Wednesday, November 30, 2005
In a statement, Christian Peacemaker Teams said it strongly opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq and blamed the kidnapping on coalition forces.
“We are angry because what has happened to our teammates is the result of the actions of the U.S. and U.K. government due to the illegal attack on Iraq and the continuing occupation and oppression of its people,” the group said.
Christian Peacemaker Teams does not consider itself a fundamentalist organization, a spokeswoman said.
“We are very strict about this: We do not do any evangelism, we are not missionaries,” Jessica Phillips told The Associated Press in Chicago. “Our interest is to bring an end to the violence and destruction of civilian life in Iraq.”
The group’s first activists went to Iraq in 2002, six months before the U.S.-led invasion, Phillips said, adding that a main mission since the invasion has been documenting alleged human rights abuses by U.S. forces.
Lets hope and pray they don't have four new human rights violations to add to the list and that they are rescued or released very soon. Oh wait, they are only documenting US military violations.
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Last Wednesday, the Minority Leader appeared on KRNV-TV's "Nevada Newsmakers" program and dropped a stunning revelation. He had been informed just that day that Osama bin Laden was killed in the giant Pakistan earthquake last month. "I heard that Osama bin Laden died in the earthquake, and if that's the case, I certainly wouldn't wish anyone harm, but if that's the case, that's good for the world."
Intelligence analysts tell me that the only proper action by a top U.S. Senate leader who has been given such information is radio silence. If the report is true, such information is best released at a moment of the U.S. government's choosing. For one thing, as long as the information is tightly held, it can be used to sift out electronic intercepts that might lead to other Al Qaeda leaders. On the other hand, if Mr. Reid's public speculation proves groundless, it only embarrasses the U.S. and contributes to enemy morale. Here's hoping Al Qaeda figures aren't soon appearing on Al Jazeera television chortling about the clueless Mr. Reid.
Earlier this month, Mr. Reid was eager to keep discussions of intelligence matters under wraps. For little apparent reason, he invoked a seldom-used rule that forced the Senate to go into secret session to debate complaints about pre-war intelligence concerning Saddam's weapons programs. ...
Read the rest here, its mind-boggling how the mainstream media can totally ignore a huge story like this while running hysterical story after hysterical story on Scooter Libby.
But that doesn't stop Reuters from running with this "patriotic" shot of PM at her book signing. See the rest at Sweetness and Light
UPDATE: It seems Cindy is upset with AP and Reuters (imagine that!) for running the photographs that show her sitting in an empty book signing tent. She says it leaves the impression that the book signing was a flop. Newsflash to Cindy, it was! She is of course claiming that the conservative sites picked up the story and claimed that NO ONE bought her book. I know I didn't claim that, AP and Reuters didn't make that claim and all the blogs I read did not make that claim either. Editor and Publisher has the entire story.
I guess Cindy just can't handle the truth!
But in a statement today, Sheehan accused “right-wing” sites of “spreading a false story that nobody bought my book at Camp Casey on Saturday. That is not true, I sold all 100 copies and got writer's cramp signing them. Photos were taken of me before the people got in line to have me sign the book. We made $2000 for the peace house.”
Her publisher, Arnie Kotler at Koa Books, meanwhile released a letter to her supporters, charging that “AP and Reuters posted photos - I can't imagine why - of Cindy sitting at the book table between signings, rather than while someone was at the table. And now the smear websites are circulating an article, with these photos, that Cindy gave a signing and nobody came. It's simply not true…. the benefit books igning in Crawford, Texas on November 26, 2005 was well attended and a huge success.”
Asked for a response, anAP commented this afternoon:
"Photographer Evan Vucci, queried about the incident today said that he was present at the book signing from about 10 a.m. to about 11 a.m. During that time, he said, people were coming in to have their books signed in small groups of a few at a time.
"At the time the photos were taken 'maybe 5 people had come in,' Vucci says, and Sheehan was waiting for more to stop by, which they did individually as well as in very small groups. Therefore the wording of the caption is accurate in that Sheehan was waiting for people to show up at her signing."
Sen. Arlen Specter, ardent Eagles fan and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, yesterday accused the NFL and its Philadelphia franchise of potentially violating antitrust laws in their treatment of Terrell Owens.
Speaking at a news conference in Harrisburg, Specter (R., Pa.) said he was investigating the matter and might refer it to the Senate panel's antitrust subcommittee.
This passage is especially intriguing;
Here is an ironic finding I brought back from Iraq. While U.S. public opinion polls show serious declines in support for the war and increasing pessimism about how it will end, polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam, and a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today. What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory.
Let me say it again, polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show that 82% say they will be better off a year from now. These are not polls conducted by Americans but by the Iraqi people themselves. How are the Dems and the MSM going to spin that? They won't, they'll just ignore it completely.
Sales of new homes soared at a record pace in October in what could be a last hurrah for the booming housing market.
The Commerce Department said that sales of new single-family homes shot up by 13 percent last month, the biggest one-month gain in more than 12 years. The increase pushed sales to an all-time high seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1.42 million units.
The increase confounded analysts who had been predicting that new home sales would decline by 1.8 percent, reflecting continued increases in mortgage rates. It was possible that the unexpected surge reflected a final rush by buyers to get into the market before mortgage rates climb higher.
So we have record setting new home sales yet the AP says its the last hurrah.
These so-called expert analysts are the only people I know of where they are paid for being wrong on a monthly basis. Can I have that job? If I was as wrong as they are I would be job-hunting constantly.
Analysts believe the nation's booming housing market is beginning to show signs of slowing under the impact of rising mortgage rates, which are going up as the Federal Reserve continues a campaign to boost interest rates to make sure inflation does not get out of control.
Well, maybe not. The Fed indicated in the just released minutes from their November 1st meeting that the their interest-raising campaign may be coming to end shortly after the New Year depending on existing conditions.
Monday, November 28, 2005
Democrats fumed last week at Vice President Cheney's suggestion that criticism of the administration's war policies was itself becoming a hindrance to the war effort. But a new poll indicates most Americans are sympathetic to Cheney's point.
Seventy percent of people surveyed said that criticism of the war by Democratic senators hurts troop morale -- with 44 percent saying morale is hurt "a lot," according to a poll taken by RT Strategies. Even self-identified Democrats agree: 55 percent believe criticism hurts morale, while 21 percent say it helps morale.
The raw data is here. And this is not a partisan poll by any means;
But the survey itself cannot be dismissed as a partisan attack. The RTs in RT Strategies are Thomas Riehle, a Democrat, and Lance Tarrance, a veteran GOP pollster.
Saturday, November 26, 2005
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
And where oh where is the peace mom? She has a family emergency and can't come down to Crawford until next week, she says. Maybe she is waiting to see what happens to the suckers, I mean, protesters who are there today.
And by the way, why does a dozen protestes, thats 12 people, warrant news? Hundreds of thousands of protesters rallying against Zarqawi in Jordan hardly made a blip but the nut-job Sheehan supporters get frontpage coverage on MSNBC website.
Monday, November 21, 2005
The problem is the only people that called Murtha a coward was the mainstream media while reporting on the supposed attacks by the White House.
From CNN on Friday;
In a broadside issued Thursday night, Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said that it is "baffling that [Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha] is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party."
But McClellan added, "The eve of an historic democratic election in Iraq is not the time to surrender to the terrorists."
So where is the attack? I am not seeing it. Of course when the White House praises Murtha's service then the administration in backtracking.
"The period between 9/11 and Iraq was not a good time for America. There wasn't a robust discussion of what we were doing," Matthews said.
"If we stop trying to figure out the other side, we've given up. The person on the other side is not evil — they just have a different perspective."
Sunday, November 20, 2005
Saturday, November 19, 2005
From the SF Chronicle;
(11-17) 10:52 PST WASHINGTON, D.C. -- In another sign of rising discontent in Congress over the war in Iraq, perhaps the House's most influential Democrat on military issues called today for the immediate withdrawal of all American forces from that nation.
From the NY Times:
WASHINGTON, Nov. 17 - An influential House Democrat called the Iraq campaign "a flawed policy wrapped in illusion" today as he called for the immediate withdrawal of United States troops, intensifying an already bitter debate on Capitol Hill.
UPDATE: An excellent summary at Discriminations of how the media reporting was altered as the day went on to match up with what the Dems were accusing the Republicans of doing. It seems the NY Times just couldn't quite decide if it was "immediate" or "swift" withdrawl/redeployment or whatever. CBS News described Murtha's call as "troops return home now" while Bloomberg seemed to have no problem with "immediate." Murtha's own website still calls for immediate redeployment and in his press conference he used the word "immediate" 4 times. You would think that the Democrats haven't lost the art of reading, although they seem to have a serious problem with facts that are staring them in the face.
And the vote was 403-3 against withdrawl. So much for the Murtha "demand" for "immediate/swift/starting to" withdrawl of troops and the democrats standing with him.
They are cowards and proved it be first trying to procedurally block the vote, then voting against the resolution proving they are spineless. In another example of complete cowardice by Democrats, during the closing statements by Rep. Sam Johnson, he asked for an additional three minutes, when the Speaker asked for any objections three Democrats yelled out "Objection!" When the Speaker asked them to stand and be recognized not ONE of them stood! Pathetic! Perfect representation of today's Democratic Party.
Ed Morrisey at Captains Quarters live-blogged the whole thing last night, very interesting reading.
So where is the breathless reporting on the cost of gas, not to mention the shrieking about oil being under $56 a barrel?
Here's a site tracking gas price, just input you zip code and a radius...
Friday, November 18, 2005
Thursday, November 17, 2005
Signaling a new, more aggressive line against the Bush administration’s policy on Iraq, Rep. John Murtha (Pa.), the House Democrats’ most visible defense hawk, will join Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) today to make public his previously private statements that the conflict is “unwinnable.”
UPDATE: Gateway Pundit has a nice list of Murtha's past statements that are basically the same as what he said yesterday. The only difference is now he wants the troops home next month.
UPDATE2: NewsBusters has more on the media ignoring Murtha last year. Interesting quote from Murtha sort of undercuts the Democrats latest "Bush Lied" mantra and mirros what the adminstration has been saying lately;
In this interview, not only did Rep. Murtha state that he would not have voted for the war resolution knowing what he knew "now," but also, contrary to assertions made by many members of Congress of late -- as well as much of the mainstream media -- he saw "all" of the intelligence reports: "I mean, I'm not blaming anybody else because I saw all the intelligence reports. All of them indicated we had imminent danger."
So the media of course focuses on his latest statements instead of focusing on their favorite "maverick" Republican who, in case you don't know and you probably don't, said this on Face The Nation on Sunday;
SCHIEFFER: President Bush accused his critics of rewriting history last week.
Sen. McCAIN: Yeah.
SCHIEFFER: And in--he said in doing so, the criticisms they were making of his war policy was endangering our troops in Iraq. Do you believe it is unpatriotic to criticize the Iraq policy?
Sen. McCAIN: No, I think it's a very legitimate aspect of American life to criticize and to disagree and to debate. But I want to say I think it's a lie to say that the president lied to the American people. I sat on the Robb-Silverman Commission. I saw many, many analysts that came before that committee. I asked every one of them--I said, `Did--were you ever pressured politically or any other way to change your analysis of the situation as you saw?' Every one of them said no.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Joseph Wilson, the husband of outed CIA operative Valerie Plame, called on Thursday for an inquiry by The Washington Post into the conduct of journalist Bob Woodward, who repeatedly criticized the leak investigation without disclosing his own involvement.
"It certainly gives the appearance of a conflict of interest. He was taking an advocacy position when he was a party to it," Wilson said.
You don't say, say like for example having your own wife set you up to go on a "fact finding" boondoggle to Niger and then come back and lie about everything you found out?
This guy has no shame at all...
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
The President and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone – but we’re not going to sit by and let them rewrite history.
The whole speech text can be found here.
Keep an eye on Tom Maguire for an in depth look at this story.
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
MR. RUSSERT: But is it enough for you to say to the country, "Trust us, the other guy's no good. We'll do better, but we're not going to tell you specifically how we're going to deal with Iraq."
DR. DEAN: We will. When the time comes, we will do that.
MR. RUSSERT: When's the time going to come?
DR. DEAN: The time is fast-approaching. And I outlined the broad outlines of our agenda. We're going to have specific plans in all of these areas.
MR. RUSSERT: This year?
DR. DEAN: In 2006.
No one knows that answer, because no one has ventured into this territory before. The movie is a groundbreaker. There's never been a homosexual cowboy movie, and while the indies have been supplying gay romances to the art house circuit for years, and gay series like "Queer as Folk" and "Will & Grace" have been pulling big numbers on TV, there hasn't been a mainstream gay love story since 1982's "Making Love," which bombed and was blamed by many for damaging Harry Hamlin's career.
I am guessing that this one will meet the same fate, I am not sure this kind of subject matter plays to the masses very well. The coasts will love it, as do the film festivals. But I think it will be in and out of the Top 10 in a matter of 2-3 weeks. Pure speculation on my part, I could be totally wrong.
Monday, November 14, 2005
Reasonable people can disagree about the conduct of the war – but it is irresponsible for Democrats to now claim that we misled them and the American people. Leaders in my Administration and members of Congress from both parties looked at the same intelligence on Iraq – and reached the conclusion that Saddam Hussein was a threat. Let me give you quotes from three senior Democrats: First, quote, “There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons.” End quote. Here’s another one, quote, “The war against terrorism will not be finished as long as [Saddam Hussein] is in power.” End quote. And here’s the way another Democratic leader summed it up, quote, “Saddam Hussein, in effect, has thumbed his nose at the world community. And I think that the President's approaching this in the right fashion.”
The truth is that investigations of the intelligence on Iraq have concluded that only one person manipulated evidence and misled the world – and that person was Saddam Hussein. In early 2004, when weapons inspector David Kay testified that he had not found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, he also testified that, quote, “Iraq was in clear material violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1441. They maintained programs and activities, and they certainly had the intentions at a point to resume their programs. So there was a lot they wanted to hide because it showed what they were doing that was illegal.” Eight months later, weapons inspector Charles Duelfer issued a report that found, quote, “Saddam Hussein so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted.”
Some of our elected leaders have opposed this war all along. I disagree with them, but I respect their willingness to take a consistent stand. Yet some Democrats who voted to authorize the use of force are now rewriting the past. They are playing politics with this issue and sending mixed signals to our troops and the enemy. That is irresponsible.
As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them. Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory.
Friday, November 11, 2005
But will anyone know about the speech? If the media ignores it, which they will mostly do, then the affect will be little if anything. So my suggestion, as if the President listens to my every word, would be to say something that takes on the media as well as the democrats. Link the two together. Call them irresponsible for simply restating the democrat talking points. If the President can ruffle the feathers of the media and get them talking about what the President said about them and what they reported, which is to say what the dems are telling them to say, then maybe his message will get out.
Some targets would be the medias misleading reporting on Joe Wilson and their failure to reveal the information in the Select Senate Intelligence Report that shows Joe Wilson to be a liar. Some other lines of attack;
- The media misrepresenting the Saddam link to 9/11 NOT made by President Bush
- The media inaccurately reporting the "16 words" in the 2003 SotU address and never mentioning that the British intelligence (the source) still stands by the report
- The Dems insistence that the White House manipulated intelligence when they themselves saw the same intelligence and as far back as 1998 were making the same statements that President Bush was making in 2002.
- The media obsession with keeping a "death scorecard" and featuring articles when supposed milestones are reached.
UPDATE: Here is an excerpt from the Presidents speech today;
"Our debate at home must also be fair-minded. One of the hallmarks of a free society and what makes our country strong is that our political leaders can discuss their differences openly, even in times of war. When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support. I also recognize that some of our fellow citizens and elected officials didn't support the liberation of Iraq. And that is their right, and I respect it. As President and Commander in Chief, I accept the responsibilities, and the criticisms, and the consequences that come with such a solemn decision.
"While it is perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs. They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. Many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: 'When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security.' That's why more than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.
"The stakes in the global War on Terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning AmericaWashington, our will is strong, our Nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory."'s will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them. Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough."
Thursday, November 10, 2005
" It is time to recognize a simple fact of life. Contrary to what some of my colleagues seem to believe, tax cuts do not pay for themselves."
So how do explain this from the October 6 2005, CBO report???
Receipts in 2005 were about $274 billion (or 14.6 percent) higher than in 2004, CBO estimates. Because that percentage growth far exceeded the growth in nominal GDP, revenues as a share of GDP rose from 16.3 percent in 2004 to 17.5 percent in 2005, the first increase since 2000.
Read anything lately George??? Grow a spine!
Friday, November 04, 2005
Keep in mind the Party ID breakdown for the 2004 Presidential Election:
Party ID of The Washington Post poll respondents:
Lean- Democrat 52% Republican-41% Independent-6%)
Party ID of AP/Ipsos poll respondents:
Party ID of CBS News poll respondents (weighted):
Now is it any wonder that the approval rating is what it is? And it looks like these shenanigans (yes I said shenanigans) have been going on since July.
Thursday, November 03, 2005
CBS News Poll
New CBS News poll out tonight. Highlights:
Bush job approval at all time low of 35%
Bush favorable rating at 33%
Right track 27%, wrong track 68%
Congress job approval 34%
Congressional Dem favorable rating 41%, Congressional Republican favorable rating 35%
Now for the numbers behind the numbers. Take a look at the composition of the respondents:
Total Respondents (Unweighted) = 936
Republicans = 259 (27.67%)
Democrats = 326 (34.83%)
Independents = 351 (37.5%)
Now look at the weighted sample:
Republicans: 223 (23.80%)
Democrats: 326 (34.79%)
Independents: 388 (41.4%)
The result is a 35% job approval for the president, which is roughly 4-8 points lower than the other polls out right now.
Here's visual proof from the raw data via Joe's DartBlog, a student studying at Dartmouth!
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Parents have no constitutional right to prevent public schools from exposing children to sexual topics, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Wednesday.
The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court's decision that found the rights of parents were not violated by a California public school district that allowed a psychological survey of its elementary school children.
Black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican.
Such attacks against the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland include pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance, calling him an "Uncle Tom" and depicting him as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal Web log.
Operatives for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) also obtained a copy of his credit report -- the only Republican candidate so targeted.
But black Democrats say there is nothing wrong with "pointing out the obvious."
"There is a difference between pointing out the obvious and calling someone names," said a campaign spokesman for Kweisi Mfume, a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate and former president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
Oh and in case you haven't heard, and you probably haven't, the leader for privacy rights in the US, Senator Chuck Schumer, is the chairman of the DSCC and his staff members are who illegally obtained a copy of Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele credit report by using Steele's social security number without his knowledge. And this guy is looking out for my privacy?
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Democrats forced the Republican-controlled Senate into an unusual closed session Tuesday, demanding answers about intelligence that led to the Iraq war. Republicans derided the move as a political stunt.
In a speech on the Senate floor, Democratic leader Harry Reid said the American people and U.S. troops deserved to know the details of how the United States became engaged in the war, particularly in light of the indictment of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff.
Reid demanded the Senate go into closed session. With a second by Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the public was ordered out of the chamber, the lights were dimmed, senators filed to their seats on the floor and the doors were closed. No vote is required in such circumstances.
Byron York NRO puts in perspective;
Perhaps the best explanation for the Democrats' decision to virtually shut down the Senate today can be found in one passage from CIA leak prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's news conference last Friday:
This indictment is not about the war. This indictment's not about the propriety of the war. And people who believe fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who have mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel....The indictment will not seek to prove that the war was justified or unjustified. This is stripped of that debate, and this is focused on a narrow transaction. And I think anyone who's concerned about the war and has feelings for or against shouldn't look to this criminal process for any answers or resolution of that.
Fitzgerald's statement, and his decision to confine the indictment of Lewis Libby to charges of lying and obstruction, threatened to dash the Democrats' hope of using the CIA leak case as an opportunity to re-debate the reasons for going to war in Iraq. So the party, or at least its leaders in the Senate, has decided to use another route, the shutdown of the Senate, as a way to achieve that goal.
"Let me just start out by saying, as a preface to what I really want to talk about, to those of you who are going out and lobbying tomorrow, I just want to assure you that American ambassador who has been cited in reports in the New York Times and in the Washington Post, and now in the Guardian over in London, who actually went over to Niger on behalf of the government-not of the CIA but of the government-and came back in February of 2002 and told the government that there was nothing to this story, later called the government after the British white paper was published and said you all need to do some fact-checking and make sure the Brits aren't using bad information in the publication of the white paper, and who called both the CIA and the State Department after the President's State of the Union and said to them you need to worry about the political manipulation of intelligence if, in fact, the President is talking about Niger when he mentions Africa.
That person was told by the State Department that, well, you know, there's four countries that export uranium. That person had served in three of those countries, so he knew a little bit about what he was talking about when he said you really need to worry about this. But I can assure you that that retired American ambassador to Africa, as Nick Kristof called him in his article, is also pissed off, and has every intention of ensuring that this story has legs.
And I think it does have legs. It may not have legs over the next two or three months, but when you see American casualties moving from one to five or to ten per day, and you see Tony Blair's government fall because in the U.K. it is a big story, there will be some ramifications, I think, here in the United States, so I hope that you will do everything you can to keep the pressure on. Because it is absolutely bogus for us to have gone to war the way we did. (first 2 minutes)
And what do you know, his wife is listed by name in his bio at "Who's Who In America" and apparently has been there since 1999.
And his wife's name is listed in his bio at the Iraq Forum
Read the rest, its damn interesting...