I really must get a digital camera. Today, I went on a car ride with my friend Nelson through the Texas Hill Country looking for deer and Blue Heron and ending at the only suspension bridge in Texas that is still in use. The photo above is from the website that tells about the bridge. Nelson took much better pictures that I will post after he gets them developed.

We went West on Hwy 71 to a county rode that crossed the Big Sandy of Sandy Creek where one can often see a big Blue Heron. He wasn’t present today. But, we could see lots of fish in the clear, clean water.

Down one of the county roads was a ranch where Nelson used to hunt in the late 5o’s and early 60’s. He pointed out a mountain over which was a pasture. In the pasture, there is a huge fig tree that has spread out over about three acres. At the base of the tree is a spring that waters it. His Daddy used to eat fig after fig at that tree on their hunting trips. I’d love to see if that tree is still there. It’s probably even bigger now. Apparently the fig tree’s roots spread and spread and sprouts come up over large areas. I sure hope that it’s still there, bearing figs.

We saw Packsaddle Mountain where the last battle in the Texas Hill Country took place between the Texans and Commanches. In Llano, we ate barbeque on butcher paper at Cooper’s. Mmmmmm….I’m still stuffed.

Then, we headed out to San Saba where the Beveridge Bridge is located. You should have seen the beautiful vistas we saw today.

I love Texas!

I wrote here that I had questions about Murtha’s comments here. Now, after reading Captain Ed today, I have more questions. Captain Ed recounts a Washington Post article that says:

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld spoke over the weekend of plans to bring the force level back down to 138,000 after the elections, effectively removing the extra brigade equivalent added for the election period.

In addition, officers said, two combat brigades that had been slated to move into Iraq to replace units coming out are now expected to be held back. One of those units—a brigade of the 1st Armored Division based in Germany—will probably be positioned in Kuwait. The other unit—a brigade of the 1st Infantry Division—will probably remain at its home base of Fort Riley, Kan., the officers said.

The plan to keep at least one brigade in Kuwait represents what one senior officer called a “hybrid option.” It is intended to hedge against events in Iraq deteriorating once U.S. force levels begin to drop, the officer said, adding that the Pentagon probably will place troops on alert elsewhere as well.

As Captain Ed describes it thusly:

One brigade would transfer to neighboring Kuwait as a rapid-reaction force, and the other two brigades would simply never arrive to relieve two slated to return to the United States in the first quarter of 2006

One of my questions about Murtha’s proposals was whether this is a good idea:

To create a quick reaction force in the region.
To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines.

After reading the Washington Post article, I wonder about a few things. Before the Pentagon announces such things, doesn’t it take a while to plan the action? And, wouldn’t the planning significantly precede the announcement? Does the Pentagon share such information with members of Congress prior to such announcements?

If so, did Democratic Congressmen know that re-deployment of troops and the formation of a quick reaction force placed over-the-horizon in Kuwait was already in the works? Did Murtha know this through his excellent contacts with the Pentagon?

If so, I’m disgusted. I wasted some sympathy for him.

Rather than just reacting to Rep. Murtha’s comments, I want to know more. I want to know precisely what he means by this:

Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily.

I want to know if this is a good idea:

To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.
To create a quick reaction force in the region.
To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines.
To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq

The bolded part makes me believe that he isn’t for total withdrawal. I want to know what he means.

Update: Bill Quick has more on this:

I understand Murtha’s point: An endless low-level conflict combined with a murky strategy that makes very little sense in the context of protecting America now from Islamofascist attack has eroded the national will to the point where what might have been a minor setback could now conceivably become a definitive defeat of the sort that Vietnam itself turned into with withdrawal.

I’d differ somewhat with Murtha’s prescriptions, however. I don’t think what is needed is a land war involving half a million American troops against a small number of insurgents. I think we need to aim our efforts – from our hard-won bases in Iraq – against the outside forces that support those terror-insurgents for one reason or another – the regimes of Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. I think Syria should simply be steam-rolled without delay, in a straightforward military invasion. Instead of stamping out cockroach infestations in Iraqi-Syrian border towns over and over again, just chase the murderous Islamofascist bandits across the border with an infantry division or two after first bombing everything of military significance in the country flat. Follow that with an ultimatum to Iran: Shut down your nuke plans and stop supporting international Islamofascist terror, or you’re next. As for Saudi Arabia, inform them that no further export or support of Wahabbism, either financially or physically, will be tolerated.

None of this is feasible if we leave Iraq entirely. At that point we no longer have any leverage. If we leave because we have been forced to do so by political dissatisfaction at home, then I cannot imagine the circumstances under which we might return to the middle east with military force. And frankly, I think Murtha knows this, and doesn’t want us to cut and run either. He just wants GWB to crap or get off the pot, and that is exactly what I want as well.

Yep. Me too.

I have noticed bloggers and Freepers piling on to Rep. Murtha for his comments about immediately withdrawing from Iraq. I believe that we should consider what this man is saying. He is not some hippie freak. He is also not alone—even among conservatives.

On October 4, 2005, I sat in for Mychal Massie on his radio talk show on Right Talk Radio. My guest was the author of Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America, James H. Webb, Jr.

Jim Webb is a hero. He is one of my personal heroes. It kills me that the Republican party has lost him. He’s contemplating a run against Sen. George Allen—as a Democrat.

He opposed going into Iraq from the beginning. I assure you that he is no America Hater. Immediately after 9-11, :

Go to James Webb’s site and read all his articles.

That said, you will note that in October 2005, Webb did not advocate immediate withdrawal from Iraq:

Q: There are a lot of people who say we made a terrible mistake but we will compound it if we just back out now. Do you agree?

A: I’m not saying we should pick up everything and leave in six months. I’m saying we made a horrendous mistake going in, in my view a strategic error. This is not a moral comment. There are a lot of situations around the world where I wouldn’t shed a tear if a leader were taken out. The question is where you draw your national priorities and how that plays out. I was in Beirut as a journalist in 1983. It was an incredible experience for me looking at the lay of the land. We had an issue when I was secretary of the Navy where we tilted toward Iraq (during the Iran-Iraq war). I think I was the only guy in the Reagan administration who opposed the tilt toward Iraq in writing.

What’s your recommendation on how we get out?

I think there are two things that need to happen. The first is that the administration needs to say with absolute clarity that we have no long-term aspirations in Iraq. And then the other is to reinvolve a lot of the countries that are in that region. Iran’s probably too dangerous because of the way they’ve moved into the Shiite areas; But to reinvolve the Arab nations and invite them to participate in the solution.

I like that. I don’t agree with immediate withdrawal or with a time-table. I think that the government should articulate specific goals to achieve before we withdraw. Things like numbers of Iraqi’s who are trained…etc. I do not want us to remain in Iraq for decades.

I want us to give Islamic countries an opportunity to clean out terrorist nests. If they don’t, I want us to be like the machines in Terminator, swooping down to clean them out.

I don’t like seeing our soldiers build stuff—I want to see them destroy stuff.

P.S. The photo above is of Jim Webb with Morley Safer. Isn’t he a gorgeous man?

This is just nuts. Why’d we bother to free Austria? They apparently don’t understand the concept.

The quote from the Brit makes me wonder as well.

For some unfathomable reason, I got picked for jury duty in Travis County this week. I can talk about it because we came to a verdict tonight.

I use the phrase “some unfathomable reason” because I was always trained as a trial lawyer never to pick an attorney for a jury. I believe that I was picked because the panel had an inordinate number of very strange people. The jury, however, was comprised of intelligent, rational people who were the leftovers after the unsuitable were dumped. Despite this, I believe that I would have cut me.

The case was a Driving While Intoxicated- with a person- under- 15- years- of- age in the vehicle case. The intoxicant was marijuana. The State failed to make its case.

Unlike alcohol, there is no test for bloodstream levels. The evidence, therefore, was a mix of subjective observation and admissions by the Defendant. The Defendant admitted to smoking pot, the State failed to prove that he did it to the level of intoxication.

Let me suggest that if any of you are ever pulled over for DWI that you never agree to do field sobriety tests. They are ridiculous. Most of us on the jury believed that we could never pass one.

Regarding Ronnie Earle, the rest of the jury and I went across the street for a sandwich. After we ate, I went back up to the order window for a cookie. As I stood there, who should come up but the infamous District Attorney, Ronnie Earle. He looked at me, said hello, and commented on the cold front blowing in at the time. I froze, torn between a desire to be polite and the desire to skewer him for what I perceive to be blatant prosecutorial misconduct in the Tom Delay case.

It was strange, because not fifteen minutes before, others on the jury and I had been discussing the Delay case. The consensus appeared to be that going to three Grand Juries before getting a “legitimate” indictment was troubling. I don’t even know what the other jurors’ party affiliations are, but they all had questions about whether or not that was quite fair. Remember that Democrats are in the majority in Travis County, so it is more likely than not that some of them vote for Democrats. Heck, I’ll admit that I’ve voted for some good Democrats for posts inside Travis County.

Getting back to my encounter with Ronnie Earle, I will say that he looks much better in person and that I could definitely perceive that he is charismatic. I minded my manners and suggested that he get the soup.

Maybe next time.

into the pre-Iraq war intelligence?

Bring. It. On. Suckers.

Here’s a taste:

Meanwhile, from as early as at least January 6 2003–prior to President Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address where the President made the African reference which Wilson criticizes–the Democratic National Committee was already circulating a memo planning a public relations strategy which would include “[c]laiming the Bush administration has ‘manufactured’ evidence against Saddam Hussein and used that would be used to encourage Britain and other allies to join the American fight against Iraq.”34

And…

OK, if – and this is all speculation here folks – Wilson was assisting folks in Pakistan, Libya and the AQ Kahn network in acquiring uranium, and the French were getting close to finding the deal out – some forged documents in 1999 pointing to Saddam would throw them off the trail real nicely. And again, in 2002, when the forgeries were out and there was the build up to war, maybe Wilson went to Niger to establish another cover (shipments to Iraq) or do something else. It would explain why Wilson never gets agitated about the build up to the war until after December of 2002, when the uninvestigated lead shifts attention away from uranium shipments out of Niger and onto something heading to Iraq. The financial Times article gives the impression there were legitimate monitor and control concerns in 1999. That means there could have been something going on for real.

And…

As I posted before, there is no doubt that Wilson went in 1999 (under the guise of investigating a 1998 deal), to broker what I believe were ongoing sales of Uranium from Niger to other rogue nations including Iraq. Of course detractors note that since France controlled the mines, this would be impossible, but the findings of the Oil for Food Scandal are shedding a differing light on COGEMA.

And…

Wilson’s business and political background raise questions about the motive behind his wife’s recruitment of him to assist the CIA’s Niger investigation, and about his subsequent politicization of the investigation to undermine the Bush administration’s Iraq policy. While the media has focused attention on the question of who leaked the fact that his wife worked for the CIA, Wilson has attempted to evade the natural question of what role his wife’s CIA connection played in the CIA’s decision to send him to investigate the Niger uranium report. In his book, published in April 2004, Wilson wrote, “Apart from being the conduit of a message from a colleague in her office asking if I would be willing to have a conversation about Niger’s uranium industry, Valerie had had nothing to do with the matter. She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip. The suggestion that Valerie might have improperly influenced the decision to send me to Niger was easy to disprove.”35 But contrary to Wilson’s confident-sounding denial, in July 2004 a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report found that, as The Washington Post reported, “Wilson. . .was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has stated publicly. . .[A] CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame ‘offered up’ Wilson’s name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA’s Directorate of Operations saying her husband ‘has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.’”36 So it turns out that Wilson lied to conceal his wife’s role in procuring his CIA assignment. This raises the question: why?

I think that an investigation would be great!