Kowabunga

Berkeley is living up to its hard-earned moniker. Berzerkeley. The City council has voted 8-1 branding the U.S. Marine Corps recruitment center as "uninvited and unwelcome intruders." It also voted 8-1 to grant the hard-left organization Code Pink a designated parking space in front of the USMC office and sound permit for protesting the Marine Recruitment Center.

Also, from the insidebatarea.com:

In addition, the council voted to explore enforcing its law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation against the Marines because of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. And it officially encouraged the women's peace group Code Pink to impede the work of the Marines in the city by protesting in front of the station.

Here we have a set of publicly elected officials who are explicitly encouraging a leftist organization to impede recruitment functions of the Armed forces.

Okay, we are talking Berkeley here, and it has been about as far left as one can imagine for decades. It is doubtful that the eight city council members will be voted out; more than likely the lone descanter will get the axe at the ballot box.

The Federal Government should respond in kind by eliminating all Federal funding to Berkeley. All of it. Whether it is for city administration, schools (including higher education) health and welfare services, and so on, cut it off. The State of California should also step in and do likewise to any and all State level funding.

"I believe in the Code Pink cause. The Marines don't belong here, they shouldn't have come here, and they should leave," Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates said after votes were cast.

And this is from a guy who asserts his priorities as mayor include restoring civility to Berkeley government.

(City councilman Max) Anderson, a former Marine who said he was "drummed out" of the corps when he took a stand against the Vietnam War, said he'd love to see the Marines high-tail it out of town.

"We are confronted with an organization that can spend billions of dollars on propaganda," Anderson said. "This is not Okinawa here; we're involved in a naked act of aggression. If we can provide a space for ordinary people to express themselves against this kind of barbarity, then we should be doing it."

Anderson is one of the two council members who pushed hard to get special treatment for the Code Pinkos, thus infringing on the free-speech rights of the USMC. Although he is right that Berkeley is not Okinawa, a Marine Recruitment office does not constitute "naked aggression." It would be more accurate to say that the acts of the Berkeley City Council is an "act of naked aggression" in league with hard-left, pro-terrorist organizations.

The City of Berkeley needs to hang a new sign out in front: Terrorists Welcome!

Tags:

Berkeley Marines Recuitment Code Pink Moonbats

Posted by Sqotty at 8:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

I had forgotten about the two deserters seeking asylum in Canada until a report showed up in the news that Canada's Supreme Court has refused to hear their case. The two deserters, Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey, have been attempting to gain refugee status and asylum in Canada since they deserted the U.S. Army in 2004 in order to avoid service in Iraq. According to the report there are approximately 200 other deserters now residing in Canada.

From Canada.com (CanWest News Service):

Before Thursday's ruling, the Federal Court of Appeal last rejected the claims by Hinzman and Hughey, who crossed the border rather than face possible court martial and imprisonment for refusing to serve in a war they say they morally oppose and is illegal because it was not sanctioned by the United Nations.

First things first: the United Nations does not have the power to determine what is and what is not a "legal" war. Wars are waged by nations for various reasons, some good and just and some not, depending on who starts the war. The United Nations has no power to enact laws, determine what is legal, or otherwise tell a sovereign nation such as the United States what to do and how to do it. Further, the war was waged in Iraq with the "blessings" of the United Nations as it had passed resolutions that said it was okay for the U.S. led coalition to take action against Saddam Hussein. One also must remember that this is also a response to the many and repeated violations by Iraq of the Gulf War Cease Fire Agreement.

These two deserters and the 200 others like them may not agree with the war, however they took an oath to obey the lawful orders of their superiors. They failed to keep their oath and chose to desert rather than serve their country when called upon to do so.

Unlike the Vietnam-era draft dodgers that went to Canada, these deserters volunteered to serve in the Armed Forces. They are not conscripts.

The two men have also argued they face persecution in their home country because of their political opinion.

What they face are a couple of years in a military prison and a bad conduct (at least!) discharge. Beyond that, most Americans will forget all about them. As for persecution, that is doubtful, unless you count being denigrated for their desertion as persecution. Typically, refugee status is reserved for people being persecuted for their religion or for their political beliefs (as in political dissidents in communist countries).

If these deserters truly believe that they are just in their reasons for desertion, then they should return to the U.S. and stand court-martial and accept the consequences. Then they can move back to Canada and good riddance!

Tags:

Deserters Hinzman Hughey Iraq Canada Army

Posted by Sqotty at 8:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

I've written about the Westboro "Baptist church" before, but it has been sometime and the news sites haven't had a lot about them until now. a little background: The Westboro "Baptist church", and I use quotation marks to indicate that they are not, in my opinion a Christian church but a bunch of moonbats who don't know the difference between right and wrong., is the group that has taken to protesting at the funerals of American soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, Their agenda is to promote an anti-homosexual agenda and over the past couple of years decided that these brave Americans who have chosen to serve their country and help oppressed peoples in other countries are being killed by God for America's tolerance of homosexuality. These people are real wankers.

Now the father of a fallen American hero whose funeral was targeted for protest by the Westboro cult is suing that group. From the Evening Sun:

The father of a Marine killed in Iraq took the stand in his invasion of privacy suit against a fundamentalist church that pickets soldiers' funerals, saying protesters carrying signs at his son's burial made him sick to his stomach.

Albert Snyder said Wednesday he had hoped for a private funeral for his son, Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder.

"They turned this funeral into a media circus and they wanted to hurt my family," Snyder testified. "They wanted their message heard and they didn't care who they stepped over. My son should have been buried with dignity, not with a bunch of clowns outside."

The report goes on to cite that this guess will test the limits of the First amendment's protections on free speech. There are limits to free speech, the age-old example being you cannot shout "fire!" in a movie theater when there isn't a fire. The limitations also include vulgar (that would be Kerry's favorite "F" word), shocking or outrageous statements.

Based on that, I would say Albert Snyder has a good chance of winning, as these protests are not only an invasion of privacy, they are also outrageous in their claims. So much so that many States have enacted laws keeping them a set distance from the funeral to prevent them from interfering with the funeral rights.

The report goes on to include what one of the signs these protestors carried. It was very offensive, and used a word that is frequently used in hate-speech against gays. I think you can figure it out without my using it, and it is detailed out in the report. Phelps, the leader of the Westboro cult, claims that that word is used in the bible in this fashion. To the best of my knowledge, he is full of sh!t.

It saddens me greatly that there are sickos like the Westboro cult in this world.

As for the Snyder's, I grieve for your loss and you have my deepest sympathies.

Tags:

Westboro Baptist Church Funeral Protests Marine

Posted by Sqotty at 7:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
View blog reactions

I ran across a good opinion piece in the SF Chronicle online edition about my former congressman, Pete Stark. I lived in his district before moving to Minnesota, so it is a good thing to know what he's been up to. In this opinion piece Debra Saunders describes Stark as the Ann Coulter of the Democrat Party. That actually describes about half of the Democrat Party.

Last week, after President Bush vetoed a bill to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program to cover not only poor but also middle-class children, Stark accused Republicans of wanting "to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send them to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement." Speaker Nancy Pelosi rebuked Stark for his "inappropriate" comments.

This is a very sick statement on two counts: first that Republicans are only interested in killing innocent people and second that the president finds getting American soldiers killed as an entertaining past time. Fortunately I never voted for him, not because he's a Democrat but because he is a lousy congressman. Spewing a contemptible statement like that confirms my long standing opinion of him. Question for Stark: did you say the same thing about Kennedy and LBJ for Vietnam? How about Clinton with Somalia and Kosovo?

Stark, after finding himself in hot water, issued the following statement: "I have nothing but respect for our brave men and women in uniform and wish them the very best. But I respect neither the commander in chief who keeps them in harm's way nor the chicken hawks in Congress who vote to deny children health care."

Actually, he doesn't show a lot of respect for our troops by making outrageous statements. Further, he continues to show his moonbattiness by bundling socialized medicine (health care for children) into his reasons for not having respect for the president.

Surprisingly, Stark served in the Air Force in the '50s (was he drafted?), post Korean War. He was also anti-Vietnam War and had checks printed with the "peace sign" on it and even had one on the roof of the bank he started. He's may not be a chicken dove, but he is still a moonbat.

As Saunders points out in her piece, we are back to the return of the Chicken Hawks for another fun-filled campaign season. Saunders points out several interesting facts about the current field of candidates running for president and a bit of recent history:

Sure, in 2004 Democrats hurled the "chicken hawk" epithet at George W. Bush, who took America to war in Iraq even though he only served as a pilot in the Air National Guard. Then-Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe, who had no apparent qualms about President Bill Clinton's evasion of the draft, charged that Bush was "AWOL" during Vietnam.

You see, Democrats had nominated John F. Kerry, a decorated Vietnam combat veteran, who had voted for the Iraq war resolution. So, just years after President Clinton put U.S. forces into the former Yugoslavia and sent bombers over Iraq, Democrats argued that only a combat vet was suited to serve in the White House and put U.S. troops in harm's way. In that mind set, Kerry addressed the Democratic National Convention in martial terms: "I'm John Kerry, and I'm reporting for duty."

The Democrats are very one-sided in their views on the military, especially when it comes to the Vietnam era. Clinton was a draft dodger, milking the system for all that it was worth by getting deferments. The Dems shoot back that Cheney also did so, ignoring the fact that Cheney was already close to being exempt from the draft when Vietnam was going on (I'm not sure about this, but I seem to recall that the draft was for those between the ages of 18 and 27, Cheney, being 5 years older than Clinton, had a lower likelihood of being drafted during the war). Basically, the Dems blast Cheney about his draft deferments but not Clinton.

What is worse is the Dems treatment of President Bush's service in the Air National Guard, during which service he flew one of the most dangerous (to the pilot) fighter aircraft in the inventory, and volunteered for a program called "Palace Alert", which, had he been accepted into the program, would have had Bush flying combat missions in Vietnam. This is hardly the mark of someone who was AWOL, despite the rantings of Dan Rather.

The Dems then wrapped themselves in the Flag and pushed hard for a combat veteran, preferably of the Vietnam era. They ended up with John Kerry and lost the election with Bush getting over 51% of the vote (and funny how they still claim he doesn't have a mandate, even though Clinton never broke the 50 percentile and they claim Clinton did have a mandate).

This year the field is truly interesting, as Saunders points out:

In 2008, Democratic hopefuls are twice as likely to have been in law school than in boot camp. Among eight Democrats, Mike Gravel served in the Army from 1951-1954, while Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, who voted for the Iraq war resolution, served in the Army Reserves. By McAuliffe's lights, Dodd was AWOL.

Based on the 2004 election cycle, the only candidate that should be acceptable to the Dems is Mike Gravel, as all of the others never served or, as McAuliffe would say, AWOL. Meanwhile, the GOP has John McCain (not my favorite, but is gaining traction with me) whose story in the Vietnam War we all know, and Duncan Hunter, a decorated Vietnam Veteran. Oh, yeah, there's also Ron Paul.

Quite a contrast.

Of the Dems, both Hillary and John "Never Served" Edwards voted FOR the Liberation of Iraq. Barrack "Never Served Chicken Dove" Obama claims that if he were a senator then he would have voted against. Maybe that's true, but claims of what one would have done in office don't count.

Three years ago, Democrats shamelessly donned a military mantle. In a display of craven opportunism, they embraced an argument that seemed phony then, and now has vanished. They argued their candidate was better because he was a combat vet. Today none of the Dems' top three candidates has a military record.

Saunders his right on the money on this one.

Meanwhile, back to my former congressman Pete Stark, I have this to say to you: congratulations Congressman Stark, you are the latest winner of the Moonbat Award.

Tags:

Pete Stark Moonbat Chicken Hawks Chicken Doves Iraq

Posted by Sqotty at 7:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

The Moonbats of Berkeley have displayed, in living PINK, exactly what they think of our military. I was in the California for the past, and on my drive to the airport to catch my early morning flight I was tuned in to KSFO and the Melanie Morgan show where I learned about the recent assault and vandalization of a Maine Officer Recruitment Office in Berkeley. According to the report it was the Moonbats of Code Pink that were behind this crime.

Michelle Malkin has much more on this.

Tags:

Code Pink Marine Vandalism Moonbat

Posted by Sqotty at 6:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

SF Gate is running an interesting opinion piece in which the writer, Robert Scheer, Moonbats about the current call for funding the rapid production of a new ground-effect vehicle: mine resistant ambush protected vehicles. These are the vehicles that the Defense Department had developed as a replacement for the humvees now used in Iraq. The MRAP vehicle has a "V" shaped hull designed to deflect mine blasts away from the crew compartment and has proven effective in tests.

Scheer directs most of his venom at, surprisingly, Senator Biden, who, as Scheer puts it, one-ups President Bush by calling for $23 billion to fund the project rather than the $12 billion the President has requested.

According to the piece, Biden said: "We have no higher obligation than to protect those we send to the front lines." for once I agree with Biden. I'm dubious about his motivations as he is running for president and not only failed to condemn the MoveOn "General Betray Us" but failed to block the Senatorial condemnation of such outrageous attack ads.

The piece goes on about the military-complex and how Eisenhower could ride around France and Germany in an open air vehicle without fear of being shot at by Islamic terrorists. He fails to note that there were not any Islamic terrorists operating in France or Germany in post-WW2 Europe. I wouldn't advise doing so today, however.

Scheer goes on with a tirade about how MRAPs are needed only for an ongoing occupation and then cites the BBC/ABC poll recently popularized by Loretta Sanchez in which he claims that 65% of Iraqis don't believe that civil war will be more likely should the U.S. withdraw immediately. Never mind the act that Iran is just waiting ot have a surge of their own into Iraq, and possibly other countries as well, especially since they would have a direct flyover route into Israeli territory with only one country in the way: their ally Syria.

And just who are these people in Iraq that participated in the poll and can it be validated? How many of the some 24 million people of Iraq participated? How many of them were members of al-Qaeda in Iraq, some other terrorist organization or sectarian death squad members?

Scheer is right on one point, and one point only: Splitting Iraq up into ethnic/religious enclaves may well be the biggest recipe for disaster in Iraq.

Otherwise, he is doing nothing more than moonbatting about the continued military operations, at the invitation of the government of Iraq, to help secure a fledgling democracy in a country that has lived under a tyrant's hobnailed boots for decades and is flanked by hostile nations on two sides (Iran and Syria).

Tags:

Scheer Biden SF Gate Iraq MRAP

Posted by Sqotty at 5:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)
View blog reactions

FoxNews has a piece covering the Senate action to condmen the recent "General Petreus or General Betray Us" ad from MoveOn.org. From FoxNews:

The Senate on Thursday overwhelmingly passed a measure condemning MoveOn.org for a newspaper ad it ran last week attacking Gen. David Petraeus. The move came as President Bush accused Democrats of cowering to the liberal political action group.

The measure passed in a 72-25 vote, with none of the Democratic presidential candidates supporting it. Sponsored by Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn, never one to shy away from forcing Democrats to go on record on politically sticky issues, the amendment to the defense authorization bill did win the backing of 23 Democrats.

Sens. Joe Biden and Barack Obama were absent from the vote, though Obama had voted 20 minutes earlier on a Democratic effort to circumvent the amendment. Sens. Hillary Clinton and Chris Dodd voted against the measure.

The amendment, which did not specifically name MoveOn.org, although it should have, passed overwhelmingly, with many Democrats voting for it. What is not so surprising is who failed to support it: Obama, Biden and Hillary Clinton.

Apparently Obama left his job in order to avoid voting for (or against) it after efforts he supported to shutdown the amendment failed. This is a man who wants to be Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces and he will not support an amendment that condemns the character assassination of a man who has dedicated his entire life to serving his country, and has, unlike Obama, done so honorably and with integrity. Once again, featherweight candidate Obama proves that he is unqualified of serving this country as dog catcher let alone as president.

As for Hillary, by voting against the amendment also proves she can not be trusted with this nation's highest honor. At least, unlike Obama, Hillary stuck around for the vote instead of hiding her head in the sand or trying to play both ends of the field.

The only reasons that these presidential hopefuls and the 20+ others, all Democrats, who voted against the amendment (disappearing from the Senate floor to avoid a vote is the same as voting against it in this case) is because they AGREE with MoveOn.org's ad calling General Petreus a traitor.

America needs leaders who will do what is right, and the condemnation in the Senate of the personal attacks carried out against General Petreus was the right thing to do, regardless of whether or not you support the war in Iraq.

The same thing applies to Joe Biden as it does to Obama, as he is also on the list of wannbe presidents.

Tags:

Hillary Clinton Democrat Petreus MoveOn Obama Biden

Posted by Sqotty at 6:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

There are times when I wish I had more ability to travel long distances, but hey, like most Americans, I have to work for a living and I have a family to take care of.

Cybercast news Service has a piece discussing the pro-terrorist demonstration scheduled to take place in Washington D.C. this weekend, sponsored by the pro-terrorist group, ANSWER. Part of the demonstration, which starts with a march on the capital, includes a "die-in" which is supposed to represent the soldiers and Iraqi civilians killed by terrorist thugs.

Brian Becker of ANSWER purports that the "die-in" will be unlike any pro-terrorist protest seen before. ANSWER claims to have a thousand people signed up for the exercise in civil disobedience that will help embolden terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda in Iraq.

From CNSNews:

"Seventy percent [of Americans] support the immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces," Becker said.

"You'll see on Saturday that not only have people in general turned against the war, but the Iraq war veterans, the soldiers and Marines, their family members ... are turning more and more decisively against the Bush administration's endless lies in pursuit of endless war," he said.

I have no idea where he gets his poll numbers, but as they typically only survey a thousand or so people, and most likely people living in San Francisco or New York, rather than rural America where I live, it is no wonder I have never been asked by these pollsters where I stand when it comes to Victory or surrender in Iraq.

But CNSNEWS has some of the straight stuff:

A Sept. 8 CBS/New York Times poll found that 30 percent of Americans supported removing all troops from Iraq, while 35 percent supported decreasing the troop presence there. The poll did not ask respondents about a timeframe for withdrawal.

A Sept. 7 ABC/Washington Post poll found that 55 percent of Americans would support legislation setting a spring 2008 deadline for withdrawing troops, while 41 percent would oppose such a measure.

I wonder if these are the same polls that Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) was referring to when she called General Petreus a liar during the question and answer portion of his testimony.

Cindy Sheehan, who must miss being the center of attention of the pro-terrorist movement, has announced that she will be in attendance. She is also challenging nancy Pelosi for the House seat in SF. Funny, I always thought Sheehan was a Democrat, not a Republican. Or is it Pelosi who's a Republican (god forbid!).

Meanwhile, over the same weekend, the Gathering of Eagles is also staging a pro-Victory protest. I really wish I could attend this event. "Operation Eagle Justice," as the GOE event is called, has been in the planning for months now. I suspect that there may well be far more of them than of the pro-terrorist protestors in D.C.

The question will be: who gets the most coverage by the media (no odds on that one), ANSWER is the pro-terrorists will get the most attention, while the GOE will be downplayed and probably ridiculed by the bulk of the media.

Families United for Our Troops and Their Mission, a group of Gold Star and Blue Star families, will have a small presence at the GOE rally, according to National Chair Merilee Carlson. But the group's main events will come in the days following anti-war efforts.

Carlson said 500 Families United members will visit Washington to tour the city, visit war memorials and participate in a wreath-laying ceremony at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington National Cemetery on Monday. Members will tour the U.S. Capitol and meet with elected officials Tuesday.

"Frankly, the fact that we are dedicating ourselves to serving our country at the Arlington National Cemetery, that is how we offset something as despicable as the march and the die-in," Carlson told Cybercast News Service, explaining why Families United won't have a large presence at the Sept. 15 march.

Carlson of Families United has the right idea. Service. And the people that comprise Families United get it while the pro-terrorist groups like ANSWER don't. Sending a positive message is far more powerful than the negative outcries of ANSWER.

America is a wonderful place, because of our right to free speech. It is too bad that groups like ASNSWER choose to use it for such despicable reasons. If there were fewer groups like ANSWER, we probably wouldn't need groups like GOE to counter their shrill cries. But then, this probably wouldn't be America.

Meanwhile, I think ANSWER should change its name to SURRENDER. Just don't know what SURRENDER would be an acronym for.

Tags:

ANSWER United Families Gathering of Eagles Iraq al-Qaeda Sheehan protests

Posted by Sqotty at 6:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Nancy Pelosi is Moonbatting about the military operations in Iraq yet again. From Yahoo News:

"The Bush-Petraeus plan of 130,000 Americans in Iraq for 10 more years is not a reduction in our footprint; it is an insult to the intelligence of the American people to call that a new direction. It is a status quo plan that tells the Iraqi government that they do not need to change.

"The American people long ago rejected the President's plan to stay in Iraq, which is why they voted for a New Direction in 2006. Yet, with his veto pen and the 60-vote hurdle in the Senate, the President is preventing the redeployment of our troops, the rebuilding of our military, and the refocusing of our nation's efforts on fighting terrorism."

Let's see, we have about 160,000 troops there now with the surge fully implemented. General Petreus stated that we will soon be able to draw the troop levels back down to pre-surge level. So that will be a 20% reduction in our "footprint" which seems to be the only thing that San Fran Nan and her puppet-masters at MoveOn.org and Code Pink are interested in: getting our troops out and letting the Islamofacists and terrorists have Iraq.

That is the fundamental difference between those of us on the right and those on the left, like MoveOn.org. We want to achieve victory in Iraq and leave behind a functioning democracy capable of protecting the liberties of its citizens. The left wants to turn it back over to mass-murdering thugs who will then eliminate a million plus Iraqis in retaliation for their working with the U.S. led coalition that is attempting to establish said democracy.

This is not to say that peace is not patriotic. It is. Victory is also patriotic.

What would the world be like if, after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and invaded the Philippines, the United States said: Well, okay, we tried to save the Philippines, it was lost, we'll let Japan have it. And China as well. What would have happened if, after we lost our first battle with the German Afrika Korps at Kasserine Pass, we said: Well, Germany is too tough for us to handle. Let them have Europe. The end result would have looked much like what happened to Southeast Asia after we abandoned South Vietnam, thanks to the Democrats. Millions died. Except it wouldn't have been just a few million but tens of millions.

This is true of Iraq if we abandon them at this point. A million people will die, while millions more will flee that country to avoid liquidation.

Pelosi rants about how this may lead to a 10-year involvement in Iraq. Guess what, Nancy. We've been in Kosovo for that long already. There is still violence occurring there on a regular basis. It just doesn't get the press that Iraq does. Yet the calls to bring our troops home, and we have thousands over there still, are not made.

We also have some 60,000 troops as an occupying force in Germany. Yet the left seems to be okay with that occupation, as it is with our troops in Italy, Japan and South Korea. How about we reduce our "footprint" in some of those countries? Or is it only Iraq that Pelosi and her puppet-masters despise our having troops in, because they are doing something truly honorable in that country.

As for the 60-vote threshold in the Senate, Pelosi has her own party leadership to thank for that one. They set the tone of hostility in the Senate while there was a Republican Majority by forcing the 60-vote threshold on judicial appointments. They made their bed, now let them sleep in it.

As for Iraq, I have no doubt that we can be victorious, The question has always been how to achieve. It sounds as though Petreus has things on a track that may well succeed if it is allowed to work. Remember he said it would take at least six months once the surge is fully in effect, As that took place in Mid-June, which means he should have at least three more months to achieve his goals.

Of course in a society that has become used to having instant gratification, that will seem like an eternity. It may also seem so to the troops serving in Iraq. But then they should be allowed to feel that way as they are shouldering the burden of success, not Chickendove of the House Nancy Pelosi.

Tags:

Pelosi Congress Iraq Petreus Vietnam chickendove Moonbat

Posted by Sqotty at 6:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

It looks like we're into Day 2 of the non-denouncement of the MoveOn.org ad by the Democratic Party leadership. As all America now knows, yesterday the New York Times carried a full page ad from MoveOn.org with the catch phrase "General Petreus or General Betray Us" as a lead-in to a highly incendiary diatribe that accuses Petreus of "cooking the books" to make the Bush Administration look good.

So far, the closest thing to a denunciation of the MoveOn ad comes from, somewhat surprisingly, Senator John Kerry. From Boston.com:

"Senator Obama's question is not about General Petraeus's patriotism. It's about his logic," said Bill Burton, a spokesman for Senator Barack Obama of Illinois. "There's no evidence that this surge is producing the political progress needed to resolve the civil war in Iraq, or that it will be accomplished through more of the same."

Phil Singer, a spokesman for Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, said, "It is unfortunate that Republican presidential candidates are focused on generating a political sideshow instead of discussing the president's failed war policy."

Other leading Democrats, however, said that MoveOn.org had gone too far.

US Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts said on MSNBC: "I believe that ad was just simply over the top, and I think it's inappropriate, period."

While Obama, Hillary and most other leading Democrats continue to roll over and play dead at the feet of MoveOn.org Moonbats, it looks like Kerry has decided to show a bit of common sense. While I am surprised at Kerry's remarks, stating that it was inappropriate, it still stops short of a denunciation of MoveOn.org and their tactics.

Kerry, to his credit, is not a Moonbat. He may been for the war before he was against it, but at least Kerry, unlike Obama, the Clintons, Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) and Eli Pariser, the executive director of MoveOn.org's political action committee, has shown he has the cojones to serve his country in the Armed Forces. What Kerry did after the war is highly questionable, but at least he is moving in the direction of sounding like someone who has some respect for our armed forces. For Kerry, this is a step in the right (as in correct, not conservative) direction.

Let's face it, the MoveOn.org "General Betray Us" ad is not only inappropriate and over the top, it is extremely inflammatory and slanderous.

However weak his not-quite-condemnation of the MoveOn "Betray Us" ad is, it does deserve recognition and some amount of kudos.

I bet George never thought I would say something positive about Kerry.

To reiterate: if you are a politician and you take MoveOn's money accept their volunteer support, even in the form of unauthorized ads, you agree with their calling Petreus a traitor. The same is also true if you give money and/or volunteer time to MoveOn.org.

Tags:

Petreus MoveOn.org Kerry Hillary Obama Moonbat

Posted by Sqotty at 8:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Dennis Kucinich, after his anti-military tirade on Syrian TV, has proven himself worthy of the Moonbat Award. Congratulations Dennis, you are a Moonbat. God help us if you are ever elected President. In the meantime, I guess we can continue to call you Congressman Moonbat.

Here's a quote from Dennis Kucinich in his interview on Syrian TV (Daily Motion):

We must pay reparations to the people of Iraq, perhaps as many as a million innocent Iraqis have lost their lives as a result of this war…millions of refugees.

So says the Moonbat Dennis Kucinich, Congressman and candidate for the presidency. What he implies is that the United States has killed over a million innocent people being killed in Iraq since 2003. This means he is accusing our military of mass murder.

He goes on to say that the war was based on lies, "Iraq didn't have the weapons of mass destruction," despite the fact that over 500 chemical weapons have been recovered, despite the fact the tons of precursor chemicals, the stuff nerve gas is made of, had been found, despite the fact French made weapons capable of carrying chemical, biological, or nuclear warheads, weapons manufactured and delivered in 2002 despite cease-fire agreements, were stockpiled in the many massive munitions dumps. And he claims it was a lie?! He then states Iraq was not connected to 9/11, and although this is true, there wasn't a direct connection to the attacks of 9/11, no such claims were made by the administration: Only that they were connected to al-Qaeda and provided financial support to terrorists internationally. Remember that Saddam Hussein was paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers $25,000 each for their willingness to go out and blow themselves up, killing innocent Israelis, especially children. THAT was the claim concerning terrorism that was made, and that has been proven time and again.

He claims in the video that he is following the truth, yet he doesn't seem to be able to know what the truth is if it jumped up and bit him on the nose, especially since he believes over a million Iraqis have been killed since 2003.

It truly bothers me, as someone who has served in the Armed Forces, that this chickendove would claim that over a million innocent Iraqis since the U.S. lead coalition liberated Iraq and removed a murderous dictator from power. A quick fact check, and one can hit any of the left-ward anti-war chickendove sites for this information, puts the number of "civilians" killed at a bit over 70,000 currently. I say "civilians" in quotation marks as those numbers also include the thousands of terrorists and sectarian death-squad thugs who have been killed, either by each other or by coalition forces. Then the bulk of the rest of those killed, the ones are innocent casualties of the ongoing conflict, have been killed by the terrorists and sectarian death-squad thugs, not by coalition forces. The difference between the factual accounting of how many people have died in Iraq, and what Kucinich the clown claims in his interview in Syria (And what the heck is he doing in Syria, a rouge terror supporting state?).

Of course, hearing such stupidity concerning our military is not surprising as a check of is biography on his website and other sources reveals that he has NEVER spent a day in uniform. This is typical of the left: They don't have the cojones to serve in the military, but they happily accuse them of killing off a million innocent people.

In Lebanon, he continues his assault by stating (Jerusalem Post):

Kucinich, a strong anti-war opponent who trails far in the US presidential polls, also said he won't visit Iraq on his trip to the region because he considers the US military deployment there illegal.

"I feel the United States is engaging in an illegal occupation ... I don't want to bless that occupation with my presence," he said in an interview in Lebanon, after visiting Syria. "I will not do it."

The last I checked the Iraqi Government still wanted us there. does this mean we are also maintinaing illegal occupations of Germany, Japan, Italy, South Korea, and a number of other countries where we maintain a military presense?

I find it repugnant that a man who so easily accuses our military of mass murder should want to be Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces. There is no doubt that Kucinich is a chickendove and a Moonbat.

By the way, it is interesting to note that Kucinich has the video of his Syrian TV interview linked up on his website.

Tags:

Kucinich Democrat Military Iraq Occupation Syria President Moonbat

Posted by Sqotty at 5:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

The Red Star Tribune, in living up to its leftist agenda, is running an editorial today, the Sixth Anniversary (for lack of better words) of the attacks of 9/11. It starts off benignly enough, mentioning that today two airliners slammed into the World Trade Center, killing some 2700 people. It also mentions the other two aircraft in the attack, but not that one was used to successfully attack the Pentagon.

It goes on to say that Americans are looking for a sense of unity and purpose.

It then heads into the thrust of the piece: Iraq.

Instead, the nation is divided this week over the messy and distracting issue of Iraq. Gen. David Petraeus went to Capitol Hill on Monday to give a long-awaited report on the war, and far from reassuring voters that their military is making progress, he couldn't even convince them he is using accurate measures of success. In what might have been the most depressing news of the day, the Washington Post reported that a majority of Americans don't even trust Petraeus -- whom President Bush chose precisely because of his trustworthiness -- to be square with them about the war.

This paragraph ignores the point that Congress unanimously approved Petreus' appointment to lead the troops in Iraq. In listening to the testimony, it is clear that The House of Representatives, at least those amongst the Democrats, ignored what Petreus stated and instead focused on some obscure polls produced by the BBC and ABC. I call them obscure as they are not widely known. Even Petreus and the Ambassador Crocker who was with him stated they were unaware of these polls. Yet the leftie moonbats, especially Loretta Sanchez (D, CA) continued to push that these polls are the real facts rather than what Petreus is reporting.

There is a big difference between accepting polls taken by biased media outlets versus the unbiased work of the troops on the ground.

But Sanchez, along with her MoveOn benefactors, don't care about that. Nor, obviously does the editorial staff at the Red Star Tribune.

Progress has been made in Iraq. It may not be as much as we would like to see: we would all like to see our troops come home sooner than later. However, as Petreus stated, things have improved sufficiently that we may soon be able to begin drawing forces down to pre-surge levels.

There are still challenges in Iraq. But the solution is not to cut and run, as the MoveOn crowd wants. It is to work with the people of Iraq so that they can secure and maintain their liberty.

It is bad enough that Sanchez implied that General Petreus is a liar. It is just as detestable that the Red Star Tribune has bought into that line of thinking as well.

As for the Red Star's desire to find unity and purpose: How about Victory in Iraq rather than perpetrating a desire for defeat.

Tags:

Sanchez Petreus Iraq 9/11 Star Tribune

Posted by Sqotty at 7:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Chickendove filmmaker Brian de Palma has shocked Venice audiences with his latest attack on the military, Redacted. Instead of making a film about the heroism of the men and women who have served our country honorably and well (unlike de Palma), de Palma instead chose as his subject matter a rape and killing that took place in Iraq.

This is not to say that all of our troops serve honorably without fail. We have the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal is an example, among others. Black chapters in our history.

From Reuters:

"The movie is an attempt to bring the reality of what is happening in Iraq to the American people," he told reporters after a press screening.

"The pictures are what will stop the war. One only hopes that these images will get the public incensed enough to motivate their Congressmen to vote against this war," he said.

There are far more examples of heroism and good that has come out of Iraq, far more than the very few isolated incidents of criminal behavior. Those who have committed atrocities in Iraq have faced charges and are serving prison sentences with a future reduced to being branded Federal Felons when they have completed their sentences and subsequently discharged. In the case of the incident that de Palma depicts, four of the five soldiers involved have been sentenced to military prison for a period of 5 to 110 years. It is safe to say that a couple of them won't be getting out of prison any time soon.

Instead of focusing on the good deeds that are done every day, form giving toys and sports equipment to kids and the reconstruction of a country, de Palma and his Hollywood chickendove cronies prefer to focus on the evil perpetrated by a very few punks. Instead of showing the brutalities perpetrated by Saddam Hussein, and the courage of the troops that liberated a country that had suffered horrible degradations and mass murder, we get a detailed movie focusing on an isolated incident.

There are too few movies produced that show the good and honorable deeds of our Armed Forces. Hollywood would rather make films depicting American atrocities, rather than heroism. They would rather make films like Casualties of War rather than The Great Raid, We Were soldiers or The Green Berets.

This is not to say that ugly things did not occur, and, in fact, the incident de Palma focuses, the rape of a young girl and murder of her family, did happen. We know this to be a fact. We also know that the perps are in prison, serving very long sentences.

We also know that Al Qaeda in Iraq has perpetrated many horrendous crimes against the people of Iraq. One of the best documented incidents was written and photographed by Michael Yon, and published on his website. Why are we not seeing Hollywood produce a film depicting these important incidents? When they do, I will cut chickendove moviemakers like de Palma a little slack. Not much slack, but a little.

The film is listed as being slated for a limited American release and is expected to play better in Europe. No surprise there!

Tags:

dePalma Hollywood Iraq Redacted

Posted by Sqotty at 5:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)
View blog reactions

I received an email from Senator Barbara Moonbat Boxer the other day. To my (lack of) surprise, she is once again showing her complete and total ignorance of what a U.S. pull out from Iraq will mean to the millions of Iraqis, as well as a complete lack of knowledge of the impact of the U.S. withdrawal and consequent abandonment of South Vietnam.

In Boxer's email, she writes:

Did you hear President Bush last week talking about Iraq? Instead of listening to the vast majority of the American people on Iraq, President Bush is talking about how wrong it was to leave Vietnam.

I hate to break the news to you, but Bush is right about Vietnam. When we pulled out, the North Vietnamese moved in (just as Iran will do to Iraq the moment we pull out). Hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese were put in gulags, and tens of thousands of people were murdered.

Things were worse in Cambodia where the Khmer Rouge liquidated over a third of the population, over two million people were murdered, while the rest of the population were used as slave labor.

That is what happened when we abandoned South Vietnam, at the insistence of the Democrats who ran Congress.

Democrats like Boxer are not ashamed of what happened in Vietnam, and, obviously, are willing to sacrifice millions of Iraqis to a similar fate, this time at the hands of a brutal totalitarian theocracy. Should we abandon Iraq, as we did Southeast Asia, the millions of Iraqis that have supported their liberation from tyranny and aided the formation of a democratically elected government will be forfeit.

Well, just a reminder to this President: U.S. troops stayed in Vietnam, in the middle of a civil war, for more than ten long and painful years. More than 50,000 of our young people died, countless wounded mentally and physically. Suicides and homelessness still follow too many of our Vietnam veterans. How many more would have died if George W. Bush had been President in the 1970's? How many more of our troops and innocent Iraqis will die if we don't finally end this war?

Yes, over 50,000 Americans died, and many thousands more were injured in Vietnam. As for the "suicides and homelessness" of Vietnam veterans, it is thanks to the hard-left that took control of the Democratic Party in the late '60s and early '70s that we have to thank for that. Instead of a hero's welcome, they were spat upon by the chickendoves, and called baby killers; even John Flipper Kerry referred to them as being nothing more than killing machines and war criminals.

Although how many Americans and Iraqis will die if we continue to work with Iraq in ending the terrorism and sectarian violence is valid, it is also valid, and critical, to ask "how many Iraqis will be murdered should we let the terrorists win?" We should also ask how many Americans will die at the hands of terrorists if we surrender to them now, as they will be greatly emboldened to carry out more and bloodier attacks against the U.S.

Boxer clearly doesn't understand what is at stake in Iraq, nor does she care.

Congratulations Senator Boxer, you are a Moonbat. I think we'll start calling you Senator Moonbat instead.

Tags:

Iran Iraq Boxer Moonbat

Posted by Sqotty at 6:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
View blog reactions

I am rapidly becoming a fan of Clifford D. May, and am astonished that the Red Star Tribune carries his opinion pieces. Today he tackles the actions of Congressman (woman?) Nancy Boyda (D-KS).

It's tough being a member of Congress. Even if you're in the majority, as is Democratic Rep. Nancy Boyda of Kansas, you never know when your ears may be assaulted by outrageous and offensive ideas.

Like what? At a recent hearing of the Armed Services Committee, retired Gen. Jack Keane said "progress is being made" by U.S. military forces in Iraq; "We are on the offensive and we have the momentum," he added. The freshman congresswoman was so distressed by these remarks that she got up and walked out.

There was "only so much" she could take, she explained, so she "had to leave the room ... after so much of the frustration of having to listen to what we listened to." She said she was worried, too, that Keane's remarks "will in fact show up in the media and further divide this country." Hey, that could happen!

My first big problem with Boyda is not that she is a pro-terrorist Congressman who believes we should let the bad guys win in Iraq and elsewhere, but that she walked out of the Armed Services Committee briefing. How many of you can get up and walk out of a meeting for no reason at all and not get fired or suffer other disciplinary action? I sure can't. But apparently it's okay for a congressman because they are fed up with hearing good news on the situation in Iraq.

Congressman Boyda needs to be reminded that she has been elected to serve the People of the United States, not herself. If this is the way that she is going to behave then she deserves neither the honor nor the privilege of serving in that high office, or in any elected office.

When a Congressman is assigned to a committee, walking out during a committee briefing simply because you don't like what you are hearing is unacceptable behavior.

I believe that the Kansas Second district should consider replacing Boyda with someone who will take their obligations to the people seriously.

May has a lot more to say about Boyda and her not wanting to hear the facts on how things are going in Iraq. It is a darn good read.

Tags:

Clifford May Congress Boyda Iraq

Posted by Sqotty at 7:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Charles W. Lindberg passed away yesterday. He was the last survivor of the first team of Marines to raise the U.S. flag on Mount Suribachi during the battle for Iwo Jima.

The flag raising was photographed by Sgt. Lou Lowery, however it is the second flag raising, photographed by Abe Rosenthal of the second flag team that people think of when this historic flag raising took place during the heat of battle.

FoxNews and Strib:

"Two of our men found this big, long pipe there," he said in an interview with The Associated Press in 2003. "We tied the flag to it, took it to the highest spot we could find and we raised it.

"Down below, the troops started to cheer, the ship's whistles went off, it was just something that you would never forget," he said. "It didn't last too long, because the enemy started coming out of the caves."

Lindberg was wounded during the Battle for Iwo Jima and received both the Silver Star and the Purple Heart.

Tags:

Iwo Jima Lindberg WW2 Marines

Posted by Sqotty at 8:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

It looks as though the Star Tribune is changing its name to the Surrender Tribune, as it rails against the probable capitulation by the Democrats in Congress on setting conditions of surrender to terrorists in regards to funding our Armed Forces currently operating in Iraq. So far, the attempts made by the Party of Surrender to force a timeline for withdrawal, as been vetoed, and they do not have the support to over ride the vetoes.

From the Strib:

What a joke the Democratic majority in Congress risks becoming. On Tuesday, as nine more American soldiers were dying in President Bush's failed Iraq war, the Democrats were caving to Bush and agreed to pass a supplemental war appropriation with no meaningful strings attached. Will the challenge to Bush's Iraq policy mandated powerfully by last fall's congressional election come to such a pitiful, mewing end? It should not.

Although things have not gone anywhere near as well in Iraq as any of us would like, there are a number of reasons why this is so, beginning with the hard-left, including John Kerry, voting against the $86 Billion in funding for equipment the troops on the ground needed. Especially body armor.

The hard-left Democrats, in their rush to pull our troops from Iraq are short-sighted, and only prove that they are willing to do anything to discredit President Bush, even if it means handing Iraq over to terrorists and thugs.

Things could have gone better in Iraq. We all know this. We should never have trusted and negotiated with Muqtada al-Sadr, the leader of an armed militia that has been fueling sectarian violence since 2004. 20-20 hindsight is a wonderful thing, but it doesn't mean squat in the long run, and we don't have a time machine capable of sending people back to correct the mistakes.

As for having received a "mandate" in 2006, that is hardly the case. If they had received such a "mandate" from the American people, there would be no problem in achieving the votes needed to override a presidential veto.

Members of Congress have done the job the American people expected of them. They've given Bush the war money he needs, but he rejected it. The ball is in his court. He can accept a timeline for ending American involvement in the war, or he will get no funding, and the Pentagon can begin withdrawing from Iraq sooner rather than later. The American people simply will not agree to continue funding a war without end.

Actually, this is half-true. They've voted to grant the funding only with conditions that UNCONSTITUTIONALLY shifts power away from the executive to the legislative branches. Under our Constitution there is only one Commander-in-chief - the President.

Congress is expected to provide the funding that will adequately equip our troops to continue to do the job that is needed to assist our fledgling ally in securing liberty for its people. If we withdraw before that is accomplished, then it will send a signal to Muqtada al-Sadr, al-Qaeda and the terrorist networks, and the Mullahs of Iran that Iraq is now theirs for the taking. And the sacrifice our troops of made will be in vain.

If the hard-left continues to fail to provide the funding that will provide the equipment that will improve our troops ability to survive in the hostile environment, including the new v-shaped hauled combat vehicles that have proven more resilient at protecting our troops than the more vulnerable Hummer.

To claim that legislation that authorizes funding with a timetable for surrender, I mean withdrawal is the same as saying that there will be no funding provided.

Failure to properly equip our troops in the field the latest and best technology for them to accomplish their mission on the part of Congress means that more of our precious troops lives will be in greater risk. Their blood will be on the hands of the hard-left controlling Congress for their continued refusal to provide them with that which they need, and their mouthpieces in the media, including the Star Tribune.

Tags:

Iraq War on Terror al-Qaeda Muqtada al-Sadr Star Tribune

Posted by Sqotty at 5:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

A terrorist ring operating in New Jersey has been arrested; their plan to attack Fort Dix, posing as pizza delivery guys in order to kill as many soldiers as possible has been thwarted. This was a good day for America, and a bad day for the terrorists.

All six of the terrorists that were arrested are Muslim extremists. Their group had previously been infiltrated by an FBI agent based on a tip received by a clerk who converted a video tape to DVD format for the terrorists.

From Philly.com:

The investigation began more than a year ago, according to an affidavit from FBI agent John J. Ryan.

The tipster called the FBI on Jan. 31, 2006, and said that someone had brought a "disturbing" video to have duplicated.

"The DVD depicted 10 young men who appeared to be in their early-20s shooting assault weapons at a firing range in a militia-like style while calling for jihad and shouting in Arabic, 'Allah Akbar,' or 'God is Great.'"

My hat's off to the guy who tipped off the FBI. Thanks, Dude, whoever you are. I wish more people were like you.

Tags:

War On Terror Fort Dix

Posted by Sqotty at 7:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

We received an email from SPC Amberson of Ziggurat Con and have been accumulating a mass of stuff to ship over for their event. One of our friends, Ralph, has also contributed to the package in the form of a new copy of the Great Delmuti, a card game from Steve Jackson Games.

If you are thinking of sending gaming stuff over, checkout KiloSeven and ship soon. I think we would all like to see this first ever gaming convention in a combat zone to be a success, so please show them your support!

Toys 4 Troops has a darn good write-up on the event and what can be done to help. Check it out!

Other sites to check:

Games=Life
Dork Things, creator of Dork Tower
LJ Con Central
Games To Troops

Tags:

Ziggurat Con Dungeons and Dragons rpg gaming Iraq

Posted by Sqotty at 8:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Wired Magazine reported yesterday that the Army is cracking down on blogging by soldiers. The report has also been picked up by FoxNews. The new rules, which are an attempt to silence milblogs, and people who receive and publish correspondence via email from the troops, now requires that soldiers provide any material to their commanding officer before it is published or sent out.

Milblogs during the last few years have been the main counter-balance to the anti-military bias of the Main Stream Media, putting the positive images of the ongoing operations in Iraq out for the world to see, not just the negative (this is not to say hearing about the massive terrorist attacks is unimportant, but to say hearing about the people of Iraq like our troops is just as important, as well as the good works they are doing in rebuilding the war torn country).

The new restrictions go beyond those who serve in uniform as it includes private contractors working for the military as well as the families and friends whom soldiers may correspond with. It may silence the culture of military bloggers as well as eliminate access to the many positive stories that come out of Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving us with little more than the limited (and negative) coverage provided by the anti-military Main Stream Media.

I understand that there are issues of security when dealing with citizen journalism. What the Military needs to remember that the troops they have are smart enough to realize that by publishing a blog incurs a certain level of responsibility to not disclose sensitive operational information. The kind of stuff that could get their head's shot off.

Instead of piling on more restrictions, the military should embrace milblogs as the publicity boon that they are.

Tags:

MilBlogs

Posted by Sqotty at 6:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
View blog reactions

Looks like the Party of Surrender is having difficulty getting it's plan for "Terrorist Victory Day" set into motion. President Bush rightfully vetoed the bill calling for withdrawal of troops from Iraq beginning Oct. 1, 2007. The Democrats also lack sufficient support to override the veto.

The end result is that the Liberal-Left has to wait before they can hand victory in Iraq over to the terrorists. Worse still, at least from the viewpoint of the Move On crowd, House Democrats will actually have to work with Republicans to draft legislation to provide troop funding in a bipartisan fashion, a foreign concept to the Liberal-Left.

It is probable that the next round of legislation for troop funding will incorporate a plan for the Liberal-Left, I mean Congress, to micro-manage military operations in Iraq in an attempt to both undermine the Commander In Chief and force a withdrawal if they don't get their way.

I think Nancy Pelosi and her crowd need to be reminded that there is only ONE Commander in Chief, not 536. And any plan that allows Congress to micro-manage military operations are not only a bad idea, it is constitutionally wrong!

Tags:

Iraq War On Terror Pelosi Veto

Posted by Sqotty at 6:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

I have to thank Cat MacDude for posting this to the Clan mailing list, otherwise I would not have learned about it. Ziggurat Con is approaching, and they need your help. The tag line is:

Which Con are you going to this year? GenCon? Origins? Dundracon? How about Ziggurat Con? The latter is brand new this year, and is being held at Camp Adder/Tallil Airbase on June 9. In Iraq.

That's right, Iraq, in the war zone. GameGrene has the skinny on it on.

When President Bush ordered troops to Iraq, he probably never imagined that he would be ultimately be responsible for what very well could be the very first D&D convention/game day ever held in a war zone. Ziggurat Con, being held June 9 from 1200 to 2100 hours at Camp Adder/Tallil Airbase, is open to all allied military personnel and civilian contractors in Iraq.

"Here in Iraq, we do many things on the different Forward Operating Bases to help keep our spirits up," said SPC David Amberson, the Con's organizer. "Here at Camp Adder/Tallil Airbase, we have lots of sports activities -- baseball, football, dodgeball, kickball -- and we work with many marathons across the US like the Boston Marathon. This is a great way to improve morale among the troops, but what about those who prefer Role-Playing Games?"

Some important things to note about the event; the Morale, Welfare and Recreation Department is providing facility space for the event, which will include DandD as well as other RPGs (Role Playing Games, not the kind that go "boom"), plus an anime video room with ongoing film support. Even better is the list of game companies who have donated to the even: aethereal FORGE, Sovereign Press, Final Redoubt Press, Goodman Games, Paizo Publishing and Steve Jackson Games.

They are, however, short of dice. With that being the case, I am committing to send these guys and gals some dice appropriate for DandD as well as a few other items. The article at Game Grene has info on how to contact SPC Amberson in Iraq.

Tags:

Ziggurat Dungeons and Dragons rpg gaming Iraq

Posted by Sqotty at 6:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Hillary on gays in the military - this is off of the Bloomberg News via National Journal:

"Well I've heard from a number of my friends and I've certainly clarified with them any misunderstanding that anyone had, because I disagree with General Pace completely. I do not think homosexuality is immoral. But the point I was trying to make is that this policy of Don't Ask, Don't Tell is not working. I have been against it for many years because I think it does a grave injustice to patriotic Americans who want to serve their country. And so I have called for its repeal and I'd like to follow the lead of our allies like, Great Britain and Israel and let people who wish to serve their country be able to join and do so. And then let the uniform code of military justice determine if conduct is inappropriate or unbecoming. That's fine. That's what we do with everybody. But let's not be eliminating people because of who they are or who they love."

As I recall, "Don't ask, don't tell" was implemented by the Clintons early in their administration. Prior to that, it was a matter for the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Regardless of whether you believe gays should be allowed to serve in the Armed Forces, the current state of the military system is such that gays are not allowed (at least openly gay people currently).

I have no doubt that there are a number of experts on both sides of the issue that have a lot to say. There are times when I am not even sure which side to take. Both sides have valid points; like why should people who want to serve their county be banned vs. it creates various issues in regards to sexuality (like communal showers) and morale.

It's just interesting to note that a policy implemented by the Clintons is now found to be wanting in the eyes of the woman who would be queen, I mean president, and would want to go back to the way things were when I wore the uniform.

Tags:

Hillary Military Gays

Posted by Sqotty at 6:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Yesterday it was announced that a large weapons cache was discovered North of Baghdad in Iraq. From FoxNews:

U.S. and Iraqi forces have seized a large weapons cache that includes parts for sophisticated roadside bombs that are believed to originate in Iran, U.S. military investigators said.

...the arsenal is one of the biggest found north of the Iraqi capital and contains components for so-called EFPs - explosively formed projectiles that fire a slug of molten metal that can penetrate armored vehicles.

The U.S. military has said elite Iranian corps are funneling EFPs to Shiite militias in Iraq for use against American troops. The area where the cache was found is dominated by Sunni insurgents but also includes pockets of Shiites.

Also discovered were a two dozen mortars and 15 rockets, as well as parts for 150 of these EFPs. There was no mention of small arms being recovered in the cache. The origin of the weapons is under investigation, however, it is strongly believed that the EFPs originated in Iran. If true, that would still leave the question of where the other weapons are coming from, although Iran would head that list, followed by Syria.

There have been 63 such weapons caches found in the Baghdad region since security sweeps began on Feb. 14th. These caches also included a fake boulder that had been prepped for a roadside bombing.

Hopefully these security sweeps and the recovery of such a large amount of weapons will put a damper on the attacks while measures are taken to better secure the border to prevent such arms from being smuggled in country.

Meanwhile, a Taliban suicide bomber attacked a base in Afghanistan where V.P. Cheney was visiting. At least 14 people were reported killed as a result of the attack, and a dozen injured. Cheney was not injured.

A Taliban terrorist stated (from an undiclosed location) that the intent was for the bomber to reach Cheney's location.

Tags:

Iraq Iran War On Terror Cheney Afghanistan

Posted by Sqotty at 7:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Bruce Crandall is finally receiving a Medal of Honor for his actions in the Battle of Ia Drang during the Vietnam War. From FoxNews:

As a 32-year-old helicopter pilot, he flew through a gauntlet of enemy fire, taking ammunition in and wounded Americans out of one of the fiercest battles of the Vietnam War, Army records say.

Now, a week after his 74th birthday, Crandall will receive the nation's highest military honor Monday in a White House ceremony with President Bush.

The article goes into some detail behind the action and the reason for his receiving the Medal of Honor. Anyone who has read the book We Were Soldiers, Once…and Young know that this honor is highly deserved.

During the battle, Crandall and his wingman, Ed Freeman (received the Medal in 2001), volunteered to fly numerous missions into a very hot landing zone that was constantly under fire, to resupply the troops on the ground with water, ammunition and medical supplies. They also flew out of the combat zone the wounded, saving more than 70 lives, as the med-evac pilots refused to go into this hot zone.

It takes a lot of guts to fly into battle zones such as the Ia Drang, yet these men and their crews did so when others refused to do it. Their dedication and performance is without measure.

If you are interested in learning more about the battle, read the book We Were Soldiers, Once. It is a well written telling of the battle and its aftermath; the parts where the wives and children tell their side of the wait in the States brought tears to my eyes.

And yes, the movie is good, too, but the book is better.

I am very glad to see that Bruce Crandall is receiving our nations highest honor. I wish that it had not been so long delayed.

Tags:

Vietnam War Ia Drang Medal of Honor

Posted by Sqotty at 7:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Susan Estrich is proving, once again, that she is a clueless Moonbat. From Blue Streak on FoxNews:

What's the point of a non-binding resolution that the president has already said would not affect his decisions?

How do you send a message to a person who isn't listening?

It is pretty presumptuous of her to assume that because the President, as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, as already stated that the troop escalation in Iraq will take place, does not mean that he is not listening. More likely than not, he is listening to representatives from all points of view. He is, however, in the position where he has to make the decisions in regards to ongoing military operations, not just in Iraq, which is the primary focus of the anti-war crowd's angst, but also in Afghanistan, Kosovo (we still have military operations there), and other hot spots around the globe.

He has listened to the leadership, and has chosen a course of action. It is the President who makes the decisions of where our armed forces are deployed. Not Congress. And not the anti-war crowd, who are attempting to turn Iraq into a 21st century Vietnam.

The resolution affirming support for the troops and opposition to the surge won't really do anything, notwithstanding the heated debate about whether to pass it. It won't stop the war, save a life, or slow the surge. Nancy Pelosi says the president can't completely ignore "the voice of the American people," but my bet is he'll try.

The reason the resolution matters is not because of its impact on the president, but on Congress; not because it will goad the president into action, but because it will force Congress to face its own fears.

The resolution matters, certainly, but not in the context that Estrich would have us believe. Such resolutions send a signal to the terrorists of al-Qaeda that America is losing its will to persevere in Iraq. The ayatollahs and mullahs of Iran are also listening, and see such resolutions as a green light to continue arming terrorists and sectarian death squads in Iraq. Syria and Hezbollah see it as an opportunity to exploit in the ongoing war against Israel, as they can expect that one day America will lose its will to support Israel as well.

Pelosi claims that the president cannot ignore "the voice of the American people," yet the only voice she hears is that of the anti-war zealots who want to see Iraq laid waste as was the country of Cambodia, in 1975, after the fall of Vietnam.

Estrich claims that such resolutions won't stop the war, nor save lives. However, they do cost lives, as violence escalates, as with the car bombing in Baghdad over the weekend in which some 60+ people were killed and attacks on bases, such as the one in which to American soldiers died, and 17 others were injured.

If Congress is to be goaded into action, let it be on to the path of winning the war and establishing free and democratic societies in Iraq and Afghanistan, and not abandon these fledgling allies to fall back into the hands of tyrants and murderers.

Many keep harping how this non-binding resolution in the House of Representatives will have no impact. They are wrong, and it is the people of Iraq, as well as our troops on the ground, who must pay the price of such folly.

Tags:

Susan Estrich Blue Streak Congress Resolution anti-war Iraq Afghanistan War on Terror al-Qaeda Moonbat

Posted by Sqotty at 12:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)
View blog reactions

Steve Chapman has a very weird analogy on the continued U.S. operations in Iraq. From the Red Star Tribune:

When police found Shawn Hornbeck living with his alleged abductor four years after he was kidnapped, the question arose: Why didn't the 15-year-old simply run away? But trapped and isolated, a hostage can be scared into thinking that the consequences of leaving -- for himself or his loved ones -- would be far worse than the consequences of staying. So he passes up opportunities to escape.

I really don't get what the kidnapping of Hornbeck and his failure to use "opportunities to escape" has to do with the establishment of a functioning Democracy in Iraq.

Chapman then gets into the thrust of his editorial:

That's roughly our plight in Iraq. Even one of President Bush's key allies, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., says "the situation in Iraq can now best be described as dire and deteriorating" and "our window of opportunity to reverse momentum may be closing." Hard-core supporters of the war, no longer able to pretend that we are making progress toward a stable, democratic Iraq, have fallen back to their last line of defense -- insisting that no matter how bad things are with us in Iraq, things would be far worse with us out.

Well, no, we are not being held hostage in Iraq. On the flip side, he is right about the support for continued operations in Iraq is a bit lagging of late, mostly on the part of those who have announced plans to run for the presidency in '08. Like McCain.

Whether or not the "window of opportunity" is closing is true, there is no doubt that the right strategy in Iraq can succeed. The right strategy goes beyond the obvious "surge" in troop deployments in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq. Even reaching out to the people of Iraq and the reconstruction of the nation's infrastructure may not be sufficient, as we have been doing since 2003. We need to make it such that Iraqi's feel secure enough that they can identify terrorists and sectarian death squad members without fear of reprisal against them and their families. As long as they live with that fear, that turning in a terrorist will result in the death of their entire family, it is difficult to make any real headway.

Pulling out, the argument goes, would destroy our credibility and embolden the terrorists. Neoconservative Robert Kagan of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace is among those confidently predicting a parade of horribles: ethnic slaughter, a regional war and a secure base for Al-Qaida to launch attacks on us and our allies.

If we withdraw, he wrote recently in the Washington Post, "the war in Iraq and in the region will not end but will only grow more dangerous." And there is the old argument that if we don't fight the terrorists in Iraq, we will have to fight them at home.

These points, contrary to what Chapman would have us believe, are true. The sectarian violence will continue, fueled by Iran. Iran may even cease its covert operations and openly move to convert Iraq into a totalitarian theocracy like itself, making Iraq a satellite state. Possible? Probable!

Once that is done, al-Qaeda will have a new base of operations, having won the waiting game with the U.S. as Congress continues to show a lack of backbone to do the heavy lifting necessary to create a stable and democratic Iraq.

We know that al-Qaeda, and recently, Hezbollah, has cells operating in the U.S. Once the U.S. ends operations in Iraq, these terror groups will be able to focus on their operations in America and other Western nations. They will also have a fall back position in Iraq should things turn sour. They will also have a supplier of nuclear materials with which to build small nukes that can kill hundreds of thousands of people in a single attack.

There will also be the stockpiles of weaponry still in Iraq that have not been fully inventoried, from which over 500 chemical weapons have been identified, recovered, and destroyed since 2003. How many more chemical weapons remain in Iraq is unknown.

Winning in Iraq is not an option, nor is it a luxury we can't afford. It is a necessity. The enemy fears a democratic state in their midst, and that is why the road to success has grown more difficult.

It also has not helped that we brokered a deal with Muqtada al-Sadr and his gang of thugs in 2004.

It won't be cheap. Victory never is. Not in blood, nor in money. I care about the loss of life. As for the money, spend whatever it takes to get it done. The key, though, is making Iraq safe for the people of Iraq so that they will not live in fear for their lives. Once that is achieved, a free and stable Iraq can be achieved.

Tags:

Iraq War+on+Terror Nuclear Weapons Chemical Weapons Democracy al-Qaeda Hezbollah Iran

Posted by Sqotty at 7:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Rhythm of Honor is a compilation CD produced by Janet Fisher of Goodnight Kiss. It is a tribute to the men and women of the American Armed Forces. Many of the songs were written and performed by men and women who have served, or have some other close affiliation with the Armed Forces.

The first track, "Ain't Nobody To Dance With," by Rod Henderson (Vietnam Veteran), opens with a few bars from the "Star Spangled Banner," then transitions to a few bars from "When Johnny Comes Marching Home," before it makes the final transition to a Motown rock song. It is a tribute to the troops serving in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Another favorite track is "My Kind of Man" by Courtney Leigh Heins & Bryan Dobbs, which has a bit of a country feel to it as it rock's out. Entertaining lyrics and excellent vocal deliveries as she sings about what is her kind of man.

"A Ballad of Junior" by Alton Rex is the heartfelt ballad that tells the true story of one man who returned from war, in this case World War 2, and how it changed him forever. It is a sad, but very moving song about Rex's uncle. Rex served in the Navy before turning to songwriting. He regularly performs free concerts for veterans at VA hospitals.

The eleven songs that make up Rhythm of Honor are a worthy tribute to all who serve their country.

Goodnight Kiss is donating 50 cents from the sale of every CD to the Wounded Warriors Hospital Fund, which provides support to the families of soldiers wounded or killed in combat operations.

Tags:

Rhythm of Honor

Posted by Sqotty at 8:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)
View blog reactions

It's been another bad day in Baghdad, as a suicide bomber driving a truck loaded with a ton of explosives. set off his bomb in a busy Shiite market place, killing an estimated 121 people. This attack took place in advance of impending U.S. lead security sweeps and increased military presence. From the Star Tribune:

Many of the injured from the market blast were driven to overwhelmed hospitals in pickup trucks and angry young men lifted bodies onto stretchers. The Kindi hospital, Baghdad's main emergency facility, quickly filled had to start refusing patients, asking ambulances to take them elsewhere.

"It was a strong blow. A car exploded. I fell on the ground," said one young man with a bandaged head, his face still streaked with blood.

Police and hospital officials said at least 121 people were killed and 226 wounded. The Health Ministry put the figure at 105 killed and 331 wounded.

This was a major attack, designed to prompt even more sectarian violence. It was followed up by a mortar attack on a Sunni neighborhood in which 2 people were killed, and about 20 more injured.

There is, however, some bit of good news out of Iraq as the ribbon was cut on a new school in Al Salamiyah. From Mutli-National Force Iraq:

Soldiers from the 4th Brigade, 2nd Iraqi Army Division partnered with civil affairs teams and Soldiers from the 2nd Battalion, 7th Cavalry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, in celebrating the completion of an $88,500 renovation project at Salamiyah Primary School on Jan. 31. Brig. Gen. Noraddeen, commander of 4-2 IA, and Ahmed Esad, mayor of Al Salamiyah, presided over the ribbon-cutting ceremony. Both men took a tour of the renovated school and spoke with students and teachers immediately after the event.

These kinds of activities continue to be ignored by the main stream media, however, they are just as important, if not more so, as it depicts the positive efforts going on to stabilize Iraq. There is regular reports similar to this on the Multi-National Force site. It is worth checking on a regular basis, as this kind of information rarely makes it into the major news outlets. Yet, it is important to know that the news from Iraq is not all doom and gloom.

It is possible to win in Iraq, and to establish a truly democratic society. It will be a long, hard road, and very expensive, not just in money, but in human life as well. I have no doubt, though, that the benefits, when they are realized, will outweigh the costs. Regardless of the outcome, it will be hard to justify to those who have lost loved ones in Iraq, and to those that have paid the price with their blood.

Tags:

War on Terror Iraq

Posted by Sqotty at 2:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

This is disturbing news out of Iraq. From FoxNews:

Several Iraqis have been detained for questioning in the ongoing investigation of at least two senior Iraqi generals suspected of involvement in an insurgent attack that killed five American soldiers on Jan. 20, U.S. officials told FOX News on Thursday.

The attack occurred at a provincial government security compound in Karbala where the Americans were meeting with local Iraqi security officers. Gunmen stormed the facility dressed like American soldiers and driving SUVs, military officials in Iraq said.

The Pentagon has called this a sophisticated and troubling assault and much more orchestrated than the usual attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces. Because of that, military officials say they have strong suspicions that the Iranian government or elements of it may have been involved. Four of the five American soldiers were abducted before being shot execution style.

The piece goes on to describe the attack in some detail. The murdering thugs were wearing new U.S. Army fatigues, and carrying American military weapons and equipment. They spoke English and the SUVs used were of a type typically used in convoys.

There is a probability that the two generals under investigation may have at least had advance word of the attack, possibly even directly involved as the attack showed a level of detail knowledge that neither al-Qaeda or the various death squads would otherwise have. One of the Iraqi generals under investigation is an intelligence office, and that makes the situation even more troubling.

If we can't rely on the Iraqi military leadership, then the situation in Iraq is in serious trouble.

Tags:

War on Terror Iraq

Posted by Sqotty at 7:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

It's an interesting day. On the Washington Post, William Arkin wrote a column (published Jan.30) in which he describes our military men and women as mercenaries. Here's the quote:

But it is the United States and instead this NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary - oops sorry, volunteer - force that thinks it is doing the dirty work.

There is much more in the piece, like:

So, we pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?

I can imagine some post-9/11 moment, when the American people say enough already with the wars against terrorism and those in the national security establishment feel these same frustrations. In my little parable, those in leadership positions shake their heads that the people don't get it, that they don't understand that the threat from terrorism, while difficult to defeat, demands commitment and sacrifice and is very real because it is so shadowy, that the very survival of the United States is at stake. Those Hoover's and Nixon's will use these kids in uniform as their soldiers. If I weren't the United States, I'd say the story end with a military coup where those in the know, and those with fire in their bellies, save the nation from the people.

This male obviously does not believe that our military is a force for good, considers the tools of the trade to be obscene amenities, as he is unclear about what he considers to be such, that is what I must assume he means. These are men and women serving their country, fighting al-Qaeda terrorists and fighting an insurgency fueled by hostile neighbors (Iran and Syria).

By referring to him as a male and not a man, I am using a viewpoint set forth in a classic western film of Charlton Heston, Three Violent People in which one of the characters states that all men are born male, but not all males grow to be men. So it must be with Arkin. He may be male, but he is not a man.

This is made clear by his rant against to military, where he supposed that such as our Armed Forces would seize control via military coups if this were anyplace other than the United States.

In his non-apology issued today, he shows his utter contempt for our armed forces yet again:

I said I was bothered by the notion that "the troops" were somehow becoming hallowed beings above society, that they had an attitude that only they had the means - or the right - to judge the worthiness of the Iraq endeavor.

I was dead wrong in using the word mercenary to describe the American soldier today.

These men and women are not fighting for money with little regard for the nation. The situation might be much worse than that: Evidently, far too many in uniform believe that they are the one true nation. They hide behind the constitution and the flag and then spew an anti-Democrat, anti-liberal, anti-journalism, anti-dissent, and anti-citizen message that reflects a certain contempt for the American people.

No one, and I mean no one, has ever elevated our military to the level of "becoming hallowed beings above society." Except for the chicken doves on the left, like Arkin, who are too intimidated by real men and women who have displayed the honor and integrity to uphold our constitution and our way of life by putting their own lives on the line.

He stated that he was "dead wrong in using the word mercenary," yet there is a big BUT right after that, where he proves his utter contempt for our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. He claims the situation is worse, that many of those who serve our country believe that they "are the one true nation." And that those who serve hide behind the constitution (what better document to use when expressing ones utter contempt for Arkin?) and the flag.

If the management of the Washington Post has an ounce of integrity, they will terminate Arkin immediately.

But they won't. They will defend and protect him, just as the rest of the chicken doves and the liberal-left always does when someone writes such contemptuous schlock as Arkin has.

One thing is for sure, Arkin is not just a chicken dove, but also a Moonbat, and thus deserving of a Moonbat Award.

Tags:

William Arkin Moonbat

Posted by Sqotty at 7:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

For those still poo-pooing "the surge," it is now apparent that the terrorists in Iraq are taking it seriously. From FoxNews:

Death squad leaders have fled Baghdad to evade capture or killing by U.S. and Iraqi forces before the start of the troop "surge" and security crackdown in the capital.

A former senior Iraqi minister said most of the leaders loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr, the radical anti-American cleric, had gone into hiding in Iran.

Among those said to have fled is Abu Deraa, theShiite militia leader whose appetite for sectarian savagery has been compared to that of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, who was killed last year.

I also seem to recall a blurb that al-Sadr is trying to make "peace" with the Iraqi government, as he now knows he isn't going to get the same second chance he received in 2004 if he continues with his death squad operations.

That many are now "hiding in Iran" further proves the point that Iran has been fueling much of the sectarian violence that has been going on in Iraq during the last few years.

Hopefully "the surge" (sounds like the name of a hockey team) will prove successful. We need victory in Iraq in order to bring stability to that country. We should not settle for anything less than that, nor should the people of Iraq.

Tags:

Muqtada al-Sadr Iraq War On Terror the Surge Iran

Posted by Sqotty at 7:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

The AC-130 gunship series is the most heavily armed close-air support combat aircraft currently in use. The models currently active ar ethe AC-130H Spectre Gunship (deployed 1972) and the AC-130U Spooky Gunship (deployed 1995).

These gunships have seen active service recently in Somalia, laying down ordnance on al-Qaeda encampments in that country.

Both are armed with a 105mm cannon, as well as a 40mm grenade launcher and twin 20mmVulcans (Spectre) or a 25mm gatling gun (Spooky).

Front view of the Spectre Gunship

A Spooky Gunship laying down fire.

Another shot os a Spooky Gunship.

For more on the AC-130, check out the FAS site.

Posted by Sqotty at 8:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Michael "Double Chocolate Malt" Moore has hit on a plan to win in Iraq. As ludicrous as it sounds, it is a workable plan. There are, however, a few very serious drawbacks. First, is plan is meant as "satire," for whatever that's worth. But, since he is the darling of the Liberal-Left that has run amuck in the Democratic Party, I wouldn't be surprised to see someone, say Nancy Pelosi, take the idiot seriously. Here's what the DCM Moore recommends as a plan for victory in Iraq:

Listen, can I be frank? Sending in 20,000 more troops just ain't gonna do the job. That will only bring the troop level back up to what it was last year. And we were losing the war last year! We've already had over a million troops serve some time in Iraq since 2003. Another few thousand is simply not enough to find those weapons of mass destruction! Er, I mean... bringing those responsible for 9/11 to justice! Um, scratch that. Try this -- BRING DEMOCRACY TO THE MIDDLE EAST! YES!!!

You've got to show some courage, dude! You've got to win this one! C'mon, you got Saddam! You hung 'im high! I loved watching the video of that -- just like the old wild west! The bad guy wore black! The hangmen were as crazy as the hangee! Lynch mobs rule!!!

Look, I have to admit I feel very sorry for the predicament you're in. As Ricky Bobby said, "If you're not first, you're last." And you being humiliated in front of the whole world does NONE of us Americans any good.

Sir, listen to me. You have to send in MILLIONS of troops to Iraq, not thousands! The only way to lick this thing now is to flood Iraq with millions of us! I know that you're out of combat-ready soldiers -- so you have to look elsewhere! The only way you are going to beat a nation of 27 million -- Iraq -- is to send in at least 28 million! Here's how it would work:

The first 27 million Americans go in and kill one Iraqi each. That will quickly take care of any insurgency. The other one million of us will stay and rebuild the country. Simple.

Now, I know you're saying, where will I find 28 million Americans to go to Iraq? Here are some suggestions:

1. More than 62,000,000 Americans voted for you in the last election (the one that took place a year and half into a war we already knew we were losing). I am confident that at least a third of them would want to put their body where their vote was and sign up to volunteer. I know many of these people and, while we may disagree politically, I know that they don't believe someone else should have to go and fight their fight for them -- while they hide here in America.

2. Start a "Kill an Iraqi" Meet-Up group in cities across the country. I know this idea is so early-21st century, but I once went to a Lou Dobbs Meet-Up and, I swear, some of the best ideas happen after the third mojito. I'm sure you'll get another five million or so enlistees from this effort.

3. Send over all members of the mainstream media. After all, they were your collaborators in bringing us this war -- and many of them are already trained from having been "embedded!" If that doesn't bring the total to 28 million, then draft all viewers of the FOX News channel.

Mr. Bush, do not give up! Now is not the time to pull your punch! Don't be a weenie by sending in a few over-tired troops. Get your people behind you and YOU lead them in like a true commander in chief! Leave no conservative behind! Full speed ahead!

What Michael Moron is proposing is the entire annihilation of the people of Iraq. Of course, in true chickendove fashion, Moore does not intend that he, or others that think like he does, should have to serve in the armed forces, or go do such dirty work as he has outlined.

Moore's rhetoric continues to be as offensive as ever, and shows what level of intellect he is capable of, which isn't saying very much. Of course, those who think he's great, like Jimmy Carter, aren't any better.

What is even more sickening about Moore's tirade is that he seems to believe it is the Bush policy (or perhaps he believes it SHOULD be the Bush policy) to kill every Iraqi. Moore seems to like the "kill 'em all" idea. I don't know why, but it sure doesn't sit well with me, and I don't think the people of Iraq would be too thrilled with it either.

Maybe, just maybe, one day I will learn why Moore and his kind are such a bunch of hate mongers.

Meanwhile, we should let his plan lie on a waste heap, 'cause that is where it belongs. Ever get the feeling he is still in mourning over Saddam's execution?

Tags:

Michael Moore Iraq War On Terror Bush

Posted by Sqotty at 2:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Interesting editorial from the Red Star Tribune on how Democrats are now being blamed for the "mess" in Iraq.

A new, pernicious line of argument is taking hold in Washington that should be clunked in the head until it dies. It holds that the Democrats in Congress are to blame for the mess in Iraq because they have offered no alternative around which Americans can rally, and that this is because they and their friends in the antiwar community want the United States to fail.

I believe it is correct to say that Democrats and their Liberal, anti-war, puppeteers are to blame, at least in part, the reasoning to do so is not due to reasons outlined in the editorial, but due to their continuous calls for withdrawing from Iraq, references to Iraq as being "another Vietnam," and various types of rhetoric, such as "No war for oil" and "Bush lied, people died." Instead of supporting the mission of our troops in Iraq, they continue to thwart the administration's plans that may bring victory, choosing to use Iraq as a political hockey puck in order to achieve their own politcal gain (which, as shown in the 2006 elections, had some impact on the composition of the new Congress).

It also doesn't help that our involvement in Iraq, as during our operations in Vietnam, garnered anti-war protests, and liberal celebrities using their stardom to convey an anti-war message. This emboldens the terrorists and sectarian death squads operating in Iraq. It also sends a signal to Iraq's neighbors, Syria and Iran, giving them a "green light" to continue to supply arms, money, and manpower to the anti-government forces operating in Iraq.

This is not Vietnam, nor should this war be compared to that war. Except for the home ground, where the media, the leftist anti-war zealots, and Liberal Democrats push for abandoning the fledgling democracy in Iraq before it has a chance to set down roots and anchor itself deep enough to overcome the challenges that terrorists and sectarian death squads pose.

Here is another fine example of the real reason we are having such troubles achieving victory in Iraq:

Underlying this reasoning is a bleak recognition that Bush's latest gambit, built around the so-called surge, won't work, coupled with some magical thinking: that indeed a formula exists which could reverse American fortunes and bring the Iraq expedition to a successful conclusion. But, the argument goes, Democrats have failed to embrace it, so this mess is their fault.

Lots of small, inconvenient facts are jettisoned to make this argument -- such as the growing number of Republicans who are joining their Democratic colleagues in opposition to the war. But the central, painful truth that gets ignored is this: Nothing can reverse American fortunes in Iraq. The United States already has failed. Bush failed. It's over. All that remains is working through the best way to get American troops out of Iraq.

There is a plan which can accomplish that, put forward by the Iraq Study Group (ISG). It entails shifting from a military to a political and diplomatic emphasis, strengthening efforts to train Iraqi troops and beginning the withdrawal of American combat forces. We wish the Democrats would use the power of the purse to force Bush's acceptance of the ISG approach. The political risk is that they would then be accused of undermining the troops. But that's a risk worth taking, and the Democrats have a good retort: They weren't the ones who put the troops in Iraq in the first place, in inadequate numbers with inadequate resources (remember the missing armor?). It now falls to the Democrats to keep the troops safe by the only effective way possible: getting them out of Iraq.

The understanding I have (and I could be mistaken) is that the "surge" was part of the plan put forth by the ISG. With five brigades being added to the area surrounding Baghdad, the hottest spot in Iraq, effectively doubling the number of "boots on the ground," it may be possible to finally securing that part of the country. That is the key to achieving victory in Iraq. Secure the capital and its immediate surroundings, and you have the basis to secure the rest of the country, and send a message to Iraq's enemies, most notably Iran, that their continued interference with Iraq will not be tolerated.

It is also false to say that the Democrats were not "the ones to put troops in Iraq in the first place." They all (with maybe one or two exceptions) voted in favor of liberating Iraq. Liberating Iraq was the right thing to do then, and it is the right thing to do today.

One thing the editorial does get right is that the bulk of Democrats never embraced the plan. The only reason for that is because it was put forth by President Bush, and not one of their own. I have no doubt that if it we had elected Gore in 2000 (and no, the election was not stolen from him), they (the Democrats in congress) would have rallied behind any plan he set forth. Of course, that would most likely be some superficial aerial bombing of Afghanistan with little or no effect on al-Qaeda, and Saddam Hussein would be alive and well, and continuing to butcher Iraq's that oppose him.

As for the "missing armor," that was the fault of Democrats voting against funding the necessary equipment for the troops in the field. Remember John Kerry's "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against." A sizable part of that was for body armor and other equipment for the troops serving in Iraq. It is Congress that controls the purse strings of government, and if the troops were in Iraq with insufficient equipment, it is because Congress failed to provide the funding necessary to assure that the troops were properly equipped.

Somehow, I am not surprised by the extreme bias presented by the Red Star Tribune. The Main Stream Media has been, for some time now, nothing more than the propaganda arm for the left-wing of the Democratic party. In their opinion, Democrats can do no wrong and Republicans can do nothing right. Yeesh!

Tags:

Iraq Study Group Iraq Vietnam War On Terror Kerry

Posted by Sqotty at 4:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

As noted in my previous Moonbat Award…it looks like I was a bit premature with my choice. Not because Bill has changed my mind, but because I had no idea that this one was coming my way. Rep. David Wu (D-OR), on the House Floor on the subject of War in Iraq. And I have to think Bill to alerting me to this. He found it on HotAir, which is one of the best places to go if you are looking for political video. They, in turn, found it courtesy of one of the users in their community. I guess this means I had better make HotAir.com a more frequent stop than once or twice a week.

The gist is that Wu, talking about the war in Iraq makes references to the Bush Administration as being like Klingons, or, more accurately, like Faux Klingons, as Bush never went to war (of course, Rep. Wu never even served in the Armed Forces). It's a real hoot.

I think I'll be having some fun with this one over the weekend as it is inspiring a story idea. Thanks, Bill!

Tags:

David Wu Congress Klingons Iraq

Posted by Sqotty at 3:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

This is off of Breitbart.com:

"We're not going to baby sit a civil war," Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told NBC's "Today" Show. He said the Democratic-controlled Congress would not undercut troops already in Iraq but would explore ways to restrict the president from expanding the mission.

"Restrict the president from expanding the mission?!" How does he intend to do that without violating his oath of office. The Constitution made the president "Commander in Chief" of the military, not Senator Barack Obama. Congress controls the budget, the president commands the troops. The only way Obama and the other chickendoves in Congress can impact troop deployments is to cut the military budget. Are they prepared to do so?

Obama also called current operations as "babysitting a civil war." What the heck did he think we were doing in Somalia in '93?

Whether or not Iraq is in civil war, and it is at least on the brink of such, if we withfraw from Iraq, we will have another Cambodia, with hundreds of thousands, if not millions, dead. Iran will invade and expand their Facist Theocracy into Iraq, while putting a stanglehold on oil exports from that region.

Is Obama and the rest of the chickendoves in Congress willing to have that on their hands? Do they really truly care?

Tags:
Barack Obama Chickendoves Congress Iraq Civil War

Posted by Sqotty at 6:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

President Bush addressed the nation this evening, presenting a new plan for victory in Iraq. The new plan is a welcome change in our policy in Iraq.

In his speech, President Bush acknowledged one of the greatest successes of the Islamic Terrorists operating there, and that was the bombing of the Golden Mosque of Samara, which resulted in the Shia population forming death squads to retaliate against the Sunni population. It further escalated into a vicious cycle of sectarian violence.

Part of the new plan for Iraq includes increasing troop deployments there by 20,000 soldiers, something the Democrats who now control Congress will, no doubt, do their utmost to prevent, as they would rather implement a complete withdrawal of U.S. forces. All I can say is, it's about time. This should have occurred within the first months following the bombing of the Golden Mosque.

Five additional brigades to be deployed to Baghdad, where they have been desperately as most of the violence is occurring within some 30 miles of Baghdad.

Here's a part of the transcript of the speech (FoxNews):

The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people - and it is unacceptable to me. Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.

It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq. So my national security team, military commanders, and diplomats conducted a comprehensive review. We consulted Members of Congress from both parties, allies abroad, and distinguished outside experts. We benefited from the thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group - a bipartisan panel led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton. In our discussions, we all agreed that there is no magic formula for success in Iraq. And one message came through loud and clear: Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States.

The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people. On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq.

Yep, he's right. The withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq would give the Fundamentalist Islamic terrorists the green light to take over Iraq, and install a fascist theocracy similar to that which currently rules Iran. It would also send a signal to Iran that the U.S. would not come to Iraq's aid should they invade once U.S. forces are withdrawn. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Iraqis would die. Any redeployment of U.S. forces would come too late for many Iraqis if (and when) such events should (and would) occur.

Another 4,000 troops are to be deployed to the Anbar province, an area that al-Qaeda has made the most dangerous area outside of Baghdad. That's about a brigade in strength. It's a large region, so it will most likely have to be heavily integrated with Iraqi forces to be fully effective.

I don't know it these plans are sufficient to bring peace to Iraq. It is, however, a good start. A step in what I believe is the right direction. It is also the message I've been waiting to hear for some time now. It is time to take off the gloves and let the military do what they have been trained to do: win the war in Iraq.

Tags:

President Bush Iraq Military al-Qaeda Baghdad Dubya

Posted by Sqotty at 9:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

This qualifies for the "it's about time" award. Off of Reuters:

U.S.-led forces are likely to launch a limited New Year offensive against Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi Army militia, blamed for sectarian death squad killings, senior Iraqi officials say.

The Pentagon, in a report last month, described Mehdi Army militias as the biggest threat to Iraq's security and diplomats say Washington is impatient to confront them.

Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Malitia has been a major pain in the neck. When he and his thugs first turned up on the scene in 2004, I believed that U.S. and coalition forces would deal with Sadr straightaway. Unfortunately, a deal was cut, leaving Sadr to regroup his forces before starting trouble again.

Many Iraqis accuse Sadr of being behind many of the death squads operating in Iraq. Although he claims to not be involved, there is a much higher likelihood that Sunni claims against him are correct. There is also a high probability that he is in league with Iran, receiving significant support from that country. That is also a very high probability as it is known that Iran is attempting to undermine the democratically elected government of Iraq by supplying arms and men to terrorist and anti-government groups in Iraq.

Dealing with Sadr and eliminating his armed militias is one more step on the road to liberty for Iraq. And the sooner he is dealt with, the better.

Tags:

Moqtada al-Sadr
Iraq
Mahdi Army

Posted by Sqotty at 7:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Is anybody else as fed up with Congressman Charlie Rangel's repeated slurs of the American Armed Forces and constant calls for reinstating a military draft? Tim Kane on FoxNews certainly is.

Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., thinks so. He plans to hold hearings soon after the new Congress convenes in January.

For years, Rangel has been saying wealthy Americans are "absent" from the military. More recently, he dismissed any sense of duty in America's youngest generation.

"If a young fellow has an option of having a decent career, or joining the Army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq," he said on "Fox News Sunday" on Nov. 26.

This is a bizarre slur on the volunteers in uniform. Class warfare rhetoric is a staple of liberals, but it is stunningly insulting when applied to the integrity of American troops engaged in real warfare. Rangel is talking about people in the profession of arms, men and women who believe it to be the most honorable path in life.

The pernicious myth that the armed forces are filled with stupid soldiers has got to stop. It spews from Michael Moore's film, Fahrenheit 9/11. It slipped out in John Kerry's botched "joke." And it has been echoing around the Left unchallenged for too long.

I guess Charlie Rangel believes my cousin who is recently back from Iraq (chopper pilot) didn't have any decent career options (he did…he chose to serve his country). Sam was true about Pat Tilma, the pro-football player who enlisted in the Army after 9/11, entered the Army Rangers, and (regrettably) gave his life Afghanistan.

Every time these liberal jokers call for reinstating the draft, they claim, WRONGFULLY, that it is the poor and uneducated that end up serving. I guess that means that when I served in the Air Force I was uneducated and poor. (I was neither of these.) Rangel (and Kerry) must also believe that the same is true for every man and woman that choose to serve in the Armed Forces are just a bunch of losers. And the people who buy into this, like brainiac Matt Damon (who still lacks the cojones to put his money where his mouth is and enlist).

In 2005, some 80,000 young adults enlisted in the Army, and they came from some surprising places. From 2003 to 2005 -- i.e., after the Iraq War began -- the richest one-fifth of the population was overrepresented in the military at 23 percent. Meanwhile, the percentage of recruits from the poorest neighborhoods dropped from 18 percent in 1999 to 14 percent in 2005.

Kane has covered this before for the Heritage Foundation, which has all of the data on their website. It's worth checking out.

The fact of the matter is, just as Kane points out, the "rich" people Rangel, et al., claim are not serving, are, in fact, serving at a disproportionate rate. The troops are better educated (I believe all military services have a requirement for a high school education or GED), many of the enlisted ranks enter with some college, and many more continue their education while they serve.

It doesn't seem to matter what the facts actually are to Rangel and other leftwing-nuts; when confronted with the facts, they dream up a new claim that is later also proven to be malarky.

It would be nice if these zealots would stop the BS and simply say they want to mess up the military and reduce its effectiveness by drafting a lot of people into the armed forces who would rather be someplace else.

Posted by Sqotty at 8:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

I've been doing some reading up on one of the greatest generals who has ever lived: General George S. Patton. One piece I found is at the Library of Congress, and is a transcript from Patton's diary, dated May 1, 1944. In it, he recounts a meeting he had with Ike that day, and what his future role in the war might be, as well as the impending invasion of Europe. During the discourse, Ike acknowledged some of Patton's concerns about the plan, but there was pressure from the United States to continue with the plan as written. It was an election year. There is one very striking sentence in this diary entry:

It is sad and shocking to think that victory and the lives of thousands of men are pawns to the "fear of They", and the writings of a group of unprincipled reporters, and weak kneed congressmen, but so it is.

This statement rings as true today with the ongoing war in Iraq (and on other significant issues of national import) as it did over 60 years ago in the days leading up to the Normandy invasion. Congress filled with people concerned about their own careers and petty political ambitions rather than putting the good of the Country (and the world) first.

The weak kneed in Congress today are, without a doubt, the hardleft-liners who are calling for abandoning the fledgling democracy of Iraq, leaving it to fall into chaos and civil war, by drawing down our troops and ending the so-called "occupation." They want to see another American "Vietnam."

So it might be. The Democrats control Congress, and may well use their majority to fulfill their claim that Iraq is just another Vietnam. Abandon those who look to the United States for both leadership and guidance. They would change America from being the "Beacon of Liberty" to "unreliable ally." The Democrats brought us Vietnam. Abandoned our allies in Southeast Asia to the communists in 1973. By mid-1975, South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia had all succumbed to the darkness that is communism. While a Republican presidents (Nixon and Ford) could do nothing more than stand by and watch; their administration's hogtied by a hostile majority that refused to live up to treaties that were made with South Vietnam.

Today, as we are on the brink of a new year and a new Congress, the chickendoves on the left hope to achieve similar results, this time in Iraq and possibly spilling over into Afghanistan. Civil war and the return of totalitarian control; this time in the hands of Islamic Fundamentalists. The results will be disastrous; for the people of Iraq, the U.S. and the rest of the world. Most especially for the people of Iraq who have only in the past few years been able to taste Liberty for the first time in decades.

America led the way in the liberation of both Afghanistan and Iraq. America can do no less than lead these fledgling governments through their current challenges and help them prevail over the terrorists and Islamic Fundamentalist insurgents that would much prefer to see these countries once again shrouded in the darkness of totalitarianism.

One has to wonder what Patton would say if he were with us now.

Posted by Sqotty at 7:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

The Sun Online has this report on the possibility of Prince Harry being deployed to Iraq:

PRINCE Harry's lover Chelsy Davy is to travel the world after telling pals: "Haz is off to war."

Her remark is the strongest hint yet that the 22-year-old Royal WILL see action in Iraq.

Chelsy, 21, hopes her trip will keep her mind off her fears while cavalryman Harry joins comrades for a dangerous tour of duty.

There are two interesting angles to this article. First: Prince Harry going to war in a combat zone filled with terrorists who have no qualms about using suicide bombers to attack Iraqi and Coalition Forces. What will happen, if Prince harry is deployed, is that he will act as a magnate, attracting regular attacks, especially the aforementioned suicide bombers. This will increase the likelihood that large numbers of his comrades in arms will be killed or wounded at what would be an abnormally high rate. Especially since it is being broadcasted far and wide that the Royal may end up in their sights. Not good.

A sub-angle to this is the frequent calls here in the U.S. by such "brilliant" people as Matt Damon, who recently called for, among other things, sending President Bush's daughters to Iraq as part of a military deployment. Of course Matt Damon has still not enlisted into the Army and volunteered for service in Iraq. many other Moonbats on the left have used the same argument: send the Bush daughters to war in Iraq.

The possibility of Prince Harry going to war adds a sharp counter-point to the demand that the children of our leaders should serve in Iraq. Their doing so, whether it is the British Royals or our own Presidential offspring, will garner unwanted attention on their units by the bad guys still operating over in Iraq. The number of attacks would escalate, with a focus on units that contain such high profile targets, and the casualty rate for those units would be far higher.

The second angle of interest on this article is that Prince Harry's girlfriend feels the need to go travelling while he is off in Iraq (assuming he is deployed) as being the only means by which she can cope with his being in harm's way on a daily basis during his (proposed) tour of duty. Must be nice to be able to travel to Reno as part of a proposed long term vacation while the person you love is getting shot at by terrorists.

Some girlfriend Prince Harry has. He can do better. And if he is deployed to Iraq, I hope he finds himself someone who is of better character who will put thinking of his safety ahead of her having to get away from it all in order to deal with her fears. I have no doubt that many spouses would like to be able to get away for a long vacation during such a trying time, however, there is a big difference between thinking about it, then biting the bullet and dealing with the reality and going off to have fun for how ever long the deployment lasts.

If Prince Harry is deployed, I wish him and his comrades well. Bottom line though, is if he (or other high profile warriors) is deployed, it should be kept secret for the safety of all who serve.

Posted by Sqotty at 7:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

The Selective Service is preparing to test the "machinery of joy," better known as the military draft. According to a report on FoxNews:

The agency is planning a comprehensive test - not run since 1998 - of its military draft systems, a Selective Service official said. The test itself would not likely occur until 2009.

Scott Campbell, the service's director for operations and chief information officer, cautioned that the "readiness exercise" does not mean the agency is gearing up to resume the draft.

Bear in mind, this I only a test, and they have performed such tests before. For the draft to be fully reinstated, it will take an act of Congress, as well as the President's signature. Currently, I don't believe the Dems have sufficient control of both houses to get such legislation through. If it were to get through the House of Representatives, I believe that Lieberman would oppose it and Hillary as well, since she is trying to position herself as a moderate for a presidential run in 2008.

Rep. Charles Rangel (D. NY) has also announced plans to reinstate the draft.

Here's a brief recent history of the Draft:

The Draft ended in either 1973/74, terminated by Pres. Nixon, a Republican Draft Registration ended in Nov. 1976, terminated by Pres. Ford, a Republican Draft Registration restarted in Jan. 1980, reinstated by Pres. Carter, a Democrat Military Conscription has been proposed on several occasions recently by Rep. Rangel, a Democrat

Now, I admit, I do not have first hand knowledge of what it was like to serve during the era of the draft, only during the all-volunteer military era. Based on what I have read about the draft era by those who were there, such as General Tommie Franks, I'll take an all-volunteer force any day.

The thing that the leftwing-nuts fail to realize is that forced military service is contrary to this country's view on liberty. They think that taking a bunch of people that DON'T want to be in the military is a good thing, and will reduce the probability of our getting involved militarily in conflicts around the world. Can everyone say "Vietnam?" The Armed forces does not want, or need, a thousands (or millions) of people dragged off the street, especially the ones who would much rather be at home smoking pot, or blowing their minds out with some other drug of choice.

Add to the mix those who will find a way out of serving through the use of deferments, like going to Oxford, and you'll have a bloody good time again.

For all of you folks that are worried that the draft is coming back and don't want to see it, you better stop electing Liberal Democrats, 'cause they are the ones that want to bring it back.

Tags:

Military+Draft
Conscription
Rangel
Selective+Service

Posted by Sqotty at 8:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Matt Damon on Military Service(from Media Info):

I don't think that it's fair as I said before, that it seems like we have a fighting class in our country. That's comprised of people who have to go for either financial reasons or -- I don't think that that is fair.

And if you're gonna send people to war, ahh, if, if we all get together and decide we need to go to war, then that needs to be shared by everybody. You know, and if the President has daughters who are of age then maybe they should go too.

Tags:

Matt Damon
Economic Draft
Draft
Iraq
Desert Shield

Posted by Sqotty at 9:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)
View blog reactions

Rhetorical question of the day: why is it that Republicans are accused of wanting to implement a draft, yet the only members of Congress actively calling for reinstating said draft are Democrats? Isn't it ironic that Democrats use the scare tactic claiming that voting for Republicans means that the draft will be reinstated, even though Republicans routinely state such is not an option, yet it is Democrats in Congress who keep introducing legislation to do exactly that?

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) is, once again, doing just that, as he has announced plans to push a measure that will bring back military conscription.

The United States Military has managed quite nicely as an all-volunteer force since 1973. There is no real need to change it. Indeed, doing so, bringing back the draft, may do more harm to the armed forces than good. There is a big difference between a military made of people who WANT to serve versus a military comprised of people who want to be somewhere else. Which is better for America?

I have no doubt what that answer is, having served in the all-volunteer military (Go Air Force!). In reading Tommy Franks memoir, American Soldier, he recounts that at one point during the latter part of the draft era, some bases had such a drug problem that it was not safe for officers to enter some barracks without an armed escort.

Today, the all-volunteer military is made up of dedicated professionals, who want to serve their country. It does not matter if their motivations include gaining access to a college education or developing good job skills (that last worked for me, although I wanted to serve since I was a kid). Those are, in fact, healthy reasons to serve. Just as healthy as a sense of patriotism and desire to serve and protect America.

Bringing back the draft may fulfill John Kerry's "botched joke" about failures ending up in the military, as during the Vietnam era draft, those who were in college could get deferments until they completed their education or were beyond draft age (like Bill Clinton). That is not the kind of military America needs.

I have heard many negative things about the all-volunteer military, the worst of which is the lie that it is an "economic draft," implying that only poor minorities enter the armed forces. Nothing could be further from the truth about the all-volunteer military. Ask anybody who has served in it. Most (if not all) will tell you it is anything BUT an "economic draft."

Rangel has an interesting bit of twisted logic on why the draft should be reinstated (FoxNews):

"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way."

The draft did not stop President Johnson from escalating U.S. involvement in Vietnam back in 1965. Why would Rangel, or anyone else for that matter, believe that a draft would do so today?

"If we're going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can't do that without a draft," Rangel said.

With over 60,000 troops in Germany alone, there is no need for a draft when we can redeploy these troops where needed.

Further, the military can be expanded as an all-volunteer force by providing proper incentives to encourage enlistment, whether it is by expanding college benefits to those who join up, or other means. There are most likely other incentives that could be leveraged to increase enlistment. However, I don't think that will be a problem as when I entered the service, there was a six-month waiting list for the Air force. I don't know if that holds true today, but it sure did in the ‘80s.

Ultimately, I believe that there is no need to reinstate the draft. The all-volunteer model has worked quite well for over 30 years. Why change it?

Tags:

Draft
Military
Rangel

Posted by Sqotty at 8:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)
View blog reactions

I have written about the Multi-National Force site in the past as being a good source of news. One of the site's features is a section of messages from soldiers serving in Iraq. The latest soldier featured is a Minnesota soldier, 1st Lt. Dawn Opland. She is part of the 322nd Maintenance Company from Arden Hills, Minnesota, current stationed at Camp Anaconda. Camp Anaconda is situated near Balad, north of Baghdad.

Lt. Opland joined the Army in 1993, right out of high school, and continues to serve her country to this day.

Another member of Arden Hills 322nd Maintenance Company was featured on the site earlier, Sgt. Portillo.

Check out all the videos. They are well worth watching. And I am sure that there will be more to come.

Thank you for your service.

While I am at it, I think this is a good place to mention Soldiers' Angels Operation Valour-IT. At the time of this writing, Air Force team is up over $22,000, at the half-way mark. If you haven't given to Valour-IT, please consider doing so. It is a very worthy cause.

Tags:

Multi-National Force Iraq
Iraq
War on Terror
Iraqi Freedom
Army
Why I Serve

Posted by Sqotty at 9:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

It had to be done. The world famous image of he 1/34 with the John "Mad Senator Disease" Kerry quote is up on youtube. Check it out.

Tags:

John Kerry
Iraq
Politics
Moonbat

Posted by Sqotty at 12:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Perhaps Kerry's recent spat of "Mad Senator Disease" is wearing off, but the silence on left leaning candidates such as Minnesota's Amy Klobuchar is astounding. No denouncements of Kerry's slanderous remarks about our military. Silence on the matter rings eternal.

Amy Klobuchar has a lot of reasons to stand by John Kerry. 115,000 reasons to be precise. That is the amount of money that Kerry has helped Klobuchar to raise for her campaign.

Jim Webb, running in Virginia has even more reasons to not denounce Kerry's describing our troops serving in Iraq as uneducated and lazy.

Here's a list from the John Kerry website. I am not able to find it there now, so check out the screen shot. Anybody in your state on the list? If so, have they denounced Kerry's slander?

Meanwhile, now featured on Kerry's website, is an op-ed by Thomas Friedman who states:

George Bush, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld think you're stupid. Yes, they do.

They think they can take a mangled quip about President Bush and Iraq by John Kerry - a man who is not even running for office but who, unlike Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, never ran away from combat service - and get you to vote against all Democrats in this election.

If this was a poke at President Bush, then why wasn't he mentioned anywhere in the quote?

"You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

Frankly, I believe that Friedman, who acting as a shill for the DNC, and the rest of the loony left, are the ones that believe Americans are stupid if we believe that this "botched joke" was about Bush when he wasn't even mentioned in the statement.

As for the slam about Bush and his military service, perhaps Friedman should look up the National Guard program, "Palace Alert," which a young Lieutenant Bush attempted to enroll in. Had Bush been accepted into the program, there is no doubt he would have been flying F-102s in Vietnam. By the time Bush completed his training on that bird and could qualify for the program, U.S. involvement was winding down and the program was being terminated.

Friedman, who is old enough to have served in Vietnam himself, seems to be missing that honor on his resume. Did he receive deferments, or is it a simple matter that his number simply didn't come up?

Thanks to Alan Simpson of Comlinks Political Intel for providing this list of people who have or did not serve. The list is fairly non-partisan, can't say the same about the commentary.

Thomas "Never Served" Friedman goes on in his diatribe with the following:

What could possibly be more injurious and insulting to our men and women in uniform than sending them off to war without the proper equipment, so that some soldiers in the field were left to buy their own body armor and to retrofit their own jeeps with scrap metal so that roadside bombs in Iraq would only maim them for life and not kill them? And what could be more injurious and insulting than Don Rumsfeld's response to criticism that he sent our troops off in haste and unprepared: Hey, you go to war with the army you've got - get over it.

Let us not forget that Senator Kerry and other members of the left in Congress voted AGAINST providing our men and women in the field with the equipment that Friedman claims was necessary. He must think we're stupid if we believe that the Army we have is the fault of the Bush Adminstration, and not due to Congress' failure to fund the military adequately. The $87 billion that Kerry "voted for before voting against" was to provide, among other things, body armor for our troops in the field. I haven't forgotten that, even if Friedman has.

Quite frankly, I would like to know why Thomas "Never Served" Friedman believes we're dumb enough to believe his assessment that America has become a banana republic and "our democracy is in tatters because it is so gerrymandered, so polluted by money, and so divided by professional political hacks that we can no longer hold the ruling party to account."

Banana republic?! America?! Is he nuts?! Or has Friedman become just another moonbat who thinks slaming America and our troops is okay, and that Americans are stupid if they vote for Republicans:

I, for one, don't think we're that stupid. Next Tuesday we'll see.

In other words, he believes that if the GOP hangs on to its majority in the 2006 election, or, gains seats, then Americans are stupid.

Congratulations to Thomas "Never Served" Friedman, you are a Moonbat.

Okay, somehow, I started this piece in one direction and ended somewhere else. But it was fun for me.

Tags:

John Kerry
Iraq
Politics
Moonbat
Thomas Friedman
George W. Bush

Posted by Sqotty at 10:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)
View blog reactions

The Red Star Tribune, as of 30 minutes ago, FINALLY got the story of teh MN Guard unit with the photo that has already been seen aroud the world. What took them so long?

They do credit the New York Post for breaking the story, and reference the Milwuakee talk show that first posted the image, as well as crediting Powerline for their efforts in circulating the image.

It is worth reading, and better to be a day lae, than noit even show up for the race.

Posted by Sqotty at 2:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Kerry apologizes for his slur against our troops. Well sort of. From My Way News:

Kerry beat a grudging retreat in his return to the national campaign spotlight. Earlier, on the radio program "Imus in the Morning," the Massachusetts senator said he was "sorry about a botched joke" about Bush.

More from the johnkerry.com site:

As a combat veteran, I want to make it clear to anyone in uniform and to their loved ones: my poorly stated joke at a rally was not about, and never intended to refer to any troop.

I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member, or American who was offended.

In otherwords, he isn't apolgizing for the insult he made about American troops serving in Iraq. Only that some people may have misinterpreted what he said in a "botched joke."

It was no joke, and there is no misinterpretation on my part.

He has insulted our Armed Forces, and should be castigated at every turn. Many of us have family serving there or, as with me, newly returned (my cousin in the Army). This kind of behavior from someone who is in a high, elected, position is NOT acceptable, and only a clear, and concise apology and retraction of his statement should be considered acceptable.

The now famous photo of six men and two women serving in Iraq says it all about how our troops feel about Kerry's remarks.

Thanks to the folks at Free Republic for posting this photo.

According to the guys over at Powerline, some of these folks are members of the Minnesota National Guard, I-34RTB, of the 34 Infantry Division. My kudos to them for such a fine statement on Kerry's take on our troops in the field.

Thanks guys, from those of us stuck here at home. For your dedicated service as well as your humorous response to a vile comment. (Okay, especially for your service!)

Meanwhile, this is as a good a place as any to update on Soldiers' Angels Project Valour-IT. Air force has dropped down to a very close third place, and all four branches are doing quite well in moving towards their goals of $45,000 each, for an overall goal of $180,000. The four teams are all closing in on the 1/3rd mark.

Go Air Force!

Maybe Kerry should commit to doing a matching contribution of 1-to-1 for this fine charity. Think he will?

Tags:

John Kerry
Iraq
Politics
Moonbat
apology

Posted by Sqotty at 8:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Once again, The Red Star Tribune shows its political bias, this time in their editorial, "October's Toll: 103."

Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C., spoke at the National Press Club last week on Republican Senate prospects in the coming election; she heads the GOP's Senate campaign committee. On Iraq, she warned, ominously, that if the United States withdraws now, Iran and Syria will move into Iraq.

So what, we would have asked, is your point? The U.S. misadventure in Iraq has been so thoroughly botched by the Bush administration that, sooner or later, Iran and Syria most likely will get to involve themselves in Iraq no matter what. How does "staying the course" accomplish anything beyond getting more Americans, and Iraqis, killed?

Although the Red Star Tribune has a point when it says that our staying in Iraq will result in more American soldiers being killed by terrorists, one has to challenge their claim that pulling out will result in fewer Iraqi's being killed. At least, that's how that last sentence read...if staying the course will get more Iraqi's killed, then, by extension, withdrawing immediately, should reduce the number of Iraqi's killed. Right?

Wrong!

There is no doubt that the only thing preventing an all out civil war, with one side being the al-Qaeda terrorists, another being the sectarian death squads, leaving the fledgling democracy of Iraq in stuck in the middle.

The terrorists want a Muslim state governed by Sharia Law. Iraq is a place where they believe they can achieve this goal if the Coalition disolves and the U.S. pulls out of Iraq.

Moreover, follow the thought a bit further: Who says other countries in the region would let Syria and Iran, or anyone else, turn Iraq into a threatening puppet state? Surely Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and a few others would have something to say about that.

The terrorists are made up of Muslims from many nations, not limited to indigenous thugs, but Jordanians, like the late al-Zarqawi, as well as Egyptians, Syrians, Palestininas. and let's not forget about those Iranians that keep sneaking across the border to muck up the works, and supplying the terrorists with weapons. Terrorists have also been streaming across the border from Syria, which has been serving as a jumping off point, into Iraq.

There is no doubt that Syria would love to have Iraq as a puppet state, especially with those rich oil fields. Iran sees it as a brother in Islam, that should adopt Sharia.

Regardless of whether you believe the War in Iraq is/was just is no longer the issue. The issue is whether or not we want to help the majority of Iraqi's achieve a Democratic form of self-government, or abandon them to the terrorists and the death squads, who will set Bagdad in flames, and let the streets run red with the blood of millions who the terrorists consider to be kafirs.

It is obvious to me that the editorial board at the Red Star Tribune has not red The Looming Tower. They should, as then they would have a clearer understanding of what is going on in the Middle East.

Tags:

Iraq
Iran
Syria
al-Qaeda

Posted by Sqotty at 8:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

John Kerry is still battling with his recent case of foot-in-mouth disease. As noted previously, Senator Kerry remarked that "You know, education -- if you make the most of it, you study hard and you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well.
. If you don't, you, you get stuck in Iraq." Meaning, he believes that the members of our Armed Forces are uneducated nobodies with nothing better to do with their lives.

Kerry is trying to spin this as an attack on the Bush Administration, and not the slur against our troops that it actually is. Yet no where in the statement did he make any reference to Bush's Iraq policy.

So far, there is one Democrat running for office that I am aware of that has denounced Senator Kerry's insult to American Service Members: Harold Ford, Jr., of Tennessee. From CNN:

"Whatever the intent, Sen. Kerry was wrong to say what he said. He needs to apologize to our troops."

I've got to give credit where credit is due, and it is about time that there was one voice in the forest on the Left.

Meanwhile, Vietnam veteran and former Senator Max Cleland agrees with Kerry that our Armed Forces are made up uneducated nobodies. From the same CNN in piece as above:

But not all Democrats concurred. Vietnam veteran and former U.S. Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia defended Kerry and applauded the senator for showing "our party how to fight back with the truth."

"John Kerry is a patriot who has fought tooth and nail for veterans ever since he came home from Vietnam. He has stood with his brothers in arms unlike this administration, which exploits our troops to make a political point and divide America," Cleland said in a statement.

To me, it doesn't matter what their viewpoint on President Bush's policy in the Middle East is, or whether or not they believe we should be fighting in Iraq. The issue is the insult slung at our troops in the field.

Meanwhile, Kerry is getting off the campaign trail as his invitations to help various candidates have suddenly vaporized as a result of Kerry's big mouth. Too bad, as this means we may have to wait two years for another round of John "foot-in-mouth" Kerry blunders. Is there such a thing as "Mad Senator Disease?"

Tags:

John Kerry
Iraq
Politics
Moonbat

Posted by Sqotty at 7:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Do you agree with John Kerry's statement that only dumb, lazy people end up in our Armed Forces and serve in Iraq?

Answer: We can only speculate that she does as she has not distanced herself from John Kerry and the $115,000 dollars he has helped her to raise for her Senate campaign. Check out johnkerry.com for the stats. It lists many of the Democrats he has helped raise money for. Klobuchar ranks 10th in on Kerry's hit parade of top fundraisers.

$115,000 dollars is a heckuva lot of incentive to stand by John Kerry and his insulting comments on our fine service men serving in Iraq.

I still want to know if he thinks that of the military in general.

Kerry has not only failed to a[poligize or retract the disparaging statement, he has said that there is no way that he will apologize for any remark he has made, and refering to those of us who demand an apology as a bunch of stuffed shirts who never wore the uniform. I have. Air Force blue. MCCain has, and his Vietnam service rates a lot higher with me than Kerry's.

Yet the Democrats are still silent on the matter. Based on the past experience, it must be because they agree with Kerry and that they believe only losers end up in the military. Those of us who have chosen to serve, whether in the past, or the present, are anything BUT losers.

Where are Whistling Rowley, Jack Murtha, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Dianne Feinstein, Keith Ellicon, Patty wetterling, and a host of other Democrats on this? When will they denounce Kerry and his statements?

Tags:

John Kerry
Democrats
Amy Klobuchar
Moonbat

Posted by Sqotty at 6:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

John Kerry, Moonbat Extraordinaire, again shows his utter contempt for those who have chosen to serve in the Armed Forces of our country. This is off of KFI AM radio:

"You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq."

Why am I not surprised by such an idiotic statement coming from John "Flipper" Kerry. I have to thank KLI for providing the sound clip. It's on their website.

What Kerry is saying is that only losers end up in the military. Only losers too lazy to do well in school serve their country and go to war. Is this also true of those of us who served during peace time? (My service was during the Reagan years.) Or just those who serve in Iraq, like one of my cousins who just returned from there recently?

It's truly incredible to hear a former presidential candidate make such disparaging remarks about military service. Instead of saying only lazy whelps who fail in school end up in the armed forces, he should be promoting the possiblity of serving and the leadership skills that military service develops.

Such is not the way of the hard-left.

Over on youtube.com, there is a video clip of the comment:

Kerry, like Howard Dean, is one of the Left's greatest heroes, and is most dmaging to the Democratic Party. Gotta wonder what kind of damage control they use after Kerry's latest blunder.

Senator Kerry gets the latest Moonbat Award. Congratualtions Flipper! You've earned it.

Tags:

John Kerry
Iraq
Politics
Moonbat

Posted by Sqotty at 3:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

I've joined Soldier's Angels Project ValourIT. Being a former Air Force guy, I figured that would be the suitable one for me to join.

Soldier's Angels is a non-profit raising money to aid our troops and thier families. Project Valou-ITr has a specific goal in mind: supplying voice-activated laptops to our injured troops.

It's a comendable effort, and well worth supporting. I have donated $50 to the cause.

Posted by Sqotty at 2:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)
View blog reactions

Egads, what an editorial in the Red Star Tribune. Colleen Rowley, the extreme Leftist and anti-liberate Iraq candidate for the Minnesota 2nd Congressional District, and Jerald Albrecht, a former officer of the Army Reserve, are attacking Bush policy on Iraq and the GOP in general.

It starts off simply enough, stating the obvious on the dedication of the members of the Armed Forces in doing their duty, but then they go way off base with:

Bush first failed the troops when he put them in harm's way despite knowing that the threat from Iraq was practically nonexistent. He then failed to provide them with the tools to succeed: no plan to secure the peace, insufficient body armor, questionable support from Dick Cheney's Halliburton cronies and one-third the number of troops necessary to get the job done. But most shameful of all has been the willingness of Bush and the GOP leadership to use our troops as a tool for political gain.

Our armed forces went into Iraq, along with forces from the coalition partners, to LIBERATE Iraq from a mass-murdering dictator, who, during his reign, killed some 500,000 of his own people, including using chemical weapons on the Kurdish population; mutilating others; torturing many more. His sons maintained rape rooms where they took women AGAINST their will, then raped and murdered them.

They also claim that Iraq, under Hussein, had far more access to electricity, water and other vital necessities than they do today. Admitted, the war and ongoing terrorism have hindered the re-establishment of vital infrastructure, however, that infrastructure is being rebuilt with great improvements.

They also claim that the troops have not had the tools necessary to accomplish the mission, and blames the Bush Administration for that, even though it is CONGRESS that controls the purse strings, not the president.

Then there is also the claim that Bush and the Republican party are using the troops as a tool for military game. If anything, it is Rowley and her ilk in the Democratic Party and the left-wing zealots of the “hate Bush” crowd that are attempting to use the troops as apolitical tool.

They castigate the use by Republicans of "cut and run" when we refer to Democratic operatives and candidates, and that any one who does not believe in "staying the course" is accused of Neville Chamberlain like appeasement. News flash for Rowley: you are supporting a “cut and run” policy and course of appeasement, which will only embolden the terrorists to carry out even more attacks, and killing more Americans, British, French, and peoples of other nations.

I find it highly disturbing that these two Moonbats believe the people of Iraq were better off under Hussein than they are in pursuing Democracy.

I am further offended by their reference to those of us who have served or currently serving as being part of a "military machine." Our volunteer military is anything BUT a machine.

They continue:

Since the occupation began, Iraq has been on a slow, inexorable slide toward civil war; our two top generals in the region recently testified that the current situation in Iraq is the worst it's ever been.

And if we leave Iraq before the job is done and people of Iraq have had a chance to secure their nation and their liberty, then it will slide into civil war.

Sure, there are bad things happening in Iraq, like the recent dumping of 65 Iraqi bodies by death squads that are still operating in that country.

The only thing preventing the civil war are the Coalition troops currently operating with the Iraqi Army. Pull out prematurely, al Qaeda and Iran will view it as a victory for their side. Then the terrorists operating in Iraq, once they overthrow the new Iraqi government and install a new totalitarian regime, will move on to other countries to continue their jihad against the West.

Despite overwhelming evidence that Iraq's stability has been steadily eroding, Bush has made his intentions clear: He expects our troops to "stay the course" until he leaves office -- nearly three more years.

As a resident of Minnesota’s 2nd Congressional District, the district Rowley is running in, I am particularly interested in what she says, and look forward to her going down in defeat this November.

Tags:

Coleen Rowley
Iraq
Military
War on Terror
Congress
cut and run

Posted by Sqotty at 8:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

FoxNews has a short article quoting Dunsel Kofi Annan that most Middle East leaders believe that the liberation of Iraq is a disaster.

Annan said many leaders believed the United States should stay until Iraq improves, while others, such as Iran, said the United States should leave immediately. That means that the United States has found itself in the difficult position where "it cannot stay and it cannot leave."

Interesting to note that Iran is identified as a country that believes the United States should abandon Iraq immediately. Just a guess, but I bet Syria is on that list as well.

I can understand why Iran wants the U.S. out of the region: with the U.S. out of the region, it will be easier to continue refining Uranium as well as continued border harassment of the Iraqi military, such as what was reported a couple of days ago in the World Tribune, where seven Iraqi soldiers were kidnapped Iranian soldiers and taken into Iran.

On Sept. 7, officials said, an Iraqi border patrol spotted an Iranian outpost in Iraqi territory. A clash ensued and the seven Iraqi soldiers were captured and taken into Iran, they said.

With the U.S. and coalition forces out of the way, how long before these "border incidents" turn into an all out war between Iraq and Iran?

Back to Dunsel Annan:

"Most of the leaders I spoke to felt the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath has been a real disaster for them," Annan said. "They believe it has destabilized the region."

Like, the region was stable BEFORE the liberation of Iraq? Hussein and his regime murdered some 500,000 Iraqis…and that's stability?

Meanwhile, at the Multi-Nation Force Iraq website, there is more good news from Iraq, including a piece on the carpture of a terrorist weapons cache.

Tags:

Kofi Annan
Iraq
Iran
Middle East

Posted by Sqotty at 4:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

There seem to be a few Republicans that are joining the Party of Cut and Run…this off of FoxNews:

Perhaps no other Republican exemplifies this subtle position shift more than Rep. Chris Shays, R-Conn., who surprised everyone recently by calling for a "timeframe" for U.S withdrawal from Iraq.

"I believe that our troops cannot be there indefinitely. I believe we need to have a sense of when our troops can withdraw," Shays told reporters.

This was considered quite a shift, as Shays - recognized widely as an independent moderate unafraid of bucking the party line - had gone to Iraq 14 times and, until the last time, had always returned with a sense of progress and an insistence that timetables were inappropriate.

I call this pandering to the Left in order to win votes. When Shays claims we cannot keep troops there indefinitely, what about the troops we have kept in Germany, Japan and other countries since 1945? Are we going to withdraw from those countries as well?

The difference between the maintaining troops in Iraq and Germany is that Iraq is unpopular with a part of the electorate who don't get that we in Iraq to eliminate terrorists operating in Iraq (a regrettable attitude is that it is better to fight them over there than over here), and preventing the country from sliding into a civil war and reverting back to a totalitarian regime, possibly even a Muslim Fundamentalist regime such as that which rules Iran. With Iran pouring "insurgents" and arms across the border, and more coming from Syria, ask yourself, is abandoning Iraq a good idea?

What would a premature withdrawal from Iraq tell the enemies of liberty? That the United States does not have the will carry out its promises. That the United States cannot be relied upon to help those in need. Pull out too early, and Iraq may fall back into tyranny. And the terrorists will focus their efforts on attacking America directly again, having regained one of their training grounds and supporters.

The kind of rhetoric that Shays is spouting is the same as one expects to come from Murtha, Pelosi and other members of the Party of Neville Chamberlain, not the GOP.

Okay, Shays, Murtha and others, calling for a withdrawal from Iraq…how about setting a timetable for when we withdrawal from Germany first?

Tags:

Iraq
War on Terror
Germany
Military Occupation
Chris Shays
Cut and Run

Posted by Sqotty at 10:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
View blog reactions

More of the things you won't see in the Main Stream Media. Off of the Multi-National Force - Iraq site:

CAMP AL ASAD, Iraq (Aug. 30, 2006) - U.S. Marines detained 16 confirmed insurgents and 24 suspected insurgents yesterday throughout the Haditha Triad region in western Al Anbar Province, Iraq.

Marines from the Hawaii-based 3rd Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment, known as "America's Battalion," captured the known and suspected insurgents during both routine and pre-planned counterinsurgency operations in the "Triad" region.

Some of the insurgents captured are known for intimidating the local populace, attacking Coalition and Iraqi forces, and providing logistical support to local insurgents. In one captured insurgent's home, a Marine patrol discovered various materials used to construct improvised explosive devices (IEDs), an AK-47 assault rifle with multiple round cartridges and binoculars.

Furthermore, a U.S scout sniper team fired upon anti-Iraqi forces, which were firing upon a Marine M1A1 tank on a road in Haditha. Two of the insurgents were killed; one was critically wounded and medically evacuated to a U.S. military medical facility for treatment. This follows a day after a separate scout sniper engagement which resulted in one insurgent being killed while digging a hole in a spot where numerous IEDs have recently been discovered or detonated.

"The Battalion's successes over the last several days are really the result of the anti-Iraqi forces conducting attacks out of desperation. They see the growing capability of the Iraqi Army and recent fielding of the Iraqi Police as the clear beginning to the end of their influence in the Triad," said Lt. Col. Norm Cooling, commanding officer of 3rd Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment.

Okay, the reason we won't see this is that the MSM only wants to print the BAD News, like the death of American soldiers, or the car bombings that kill and injure scores of innocent Iraqis.

The Multi-Nation Force - Iraq site is a good source of up to date happenings in Iraq.

Other news reported there include an update on the Iraqi military readying to take on more command and control responsibility for their country and the Army Corps of Engineers has completed a project in Diyala providing electricity to the 63,000 residents there. Good stuff to read.

Tags:

Main Stream Media
Iraq
War on Terror

Posted by Sqotty at 7:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Yesterday, the guys at the Anti-Strib posted a piece about a Minnesota soldier who was recently killed while serving in Iraq. Unfortunately, the link to the Red Star Tribune article on this soldier is no longer active.

Today, the Red Star Tribune reports that Staff Sergeant Joshua R. Hanson, a Minnesota National Guardsman out of Detroit Lakes. He was killed while on patrol on Wednesday, Sept. 30th.

According to the report, he was killed while on patrol assisting Marines on an anti-terrorist mission, when an explosive device, a roadside bomb of some sort, as the article is not very specific. Several of his team mates were injured attempting to rescue him from the humvee he was in when blast occurred. Hanson was seated in the position closest to where the explosive device went off.

It is sad to read of the deaths of our men and women who serve. Having served in the Armed Forces, these short articles always hit home.

Yet, we are bombarded nearly every day by the "Army of Hate" led by Cindy Sheehan and others as the grab hold of the media lime light, and refuse to respect and honor those who have given their lives, not only for our country, but for liberating the poeple of Iraq and Afghanistan from cruel totalitarian regimes.

My heart goes out to the Hanson family for your loss.

Tags:

Iraq
Military
War on Terror
National Guard

Posted by Sqotty at 5:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

This is a bizarre twist on things..serve your country, get assaulted at gun point. From the Seattle Times:

Investigators with the Pierce County Sheriff's Department are looking for five young men who allegedly assaulted a uniformed National Guardsman on Tuesday morning.

The guardsman was walking down 138th Street South at 8:30 a.m. when the driver of a large black SUV pulled up alongside him and asked if he was in the military, according to the Sheriff's Department.

The driver then got out of the vehicle, displayed a gun and shouted insults at the victim, according to department spokesman Ed Troyer. Four passengers got out of the car, knocked the guardsman down and kicked and punched him, police said.

The driver was described as a white male, 25 to 30 years old, 5 feet 1 inch tall, heavy build, short blond hair, wearing a black T-shirt and jeans, and armed with a handgun.

The passengers, some of whom were wearing red shirts and red baseball hats, were described as white males, 20 to 25 years old, police said.

The Sheriff's Department is offering a $1,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and charging of the suspects. People with information are asked to call 253-591-5959. (Emphasis added.)

It is one thing to protest the war, however, this is an extreme that should not be tolerated.

Posted by Sqotty at 5:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

It's been a while since I have visited the Multi-National Force Iraq site, a site I need to spend more time at. Here's the latest:

During a press conference Aug. 23, Iraqi and Coalition leaders discussed a recent combined operation in Baghdad’s Shulla, Nur and Ghazaliyah neighborhoods that resulted in a sharp decrease in levels of violence in the area and paved the way for improved essential services.

Brig. Gen. Jaleel, commander, 1st Brigade, 6th Iraqi Army Division, and Col. Michael Shields, commander, 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, highlighted the joint nature of the 10-day operation - in support of Operation Together Forward - as well as the relationship between Iraqi and Coalition forces and the people of Ghazaliyah.

Shields discussed the teamwork necessary to complete a mission that involved the clearing of more than 20,000 buildings, the capture of several individuals, and the discovery of 15 weapons caches.

The article continues to point that while the recent operation was being carried out, there was a dramatic drop in violence. Worth the read.

More news on the site includes a story of a Marine using soccer balls to reach out to the Iraqis in the area where he patrols and the training of the Iraqi Air Force. More items of interest neglected by the MSM.

Tags

Iraq
Marines
Main Stream Media

Posted by Sqotty at 9:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Checking the Operation Iraqi Freedom site, I spotted a news article I seriously doubt hat we'll see in the mainstream media. The article covers the good stuff going on in Iraq.

In Husseiniya, Iraq, city officials and fire fighters recently hosted a ceremony marking the opening of a new $1.1 million, three-story fire station that will benefit the city's 450,000 residents.

The 925-square meter concrete structure features five bays; three for ladder trucks and two for sport utility vehicles. It also includes a dormitory area for 25 fire fighters; a dining room for 30; a commercial-grade kitchenette equipped to feed 40 people; a training room for 20; locker room; a control room; and a chief's office.

The citizens of Judayda in western Nineveh are also enjoying better quality of life with the completion of a newly renovated well June 24.

With the intense summer heat and many nonfunctional wells in Judayda, Soldiers from Civil Affairs Team A, Company B, 403rd Civil Affairs Battalion made this a priority project.

The well, which services 2,000 people, was improved by providing a new storage tank, water pump, and power generation equipment. The renovation also provided 30 jobs to the local citizens.

The article also details out the Mahmoodia Road Project, which broke ground on June 25th and is expected to be completed within 30 days.

These are the kind of good news reports that just seem to be missed in the MSM as they focus only on the bad things going on, such as the most recent terrorist attacks, killing some 46 people across Iraq.

Every project that is undertaken to improve the lives of Iraqi's puts us one small step closer to mission accomplished and establishing a freedom loving democracy in the heart of the Middle East.

Whether it is infrastructure projects such as road, wells, fire houses, police stations, and schools, or the training and rebuilding of a well disciplined military and police forces, the Coalition of the Willing is making daily headway in stabilizing Iraq.

Tags:
Iraq
GWOT
War on Terror
Military

Posted by Sqotty at 8:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

At the time of writing this piece, there is yet to be any mention of the declassified portion of a report detailing out the discovery of some 500 chemical weapons that have been found in Iraq since 2003 in the Minneapolis Star Tribune. The St. Paul Pioneer Press has this headline: "New report offers no evidence that Iraq stockpiled WMD"

Now wait a minute…500 chemical munitions does not constitute evidence that Saddam Hussein was not stockpiling WMDs?

It gets better:

But the intelligence officials said the munitions dated from before the 1991 Persian Gulf War and were for the most part badly deteriorated. "They are not in a condition where they could be used as designed," one intelligence official said.

This is contrary to what the report states…from the actual report (point 5 from the report):

While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal.

Last I checked, if they were not in a "condition where they could be used as designed" implies that the chemical agents are completely inert, in other words, HARMLESS.

The actual report states exactly the opposite, the darned things are dangerous.

Here’s another interesting tidbit:

They (intelligence officials) said the old munitions had been found in groups of one and two, indicating that they'd been discarded, not that they were part of an organized program to stockpile banned weapons.

The declassified portion of the document gives no such details. Either these so-called intelligence officials are passing out classified information and thus violating the law, not to mention National Security, or they are liars.

And it gets better:

One of the declassified key points says the munitions - apparently dating from Iraq's 1980-88 war with Iran - could be sold on the black market.

But one intelligence official said there was "no evidence that any element of the insurgency in Iraq is in possession of these kinds of munitions."

The terrorists haven’t been in possession of WMDs? Time for some history lessons:

May 18, 2004, the Washington Post ran a piece detailing out how terrorists used an artillery shell filled with sarin nerve gas. Fortunately, it failed to trigger as needed to mix the chemical agents so as to create a lethal mix. It was believed that the terrorists that planted the bomb did not know exactly what they had, or did not know how to effectively use it.

There was also an artillery shell filled with mustard gas around the same time.

So much for the intelligence of the unidentified "intelligence official."

There is no doubt that the terrorists are attempting (and inadvertently, succeeding) at acquiring such munitions. Let’s hope they (the murdering terrorist thugs) continue to fail to realize what they’ve got when they do get 'em, or fail to figure out how to correct use them.

I suspect that the writer of the piece has not been following the War in Iraq, and the case of WMDs, as indicated by his failure to recognize a load of horse hockey when it is dropped on his lap.

Either way, this particular piece is an extremely biased piece; sounds to me like the leftwing controlled MSM is finding numerous ways to spin the declassified data on WMDs recovered in Iraq.

Tags:
Iraq
Weapons of Mass Destruction
Chemical Weapons

Posted by Sqotty at 7:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

This is BIG!

Today, Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) announced the declassification of a document that states some 500 chemical weapons have been found in Iraq since 2003. From Senator Santorum's website:

SANTORUM: Good afternoon. Senator Rick Santorum. With me, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Pete Hoekstra. Today we are here to make public a document, an unclassified version of a document that Congressman Hoekstra and I have been working on, trying to uncover, I guess, or find out about with respect to weapons of mass destruction, particularly chemical weapons recovered in Iraq.

On the floor of the Senate today we are debating the issue of the war in Iraq, and three of my colleagues just today said the following things.

Jack Reed, quote: We've heard the initial defenses of the approach to Iraq as we were going after weapons of mass destruction. There were none. They were not there.

Chris Dodd: Mr. President, that if I had known then what I know now, namely that Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction, I would not have given the president my vote.

Patty Murray: We looked for weapons of mass destruction and we found none.

Congressman Hoekstra and I are here today to say that we have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons. It's a document that was developed by our intelligence community which for the last two and a half months I have been pursuing.

And thanks to the help of the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, ultimately he was able to get it in his hands and I was able to look for and look at.

And I think both of us feel very strongly that this is vitally important information that the American public needs to know. And so I will read the portions of the unclassified version and then I'll turn it over to Peter to make his comments about the significance of that, and then we'll be happy to answer questions.

The unclassified version of this report states as follows. Quote: Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist.

Now, let me go off the quote. That means that in addition to the 500 there are filled and unfilled munitions still believed to exist within the country.

This also points out that all those years of U.N. Weapons Inspectors crawling through Iraq was a complete and utter failure, and that the Bush Administration was right all along where WMDs are concerned.

There's more:

Back on statement.

Pre-Gulf War Iraqi chemical weapons could be sold on the black market. Use of these weapons by terrorists or insurgent groups would have implications for coalition forces in Iraq. The possibility of use outside of Iraq cannot be ruled out. The most likely munitions remaining are sarin- and mustard-filled projectiles.

And I underscored filled. The purity of the agents inside the munitions depends on many factors, including the manufacturing process, potential additives and environmental storage conditions. While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal.

It has been reported in the open press that insurgents and Iraqi groups desire to acquire and use chemical weapons.

This is an incredibly -- in my mind -- significant finding. The idea that, as my colleagues have repeatedly said in this debate on the other side of the aisle, that there are no weapons of mass destruction, is in fact false.

We have found over 500 weapons of mass destruction. And in fact have found that there are additional weapons of mass -- chemical weapons, still in the country, that need to be recovered.

What we now know is that 500 such weapons have been recovered, delivery systems (missles and rockets capable of deliering chemical or biological weapons) have been found since 2003, and that part is well documented, although largely ignored despite the fact that those weapons systems were in direct violation of the Gulf War Truce and U.N. sanctions (a lot of goof the U.N. is).

We also know that terrorists are attempting t oacquire such munitions for use either in Iraq or abroad.

This revelation is not surprising when one loks back to the early reports that there were some 110 munitions dumps in Iraq, some of them as alrge as 50 square miles, or about the size of Manhatten. It takes a great deal of time to inventory such sites.

I have no doubt that the Deaniacs and their representatives in Congress will attempt to spin this as a Republican attempt to steer the election in the GOP favor.

Tags:
Iraq
Weapons of Mass Destruction
Chemical Weapons
United Nations

Posted by Sqotty at 7:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

I was listening to one or another talk radio show today, and learned to my shock and surprise that Cindy Sheehan was recently in Canada, attending a rally in support of deserters from the U.S. Armed Forces. After a little digging (very little), I found the following article on the Washington Post:

A group of American military deserters publicly embraced their new lives in Canada on Saturday with the support of "peace mom" Cindy Sheehan, who said she wished the son she lost in Iraq was among them.

"I begged him not to go to Iraq," the anti-war activist said through tears at a rally in support of the former soldiers, who wore black T-shirts emblazoned with "AWOL." "And I wish he was standing up here with these people because he didn't want to go."

Sheehan was making her second visit to Canada in support of sanctuary for those fleeing the U.S. military. The Canadian government has so far denied political asylum to U.S. soldiers who have sought it but appeals are pending.

It bothers me that these clowns consider themselves "AWOL", and seem to be proud of it. Their T-shirts should be emblazoned with the word "Deserter," not "AWOL."

So far the Canadian Government is getting it right by denying political asylum to deserters. It bothers me that these clowns have "appeals pending," though. I would encourage Canada to return these deserters to the U.S. so that they can be tried, sentenced, and dishonorably discharged from their branch of service, at which point, they can go back to Canada (if Canada still wants them).

The article also quotes one deserter as saying, "They're trying to deport me." Good! I hope Canada succeeds.

Canada served as a sanctuary in the early ‘70s to draft dodgers of the Vietnam War. although I believe it was wrong for Canada to grant them sanctuary, there is a huge difference between the draft dodgers who went there to escape conscription and those who WILLINGLY signed up for military service. This is a point that Canada makes clear. They were willing to grant sanctuary to draft dodgers because that was forced military service. (I don’t like that they granted sanctuary to draft dodgers, but their reasoning to do so is understandable.)

Here’s some more:

"They say we're traitors, we're deserters," said former Marine Chris Magaoay, 20, of the Hawaiian island of Maui. "No, I'm a Marine and I stand up for what I believe in, and I believe the Constitution of the United States of America is being pushed aside as a scrap piece of paper."

Yes, you are a deserter (although not a traitor). No, you are not a Marine, and you obviously do not believe in the Constitution, otherwise you would still be with your unit, not running away from your duty to Canada.

These deserters are obviously part of the far-left, anti-war movement that has been sold the bill of goods that this is a "war for oil."

The writer of this article supports these guys by referring to them as "former Marine," not as deserter.

The report of this rally reminds me of the anti-war protests back at CSUH at the beginning of "Desert Shield," as our Armed Forces was preparing for the first war with Iraq.

At that time, I was subjected to the rantings of a bunch of punks who wanted out of their Military Reserve and Guard obligations on the basis of not being told that they might be called upon to go to war, and that the only reason they enlisted was to get military education benefits (get their college education paid for). One even went so far as to claim he was a conscientious objector; very convenient that he failed to mention it on his enlistment.

These deserters now hiding out in Canada are of the same ilk as those I ran into back in the ‘90s.

The final "punch" comes from anti-war zealot Cindy Sheehan in regards to these deserters:

Setting aside for the moment the argument of whether or not these deserters are "moral" (they’re NOT), Sheehan implies that President Bush is getting rich off of this war. I’d like to see her prove that allegation. Her ignorance astounds me. But what do you expect from California’s #1 Moonbat.

Tags:
Deserters
Iraq
Canada
Cindy Sheehan
"War for Oil"
War on Terror

Posted by Sqotty at 7:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

1st Lt. Ehren Watada has chosen to desert from the Army, issuing the following statement(Fox News):

"It is my duty as a commissioned officer of the United States Army to speak out against grave injustices. My moral and legal obligation is to the Constitution and not those who would issue unlawful orders."

He is claiming that his orders to deploy to Iraq are unlawful, however, this is far from the truth. This disgrace to the uniform also stated:

"The wholesale slaughter and mistreatment of the Iraqi people with only limited accountability is not only a terrible moral injustice but a contradiction to the Army's own Law of Land Warfare."

He implies that the U.S. Army, in which he serves, is slaughtering Iraqi's. This allegation is, as anyone who knows anything about what is happening over there, false. Although there have been a few incidents, such as Abu Ghraib and other places, there has been (or currently are undergoing) investigations, and where wrong doing is found, such as the prison scandal, the perpetrators have been tried and punished.

Unlike militaries such as the former Soviet Union, Communist China, Vietnam and other regimes, the U.S. military is held to a high level of accountability (as are the armed forces of our closest allies, including Britain and Australia).

Watada, the new "hero" of the left, is a deserter, and should be tried and punished, given the dishonorable discharge he so richly deserves. And quickly.

What this disgrace to America is doing reminds me of the anti-war protests that took place while I was in college. Not in the '60s, but the '90s. Several years after I had received my Honorable discharge, and America was positioning Operation: Desert Shield, there were a number of anti-war rallies at which the big rah-rah speakers were people who had signed up for the Reserves or Guard and were loudly claiming they did not understand that when they signed up to serve their country that they might actually be called up to do exactly that. They cried and they whined, claiming to be conscientious objectors (horse hockey) and that they only signed up to get college benefits.

Watada needs to be charged, tried, sentenced to Leavenworth for desertion, then tossed out of the Army. He isn't good enough to wear the uniform, nor serve (and potentially lead) our brave men and women in the Armed Forces.

Tags:

Army
Ehren Watada
Deserter
Iraq

Posted by Sqotty at 9:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

The death of a soldier is a sad thing to have happen. The funeral of a slain soldier is a final farewell from his family and friends here on Earth, a time to remember. It is not a time to subject mourners who are grieving the loss of a loved one to have to deal with a hatemongering, anti-gay group holding a protest at the funeral of an American hero.

Yet, that seems to be what is happening more and more across this country.

The Star Tribune ran an article on the funeral of Cpl. Andrew Kemple that took place in Anoka recently, and the hate mongers who protested it, with their hate-filled rhetoric, while a group from Patriot Guard Riders stood vigil between the hate mongers and the mourners.

It torques me off that such a group as that led by Fred Phelps, and his daughter, Shirley Phelps-Roper, and their "church" in Topeka, Kansas, would do such a heinous act as showing up at the funeral of a dead soldier and sing "God hates America…", and yell condemnations at the families of those who have lost their lives, and claim that IEDs are the sword of God used to slay soldiers "because they fought for a country that embraces homosexuals."

This has become a regular sight at the memorials of our dead soldiers, men and women who put their lives on the line to protect our freedom of speech, and help the people of Iraq and Afghanistan achieve these same rights that Americans routinely take for granted.

Hate groups like this was the catalyst for forming the Patriot Guard Riders, who will show up as a counter-point, shielding those who are grieving the loss of loved ones from this contemptible organization.

The counter-protest groups are in agreement that it is one thing to protest the war. What the Phelps group from Kansas is doing is an entirely different matter.

The hate mongers should take the advice from the Patriot Guard at the Kemple funeral, and "hit the road, Jack, and don't you come back no more."

Here's an additional article on the Patriot Guard Riders from the Strib.

Posted by Sqotty at 9:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

I'm up late on Thanksgiving Eve, and tuned in to a late night sho called Jimmy Kimmel. I had never heard of it before, but what caught my attention was a live simulcast from a Marine Air Wing in Al Asad, Iraq, The marines on air introduced themselves, and asked, other than family and friends, what did they miss most about being in Iraq on Thanksgiving: football and beer.

Makes since.

This is for all of the members of our armed forces, whereever they might be...Have a Great Thanksgiving and Thank You for your service.

Posted by Sqotty at 1:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Today is Veteran's Day.

General George S. Patton, one of the greatest generals America has ever seen (perhaps the greatest) was born on this day in 1885.

Many of the men who helped shape my life served in the military during times of conflict.

My Uncle Herb, who was also born on this day, served in the 101st Airborne Division during World War II. My father served in the Army during the Korean War. My Uncle Dick served in the U.S. Marines. My cousin Kenn C. Rust, an aviation historian and author of numerous books and articles on Air Force history, served in the Army as a combat infantryman; he was involved in the Battle of the Bulge where he was taken prisoner and finished out the war in Stalag IVB. My step-father, Jim also served during World War II, in the Army Air Corps.

In my generation in the family, there is my cousin Morgan, who served in the Army during the early stages of Vietnam. I also served, in the Air Force, serving in the 2186th communication Squadron at Torrejon Air Base, Spain, and then the 1901st Communications Group at Travis Air Force Base, CA.

The history of my family and military service goes further back than that. Maybe not sufficiently enough to form a military tradition, and none made a career of military service (although I seriously considered it), at least no one that I am aware of.

I would also like to mention my T.I. from basic training at Lackland Air Force Base, Texas. Tech Sergeant Bender had a unique philosophy when it came to training a new batch of recruits. It went something like this: "you aren't fit to be in the Air forceprove me wrong." Upon completion of basic training, he changed his "tune" accordingly: "You are all fine Airmennow prove me right." I am paraphrasing, however, I believe I am getting the gist of it across, and the philosophy has stuck with me over the some odd twenty years since I went through Lackland Air Force Base.

Today America salutes all those who served, and who are currently serving, in our Armed Forces.

America currently has soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines serving in harms way in both Iraq and Afghanistan, putting their bodies, and their very lives, on the line every day,, in order to protect our liberties that have been threatened by terrorist thugs; simultaneously, they are bringing the light of liberty to two peoples in the Middle-East who have suffered grievously under totalitarian regimes. People that are enjoying the first taste of freedom, and yet still suffer from the attacks of murdering terrorists who are filled with hatred for what the West has to offer: the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

And it is a heavy price that our troops in the field must pay to safeguard the liberties of those they serve and protect at home, as well as abroad.

It is with thanks to the fine members of our Armed Forces who have chosen to serve their country that I write this. And to all those who have served in the past, whether during times of conflict or times of peace, I give thanks to you as well.

Keep safe. And let freedom ring.

Posted by Sqotty at 9:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

The Gold Star. What is it? What does it signify? To most, it is a symbol that a mother has lost a son or daughter in the service of our country. It dates back to the First World War, and was used to superimpose over the blue star of an active serviceman (or woman) in the family who died as a result of combat. It has been around a long time, and a number of service organizations, most notably Gold Star Mothers, have been around since 1928.

Now there is a new Gold Star organization, and unlike the others, it is steeped in anti-American political rhetoric, and it is truly a sad sight (and site) to see. This new organization, instead of joining hands with other gold Star organizations, who reach out to grieving families and help comfort those who have lost sons and daughters, spews for line after line of hate filled dogma, evening referring to the 21-gun salute and other military honors given at military funerals as being violent and thoughtless.

FoxNews has an excellent piece on this issue, and opens as follows:

The gold star elicits respect, sympathy and compassion, and so two groups — American Gold Star Mothers and Gold Star Families for Peace — have adopted the image in their names. But one group declares a political position, which has created some confusion about exactly what "gold star" stands for.

Where one organization, American Gold Star Mothers, is rich in history and honor, dignified in their demeanor, the other, Gold Star Families for Peace, is nothing more than another mouth-piece for people with an axe to grind, mainly Cindy Sheehan, and others like her.

The Gold Star Mothers is non-political, who whole-heartedly support our troops, and wish, like all Americans, for their safe return from the battlefield. They hold events throughout the day and work towards preserving the memory of those who have given their lives in the service of our country.

As a former member of the military, and (now) a father who may one day have children serve in the Armed Forces (and I hope they so choose), I resent the usurpation of the Gold Star symbol by Cindy Sheehan and others like her, as it degrades and taints this fine symbol that is so deeply steeped in honor and rich in history and tradition.

Posted by Sqotty at 9:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Tonight, Hugh Hewitt read the linked piece from the blog Training for Eternity. In it, Chaplain Lewis describes his experiences in the recent rocket attack on a military installation in Iraq.

Listening to Hugh read it brought tears to my eyes. Reading it for myself brought more.

All I can say is that my prayers are with those in their time of need, and that the Lord will watch over and protect them.

Posted by Sqotty at 11:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Yesterday, one of the deadliest attacks on U.S. Personnel serving in Iraq took place, with 24 dead, including 19 U.S. soldiers, and more than 60 wounded. The mortar attack was timed at noon in order to inflict the most casualties.

Over on Fox News, the following excerpt identifies the group claiming responsibility for the attack:

The Ansar al-Sunnah Army claimed responsibility for the attack in a statement published on the Internet. The statement said the attack was a "martyrdom operation" targeting a mess hall.

Ansar al-Sunnah is believed to be a fundamentalist group whose goal is to turn Iraq into a tightly controlled Islamic state like Afghanistan's former Taliban regime. In August, the Sunni Muslim group claimed responsibility for the beheading of 12 Nepalese hostages.

It is tragic that we now have another terrorist group hell-bent on ruling Iraq, and stifling liberty that the People of Iraq crave (and deserve). I have no doubt that Democracy can survive and thrive in Iraq and other places in the Middle-East, however, it is murderous bands of thugs like this, who fear giving people Liberty, who will continue to undermine any and all attempts at bringing Western-style freedom to Iraq. The only reason I can think of is that they fear freedom.

A truly free and self-determinating people, with representative government, is the bane of evil and totalitarianism. To them, the shedding of the light of freedom places their way of life into darkness. Where it belongs.

Now that our Armed Forces have cleared out the refuse in Fallujah, it is time to focus on eliminating this threat to Peace and Freedom in Iraq. The sooner these rats are dealt with, the sooner we will see a free and stable Iraq. And a democratic Iraq will be the cornerstone of spreading Liberty throughout the Middle-East.

Posted by Sqotty at 10:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

A lot is happening in the Army right now. Over on Opinion Journal, the is this editorial, Congress's Paperwork Humvees. It starts off with Rumsfeld answering a question from a soldier as follows:

When an Army reservist in Kuwait gave Donald Rumsfeld an earful Wednesday about inadequate armor for Iraq-bound Humvees, the Defense Secretary responded by paying the soldier the compliment of candor. "You go to war with the army you have. They're not the army you might want or wish to have," he said.

Rumsfeld is right: "You never go to the war with the army you want." If you are lucky, you have enough lead time to fill in some of the shortages, whether it is in the form of personnel or materials, however, even then, you often come up with less than you would like.

The current hot-button issue in Iraq is the shortage of armored Humvee's. There are not enough to cover all of the missions they are expected to be used in, so the armored ones go to the combat missions, while the less/unarmored vehicles are used for routine missions, creating a greater vulnerability to the troops operating them.

The terrorists operating in Iraq know this, and can use this information against our troops, and that's bad. Worse still is our Congressmen who use these facts to attack the administration for personal political gain (also from Opinion Journal):

Figuring it was politically safe to slipstream behind a soldier's question, Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd called Mr. Rumsfeld's comments "cavalier." House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called for Mr. Rumsfeld to be fired--for only the 10th or 15th time. California Representative Ellen Tauscher vows to press for hearings on supply needs.

Our Military deserves the best equipment and training we can give them, after all, they are putting THEIR lives on the line. It helps to understand the importance of this if you've actually served in the military, and I'm willing to bet, even more so if you served in a combat role (I was in information services, computers, during my time on active duty). This is not to say that those who have not served can't grasp this reality, it just helps a bit.

When you are putting your life on the line for whatever reason the government asks, whether it is to hunt down terrorists like Osama bin Laden, or liberating a people from the jackbooted tyranny of the likes of Saddam Hussein (or Hitler, for that matter), they deserve the best. It could be the key to their surviving a fire fight.

To put this in terms of the computer field, you don't ask your database team to use Microsoft Access to manage a database that will contain billions of records organized in hundreds (or thousands) of tables. You give them a database engine designed to handle that kind of load.

The same is true with military operations. You send the troops out with the best equipment, the best armor and the best training. You don't send them out equipped with spitballs (thank you Zell Miller for that analogy!).

You also send them out with clear objectives, with number one being come back alive and number two being kill the enemy.

Fortunately, some of the shortages may be getting resolved. There is an article over on Military.com on new contracts for humvees.

The Army entered negotiations with an armor manufacturer Friday in an effort to accelerate production of armored versions of the Humvee to get them to the troops more quickly, Army and company officials said.

Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey spoke with officials at Armor Holdings, Inc., based in Jacksonville, Fla., who told him Friday they could increase production by up to 100 vehicles a month.

Although it may not be immediately possible for the armor manufacturer to increase their output to this level, negotiating and pushing for these increases is definitely a step in the right direction.

Posted by Sqotty at 9:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

On this day, 63 years ago, the Japanese executed a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. This was the "day that will live in infamy." Nearly 2,400 Americans were killed in this attack, the majority of which were on the U.S.S. Arizona. If you have never visited the Arizona Memorial in Pearl Harbor, then a good place to start is with the National Park Service website for the USS Arizona Memorial.

Posted by Sqotty at 8:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions

Yes, I've been reading Hugh Hewitt's blog today, and it shows. He has posted an article calling for the construction of a War Memorial dedicated to our brave men and women under arms who have given their lives, the ultimate sacrifice, for our Country, and the liberation of the people in two Countries, Afghanistan and Iraq, fighting terrorism and tyranny. He is absolutely right.

This is the email I have sent to my Congressman:

Dear Congressman Kline:

I wanted to write a brief note to you in regards to a proposed memorial dedicated to the Men and Women who have given their lives in the fight against terrorism. This proposal is currently floating around the internet. The idea is to build a memorial at the sight where United Airlines Flight 93 went down in Pennsylvania on Sept. 11, 2001. This is where the fight against terrorism began for the United States, and so it is a fitting site. I would not advocate the use of public monies for this memorial, but rather that a fund be set up to facilitate donations for the building of this memorial. I, for one, would gladly give money to such a project.

Further, I would advocate that the survivors of those soldiers who made the ultimate sacrifice to preserve our Liberties, and bring freedom to the oppressed peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan, be the committee designated to approve the designs for such a monument.

Sincerely,

Todd C. Hansen

For those of you in MN Congressional District 2, you can reach Congressman Kline via his .

Posted by Sqotty at 8:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
View blog reactions