the streets, checkpoints and roadblocks are becoming increasingly serious and strict in doing their job; soldiers and policemen are sparing no vehicles or convoys from searching and I personally saw a case yesterday where an ambulance driver tried to rush his vehicle through a checkpoint but the soldiers ordered him to stop and let him pass only after they checked the inside of the vehicle finding only a civilian medical emergency.Strict checkpoints always mean slow traffic and inconvenient delays for Baghdadis but this downside is welcome when these security measures make the streets safer.

While borders are getting secured, insurgent leaders are being captured or on the run, and General Patraeus setting the table for a true stable Baghdad and Anbar------our cut and run defeatist party on the left is preparing to cut our own troops off at the knees-----morally, financially, and cowardly. While the Democrats think this tack is popular and will provide them with some political gain------I believe that the people of this nation would prefer a stable Iraq and (more importantly) a victory for our military. Our troops deserve our full support for victory not defeat.

UPDATE: Allahpundit at Hot Air says that NBC has quietly edited out the capture from its story without noting the change. Hmmm.
Abu al-Masri may have not been captured or injured...............developing.

Dafydd at Big Lizzards has posted a round-up of the fight in Congress as well as the fight in Iraq.

UPDATE II: It appears the "SURGE" is working-----
From TBO online (via AP):

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- The number of Iraqi civilians killed in Baghdad's sectarian violence fell drastically overnight, an Iraqi military official said Friday, crediting the joint U.S.-Iraqi security operation that began in force just days ago.

Iraqi army Brig. Gen. Qassim Moussawi, a spokesman for the Baghdad commander, said only 10 bodies had been reported by the morgue in the capital, compared to an average of 40 to 50 per day.

"This shows a big reduction in terror and killing operations in Baghdad," he said on Iraqi state television. (link)

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

The Plan

Petraeus addresses Coalition, Iraqi partners
Saturday, 10 February 2007

To the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Civilians of Multi-National Force-Iraq:

We serve in Iraq at a critical time. The war here will soon enter its fifth year. A decisive moment approaches. Shoulder-to-shoulder with our Iraqi comrades, we will conduct a pivotal campaign to improve security for the Iraqi people. The stakes could not be higher.

Our task is crucial. Security is essential for Iraq to build its future. Only with security can the Iraqi government come to grips with the tough issues it confronts and develop the capacity to serve its citizens. The hopes of the Iraqi people and the coalition countries are with us.

The enemies of Iraq will shrink at no act, however barbaric. They will do all that they can to shake the confidence of the people and to convince the world that this effort is doomed. We must not underestimate them.

Together with our Iraqi partners, we must defeat those who oppose the new Iraq. We cannot allow mass murderers to hold the initiative. We must strike them relentlessly. We and our Iraqi partners must set the terms of the struggle, not our enemies. And together we must prevail.

The way ahead will not be easy. There will be difficult times in the months to come. But hard is not hopeless, and we must remain steadfast in our effort to help improve security for the Iraqi people. I am confident that each of you will fight with skill and courage, and that you will remain loyal to your comrades-in-arms and to the values our nations hold so dear.

In the end, Iraqis will decide the outcome of this struggle. Our task is to help them gain the time they need to save their country. To do that, many of us will live and fight alongside them. Together, we will face down the terrorists, insurgents, and criminals who slaughter the innocent. Success will require discipline, fortitude, and initiative - qualities that you have in abundance.
I appreciate your sacrifices and those of your families. Now, more than ever, your commitment to service and your skill can make the difference between victory and defeat in a very tough mission.

It is an honor to soldier again with the members of the Multi-National Force - Iraq. I know that wherever you serve in this undertaking you will give your all. In turn, I pledge my commitment to our mission and every effort to achieve success as we help the Iraqis chart a course to a brighter future.

Godspeed to each of you and to our Iraqi comrades in this crucial endeavor.

General, United States Army

Tuesday, February 13, 2007


caution: some explicit material in video

borrowed from site

Queen Pelosi Offers Resolution

They support the troops, but not the mission.

Nancy Pelosi and the new Democrat Party brought to the floor a non-binding resolution that says "We support our troops"---(which is total Bullshit) and will not allow any amendments or counter resolutions by the Republican Party.

When a debate as important as the Iraq war and indeed the war against a radical Islamic sect that has proclaimed to destroy us------and only half of congress has an input into what the people of this nation can say------shame on the Democratic Party.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrats relentlessly assailed President Bush's policy in Iraq as a catastrophic failure Tuesday as the House plunged into momentous debate on a war that has lost public support and cost more than 3,100 U.S. troops their lives. "No more blank checks," declared Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

"This battle is the most visible part of a global war" against terrorists, countered the Republican leader, Rep. John Boehner, hoping to limit GOP defections on what loomed as an extraordinary wartime rebuke to the commander in chief. "If we leave, they will follow us home. It's that simple."

"As in the Cold War, our current struggle is one of survival," Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., said in floor debate. "The enemy does not mean merely to chase us away. The goal of the Islamist extremist radicals is to destroy us. If we run, they will pursue. If we cower, they will strike."

"The world is watching. The radical jihadists who oppose us are watching," said Shadegg, warning against anything that could signal weakness on the part of the United States.

Republicans had sought to offer an alternative measure, drafted by Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas, that would have prohibited Congress from cutting off funds for the troops. Johnson was a prisoner of war during Vietnam, and Boehner teared up before reporters as he listened to him describe his reaction at the time when he learned of anti-war protests back in the United States.

But Democrats said Republicans would not be allowed a vote on their measure, and the House voted, 227-197, to uphold the rejection.

So this is a one-sided resolution for the party in power to do nothing but more Bush bashing, and posturing for an agenda that has no regard for the safety and security of this nation in a time of war.

(Note to Democrats------this war is not about Bush----you morons)

Friday, February 09, 2007

al Qaeda on the Run........

Most of the major MSM papers will fail to (or put it on the back pages) report the major battles we (our troops) are winning in our quest for VICTORY and the stabilization of Iraq..... but Michelle Malkin and others in the "spere" will not let it pass:


and be sure to "NON-BIND" THAT you finger pointing cowards in the Senate who are interested in only their political ambitions and NOT the security and safety of this nation.

Defense report OKs policy chief's intelligence move

By Rowan Scarborough
February 9, 2007

A report to be released today clears the Pentagon's former policy chief of Democrats' charges he acted illegally and without authorization when he set up a small team to compile intelligence reports. The report from the Defense Department inspector general focuses on a two-man team that after the September 11, 2001, attacks was assigned the task of studying intelligence reports on terrorist networks. It especially looked at reports of contacts between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, West Virginia Democrat, in 2004 accused then-Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith, who created the unit, of "running a private intelligence failure, which is not lawful." (complete story)

Curt at Flopping Aces has a complete rundown HERE

Wednesday, February 07, 2007

Democrats Want to Limit the Debate

The Senate Majority (by one vote) wants to frame (limit) the debate on the Iraq war, and indeed the war on terrorism.

Carl Levin said on Fox News this morning, "This whole debate is about whether the President has this "surge" or NOT". Levin does not want to talk about the fact that the democrats "no confidence" no surge policy will discourage our troops on the ground and embolden our enemies. The democrat party does not want to talk about the ramifications of failure in Iraq.

And the democrats want to have the option of cutting off funds supporting our troops.

Limiting the debate on the future of an Iraqi nation, and the fate of our battle against terrorism across the world is sheer madness and very shallow for our new majority. Senator Reid says the Republicans are playing a game in bringing alternative resolutions to the floor and he is sadly mistaken. This is hardly a game. I would submit that the new majority should allow every resolution to come to the floor for a full debate with no limits on time.

The subject of the war in Iraq should not be limited.

Sunday, February 04, 2007



Browsing through the two top online sports sites, Sports Illustrated ( and ESPN , it looks apparent that most sports writers think the Bears have little chance winning the big one.

SI's Peter King says: "It's simple. It's Peyton Manning's time. Don't buy any of the guff that he hasn't played well in the postseason. Against two of the best five defenses in football -- New England and Baltimore -- the last two games, Manning led the Colts to 53 points in eight quarters." King's final score prediction: Colts 27, Bears 21

The closest margin of victory predicted is by Tim Layden (also at SI)---Colts 38, Bears 35, but I think that score will be a little high for the Superbowl. Only teams like the San Francisco Forty-niners can score points like that------55-10 over Denver.

Speaking of the Niners------ESPN presented a ranking of the 80 teams that played in the Superbowl and the 1989 SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS 14-2 (3-0) garnered the top spot, while our arch rivals, the 1979 LOS ANGELES RAMS 9-7 (2-1) managed to receive the honor of #80.

There were three finalist for the #1 SPOT, the 1978 Steelers, the 1985 Bears and the 1989 49ers-----and here is ESPN's analysis:

We wrestled with the decision of which team would take the No. 1 spot. We settled on three finalists: the 1978 Steelers, the 1985 Bears and the 1989 49ers.

The Steelers were a cut below the other two based in part on its ranking of 10th in offensive yardage that season. They also ranked just 23rd in yards per rushing attempt. Pittsburgh had nine Hall of Famers on its roster, but most were no longer in their prime.

That left us with the Bears and 49ers. Their rankings in major statistical categories were a mirror image. The Bears had a very good offense and an excellent defense. The 49ers had an excellent offense and a very good defense.

Indeed, the '85 Bears lost only once, and the 49ers lost twice. But the Bears' loss was by 14 points – almost triple the total margin of five points in the '89 49ers' two losses.

Our decision ultimately came down to this: If these teams lined up against each other, what would the outcome be?

As good as the Bears' defense was, it was vulnerable to the big passing play. With Joe Montana, Jerry Rice and John Taylor, the 49ers would have exploited this weakness. Conversely, the Bears' offense relied heavily on Walter Payton. It's likely George Seifert and the 49ers would find a way to slow Payton enough to challenge Jim McMahon to beat them with his arm. Did we mention that San Francisco had a future Hall of Fame quarterback sitting on the bench?

With apologies to Mike Ditka, the 49ers were the better team.

Hard to argue with this-------as I am sure many will.

(Sidenote)---- The 1984 49er team (ranked #5) was very impressive also:

1984 49ers: Bill Walsh revolutionized the sport with his West Coast offense. Receivers and tight ends ran the field with precise routes. It was basketball on grass, and it was a thing of beauty. The 49ers won their first Super Bowl with the 1981 team, but by 1984 they were a machine. They breezed through an 18-1 season and routed the Dolphins 38-16 in Super Bowl XIX.

Friday, February 02, 2007

Transformations and Contortions

Since the great "crash" of my hard-drive two weeks ago, there have been some major software and driver updates that are not configuring with the new hard-drive, (Maxtor, 160 gigs), and has prevented me from getting to the daily posting procedures.

I do see my favorite bloggers have kept up to speed on the daily world affairs:

From Captains Quarters------Senate Closer To Anti-Surge Resolution

The Senate moved closer to a non-binding resolution opposing the surge strategy last night when two key members of the chamber reached a compromise on the wording in the bill. John Warner and Carl Levin have agreed to reinforce the resolution with a vow that the Senate will not stop funding the troops:

Democratic and Republican opponents of President Bush's troop-buildup plan joined forces last night behind the nonbinding resolution with the broadest bipartisan backing: a Republican measure from Sen. John W. Warner of Virginia. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) announced the shift, hoping to unite a large majority of the Senate and thwart efforts by the White House and GOP leaders to derail any congressional resolution of disapproval of Bush's decision to increase U.S. troop levels in Iraq by 21,500.

Although the original Democratic language was popular within the party, it had little appeal among Republicans. Warner's proposal drew support from both sides, and it was retooled last night to maximize both Democratic and Republican votes.

The revised resolution would express the Senate's opposition to the troop increase but would vow to protect funding for the troops. The resolution does not include the Democratic language saying the Bush plan is against the national interest, but it also drops an earlier provision by Warner suggesting Senate support for some additional troops.

Previous versions of the resolution will be withdrawn today, which means that the Hagel-Biden language will no longer be under consideration. The earlier language favored by the Democrats garnered little traction with Republicans dissatisfied with the President's new strategy. They wanted something that affirmed their support for the overall war on terror but focused criticism narrowly on the additional troops. Harry Reid figured that any resolution that could beat a filibuster was better than a strident one that couldn't get enough votes to force cloture.

The House plans on drafting its own resolution, and Nancy Pelosi made it clear that she would not settle for compromise. She wants to pass one that demands the retreat of American forces from Iraq, although she has not called for an end to the funding for the deployment. After hearing from Nouri al-Maliki that we could replace 50,000 troops with heavy armament in the hands of the Iraqi Army, she plans to demand that level of withdrawal within six months.
It seems increasingly likely that a significant number of Senate Republicans will wind up supporting the Warner compromise. If they support the war and its aims, why would they vote in favor of this non-binding resolution? It's a hard question to answer, especially considering the unanimous support given General David Petraeus, one of the architects of the surge.

The answer may lie with the Bush administration's handling of the issue in the midterm elections. The GOP lost control of both houses in what everyone now concedes was a referendum on the war. The next day, Bush dumped Donald Rumsfeld in favor of Robert Gates, and it came out that Bush had planned the move since the summer but wouldn't pull the trigger until after the elections.

This infuriated Republicans in Congress, who believe that the decision cost them their majorities, especially in the Senate. The White House maneuvering forced GOP candidates to either defend Rumsfeld or attempt to shrug off questions about his management of the war. Had Bush replaced Rumsfeld in August or even September and made the changes that followed prior to the election, they could have saved one or two seats in the upper chamber, or so some analysts believe.

As a result, it's easy to speculate that Republicans in both chambers (and those who did not return) might feel a bit betrayed and not inclined to support the administration with as much enthusiasm as before. Their decision to mind their own political fortunes and let the Bush administration twist in the wind would be understandable, but it would still be a mistake. That kind of short-term payback has long-term implications, and while this is speculation, those implications for defeat and an Iraqi collapse are absolutely real.

My comment to Ed's post here was short and to the point:

Let's be sure to send Petraeus, (unanimously confirmed), into this conflict with one hand tied behind his back.

Surge? This "surge" will be a total joke unless Petraeus is allowed to engage the enemy with the gloves off as promised by GW and Gates, (Secretary of Defense).

Only if / when Gates and Petraeus are allowed to dictate the rules of engagement (ROE), with the full support of both partys-----and our traitorous MSM can quit calling our own troops "insurgents" and "occupiers"---can we begin to put an end to this conflict and call it a victory of sorts.

But, of course, political aspirations have always gotten in the the way of another nations right to liberty.

Make that both hands tied behind Petraeus's back.

I would love to see Petraeus tell the Senate to keep the 21,000 home and he'll do this with the troops already on the ground and in the air.


Posted by: Rovin at February 1, 2007 08:42 AM

Keemo, a frequent commenter at CQ put it bluntly:

"Any politician that votes against an American victory in Iraq, is voting for an American defeat. No amount of explaining (spinning) this little fact will work. An American defeat in this war will spell disaster for those who brought about this defeat, as history unfolds and the massacre of civilians spreads throughout the ME and eventually spreads around the globe."

I don't care to wait for this kind of history to haunt us all.