Wednesday, August 30, 2006

Green Bean Wants to Debate Bush; My Money is on Tony Blair

Green Bean Almandine, The Mouth That Roared, The Grand Poobah of All That is Sandy, the Main Man In Charge of the Iranian Sound Machine, has declared that all the differences between ultra-pure and Oh, So Desirable radical Islam and the decadent west can be resolved if President George Bush agrees to an international debate with him.

I can see this now; a rerun of the old Monty Python routine. "Oh you wanted an argument. That's down the hall. This is abuse!"

First of all, just because a guy runs his mouth twenty-four seven doesn't mean that what comes out of it is intelligible. Second, this is just another attention getting device by a guy who obviously didn't get enough loving from his father.

For George Bush to take a bit of this seriously would be a mistake of interstellar proportions because the Iranian leadership just isn't of the same quality or ability level as, well, anyone else, anywhere else. This is a classic case of a guy with major insecurities trying to convince his captive constituency that he really is a big shot, a player on the international stage.

Talk about an Alligator Mouth overloading a Hummingbird rear end.

But look at how he displays his credentials and capabilities. "Hey Bush, c'mon man, I'll take you on. I'll take you on anytime, anywhere. Yeah, man, you don't scare me. I'll take you on with half my mouth duct-taped shut. C'mon, Bush! Hey, Bush, over here, look at me when I talk to you."

Then he turns his attention to England and warns the Brits that they better not overstep their bounds.

Oh, really?

Well, Beano Old Man, since you brought up Merry Olde England, I have a challenge for you.

How about you do a few warm-up rounds with Tony Blair, winner gets a dinner with Bush? Heh, heh.

Yes, I mean THE Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, the host/focal point of the Prime Minister's Questions, the best show on C-Span, wherein he takes on all comers from the House of Commons once a week when they are in session in London.

Have you ever seen that show? Have you ever seen a man who is more in control of the issues, the concepts, the theater? Wow.

Blair takes whatever questions are thrown at him, ranging from serious challenges to his policies and beliefs to left field questions from fringe elements. He handles them all with the same level of seriousness, the same level of knowledge and an incredible ability to change gears from subject to subject on an instant's notice.

In what has to be the best example of Democracy on Parade, the members of the house cut Blair absolutely no slack, with jeers, catcalls and boos a time-honored element that lend an air of combativeness to the proceedings. Blair takes them all on and never gets ruffled.

So, Green Bean, what do you say? You want a debate? You think you have what it takes to prevail on the international scene? Debate isn't such a big deal here in the US. Even though we sit through them every four years at election time, hardly anyone ever changes their vote based on the outcome.

But in England. Now that is the Land of Debates.

A few ground rules. You go to London. It's only right since you brought this up and I'm sure the Prime Minister would not want to be kidnapped and forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint. Let's face, it, you couldn't prevent forced conversions on a wholesale scale if your minions were so inclined.

And Blair gets a live feed to Al-Jazeera. No time delay, no cutting away every time you get your head handed to you. Oh, and an interpreter to interpret your interpreter just so the Prime Minister isn't told one thing when you have actually said something else. That should just about do it. What do you say?

In my opinion, Tony Blair will verbally fillet you. In the words of a knife-fighting expert I once knew in the Marines, he'll "cut you wide, deep and continuous. He'll slice you so sharp and so fine you won't know you've been carved up until you go home and get yelled at by your Mama for dragging your sorry, bleeding rear end around the kitchen."

The ball is in your court Bean. And if by some unexplained realignment of the cosmos, you take on Tony Blair and win, we'll let you come to the US and meet some of the people you've been threatening to bury in a nuclear holocaust.

You should be familiar with their type. After all, you and the World Terrorist Media constantly refer to President Bush as a "Cowboy." We'll introduce you to real cowboys, and I'm sure we can arrange for them to introduce you to some of their time-honored customs, and even show you some of their time-honored history.

Ever hear of Tombstone?


The World Terrorists Media's (WTM) subsidiary, the American Terrorist Media (ATM) is taking a rare, self-generated opportunity this week to bash the living daylights out of President Bush, this time over the often replayed but never duplicated federal response to Hurricane Katrina that hit the Gulf Coast exactly one year ago this week.

The point of this unprecedented coverage of a one-year event is to remind voters everywhere that Bush is responsible for global warming because he refused to sign the Kyoto Treaty, which would have immediately ended centuries of fossil fuel pollution and thus instantly reversed global warming trends, regardless of the fact that India and China with a billion people each didn't sign it either.

Since he didn't sign on to Kyoto, using as a pretense its unfairness to American industry and the resultant loss of millions of American jobs, the earth kept warming up and the hurricanes got worse, culminating in Katrina, the mother of all hurricanes and by God, it would not have happened if it weren't for George Bush!

But tucked away in all the coverage of the recovery efforts in the Gulf region are a couple of notable contradictions to the ATM Bash Bush coverage.

Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour has given interviews showing just what can happen in a state hit by the largest natural disaster ever in the country's history, when you organize, get working, use the federal assistance available and rebuild. Mississippi is well on the way to being rebuilt.

Louisiana, by contrast, and especially New Orleans, still looks like a moonscape. One of the most glaring disparities in the cleanup efforts concerns the removal of abandoned cars left in New Orleans. As reported on Fox News, an auto crushing company from Texas offered to pay New Orleans $100 per vehicle, an estimated $5 million net to the city.

They agreed to bring in portable crushers, work 6 days per week and complete the job in 15 weeks. But Mayor Nagin refused saying the city would do the job. Now we learn it will cost the city $23 million to complete and the vehicles are still there.

Instead of netting $5 million, doing it Mayor Nagin's way costs the city $23 million for a net cost of $28,000,000. Remind me please, this is George Bush's fault ... how?

Now let's leap across the globe to China, where this has been an especially devastating year due to at least 8 tropical storms hitting the mainland so far, ranging from tropical storms to major typhoons. Thousands of residents have died, flooding has devastated wide areas, and more than a million people have been forced to flee their homes.

Two weeks ago, villagers in south China accused the government of failing to give adequate warning before Typhoon Saomai slammed into the region. Saomai, which hit China as a Category 4 storm with 135 mile per hour winds, was a near mirror image of Katrina.

Villagers said more than a thousand people died but that officials were covering up the actual death toll. News reports quoted villagers saying they didn't get sufficient warning about the approach of the storm, especially fishermen who don't watch TV while working on their boats.

Local officials are frequently accused of trying to conceal the extent of industrial accidents, natural disasters and other calamities, fearing both official punishment and public anger.

Hong Kong's South China Morning Post newspaper said the mayor of Fuding was confronted by angry villagers in Shacheng when he visited. "His car was surrounded by angry victims' families ... and was booed, pushed and pelted with stones," the newspaper said.

Then there was ... silence. Nothing more was said. The WTM did not descend on the region, the Chinese government was not called on the carpet, the Chinese administration was not blamed for a slow or insufficient response, and no public officials were pilloried for causing the storm in the first place.

Why, you might ask? I have a theory.

Laogai. The word, based on an acronym for the phrase "reform through labor,"
is the Chinese name for concentration camps that dot the Chinese landscape where "dissidents" are sent for criticizing the government. Many inhabitants of the Laogai are Christians who are confined at hard labor for daring to spread the word of Jesus Christ and his message of peace and brotherly love. Can't have that in a communist country now can we?

What do you suppose happened to the WTM after Typhoon Saomai? Where were the network anchors and others of the anointed elite, painting horrendous pictures of looting, physical crime, starving children, old folks without medicine? Where oh, where did they go?

Well, I guess they went back to Louisiana and New Orleans where you can criticize the government and blame the president for all kinds of natural disasters without fear of retribution.

And what about the villagers who protested, stoned the government and complained about inefficiency? Where did they end up? Do they have housing? Food? Medical care? Well, maybe. You see my theory is that the population of China's laogai went up in the last couple of weeks by exactly the number of villagers who protested government inefficiency.

Otherwise, the WTM would still be there with intrepid and dauntless reporters exposing all kinds of government inefficiency. Right?

Or are they just waiting for the Atlantic Hurricane season to deliver Hurricane Laogai right into their laps?
Monday, August 28, 2006

Gunpoint Conversions; New Muslim Recruitment

Unlike so many other kidnappings at the hands of Muslim extremists, Fox News reporter Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig were released Sunday morning, physically unharmed but somewhat worse the wear emotionally.

Among the indignities suffered during their 13 days of captivity besides the separation from their loved ones and living in fear of beheading at any moment, were being forced face down on filthy dirt floors, making propaganda videos denouncing the United States, and converting to Islam at gunpoint.

The last, among all the other strategies, is sure to create a tidal wave of voluntary conversions throughout the world. Gunpoint conversions! What a concept! Why didn't the Christians and Jews think of that? I mean, it is right out of the Communist-inspired, New World Order playbook.

Don't agree with us? OK, Bubba, you either see it our way right now or we splatter your gray matter all over your jogging suit. Worked for the communists for 60 years, so why wouldn't it work for Islamo-extremists?

The communists screwed up by linking oppression, slavery, and subjugation to an economic blueprint, which obviously didn't work out -- it had something to do with free will versus forced labor, but we'll go into that another time. But since the Islamo-extremists don't give a hoot what kind of living conditions they force on their subjects, not peers mind you, subjects, the use of oppression this time shouldn't have the same problems the communists ran into.

We only have to look at the places where the extremists live to see the truth of this concept. Where do extremists congregate? Slums. Slums outside of Paris, slums outside of London, the Gaza Strip, and southern Lebanon to name just a few. OK, maybe southern Lebanon wasn't a slum to begin with, but look what happened when the extremists moved in next door.

One day it was a nice plot with a three-bedroom house, flowering vines and an olive orchard. A day later it was a launching pad for Soviet made rockets, ferried in by other extremist supporters from Iran and Syria, who we should note coincidentally, don't live in slums as their minions do, and the next day, whammo, instant rubble.

There goes the neighborhood.

Nope, without being saddled with economic necessities like creating a society that engages in productive and meaningful employment, a steady improvement in living conditions and standard of living, gunpoint conversions should have no problem sweeping the world.

And, just in case anyone is not connecting the dots, and thinking to themselves, "Hey, what about in places where the populace is armed," we have the Untied Nations and the World Terrorist Media, abetted by its subsidiary the American Terrorist Media, to push universal disarmament. Look what it did for Scotland and Australia!

Yes, I think this unfortunate incident in the Gaza Strip has produced the desired outcome for the Islamo-extremists. Two kidnap victims equal two new Muslims, plus an entire library of recruitment videos. I've said it before, and I'll say it again; the more we depend on high technology, the more we are susceptible to Stone Age tactics.

All these centuries Christian and Jewish missionaries have been traveling to remote areas of the world, knocking on neighborhood doors, bringing innocent and all-dressed-up children along carrying religious tracts, and trying to convert by spreading the word of God, and showing by example why their faith was desirable.

All this time, all they had to do was invest in firearms and videotapes! And when it was all over, Centanni made a point of telling the world that the people of Palestine are a beautiful, peaceful race, who have a wonderful, Disneyesque story to tell the world, and by all means, hordes of other journalists should descend on the Gaza Strip where they too might be kidnapped and converted.

Effective or what? Steve, Olaf, see you at the mosque.
Saturday, August 26, 2006

Bill Cosby and Juan Williams

When I was a teenager Bill Cosby had already established himself as an up and coming comedian, with a calendar full of public appearances and successful comedy routines that introduced us to characters including Fat Albert, Junior Barnes, Old Weird Harold, Crying Charlie and Neanderthal Man.

As I grew Cosby continued to distinguish himself in television, movies and books. He was there on records in the barracks at the Marine bases where I was stationed, relieving the boredom and the difficulties of Marine life with his tales of growing up -- "We had never seen The Belt, but we had heard of it" -- tales that many of us could relate to regardless of our race. Eventually he morphed into the Everydad who dispensed wisdom and life's lessons to a television family and a generation of viewers on The Cosby Show.

Bill Cosby started out as a black man from a poor neighborhood whom everyone could like and ended up as a highly educated and effective black man who was listened to and emulated by responsible parents from all walks of life.

He did this before and throughout the Civil Rights Era, when America was aflame, literally, with the passions of change and the demand for equality. Not everything he tried was an overwhelming success, and he certainly had more than his share of personal difficulties and tragedies. But he was always there, moving on, moving forward, whether his latest project was a sitcom, an animated series, best selling non-fiction, or a cable TV special, never lacking in courage and dignity.

I'm not sure how he felt about the Vietnam War; I don't remember him publicly discussing it. I know how he felt about civil rights, but I don't remember him as a radical calling for warfare between the races and further divisiveness, rather showing by example how the races could work together, and how much alike we are.

Cosby was criticized in those days by radical elements in the black community who claimed he should have been among the chorus of voices working to ensure the races never moved beyond the transgressions of the past, and that race relations should always be based on blame, guilt, and reparations in one form or another.

But in an interview from that time Cosby said he didn't think it was appropriate for the races to insult each other, even through comedy, and that he'd rather point out the similarities in the human experience.

Lately Cosby has been the focus of criticism from some in the black community again, this time because he had the temerity in a 2004 speech to tell black youth that they are responsible for their successes in life, or lack thereof, and that black leaders who preach divisiveness, animosity and low living are doing a disservice to black America.

But Cosby is not alone in his beliefs or his willingness to speak out on them. This month National Public Radio and Fox News commentator Juan Williams has joined Cosby as a new voice and new conscience for the black community. He too is being unfairly criticized and covered with unflattering labels that all boil down to the term "sellout."

Williams' new book, Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America -- and What We Can Do About It. takes dead aim at what he calls a culture of self-pity and defeat. Not surprisingly the strongest criticism comes from those in the black community who profit the most from continuing that culture.

Before I go any further, I should point out that politically, there is little I agree on with Juan Williams. I regularly see him on television talk shows, especially Fox News Sunday, and listen to him on NPR. My views are usually 180 degrees out from his.

In fact, since James Carvelle has scaled back his appearances on prime time television talk shows, Williams is the man most likely to prod me into melting my television screen with a blistering response to his positions.

I seriously doubt I will suddenly find common ground with him on political matters, but I do agree with the premise of his book.

In fact, I believe that Cosby and Williams figured out something that other black leaders want swept under the rug. Once Civil Rights legislation was enacted in America, the playing field became even, and the success rate of each individual and race was based 100 percent on personal dedication, ability and performance, not on artificial quotas and programs.

If we take a close look at the advancements made by black American in the past two generations it is obvious that most black people figured that out too, and there is much to celebrate, for blacks and all Americans.

According to the annual report Buying Power of Black America, black households had $656 billion in earned income in 2003. That is more than the entire Gross Domestic Product of most nations in the world.

This income didn't come from government handouts and feel good programs. It came from hardworking black Americans going to their jobs, getting educated, improving their lot in life and passing it on to their children.

Sure there still is insidious racism in America. There still are people who blame their shortcomings on others and work to continue ethnic and social hostility. But when the laws changed in the 60s, the efforts of those who prefer to keep the races at each others' throats instead of working together became more of a social nuisance and less of an effective strategy. The buying power of black America is testament to the effectiveness of laws ensuring equality and the ineffectiveness of victimization as a social strategy.

Juan Williams and Bill Cosby are showing tremendous courage in bucking the public trend to blame all the inequities of black society on "The Man," or "Whitey" or on some nameless, faceless entity conspiring to "Keep the black man down."

The fact is, many black men, and of special note, many black women have figured out that if they make education and hard work a priority, they have every bit as much a shot at succeeding in America as anyone else. And with financial independence comes financial and social attractiveness.

Teaching black children to emulate criminals, celebrate drug abuse, degrade females, dress like circus clowns, and put rampant commercialism ahead of family values and common sense is to ensure that the next generation will be just like this one and the one before. But to point out the failures of that culture and to celebrate the time tested and traditional values of education, hard work and long term goals is to ensure not only continual improvements, but an increasingly viable position in determining the direction of government and society.

Juan Williams and Bill Cosby should be regaled as men of principal, character and vision. Their willingness to speak up and speak out says volumes about them, and will spur incalculable positive changes for the black American community. More than anything, these efforts are likely to mark their lasting legacy.
Thursday, August 24, 2006

Terrorists Don't Grow On Trees!

In the One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest world where insane is sane, and sane is missing that passes for politics in the US and by extension the Untied Nations, it is commonplace to hear high officials make some of the stupidest comments ever to emanate from human beings' vocal chords.

But by far the stupidest, dumbest, all time record holding, most uninformed commentary currently making the rounds is the concept that the free world causes terrorism, because the terrorists just don't have all that we have. If we just stopped shooting these poor unfortunate, jealous, envy ridden, insecure, unsure of their masculinity societal rejects, why these misdirected little urchins would go away and all would be peaceful!

Earth to the Democratic Party leaders and the UN - Terrorists create terrorists. Shooting terrorists eliminates them!

Let me rephrase that in words that even a UN ambassador can understand.

War does not create terrorists. Sanctions do!

In a replay of the impotency that labeled the UN efforts to disarm Saddam Hussein, the deposed Iraqi dictator now in his second trial for murdering hundreds of thousands of his countrymen, that same body is playing "cross that line" with Iran's leader, Green Bean Almandine, and Iran's puppet-state Syria that suddenly has decided it is an international bad ass. (In a classic display of denial the two leaders apparently don't realize that they look like a modern day embodiment of the cartoon characters Mutt and Jeff when they review the troops.)

The scenario plays out like this.

UN: (Sternly)"Green Bean Almandine! We give you until June to stop developing weapons grade plutonium!"

Almandine: "UN, Go to Hell and burn there for all eternity."

UN: "OK, Green Bean. June is over but we give you until July 12th to stop developing weapons grade plutonium."

Almandine: "May the Keys of a Thousand Flamels Crestle in Your Notch!"

UN: "We mean it this time Green Bean! One more ounce of weapons grade plutonium or any other fissionable material after July 31, and we're imposing sanctions."

Almandine: "May all your daughters grow up to be insatiable whores and Brittany Spears look-alikes!"

UN: "That's It! We're not kidding. If that nuclear development project goes one day past August it's curtains for you boy-o!

Syria: "Hey, UN, get the f**k away from my borders and stop looking for weapons shipments to Hezbollah. You come around here and I'll kick your ass!"

UN: "Oh, sorry Syria, we weren't talking to you. We didn't mean to upset you, we were just trying to get Iran to understand we are serious."

Syria: "Hey, what's with you? You don't understand simple concepts? Shut up and go away and do it NOW. And Don't Give Me That Look or I'll smack you so hard your Brie will decompose."

UN: "Uh, OK, but will you try to let Iran understand the seriousness of this situation? Oh, and the validity of our positions, and the impact that endless unenforced resolutions, and sanctions that will deteriorate the quality of life for your subjects while you live in opulence and pay off our middlemen will have on the populations of your countries? Could you? You know, just kind of pass that on? Please?

Syria and Almandine in unison: "Hey, UN, did you ever spend any time in a Turkish prison? BEND OVER!"

UN: "Well, OK, but just this once. OK?"

So, the UN bends over, and passes two hundred and seventy seven billion resolutions and imposes economic sanctions that make it illegal to send food and medical supplies into Iran. Iran responds by arranging to bribe UN officials who agree to create phantom corporations that specialize in sending food and medical supplies to Iran's leadership while the general populace starves and dies from myriad illnesses that can be cured in the free world with widely available over-the-counter cold medicines.

After three years of watching their families suffer right in front of their eyes the Iranian populace agrees that there isn't a damn thing it can do to its leadership which not only has the food and medicine but the weapons too, so they join the Jihad movement and declare to the World Terrorist Media, and its subsidiary the American Terrorist Media, which gleefully prints every word verbatim: "It Is George Bush's Fault!"

This refrain is picked up by the American Democratic Party and it becomes the campaign slogan for every election in the next 20 years even though George Bush is long since retired.

See how that works?

Forget the sanctions. If you kill 10,000 terrorists who are waging open war on the free world, and make a decent shot at freedom available for the peace loving peoples of the world you get peace. Impose sanctions, you get 10,000 more terrorists.

Post Script: Has anyone seen the videos of Iran blowing up ships and shooting missiles into the sea as part of its War GAMES?!

Didn't it occur to Greenpeace and the other world environmental groups that this is in direct violation of the Kyoto Treaty? Where is the outrage?
Tuesday, August 22, 2006

Joe Lieberman and the Iraq War Opportunity

A major political strategy in use by American Democrats for a couple of years now is playing out in the state of Connecticut, where long-time Democratic Senator Joseph Lieberman is being spanked by his party for supporting the part of the War on Terror being fought in Iraq.

Lieberman's status as the Democratic nominee for his seat should have been assured, since he is running for his fourth six-year term, but he was narrowly upended earlier this month by a very, very rich political neophyte who agreed to run on an anti-war platform. The ultimate Democratic strategy was to put the new guy, Ned Lamont, up against an unknown Republican candidate who would lose, ensuring a new anti-war voice in Congress.

National pollsters label Connecticut as a Democrat-dominated "blue" state, but the reality is that Independents outnumber Democrats and Republicans alike by a huge margin. On national political maps Connecticut, like many other states, should be portrayed in a neutral color because the majority of voters have long since rejected both major parties and usually vote the man and the issues.

Lieberman knows his state and he knows his politics and most of all he knows Connecticut's voters. Within days of losing the primary battle by about four percentage points, and immediately after qualifying to run as an independent Democrat, polls sampling the wider ocean of Republican and independent voters showed Lieberman with a commanding lead over Lamont. The Republican candidate barely registered, and it isn't likely he will do much better as time goes by.

There are 11 weeks left until Election Day and much can change in that time. But a major point in Lieberman's favor is that Connecticut voters know him from stem to stern. Lamont is in a different situation.

No one really knows him and in the Democratic primary race he benefited from a hands-off policy that left him responding only to issues-oriented challenges. That is likely to change in the race for the senate seat, especially with a Republican in the mix and the penchant for political races to get much nastier after Labor Day when vacations are over and people are paying attention.

The Republican, Alan Schlesinger, doesn't even have the support of his own party structure in Connecticut, which actually happens far more than might be suspected, but in this case is probably a good move. Schlesinger, by many accounts, is in denial over a gambling problem that he doesn't see as a problem.

People generally don't have a problem with gamblers, as long as they aren't running for public office and are winning. But they do have a problem with gamblers who lose, fake an ID so they can lose some more, and then brush it all off as a misunderstanding. Taxpayers have a quirk about sending people to Congress who already have money issues.

It would take a major upheaval in the center of the earth to get Schlesinger into striking distance in this race.

The big issue at stake is Lieberman's support of the War in Iraq. The Democrats have been hell bent on portraying that war as a losing proposition for at least two years now, and have no qualms about telling voters that the lives of Americans lost there have been wasted in a worthless and losing cause.

But Connecticut has nearly 300,000 veterans among the ranks of the voters. That is 300,000 people with a better than average knowledge of war and its impact. 300,000 people who in all likelihood don't want to see America's politicians turn another entire generation of veterans into scapegoats for their shortsightedness as Congress did to the Vietnam generation.

300,000 voters who usually have a spouse, significant other, or person they influence and carry significant clout in this election. And that can throw a huge monkey wrench into the Democratic strategy.

Because unlike political talking heads, clueless World Terrorist Media reporters, and those who work for its affiliate, the American Terrorist Media, Connecticut's veterans generally support the War on Terror and the War in Iraq. Yes, they want to see some concrete advances and victories, and yes they have concerns about when our troops should starting leaving Iraq and under what conditions.

But many veterans also are acutely aware that the premier Democratic talking point to support their lack of support in Iraq, the Weapons of Mass Destruction, is not and never has been a key point in the decision to invade and toss Saddam Hussein out of office. Veterans, better than most people, know first-hand that it isn't the kind of weapons a potential adversary possesses that decides whether to fight, it is the intent in the mind of that adversary.

Once the Taliban got the stuffing knocked out of it in Afghanistan, many of its surviving fighters began migrating to Iraq, with good reason. Among them was Abu Al-Zarqawi, the number one terrorist in Iraq who was dispatched by US forces June 7.

In 2001 Al-Zarqawi was seriously wounded fighting against us in Afghanistan, and traveled to Baghdad where he was given the best of medical treatment, in addition to security. After he was stabilized he enjoyed a long and secure period of recovery, and then was set loose in the Iraqi countryside to again begin working against the free world.

That countryside already had terrorist training camps established, and was reported to have a partial jetliner fuselage in place for practicing highjackings. Most of this is spelled out in the book The Connection by author Steven Hayes. In that book Hayes goes to lengths to connect terrorists and their activities from the early 90s to the invasion of Iraq and afterward.

But the part that makes the best case for invading Iraq is Al-Zarqawi's presence there and Saddam Hussein's knowledge of it. How do we know Saddam knew Al-Zarqawi was in Iraq? Because Saddam's son Uday ran the hospital where Al-Zarqawi recovered from his wounds!

The fact is, Iraq was the next launching point for terrorist attacks against the US and the Bush administration stopped them before they were launched. Any experienced street fighter will tell you, once you know someone is planning to hit you, the best response is to hit them first before they are prepared.

That is what the US did, that is what Joe Lieberman supported, and that is going to give Ned Lamont an 11-week migraine, because Connecticut's veterans know it.

President Bush gave a spirited and heartfelt defense of the War in Iraq in a press conference Monday, and made the ultimate point about our efforts there. If we leave Iraq before that country is able to defend itself against all enemies, foreign and domestic, the terrorists will prevail there and follow us here.

We have already been attacked once this decade. We don't want to see another attack on our soil, ever. Joe Lieberman will help see to that. Ned Lamont won't.
Monday, August 21, 2006

Walled-in Countries, Return to the Dark Ages

Floyd Low from Ottawa makes a salient point in a comment he posted in response to my August 18 column on civilians returning to the war zone in southern Lebanon.

I was poking the World Terrorist Media in the eye with a sharp stick, noting that we had been hearing for a month that the Israelis were preventing civilians from leaving the area, but one day after the Cease Farce was announced, tens of thousands were returning. Point being, if they hadn't been able to leave, how could they return? I also said it was obvious that Israel would have to build a wall to protect itself.

Floyd noted a similarity between the current situation on the border between Israel and Lebanon, and the borders between South Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and North Vietnam during the Vietnam War. Throughout the American fighting in Vietnam, intercepting communist forces invading the south became a deadly form of cat and mouse.

We would catch them infiltrating, battle regimental and division sized forces of communist troops, annihilate them, destroy their supplies, and bomb their routes. They would shift their routes a few kilometers one way or another and start all over again.

More recently the United States has been dealing with a similar invasion, this time of illegal aliens coming across its border with Mexico. Some 11 million illegal aliens are said to be in the US on any given day, which, if they were a uniformed army would be considered an act of war. The US is supposed to start building a wall along some sections of the border to help stem the flow, much as Israel is building a wall to separate sections of its country from Palestinian areas, in hopes of keeping terrorist homicide bombers out.

I agree with Floyd, there is a distinct similarity, and the entire concept that we have to build walls concerns me. We have seen advances in all areas of human existence in the last century that should be bringing us together; yet again we are in a state where we have to wall ourselves off from the barbarians to hold out any hope of survival.

We have come so far in science, medicine, technology and human rights, yet some prefer that we return to the Dark Ages. In this, the age of communication, transportation and information, we can see and talk to people on the far side of the earth instantaneously, and visit any major population center within 24 hours.

In this age we find that most humans have far more similarities than differences and we have realized on one level that when we work together all things are possible. Yet, so many of us now are forced to build walls, shut others out, in effect renounce our advancements. We have been drawn back to the brink of the Dark Ages by barbarian forces that seek once again only to destroy and dominate, not to build, cooperate or advance.

We have leaders across the globe who stubbornly refuse to abandon their utopian beliefs that there is good inside all people and if we just offer the terrorists enough they will someday be satisfied and become peaceful. There is as much chance of that happening as there is of a rabid dog suddenly curing itself.

Terrorists are rabid and the only 'cure' for their disease is death. The only question is, whose death is it going to be, ours or theirs?

As far as walls are concerned, I don't think there is a better example anywhere in the world of cooperation between countries as the long term relationship between the US and Canada. Our borders are monitored, but travel between the countries is unrestricted.

We don't always agree on every single issue, but we are friends and allies. There is much that is desirable on both sides of the border and a plethora of reasons to visit each other. I would consider it the ultimate symbol of the collapse of Western Civilization if the day ever came when we had to build a wall between the US and Canada.
Sunday, August 20, 2006

Charles Krauthammer Gets It (French Hezbollites Don't)

In the world of news columnists/television political commentators there are few who can rival Charles Krauthammer when it comes to getting quickly to the heart of an issue and seeing past the rhetoric. OK, Thomas Sowell also, but today we'll focus on Mr. Krauthammer.

I was initially drawn to his point of view during the Hurricane Katrina coverage when he was the first commentator I saw posit that President Bush could not send federal troops into New Orleans and other parts of Louisiana without consent or invitation from the governor and legislature. He pointed out that the president can't simply usurp the section of the U.S. Code often referred to as the Insurrection Act or more accurately Posse Comitatus.

That section states that the president can not override the state government unless it is a national emergency involving Nuclear, Chemical or Biological weapons, or outright insurrection, none of which were the case in Katrina. This fact was omitted by most news reporters who apparently don't understand Latin, but not by Mr. Krauthammer.

This past week Mr. Krauthammer made an especially succinct observation as a panelist on Fox News Special Report, explaining the debacle that the Cease Farce between Israel and Hezbollah has become. The high sounding be all, end all agreement as negotiated primarily between France and the US has turned into a true quagmire and the French are at the heart of the degeneration.

Krauthammer explained that the French, having once been colonial overlords to the Lebanese, still feel a need to be the predominant outside force in deciding how matters will proceed in the region, and still carry considerable weight and prestige there. Thus the French made convincing arguments that they should be a partner with the US in getting a Cease Farce resolution approved by the Untied Nations.

The first resolution proposed was strict, called for disarmament of Hezbollah, and was immediately shot down by the Arab nations. So another softer, kinder, gentler resolution was suggested. We, the United States, went along with this resolution apparently due to the French argument that since they were putting thousands of troops into the Cease Farce Zone, in fact, the largest number from any contributing nation, they had a larger stake in deciding the rules because their troops were most at risk.

Once the resolution, which didn't spell out whether or how Hezbollah was to be disarmed, was passed by the UN, France did an about face and substantially reduced the number of troops it was contributing to the cause from several thousand to about 200. They said they were reducing their contribution because they didn't like the new rules, the ones they had just negotiated.

In his comments Mr. Krauthammer noted the French "duplicity" in pushing such hypocritical Cease Farce limitations, and then further noted that it would be all the more remarkable if they weren't being "so French."

In that one comment he has brought out into the open, as a matter of serious geopolitical discussion, what until now has been the stuff of internet jokes and stand up comedy routines.

Q. "How many Frenchmen does it take to liberate Paris?"

A. No one knows, it's never been done.

We could go on in this vein ad nauseum but the point is made.

I would like to assure the French people and especially its armed forces that this commentary is not aimed at them, unless they voted for the government that is so horribly betraying them at home and in the international arena. For what it is worth, I should also point out that I have French ancestry; you will find the name in classical literature where it is deWinter.

The name actually came to me from my Scottish grandfather. Although I am related to the ancient Clan Gunn through my grandmother who was a descendant of the Jamieson sept, family lore maintains that my grandfather's ancestors left France and settled in Scotland in the 14th century. Within a generation or two they all considered themselves Scots, but the name still goes back to France.

I also realize that this doesn't give me any special standing within the French culture, any more than my Scottish cousins consider me Scottish. But I do have an emotional tie to my ancestry and would not go out of my way to be critical of other nationalities if I didn't think the situation warranted.

Why, just yesterday I had a very successful public appearance where I did a reading and book signing of Masters of the Art at a national bookseller, and afterwards at dinner enjoyed a terrific bowl of French Onion Soup! That should count for something shouldn't it?

Regardless, the fact is the French leadership has shown itself to be duplicitous on the national and international scenes for quite some time now and it has become so bad that the entire country is being held up to international ridicule as incompetents, collaborators, turncoats and cowards.

Weekend TV news shows even broadcast videos purporting to show French reinforcements arriving in Lebanon -- two motorized rubber rafts containing a total of eight French servicemen! Wow. How would you like to be ridiculed like that on international television?

There are a couple of possible courses of action to deal with this deplorable degeneration of the French image. The French can stiffen their backbones, oust the so-called leaders who are bringing this outrage down upon them, and restore their standing at home and abroad.

Or, failing to do that, the international community can relegate the French ambassadors, envoys, and points of view to a newly formed 4th World netherland, a place where once viable and vital countries are sent after they have lost their will and national status.

Meanwhile, the US can drop all pretense and stop dealing with France in the international arena. France's leaders have shown themselves to be liars and manipulators. The American public has known for decades that they can't be trusted and many are questioning with good cause why Condi Rice trusted them this time.

As a result of them being "so French" the Middle East is now in worse straits than it was before the fighting, not one item earmarked by the Bush Administration as essential for enactment of a viable Cease Farce has come to pass, and Israel, our best and strongest ally in the region is again at risk. How many times do you need your nose rubbed in offal to understand that it stinks and will never change?

Unless you drench it in expensive French perfume. That doesn't change its basic nature, but it does give the gullible a case for plausible deniability.
Friday, August 18, 2006

Lebanon's Illegal Immigration Problem

Anyone who stayed closely tuned to news reports from the fighting between Hezbollah terrorists and Israel over the past six weeks knows that hardly any Lebanese civilians were allowed to leave the war zone.

Instead they were forced by Israeli Air Force raids on anything moving on the highways leaving southern Lebanon to stay in their villages and homes where they were repeatedly bombed and crushed by falling rubble. We know this, because every single news outlet in the World Terrorist Media said so, time and time again.

Yet, within hours of the Untied Nations brokered cease fire farce, tens of thousands of people were shown streaming into the area where fighting was still ongoing in some cases.

So, since all the people who lived in southern Lebanon were still there, either dead or digging out of the rubble, where did all the people come from who were itching to get into the war zone?

The answer is obvious. They are illegal aliens who probably came down from Syria or maybe even Turkey to claim land formerly occupied by residents of southern Lebanon. Obviously they were hoping to stake claims on the former villages and especially the plots of land once occupied by happy, bucolic, but now deceased Hezbollah terrorists and their supporters.

That has to be the answer, otherwise we are forced to consider the possiblity that most residents of southern Lebanon actually did leave, and those who stayed were either Hezbollah supporters or were forced to remain behind by Hezbollah to be used as human shields and pawns. But the WTM didn't say anything about that, so they must be illegal aliens. Right?

It isn't going to be easy on these interlopers. Most of the villages occupied by the Hezbollah terrorist network are rubble now, especially those buildings where the terrorists were staging the launchers for thousands of anti-Jewish rockets that they flung south into the cities of Israel.

You can tell that the rockets were anti-Jewish, because if they were anything else, they would have had to be anti-personnel, and since virtually the only people injured by these anti-Jewish (personnel) rockets were Jewish civilians, the use of them would have to be labeled a war crime.

This has been dictated by the Geneva Convention and the Untied Nations accords that say you can't deliberately target civilians in a war, and you can't deliberately hide among them in an attempt to draw fire to them to use for propaganda purposes, and you can't wait until they are dead and then litter the battle zone with stuffed animals and unscathed children's clothing to use as props for the WTM.

There is, however, a little known codicil in the Untied Nations accords and the Geneva Convention that says everything that applies to innocent civilians anywhere else in the world is void when applied to Jews. In the case of Islamic extremist terrorists fighting against Jews, it is OK to kill as many civilians on purpose as possible, and to deliberately target Israeli population centers with no military value.

That is why the Great and Munificent OZ, oh, sorry, Kofi Annan, Grand Poobah of the UN, has made no effort whatsoever to label the Hezbollah terrorist actions as war crimes and call for the Hezbollah leadership to be tried for said war crimes in The Hague. Nor has most of the WTM made mention of these crimes, because to do so would put Annan on the spot, which would make him uncomfortable, and probably cause him to sweat under the hot TV lights, and that wouldn't do anything for his impeccable image.

Back to the illegal aliens streaming into southern Lebanon. What to do with all these people? Who will care for them, who will provide food, clothing, shelter, education and medical care for them and their children? Not the UN, you can be sure of that.

But since the Hezbollah terrorists haven't been disarmed, and Iran is ready to funnel trillions of dollars back into their organization to rebuild it from the pounding it took from Israel, incomplete as that pounding may have been, it is obvious that care for them is the responsibility of Iran. Lebanon certainly isn't going to do it!

Fortunately there are plenty of employment opportunities open to them. Some can serve as guides to bring the camel caravans carrying greenbacks into the area. Iran won't be using normal electronic money transfers because the New York Times exposed the US program of monitoring terrorist financial transactions, and they don't use that method anymore. Now they just go down to the local money exchanger, turn in their local currency for greenbacks, bundle it, pack it on camels and away they go.

Also, it is obvious that Lebanon should build a wall on the south bank of the Litani River to stem the flow of illegals. Someone is going to have to put in the labor and since the Lebanese sure aren't going to do it, since such work is beneath them, they can put the illegals on work gangs to provide a ready labor supply.

They can even institute a program whereby if they stay long enough, and work hard enough for insufficient wages, while engaged in work that the average Lebanese won't do themselves, they can ultimately earn Hezbollah citizenship! Terrific plan.

Of course, they also would have to swear allegiance to Hezbollah, not Lebanon, and the next time the terrorists decide to engage in jihad against Israel they will be required to fling anti-Jewish rockets at Israel and also turn their children over to the terrorists to use as human shields and propaganda tools.

But hey, freedom has its price and obviously there are tens of thousands of unfortunate residents of Middle Eastern countries willing to pay the price. We know this because the World Terrorist Media told us so.
Wednesday, August 16, 2006

Hezbollah Disarms The UN

It should come as no surprise that the vaunted Untied Nations-brokered cease fire in Lebanon is unraveling by the hour, less than three days after it went into effect.

The original terms called for a 30,000-man armed force to occupy southern Lebanon, and enforce the peace in a newly created demilitarized zone between Lebanon and Israel. The news reports also claimed that disarming Hezbollah was part of the deal, but questions are being raised as to whether that was actually in the agreement.

Now, we find that only a tenth of the promised troops will be available any time in the near future, many nations that promised support suddenly don't want to commit troops if shooting is involved, and it will be at least a year before anything close to a 30,000-member force could be on the scene. So, if Israeli forces pull out, the vacuum will be filled by --- wait for it, OK, you guessed it, Hezbollah! What a surprise, what an unexpected turn of events, what a shocking development!!

But let's not forget that the war between Israel and Hezbollah was a diversion. It was instigated, funded and armed by Iran, supported by its puppet Syria, and launched just in time to divert the Untied Nations' attention at the crucial moment when it was supposed to actually do something about Iran's continuing development of nuclear weapons.

We now are less than a week from the August 22nd Doomsday as the Iranian leader Green Bean Almandine has proclaimed, and the UN is once again stumbling about like a drunk on a bender, mumbling slurred commentary on matters that are discernable and important only inside that whiskey soaked, long dead mass of gray matter.

It will be interesting from a detached point of view to watch the American political scene as the rabid opponents of the George Bush administration, which means just about any opponent of the Bush administration, try to come up with a way to blame this on him and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Democrats screamed at the top of their lungs in the 2004 election race that Bush was acting unilaterally (which has always seemed appropriate to me if the rest of your potential partners are as inept as the Untied Nations), but now that he has tried to work within the UN framework, that organization has again been shown to be useless, clueless, and incapable of anything but hand wringing and drivel. How to blame this on Bush? How to blame this on Bush? Think Dems, think! Otherwise the public will have a moment to put two and two together and realize that you are talking out of both sides of your mouth again, and hoping no one will notice.

But while the partisan posturing proceeds in the US, a deadline is fast approaching, and it should not be ignored. The Israeli army has halted its movement out of Lebanon and won't start again until there is a real international force in place. The Bush administration can let that subject sit on the back burner for the next week.

We need to be focused on Iran and ignore any attempts to divert our attention elsewhere. Iran already is attempting to make lemonade out of lemons, dealing with the destruction of so much of south Lebanon and the deaths of about 600 of Hezbollah's best fighters, by sending in teams of personnel and millions of oil dollars to rebuild before the populace wakes up and starts pointing fingers at Hezbollah for causing the destruction in the first place.

Meanwhile the Israeli populace is apoplectic over the incompetence of the Olmert government and its indecisiveness over the proper approach to the fighting.

Dear Prime Minister Olmert, if you are ever in a situation again where you or your countrymen have to fight, there is only one rule to remember: Get there first with the most, and fight with all you have for a total victory.

Anything else is window dressing. But you have found that out and your future is now in the hands of your very distressed countrymen.

Pundits also are questioning Secretary of State Rice, President Bush and even Great Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair over the outcome of this UN mandate. That just amounts to more politicking.

The US and Great Britain recognized the need for Israel to hit the terrorists and hit them hard. Olmert was too timid, and betrayed his countrymen as well as his backers in the rest of the free world but it was smart of Bush and Blair to give Israel enough time to do the job, if it was done right, and then put a halt to the fighting in time to refocus on Iran.

The situation in southern Lebanon will be resolved, sooner or later, with the dismantling of Hezbollah, either from within Lebanon or from without by armed force in another war. But if it goes to fighting again it assuredly won't end as it did this time.

Meanwhile, our eyes are, and should continue to be, focused on Iran. The fighting in Lebanon was bad enough this time. God help us if that maniac starts shipping out nuclear arms.
Monday, August 14, 2006

Hezbollah 1, Olmert Zip, But the IDF Can Prevail

If the print reports and television coverage from the war zone in Lebanon are any indication the Hezbollah terrorists and their backers, Russia, China, Iran, Syria and the Lebanese government, have won a stunning victory over Israel, meaning over Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his cabinet, not the Israeli Defense Forces.

According to virtually all the news reports, the Israelis, using an army of 30,000 infantrymen and commandos, plus artillery, tanks and total air superiority, lost about 150 soldiers and civilians, mostly soldiers, in a staggering and unsuccessful effort to unseat and silence something substantially less than 20,000 terrorists and their supporters.

Believers in the propaganda delivered by the World Terrorist Media are adamant that only a dozen or so Hezbollah terrorists were killed in the past month, but that hundreds of innocent civilians who stayed behind in the war zone out of a stubborn sense of resistance to the Israelis were slaughtered for their recalcitrance.

The terrorists were outfitted with small arms, anti-tank weapons, Russian-made Katyusha rockets, an army of television cameras, and a ready supply of extras to pose next to bombed buildings described as homes of peace-loving victims of Israeli aggression. They also had access to warehouses full of unscathed children's toys, clothing and textbooks in pristine condition to be used as props in reels of photos of the destruction. The terrorists were backed by budding actors who relished the opportunity to parade children's bodies in various positions and conditions before the army of cameras.

Monday morning's news reports showed what were described as thousands of Lebanese streaming back to the southern part of Lebanon, even though fighters from both sides were still in place, some still shooting, which makes one wonder, just where did these civilians come from and how did they get out of the area in the first place if they were never allowed to leave as previous reports had claimed?

For the Israelis to successfully offset the overwhelming anti-Semitic reporting from the WTM, which means virtually any news organization that was on the scene, they would have to root out the Hezbollah terrorists, kill the majority of them, capture and disarm the rest. They also would have to enter, explore and ultimately destroy the vast tunnel and bunker network built by Hezbollah in the six years since Israel pulled out of southern Lebanon at the insistence of the Clinton Administration.

It appears that this has not been done, although we haven't seen any real time news reports from inside the war zone, much to the credit of the Israelis. I say this because it has been made clear repeatedly that the WTM generally has few if any reporters who actually understand military tactics, referring to the normal repositioning of tanks and troops as retreats for instance. The Israeli Defense Force was right to keep reporters away from the actual fighting, but their job is far from finished.

Although a cease fire is in effect, Israel has thousands of troops in the northern sector of the zone, all of whom will have to exit Lebanon through the Hezbollah territory. Herein exists a tremendous opportunity to conduct a fighting withdrawal and clear the area of terrorists as well as their remaining infrastructure in the process.

There are two pieces of world history the IDF should consider as they undertake this effort - Iwo Jima, and Pelilu. The first is the site of a well known battle between US Marines and Japanese forces in WWII; the second is the site of a not very well known battle between US Marines and Japanese forces in WWII. Iwo Jima was the site of the world famous raising of the Stars and Stripes over Mt. Suribachi. There are no such memorials for the battle at Pelilu.

In both battles the Japanese were well entrenched in volcanic caves and steel reinforced concrete bunker complexes connected by tunnel networks that allowed the Japanese to reappear behind the Marines as they advanced over areas previously considered cleared of enemy. In Pelilu the Marine straight-on tactics were disastrous, resulting in the near annihilation of the entire First Marine Regiment before the battle was over and the Japanese were vanquished.

In Iwo Jima, however, the Marines attacked with a 3 to 1 numerical superiority on the ground, and, despite horrendous casualties, altered their tactics to match the Japanese'. It took a month to clear Iwo, with 7,000 Marine casualties compared to more than 20,000 Japanese deaths, nearly the entire garrison since they refused to surrender.

If the IDF takes advantage of the current quiet to rest, resupply, isolate Hezbollah, and prepare to push south, they can pull out a major victory from what at the moment appears to be defeat, at least in the public relations arena. But they would do well to remember Iwo Jima, where napalm and flame throwers were the weapons of choice to root out the Japanese. Napalm is a devastating weapon to use against bunker and tunnel complexes, not only burning all it touches but eliminating all oxygen as well and replacing it with deadly carbon monoxide. If one doesn't get you, the other will.

Much has been said in the WTM over the past two weeks about the Israeli Army and its failure to achieve a complete military victory over Hezbollah. Two things should be considered before the Israelis are written off, however.

First, the civilian government, lacking in truly experienced military leaders at the top echelons, and here I mean those who have actually fought in the trenches, as enlisted men or lower ranking ground officers, bought into the false claim that air power alone can destroy a ground army.

One has only to revisit Pelilu and Iwo Jima and review the enormous pounding both places took from air power combined with naval gunfire and heavy artillery to see the fallacy in this belief. Air power has never been a successful replacement for ground troops, it is always best when used as part of the overall strategy, not as a strategy in itself.

Second, after finally realizing that air power wasn't going to do it Olmert's government then responded in fits and starts, instead of putting a 100 percent ground push straight into Lebanon. Classic land warfare tactics would call for a major landing at the Lahani River, with a major force set to drive south and a smaller force in reserve to face east toward Syria and north toward the remainder of Lebanon to ward off potential counterattacks.

The southern driving force would move the terrorists toward an IDF blocking force waiting to trap them. US Marines call this the Hammer and Anvil. It worked wonders against the North Vietnamese and it would work against Hezbollah also.

One final consideration. The IDF has been taking more than its share of disdain and condemnation from the WTF, which as mentioned before, has very few reporters who understand anything about warfare. The IDF is often referred to as the best military force in the Middle East, and there is no reason to doubt that belief.

But the IDF has not fought a major battle since 1973. This means that the IDF is long on history and short on actual experience. Even its occupation of southern Lebanon is not adequate training for all out warfare.

The number of Israeli casualties in this war is actually quite low considering the intensity of the fighting and the advanced tactics used by Hezbollah. But you can rest assured that now a large majority of the 30,000 ground troops who entered Lebanon are experienced. It doesn't take long to learn the ropes in a combat zone; it is on-the-job training to an exponential degree.

Whatever awaits the Israelis in the coming weeks and months, we can be assured that lessons have been learned from this war. Most pundits doubt the Olmert government will last very long, but the IDF now has a far more experienced force, and in all likelihood will not be so hesitant nor willing to rest on its laurels in the next engagement.
Saturday, August 12, 2006

Does Hezbollah Sign the Cease Fire?

Citizens of Israel are understandably up in arms about the cease fire agreement worked out in the Untied Nations, and what it will mean for them, especially if their prime minister signs on to it.

They understand one of the basic concepts of warfare against terrorists that seems to escape the elitist overlords at the UN, which is, you have to kill or permanently disable the entire current generation of terrorists to create enough breathing room to educate the up and coming generations. As I have written in the past, if you don't kill them, and they are conscious, they are plotting their next move, and if you ignore them long enough, they will execute their next move, which usually involves executing innocent people as well.

Terrorists use a cease fire as an opportunity to bind their wounds, create new defenses, develop new tactics, recruit new fighters and rearm. They never, ever, really mean it when they agree to stop fighting.

Yet Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert seems to bend to whichever breeze is blowing at the moment whether it is prevailing or not, and that in itself creates a morale boost for the terrorists. We also must ask ourselves, who is actually signing a cease fire claiming to speak for Hezbollah? The Lebanese? The Syrians? The Russians? The Chinese??? What if Hezbollah fighters tell their sponsors to stuff it and continue fighting?

Long ago, as a Marine, I was taught that there is nothing wrong with changing tactics to achieve an objective. In fact, an informal military creed dictates that you 1.) Have a plan; and 2.) Have a second plan for when the first one goes awry, which it will.

Adapting tactics to achieve an objective is necessary to survival and success. But waffling is not adapting. It is an indication of uncertainty, inexperience, timidity, and fear. Terrorists smell fear, just like wild animals smell fear.

Fear creates chemical reactions in the human body, the so-called fight or flight syndrome, and the resultant changes in chemical composition can be discerned by ultra-sensitive animals and terrorists. Hezbollah smells fear all over Olmert, and you can bet the terrorists are licking their chops at the prospect of ripping into a toothless Israel.

The only realistic outcome for the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah, if true peace is to be achieved, is the destruction of Hezbollah. Anything less means that this is merely an elitist ruse to give terrorism a moral victory.

What is really baffling, is the apparent belief in the halls of the UN that if they just give in to terrorist demands, a time will come when the terrorists have enough and will be content to rest on their laurels. WRONG. Terrorists don't want stuff they want power!

A case in point would be the Viet Cong in post-1975 Vietnam. The few remaining political cadres who survived the war against America honestly believed that their North Vietnamese communist masters would share power, open up society, divvy up the land and the wealth, and all would be paradise.

It didn't work that way. In fact, it didn't work that way to such an extent that even after a million Vietnamese fled the country as Boat People, remaining rice farmers in the Mekong Delta, disdainfully referred to as 'peasants' by the communists, rioted, only to be put down by the military.

When the former Viet Cong leaders complained, they were thrown into communist concentration camps right alongside former members of the South Vietnamese government and military. Ah, equality at last!

If the Islamic terrorists prevail, the world will plunge into darkness and despair. That isn't a line from a movie, that is a realistic assessment of the facts. If the UN is allowed to continue calling the shots in determining how to proceed against the terrorists the world is doomed, because to put it bluntly, the UN is clueless.

One last thought. There is a growing movement in the United States to draft Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as a candidate for president in 2008. The basis of this movement is that she is universally seen as strong, aware and consistent.

But if she goes along with a cease fire that merely delays the inevitable, and allows a rearmed and re-motivated Hezbollah to renew its attacks in a few months or a year, she and her supporters can shut down their web site and find something else to do.

Americans, and the rest of the free world, are looking for real leaders, real heroes, real strength. We see it in George Bush and Tony Blair, regardless of how the World Terrorist Media treats them in their home countries.

But weakness, waffling, and giving in to terrorism are not the traits of strong leaders or heroes. Only true strength will suffice.

Thursday, August 10, 2006

They Explode Aircraft, We Ban Napalm

Who led the drive in the Untied Nations to ban napalm? Find that person and you find one of the key players in the Global War of Terror on the Free World.

Today we again are shocked to discover that a relatively small group of fanatic extremists (I don't care if that is redundant) was planning on using incendiary chemicals stored in their carry-on luggage to blow up airliners over the Atlantic Ocean.

Simultaneously, Israeli soldiers are attempting to root out Hezbollah terrorists hidden in caves, tunnels and bunkers but the UN would prefer the job be done without using one of the most effective weapons for that purpose -- napalm fueled flame throwers.

The Untied Nations Protocol III of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, a typically high sounding elitist title that effectively offsets technological advancements made by the western nations and their militaries, banned the use of napalm, specifically against civilian populations. They said use of napalm is inhumane. The United States never signed the protocol but all US stocks of napalm were ordered destroyed during the Clinton administration.

Unfortunately, since terrorists typically hide among civilians, the protocol effectively ends the use of napalm since in most modern conflicts you can't separate the players from the playees.

Know what I think is an inhumane weapon? A Russian made rocket that flies into a city that has no military value, and hurls thousands of flesh ripping ball bearings into nearby humans when it explodes. I wonder why the Untied Nations didn't ban Katyusha rockets, or ball bearings?

There still is debate over the allied firebombing of Dresden, Hamburg and Tokyo in WWII, meant to hasten the end of the war, pay back the Germans and Japanese for their attacks on civilian populations, demoralize the affected countries, and reduce allied casualties. Since the end of WWII most modern military and civilian leaders have opposed intentionally killing civilians as a tool of war.

But we aren't fighting most military and civilian leaders. We certainly aren't fighting civilized forces. We are fighting barbarians, extremist barbarians whose tactics are reminiscent of oh, let's say Attila the Hun. (Thought I was going to mention Genghis Khan didn't you?)

Their tactic of deliberately mingling with civilians to increase casualties is evidence that they have no qualms about using any form of weapon to achieve their ends, and if millions of innocents are killed in the process, well, it's God's will.

Why does the free world, the advanced world, the civilized world, continue to let the less educated, less erudite, less sophisticated terrorists tie the hands of the very people they intend to subjugate and annihilate? What mindset leads the Untied Nations to repeatedly conclude that if we just give up all we have accomplished and lower ourselves to the level of the terrorists who are trying to kill us, they suddenly will lose their extremist fervor and go home happy and content?

Every time we give up a weapons system or development that was intended to help us maintain and improve on our way of life we give an unnecessary advantage to the Stone Age combatants from societies that want only to destroy all that is not them.

Consider for a moment what the mood would have been in the Muslim world today if the Al-Qaeda plot to blow up airliners and kill thousands of travelers had been successful. As cowardly and heinous as that act would have been Muslim extremists and their supporters would have taken to the streets in dozens of cities across the globe, dancing, chanting and laughing, considering it a major victory for their forces.

Then consider what we actually are doing in this war. We are attempting to destroy the fighters, destroy the financial infrastructure and neutralize the leaders who advocate terrorism as a means to advance their viewpoint. We are working and fighting to save and spread democracy, to give everyone a fair chance to live free and prosper.

They deliberately put civilians in harms way, or fight next to them in hopes of getting them killed, and then celebrate when they are successful. We are horrified when the innocent are harmed.

Everything you need to know about the two sides in this conflict can be learned from that one example.

We definitely are NOT attempting to kill or subjugate their populations. We are trying to prevent them from doing that to us. But in the Untied Nations, people who are supposed to be working for world peace take every opportunity to make the job of spreading terror easier for the terrorists, and the job of promoting peace and democracy more difficult for us.

So once again, why do we belong to this organization? Why do we give a rat's rear end what kind of resolution that organization passes since the most insistent of all such resolutions seem to never proceed to enforcement. Except of course the Book of Resolutions Concerning Iraq which the US, Great Britain and the coalition partners enforced to the extreme discomfort of most of the countries that voted for it in the first place.

Israel is now engaged in an operation which if successful will set terrorism in the Middle East back decades. We should not be tying Israel's hands, thus increasing the number of Israeli casualties. Hezbollah, Iran, Syria and their backers in Russia and China started this latest conflict.

Our side can and should be the ones to end it -- on our terms, at our discretion using whatever weapons are necessary to get the job done.
Tuesday, August 08, 2006

It's All About Winning

George C. Scott's famous opening monologue in the movie Patton was considered by some to be an anti-war spoof, but his commentary on Americans backing a winner was right on the money.

Today, with the United States and its allies fighting the War on Terror on several fronts, Democratic operatives are hitting the airwaves with a vengeance, seeking credibility for their mantra that America is helplessly and hopelessly mired in an unwinnable war in Iraq, and that Afghanistan is backsliding into totalitarianism.

Most of the nation's media may be focused on Democratic primaries in the US, and whether anti-war candidates will win in November, but it still is a good time to take a look at what we have accomplished thus far and what remains ahead of us.

I have written before that I believe we are locked in a generations-long struggle with terrorism as applied by fundamentalist Muslim extremists. They believe there is only one true religion, and their version of that religion is the only true version. In their minds, everyone is required to accept their version of spiritual matters and its accompanying social order.

Anyone who disagrees dies, usually slowly and horribly, showing just how quickly their version of the ultimate deity can change from beneficent to vengeful. There supposedly are caveats in their religion to create inclusiveness for those born outside the tenets of their brand of Islam, but in practice these caveats disappear and are replaced with a racially and ethnically biased exclusivity.

I don't believe this version is going to prevail, simply because the numbers are in favor of those who oppose extremism, and because there is a point in the human experience where people en masse say enough is enough and put an end to despots. It will happen in this current War on Terror, but it hasn't happened yet.

There are many reasons for this, but in America I believe the primary reason is that the general public either hasn't been adequately kept up to date on the extent of the danger the country faces, or haven't been adequately informed on the successes that have been racked up in the continuing efforts to thwart those dangers.

Any emerging democracy, the United States included, and perhaps notably, must face challenges that change with each improvement and advancement. In Iraq the current challenge is dealing with age-old animosities between Muslim factions, and the intent of some people on both sides to fuel these differences, all the way to civil war if possible.

Obviously, those who are engaging in bombings, kidnappings and assassinations think that if they can touch off a civil war, their side will win. Obviously, half of them are wrong, just from a military view point. All of them are wrong from the standpoint of their nation and the wider world community, because all will lose if the sectarian hatreds can't be controlled.

In the middle of this challenge stands the US military. The World Terrorist Media works hard to make it appear that American troops, aided by the British are isolated in this effort.

But the coalition working to help build a lasting democracy in Iraq has also included at various times since 2003 forces from Ukraine, Poland, the Netherlands, Thailand, Hungary, Honduras, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Portugal, New Zealand, the Philippines, Italy, Norway, Spain, South Korea, Australia, Bulgaria, Georgia, El Salvador, Mongolia, Slovakia, and Japan to name just some of at least 38 countries that have contributed. The point is that the US is not alone in this endeavor, even if it is carrying the bulk of the load.

American politicians in the minority party are zealous in their attempts to portray the coalition as ineffective, not because it is, but because the politicians hope this will catch on with the American public and propel those on the outside to majority status in the fall.

Herein lies the rub. Many Americans still view war as army versus army in a geographically defined theater where in a relatively short period, usually less than five years, one side or the other prevails. They haven't developed a national consciousness that understands the long-term nature of the global War on Terror and how long it takes to defeat an inhumane and vicious ideology.

This was never more apparent than in Vietnam where not only did American and allied troops dominate on the military scene, but also had driven the political elements virtually to the point of surrender. But American politicians bent to the breezes stirred by the pro-communist American media and ultimately abandoned both the military and political efforts, leaving millions to be slaughtered by the communists and encouraging a new generation of would-be tyrants to launch increasingly bold and effective attacks on American property and citizens.

A casual observation of the current tactics from the minority party and the World Terrorist Media that abet the political extremists prompts the question of just what they hope to accomplish. There never is a discussion of a better way to do things, only their belief that the current effort isn't working and should be abandoned. This appears to be fueled as much by their hatred of George Bush and his administration, successful as it has been on so many fronts, as by any real desire to develop and launch a better plan.

It doesn't take much effort to realize that there is no substance behind these claims, only a burning desire to regain the reins of power, presumably to recreate the conditions that led minor tyrants and despots to attack us in the first place.

How do we offset this? One way is by creating an office within the administration specifically to produce and distribute news from the War on Terror that gives the public an unvarnished and extensive truth to consider. I am not talking about a propaganda office; that already exists in the World Terrorist Media and is distributed widely by the American media, or the Drive By Media as Rush Limbaugh would say.

No, I am talking here about a group of professional communicators with both print and electronic news background who can generate daily articles and videos of coalition successes on and off the battlefield. An office that would show American and coalition servicemen and women receiving medals for bravery, for instance, much as the WTM shows only those arrested or charged with crimes.

This office would prepare visuals, showing for instance the extent of the pacified areas of Iraq and Afghanistan, and comparing the violence in the battleground cities to the country overall. It would do interviews with Iraqis who are happy to relate the improvements in their lives, much as the WTM only interviews those who are encouraged to complain.

This office also would give America real time updates on terrorist threats and trends, and do in-depth analyses of where we stand in the war, what we face and what we can expect in the future.

Americans aren't stupid by any means, regardless of what the WTM believes. But they need as many facts as possible to make informed decisions. Even when Henry Kissinger and the US Congress were abandoning Vietnam in the early 1970s, the American public was solidly behind the effort to bring the war to a victorious conclusion. History has shown that the American public knew far better how to handle that situation than all the so-called, self-anointed "experts" who betrayed a trusting ally.

Given facts and an opportunity to avail themselves of the facts on a regular basis, American voters will educate themselves in a way that can't be offset by myopic office seekers and irresponsible media outlets who manufacture news, photos and video events in the guise of providing public information.

Given sufficient information, I have the ultimate confidence in the ability of the American public to elect representatives who will actually do the job they were hired to do, and put their egos and career self-interests second, while the interests of America and the free world become their first priority. In short, given access to the facts, I believe in America's willingness and ability to win.
Sunday, August 06, 2006

Where Is Douglas MacArthur?

Let me say right up front that I have never been a fan of the military prowess of the late American Gen. Douglas MacArthur, revered for returning to the Philippines in WWII to liberate the inhabitants from the cruel Japanese occupation.

For starters, if he hadn't screwed up royally in the first place he would have been in a better position to repel the Japanese in 1941 and wouldn't have had to leave.

In fact, when I think of MacArthur my first image is of the man who rode daringly into hordes of needy WWI veterans and their families who had taken up residence on the National Mall in Washington D.C., in the mid-1930s, acting on their belief that they had fought for the right to peacefully assemble, and petition their government for redress of their grievances. In that instance the WWI vets were angry that benefits that had been promised to them when they served had not been delivered, and in the depths of the Great Depression had descended on Washington to deliver the message to Congress that those benefits would have helped.

MacArthur helped put an end to that little pipe dream, using his troops to route the vets and send them packing. I think he got a medal for that one.

I am reminded of his ignominious retreat from Bataan and Correigador leaving behind tens of thousands of American servicemen who ultimately faced death, torture, slave labor, sickness and starvation while he reclined in relative ease in Australia, plotting his ultimate return to a positive Public Relations position. I also am reminded of how he was brought down by his belief in his carefully crafted public persona when he forgot that the military answers to the government in America, not vice versa, and was fired and retired by President Harry Truman.

Nonetheless, and I use that word to avoid being labeled by conservative columnist and talk radio hostess Laura Ingraham as a "But Monkey," MacArthur did have a positive place in one portion of his history. MacArthur's real genius was in his administrative prowess, and his ability to walk a fine line between opposing factions both internal and external when he took over the post-WWII occupation of Japan.

One only has to look to that country, now a solid and valued ally of the United States, to see that the structure he crafted in the 40s and 50s works to this day. It is here where I see a real need to move forward from the current violence and disorder in parts of Iraq.

The Iraq situation is not a mess, is not hopeless, is not a quagmire, and is not a mistake, or any of the other endless negative labels used by aspiring Democratic office holders who hope to make it the silver bullet that will get them elected in November.

I think Iraq has been an overall success, yet is a country with enormous problems that were kept in check by force of arms throughout the reign of Saddam Hussein, just as the centuries old ethnic and religious rivalries were kept in check by communist brutality in the Balkans. There still are thousands of outside troops keeping the peace in the Balkans, and just because the bulk of them aren't American doesn't make it any less of a continuing problem.

Iraq, however, is more immediate in the American media and political agendas, primarily because American troops are still serving and dying there. The amount of time we have fought in Iraq, and now are administering the transition to an independent government, is less than half the time we spent fighting Japan and later administering the occupation.

For the World Terrorist Media and the American Democratic Party, however, both of which are totally focused on the downfall of George Bush, even if it means the downfall of America as a side issue, Iraq is the one place where they believe they can get some traction for their defeatist agenda.

So, with a democratically elected government in place, offset by warring religious factions, held barely in check by an effective American military presence bolstered by a gradually rebuilding Iraqi army, there is a need for a person of vision and determination who can bring to Iraq what MacArthur brought to Japan.

MacArthur's tenure as the administrator of the Japanese occupation was not necessarily easy. He too faced religious tensions between the defeated Shinto warriors who still wanted to wage war on America and those who supported the American efforts, as well as Japanese nationalists who had nothing but contempt for the American barbarians defiling their country.

But MacArthur did a good job of keeping these forces at bay, and ultimately minimizing the extremists while rebuilding an economically viable country that also rebuilt its sense of national pride.

We need that kind of effort in Iraq. I realize that there are differences, but there are enough similarities in the two countries to make it worth the effort to at least review MacArthur's success in Japan and hopefully glean some strategies that would be useful now. MacArthur has long since faded away, but out there somewhere is a blueprint, a template, that should be revived, reviewed, updated and applied where possible.

Muqtada al-Sadr - the real culprit

One thing MacArthur enjoyed in Japan that does not exist in Iraq was absolute authority. Yes, he still had to answer to the president and Congress, but he ran the show pretty much as he saw fit.

That has not happened in Iraq, and we are suffering for it, primarily due to the efforts of the chief internal terrorist, a so-called religious leader named Muqtada al-Sadr. The son of executed religious leaders who has no formal religious training of his own, al-Sadr is a wholly owned and operated puppet of Iran.

He was trapped south of Baghdad early on and the American military, backed by on-the-scene government representatives, was in a position to either kill or capture him. Military and civilian leaders were vocal in their wish to do so, but they were overruled and he was allowed to go free.

Did I mention that he had a warrant out on him by his own country for ordering the murder of a religious rival? That's a pretty good description of just what kind of religion he believes in.

Al-Sadr now resides in a Baghdad slum named for him, which tells us a lot about his goals and aspirations, and should tell his followers something too. Unfortunately, to follow a guy like al-Sadr you have to be either lacking something upstairs or be uneducated to the extreme, so it isn't likely that his mini-army of followers will catch on to how he is using them.

He now is the chief creator of death and destruction in and around Baghdad, using his followers to spread hatred between the opposing Muslim factions.

America appears to have squandered its opportunity to take out another extremist despot with minor repercussions compared to what we face now. But the situation isn't hopeless.

In fact there is a way to neutralize al-Sadr without touching a hair on his head, but which carries the very real possibility of his followers abandoning him in droves within weeks. Too bad the US has become so politically correct that we would rather let our troops die and our government be taken over by a faction that advocates retreat and surrender as a viable national policy, than to do what is right and necessary.

I think it is time to shelve the "turn the other cheek" philosophy and reinstitute Hammurabi's Code.

Israel/Hezbollah Cease Fire Proposal

The Untied Nations has come up with a draft proposal to put a cease fire into effect between Israel and Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon.

Yeah, right. Wake me when the cartoon comes on.
Friday, August 04, 2006

France Surrenders ... Again

By late Thursday and early Friday reports were circulating that the Untied Nations was close to developing a cease fire proposal to halt the fighting in Lebanon between Israel and the Hezbollah terrorists.

It was clear almost from the beginning that what would work for the Untied Nations -- anything that wouldn't require real effort or sacrifice from most of the member nations -- wasn't going to work for the combatants. Israel requires, justifiably so, the disarming of Hezbollah, which the UN endorsed years ago in Resolution 1559, and still has done nothing to implement. Obviously, terrorists will talk forever about disarming, but the only reason they do so is to buy time to restock their supply of rockets.

The Israeli ambassador to the UN called the proposal a sign of weakness. He is right.

But not only was the UN proposal distasteful to the combatants it also offended the French, who stated they would not participate in any such nonsense.

But that isn't the real big news on the French front. The big news has to do with what has become an annual Rite d'Ete on the River Seine where it passes through Paris.

For a half-dozen years now the French, who traditionally desert Paris in the summer for the mountains and beaches, have been bringing the beach to Paris for those who can't leave. They create a faux Riviera on the Left and Right banks, replete with sand and all the accoutrements of the Mediterranean and Atlantic shores.

Now, for the typical Frenchman, or devoted tourist, this has been a boon. France, after all is the home of the au naturel beaches, the topless beaches, the bikini! Beach fashion trends have begun in France since ... oh, I don't know, probably since the end of the Spanish Inquisition.


This year, the French authorities have banned au naturel sunbathing, topless sunbathing, thongs and any other form of skimpy, revealing, sexy, why else do you go to France in the summer, swimwear.

What gives? What on earth would cause the political hierarchy in the country that coined the phrases laissez faire, and menage de trois to suddenly go bashful? Where oh where did the French government get this sudden burst of awareness, this newfound sense of shame and embarrassment over the human form?

On the runways of the annual Paris fashion shows, where cleavage is a requirement, and sheer fabric de rigueur? I think not.

But possibly, just possibly, it could have come from some of those neighborhoods just outside Paris proper where legions of non-native born inhabitants emerged earlier this year to riot and burn with impunity. Is this the official French response to the Muslim influx, carrying with it a propensity in some quarters to violence if demands aren't met and imported customs aren't allowed to supplant those of the host country?

Now, let's not kid ourselves here. Lots of people around the world don't like the French attitudes toward sex and nudity. Lots of people think they are too laid back, pun intended, and wish they would cover up and get some manners. But the upshot of those attitudes has always been that the French can do what they want in France, but not elsewhere in the world.

This is the first time I have heard of since the Nazi occupation, where a facet of France's national identity has been ceded apparently on the sheer threat of further violence from non-native inhabitants.

I don't believe this is the real France. Rather this issue appears to represent the depths to which the French government has sunk, and its complete lack of backbone in the face of criticism or opposition. This is group think at its worst -- changing the national identity on the possibility that someone, somewhere may be offended by something that native Frenchmen see as inoffensive.

Granted, the news didn't come right out and say the French authorities were capitulating to imported Muslim mores and customs. But where else are we to look for an explanation? There has been no outcry from world leaders, religious movements or the even the Untied Nations over French beach wear. In fact, even in a country where Christian cathedrals are as common as vineyards, the French propensity to bare it all on the beaches has pretty much been overlooked, if not outright ogled.

If this is in error I would welcome an explanation by the appropriate authorities as to why something that has been part of the French culture for so long that it probably is genetically ingrained suddenly has been outlawed. If none is forthcoming, we can only wonder ... What is next?

A ban on French wine, French bread, French Fries!!??
Tuesday, August 01, 2006

US Envoys For Peace Already In Lebanon

The appeasers for peace at the United Nations who want us to believe they really don't hate Jewish people have been calling for talks with anyone who will join them, supposedly to halt the cycle of violence in the Middle East. The invitees include Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria, Iran, and presumably the guy on the corner of Main and Third who collects quarters from passersby.

They say if we can just talk this through and in the meantime get some real envoys for peace, as well as a multi-national peacekeeping force, into the region then all will be well and they can get back to the process of making money from keeping the masses at each others' throats.

This ignores two realities of life. One, by pushing for talks with Hezbollah and Hamas, terrorist organizations that exist not for the welfare of their subjects or to build a better world, but specifically to destroy another culture, they are bestowing nation-state status on terrorists. They are elevating terrorism to the level of legitimate governments, and affording those murderers a status equivalent to Noble Peace Prize nominees! OK, considering some others who have been nominated for, and occasionally awarded, a Nobel Peace Prize over the past three decades this may be a bad example, but you get the point.

Terrorists use talk as a tactic to get them closer to their overall goal. They count on the fact that the good nature and good will of more civilized people will buy them time when they have suffered setbacks. So if someone invites them to a talk, it is seen in their world as capitulation by their enemy. Since everyone who is not them is the enemy, they exploit this opportunity to the fullest, all the while rearming, training, and planning their next move.

Second, as far sending envoys for peace to the Middle East, we have already done that, in the form of the USS Iwo Jima, its crew and the contingent of U.S. Marines it carried.

Sure, I know that the World Terrorist Media aired lots of film of Marines helping old ladies across the street and carrying luggage for loud-mouthed ingrates who think the world exists only to wait on them, but aside from those images there was a more subtle message in that visit.

Hezbollah thinks that by scoring a public relations victory in Beirut in 1983 when a homicide bomber in a truck full of explosives blew up the Marine barracks, killing 241 American servicemen, they also scored a true military victory. Unfortunately the decision on how to respond to Hezbollah back then was made in the political arena, not the military arena, and the response was to leave.

Marines don't like it when they lose their brothers and don't get a chance for payback on the guys who did it. American Marines to this day have as much animosity toward Hezbollah as they do toward Vietnamese communists. At least in Vietnam we prevailed on the battlefield. In Lebanon it is still an open sore.

So when the Iwo Jima pulled in on a mercy operation for people who were mostly grateful for the opportunity to leave, but unfortunately were accompanied by a fair number of extras from the movie The Ugly American, it was letting Hezbollah know that there was another option open in this battle.

Frankly, if it was up to me, I would have been sending teams of highly skilled Recons and other Special Ops forces into Lebanon to help Israel put the smack down on the terrorists. I would have liked to see some of my brother Marines out there painting targets with lasers so the Israeli artillery and air power could put some of those hi-tech, precision guided bombs right down a terrorist's throat, or at least in the window of a missile storage area.

Actually, I don't know why we have to keep our options limited in this area. Maybe it is because we know Israel can handle the job itself, and maybe it is because we know the Israeli army will emerge from this battle with a new generation of trained, skilled and experienced combat troops.

But still, America shouldn't have to wait for some cataclysmic event before it puts the full might of our military power into play. It is no secret that the guys behind this are Syria and Iran and that Iran, like Hezbollah, is just buying time until it has a nuclear weapon.

Iran already has demonstrated that it can deliver rockets to anywhere in the Middle East. If we wait until it attaches a nuclear warhead to one of those missiles before we act, then the blood of the resultant thousands of casualties will be on our hands.


News reports were circulating early late Tuesday and early Wednesday that Pennsylvania Congressman John Murtha, the Democrat who brags up his service in the Marines as the foundation for criticisms on international affairs, is being sued in federal court by an active duty Marine who served in Iraq.

Good. It is about time, and I hope the young Marine's lawsuit is successful.

Murtha, with virtually no first-hand knowledge, while an investigation into civilian deaths in Iraq last year was ongoing, alleged in a press conference that the Marine infantrymen involved were guilty of cold-blooded murder.

The Pentagon at the time was in the initial stages of an investigation into allegations that Marines had gone on a rampage in an Iraqi city after an IED had killed one member of their unit. In the months since the initial reports from the World Terrorist Media, which pilloried the Marines, information has surfaced that terrorists engaged the Marines in house-to-house fighting using civilians as shields.

That is a far cry from Murtha's preferred version. Thus far, no one has been charged in the incident, and the outcome is anything but certain. But any real Marine would have stood up for his brothers unless and until solid information of wrongdoing was developed.

Murtha's comments were politically motivated, self-serving, untimely and likely to be proved highly inaccurate. He is an embarrassment to himself, the Democratic party that encouraged his statements, and ultimately to the Marine Corps.

More than a few Marines past and present would like to see the Commandant of the Marine Corps reactivate Murtha's commission just so he could be drummed out.

Sounds like a viable option.


hypoctite sm

Granny Snatching


Signed author copies


NEW! e-Book Available on Amazon

Masters of the Art

Masters final cover
Personalize inscription


NEW! e-Book Available on Amazon and Barns & Noble

Blog Archive





Popular Posts