Not many details on this

UPDATE 7: Welcome Malkin readers! I’d like to immediately point out that while I write mostly about the military and military-related news, I am not nor have I ever been in the armed forces. I also fully support the use of our military to promote freedom and justice. If that makes me a chickenhawk, then I’m a chickenhawk. I have nothing but admiration for our men and women in uniform, which should be evident from a quick glance around MO.

Three rockets fired at U.S. ships in Jordan

It’s all Bush’s fault. Before we unilaterally invaded Iraq no one would have ever thought of attacking US Navy ships in Middle Eastern ports.

Anyway, if these really were Katyusha-type rockets, it’s not a big surprise that they missed. Especially if they were in a hurry to shoot and scat.

I’m wondering why the Phalanx CIWS (R2-D2) anti-air systems didn’t open up. The Ashland has two and the Kearsarge has three.

And then there’s this:

and another falling close to a nearby airport in neighboring Israel

Missing American ships and accidentally hitting Israel isn’t the sort of error I’d make if I wanted to stay in business for long.

But what do I know?

UPDATE: Expat Yank: IT WILL RANK ALONGSIDE JUTLAND.

UPDATE 2: Frank Warner:

Jordan’s ridiculous terrorists are just another part of the Cold War legacy of U.S. short-term support for amateur “reformer” dictators against Communism’s more permanent, professional tyrants.

Well, the Cold War has been over about 15 years, and, despite U.S. financial aid out the wazoo, Jordan remains on the Dark Side

UPDATE 3 – The Left Remains in Character: Waveflux:

The “there” part of “over there” is growing wider

Yep. Just like I said at the beginning of the post, no one would have ever attacked US ships in Arab ports before we went “over there”, would they have?

UPDATE 4: More good stuff:

Nosey Online:

To those who said that Al Qaeda was on the run, well, you still don’t know shit.

Right. Since someone on the run wouldn’t attack from a totally different country, would they? They’ve moved from Afghanistan to Jordan so that proves they aren’t “on the run”?

IntoxiNation: Breaking News Mr. President: Al Qeada Alive and Well:

As Bush is vacationing we are continually reminded that we are fighting a war that we are gradually losing. He makes continuous lies telling the American people we are wining, but now the both wars have merged into one, it is not the same anymore. We had a world willing to help us in our fight against al Qaeda, now we are alienated from a majority of the world because of our involvement in Iraq. Al Qaeda has seized that opportunity by merging the wars. We need a leader who knows how to lead and fight and not one that knows how to stick his head in the sand!

As far as I can see it, they’ve ALWAYS been the same war. That’s how Bush has presented it. It’s those opposed to the invasion of Iraq that claim Iraq had nothing to do with the War on Terror. And now someone is blaming Bush for changing his story to what he’s been saying all along.

Suburban Guerrilla: Oh, Look. A Pretext!:

Can you say “Gulf of Tonkin”?

Finally! The Tet Offensive must be just around the corner.

Plus, the more reports I read about this the more clear it is that none of the reports really seem to know what was fired. Rockets? Mortars? Mortar rockets?

UPDATE 5:

Am I Patriotic?:

US Ships attacked. Bush still clearing brush and avoiding a mother of a dead solider.

Why are most of these posts a quote from a news report and a one- or two-sentence snarky remark? Is that really all they’ve got to contribute?

China Daily: Missiles strike US navy ship in Jordan, Israeli airport
I guess it depends on what you mean by “strike”.

UPDATE 6: Captain Ed (not a Leftie):

Five years ago, AQ used suicide bombers to deliver a powerful bomb point-blank to the ship. It hit the target, killing seventeen sailors. This attack used Katyusha rockets, a more crude and ineffective tactical weapon that rarely hits its targets, as demonstrated by this attack.

What does that mean? It could indicate that the terrorist network has depleted its resources for suicide bombers, at least outside of Iraq. That would show that the flypaper theory actually does play out as the Bush administration predicted, and that rather than generating thousands more martyrs to the cause of radical Islam, Iraq simply draws those foreign terrorists who would otherwise attack American interests elsewhere. This ineffective Katyusha attack also shows that the training and materials used by AQ have degraded significantly, or possibly that because of the lack of other resources (human and materiel), they have had to change tactics to the Palestinian-style rocket attacks and have not had the time to master it, to the extent it can be mastered.

All of these scenarios add up to a serious loss in command and control functions, as this attack had no particular planning and the terrorists obviously had little expertise in the use of the materials. It also indicates that suicide attacks may play less of a role in the future for AQ, meaning that their recruitment may not be anywhere near as robust as American pessimists and radical Islamists declare it to be. Iraq may have worn down the flow and the desire of postential suicide bombers, the only tactical weapon AQ has with an advantage over Western forces. If so, then AQ and its associates will shortly have to pull back and rethink their entire war effort.

While I’ll admit that I’m not quite ready to declare this near-miss a major victory, there’s no doubt that at least some of what he says is probably true.

It’s a quagmire, I tell you.

UPDATE 8: Instead of dragging this post out I started a new one. More silliness. Fun for the whole family. Check it out at:

UPDATE: Rocket Missile Mortar Pathetic Attack on the Navy

Comments

  1. I appreciate the snark, but when a person says someone or something is ‘on the run,’ it usually means that their days are numbered. I’m not implying the ‘Tet Offensive’ meaning, as you so smartly gunned down. Simply moving from Afghanistan to Jordan doesn’t mean the terrorists are on the run. Changing geographic locations doesn’t mean their numbers are dwindling. All this shows is that Al Qaeda is still alive and viable, rather than being ‘on the run.’ Before you call me out for being some left-wing, radical, Al Qaeda sympathizer, read the rest of my blog first. While I lean to the left on a whole lot of things, I don’t usually call out right wingers as nut jobs on everything. Yes, while I think Iraq was a bad idea, I don’t want us to cut and run. That would leave the whole place in shambles. Instead, we should have some sort of a plan to get out, rather than none at all. If you think Iraq should continue from now until the hereafter, then fine. But don’t single me out for just conveying the obvious. Thanks for the link.

  2. Thanks for the thoughtful comment. First off, I totally admit that I have no idea about the overall angle of your blog. But you gave exactly two sentences of analysis/opinion on your post, and one of them is telling me that I ‘still don’t know shit’. So I’m pretty confident that I get your general drift on this story. I imagine that the biggest difference between you and I on Iraq (considering how little I know about you) might be that you are hoping for ‘some sort of a plan to get out’ of Iraq and I’m hoping for a ‘plan to win’ in Iraq. I think we’re on the right track.

  3. And I seriously doubt that this event signals a ‘depletion’ of any of Al Qeada’s resources. It’s just another event in the ongoing, and never ending, Islamist terrorism campaign. And the suicicide bombers that died in the 7/7 London attacks were from Britain, not Iraq. So I guess that blows a hole in the ‘It could indicate that the terrorist network has depleted its resources for suicide bombers, at least outside of Iraq’ theory.

  4. Sean: were Bonnie and Clyde ever ‘on the run’? They didn’t even leave the US. Your point seems to be…that you have no point.

  5. This is obviously Halliburton’s fault. How? Well, it’s some sort of right wing conspiracy or something. If they didn’t employ so many people, no one would hate America. Also, if America would simply make the right move and become a third world country renouncing our allies, peace on earth would magicaly be acheived. Haliburton. those bastards. Give me a chance people. I’m new to the ‘hate america’ crowd! My posts will improve, i swear! I have to go now though, Halliburton seems to have given me head lice :(

  6. My two sentences of snark were not aimed at right-leaning citizen thinkers. It was directed at the horse’s mouth, the Bush Administration. My whole point is that Al Qaeda is not on the run, not dead, not being dragged down by a lack of resources, and still a viable outfit. The London bombing shows that they still have plenty of tilted men of Middle Eastern descent willing to blow themselves up for Allah. As for the ‘Winning in Iraq’ idea, I fear that as this drags on and on, your ideal goals are going to be harder and harder to accomplish. After all, we were told that ‘Winning in Iraq’ would be accompanied by rose petals. I still have yet to see that. Yes, I agree we need to ‘Win in Iraq,’ but at what cost?

  7. Jeff H: I have no idea what you’re talking about. I wasn’t the one who implied geographical locations have anything to do with whether or not an entity is viable. It’s a simple fact that you can’t grasp. Al Qaeda is still around and willing to pull off these attacks (no matter how big or small). Have you forgotten that it was only a month ago when London was shredded by people linked to Al Qaeda? We’ll still be having this discussion 5 years from now, and you’ll still accuse me of having no idea what I’m talking about; even as Al Qaeda still manages to blow up buses and trains. Who’s really the one who doesn’t know what they’re talking about?

  8. And Jeff H., if I don’t know what I’m talking about, then I guess my belief that we shouldn’t cut and run is bogus? Right? So wouldn’t that make your belief bogus as well? Give me a break

  9. *We were told that ‘Winning in Iraq’ would be accompanied by rose petals.* Excuse me, but *when* were we told that. What we were told, was that this was going to be a long dangerous struggle. Of course, sometimes some people find that it’s convenient to forget that. *at what cost?* The cheapest possible, but you still spend enough that you make sure you win. You *don’t* go around saying things like ‘this is a waste of our blood and treasure we should give up’, which of course, makes it *harder* to win, and thus more costly to do so. It’s actually quite difficult for me to figure out how people can ‘NOT’ understand this.

  10. I’m glad sean has such a firm handle on Al-Quaeda’s resources. Perhaps he could send the info to Centcom for follow-up. We are fighting an ideology, more than an organization. I think there is an excellent chance that we will still be hunting these crackers down ten years from now. They want us all dead, or solidly Islamic-take your choice. Those advancing the position that we quit Iraq (and the entire war, to hear Cindy Sheehan tell it) have decided, ultimately, on Door #2. Fortunately, the administration prefers freedom.

  11. Bad news Sean :( Al quaeda will not be defeated for a long time. If you are a fan of Nostradamus, then you’ll believe that it will take http://www.crystalinks.com/quatrainsinterpretations.html (your link system messes up my sentences)26 yrs before we win. I don’t believe him though. I think it will take more like 50 years. We are in year 4. To answer your question, we will win iraq at the cost of a lot of people dying, and a lot of money spent. But we don’t only need to win Iraq. We need to win Syria, Iran, Saudia Arabia, and just about every other muslim nation, including Pakistan. I’m not advocating war against these countries – just change. The war in Iraq helped Libya change it’s mind about WMDs. It helped Lebannon. It minorly helped Saudia Arabia, Egypt and Kuwait chance their voting schemes. http://www.worldaudit.org/images/fh99map.gif (grr, please allow link naming)The world is not free. Until we make it free, we all have cause to worry. To quote Mel Gibson, ‘G’day mate, can I get a cleanskin of plonk?’. Wait, that was the wrong quote. The one from his movie about Scotland. Oh yeah, here it is…. ‘Freedom!!!!’

  12. I have no comment on the post, but I must say, that Mel gibson quote by Kevin was hillarious! Sincerely, A non-Kevin person

  13. I’m delighted to see any evidence whatsoever that AQ and the rest of the homicidal Hee-Haw gang are struggling. I’m pretty sure the supply of people stupid enough to blow themselves up for their cause is rather limited so I think it stands to reason that eventually they’ll have to rethink their strategy. But I wouldn’t be too optimistic about it. If they start running low on suicidal morons I’m sure they would start conserving them for bigger and nastier things. BTW. Gulf of Tonkin my rosy red backside! You folks need to find something else. The Vietnam analogies are wearing thin due to overuse in the 80s and 90s. Another BTW. You lefties need to read your history. Vietnam was started by a Democrat, escalated beyong anyone’s expectations by another Democrat, and ended by a Republican. Is any trace of this irony sinking in? ER

  14. Thanks for all your lovely snark. My point, again, is that Al Qaeda is not on the run or near defeat. Comments from Greg and Kevin back up that assumption. And I never claimed to be an expert. I have my opinion, as do you you all. I don’t think you’re a bunch of policy experts either. But one thing I don’t do is sit at someone else’s blog and make such broad accusations. In case you have a hard time comprehending things, I’ll repeat myself. Al Qaeda is not going anywhere, we’ll probably be fighting them for a long time, we shouldn’t cut and run, we need a winning strategy in Iraq (whatever you definition of winning is), and I don’t believe the Bush Administration has the capacity to execute a winning plan. I was not the one comparing this attack to the Tet Offensive. I’m well awhere that Vietnam was started by a Democrat. If Iraq does end up like Vietnam (I’m not drawing the comparison, I honest to God hope it doesn’t end up that way), will you admit in the future that it was a Republican who started it? I don’t care who is in the White House. Reality is reality.

  15. My guess is that CIWS was turned off, it’s not really meant for defense in-port. I remember a demonstration of the Phalanx system in front of lots of people. The drone was launched, the Phalanx went live – and instead of shooting down the drone, turned and destroyed a nearby porta-potty (luckily no one was inside). The porta-john had an exhaust fan, which the system locked onto. It’s been improved since then, but… The rocket attack is in many ways a good indicator, to my mind. Either AQ couldn’t get a homicide bomber close enough to do any good, or couldn’t find anyone that would be the bomber. As far as the rockets go, either they didn’t know how to aim them properly, weren’t using the right launcher, or both. All they got was Jordan pissed off at them. Well, that and favorable MSM coverage along with moonbat moans that this incompetent attack proves we will lose.

  16. First: You said Tet, you said Tet! Second: And yes, you did just draw just the comparison Third: No, and most seriously, a Republican didn’t start this. They started it. Further evidence that the Left just don’t get it.

  17. Greeted as liberators, with or without the roses, whatever. Maybe I should have used the greeted as liberators comment instead. It all goes towards the same point.

  18. Maybe you should go back and read the ‘Greeted as liberators’ comments from Veep Cheney’s comments. Cheney; ‘Now, I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. And the president’s made it very clear that our purpose there is, if we are forced to do this, will in fact be to stand up a government that’s representative of the Iraqi people, hopefully democratic due respect for human rights, and it, obviously, involves a major commitment by the United States, but we think it’s a commitment worth making. And we don’t have the option anymore of simply laying back and hoping that events in Iraq will not constitute a threat to the U.S. Clearly, 12 years after the Gulf War, we’re back in a situation where he does constitute a threat.’ Get it? ‘My belief’ Since when is his belief a guarantee to you? If you were morally honest, you’d have to take Mr. Bush at his word when he said, ‘Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun. This campaign may not be finished on our watch, yet it must be and it will be waged on our watch.’ State of the Union, 2002.

  19. I’d just like to point out that there’s a vast difference between, say, a ship packed with explosives that looks ‘valid’ enough to get alongside a US warship like the USS Cole and blow a whopping huge hole in it and a Three Stooges-esque rocket attack using a weapon that even the Syrians don’t want to use regularly anymore. If this comedic attempt to hit a US warship with unguided rocket that was first developd during World War II is a sign that al-Qaeda is just as vital as it ever was, then I’d question your definition of the word ‘vital’. I’d think that bin Laden and Zarqawi and the rest of the gang would have wanted to do a heck of a lot more damage and killed a bunch of American sailors. Fortunately, they couldn’t and didn’t. Before Afghanistan and Iraq, al-Qaeda would have been able to put a hole in one or more of those ships. Today, they’re just blowing up an American-free warehouse. Maybe they’re just tired. Maybe their minor-leagues just aren’t producing the kind of all-star terrorist we’ve become accustomed to seeing. Maybe – just maybe – the fact that they don’t have those sprawling training camps in Afghanistan and that big training camp just south of Baghdad might have something to do with it. Maybe the reason all they seem to have are IEDs and suicide bombers is because that’s all they’re capable of having because their stars are all forcefully-retired thanks to a goodly number of Coalition soldiers with guns who shoot very, very well. Or maybe it’s just luck. Heck, why give the guys killing terrorists at about a 10-1 clip any real credit for whittling down al-Qaeda, hey?

  20. Regret, you moron. The Gulf of Tonkin comparison was sone by Suburban Guerrilla. Murdoch snidely said that the Tet Offensive must be around the corner. I made the comparison to neither. I’m sorry you can’t read. The terrorists started with 9/11, but they had NOTHING to do with starting in Iraq. We were told there were WMDs and we had to go in. Now we know that to be an untruth. Our invasion created a nest of terrorists. That is something the Right will never understand. It’s a boondoggle that needs to be dealt with. Cutting and running is not an option. So how do you figure I’m a typical leftie? Read a little bit below the surface before you make stupid statements.

  21. And all this talk about Al Qaeda being tired, or running out of resources. What the hell do you think happened on 7/7 in London? Was that Al Qaeda being tired? Man. You guys have a short term memory.

  22. USS Cole was attacked long before the Coalition removed Saddam..Americans, Britian, Bulgaria, Denmark, Holland,Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Poland, El Salvador, Spain, Thailand, Ukraine plus other ALL helped to remove Saddam. These small rockets would not have seriously damaged those ships. But, of course, you are crying over the lack of American wounded.

  23. We were told there were WMDs and we had to go in’ Yes, but we were told that by Bill Clinton, The UN, British Intel, the CIA, former Iraqi scientists and every major intelligence agency in the world. Btw, its ‘WMD’ not ‘WMDs’ the word Weapons is already plural, destructions doesn’t make sense.

  24. The MK 15 Vulcan/Phalanx CIWS must be in AAW (Anti-Aircraft Warfare) ‘auto’ mode to automatically engage an incoming threat. When inport, CIWS (along with most other emitters) is normally secured (off).

  25. I second Tweell’s opinion that the CIWS was turned off. The Gatling guns put a lot of lead downrange, most of which will not hit the target meaning a lot of unguided rounds flying around. However, I believe his anecdote about the systems and the porta-potty actually had to do with the Sgt. York Anti-Aircraft system the army was working on while I was still in. During a demonstration, the radar locked onto the fans blades in a field latrine and let fly. That was the final nail in the misguided system’s (pun intended) coffin.

  26. he CIWS in AAW auto mode has a notoriosly itchy trigger finger and would undoubtedly gun down some civillian if routinely used in port. Although I don’t think the teller of the porta potty story was lying, it would take un unusual set of circumstances for a vent fan to set it off. While any rotor can certainly be seen as an incoming threat (the older CIWS used to go besurk around helicopters)the fan in question would have to be horizontally mounted in very light plastic or nothing at all and most likely the vanes of the fan would probably have to be resonant with the CIWS radar frequency to present a large enough threat profile. Unusual but not impossible or improbable conditions. John, any chance you are/were an 1121 or an 1127?

  27. Look, if they’re using rockets, you can bet this isn’t some little neighbourhood club of angry young Muslims. Rockets are EXPENSIVE. I guarantee you this is al Qaeda, or a linked group (what difference does a name make anymore, they’re all dipping into the same well). And this means the observation above still has merit; they’re low on trained people, low on materiel and accessories for high quality attacks, low on suicide bombers, low on morale. This attack makes them look pathetic.

  28. There is a very good reason for having the CIWS turned off in port. If it had engaged that rocket, several thousand rounds of 20MM depleted uranium would have landed in town. This would have been equivalant to an A-10 warthog straffing the good citizens of Jordan. Definitely a no-no.

  29. After the peace treaty was signed and the World War II was decleared over. We fought holdouts for the at least 7 years, We are still in Europe 60 years after the conflict is over what is the exit stategy for Europe? Oh I forgot we do not need one a Democrat put us there so we have to stay, just like Kosovo, Slick Wille had no authority but went any way said we would be out in 6 months in 1995. How long is 6 months in Democat speak? When do we get to end the Korean War? Dem got us in Rep got a cease fire ( Oh yeah the UN is running that war). Vietnam was a favor to the French to help them, we sent advisors and they ran away. Pres, LBJ sent troops because the Navy got attacked by a school of dolphins ( its ok a Democat told it) lost 58, 479 men and women over that lie.

  30. Per Sean … we need a winning strategy in Iraq (whatever you definition of winning is), and I don’t believe the Bush Administration has the capacity to execute a winning plan. What exactly is a winning strategy if it’s not what we’re doing now? I’ve heard this refrain many times, and I’d seriously like to know what those who use it suggest as a ‘winning strategy.’

  31. I’d seriously like to know what those who use it suggest as a ‘winning strategy.’ How about Islamic Sensitivity Training at school?

  32. I’m sure that the basing agreement we have with Jordan precludes any use of our weapons systems while in port unless under direct attack. IOW, the CIWS was secured (off)… which is a good thing, because as others have pointed out if it had engaged the rockets there’d probably be a lot of collateral damage. IIRC these rockets have a HE warhead and are designed for anti-personnel work. Of course, if one hit a ship going full-speed it would most likely penetrate the hull before exploding and that would do some damage depending where the hit was. At any rate, this was a wakeup call for the Navy, as well as for Jordanian security forces. The latter is going to have to get its ducks in a row and regain control of its territory. The former? I’m sure that some complacency has settled in since the USS Cole but this will certainly put everyone on alert and make us re-examine our defensive policies and procedures… which is not a bad thing. As Churchill once wrote, ‘There is nothing more exhilarating than being shot at and missed.’ I’m sure they’ll re-examine the decision to visit such ports, because it is never safe to send a ship into a port where it is vulnerable from land attack.

  33. Re Iraq having been turned into a ‘nest of terrorists’ by our invasion and liberation… wrong, Grasshopper. Iraq already WAS a nest of terrorists, from Abu Nidal to Ansar al Islam. I mean, come on… Salmon Pak was the terrorist Disneyland and Saddam was packing the place full. What’s happening now is that al Quaida thought (incorrectly) that we would cut and run (as we did under Clinton in Somalia) if we were hit with a little resistance, so they arrogantly started to send their forces to confront us… and we’ve slaughtered them. That sucking sound you hear is all of the young and dumb al Quaida converts getting sucked into Iraq where our military can, and has, killed them. Now they have no choice: they must win in Iraq and that is an impossibility, unless we cut and run. The ‘insurgency’ in Iraq is really three conflicts: al Quaida attacks, Sunni Baathist resistance, and criminal gang activities. The Sunnis are pretty much done fighting us, and in fact have been attacking the al Quaida groups. The criminal gangs will be cleaned up by Iraqi forces who can use more ruthless and effective techniques than we can. That leaves al Quaida, which has seen nearly all of its experienced and trained fighters killed as well as most of its leadership. Again, the Iraqis will soon be able to handle what’s left because they will be more ruthless than we will. My predictions: by 2008 we will be amazed at how successful the interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan were. A retiring George Bush will get all of the credit. Hillary will get creamed by an as-yet-unnamed Republican candidate, and the Democratic Party will cease to exist as we know it.

  34. Am I missing something? The USS Cole was attacked in port in the Middle East when Clinton was still in the White House.

  35. CIWS – Served on a FFG during the early 90’s. In 4 years with two west pacs, We never had the CIWS system online in port. Like another reader wrote, it would be very deadly to anything moving on shore. Even during hightend security in Bahrain it was left off. It is used at sea. I did see a test fire on a drone that was pulled behind a plane on a cable, after destryoing the drone the gun tracked the cable until it was shutoff. And for a couple of nut jobs that can’t hit a target as big as a ship, well these guys will make perfect fodder for the troops. It is obvious they have no money for real weapons or training. So I assume the Jordanians will kill or capture them, or even better they will go to Iraq and end up dead within hours of crossing over.

  36. sean, you keep directing your snark toward these folks’ discussions about al Qaeda specifically and then using those ‘linked to’ al Qaeda to bolster your argument. Which is it? Because last time I checked there were dozens of those either ‘linked to’ al Qaeda or ‘inspired by’ al Qaeda. Technically, there should be no differentiation at all between them, because they all have the same purpose (kill the infidel) regardless of what they claim is their chief complaint. So you need to pick one or the other. Furthermore, the fact that A) we have found ‘suicide’ bombers handcuffed to their steering wheels, B) they have used on at least one occasion a downs syndrom victim to carry out an attack, C) they are using dogs to carry out attacks and D) they have given every indication in the 7/7 bombings that the perpetraters were ‘tricked’ into being ‘suicide’ bombers shows that there certainly IS a shortage of those actually willing to blow themselves to smithereens.

  37. instead of endlessly trotting out vietnam as a comparison to iraq; surely the russian campaign in afgahnistan is more valid? i realise that it’s slightly embarrassing, considering who supported and supplied the insurgency, sorry, resistance by the mujaheddin (it wasn’t a dirty word in those days, was it?!) – remember the newscasts every time they destroyed a convoy or took out a gunship with a stinger…? oh, how we laughed…

  38. Just a couple of cents worth here. I would not mock the guys who launched the rockets. Comming as close as they did with a Katyusha rocket demonstrates that they knew what they were doing. Last I looked a Katyusha CEP is measured in the 100’s of meters

  39. Response to ‘Update 7’: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v316/franksalterego/chickenhawk2.jpg CREED OF THE CHICKENHAWK I am not nor have I ever been in the armed forces. I also fully support the use of our military to promote freedom and justice. I fully support the families of the fallen, who believe their sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, fathers and mothers have NOT died in vain but, for the Higher Ideals, some in this Country take for granted. I will make every effort to Glorify my bretheren who choose to serve, and to villify, repudiate, and demonize our enemies, and those who would appease, capitulate, validate, or in any other way give aid and comfort to the enemy. I believe, those who would Smear or Slander our Soldiers are the scum of the earth…May they burn in hell. [Creed is under devolopment, and is subject to change or be added to, at the author’s whim or meaningful suggestion.]

  40. I’m not sure, but after reading and re-reading the comment by franksalterego I’m taking it as an endorsement of the so-called ‘chickenhawks’ as long as they stand for the American way and truly, honestly support the military and the families of those that serve. At least that’s how I’m choosing to look at it. I fully recognize that many will not take me seriously since I personally have not put my life on the line, and I will admit that they’ve got a point. At the same time I think it’s clear that I’m on the side of the soldier and our military in general, and that you don’t have to have served to support the mission as well as the man. Cindy Sheehan, for instance, has a far deeper connection with events than I do. But that doesn’t necessarily (in and of itself) make her right and me wrong. (Plus, if that’s really what that ‘Proud to be a Chickenhawk’ image stands for, I might have to put one up on my page. If, instead, it’s really making a mockery of people like me—I might have to put TWO of them up on my page.)

  41. Don’t get me wrong…I fully agree with you…That’s why I began it with a quote from you…The Left needs to have their Name-Calling thrown right back in their faces…Feel free to use the Image…F.

  42. No one ever seems to have the courage to actually present a hypothesis, a la the scientific method. I appreciate johnclif’s predictions, because there is a hypothesis to judge in an objective way. (Anybody prepared to make some 2006 or 2007 predictions?) A bigger question: If things don’t turn out like johnclif predicts, will he be willing to actually throw out his hypothesis and find a new one consistent with the results, or will he find some way to justify his old hypothesis. Much tougher to let the data drive your opinions, it seems. (I do not know johnclif and am not presuming any particular attitudes or behaviors on his part here, folks.)