Democrat, Republican or Southern Republican?
This is an email that is making the rounds. Thanks to Jason of IR for sending it along to me!
***************
Are you a Democrat, Republican or Southern Republican?
Here is a little test that will help you decide.
Question: How do you tell the difference between Democrats, Republicans And Southern Republicans? The answer can be found by posing the following question:
You’re walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, an Islamic Terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises the knife, and charges at you. You are carrying a Glock cal .40, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family.
What do you do?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Democrat’s Answer:
Well, that’s not enough information to answer the question!
Does the man look poor! Or oppressed?
Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?
Could we run away?
What does my wife think?
What about the kids?
Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand?
What does the law say about this situation?
Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it?
Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children?
Is it possible he’d be happy with just killing me?
Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?
If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me?
Should I call 9-1-1?
Why is this street so deserted?
We need to raise taxes, have a paint and weed day and make this happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior.
This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for few days and try to come to a consensus.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Republican’s Answer:
BANG!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Southern Republican’s Answer:
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click…..(sounds of reloading).
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click
Daughter: “Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips or Hollow Points?”
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Monday, November 21, 2005
And then there are days where the NYTimes acts like a good little boy and takes it's medication. Like so.
November 15, 2005
For New York Officers Felled in the Line of Duty, Recognition at Last
By KAREEM FAHIM
They fell victim to drunken sailors, rioters, and women of abandoned character, adversaries who attacked them with coarse weapons: paving stones, pistols and dirks.
On the meaner streets of a younger New York, the policemen died in ways redolent of the age.
One patrolman was cut down with a sword. Horses or drawn carriages trampled others. A few policemen met their ends after treachery, shot or stabbed by fellow officers in dramas soaked with alcohol. The stabbing of another officer sparked days of riots.
In a memorial ceremony today, the Police Department will unveil plaques with the names of 100 officers who died in the line of duty between 1849 and 1997 and had not been honored. Descendants of eight of the officers will attend the ceremony, the police said.
The presentation of the plaques, which are bolted high on a wall in the lobby of Police Headquarters at 1 Police Plaza, marks the end of a two-year department research project to document the circumstances of the officers' deaths, and to recognize them. Historians and descendants of the police officers were consulted for clues. Researchers mined old newspaper articles, public death records and the department's own history - including more than a century's worth of police orders, bound in tattered red books that sit on an aluminum shelf in Police Headquarters.
The researchers, led by Lt. Michael McGrath, uncovered an absorbing history of policing from another time. Because the bronze plaques list only the names, ranks, and year that the officers died, much of that past will stay largely invisible to the public. More detail, however, can be found in archived newspaper accounts.
On Oct. 19, 1867, Officer Robert S. McChesney, to his great misfortune, ran into Fanny Wright, a woman well known for "intemperate habits" who had been arrested frequently for disorderly conduct and drunkenness, according to an article in The New York Times.
On that day, Ms. Wright was harassing passers-by on Canal Street, and Officer McChesney tried to intervene.
"As soon as he laid his hand upon her arm she swung herself around, and half broke away from the officer's grasp," a reporter wrote. "And as she did so she dealt him a sudden blow in the left side of the neck with a common pearl-handled, three-bladed knife, the blade severing the jugular vein."
In September 1895, using a weapon somewhat more common than a three-bladed knife - but no less deadly - a professional acrobat named William Coleman, who was drunk, beat Officer John T. Delehanty with a sandbag. Officer Delehanty died soon afterward at Bellevue Hospital, and the beating led Theodore Roosevelt, then president of the Board of Police Commissioners, to call for the return of long nightsticks for police officers.
"I love this project," said Lieutenant McGrath, who said the research team's mission was to remember all the department's members. He also relished the idea of stepping back in time: "Once you read the stories, of guys beaten to death in anti-Catholic riots, or in Draft Riots - John Smedick's a good one. This guy ambushes him and fires a pistol at him."
He was referring to the murder of Officer John Smedick on July 23, 1868, by John Real, "a notorious ruffian" on First Avenue near 32nd Street. The Times called it "one of the most unprovoked and reckless murders ever committed."
Mr. Real, who had been arrested twice by Officer Smedick, explained to the police that he was "bound to get square on him."
Of course, not all of the deaths were so dramatic.
In 1851, Sgt. Michael Foster was fatally stabbed outside the Porterhouse Bar by sailors from the Schooner Habana. In 1863, several officers died in the Draft Riots.
In 1898, an officer contracted a fatal case of typhoid while on assignment. In 1905, Patrolman Ira Kinne was accidentally shot in the abdomen by a fellow officer while working as a firearms instructor at the Ninth Regiment Armory.
In 1900, after Patrolman Robert J. Thorpe arrested May Enoch for loitering, her husband, Arthur Harris, fatally stabbed Patrolman Thorpe at 41st Street and Eighth Avenue. Mr. Harris was black, and rioting followed as whites bent on revenge attacked blacks on the West Side.
Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly relaxed department rules in 1993, during his first tenure, so that all officers who died in the line of duty receive a plaque. He said that while the stories illuminated a different era, in many ways the job had not changed.
"Cops put on the blue uniform, and go out, and run into situations that put their lives in risk. It's different in the sense of both technology and perhaps training," he said.
"But it comes down to you being the first person up the stairs. Or the first person in the door. The heart pounds, and the adrenaline rises," he said. "It doesn't change."
November 15, 2005
For New York Officers Felled in the Line of Duty, Recognition at Last
By KAREEM FAHIM
They fell victim to drunken sailors, rioters, and women of abandoned character, adversaries who attacked them with coarse weapons: paving stones, pistols and dirks.
On the meaner streets of a younger New York, the policemen died in ways redolent of the age.
One patrolman was cut down with a sword. Horses or drawn carriages trampled others. A few policemen met their ends after treachery, shot or stabbed by fellow officers in dramas soaked with alcohol. The stabbing of another officer sparked days of riots.
In a memorial ceremony today, the Police Department will unveil plaques with the names of 100 officers who died in the line of duty between 1849 and 1997 and had not been honored. Descendants of eight of the officers will attend the ceremony, the police said.
The presentation of the plaques, which are bolted high on a wall in the lobby of Police Headquarters at 1 Police Plaza, marks the end of a two-year department research project to document the circumstances of the officers' deaths, and to recognize them. Historians and descendants of the police officers were consulted for clues. Researchers mined old newspaper articles, public death records and the department's own history - including more than a century's worth of police orders, bound in tattered red books that sit on an aluminum shelf in Police Headquarters.
The researchers, led by Lt. Michael McGrath, uncovered an absorbing history of policing from another time. Because the bronze plaques list only the names, ranks, and year that the officers died, much of that past will stay largely invisible to the public. More detail, however, can be found in archived newspaper accounts.
On Oct. 19, 1867, Officer Robert S. McChesney, to his great misfortune, ran into Fanny Wright, a woman well known for "intemperate habits" who had been arrested frequently for disorderly conduct and drunkenness, according to an article in The New York Times.
On that day, Ms. Wright was harassing passers-by on Canal Street, and Officer McChesney tried to intervene.
"As soon as he laid his hand upon her arm she swung herself around, and half broke away from the officer's grasp," a reporter wrote. "And as she did so she dealt him a sudden blow in the left side of the neck with a common pearl-handled, three-bladed knife, the blade severing the jugular vein."
In September 1895, using a weapon somewhat more common than a three-bladed knife - but no less deadly - a professional acrobat named William Coleman, who was drunk, beat Officer John T. Delehanty with a sandbag. Officer Delehanty died soon afterward at Bellevue Hospital, and the beating led Theodore Roosevelt, then president of the Board of Police Commissioners, to call for the return of long nightsticks for police officers.
"I love this project," said Lieutenant McGrath, who said the research team's mission was to remember all the department's members. He also relished the idea of stepping back in time: "Once you read the stories, of guys beaten to death in anti-Catholic riots, or in Draft Riots - John Smedick's a good one. This guy ambushes him and fires a pistol at him."
He was referring to the murder of Officer John Smedick on July 23, 1868, by John Real, "a notorious ruffian" on First Avenue near 32nd Street. The Times called it "one of the most unprovoked and reckless murders ever committed."
Mr. Real, who had been arrested twice by Officer Smedick, explained to the police that he was "bound to get square on him."
Of course, not all of the deaths were so dramatic.
In 1851, Sgt. Michael Foster was fatally stabbed outside the Porterhouse Bar by sailors from the Schooner Habana. In 1863, several officers died in the Draft Riots.
In 1898, an officer contracted a fatal case of typhoid while on assignment. In 1905, Patrolman Ira Kinne was accidentally shot in the abdomen by a fellow officer while working as a firearms instructor at the Ninth Regiment Armory.
In 1900, after Patrolman Robert J. Thorpe arrested May Enoch for loitering, her husband, Arthur Harris, fatally stabbed Patrolman Thorpe at 41st Street and Eighth Avenue. Mr. Harris was black, and rioting followed as whites bent on revenge attacked blacks on the West Side.
Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly relaxed department rules in 1993, during his first tenure, so that all officers who died in the line of duty receive a plaque. He said that while the stories illuminated a different era, in many ways the job had not changed.
"Cops put on the blue uniform, and go out, and run into situations that put their lives in risk. It's different in the sense of both technology and perhaps training," he said.
"But it comes down to you being the first person up the stairs. Or the first person in the door. The heart pounds, and the adrenaline rises," he said. "It doesn't change."
Lies told about Iraq, and how to lose a war.
I couldn't say this any better, so I cheated. Enjoy.
HOW TO LOSE A WAR
By RALPH PETERS
November 21, 2005 -- QUIT. It's that simple. There are plenty of more complex ways to lose a war, but none as reliable as just giving up.
Increasingly, quitting looks like the new American Way of War. No matter how great your team, you can't win the game if you walk off the field at half-time. That's precisely what the Democratic Party wants America to do in Iraq. Forget the fact that we've made remarkable progress under daunting conditions: The Dems are looking to throw the game just to embarrass the Bush administration.
Forget about the consequences. Disregard the immediate encouragement to the terrorists and insurgents to keep killing every American soldier they can. Ignore what would happen in Iraq — and the region — if we bail out. And don't mention how a U.S. surrender would turn al Qaeda into an Islamic superpower, the champ who knocked out Uncle Sam in the third round.
Forget about our dead soldiers, whose sacrifice is nothing but a political club for Democrats to wave in front of the media. After all, one way to create the kind of disaffection in the ranks that the Dems' leaders yearn to see is to tell our troops on the battlefield that they're risking their lives for nothing, we're throwing the game.
Forget that our combat veterans are re-enlisting at remarkable rates — knowing they'll have to leave their families and go back to war again. Ignore the progress on the ground, the squeezing of the insurgency's last strongholds into the badlands on the Syrian border. Blow off the successive Iraqi elections and the astonishing cooperation we've seen between age-old enemies as they struggle to form a decent government.
Just set a time-table for our troops to come home and show the world that America is an unreliable ally with no stomach for a fight, no matter the stakes involved. Tell the world that deserting the South Vietnamese and fleeing from Somalia weren't anomalies — that's what Americans do.
While we're at it, let's just print up recruiting posters for the terrorists, informing the youth of the Middle East that Americans are cowards who can be attacked with impunity.
Whatever you do, don't talk about any possible consequences. Focus on the moment — and the next round of U.S. elections. Just make political points. After all, those dead American soldiers and Marines don't matter — they didn't go to Ivy League schools. (Besides, most would've voted Republican had they lived.)
America's security? Hah! As long as the upcoming elections show Democratic gains, let the terrorist threat explode. So what if hundreds of thousands of Middle Easterners might die in a regional war? So what if violent fundamentalism gets a shot of steroids? So what if we make Abu Musab al-Zarqawi the most successful Arab of the past 500 years?
For God's sake, don't talk about democracy in the Middle East. After all, democracy wasn't much fun for the Dems in 2000 or 2004. Why support it overseas, when it's been so disappointing at home?
Human rights? Oh, dear. Human rights are for rich white people who live in Malibu. Unless you can use the issue to whack Republicans. Otherwise, brown, black or yellow people can die by the millions. Dean, Reid & Pelosi, LLC, won't say, "Boo!"
You've got to understand, my fellow citizens: None of this matters. And you don't matter, either. All that matters is scoring political points. Let the world burn. Let the massacres run on. Let the terrorists acquire WMD. Just give the Bush administration a big black eye and we'll call that a win.
*
The irresponsibility of the Democrats on Capitol Hill is breathtaking. (How can an honorable man such as Joe Lieberman stay in that party?) Not one of the critics of our efforts in Iraq — not one — has described his or her vision for Iraq and the Middle East in the wake of a troop withdrawal. Not one has offered any analysis of what the terrorists would gain and what they might do. Not one has shown respect for our war dead by arguing that we must put aside our partisan differences and win.
There's plenty I don't like about the Bush administration. Its domestic policies disgust me, and the Bushies got plenty wrong in Iraq. But at least they'll fight. The Dems are ready to betray our troops, our allies and our country's future security for a few House seats.
Surrender is never a winning strategy.
Yes, we've been told lies about Iraq — by Dems and their media groupies. About conditions on the ground. About our troops. About what's at stake. About the consequences of running away from the great struggle of our time. About the continuing threat from terrorism. And about the consequences for you and your family.
What do the Democrats fear? An American success in Iraq. They need us to fail, and they're going to make us fail, no matter the cost. They need to declare defeat before the 2006 mid-term elections and ensure a real debacle before 2008 — a bloody mess they'll blame on Bush, even though they made it themselves.
We won't even talk about the effect quitting while we're winning in Iraq might have on the go-to-war calculations of other powers that might want to challenge us in the future. Let's just be good Democrats and prove that Osama bin Laden was right all along: Americans have no stomach for a fight.
As for the 2,000-plus dead American troops about whom the lefties are so awfully concerned? As soon as we abandon Iraq, they'll forget about our casualties quicker than an amnesiac forgets how much small-change he had in his pocket.
If we run away from our enemies overseas, our enemies will make their way to us. Quit Iraq, and far more than 2,000 Americans are going to die.
And they won't all be conservatives.
Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer.
I couldn't say this any better, so I cheated. Enjoy.
HOW TO LOSE A WAR
By RALPH PETERS
November 21, 2005 -- QUIT. It's that simple. There are plenty of more complex ways to lose a war, but none as reliable as just giving up.
Increasingly, quitting looks like the new American Way of War. No matter how great your team, you can't win the game if you walk off the field at half-time. That's precisely what the Democratic Party wants America to do in Iraq. Forget the fact that we've made remarkable progress under daunting conditions: The Dems are looking to throw the game just to embarrass the Bush administration.
Forget about the consequences. Disregard the immediate encouragement to the terrorists and insurgents to keep killing every American soldier they can. Ignore what would happen in Iraq — and the region — if we bail out. And don't mention how a U.S. surrender would turn al Qaeda into an Islamic superpower, the champ who knocked out Uncle Sam in the third round.
Forget about our dead soldiers, whose sacrifice is nothing but a political club for Democrats to wave in front of the media. After all, one way to create the kind of disaffection in the ranks that the Dems' leaders yearn to see is to tell our troops on the battlefield that they're risking their lives for nothing, we're throwing the game.
Forget that our combat veterans are re-enlisting at remarkable rates — knowing they'll have to leave their families and go back to war again. Ignore the progress on the ground, the squeezing of the insurgency's last strongholds into the badlands on the Syrian border. Blow off the successive Iraqi elections and the astonishing cooperation we've seen between age-old enemies as they struggle to form a decent government.
Just set a time-table for our troops to come home and show the world that America is an unreliable ally with no stomach for a fight, no matter the stakes involved. Tell the world that deserting the South Vietnamese and fleeing from Somalia weren't anomalies — that's what Americans do.
While we're at it, let's just print up recruiting posters for the terrorists, informing the youth of the Middle East that Americans are cowards who can be attacked with impunity.
Whatever you do, don't talk about any possible consequences. Focus on the moment — and the next round of U.S. elections. Just make political points. After all, those dead American soldiers and Marines don't matter — they didn't go to Ivy League schools. (Besides, most would've voted Republican had they lived.)
America's security? Hah! As long as the upcoming elections show Democratic gains, let the terrorist threat explode. So what if hundreds of thousands of Middle Easterners might die in a regional war? So what if violent fundamentalism gets a shot of steroids? So what if we make Abu Musab al-Zarqawi the most successful Arab of the past 500 years?
For God's sake, don't talk about democracy in the Middle East. After all, democracy wasn't much fun for the Dems in 2000 or 2004. Why support it overseas, when it's been so disappointing at home?
Human rights? Oh, dear. Human rights are for rich white people who live in Malibu. Unless you can use the issue to whack Republicans. Otherwise, brown, black or yellow people can die by the millions. Dean, Reid & Pelosi, LLC, won't say, "Boo!"
You've got to understand, my fellow citizens: None of this matters. And you don't matter, either. All that matters is scoring political points. Let the world burn. Let the massacres run on. Let the terrorists acquire WMD. Just give the Bush administration a big black eye and we'll call that a win.
*
The irresponsibility of the Democrats on Capitol Hill is breathtaking. (How can an honorable man such as Joe Lieberman stay in that party?) Not one of the critics of our efforts in Iraq — not one — has described his or her vision for Iraq and the Middle East in the wake of a troop withdrawal. Not one has offered any analysis of what the terrorists would gain and what they might do. Not one has shown respect for our war dead by arguing that we must put aside our partisan differences and win.
There's plenty I don't like about the Bush administration. Its domestic policies disgust me, and the Bushies got plenty wrong in Iraq. But at least they'll fight. The Dems are ready to betray our troops, our allies and our country's future security for a few House seats.
Surrender is never a winning strategy.
Yes, we've been told lies about Iraq — by Dems and their media groupies. About conditions on the ground. About our troops. About what's at stake. About the consequences of running away from the great struggle of our time. About the continuing threat from terrorism. And about the consequences for you and your family.
What do the Democrats fear? An American success in Iraq. They need us to fail, and they're going to make us fail, no matter the cost. They need to declare defeat before the 2006 mid-term elections and ensure a real debacle before 2008 — a bloody mess they'll blame on Bush, even though they made it themselves.
We won't even talk about the effect quitting while we're winning in Iraq might have on the go-to-war calculations of other powers that might want to challenge us in the future. Let's just be good Democrats and prove that Osama bin Laden was right all along: Americans have no stomach for a fight.
As for the 2,000-plus dead American troops about whom the lefties are so awfully concerned? As soon as we abandon Iraq, they'll forget about our casualties quicker than an amnesiac forgets how much small-change he had in his pocket.
If we run away from our enemies overseas, our enemies will make their way to us. Quit Iraq, and far more than 2,000 Americans are going to die.
And they won't all be conservatives.
Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer.
Quick quotes.
FAMILY
"Four years ago, while the nation's eyes were fixed on the
devastation in New York City, California's Democrat-controlled
Legislature attacked marriage by enacting a sweeping domestic
partner bill one day after September 11. Yesterday, while the
nation was still reeling from the horrors of Hurricane Katrina, the
Legislature voted to blow away marriage completely by doing away
with its essential requirement---that a wedding have a bride and a
groom. Perhaps they're hoping that Californians are so distracted
by the unfolding tragedy in New Orleans that they won't notice
their out-of-control politicians in Sacramento. Gov. Schwarzenegger
has the power to terminate this radical plan to create counterfeit
marriage. He can either side with the 61 percent of Californians
who voted to protect marriage in a statewide initiative, or he
can side with the radical Democrats." ---Robert Knight
OPINION IN BRIEF
"We are now reaping the benefits of a welfare state. For more years
than most can remember, we have been told by those holding office
that they will take care of us. We have provided food, clothing
and shelter to the extent that the recipients became entirely
dependent on government resources to live. They have reached the
point that no longer do they have the knowledge to take care of
themselves. They will sit there and drown or go hungry, and curse
the fact that the government has not gotten them out of this
mess. When it is all said and done, there is but one person who
is responsible for me, and that is me. The responsibility falls
to me to take care of my family, not the government. Society,
not government, has an obligation to provide care and sustenance
to those who, because of age or physical impairment cannot take
care of themselves, but able-bodied people who stand around
and complain that no one is doing anything for them deserve
whatever the fates cast in their direction. Life is hard, and you
either get tougher or you get washed away---it is as simple as
that. Politicians will never, ever take care of you---they only
want one thing from you, and that is to stay in power as long as
they can. In a situation like Katrina, they will stand in front
of the cameras and microphones and denigrate everyone above them
in government to take the eye off of their pathetic efforts. This
is a situation that they have created, and now the good citizens
of the area will have to step in and clean up the mess that
has been created by the politicians. It won't happen overnight,
but it will happen---there are too many good people who live in
that area for it not to happen. I love the people of New Orleans
and the surrounding parishes, but I despise the politicians... I
just hope that when the area is rebuilt, they stay away from the
massive welfare system they had before---absolutely no good comes
from welfare. It depletes available resources, making it ever more
difficult for what passes as government to respond to the true
needs of the community."---Robert Johnson, retired NOPD captain
FAMILY
"Four years ago, while the nation's eyes were fixed on the
devastation in New York City, California's Democrat-controlled
Legislature attacked marriage by enacting a sweeping domestic
partner bill one day after September 11. Yesterday, while the
nation was still reeling from the horrors of Hurricane Katrina, the
Legislature voted to blow away marriage completely by doing away
with its essential requirement---that a wedding have a bride and a
groom. Perhaps they're hoping that Californians are so distracted
by the unfolding tragedy in New Orleans that they won't notice
their out-of-control politicians in Sacramento. Gov. Schwarzenegger
has the power to terminate this radical plan to create counterfeit
marriage. He can either side with the 61 percent of Californians
who voted to protect marriage in a statewide initiative, or he
can side with the radical Democrats." ---Robert Knight
OPINION IN BRIEF
"We are now reaping the benefits of a welfare state. For more years
than most can remember, we have been told by those holding office
that they will take care of us. We have provided food, clothing
and shelter to the extent that the recipients became entirely
dependent on government resources to live. They have reached the
point that no longer do they have the knowledge to take care of
themselves. They will sit there and drown or go hungry, and curse
the fact that the government has not gotten them out of this
mess. When it is all said and done, there is but one person who
is responsible for me, and that is me. The responsibility falls
to me to take care of my family, not the government. Society,
not government, has an obligation to provide care and sustenance
to those who, because of age or physical impairment cannot take
care of themselves, but able-bodied people who stand around
and complain that no one is doing anything for them deserve
whatever the fates cast in their direction. Life is hard, and you
either get tougher or you get washed away---it is as simple as
that. Politicians will never, ever take care of you---they only
want one thing from you, and that is to stay in power as long as
they can. In a situation like Katrina, they will stand in front
of the cameras and microphones and denigrate everyone above them
in government to take the eye off of their pathetic efforts. This
is a situation that they have created, and now the good citizens
of the area will have to step in and clean up the mess that
has been created by the politicians. It won't happen overnight,
but it will happen---there are too many good people who live in
that area for it not to happen. I love the people of New Orleans
and the surrounding parishes, but I despise the politicians... I
just hope that when the area is rebuilt, they stay away from the
massive welfare system they had before---absolutely no good comes
from welfare. It depletes available resources, making it ever more
difficult for what passes as government to respond to the true
needs of the community."---Robert Johnson, retired NOPD captain
Sunday, November 20, 2005
A letter from the troops of the 101st Airborne.
God bless you guys.
Mom,
Be my voice. I want this message heard. It is mine and my platoon’s to the country. A man I know lost his legs the other night. He is in another company in our batallion. I can no longer be silent after watching the sacrifices made by Iraqis and Americans everyday.Send it to a congressman if you have to. Send it to FOX news if you have to. Let this message be heard please…
My fellow Americans, I have a task for those with the courage and fortitude to take it. I have a message that needs not fall on deaf ears. A vision the blind need to see. I am not a political man nor one with great wisdom. I am just a soldier who finds himself helping rebuild a country that he helped liberate a couple years ago.
I have watched on television how the American public questions why their mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters are fighting and dying in a country 9000 miles away from their own soil. Take the word of a soldier, for that is all I am, that our cause is a noble one. The reason we are here is one worth fighting for. A cause that has been the most costly and sought after cause in our small span of existence on our little planet. Bought in blood and paid for by those brave enough to give the ultimate sacrifice to obtain it. A right that is given to every man, woman, and child I believe by God. I am talking of freedom.
Freedom. One word but yet countless words could never capture it’s true meaning or power. “For those who have fought for it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know.” I read that once and it couldn’t be more true. It’s not the average American’s fault that he or she is “blind and deaf” to the taste of freedom. Most American’s are born into their God given right so it is all they ever know. I was once one of them. I would even dare to say that it isn’t surprising that they take for granted what they have had all their life. My experiences in the military however opened my eyes to the truth.
Ironically you will find the biggest outcries of opposition to our cause from those who have had no military experience and haven’t had to fight for freedom. I challenge all of those who are daring enough to question such a noble cause to come here for just a month and see it first hand. I have a feeling that many voices would be silenced.
I watched Cindy Sheehan sit on the President’s lawn and say that America isn’t worth dying for. Later she corrected herself and said Iraq isn’t worth dying for. She badmouthed all that her son had fought and died for. I bet he is rolling over in his grave.
Ladies and gentleman I ask you this. What if you lived in a country that wasn’t free? What if someone told you when you could have heat, electricity, and water? What if you had no sewage systems so human waste flowed into the streets? What if someone would kill you for bad-mouthing your government? What if you weren’t allowed to watch TV, connect to the internet, or have cell phones unless under extreme censorship? What if you couldn’t put shoes on your child’s feet?
You need not to have a great understanding of the world but rather common sense to realize that it is our duty as HUMAN BEINGS to free the oppressed. If you lived that way would you not want someone to help you????
The Iraqi’s pour into the streets to wave at us and when we liberated the cities during the war they gathered in the thousands to cheer, hug and kiss us. It was what the soldier’s in WW2 experienced, yet no one questioned their cause!! Saddam was no better than Hitler! He tortured and killed thousands of innocent people. We are heroes over here, yet American’s badmouth our President for having us here.
Every police station here has a dozen or more memorials for officers that were murdered trying to ensure that their people live free. These are husbands, fathers, and sons killed every day. What if it were your country? What would your choice be? Everything we fight for is worth the blood that may be shed. The media never reports the true HEROISM I witness everyday in the Iraqi’s. Yes there are bad one’s here, but I assure you they are a minuscule percent. Yet they are a number big enough to cause worry in this country’s future.
I have watched brave souls give their all and lose thier lives and limbs for this cause. I will no longer stand silent and let the “deaf and blind” be the only voice shouting. Stonewall Jackson once said, “All that I have, all that I am is at the service of the country.” For these brave souls who gave the ultimate sacrifice, including your son Cindy Sheehan, I will shout till I can no longer. These men and women are heroes. Their spirit lives on in their military and they will never be forgotten. They did not die in vain but rather for a cause that is larger than all of us.
My fellow countrymen and women, we are not overseas for our country alone but also another. We are here to spread democracy and freedom to those who KNOW the true taste of it because they fight for it everyday. You can see the desire in their eyes and I am honored to fight alongside them as an Infantryman in the 101st Airborne.
Freedom is not free, but yet it is everyone’s right to have. Ironic isn’t it? That is why we are here. Though you will always have the skeptics, I know that most of our military will agree with this message. Please, at the request of this soldier spread this message to all you know. We are in Operation Iraqi Freedom and that is our goal. It is a cause that I and thousands of others stand ready to pay the ultimate sacrifice for because, Cindy Sheehan, freedom is worth dying for, no matter what country it is! And after the world is free only then can we hope to have peace.
SGT Walter J. Rausch and 1st Platoon
101st Airborne Division (Air Assault)
God bless you guys.
Recently, Michelle Malkin has stated that you can call her stay away from her family.
Or, as she says
Have you libs fallen so far, and is the hour so late, that nothing remains but the shrieks of your hate? These cries in the dark that nobody wants to listen to? Is that it? Is that the best you can do to Malkin but insult her and her family?
Wait, I forgot. Based on what you Leftist, Communist sociopaths been doing to Lt. Gov. Steele of Maryland, you have.
Anyway, I've got something better, a list of four-letter-names to call Michelle.
Nice
Sexy
Good
Kind
Hoty [okay, that was a stretch.]
And if you can get four letter synonyms for genious, charming, lovely, knowledgeable, generous and descent human being, let me know... and you belong making NYTimes Crossword puzzles.
Or, as she says
During one of countless book-related radio interviews this week, a liberal radio host insultingly asked me whether I write my own column. His question was prompted by vicious anonymous bloggers who portray me as a greedy Asian whore/ dupe/ brainwashing victim who simply parrots what my white slavemasters program into my empty little head. These critics have stepped up attacks on my husband Jesse as a fanatical right-wing puppeteer orchestrating all I do and say.
I assume these tinfoil-hat wearers also think I'm secretly wired during my TV and radio appearances, speeches, and debates-- you know, just like George Bush.
As I've noted in several newspaper profiles and television interviews, I met my husband in college, where he founded a right-of-center student publication that I wrote for and edited. He started off as a Berkeley-born Dukakis liberal; I was a congenital conservative who helped him see the light. We have been each other's best friend, editor, and sounding board for nearly half of our lives. He followed me to Southern California when I took my first newspaper gig in Los Angeles. He followed me up to the Pacific Northwest when I was hired by the Seattle Times. I followed him to Washington D.C. when he got a lucrative health-care consulting job. And when my career took off after I published my first book in 2002, he cut back on his own ambitions to be with our kids.
In his spare time (such as it is with an active kindergartener and an Energizer bunny preschooler), he helps me out when he can. Al Franken needs a dozen, overpaid Harvard-trained research assistants. I have my hubby's help for a few hours a week.
Our partnership has spanned my editing of his Rhodes Scholarship essay to his formatting of my footnotes in Unhinged to the most important project in our lives--our kids. He has done copy-editing on my three books, conducted background research, taken dictation, drafted language for business letters, reviewed contracts, mailed my thank-you notes, helped me with a handful of blog posts out of the estimated 3,000 I've written since June 2004, corrected the math in a few of the estimated 800 newspaper columns I've penned since November 1992, and provided me with emotional support and encouragement through good times and bad. In turn, I've proofread his dissertation, conducted background research, reviewed his grant applications, helped him with speeches and conference presentations, picked out his ties for interviews, corrected his grammar, rewritten ledes for his business-related op-eds, brainstormed and edited some of his research proposals, and tried to provide as much emotional support and encouragement to him as he has to me. Message to crackpots and haters: This is not a right-wing conspiracy. This is marriage.
As for my husband's "influence," why yes, he influences me all the time and vice versa. Spouses tend to do that to each other over the years. When I came up with my idea for Invasion after 9/11, he was skeptical. We don't agree on everything, but I've pulled him to the right on national security, the Second Amendment, and some social issues. He has put up with my insomniac writing habits, investigative obsessions, and workaholism for more than a dozen years, and I have successfully converted him to the conservative cause.
The racist and sexist "yellow woman doing a white man's job" knock is a tiresome old attack from impotent liberals that I've tolerated a long time. It is pathetic that I have to sit here and tell you that my ideas, my politics, and my intellectual capital are mine and mine alone in response to cowardly attacks from misogynistic moonbats with Asian whore fixations. My IQ, free will, skin color, eye shape, productivity, sincerity, and integrity are routinely ridiculed or questioned because I happen to be a minority conservative woman. As a public figure, I am willing to take these insults, but I cannot tolerate the smearing of my loved ones. Because I have always been open and proud about his support for my career, my husband has taken endless, hate-filled abuse from my critics. His Jewish heritage, his decision to be a stay-at-home dad, and even his looks, are the subject of brutal mockery.
Enough.
If you have a problem with my work and what I stand for, go ahead and take me on. Keep calling me whatever four-letter-word makes you feel better when you can't win your arguments. But leave my family alone.
Have you libs fallen so far, and is the hour so late, that nothing remains but the shrieks of your hate? These cries in the dark that nobody wants to listen to? Is that it? Is that the best you can do to Malkin but insult her and her family?
Wait, I forgot. Based on what you Leftist, Communist sociopaths been doing to Lt. Gov. Steele of Maryland, you have.
Anyway, I've got something better, a list of four-letter-names to call Michelle.
Nice
Sexy
Good
Kind
Hoty [okay, that was a stretch.]
And if you can get four letter synonyms for genious, charming, lovely, knowledgeable, generous and descent human being, let me know... and you belong making NYTimes Crossword puzzles.
Tell me again who lied? Who died? Explain it to me.
Interesting, isn't it? After the "CIA leak" investigation, which concluded that no laws were broken (but charged one administration staffer with perjury), I happen to hear loud, loud screams that, somehow, the investigation concluded that "Bush Lied, Kids Died," which is an odd conclusion, given that only a man named "Scooter" Libby was indicted on a NON-RELATED charge. Unfortunately, perjury is a common tactic of presecutors who want to prove that they haven't totally wasted taxpayer money on a two year investigation, and it's an easy charge to come up with. If you are questioned one day, recalled a year later, and say something even slightly different to the same question, then that's "perjury," even if that means you just can't remember every exact detail.
As far as "Scooter" is concerned, my major worry is what kind of name is Scooter for a White House Staffer?
And of course, the man hasn't been convicted of anything. Not a thing. It's just that a prosecutor said that it's possible they could get a conviction on Mr. Libby.
However, I've noticed that real Libs [Liberals], seem to take an INDICTMENT for perjury into a CONVICTION about some mass, Right-Wing-Haliburton conspiracy theory. Could it be that the Liberals are thinking about pandering to their base for next year's midterm elections?
Sens. Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid and Dick Durbin have accused President George Bush of lying about Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction, insisting he "lied us into war." They are even floating the suggestion that he be impeached....a suggestion that's about as original as "I did not have sex with that woman." They've said it since he was elected in 2000, by winning the electoral votes of Florida by 243 votes. Funny, that, ain't it?
"The Bush administration misrepresented and distorted the intelligence to justify a war that America should never have fought." --Ted Kennedy. Your proof sir? We sent into Iraq for mulitple reasons-- about 30 of them. WMDs? Reason number 4.
"We all know the Vice President's office was the nerve center of an operation designed to sell the war and discredit those who challenged it. ... The manipulation of intelligence to sell the war in Iraq...the Vice President is behind that." --Harry Reid. Discredit those who challenge it? You mean Joe Wilson? It's not hard to discredit a man who's desk-bound CIA wife got him a job. I wonder why anyone would want to discredit a man who's intelligence findings was discredited by the bi-partisan Intelligence committee looking at Iraq. And how does one discredit such a man by outing a CIA wife who's CIA status was an open secret throughout the news media?
"I seconded the motion Sen. Harry Reid made last week. Republicans in Congress have refused, despite repeated promises, to investigate the Bush administration's misuse of pre-war intelligence, so Senate Democrats are standing up and demanding the truth." -- Dick Durbin, who recently compared U.S. troops to the Nazis and Pol Pot. And if you want the truth? You can't handle the truth, but let's try this: The Clintonian CIA, who's budget had been slashed, its agents belttled, mishandled, mismanaged, for years, collected the same exact intelligence as the Brits, the Poles, the Czechs and the Russians.
Let's play a game. Who said "If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program"?
Sounds like the President of the United states, right?
Come on, take a guess....
Bill Clinton.
Let's see, who else?
What secretary of state said, "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
Clinton's. Madeline Albright.
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Advisor and Classified Document Thief: "[Saddam will] use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has ten times since 1983."
Harry Reid: "The problem is not nuclear testing; it is nuclear weapons. ... The number of Third World countries with nuclear capabilities seems to grow daily. Saddam Hussein's near success with developing a nuclear weapon should be an eye-opener for us all." Who's being deceived and discredited again?
Dick Durbin: "One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that...Iraq...may acquire or develop nuclear weapons." Who's misusing intelligence reports, exactly?
John Kerry: "If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me." And this man was on the House Intelligence comittee, so I can't exactly see how the President could lie to him, he saw firsthand intelligence reports.
John Edwards: "Serving on the Intelligence Committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, it's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons." And he was right... even Joe Wilson said that Saddam TRIED to get nuclear materials from Nigeria, he just said he never got it.... and misteriously, we've been moving tons of uranium from incountry for months. Hmm....
Oh, I love this quote. This is so rabidly right-wing, it could be me.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons-inspection process."
And I agree wholeheartedly, Nancy Pelosi.
Sens. Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry in a letter to Bill Clinton: "We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions...to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
After President Bush was sworn into office in 2001, his administration was handed eight years worth of intelligence analysis and policy positions from the Clinton years.
In the weeks prior to the invasion of Iraq, Democrats, who had access to the same intelligence used by the Bush administration (much of which was compiled under the Clinton administration), were clear about the threat of Iraq's WMD capability.
Ted Kennedy: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
John Kerry: "I will be voting to give the president of the U.S. the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security. ... Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein."
Hillary Clinton: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile-delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including al-Qa'ida members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Carl Levin: "We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein...is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Al Gore: "We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Bob Graham: "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has and has had for a number of years a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Here's a partial list of what didn't make it out of Iraq before the invasion of Operation Iraqi Freedom [why we can't just call it a war, I'll never know]: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium, 1,700 gallons of chemical-weapon agents, chemical warheads containing the nerve agent cyclosarin, radioactive materials in powdered form designed for dispersal over population centers, artillery projectiles loaded with binary chemical agents, etc.
Hmm, now, let me see. Saddam had a centrifuge necessary for making nukes. He had about five to six months of warning to get out of town before we invaded. We KNOW he had been moving large amounts of money out of the country a few hours before the invasion. We found 11 mobile labs for making Chemical and Bioweapons. There were labs freshly sterilized before our troops got there. So could we take a guess that there had been other WMDs that could have been smuggled out too?
So, Ted, Dick and Harry, any other ideas?
I hear phrases like "War for Oil." We could have a better war if we invaded Mexico for THEIR oil. And we know Mexico's a security risk, we find Syrians and Iranians coming across the border daily. But we invaded Iraq, a harder task, why?
Now, on Veterans Day, President Bush noted: "Today our nation pays tribute to our veterans -- 25 million vets.... At this hour, a new generation of Americans is defending our flag and our freedom in the first war of this century. This war came to our shores on the morning of September 11, 2001. ... We know that they want to strike again and our nation has made a clear choice. We will confront this mortal danger to all humanity. We will not tire or rest until the War on Terror is won. ... [I]t is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. ... We will never back down. We will never give in. We will never accept anything less than complete victory."
"Deeply irresponsible"? That's it? Really?
I know democrats over in the Gulf right now. They'll disagree with me on social security, welfare, medicare, abortion, but you know what they agree on? We need to be there.
Interesting concept, no?
Semper Vigilo, Paratus, et Fidelis!
Interesting, isn't it? After the "CIA leak" investigation, which concluded that no laws were broken (but charged one administration staffer with perjury), I happen to hear loud, loud screams that, somehow, the investigation concluded that "Bush Lied, Kids Died," which is an odd conclusion, given that only a man named "Scooter" Libby was indicted on a NON-RELATED charge. Unfortunately, perjury is a common tactic of presecutors who want to prove that they haven't totally wasted taxpayer money on a two year investigation, and it's an easy charge to come up with. If you are questioned one day, recalled a year later, and say something even slightly different to the same question, then that's "perjury," even if that means you just can't remember every exact detail.
As far as "Scooter" is concerned, my major worry is what kind of name is Scooter for a White House Staffer?
And of course, the man hasn't been convicted of anything. Not a thing. It's just that a prosecutor said that it's possible they could get a conviction on Mr. Libby.
However, I've noticed that real Libs [Liberals], seem to take an INDICTMENT for perjury into a CONVICTION about some mass, Right-Wing-Haliburton conspiracy theory. Could it be that the Liberals are thinking about pandering to their base for next year's midterm elections?
Sens. Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid and Dick Durbin have accused President George Bush of lying about Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction, insisting he "lied us into war." They are even floating the suggestion that he be impeached....a suggestion that's about as original as "I did not have sex with that woman." They've said it since he was elected in 2000, by winning the electoral votes of Florida by 243 votes. Funny, that, ain't it?
"The Bush administration misrepresented and distorted the intelligence to justify a war that America should never have fought." --Ted Kennedy. Your proof sir? We sent into Iraq for mulitple reasons-- about 30 of them. WMDs? Reason number 4.
"We all know the Vice President's office was the nerve center of an operation designed to sell the war and discredit those who challenged it. ... The manipulation of intelligence to sell the war in Iraq...the Vice President is behind that." --Harry Reid. Discredit those who challenge it? You mean Joe Wilson? It's not hard to discredit a man who's desk-bound CIA wife got him a job. I wonder why anyone would want to discredit a man who's intelligence findings was discredited by the bi-partisan Intelligence committee looking at Iraq. And how does one discredit such a man by outing a CIA wife who's CIA status was an open secret throughout the news media?
"I seconded the motion Sen. Harry Reid made last week. Republicans in Congress have refused, despite repeated promises, to investigate the Bush administration's misuse of pre-war intelligence, so Senate Democrats are standing up and demanding the truth." -- Dick Durbin, who recently compared U.S. troops to the Nazis and Pol Pot. And if you want the truth? You can't handle the truth, but let's try this: The Clintonian CIA, who's budget had been slashed, its agents belttled, mishandled, mismanaged, for years, collected the same exact intelligence as the Brits, the Poles, the Czechs and the Russians.
Let's play a game. Who said "If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program"?
Sounds like the President of the United states, right?
Come on, take a guess....
Bill Clinton.
Let's see, who else?
What secretary of state said, "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
Clinton's. Madeline Albright.
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Advisor and Classified Document Thief: "[Saddam will] use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has ten times since 1983."
Harry Reid: "The problem is not nuclear testing; it is nuclear weapons. ... The number of Third World countries with nuclear capabilities seems to grow daily. Saddam Hussein's near success with developing a nuclear weapon should be an eye-opener for us all." Who's being deceived and discredited again?
Dick Durbin: "One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that...Iraq...may acquire or develop nuclear weapons." Who's misusing intelligence reports, exactly?
John Kerry: "If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me." And this man was on the House Intelligence comittee, so I can't exactly see how the President could lie to him, he saw firsthand intelligence reports.
John Edwards: "Serving on the Intelligence Committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, it's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons." And he was right... even Joe Wilson said that Saddam TRIED to get nuclear materials from Nigeria, he just said he never got it.... and misteriously, we've been moving tons of uranium from incountry for months. Hmm....
Oh, I love this quote. This is so rabidly right-wing, it could be me.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons-inspection process."
And I agree wholeheartedly, Nancy Pelosi.
Sens. Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry in a letter to Bill Clinton: "We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions...to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
After President Bush was sworn into office in 2001, his administration was handed eight years worth of intelligence analysis and policy positions from the Clinton years.
In the weeks prior to the invasion of Iraq, Democrats, who had access to the same intelligence used by the Bush administration (much of which was compiled under the Clinton administration), were clear about the threat of Iraq's WMD capability.
Ted Kennedy: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
John Kerry: "I will be voting to give the president of the U.S. the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security. ... Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein."
Hillary Clinton: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile-delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including al-Qa'ida members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Carl Levin: "We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein...is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Al Gore: "We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Bob Graham: "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has and has had for a number of years a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Here's a partial list of what didn't make it out of Iraq before the invasion of Operation Iraqi Freedom [why we can't just call it a war, I'll never know]: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium, 1,700 gallons of chemical-weapon agents, chemical warheads containing the nerve agent cyclosarin, radioactive materials in powdered form designed for dispersal over population centers, artillery projectiles loaded with binary chemical agents, etc.
Hmm, now, let me see. Saddam had a centrifuge necessary for making nukes. He had about five to six months of warning to get out of town before we invaded. We KNOW he had been moving large amounts of money out of the country a few hours before the invasion. We found 11 mobile labs for making Chemical and Bioweapons. There were labs freshly sterilized before our troops got there. So could we take a guess that there had been other WMDs that could have been smuggled out too?
So, Ted, Dick and Harry, any other ideas?
I hear phrases like "War for Oil." We could have a better war if we invaded Mexico for THEIR oil. And we know Mexico's a security risk, we find Syrians and Iranians coming across the border daily. But we invaded Iraq, a harder task, why?
Now, on Veterans Day, President Bush noted: "Today our nation pays tribute to our veterans -- 25 million vets.... At this hour, a new generation of Americans is defending our flag and our freedom in the first war of this century. This war came to our shores on the morning of September 11, 2001. ... We know that they want to strike again and our nation has made a clear choice. We will confront this mortal danger to all humanity. We will not tire or rest until the War on Terror is won. ... [I]t is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. ... We will never back down. We will never give in. We will never accept anything less than complete victory."
"Deeply irresponsible"? That's it? Really?
I know democrats over in the Gulf right now. They'll disagree with me on social security, welfare, medicare, abortion, but you know what they agree on? We need to be there.
Interesting concept, no?
Semper Vigilo, Paratus, et Fidelis!
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
The Truth About WMDs in Iraq!! Proof!
WMDs Found in Iraq!
· 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium
· 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents
· 17 chemical warheads containing cyclosarin (a nerve agent five times more deadly than sarin gas)
· Over 1,000 radioactive materials in powdered form meant for dispersal over populated areas
· Roadside bombs loaded with mustard and "conventional" sarin gas, assembled in binary chemical projectiles for maximum potency
Gotcha, didn't I? :)
WMDs Found in Iraq!
· 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium
· 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents
· 17 chemical warheads containing cyclosarin (a nerve agent five times more deadly than sarin gas)
· Over 1,000 radioactive materials in powdered form meant for dispersal over populated areas
· Roadside bombs loaded with mustard and "conventional" sarin gas, assembled in binary chemical projectiles for maximum potency
Gotcha, didn't I? :)
Monday, November 07, 2005
The NYTIMES is sorry, but not apologetic, more like pathetic.
Emmylyn Anonical is the girlfriend of the late Corporal Jeffrey B. Starr, who you remember left a letter to his girlfriend that had been edited by the Times. Read what she has to say about the NYTimes' selective editing of Cpl. Starr's letter to her in the NYPost (kudos to Post reporter Lukas Alpert for keeping on the story): "It was sad that we had to go through this some more. I was upset about what they took out of that letter."
Anonical told The Post that going public with the private letter was one of the hardest decisions of her life, but seeing The Times use it and her boyfriend to slander the war and Bush could not go unanswered.
"The reason I chose to share that letter was the paragraph about why he was doing this, not the part about him expecting to die. It hurt, it really hurt"
Still not a peep from NYTimes' ombudsman Byron Calame about the factual errors and obscene omission in the Times' coverage of Cpl. Starr's death.
To nail and pressure these buggers further:
E-mail: public@nytimes.com• Phone: (212) 556-7652•
Address: Public Editor
The New York Time
s229 West 43rd St.
New York, NY 10036-3959
Mudville Gazette is keeping track of the Lying Times as well, and doing a better job than I
***Previous:
An obscene omission
"Others have died for my freedom. Now this is my mark."
Cpl. Jeffrey B. Starr: What the NYTimes left out
Emmylyn Anonical is the girlfriend of the late Corporal Jeffrey B. Starr, who you remember left a letter to his girlfriend that had been edited by the Times. Read what she has to say about the NYTimes' selective editing of Cpl. Starr's letter to her in the NYPost (kudos to Post reporter Lukas Alpert for keeping on the story): "It was sad that we had to go through this some more. I was upset about what they took out of that letter."
Anonical told The Post that going public with the private letter was one of the hardest decisions of her life, but seeing The Times use it and her boyfriend to slander the war and Bush could not go unanswered.
"The reason I chose to share that letter was the paragraph about why he was doing this, not the part about him expecting to die. It hurt, it really hurt"
Still not a peep from NYTimes' ombudsman Byron Calame about the factual errors and obscene omission in the Times' coverage of Cpl. Starr's death.
To nail and pressure these buggers further:
E-mail: public@nytimes.com• Phone: (212) 556-7652•
Address: Public Editor
The New York Time
s229 West 43rd St.
New York, NY 10036-3959
Mudville Gazette is keeping track of the Lying Times as well, and doing a better job than I
***Previous:
An obscene omission
"Others have died for my freedom. Now this is my mark."
Cpl. Jeffrey B. Starr: What the NYTimes left out
Sunday, November 06, 2005
There are some things I just won't stand for. There are not that many, because I'm usually just inclined to let people go on their own self destructive path, even if I am ever so briefly caught up in it for only a little while. Even calling me names will only result in my laughing at the fool in question. That said, there are a few things I don't tolerate.
Hurting my friends in any manner will earn dire repercussions, proportionate to the injury given.
Calling my Pope a Nazi, my faith fascism and misogynistic, will earn you a verbal, ideological, and public disemboweling.
Calling me a misogynist will just get me annoyed. Calling me a racist because I'm a Republican will earn you something more.
Now I'm not certain where the racism charge first came from. Lincoln was a republican, and freed the slaves; he didn't care about the matter one way or another, he just did it. Brown vs. Board of education was during Eisenhower's administration, and called out the army to support the desegregation process. The civil rights laws of the 1960s were passed by a Republican Congress. Nixon, the Republican, went to China. This is racism?
And really, I wouldn't even say that Democrats are particularly racist. When Strom Thurmond ran as a segregationist when he was a Southern Democrat, for him, it was a matter of state's being allowed to pass laws in their own state without interference from the Federal Government. Democrats were the party of slavery in the South., but I'm not going to hold a 140 year old vendetta. In fact, until the last 30 years, the entire South was a string of nothing but blue states. Does that mean I'm going to call each and every democrat a racist because the South is the home of the Klan and Bull Connor? No.
I wouldn't even begin to start figuring out on what grounds racist charges could be filed against Republicans. Even J. Edgar Hoover, who's party I am unfamiliar with [though if he was a transvestite, he might have been a Liberal] only monitored black civil rights leaders because a lot of them were getting second-hand support from Moscow during the Cold War, and a lot of these leaders were literal card carrying Communists. In all likelihood, support from Moscow held up the civil rights movement more than anything else.
So, how exactly can someone call Republicans racist? Nothing historical about it, and if you call republicans racist because the South has now turned red, are you going to hold the entire South accountable for what there father's did? Considering that the last Klan rally I heard of had about 25 people show up, versus the triple-digit counter-protestors who nearly torn the Klan apart, I think it's time to move on. Racists are around, they are evil, but they're also not as big a problem as they were. [There is nothing funnier than watching a bunch of racists be protected from rampaging hoards by black and Hispanic officers of the NYPD]. In short, Bull Connor is dead, get over it.
As for me, personally, I've never actually noticed. Sure, I've dated a Puerto Rican and someone half-Native Indian, I'm friends with Jews, Turks, Blacks, Asians, Pakistanis [although they prefer 'desi'], Indian-Trinidad hybrids [this is NY, we're all mutts], but when I'm specificly asked, I need to think about it for five minutes if I know anyone other than WICs [White Irish Catholics] because I don't think about people in those terms. I'm just sort of clueless.
But recently, I'm starting to wonder just who the racists are nowadays, and even what criteria they're using. John McWhorter is a black linguist out of Berkeley, and I can only assume he has tenor for him to sound so relatively conservative in a town run by rampaging Communists [although for the People's Republic of Berkeley, I feel that a stronger term is required than "Communist"]. He pointed out that when his mother was growing up, she was a nerd. Now that his children are also nerds, her classmates say she's "Acting White." As McWhorter pointed out in his Book-TV lecture, how is it that being intelligent and enjoying education is considered acting white, and do his daughter's classmates even realize that they implied that black meant the opposite?
Now, McWhorter doesn't like Bush much, because Bush isn't eloquent, and McWhorter's a linguist. Nor does he like the NAACP or Jesse Jackson. McWhorter points out in the same Book-TV lecture "What has Jesse Jackson ever done? He's tall. He's a good speaker.. he's tall."
However, to my knowledge, no one has ever said that McWhorter is an "oreo", a derogatory term for being black on the outside and white on the inside.
Basically, they never did to him what they just did to Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele. Lt. Gov. Steele is black, and a Catholic, and he's a Republican running for the United States Senate. He's running as a conservative Republican. For this, he's being attacked.
This is not just your typical mud slinging either. These attacks include pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance, calling him an "Uncle Tom" and depicting him as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal Web log. This below being the picture in question, posted by left-wing blogger Steve Gilliard, who only removed the photo because conservatives called him on it.
According to the Washington Times, "Black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican." "Operatives for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) also obtained a copy of his credit report -- the only Republican candidate so targeted. But black Democrats say there is nothing wrong with "pointing out the obvious." '
So let me get this straight. The Filipino Michelle Malkin can be called a banana and a coconut and a whore and worse, they can call Michael Steele an Uncle Tom and a Sambo, and somehow Republicans are racist?
So, defacing Steele's photo and assaulting him with Oreo cookies are peaceful exercises of free speech. Demonizing Condi is a harmless prank. Calling her a "House Nigga" is acceptable humor.
May I ask when was the last time a minority who embraces liberal ideas was attacked for being a "race traitor" or a "sellout"? These attacks seem to be leveled only by the Left, and only against minority conservatives.
But I'M the racist because I'm a republican.
Ain't tolerance grand?
***
Previous on Michael Steele, from Michelle Malkin:
Michael Steele and the Sambo smear
Whitewashing Chuckaquiddick
Chuckaquiddick: Look who's paying the tab
NY Times "looks into" Chuckaquiddick
Chuckaquiddick: Where's the MSM?The NYTimes ombudsman is totally worthless
Democrat dumpster diving
A despicable Democrat dirty trick
Sen. Charles Schumer still owes Lt. Gov. Steele an apology.
Newbusters notes how the Washington Post buried the Sambo smear story.Robert George, who blew the whistle on the smear, continues to follow the story.
***
Previous minority conservative smears:The buck-naked bigotry of Ted RallJeff Danziger: Do you draw with your hood on or off?
Danziger's lost cartoon
Liberal racism and Condi Rice
Maglalangadingdong thisMinority conservatives and the sellout smear
***
Ed Morrissey: One of the excuses used by these Democrats is that Steele refused to object when Governor Mike Ehrlich met with supporters at a club that has no black members in its history. The Elkridge Club held a fundraiser attended by Ehrlich and widely decried by the Democrats as an indication of GOP pandering to racist whites in the south. They failed to mention, however, that several Democrats have made their own use of the Elkridge Club, including the brother and chief political advisor to their gubernatorial candidate to replace Ehrlich.
That shows the leadership of the Democrats as they truly are -- a hate-based faith system that takes any means necessary to win elections. Cheating, violence, smears, and now racism are all acceptable as long as Republicans are the targets. If the Republicans happen to be members of minority communities, so much the better.
After all, it's not discrimination when you hate someone more because of the color of their skin or their ethnic background, is it?
Hurting my friends in any manner will earn dire repercussions, proportionate to the injury given.
Calling my Pope a Nazi, my faith fascism and misogynistic, will earn you a verbal, ideological, and public disemboweling.
Calling me a misogynist will just get me annoyed. Calling me a racist because I'm a Republican will earn you something more.
Now I'm not certain where the racism charge first came from. Lincoln was a republican, and freed the slaves; he didn't care about the matter one way or another, he just did it. Brown vs. Board of education was during Eisenhower's administration, and called out the army to support the desegregation process. The civil rights laws of the 1960s were passed by a Republican Congress. Nixon, the Republican, went to China. This is racism?
And really, I wouldn't even say that Democrats are particularly racist. When Strom Thurmond ran as a segregationist when he was a Southern Democrat, for him, it was a matter of state's being allowed to pass laws in their own state without interference from the Federal Government. Democrats were the party of slavery in the South., but I'm not going to hold a 140 year old vendetta. In fact, until the last 30 years, the entire South was a string of nothing but blue states. Does that mean I'm going to call each and every democrat a racist because the South is the home of the Klan and Bull Connor? No.
I wouldn't even begin to start figuring out on what grounds racist charges could be filed against Republicans. Even J. Edgar Hoover, who's party I am unfamiliar with [though if he was a transvestite, he might have been a Liberal] only monitored black civil rights leaders because a lot of them were getting second-hand support from Moscow during the Cold War, and a lot of these leaders were literal card carrying Communists. In all likelihood, support from Moscow held up the civil rights movement more than anything else.
So, how exactly can someone call Republicans racist? Nothing historical about it, and if you call republicans racist because the South has now turned red, are you going to hold the entire South accountable for what there father's did? Considering that the last Klan rally I heard of had about 25 people show up, versus the triple-digit counter-protestors who nearly torn the Klan apart, I think it's time to move on. Racists are around, they are evil, but they're also not as big a problem as they were. [There is nothing funnier than watching a bunch of racists be protected from rampaging hoards by black and Hispanic officers of the NYPD]. In short, Bull Connor is dead, get over it.
As for me, personally, I've never actually noticed. Sure, I've dated a Puerto Rican and someone half-Native Indian, I'm friends with Jews, Turks, Blacks, Asians, Pakistanis [although they prefer 'desi'], Indian-Trinidad hybrids [this is NY, we're all mutts], but when I'm specificly asked, I need to think about it for five minutes if I know anyone other than WICs [White Irish Catholics] because I don't think about people in those terms. I'm just sort of clueless.
But recently, I'm starting to wonder just who the racists are nowadays, and even what criteria they're using. John McWhorter is a black linguist out of Berkeley, and I can only assume he has tenor for him to sound so relatively conservative in a town run by rampaging Communists [although for the People's Republic of Berkeley, I feel that a stronger term is required than "Communist"]. He pointed out that when his mother was growing up, she was a nerd. Now that his children are also nerds, her classmates say she's "Acting White." As McWhorter pointed out in his Book-TV lecture, how is it that being intelligent and enjoying education is considered acting white, and do his daughter's classmates even realize that they implied that black meant the opposite?
Now, McWhorter doesn't like Bush much, because Bush isn't eloquent, and McWhorter's a linguist. Nor does he like the NAACP or Jesse Jackson. McWhorter points out in the same Book-TV lecture "What has Jesse Jackson ever done? He's tall. He's a good speaker.. he's tall."
However, to my knowledge, no one has ever said that McWhorter is an "oreo", a derogatory term for being black on the outside and white on the inside.
Basically, they never did to him what they just did to Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele. Lt. Gov. Steele is black, and a Catholic, and he's a Republican running for the United States Senate. He's running as a conservative Republican. For this, he's being attacked.
This is not just your typical mud slinging either. These attacks include pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance, calling him an "Uncle Tom" and depicting him as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal Web log. This below being the picture in question, posted by left-wing blogger Steve Gilliard, who only removed the photo because conservatives called him on it.
According to the Washington Times, "Black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican." "Operatives for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) also obtained a copy of his credit report -- the only Republican candidate so targeted. But black Democrats say there is nothing wrong with "pointing out the obvious." '
So let me get this straight. The Filipino Michelle Malkin can be called a banana and a coconut and a whore and worse, they can call Michael Steele an Uncle Tom and a Sambo, and somehow Republicans are racist?
So, defacing Steele's photo and assaulting him with Oreo cookies are peaceful exercises of free speech. Demonizing Condi is a harmless prank. Calling her a "House Nigga" is acceptable humor.
May I ask when was the last time a minority who embraces liberal ideas was attacked for being a "race traitor" or a "sellout"? These attacks seem to be leveled only by the Left, and only against minority conservatives.
But I'M the racist because I'm a republican.
Ain't tolerance grand?
***
Previous on Michael Steele, from Michelle Malkin:
Michael Steele and the Sambo smear
Whitewashing Chuckaquiddick
Chuckaquiddick: Look who's paying the tab
NY Times "looks into" Chuckaquiddick
Chuckaquiddick: Where's the MSM?The NYTimes ombudsman is totally worthless
Democrat dumpster diving
A despicable Democrat dirty trick
Sen. Charles Schumer still owes Lt. Gov. Steele an apology.
Newbusters notes how the Washington Post buried the Sambo smear story.Robert George, who blew the whistle on the smear, continues to follow the story.
***
Previous minority conservative smears:The buck-naked bigotry of Ted RallJeff Danziger: Do you draw with your hood on or off?
Danziger's lost cartoon
Liberal racism and Condi Rice
Maglalangadingdong thisMinority conservatives and the sellout smear
***
Ed Morrissey: One of the excuses used by these Democrats is that Steele refused to object when Governor Mike Ehrlich met with supporters at a club that has no black members in its history. The Elkridge Club held a fundraiser attended by Ehrlich and widely decried by the Democrats as an indication of GOP pandering to racist whites in the south. They failed to mention, however, that several Democrats have made their own use of the Elkridge Club, including the brother and chief political advisor to their gubernatorial candidate to replace Ehrlich.
That shows the leadership of the Democrats as they truly are -- a hate-based faith system that takes any means necessary to win elections. Cheating, violence, smears, and now racism are all acceptable as long as Republicans are the targets. If the Republicans happen to be members of minority communities, so much the better.
After all, it's not discrimination when you hate someone more because of the color of their skin or their ethnic background, is it?
The Makin Dinner...
The Island of Makin was the first island in the South Pacific that was taken during World War II, though it’s usually been underplayed in the history books because it was taken in three days with minimal bloodshed, while another island taken at about the same time put up six days of bloody resistance.
The isle of Makin was taken by the 69th New York Regiment, the Fighting 69th, the “Irish Brigade” of the Civil War, even though they had all had some Irish in them.
Every year, the 69th have a dinner for veterans to get together, no matter what war they had fought in.
What I discovered was a world I had known of, intellectually, but it’s different once you see it up close. To see flags carried from the civil war by the 69th. To see five Congressional Medals of Honor side by side. To see a row of medals won by one man, from the Purple Heart to silver crosses, and easily half a dozen others I couldn’t even identify. To know that their were only 5 surviving Civil War recruiting posters left in existence, and that I was looking at one of them.
There was a painting of the Fighting 69th fighting at Fredericksburg against the 2nd Louisiana regiment. It was a battle that was literally hand to hand, where it got so bad that one of the sergeants from the 69th had grabbed the standard bearer from the 2nd Louisiana and dragged him into the ranks. The 69th had ignored their bayonets and used their guns as shillelaghs, clubbing the enemy with their weapons so often that the next day a General examined the ranks, and noted that men were unarmed. This was outrageous! An act of cowards! Then he was shown the pile of broken weapons that had been broken over the heads of men from the 2nd Louisiana.
Members from that same regiment went overseas with the 69th to Iraq. [Apparently, this wasn’t uncommon—members from the 11th Alabama had also faced the 69th during the civil war, and some had been transferred into the ranks of the 69th during WWI… there were a few brawls in that instance].
I met the army chaplain, Fr. Caine. He is actually known as “Killer Caine,” and by more than just the members of the regiment, but by even my father. You see, Fr. Caine had been in the 173rd Airborne in Vietnam, and during a particularly bad firefight, he promised that if he lived, he would become a priest. He is a man of his word.
When I was originally invited to the Makin dinner, I was told that I should keep away from any vegetarian inclinations for the evening, because there was only a few olives and some celery for decoration, and that was the only green I’d see that was edible. When I got there, I was also asked “Do you need to worry about your cholesterol?” With appetizers of Swedish meatballs, REAL sausages, pork chops and roast beef on toast for an entrée, crisp Patriot fries as a side dish [yes, they were called Patriot fries], followed by apple pie with a slice of cheese. Given the general impression I’ve gotten of army cooking, this might have been HEALTH FOOD at Makin. One vet of Operation Iraqi Freedom told me that they lose one Makin vet per year, and that yes, it probably was because of the dinner, but at least they die happy.
They had even had a bagpiper come in during the ceremony, during which point my knowledge of Irish rebel songs came in handy, earning me a whole new level of respect from those around me. Apparently, there were some for whom “Come out ye Black and Tans” is a popular ditty. They even had a raffle of an Enfield 1914 .30-caliber rifle, the model of WWI soldiers.
And there was their traditions. Captain James Mohr, the original commander, had a drink of Scotch and Vichy water. One day his men were sent out for the Vichy water, and came back with Champaign, because it was French and it bubbled. He tried it, he liked it, and it has remained the drink of the unit, even though it tastes something like gasoline. Tradition has it that the man who pours the mix gives a coin and the Champaign cork to someone, and they are friends for life—and he guaranteed that the recipient would never give it away because he was using Iraqi money. Tradition had it that the regiment drink was used for the toast.
At the end of the evening, there was a speech, and I will not attribute the quote without the man’s permission. He said that is was amazing to be in combat, and not amazing in a totally positive way. How it wasn’t like the westerns or movies where someone gets shot and falls down. Odds are more likely you are shown a body bag with 8 body parts, none of which match up, and you are supposed to ID the body from the pieces. But there is a camaraderie which comes from that. And he could not imagine how men could be in that for three and four years like the vets from WW2, and how he had had a whole new appreciation of these men. He praised one of his guys for figuring out where a mortar team was, and blowing them to Hell before getting off a second barrage.
You want to know what I didn’t hear? I didn’t hear that they didn’t have enough supplies. I never heard that this was an unjust war.
I heard duty, honor, country, thank God Gore was never president, that sort of thing.
I don’t know how to relay what went on properly. I'm not sure I can make most of you understand the sense one gets around these great men. They've fought, they've come damn close to death, and they are proud of serving this country. It’s…
Ah well, most of you are probably wondering what the point of this blog is, and I’m not sure how to give it to you. And to tell the truth, I didn’t start it with a point in mind.
These are good men. They are honorable men.
No honor is given them by throwing Molotov cocktails at police officers.
Or by trying to set fire to buildings.
Or by "fighting capitalism." (Via Conservative League)
Or by equating Hurricane Katrina with "genocide." (Via the Scriptorium)
Or by shrieking about the "Bush Regime" and trotting out that "9-11 was an inside job" banner
Or by rewriting what our soldiers say.
You support them by honoring them. By shaking their hands and thanking them.
You honor them by honoring THEM, not saying "we support the troops" when in fact you're serving your own personal agenda.
You honor THEM.
The Island of Makin was the first island in the South Pacific that was taken during World War II, though it’s usually been underplayed in the history books because it was taken in three days with minimal bloodshed, while another island taken at about the same time put up six days of bloody resistance.
The isle of Makin was taken by the 69th New York Regiment, the Fighting 69th, the “Irish Brigade” of the Civil War, even though they had all had some Irish in them.
Every year, the 69th have a dinner for veterans to get together, no matter what war they had fought in.
What I discovered was a world I had known of, intellectually, but it’s different once you see it up close. To see flags carried from the civil war by the 69th. To see five Congressional Medals of Honor side by side. To see a row of medals won by one man, from the Purple Heart to silver crosses, and easily half a dozen others I couldn’t even identify. To know that their were only 5 surviving Civil War recruiting posters left in existence, and that I was looking at one of them.
There was a painting of the Fighting 69th fighting at Fredericksburg against the 2nd Louisiana regiment. It was a battle that was literally hand to hand, where it got so bad that one of the sergeants from the 69th had grabbed the standard bearer from the 2nd Louisiana and dragged him into the ranks. The 69th had ignored their bayonets and used their guns as shillelaghs, clubbing the enemy with their weapons so often that the next day a General examined the ranks, and noted that men were unarmed. This was outrageous! An act of cowards! Then he was shown the pile of broken weapons that had been broken over the heads of men from the 2nd Louisiana.
Members from that same regiment went overseas with the 69th to Iraq. [Apparently, this wasn’t uncommon—members from the 11th Alabama had also faced the 69th during the civil war, and some had been transferred into the ranks of the 69th during WWI… there were a few brawls in that instance].
I met the army chaplain, Fr. Caine. He is actually known as “Killer Caine,” and by more than just the members of the regiment, but by even my father. You see, Fr. Caine had been in the 173rd Airborne in Vietnam, and during a particularly bad firefight, he promised that if he lived, he would become a priest. He is a man of his word.
When I was originally invited to the Makin dinner, I was told that I should keep away from any vegetarian inclinations for the evening, because there was only a few olives and some celery for decoration, and that was the only green I’d see that was edible. When I got there, I was also asked “Do you need to worry about your cholesterol?” With appetizers of Swedish meatballs, REAL sausages, pork chops and roast beef on toast for an entrée, crisp Patriot fries as a side dish [yes, they were called Patriot fries], followed by apple pie with a slice of cheese. Given the general impression I’ve gotten of army cooking, this might have been HEALTH FOOD at Makin. One vet of Operation Iraqi Freedom told me that they lose one Makin vet per year, and that yes, it probably was because of the dinner, but at least they die happy.
They had even had a bagpiper come in during the ceremony, during which point my knowledge of Irish rebel songs came in handy, earning me a whole new level of respect from those around me. Apparently, there were some for whom “Come out ye Black and Tans” is a popular ditty. They even had a raffle of an Enfield 1914 .30-caliber rifle, the model of WWI soldiers.
And there was their traditions. Captain James Mohr, the original commander, had a drink of Scotch and Vichy water. One day his men were sent out for the Vichy water, and came back with Champaign, because it was French and it bubbled. He tried it, he liked it, and it has remained the drink of the unit, even though it tastes something like gasoline. Tradition has it that the man who pours the mix gives a coin and the Champaign cork to someone, and they are friends for life—and he guaranteed that the recipient would never give it away because he was using Iraqi money. Tradition had it that the regiment drink was used for the toast.
At the end of the evening, there was a speech, and I will not attribute the quote without the man’s permission. He said that is was amazing to be in combat, and not amazing in a totally positive way. How it wasn’t like the westerns or movies where someone gets shot and falls down. Odds are more likely you are shown a body bag with 8 body parts, none of which match up, and you are supposed to ID the body from the pieces. But there is a camaraderie which comes from that. And he could not imagine how men could be in that for three and four years like the vets from WW2, and how he had had a whole new appreciation of these men. He praised one of his guys for figuring out where a mortar team was, and blowing them to Hell before getting off a second barrage.
You want to know what I didn’t hear? I didn’t hear that they didn’t have enough supplies. I never heard that this was an unjust war.
I heard duty, honor, country, thank God Gore was never president, that sort of thing.
I don’t know how to relay what went on properly. I'm not sure I can make most of you understand the sense one gets around these great men. They've fought, they've come damn close to death, and they are proud of serving this country. It’s…
Ah well, most of you are probably wondering what the point of this blog is, and I’m not sure how to give it to you. And to tell the truth, I didn’t start it with a point in mind.
These are good men. They are honorable men.
No honor is given them by throwing Molotov cocktails at police officers.
Or by trying to set fire to buildings.
Or by "fighting capitalism." (Via Conservative League)
Or by equating Hurricane Katrina with "genocide." (Via the Scriptorium)
Or by shrieking about the "Bush Regime" and trotting out that "9-11 was an inside job" banner
Or by rewriting what our soldiers say.
You support them by honoring them. By shaking their hands and thanking them.
You honor them by honoring THEM, not saying "we support the troops" when in fact you're serving your own personal agenda.
You honor THEM.
At first I was reluctant to speculate on the trials and tribulations of Syria, mainly because I didn't think they'd have any of either coming their way, and why should they? They only killed former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, and Lord knows that the Sudanese have killed over 2 million people, and Saddam killed over twice that [that we know of], without any harm coming to them.
The UN security council, as Paul Volcker's comission has already noted, is filled with corrupt ambassadors from even more corrupt governments-- France, Germany, Russia. The French don't want to be bothered with the Sudan, refusing to allow the word "genocide" to even be uttered in their ambassador's presence in relation to this topic. Germany is going through a power shift from the anti-American Gerhart Schroder to a new "coalition government." And Tsar Putin is having far too much fun cracking down on his own country and selling weapons. And then there are about over a hundred countries in the UN run by dictatorships and other brutal men.
Human rights giants like Sudan and Lebanon are on the UN Human Rights Commission, and Syria, I believe, is on the weapons proliferation board [which makes me wonder if it's supposed to be for or against proliferation].
And of course, even if they were NOT corrupt, would they be relevant? During the Cold War, everyone was bugged. Everyone. The CIA and KGB had wire taps on everyone in the UN, if they didn't have wire taps on everyone in the countries with ambassadors to the UN. The KGB and the CIA at one point compared notes on what they thought was an anomaly. And discovered that, in transmissions sent from the UN ambassadors to their home countries, there was NOTHING. That's right, during the Cold War, outside of the US and USSR, no one cared about what happened at the UN.
So, my initial thought was, it's irrelevant and corrupt, the UN doesn't care about large issues with genocide in the millions, why should it care about anything else? When the UN issues a report saying that high government officials in the Syrian government are responsible for the death of Hariri.
Then I remembered something different about all those other times. What the UN didn't have during Rwanda, Sudan, or Iraq?
John Bolton.
Yes, Darth John Bolton, Dark Lord of the Sith. The one which makes internists and employees tremble. The man who's image as portrayed by the democrats was one of a man who cracked heads open for fun and profit, but mostly for fun.
From what I've noticed, Darth Bolton remained largely quiet on the issue of Syria while the UN was making bold proclamations about the justice they'd seek in the assassination, and all of the usual bull the UN spouts while trying to keep up the front of being relevant.
Then Johnny Bolton stepped up to the microphone and threatened stiff economic sanctions Syria continues stonewalling the investigation. At an ADL meeting Grand Hyatt hotel in Midtown Manhattan, he said that "They need to appreciate, especially with the unanimous resolution of the Security Council, that they can run, but they cannot hide." Suspects face immediate freezing of their assets to ensure they don't flee the country or countries they are hiding in.
"It's not simply their governments that will pay the price, they will pay the price as well," said Bolton.
This guy just move in this past August, and already he's busy.
Makes you wonder what'll happen when Volcker's commission gets through with the UN, exactly what Bolton will do with it.
The UN security council, as Paul Volcker's comission has already noted, is filled with corrupt ambassadors from even more corrupt governments-- France, Germany, Russia. The French don't want to be bothered with the Sudan, refusing to allow the word "genocide" to even be uttered in their ambassador's presence in relation to this topic. Germany is going through a power shift from the anti-American Gerhart Schroder to a new "coalition government." And Tsar Putin is having far too much fun cracking down on his own country and selling weapons. And then there are about over a hundred countries in the UN run by dictatorships and other brutal men.
Human rights giants like Sudan and Lebanon are on the UN Human Rights Commission, and Syria, I believe, is on the weapons proliferation board [which makes me wonder if it's supposed to be for or against proliferation].
And of course, even if they were NOT corrupt, would they be relevant? During the Cold War, everyone was bugged. Everyone. The CIA and KGB had wire taps on everyone in the UN, if they didn't have wire taps on everyone in the countries with ambassadors to the UN. The KGB and the CIA at one point compared notes on what they thought was an anomaly. And discovered that, in transmissions sent from the UN ambassadors to their home countries, there was NOTHING. That's right, during the Cold War, outside of the US and USSR, no one cared about what happened at the UN.
So, my initial thought was, it's irrelevant and corrupt, the UN doesn't care about large issues with genocide in the millions, why should it care about anything else? When the UN issues a report saying that high government officials in the Syrian government are responsible for the death of Hariri.
Then I remembered something different about all those other times. What the UN didn't have during Rwanda, Sudan, or Iraq?
John Bolton.
Yes, Darth John Bolton, Dark Lord of the Sith. The one which makes internists and employees tremble. The man who's image as portrayed by the democrats was one of a man who cracked heads open for fun and profit, but mostly for fun.
From what I've noticed, Darth Bolton remained largely quiet on the issue of Syria while the UN was making bold proclamations about the justice they'd seek in the assassination, and all of the usual bull the UN spouts while trying to keep up the front of being relevant.
Then Johnny Bolton stepped up to the microphone and threatened stiff economic sanctions Syria continues stonewalling the investigation. At an ADL meeting Grand Hyatt hotel in Midtown Manhattan, he said that "They need to appreciate, especially with the unanimous resolution of the Security Council, that they can run, but they cannot hide." Suspects face immediate freezing of their assets to ensure they don't flee the country or countries they are hiding in.
"It's not simply their governments that will pay the price, they will pay the price as well," said Bolton.
This guy just move in this past August, and already he's busy.
Makes you wonder what'll happen when Volcker's commission gets through with the UN, exactly what Bolton will do with it.
Thursday, November 03, 2005
I believe that I mentioned Boston Legal's misportrayal of the Iraq war, and how it was something out of a Michael Moore movie. There's a reply to the show from a Marine posted at the ABC forum, link here. http://forums.go.com/abc/primetime/bostonlegal/thread?threadID=646982&forumStart=0
But for those who don't want to be bothered following the link, here's what the man said.
A Soldier's View
Posted: Nov 02 @ 08:32 PM
I am a soldier in the US Army and a member of the JAG Corps. My brothers are enlisted Marines. All three of us are Canadian citizens and have chosen to stand for a country that is not our own. My brothers have just returned from Iraq and I am to be sent shortly.
Last night I felt unappreciated and disrespected. These feelings are not a result of dissenting opinions or political views. I am dismayed as to the complete misrepresntation of basic facts.
1) My brothers and I have NEVER been deployed without body armor. In fact our respective units invested in brand new equipment for our use.
2) We volunteered and are aware that we may lose our lives.
3) No soldier or Marine would attempt or be ordered to defuse a IED without being qualified to do so. Also, standard operating procedure is simply to detonate the device safely and NOT to defuse it.
4) EVERY soldier and EVERY Marine are trained to fight and are qualified to guard a truck.
5) No contract is extended 26 years. In fact, I am aware of many soldiers and Marines who were NOT sent because their contracts would expire during deployment. If others are sent, they are given the CHOICE of resigning and are compensated generously. However, if they choose otherwise they will be required to satisfy their units deployment before release.
6) The client's brother could not have been 18. Despite the possibility that the soldier may have completed initial training by the time he was 18, he is not able to be deployed before his 18th birthday. Army deployment times are 1 year boots on ground time. In the fact pattern given in the show, he was held there beyond his deployment time, therefore he could not have been 18.
It is basic, fraudulent facts that give me the impression that ABC is simply attempting to attack the military and subsequently its service men and women.
I have decided to no longer watch this program.
But for those who don't want to be bothered following the link, here's what the man said.
A Soldier's View
Posted: Nov 02 @ 08:32 PM
I am a soldier in the US Army and a member of the JAG Corps. My brothers are enlisted Marines. All three of us are Canadian citizens and have chosen to stand for a country that is not our own. My brothers have just returned from Iraq and I am to be sent shortly.
Last night I felt unappreciated and disrespected. These feelings are not a result of dissenting opinions or political views. I am dismayed as to the complete misrepresntation of basic facts.
1) My brothers and I have NEVER been deployed without body armor. In fact our respective units invested in brand new equipment for our use.
2) We volunteered and are aware that we may lose our lives.
3) No soldier or Marine would attempt or be ordered to defuse a IED without being qualified to do so. Also, standard operating procedure is simply to detonate the device safely and NOT to defuse it.
4) EVERY soldier and EVERY Marine are trained to fight and are qualified to guard a truck.
5) No contract is extended 26 years. In fact, I am aware of many soldiers and Marines who were NOT sent because their contracts would expire during deployment. If others are sent, they are given the CHOICE of resigning and are compensated generously. However, if they choose otherwise they will be required to satisfy their units deployment before release.
6) The client's brother could not have been 18. Despite the possibility that the soldier may have completed initial training by the time he was 18, he is not able to be deployed before his 18th birthday. Army deployment times are 1 year boots on ground time. In the fact pattern given in the show, he was held there beyond his deployment time, therefore he could not have been 18.
It is basic, fraudulent facts that give me the impression that ABC is simply attempting to attack the military and subsequently its service men and women.
I have decided to no longer watch this program.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Enough is enough. It's time to take down the New York Times.
Recently, the Times lied about a letter written by a Corporal Jeffery Starr, trying to twist his death, and even his life, into a Vietnam-cry of "QUAQMIRE." It's the 2000 number they've been praying for! Who cares if they've been killed in action, or car crashes, helicopter accidents, they're dead, yee-haw! Now the blood-sucking leaches at the Times gets to crow about it.
Now, as far as I'm concerned, Michelle Malkin has already written on this, but I don't know how many follow the links, so I'll give my own examination on the issue.
Last Wednesday, the Times published a 4,624-word opus on American casualties of war in Iraq. "2,000 Dead: As Iraq Tours Stretch On, a Grim Mark," read the headline. The macabre, Vietnam-evoking piece appeared prominently on page A2. Among those profiled were Marines from the First Battalion of the Fifth Marine Regiment, including Cpl. Jeffrey B. Starr. Here's the relevant passage:
Another member of the 1/5, Cpl. Jeffrey B. Starr, rejected a $24,000 bonus to re-enlist. Cpl. Starr believed strongly in the war, his father said, but was tired of the harsh life and nearness of death in Iraq. So he enrolled at Everett Community College near his parents' home in Snohomish, Wash., planning to study psychology after his enlistment ended in August.
But he died in a firefight in Ramadi on April 30 during his third tour in Iraq. He was 22.
Sifting through Cpl. Starr's laptop computer after his death, his father found a letter to be delivered to the Marine's girlfriend. "I kind of predicted this," Cpl. Starr wrote of his own death. "A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances."
END OF THE NYT PASSAGE
Now, this makes it look like this young Marine was resigned to a senseless death. Right? This is just a war for oil! Haliburton! Bush lied, kids died! W. and the Neo-Con Zionist conspiracy, and of course, the JOOOOOOOSSSSS [well, if you go by Cindy Sheehan].
HOWEVER, Ms. Malkin received a letter from Cpl. Starr's uncle, Timothy Lickness [the first Leftist who only takes away any humorous variations on the name "Lickness" will find himself signed up for large amounts of child pornography, and the FBI knocking on his door, capisce?].
Uncle Tim provided for the rest of the story — and the parts of Cpl. Starr's letter that the Times failed to include. IN THE LETTER'S ENTIRETY, Corporal Starr wrote,
"Obviously if you are reading this then I have died in Iraq. I kind of predicted this, that is why I'm writing this in November. A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances. I don't regret going, everybody dies but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it's not to me. I'm here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark." [Emphasis is mine]
What was that, you say, Cpl Starr? The NYT can't seem to hear you. You're not in Iraq because of corporations, Neo-Cons, W., oiiiiiillllllll, Haliburton, Karl Rove, or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?
"It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it's not to me. I'm here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark."
That's right, as far as he's concerned, he died for freedom. Now, I don't know about anyone else, like Maureen Dowd, but I think there's something that supercede's the "moral authority" of Cindy Sheehan and celebrity martyrs. It's the moral authority of the dead. Those people who have died and say "make our lives have meaning. I died for something, don't take that away from me."
Should anyone out there read this and say "Well, the kid was too stupid to know about the NeoCon cabal working with the corporations," now you're just being petty. If you honor the troops, you can't honestly turn around and say that they don't know what they're fighting for. Those of you who are against this war, well, you may not actually be against the soldiers, like the idiot who called for a million Mogadishus, but the soldiers are against you on this topic.
Now, when the the Times' reporter who wrote this schlock, James Dao, was queried about his bias, he replied, "There is nothing 'anti war' in the way I portrayed Cpl. Starr," and then, then....
I'm getting pissed now. I'll merely quote his reply: "Even the portion of his e-mail that I used, the one that you seem so offended by, does not express anti-war sentiment. It does express the fatalism that many soldiers and Marines seem to feel about multiple tours. Have you been to Iraq, Michael? Or to any other war, for that matter? If you have, you should know the anxiety and fear parents, spouses, and troops themselves feel when they deploy to war. And if you haven't, what right do you have to object when papers like The New York Times try to describe that anxiety and fear?"
Hey, Mr. Dao, can you answer any of those questions in the affirmative? Any? At all? You been to Iraq or anywhere else on a battlefield? The only time state-side reporters and reporters had any anxietys about their own sorry hides was when they saw Daniel Pearl nearly get his head cut off by these butchers.
As for the fear and trembling of our soldiers over seas, ummm.... when did they take a poll? Just WHEN did they have the telemarketing folks dial up satellite phones all over Iraq asking soldiers what they feel, or fear, want or dream? I've not seen more than a dozen or two soldiers appear on television in front of the news cameras whining about how they miss home, and NONE of them have said a thing about Haliburton. Does the Times consider this a statistically significant sample? Most sociologists and statisticians want AT LEAST 2,000 people giving opinions before it's even close to a representative sample.
Gee, 2,000, that number sounds familiar.
And this fatalism from Cpl. Starr? Well, as his father said, "Jeff had an awareness of death, but was very positive about coming home."
Does an "in case of my death" letter have anything to do with fatalism? Not really, EVEN I HAVE ONE OF THESE IN MY OWN FRIGGING SOCK DRAWER. An acknowledgement of ones mortality just means you're realistic.
The Times has no right to portray fear and anxiety that THEY feel, or that they THINK that everyone else should be feeling. I see more blogs from marines and soldiers IN Iraq than I see on television, and you know what they say?
"Oo-rah!"
"Semper fi, do or die, kill, kill, kill."
Let's see the Times report that.
"He has died to make men holy
Let us die to make men free
His truth is marching on." ~ the Battle Hymn of the Republic
************UPDATE*****************
Let's see the Times report a soldier's quick response back to James Dao's whine about no one being able to criticize him unless they have been to war:
"James, yes, I've been to war. Twice now, already in OIF, and I'm heading back to war within the month. Since you do not even have the courage to acknowledge that you used selected quotes from a dead soldier's last letter home to further your (and your paper's) agenda, you are not worthy of even writing about a Marine like Corporal Starr, never mind trying to psychoanalyze what he was feeling about being back in the war. You are a coward when only your reputation is on the line. Corporal Starr was courageous, when even his life was on the line.
Should I die in Iraq, on this, my third tour, my wife will have in her possesion, a letter from me to be released to the press, should some slimy dirtbag like you try to make it look like I served in anything other than an honorable manner. I'm proud of what I do, I do it knowingly and with full knowledge of what the background on this war is. And likely better knowledge of what the outcome can be. I'm not some poor schlep who needs a NYT reporter to "interpret" my thoughts. I've live in the Middle East longer than Juan Cole, I've met more common Iraqis than has George Galloway, and I know more about the military soldiers I serve with than you will ever know in a lifetime of mis-reporting on soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines."
Would Michael Moore like to call this man an idiot? A warmonger? Bloodthirsty savage? The Times will ignore him, and hopefully avoid using his name should he ever actually be KIA, God forfend.
On a recent episode of the Award Winning "Boston Legal," an argument was made that we're not witnessing enough of the blood in the streets of Baghdad. We're not seeing live footage of firefights. Why is that I wonder?
Because you'd see that in the battles, we're winning.
Because you'd see the Islamic hatemongers, and that would not be PC
Because you'd see that, gee, Iraq isn't in the middle of a civil war, because THE IRAQIS ARE FIGHTING WITH OUR FORCES, NOT AGAINST THEM.
Because you'd hear from the soldiers what they think, and the Times needs to tell you what "the soldiers really think."
Because that would require embedded reporters, and a lot of them have been recalled.
Because the embedded reporters still over there are on the side of the soldiers, and you can't let them stray off the reservation.
Because some reporters in Baghdad that still ARE on the reservation won't leave their hotel rooms.
Because should you witness the horrors of war, and see the horrors the insurgents bring down ON OTHER IRAQIS, you may actually think Bush was right. Can't let that happen, no.
And because David Kelly, the creator of Boston Legal, obviously watches network news, not Fox.
Recently, the Times lied about a letter written by a Corporal Jeffery Starr, trying to twist his death, and even his life, into a Vietnam-cry of "QUAQMIRE." It's the 2000 number they've been praying for! Who cares if they've been killed in action, or car crashes, helicopter accidents, they're dead, yee-haw! Now the blood-sucking leaches at the Times gets to crow about it.
Now, as far as I'm concerned, Michelle Malkin has already written on this, but I don't know how many follow the links, so I'll give my own examination on the issue.
Last Wednesday, the Times published a 4,624-word opus on American casualties of war in Iraq. "2,000 Dead: As Iraq Tours Stretch On, a Grim Mark," read the headline. The macabre, Vietnam-evoking piece appeared prominently on page A2. Among those profiled were Marines from the First Battalion of the Fifth Marine Regiment, including Cpl. Jeffrey B. Starr. Here's the relevant passage:
Another member of the 1/5, Cpl. Jeffrey B. Starr, rejected a $24,000 bonus to re-enlist. Cpl. Starr believed strongly in the war, his father said, but was tired of the harsh life and nearness of death in Iraq. So he enrolled at Everett Community College near his parents' home in Snohomish, Wash., planning to study psychology after his enlistment ended in August.
But he died in a firefight in Ramadi on April 30 during his third tour in Iraq. He was 22.
Sifting through Cpl. Starr's laptop computer after his death, his father found a letter to be delivered to the Marine's girlfriend. "I kind of predicted this," Cpl. Starr wrote of his own death. "A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances."
END OF THE NYT PASSAGE
Now, this makes it look like this young Marine was resigned to a senseless death. Right? This is just a war for oil! Haliburton! Bush lied, kids died! W. and the Neo-Con Zionist conspiracy, and of course, the JOOOOOOOSSSSS [well, if you go by Cindy Sheehan].
HOWEVER, Ms. Malkin received a letter from Cpl. Starr's uncle, Timothy Lickness [the first Leftist who only takes away any humorous variations on the name "Lickness" will find himself signed up for large amounts of child pornography, and the FBI knocking on his door, capisce?].
Uncle Tim provided for the rest of the story — and the parts of Cpl. Starr's letter that the Times failed to include. IN THE LETTER'S ENTIRETY, Corporal Starr wrote,
"Obviously if you are reading this then I have died in Iraq. I kind of predicted this, that is why I'm writing this in November. A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances. I don't regret going, everybody dies but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it's not to me. I'm here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark." [Emphasis is mine]
What was that, you say, Cpl Starr? The NYT can't seem to hear you. You're not in Iraq because of corporations, Neo-Cons, W., oiiiiiillllllll, Haliburton, Karl Rove, or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?
"It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it's not to me. I'm here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark."
That's right, as far as he's concerned, he died for freedom. Now, I don't know about anyone else, like Maureen Dowd, but I think there's something that supercede's the "moral authority" of Cindy Sheehan and celebrity martyrs. It's the moral authority of the dead. Those people who have died and say "make our lives have meaning. I died for something, don't take that away from me."
Should anyone out there read this and say "Well, the kid was too stupid to know about the NeoCon cabal working with the corporations," now you're just being petty. If you honor the troops, you can't honestly turn around and say that they don't know what they're fighting for. Those of you who are against this war, well, you may not actually be against the soldiers, like the idiot who called for a million Mogadishus, but the soldiers are against you on this topic.
Now, when the the Times' reporter who wrote this schlock, James Dao, was queried about his bias, he replied, "There is nothing 'anti war' in the way I portrayed Cpl. Starr," and then, then....
I'm getting pissed now. I'll merely quote his reply: "Even the portion of his e-mail that I used, the one that you seem so offended by, does not express anti-war sentiment. It does express the fatalism that many soldiers and Marines seem to feel about multiple tours. Have you been to Iraq, Michael? Or to any other war, for that matter? If you have, you should know the anxiety and fear parents, spouses, and troops themselves feel when they deploy to war. And if you haven't, what right do you have to object when papers like The New York Times try to describe that anxiety and fear?"
Hey, Mr. Dao, can you answer any of those questions in the affirmative? Any? At all? You been to Iraq or anywhere else on a battlefield? The only time state-side reporters and reporters had any anxietys about their own sorry hides was when they saw Daniel Pearl nearly get his head cut off by these butchers.
As for the fear and trembling of our soldiers over seas, ummm.... when did they take a poll? Just WHEN did they have the telemarketing folks dial up satellite phones all over Iraq asking soldiers what they feel, or fear, want or dream? I've not seen more than a dozen or two soldiers appear on television in front of the news cameras whining about how they miss home, and NONE of them have said a thing about Haliburton. Does the Times consider this a statistically significant sample? Most sociologists and statisticians want AT LEAST 2,000 people giving opinions before it's even close to a representative sample.
Gee, 2,000, that number sounds familiar.
And this fatalism from Cpl. Starr? Well, as his father said, "Jeff had an awareness of death, but was very positive about coming home."
Does an "in case of my death" letter have anything to do with fatalism? Not really, EVEN I HAVE ONE OF THESE IN MY OWN FRIGGING SOCK DRAWER. An acknowledgement of ones mortality just means you're realistic.
The Times has no right to portray fear and anxiety that THEY feel, or that they THINK that everyone else should be feeling. I see more blogs from marines and soldiers IN Iraq than I see on television, and you know what they say?
"Oo-rah!"
"Semper fi, do or die, kill, kill, kill."
Let's see the Times report that.
"He has died to make men holy
Let us die to make men free
His truth is marching on." ~ the Battle Hymn of the Republic
************UPDATE*****************
Let's see the Times report a soldier's quick response back to James Dao's whine about no one being able to criticize him unless they have been to war:
"James, yes, I've been to war. Twice now, already in OIF, and I'm heading back to war within the month. Since you do not even have the courage to acknowledge that you used selected quotes from a dead soldier's last letter home to further your (and your paper's) agenda, you are not worthy of even writing about a Marine like Corporal Starr, never mind trying to psychoanalyze what he was feeling about being back in the war. You are a coward when only your reputation is on the line. Corporal Starr was courageous, when even his life was on the line.
Should I die in Iraq, on this, my third tour, my wife will have in her possesion, a letter from me to be released to the press, should some slimy dirtbag like you try to make it look like I served in anything other than an honorable manner. I'm proud of what I do, I do it knowingly and with full knowledge of what the background on this war is. And likely better knowledge of what the outcome can be. I'm not some poor schlep who needs a NYT reporter to "interpret" my thoughts. I've live in the Middle East longer than Juan Cole, I've met more common Iraqis than has George Galloway, and I know more about the military soldiers I serve with than you will ever know in a lifetime of mis-reporting on soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines."
Would Michael Moore like to call this man an idiot? A warmonger? Bloodthirsty savage? The Times will ignore him, and hopefully avoid using his name should he ever actually be KIA, God forfend.
On a recent episode of the Award Winning "Boston Legal," an argument was made that we're not witnessing enough of the blood in the streets of Baghdad. We're not seeing live footage of firefights. Why is that I wonder?
Because you'd see that in the battles, we're winning.
Because you'd see the Islamic hatemongers, and that would not be PC
Because you'd see that, gee, Iraq isn't in the middle of a civil war, because THE IRAQIS ARE FIGHTING WITH OUR FORCES, NOT AGAINST THEM.
Because you'd hear from the soldiers what they think, and the Times needs to tell you what "the soldiers really think."
Because that would require embedded reporters, and a lot of them have been recalled.
Because the embedded reporters still over there are on the side of the soldiers, and you can't let them stray off the reservation.
Because some reporters in Baghdad that still ARE on the reservation won't leave their hotel rooms.
Because should you witness the horrors of war, and see the horrors the insurgents bring down ON OTHER IRAQIS, you may actually think Bush was right. Can't let that happen, no.
And because David Kelly, the creator of Boston Legal, obviously watches network news, not Fox.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Terrorists are stupid.
Let's be honest. How many people expect a weapon of mass destruction to be used by some half assed terrorist? Honestly? Sure, would they like to, certainly. Would they do it if they could, yup. But can they? Ah....
Answer: they're too stupid.
Think about it. I can figure out a better terrorist attack than any of these bozos. You want terror? Screw the twin towers, go after Grand Central Station with a biological weapon, a little smallpox, for example, maybe plague, and you can infect half the east coast within hours. Suicide bombers in the terminal during rush hour would also be effective.
Look at Grant Central for a moment, okay? No security checks. No metal detectors, x-rays, nothing. Even I could make an anti-personnel bomb and bring it inside.
Think about it: bioweapons and suicide bombers would both leave the station virtually intact, and the building would eventually be reopened. But in the meantime, traffic would be shot to hell, and once it's reopened... well, would YOU want to go back there? The damage would be done. The terminal would be seen by millions of people as a plague-infected site by the ignorant, or it would be seen as a monument of death. It would be a lingering, lasting monument to a victory that would cost hundreds [suicide bomber] if not thousands, or millions of lives [bioweapon].
Traffic would be crippled, either by a lack of people coming in, or by the level of security now required to fully scan everyone coming on or off a train, into or out of the station. It would be a NIGHTMARE, worse than blowing up the 59th street bridge.
But why haven't they? I can make mustard gas, or a bomb. My MOTHER is a medical technologist, and she can make a bioweapon in our kitchen. Is it so impossible for al-Qaeda to find five guys to get an associates degree in London for medical technology, or chemistry, for them to get the same level of education? Anyone can come in through the Canadian or Mexican-US border, so why hasn't something like that happened?
Because they're STUPID.
It's not even their fault really. Most terrorists are idiots. The IRA for example. They've blow up the wrong targets, caught more people in the crossfire than some Palestinian terrorists, and the Palestinians are AIMING for the civillians. Then there was the Japanese Red Army unit brought in to Israel to aid the Palestinians-- they got cut down in the airport because they didn't know the Israelis had security! Idiots.
Thomas Aquinas once suggested that sin makes you stupid, and I think he's right.
When I can be more creative than Al-Qaeda, something is definitely wrong here.
And one day, I suspect, we will see an attempted nuclear strike on America. They may even make it happen. Why do I say that would be stupid?
Because they'd be dead.
Mecca, Medina, gone. Saudi Arabia, gone. Oil fields? Saudi's population is mostly on the shoreline, away from the oil. Syria? Israel can have them, if they want them. Iran will either disarm, or be destroyed. And God help anyone who gave them a nuke in the first place [PRC? PRNK? Russia?]. The party will be over. War on terror would be finished. And would the world protest? No, because they know that a nuke is crossing the line.
The UN would complain, as would all the usual suspects, but would they really do anything to try to harm us? Nope, why would they? Environmental disasters? Not really, the Middle east is a large sandlot, and the populations that aren't nuked can be transplanted [although the winds won't be able to carry the radiation that far east, and remember that OUR nukes come with very little fallout].
Aren't I being callous about this? A nuclear strike would be on either NY or DC [and the Secretary of agriculture would be the head of the country]. Well, if DC, we've got elections, and the bureaucracy is really hard to destroy, not to mention the amount of bunkers floating around. The Pakistani bomb requires a warhead the size of a volleyball, and MAY destroy midtown Manhattan [US warheads are the size of a bottle of Pepsi and can vaporize the 5 boroughs], and I live in Queens, so I should be relatively safe, because I intend to run like hell after the initial explosion, or at least head East, away from the fallout.
Or I'll be dead, and I won't have to worry much about it, now would I?
But truthfully, I don't think it'll ever come to that, because, as I've noted, they're STUPID. If they were serious about attacking us, they'd do it. They'd be sending people across the border daily for the sole purpose of sending them directly to a target. Any target. My father, a professor in Philosophy, came up with the idea of blowing up the New Orleans dam as a terrorist attack FIVE YEARS AGO. What is their problem that a family of academics dickering around with this as a mental exercise can come up with a better plan than bin Laden himself?
They're stupid. The only reason they could even get away with 9/11 is that the hostage playbook said be calm, you'll be ransomed for later, just play nice with the hostages. After 9/11, we knew better. Even Flight 93 knew better. Sneaker-Bomber Boy was nearly torn apart by the passengers around him, so we know the rules have changed. I want to see some terrorist pull a box cutter on board a plane coming out of La Guardia and see how long he lasts.
The terrorist threat to this country remains, but there are days I think it's just a threat. Looking at the kill ratios in Iraq, and the genius exhibited thus far by the Al-Qaeda crew over there [who have admitted in private memos that they are getting their ass kicked], all I can see is that they're being beaten senseless. We keep fighting them, and they remain a potential threat to the homeland proper, and certainly to our guys in country.
But, fine, they kill 2,000 of US army troops. Between, 30 and 60,000 prisoners are held in Iraq right now, and those are only the survivors [considering how many people get brought in from out of town, that's not that many prisoners]. Considering that the US army is not a police force, 60,000 prisoners may be a tenth of the insurgents encountered [the US army doesn't do body counts anymore]. This of course, doesn't count the suicide bombers who blow themselves up, adding to the body count on their side.
And according to my friend Jason at IR, in any individual sweep we net 150-1,000 people, and that's not counting prolonged engagements
During WW2, the US lost 3,000 people on Ohmaha beach by NOON of D-day. We've lost 2,000 in four years, in two wars, where for every one person they kill, we get at least thirty, and that's just a guess from someone who doesn't even look at a body count. It's more likely 50-1 odds, and the 50 number isn't OUR body count.
If this was a fair fight, I'd be worried, but you know what....?
They're stupid.
Unfortunately, as I write this, I know some Lefitst Liberal Looney somewhere will use this and twist it to say "WMDs are unimportant."
No, they are important, and you know why?
Because sometimes idiots can get lucky.
Let's be honest. How many people expect a weapon of mass destruction to be used by some half assed terrorist? Honestly? Sure, would they like to, certainly. Would they do it if they could, yup. But can they? Ah....
Answer: they're too stupid.
Think about it. I can figure out a better terrorist attack than any of these bozos. You want terror? Screw the twin towers, go after Grand Central Station with a biological weapon, a little smallpox, for example, maybe plague, and you can infect half the east coast within hours. Suicide bombers in the terminal during rush hour would also be effective.
Look at Grant Central for a moment, okay? No security checks. No metal detectors, x-rays, nothing. Even I could make an anti-personnel bomb and bring it inside.
Think about it: bioweapons and suicide bombers would both leave the station virtually intact, and the building would eventually be reopened. But in the meantime, traffic would be shot to hell, and once it's reopened... well, would YOU want to go back there? The damage would be done. The terminal would be seen by millions of people as a plague-infected site by the ignorant, or it would be seen as a monument of death. It would be a lingering, lasting monument to a victory that would cost hundreds [suicide bomber] if not thousands, or millions of lives [bioweapon].
Traffic would be crippled, either by a lack of people coming in, or by the level of security now required to fully scan everyone coming on or off a train, into or out of the station. It would be a NIGHTMARE, worse than blowing up the 59th street bridge.
But why haven't they? I can make mustard gas, or a bomb. My MOTHER is a medical technologist, and she can make a bioweapon in our kitchen. Is it so impossible for al-Qaeda to find five guys to get an associates degree in London for medical technology, or chemistry, for them to get the same level of education? Anyone can come in through the Canadian or Mexican-US border, so why hasn't something like that happened?
Because they're STUPID.
It's not even their fault really. Most terrorists are idiots. The IRA for example. They've blow up the wrong targets, caught more people in the crossfire than some Palestinian terrorists, and the Palestinians are AIMING for the civillians. Then there was the Japanese Red Army unit brought in to Israel to aid the Palestinians-- they got cut down in the airport because they didn't know the Israelis had security! Idiots.
Thomas Aquinas once suggested that sin makes you stupid, and I think he's right.
When I can be more creative than Al-Qaeda, something is definitely wrong here.
And one day, I suspect, we will see an attempted nuclear strike on America. They may even make it happen. Why do I say that would be stupid?
Because they'd be dead.
Mecca, Medina, gone. Saudi Arabia, gone. Oil fields? Saudi's population is mostly on the shoreline, away from the oil. Syria? Israel can have them, if they want them. Iran will either disarm, or be destroyed. And God help anyone who gave them a nuke in the first place [PRC? PRNK? Russia?]. The party will be over. War on terror would be finished. And would the world protest? No, because they know that a nuke is crossing the line.
The UN would complain, as would all the usual suspects, but would they really do anything to try to harm us? Nope, why would they? Environmental disasters? Not really, the Middle east is a large sandlot, and the populations that aren't nuked can be transplanted [although the winds won't be able to carry the radiation that far east, and remember that OUR nukes come with very little fallout].
Aren't I being callous about this? A nuclear strike would be on either NY or DC [and the Secretary of agriculture would be the head of the country]. Well, if DC, we've got elections, and the bureaucracy is really hard to destroy, not to mention the amount of bunkers floating around. The Pakistani bomb requires a warhead the size of a volleyball, and MAY destroy midtown Manhattan [US warheads are the size of a bottle of Pepsi and can vaporize the 5 boroughs], and I live in Queens, so I should be relatively safe, because I intend to run like hell after the initial explosion, or at least head East, away from the fallout.
Or I'll be dead, and I won't have to worry much about it, now would I?
But truthfully, I don't think it'll ever come to that, because, as I've noted, they're STUPID. If they were serious about attacking us, they'd do it. They'd be sending people across the border daily for the sole purpose of sending them directly to a target. Any target. My father, a professor in Philosophy, came up with the idea of blowing up the New Orleans dam as a terrorist attack FIVE YEARS AGO. What is their problem that a family of academics dickering around with this as a mental exercise can come up with a better plan than bin Laden himself?
They're stupid. The only reason they could even get away with 9/11 is that the hostage playbook said be calm, you'll be ransomed for later, just play nice with the hostages. After 9/11, we knew better. Even Flight 93 knew better. Sneaker-Bomber Boy was nearly torn apart by the passengers around him, so we know the rules have changed. I want to see some terrorist pull a box cutter on board a plane coming out of La Guardia and see how long he lasts.
The terrorist threat to this country remains, but there are days I think it's just a threat. Looking at the kill ratios in Iraq, and the genius exhibited thus far by the Al-Qaeda crew over there [who have admitted in private memos that they are getting their ass kicked], all I can see is that they're being beaten senseless. We keep fighting them, and they remain a potential threat to the homeland proper, and certainly to our guys in country.
But, fine, they kill 2,000 of US army troops. Between, 30 and 60,000 prisoners are held in Iraq right now, and those are only the survivors [considering how many people get brought in from out of town, that's not that many prisoners]. Considering that the US army is not a police force, 60,000 prisoners may be a tenth of the insurgents encountered [the US army doesn't do body counts anymore]. This of course, doesn't count the suicide bombers who blow themselves up, adding to the body count on their side.
And according to my friend Jason at IR, in any individual sweep we net 150-1,000 people, and that's not counting prolonged engagements
During WW2, the US lost 3,000 people on Ohmaha beach by NOON of D-day. We've lost 2,000 in four years, in two wars, where for every one person they kill, we get at least thirty, and that's just a guess from someone who doesn't even look at a body count. It's more likely 50-1 odds, and the 50 number isn't OUR body count.
If this was a fair fight, I'd be worried, but you know what....?
They're stupid.
Unfortunately, as I write this, I know some Lefitst Liberal Looney somewhere will use this and twist it to say "WMDs are unimportant."
No, they are important, and you know why?
Because sometimes idiots can get lucky.
The Game is a Foot, an arm, a leg, and whatever else we find in the woodchipper when it's done.
I've mentioned before that the UN's food for oil program was a corrupt, glorified money laundering scheme for Saddam Insane. The Iraq Daily, Al-Mada, had noted 270 recipients of Saddam's oil vouchers for bribes, men such as George Galloway, the British version of Michael Moore, and Tony Blair's opposition. Galloway was allocated to received 18 million barrels of discount crude in return for his anti-war stance. Apparently, twas only the beginning. We've found a few more companies.
About 2,122 more of them.
That's right, 2,392 companies turned the oil-for-food program into a cesspool of mass corruption. Paul Volcker's comission has found 2,392 of the 4,500 companies from 66 countries that did business in the giant program allowed Saddam to rip off $1.8 billion in kickbacks and surcharges and another $10.9 billion through oil smuggling. Oh, yeah, we also have old friends involved.
Billionaire commodities trader Marc Rich, for one, pardoned by Clinton in his last wave of pardons as he was smuggled out the white house door. He was apparently the middle man in the deal, providing the financing, lifting the oil and overpaying by 30 to 40 cents a barrel so that a kickback could be paid to Saddam's regime. The deal took place just weeks after Rich received his midnight pardon from President Bill Clinton .
Taurus Petroleum is also listed as a major player in Saddam's sleazy oil dealing. Taurus financed the purchase of 256 million barrels of oil, even though it never had a single U.N. contract.
Between March 2001 and December 2002 — just months before the war — $52 million in surcharge payments were routed through the Iraqi Embassy in Moscow.
And should we talk about the French? Their bank handled the account for the U.N. oil-for-food program and provided letters of credit needed for the deals to go through. Contracts were being given to shell companies but "did not recognize a particular responsibility to adequately inform the U.N" [the Volcker report].
NOW can we use RICO to shut down the UN?
I've mentioned before that the UN's food for oil program was a corrupt, glorified money laundering scheme for Saddam Insane. The Iraq Daily, Al-Mada, had noted 270 recipients of Saddam's oil vouchers for bribes, men such as George Galloway, the British version of Michael Moore, and Tony Blair's opposition. Galloway was allocated to received 18 million barrels of discount crude in return for his anti-war stance. Apparently, twas only the beginning. We've found a few more companies.
About 2,122 more of them.
That's right, 2,392 companies turned the oil-for-food program into a cesspool of mass corruption. Paul Volcker's comission has found 2,392 of the 4,500 companies from 66 countries that did business in the giant program allowed Saddam to rip off $1.8 billion in kickbacks and surcharges and another $10.9 billion through oil smuggling. Oh, yeah, we also have old friends involved.
Billionaire commodities trader Marc Rich, for one, pardoned by Clinton in his last wave of pardons as he was smuggled out the white house door. He was apparently the middle man in the deal, providing the financing, lifting the oil and overpaying by 30 to 40 cents a barrel so that a kickback could be paid to Saddam's regime. The deal took place just weeks after Rich received his midnight pardon from President Bill Clinton .
Taurus Petroleum is also listed as a major player in Saddam's sleazy oil dealing. Taurus financed the purchase of 256 million barrels of oil, even though it never had a single U.N. contract.
Between March 2001 and December 2002 — just months before the war — $52 million in surcharge payments were routed through the Iraqi Embassy in Moscow.
And should we talk about the French? Their bank handled the account for the U.N. oil-for-food program and provided letters of credit needed for the deals to go through. Contracts were being given to shell companies but "did not recognize a particular responsibility to adequately inform the U.N" [the Volcker report].
NOW can we use RICO to shut down the UN?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)