Excellent:

"The glass is a quarter full, but we need more of it," said Jennifer Windsor, executive director of Freedom House, a group that promotes democracy. "The administration deserves credit, but it's just a start."

In its annual survey ranking nations as free, partly free or not free, the group upgraded nine nations or territories in 2005 and downgraded four. Among those deemed freer were Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan, where peaceful revolutions overthrew entrenched governments; Lebanon, where Syrian occupation troops were pressured to withdraw; and Afghanistan and the Palestinian territories, where trailblazing elections were held. Overall, Freedom House concluded, "the past year was one of the most successful for freedom" since the survey began in 1972.

It's a surprisingly fair article, detailing where Bush has actually walked the walk and where he has only talked the talk. In many cases (China, Pakistan) strategic considerations militate against an aggressive, provocative US push for democracy, but in others -- such as in Uganda -- it's a mystery why the Administration doesn't take a tougher line against tyranny.

The President's rhetoric has good effects inside the bureaucracy:

"Anytime there's a question, should we say this or say that . . . someone can pull out a copy of the president's speech and say, 'Wait a second, may I quote from what the president said?' " the official added.

And also in the outside world:

Outside the United States, the speech inspired many fighting for freedom but also raised expectations that are hard to fulfill. "All they do is talk right now," said Gulam Umarov. His father, Sanjar Umarov, head of the opposition Sunshine Coalition in Uzbekistan, has been in prison since October. "I don't know what actual moves they take. But they are talking, which is really good."

Freedom House, a group that promotes democracy, ranks each country's political freedoms and civil liberties in an annual survey. During 2005, nine countries or territories were upgraded and four were downgraded, making it "one of the most successful for freedom" since the survey was begun in 1972.

In other places, the United States has done more than talk. In Kyrgyzstan, the U.S. government funded pro-democracy groups and provided generators to print an opposition newspaper before its revolution. Edil Baisalov, director of the Coalition for Democracy and Civil Society, can quote extensively from the Bush inaugural speech. "The Kyrgyz people are much, much better off today than they were a year ago, and I think the U.S. government should take pride in taking credit for that," he said. "And [it] should never apologize that it wants the people to be free."

Read the whole thing. It's pretty much straight down the line reportage, about a mostly positive development in the world. The bad patches are pointed out, but the reporter doesn't go making crap up just to cast a bad light on any of this.

What's surprising is just how consistent the Adminsitration has been about exporting freedom, even when important goals are jeopardized by doing so.

Posted by: Ace at 09:42 PM | Comments (18)
Post contains 515 words, total size 3 kb.

Joel Stein, author of a very silly editorial in the LA times, was interviewed by Hugh Hewitt today. Hewitt sometimes gets to be a bit much, and I think he was wrong about the strength of Harriet Miers as a nominee for the Supreme Court.

But still, the guy can conduct an interview.

HH: But Joel, I'm talking about you. I'm talking about what you honor, and you obviously don't honor military service.

JS: I honor police service. I honor military service. Any...I just think that...

HH: You do honor military service?

JS: Yeah. No, I'm grateful for people that serve in the military.

HH: But you don't support our troops?

JS: I don't...I don't believe in supporting the troops in an action that you don't believe in.

HH: And so, that would be everything I've named thus far. So I guess...did you support and honor the troops in the Pentagon on 9/11?

JS: Sure, yeah.

HH: All right.

JS: All the troops that are here to defend our country, I'm very, very grateful for. I'm grateful for the police...

HH: Provided they don't leave the country?

JS: Yeah, provided they don't fight in wars that I think are endangering them for no reason.

HH: And the moment they do, you stop honoring them?

JS: The moment I do, I think it's a poor idea to show support for them and prolong that engagement.

Posted by: Slublog at 07:44 PM | Comments (134)
Post contains 258 words, total size 2 kb.

A very strange phenomenon indeed.

I have noticed that we have picked up a number of these louts here on this very blog. I've observed a few get flushed out elsewhere, even political candidates who you'd think had been thoroughly vetted.

Apparently this thing is so widespread that by some accounts 4 out of 5 guys who say they 'saw the shit,' never served at all.

They walk around in fatigues, drape themselves with medals purchased from flea markets, and talk a good game.
But they are despicable liars serving some innate longing for respect that they aren't hardworking enough to earn for themselves even as civilians.

New legislation will make impersonating a war hero a federal crime.

Link drop: Here's a good (old) brief fact-filled column.

Here's a veteran's site dedicated to what they call "A Nationwide Epidemic." Its full of linky goodness, as well as stories about all the phonies they have unmasked so far.

And here's a good synopsis of a book written on the subject, with an Amazon link if you're interested in purchasing it.

People love to pretend to be something they're not; but the valorous reputation of our fighting men and women is bought with the heartbreak of a nation.

I have met genuine veterans, and the remarkable thing about them is they usually won't talk about their experiences. If they do, you know you're hearing the truth because their stories are underscored by an utter lack of drama.

To falsely claim membership in that particular club makes you subhuman filth that should be beaten to a foamy pink mass with many, many clawhammers.

UPDATE: Don't miss the liars' apologies page! Remember, these are the people with some shame.

Posted by: LauraW. at 06:09 PM | Comments (91)
Post contains 291 words, total size 2 kb.

Hey, this logon still works. I figured our access would be shut off with extreme prejudice this morning, but since I still have access to this particular pulpit, let me point out that Cindy Sheehan is making some interesting friends.

ARACAS (AFP) - Anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan, mother of a US soldier killed in Iraq, joined more than 10,000 anti-globalization activists in Caracas, where she hailed Venezuela's leftist President Hugo Chavez.

"I admire him for his resolve against my government and its meddling,"said Sheehan, who gained notoriety when she camped outside US President George W. Bush's ranch last year to protest the Iraq war. She said she hoped to meet Chavez later in the week.

Okay, fine. Some shameless self-promotion - cross posted at my blog.

UPDATE - Bob had a problem with the word 'dictators,' so I changed it to be more precise. Thanks, Bob!

Posted by: Slublog at 05:53 PM | Comments (22)
Post contains 185 words, total size 1 kb.

Before I dive into this topic, I'd like to thank the always gracious Ace of Spades HQ readers for their comments and courtesy. You always make me feel welcome here, and I appreciate that.

Also, big thanks to Ace for inviting me to guest blog, I am much obliged.

Anyway, if you dig what I write, you're always welcome to visit my blog, Garfield Ridge. The beer is free, cold and plentiful.

On to the story:

Stretched by frequent troop rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army has become a "thin green line" that could snap unless relief comes soon, according to a study for the Pentagon.

Andrew Krepinevich, a retired Army officer who wrote the report under a Pentagon contract, concluded that the Army cannot sustain the pace of troop deployments to Iraq long enough to break the back of the insurgency. He also suggested that the Pentagon's decision, announced in December, to begin reducing the force in Iraq this year was driven in part by a realization that the Army was overextended.

As evidence, Krepinevich points to the Army's 2005 recruiting slump — missing its recruiting goal for the first time since 1999 — and its decision to offer much bigger enlistment bonuses and other incentives.

"You really begin to wonder just how much stress and strain there is on the Army, how much longer it can continue," he said in an interview. He added that the Army is still a highly effective fighting force and is implementing a plan that will expand the number of combat brigades available for rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'm intimately familiar with Krepinevich's work, however, having written about it at length on my blog. He's a fair analyst, but he's always had his fair share of axes to grind, so I'm curious to see which items he chose to emphasize in his latest analysis. I'm guessing his highlights don't quite sync up with the "doom and gloom" bits the Associated Press chooses to tout. more...

Posted by: Dave From Garfield Ridge at 04:55 PM | Comments (36)
Post contains 2003 words, total size 12 kb.

Just wanted to say thanks again to Ace for tossing me the keys to his fancy blog for the past few days.

I had a great time and I hope you guys did as well.

Before I shuffle off to my humble abode, it's time for the gratuitous site plug. Come see me sometimes:

WunderKraut.com

I know, how original.

Anyway. Stop on by and see what is shaking. If you want to know what I am about, here is a run down of my best post from 2005.

Thanks again Ace. You have some of the best readers ever and some interesting *cough* trolls.

Take it easy.

Posted by: WunderKraut at 11:15 AM | Comments (37)
Post contains 115 words, total size 1 kb.

At 4:05 Eastern Time.

My guest will be Specialist Timothy Haag, scourge of terrorists everywhere. Adapting a Jack Bauer cool fact, "When life gives Tim Haag lemons, he takes those lemons and uses them to kill terrorists.

Karol isn't able to make the show today, so, hey, do call in, especially if it sounds like I'm on the verge of a panic-induced seizure. 866-884-TALK.

Posted by: Ace at 11:04 AM | Comments (16)
Post contains 78 words, total size 1 kb.

He chooses his battles well. Not for liberating Iraq, but definitely for defending the honor of Michael Moore:

But nothing moved Kerry to speak his mind online.

Nothing, that is, until a television talk-show host compared a film director with a terrorist on the run. When MSNBC's Chris Matthews played hardball with Michael Moore by comparing Moore with Osama bin Laden, only then did Kerry feel compelled to join the conversation at Daily Kos.

"There's something that doesn't sit right with me when, on the day Osama bin Laden resurfaced in a disturbing audio tape, cable television ends up in a game of name-calling as a war protester is compared to Osama bin Laden," Kerry began in a post that segued into a disjointed Bush- and media-bashing session.

"Here's a subject suited for true hard ball, on [Matthews'] "Hardball": four years of failure [by the Bush administration] -- enough is enough. Why hasn't Osama bin Laden been captured or killed, and how will he be destroyed before he next appears on tape to spread his disgusting message? That discussion -- rather than criticizing American citizens who exercise their right to free speech and express dissenting opinions -- is the discussion that America needs."

The Daily Kos community celebrated Kerry's presence in their world. The entry generated nearly 1,200 comments, and a follow-up "thank you" post from Kerry had generated nearly 700 more by this evening. "A man who received more votes than any other man in the history of the U.S. (if you actually counted votes accurately in 2004) just posted a diary on our little progressive group blog," one reader commented. "A-Mazing!"

Meanwhile, Decision '08 has caught
an old post by Michael Moore taking credit for just this:

3,000 people were killed and [bin Ladin is] laughing in [Bush's] face. Why did you [Bush] stop our Special Forces from going after him? Why did you forget about bin Laden on the DAY AFTER 9/11 and tell your terrorism czar to concentrate on Iraq instead?

There he was, OBL, all tan and rested and on videotape (hey, did you get the feeling that he had a bootleg of my movie? Are there DVD players in those caves in Afghanistan?

Emphasis added by Decision '08.

So, Michael Moore apparently thinks Osama bin Ladin sounds a lot like him.

Maybe Kerry should talk to his hero before making an ass out of himself on the Daily Kos.

Posted by: Ace at 10:30 AM | Comments (21)
Post contains 413 words, total size 3 kb.

Again from the Waterglass, everyone's favorite Husky Huckster now unleashes the bitter petulance he usually reserves for the US upon his favorite no-account socialist frostberg to the North:

"First, you have the courage to stand against the war in Iraq -- and then you elect a prime minister who's for it. You declare gay people have equal rights -- and then you elect a man who says they don't," Moore moaned.

...

"A man running the nation to the south of you is hoping you can lend him a hand by picking Stephen Harper, because he's a man who shares his world view. Do you want to help George Bush by turning Canada into his latest conquest?" Moore asked.

Ahem. Democratic vote that doesn't go your way = "conquest." I realize he's speaking figuratively here, but I can't imagine that doesn't actually represent his feelings -- and those of many on the left.

Any vote that does not put power into the left's hands is, by definition, illegitimate and represents a, uhhhh, democratic coup d'etat, just like in 1933. Or whenever Hitler was put into power. I don't know history.

When Republicans lose elections, we ask "What did we do wrong as a Party?"

When the left loses elections, they ask, "What did the voters do wrong, and why are they so f'n' stupid? Do we need to learn Conversational Retardese to communicate with them? Perhaps some balloon-animals would help. These people just don't seem smart enough to 'get' us."

And yeah, I know whenever anyone loses an election, the first reaction is to blame the voters. Blame the "sheeple." It's a common response by everyone.

But then that's supposed to pass, and a more searching self-analysis is supposed to begin.

It's been five years since the liberals went batshit crazy and they don't seem to have progressed beyond the "Denial" and "Anger" phases of coping with a loss.

As far as I can tell, the left's only adjustment to repeated electoral defeats has been to 1, Get nastier, 2, Get more overheated and shrill, 3, Call the voters stupid, 4, Make wilder and wilder charges, and 5, Suggest what this country is clamoring for is even more liberalism.

Only #5 even touches upon policy (the others are all about tactics and selling a message). And #5 is as dumb as a bag of retards.

Posted by: Ace at 10:13 AM | Comments (16)
Post contains 405 words, total size 2 kb.

And remember, John Kerry just chose to buddy-up with this crank:

Let's not forget that ultimately, Osama's vision for the Arab world is far more akin to the Right's vision of America. Remember these old posts? On homosexuality, on militarism, on women's rights, on religion in school, on capital punishment, on free speech, on curtailment of civil liberties, and on a million different other issues Islamic fundamentalists don't share many disagreements with the ideologues running our country.

The reason we hate Islamic fundamentalists is pretty much the same reason we're fighting to take back this country from the Republicans. They are two peas from the same pod, and diametrically opposed to everything we liberals stand for.

Let me quote again Peter Beinart's spot-on take:

Yet, if Lieberman's [pro-war] view is one-dimensional, so is that of his critics. If he only sees Bush through the prism of war, they only see the war through the prism of Bush -- which is why they can muster so little anger at America's jihadist enemies and so little enthusiasm when Iraqis risk their lives to vote. Kos and MoveOn have conveniently convinced themselves that the war on terrorism is a mere subset of the struggle against the GOP. Whatever brings Democrats closer to power, ipso facto, makes the United States safer. That would be nice if it were true -- but it's clearly not, because, sometimes, Bush is right, and because, to some degree, our safety depends on his success.

Posted by: Ace at 10:06 AM | Comments (163)
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.