Iraqi Benchmark Reached During U.S. Economic Crisis

During the focus by the American media on the circus activity going on in Washington in regards to the nation's economy and House and Senate efforts to devise a plan to fix it, an important benchmark achievement has gone all but unnoticed in Iraq.

Iraqi Parliament members have unanimously passed a resolution opening elections in 14 of Iraq's 18 provinces next year, opening the door for a more stable political environment in the country and allowing for a new, more secular and more inclusive legislative body to be elected. The current system, which allowed religious authorities to dominate in the previous elections, have been reworked in order to make the electoral process more secular and less open to religious influence. It also allows for women to occupy approximately 25% of legislative seats, and will allow Sunni sects inclusion into the process, which they have boycotted since 2005, but who have allied themselves with U.S. troops in fighting against the al-Qaeda, thus allowing them to compete for positions within the the Iraqi government.

As always in Iraq's halting journey toward a new order, the reform was not complete. Elections were put off in the province surrounding the volatile city of Kirkuk, where Kurds, Sunni Arabs and other groups compete for power, and in three Kurd-run provinces. Staging fair and peaceful elections will be another major challenge: In the south of Iraq, competition among Shiite parties, including those of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Mahdi Army leader Moqtada al-Sadr, could easily spill over into violence. The importance of securing the elections is one good reason for President Bush's decision to withdraw only 8,000 of the 146,000 remaining U.S. troops in Iraq between now and February. Still, the precipitous drop in violence in Iraq during the past year offers strong reason for hope that a good election can be held -- and that the new Sunni and Shiite leaders who emerge will be well positioned to jump-start reconstruction in the provinces and negotiate with each other.

This latest benchmark has been what Ambassador Ryan Crocker has been calling one of the most important for the Iraqi's to reach and achieve. Another key benchmark expected to be reached is the distribution of revenue from Iraq's oil industry into the provinces and local economy. Perhaps, in light of the current economic crisis that is distracting the nation, for the moment, from Iraq and it's ground gaining, it should be noted that the strategy of gradual withdrawal of forces from the country has allowed it the time to develop a political system in which such benchmark achievements have been possible. Should the balance and pace that have been established be disrupted by an escalated withdrawal of American forces, it remains possible that the political stability that the region has been working toward might be undermined.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

.

Obama - Mission: Implausible

Barack Obama just might need the help of Tom Cruises "Ethan Hunt" character to pull of one of his biggest campaign promises. Some things sound great when discussed, but the actuality of the situation may not always make things come off like promised.

Members of the United States armed forces face a unique situation that other American citizens generally are unaware of. While members of the armed forces can participate in the electoral process of the nation's business like anyone else, they are not as free to express individual political opinion as civilians, especially in regards to candidates who will potentially become their commander-in-chief. That doesn't mean, however, that they can't express their opinions on the feasibility of ending a mission before it's completion, or giving their analysis of the consequences of premature termination.

One of the key elements that put Barack Obama ahead of Hillary Clinton in the Democratic race for the party nomination was the issue of bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq. Senator Clinton, in a reasonable and sensible approach, maintained that the war in Iraq should be ended as quickly as possible, but maintained that she would reserve judgement on the return of combat and support forces for after being briefed, as President, by top military officials on the effects and eventualities that a sudden exodus of forces from Iraq would bring.

Senator Obama, on the other hand, has maintained that he will begin bringing troops home, withdrawing all combat troops, two brigades per month, over the first sixteen months of his presidency. Such a withdrawal, according to many military personnel, could have dire and long term effects in Iraq, and for the rest of the world as well.

Military personnel in Iraq are following the presidential race closely, especially when it comes to Iraq.

The soldiers and commanders we spoke to will not engage in political conversation or talk about any particular candidate, but they had some strong opinions about the military mission which they are trying to accomplish, and the dramatic security gains they have made in the past few months.

We spent a day with Maj. Gen. Jeffery Hammond in Sadr City. He is the commander of the 4th Infantry Division, which is responsible for Baghdad. Hammond will likely be one of the commanders who briefs Barack Obama when he visits Iraq.

"We still have a ways to go. Number one, we're working on security and it's very encouraging, that's true, but what we're really trying to achieve here is sustainable security on Iraqi terms. So, I think my first response to that would be let's look at the conditions.

"Instead of any time-based approach to any decision for withdrawal, it's got to be conditions-based, with the starting point being an intelligence analysis of what might be here today, and what might lie ahead in the future. I still think we still have work that remains to be done before I can really answer that question," Hammond said when asked how he would feel about an order to start drawing down two combat brigades a month.

Asked if he considered it dangerous to pull out if the withdrawal is not based on "conditions," Hammond said, "It's very dangerous. I'll speak for the coalition forces, men and women of character and moral courage; we have a mission, and it's not until the mission is done that I can look my leader in the eye and say, 'Sir, Ma'am, mission accomplished,' and I think it is dangerous to leave anything a little early."

This doesn't even begin to touch on the logistical considerations for moving that many troops, and that much equipment, in that short of a time frame, without creating a situation that affects the military budget and capacity to wage an effective combat operation if redeployed elsewhere because of having to abandon equipment in country in order to meet a political time line.

Ed Morrissey of Hot Air has this take on it:

This is the kind of information that policy makers usually get before formulating policy. We can rotate troops out of Iraq on the kind of timetable Obama suggests, but we’d have to leave all of our heavy equipment in Iraq. Unless Obama plans some kind of nationwide garage sale, that would be a rather large loss for the American military in materiel as well as making our exit look more like Dunkirk.

Obviously, Obama didn’t have any awareness of logistics when he made this proposal — and that’s the point. His lack of experience, combined with a hubris that he has consistently shown on the campaign trail, makes clear that he is in way over his head at this point of his career. He has no sense of military policy at all, and got the biggest call of the war — the surge — completely wrong. Yet he insists that he’s ready to lead this nation’s military during a time of war as Commander in Chief?

Realistically, it's not plausible. Obama himself has even begun to waffle on the issue verbally, but maintains, on his official website, that this is still one of his key campaign promises that he will fulfill upon taking the office of the President, if he is elected to such.

Just words?

Words mean things, and if one is going to make such a straight forward and committed position as Obama has made, one should be prepared, in advance, to be able to achieve such tasks as one promises to deliver. Obama, in true political fashion and demonstrating a marked lack of experience and understanding of the deployment of military forces, has committed himself to a politically suicidal position, should he gain the office of President. On the one hand, if he is elected and is unable to deliver on his promise to bring the troops home from Iraq within the first sixteen months of his administration, he has delivered, upon the proverbial silver platter, ammunition for a Republican opponent (as well as potential Democratic opponents) for the 2012 election cycle. On the other hand, should he manage to move 2 full brigades of troops back to the states per month, forcing a wholesale abandonment of equipment in country in Iraq (which undoubtedly will fall into the hands of those whom we would prefer not to have said equipment, provided the military doesn't render it unusable prior to departure), our military will face a state of unpreparedness unseen since the days of the Carter administration.

Should Obama become President, his lack of experience and understanding of the military, and his lack of willingness to listen to expert advice, has caused Obama to create for himself, within the less than a year and a half of taking office, the ultimate political death; he has backed himself into a no-win situation.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

.

More Obama changes, but don't CALL them changes...

It's an interesting thing to listen to a politician over time and keep a running track record of what they say on certain issues and how that position changes dependent upon their audience. In the case of Barack Obama, a full encyclopedic is forming.

All one has to do is to look on Barack Obama's campaign website to see what his plans are for our troops in Iraq. It was this stance that led to the defeat of Hillary Clinton and played a great part in his skyrocketing into position as the Democratic party front runner. The Obama plan calls for the return of our troops from Iraq within 16 months of his taking office as President.

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

That statement is in black and white on his website as his promise that it will happen if he is elected President of the United States of America.

And in reading Obama's website, and listening to him speak, the American people must ask themselves once again, "Can Obama be trusted at his word? And if so, which word is that, exactly?" Especially in light of his latest comments regarding the war made today in Fargo, North Dakota.

“I’ve always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability. That assessment has not changed,” he said. “And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I’m sure I’ll have more information and will continue to refine my policies.”

Um, no, that is NOT what Obama has always said, as is shown by looking directly at his own website at the earlier quotation, which can be found under the heading of "Judgement You Can Trust."

Judgement you can trust.

Right...and the moon is made of green cheese, isn't it?

This can be added to a growing list of changes in position from Obama, including his changing position on the FISA issue as the possibility of a bribe lurks hidden under the surface, sort of, a little, okay pretty much in plain view for anyone who is looking at the issue beyond his other gaffes and distractions.

But according to Obama, they aren't changes at all.

“There appears to be no issue that Barack Obama is not willing to reverse himself on for the sake of political expedience,” said Alex Conant, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee. “Obama’s Iraq problem undermines the central premise of his candidacy and shows him to be a typical politician.”

You know, somewhere the has GOT to be a parody of a David Bowie song about this sort of thing...

UPDATE: John McCain welcomes Obama to "his position," while RNC members call Obama's Iraq plans a "guessing game." Actually, I think both are correct...


Once and Always, an American Fighting Man who isn't likely to be changing, any time soon...

.

Training Iraqi Security Forces - With a New Twist

The training of a security force for Iraq is a top priority for United States forces who are currently providing the bulk of security for the fledgling government. Having shifted to a primarily support role, training still is in the hands of the U.S.

In al-Anbar province, a program that has been successful for strengthening security forces in other provinces such as Fallujah has been employed; the training of women to supplement the existing forces already in place.

Graduates of the Sisters of Fallujah program work at any number of entry points into the city of Fallujah, doing their part to dirsupt the flow of weapons and other contraband to insurgents into the city, The next class, the Sisters of Ameriyah-Ferris, are currently training with the 3rd Battalion, 6th Marines, and are the first class to train outside of Fallujah as female security forces, with augmented support in instruction from female search teams from Combat Logistics Battalion 1, who conducted the five-day training course, held between the towns of Ameriyah and Ferris.

To thoroughly train the new Sisters to assist Iraqi Police, the Sisters studied topics such as police ethics, human rights, women’s issues, working in a terrorist environment, female searches and first aid. The Sisters also performed live-fire training with AK-47 rifles and 9mm pistols as a confidence booster. The final stage before graduation involved putting their newly learned skills to the test with on-the-job training at entry control points to Ferris Town.

“In contrast to Fallujah, which already has female search points, this will be a first for Ferris, meaning the women here are starting from scratch,” said 1st Lt. Kathryne Schilling, officer in charge of the training, who is overseeing her third class of Sisters with 3rd Bn., 6th Marines. The women were taught very basic skills since the idea of women providing security alongside all the male Iraqi Police is new to Ferris.

Personal protection is also a high priority for the Sisters; even though Amieriyah and Ferris are much smaller towns than Fallujah, the work they are doing is every bit as dangerous as their "Sisters" in Fallujah. For many, it is also their first job, and they are proud to be doing it. One Ameriyah-Ferris graduate said “I joined to help the Iraqi Police and to help my family. I’m proud to get this job. I’m proud to help the Iraqi Police. I’m going to make the city safer. I can prevent illegal passengers in the city. I’m so proud, I’m so happy.”

AL ANBAR PROVINCE, Iraq -Chief Warrant Officer 3 Charles Major, infantry weapons officer of 3rd Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment, Regimental Combat Team 1 assists a shooter during range training with the Sisters of Ameriyah/Ferris June 4. The program trains women in Iraq to work alongside their male counterparts, the Iraqi Police, at entry control points through Anbar. , Lance Cpl. Albert F. Hunt, 6/4/2008 6:40 AM

She should be happy, and proud, as well. In a region that has traditionally not been the most "forward-thinking" in the area of equal rights for women, these women are undertaking two very important steps at once. They are women who are entering into the work forces, and they are women who are undertaking some of the most dangerous work IN Iraq at the moment.

A lesson that could be learned, perhaps, on our own shores, as well, even today.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

.

"You want the truth? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"

I'm going to ask a very simple question before we dive into the rest of this article, a question that ponders within my heart and soul as well as my mind, a question that I ask every time I watch the national news, a question that we should all be asking ourselves whenever we see one of our elected "leaders" open their mouths and start using their split tongues to double-talk us with lies and rhetoric.

That question is this: Have we become a nation of idiots?

A few months ago, I did a piece entitled "Inverted," in which I addresses several key issues of the day in which I see our thinking as upside down as a society. It appears that my piece might have hit home with a few people, but it hasn't had the significant impact that I had truly hoped it might have when I wrote it. I wasn't expecting mountains to be moved, nor rivers to change courses, but perhaps a few minds to be opened to thinking, something that seems to have become a dying art in our modern society. I have determined that one piece alone doesn't have the impact today of something as significant as Martin Luther's 99 Theses; instead, it takes perseverance and persistence and a constant showing of what is going on with things.

Therefore, I have decided that this will become an ongoing feature for Wake Up America. This will be the first of an ongoing series that will discuss the question, "Have we become a nation of idiots?"

General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker are preparing for their next round of Congressional testimonies this coming week. There is a lot to report. According to the latest NIE update, the troop surge in Iraq has worked, there is slow but steady progress in the country politically, and Iraqi forces are taking a more active role in their own security.

Petraeus is a career military officer, not a politician, and Crocker is a diplomat. These are not men who are coming to Washington jockeying for position with other lawmakers, opening themselves to the flirtations of lobbyists, or trying to determine how much pork they can bring home for their districts in the form of earmarks. Petraeus is a warrior, Crocker is a peace-broker. Despite the seeming contradictory roles they play, both men actually are working for the same goal in a country that needs their experience and expertise to begin full work in governing itself, with our help as a nation at the outset.

One needs only to look at history to see that our own nation had the help of the French at a time when we were struggling to emerge as a nation of our own right.

There has been no advanced word on what the Petraeus or Crocker reports will say. No one has leaked information, yet, as to what will be discussed at the Congressional testimonies. But Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi seems to think she already knows what will be said, and has gone on the record saying that she doesn't want to hear it.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) warned Army Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker on Thursday not to "put a shine on recent events” in Iraq when they testify before Congress next week.

“I hope we don’t hear any glorification of what happened in Basra,” said Pelosi, referring to a recent military offensive against Shiite militants in the city led by the Iraqi government and supported by U.S. forces.

Although powerful Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr agreed to a ceasefire after six days of fighting, Pelosi wondered why the U.S. was caught off guard by the offensive and questioned how the ceasefire was achieved, saying the terms were "probably dictated from Iran.” “We have to know the real ground truths of what is happening there, not put a shine on events because of a resolution that looks less violent when in fact it has been dictated by al-Sadr, who can grant or withhold that call for violence,” Pelosi said.

So the Speaker of the House has determined that she can warn a United States Army General in command of a theater of operations what not to say? The Speaker of the House is forwarding a message to a United States diplomatic official what not to report upon? Does this not come across as being less than open-minded in preparing for a report on the activities in Iraq, as she should be?

By the way, Petraeus and Crocker will have support when they go in to speak before Congress. Members of Vets for Freedom will be there tomorrow, as well.

From email:

For the past three weeks, the National Heroes Tour took the message of the success in Iraq straight to the American people. From San Antonio to Saint Paul to South Carolina, we engaged crowds large and small, and spoke with over 200 media outlets, reaching over 20 million people through local television and radio.

With just 3% of news coverage in the mainstream media committed to Iraq, we bypassed national media all together, and it worked. Local media outlets were very receptive to "ground truth," and our veterans were able to provide it. Any way you slice it, the National Heroes Tour has been an overwhelming success.

But it's not over yet. Tomorrow we bring our message to Congress, when over 400 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans descend on Capitol Hill for "Vets on the Hill." Our guys will enjoy breakfast with the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Richard Myers, before heading to Capitol Hill for a bi-partisan press conference with two-dozen members of Congress, including Senators John McCain, Joe Lieberman, and Lindsay Graham.

After the press conference, Vets for Freedom will flood the halls of Congress with a sea of warriors, armed with first-hand experience, facts about the incredible progress in Iraq, and a passion for nothing short of victory, Their stories are "taking points" that no one can refute—and members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, will hear from them.

Our message is simple: Let them win! and listen to General David Petraeus. He was right in September, and has the best pulse on events in Iraq. Congress would be wise to heed his advice.

Commence Movement to Contact,

Pete Hegseth
Executive Director
Vets for Freedom

It is beyond my comprehension how that Nancy Pelosi was selected to be Speaker of the House of Representatives. She has shown time and again over the past two years her lack of ability to actually lead, Congress has accomplished nothing during this term other than to show themselves to be able to behave like pre-schoolers who have been told they have to stay inside for recess; the Senate, under Harry Reid, has done no better. They have whined and complained and griped and moaned about President Bush this and President Bush that, but what have they done? And who keeps sending them back to do the nothing that they do so well?

Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. We, the American people, continue to send people like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to Washington, expecting them to do something for us when they get there. They do nothing. And yet they are reelected over and over and over until they become career politicians like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, just to name two.

They do nothing.

Insane?

I think so, that's why I very, very rarely vote for any incumbent candidate, unless the other option is worse than what is already in office. My question is, looking around at the likes of Reid, Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry, Murtha, and so on and so forth, is, what kind of idiot does it take to continue to vote for these people?

Phil Bredesen, take note: I didn't vote for your condescending ass either, I knew you'd show your true colors with a second term as Governor of Tennessee.

Bob Corker, take note: we are watching you. You were selected over a popular Democratic opponent because we trusted you AT YOUR WORD that you would go to Washington to do the peoples work. So far, you're doing well. Not great, but doing well. We expect to see leadership out of you; we didn't send you up there to be a follower.

Lamar Alexander, take note: you're on the verge of PISSING your constituency off when you have your staff take the phones off the hooks so that we can't get through on important issues. Unfortunately, no one seems to be willing to take you on in this coming election cycle that you're going to be in, but that could change in a heartbeat if you don't watch yourself and do what you were elected to do.

Each and every one of you from Tennessee is on notice for this business in the House this term. You Democrats who have decided to ignore your home districts and pander to Grammy Nan are going to have to answer for what you've done when you come home at election time. There are those of us who are going to see to that in your districts. You have questions that you will have to answer. Personally, I hope none of you are returned to office.

John Tanner, you especially have a record that flies in the face of the people who live in your district. Nancy Pelosi doesn't represent us in west Tennessee, you do, John, and we're disappointed as hell in you. You know better than to let the values you grew up with be overrun by a left coast liberal.

Shame on you.

Are we idiots? Are we insane to continue to send people who pay lip service to representing us in government back into office over and over?

What do you think?

Have we become a nation of idiots?

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


.

Legislative Progress in Iraq

Critics have been crying out for the Iraqi legislature to accomplish something. Our own Congress has criticized the Iraqi body for not "getting anything done." They're a fine group to accuse anyone of any such sort. The critics can sit down now, unless they now want to complain about what has been done. The Iraqi legislature has passed three important pieces of legislation today that have required a lot of hard work and compromise on the road to making history.

Good for them!

Using old-fashioned behind-the-scenes politicking, Iraq’s Parliamentary leaders pushed through three divisive laws that had been delayed for months by bitter maneuvering between factions and, recently, threats to dissolve the legislative body.

More than any legislation approved so far, the three measures have the potential to spur reconciliation between Sunnis and Shiites and set the country on the road to a more representative government.

The three measures are very important legislatively for Iraq. They cover the Iraqi budget, provisional powers with the country, and amnesty for thousands of detainees held in Iraqi custody under suspicion of belonging to al-Qaeda. The release is crucial to Sunnis, as a majority of the detainees are of that sect. The provisional powers section is important to defining Iraq's status as a federal state. The budget section covers issues important to the Kurds, which ensures their region 17 percent of the nations revenues, minus the cost of providing for the operations of national ministries within the region.

The combining of the three pieces of legislation into one enabled the government to establish a quorum necessary for the passage of any one of the three items. This ended a deadlock that had been ongoing for days, with nothing being accomplished. By combining the three pieces, each faction could come to session and walk away claiming that they had won on their issue.

The one issue of contention that remained was the selection of a date for national elections. Both Sunni and Shiite factions stand to lose seats in the legislature, something both parties have been seeking to avoid (wouldn't the Democrats and Republicans in this country do the same, if in the same circumstance?), but the issue was forced and a date set for the 1st of October.

Critics and naysayers often complain that it is taking "too long" for the Iraqi's to begin the establishment of their own government independently of the involvement of the United States. It is easy to sit back and demand and insist, from the armchair politician standpoint, or even from the opposing party standpoint within our own government, that they move along more quickly.

Our own system of government, as we know it today, took years in the undertaking to come into being. Our first system of national government, the Articles of Confederation, were abolished ten years after their inception in favor of our current Constitutional, representative republic form of government. Great minds of law, philosophy, and political thought came together to discuss and formulate our government. Iraq doesn't have the benefit of that sort of talent. The brightest and the best political thinkers in Iraq were either executed by the Hussein regime or members of it.

It is going to take time.

But this, today, is progress in the right direction.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


.

Elvis Presley Strikes New Album Deal with Virgin Records!

Eye catching headline, don't you think? Plays right in with all the Elvis and UFO sightings. Remember Dennis Kucinich admitting the other day that he had seen a UFO while visiting with Shirley McClain? I wonder if Ron Paul might have been on board? It would seem to me he must have been SOMEWHERE the past year or so, because the man doesn't think that the Iraq surge is working...(hat tip to Stop the ACLU for this)

Do they put olives in the martinis on those interstellar flights? Or little pearl onions? Personally I'm a Jack Daniels sort of guy but...

Ahem.

I hope all you Paul supporters are happy with what you've been supporting. Ron Paul, the man who puts in for earmarks on wild shrimp, then votes against the budget so he can say that he voted against it and still get his earmarks.

Gotta love a man who works both sides against the middle.

Here's the truth about the surge:


(click images to enlarge for better reading)




If those of you who support Paul still wish to do so, that's your business. Be sure to let us know how the view is. I've never actually HAD the desire to stick my head in the sand, but that seems to be popular with some people, so if any of ya'll want to send us a report on what it's like...

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


.

Why We Do What We Do

It is said that a picture is worth a thousand words. Michael Yon is very capable in taking a picture that has just that effect.

With all the rhetoric, with all the political wrangling, with all the posturing from both sides of the aisle, we tend to forget the real reasons we do the things we do. Make no mistake about it; our nation was attacked, we retaliated in force. That was what we should have done. However, unlike other nations in the past, we try to be a unifying force in the regions in which we maintain a military presence after military action.

It would seem that our work is starting to pay off as shown in one of Yon's most recent reports.

Thanks and Praise: I photographed men and women, both Christians and Muslims, placing a cross atop the St. John’s Church in Baghdad. They had taken the cross from storage and a man washed it before carrying it up to the dome.

A Muslim man had invited the American soldiers from “Chosen” Company 2-12 Cavalry to the church, where I videotaped as Muslims and Christians worked and rejoiced at the reopening of St John’s, an occasion all viewed as a sign of hope.

The Iraqis asked me to convey a message of thanks to the American people. ” Thank you, thank you,” the people were saying. One man said, “Thank you for peace.” Another man, a Muslim, said “All the people, all the people in Iraq, Muslim and Christian, is brother.” The men and women were holding bells, and for the first time in memory freedom rang over the ravaged land between two rivers.

We are still there for a reason, and this is a clear example of what that reason is. Rebuilding.

Outstanding.

Thank you, Michael Yon, for all the hard work you are doing to make sure these stories come to us.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


[Update-Spree] 11/08/07- Hugh Hewitt's interview with Michael Yon...excerpts here and full transcript here.

Read it, the good news is overwhelmingly and being told by someone who is there, on the ground, in Iraq.

.

One Toke Over the Line...

Know this:

I have had enough. The line has been crossed. If I ever witness such as this, I will NOT REST until I see legal action taken against the "parents" involved. I would encourage the rest of you who still love our country to do the same.

Hat tip to Miss Beth for this from Malagent's Domain :

Child Attacked Over Soldier Costume

On my way home tonight I was drawn into an incident that has me so angry that I could not even write about it until I calmed down a bit.

In a residential neighborhood I stopped at an intersection and witnessed several children who appeared to be fighting a few yards from my vehicle. At first it did not seem real serious, however, one of the children said something that caused me to pay more attention. He said “You’re a terrorist just like your dad, I’m going to kill you just like the Iraq is gonna kill him.” It was then that I realized what was going on. A young boy, probably 10 or 11 was dressed as a US soldier, he was pinned on the ground while a group of four or five other boys where hitting and kicking him while at least two older people in costumes watched.

I left my truck in the street and got out just as one boy picked up a softball sized rock and headed towards he boy pinned on the ground. He was yelling “MURDERER” over and over. I yelled at the boy with the rock who dropped it and ran as he saw me. The others did not stop attacking the boy on the ground until I pulled them off of him. It was at this point the two older people started screaming at me. “What are you doing to my boys, leave them alone!” They were the mothers of two of the attackers. I told them I was calling the police and they all ran off.

The boy who had been attacked was crying and told me his father was serving in Iraq so he had decided to dress “like a soldier” for Halloween. He told me the attackers were his friends and that after one of the mothers start calling him and his dad a murderer his friends joined in and then attacked him.

Although he was bleeding he did not appear to be seriously injured and was very adamant that he did not want police or medical help. When I went to move my truck and call the police the boy disappeared into the neighborhood.

I’m still not sure whether I’m more disturbed by the children’s actions or the two mothers standing there watching. Were they going to let the boy be hit with a rock larger than a softball? Why did they allow the fight in the first place?

What kind of environment is required for ten year old boys to attack & threaten death over a soldier costume? I can only imagine the things they here at home and I can only imagine ho much worse these kids while be in the teens and as adults.

Had the assailants been a little older I’m afraid I would have been in jail before it was over. Given the fact they were literally children, I did nothing more then pull them away from the victim.

I really don’t give a damn what one’s position on the Iraq war or any war for that matter, but to allow this situation to happen is flat out wrong.

Happy F’N Halloween!

My first question is how can two "mothers" stand idly by and allow a gang of kids to beat the hell out of another one? What kind of MOTHER would do that? And over a kid paying tribute to his soldier father by dressing up AS a soldier for Halloween?

One word comes to mind.

Inverted.

When two grown women who have born children stand idly to the side and allow their offspring to gather a group of other kids to beat and kick another child, these women are NOT mothers; they are progenitors of terrorism. THIS is an act of home grown domestic terrorism.

Think that poor kid being wailed on wasn't terrorized? Ask five or six of your closest friends to start beating the hell out of you and telling you they're going to kill you. Make sure that two of their mothers are standing nearby watching and doing nothing.

There are not enough words to express the anger I feel, not ONLY as a veteran, but as a citizen. This is unacceptable. The hatred of the left for our troops has now taken the form of violence against someone who ISN'T EVEN OLD ENOUGH TO BE ONE. It's an attack on the family of one of our soldiers, a man who, I am sure, is asking himself right now "this is what I enlisted to protect? A country that hates me so much that my family isn't even safe?"

I don't know who this family is, I don't know who the soldier is, but brother, I'm proud of you for wearing the uniform and it speaks volumes to me that your son respects you enough that he would show you the honor of wanting to be like his old man. Well done, and God bless you.

To the two "mothers" who stood aside and allowed their children to attack another child? There will be a reckoning. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but there will be a reckoning. I don't know what it will be, and I'm not making any threats; it would be futile to do so as I have no idea who you are, nor do I want to know. What goes around comes around. There will be an accounting for your own act of evil.

To our veterans, this is a wake up call if I've ever seen one. Be vigilant, be alert, and be strong. Our enemy at home has played their next card. This incident will go unpunished by the law, but there will be others. This is just the first, I'm sure. Be ready to make the law accountable for acts of violence against our troops and their families.

To the left, enough. Our troops are there to protect you, show them a little respect. Without our troops, you certainly wouldn't have the freedom to protest. Or would you rather a police state that censors every word, every thought, every freedom? That's the kind of world you're actually advocating when you stand against our nation and our military defending us from those in the world who would see our nation fall.

Enough.

I could go on, I could say so much more...SO much more...but I'm trying to keep this at a level where any age can read it, so I'll keep the poison that this has raised inside me for another outlet...something productive, I can assure you, but I won't go into the cursing rampage that I could go into over this tonight here.

THAT, my liberal leftist hater friends, is called taking the high road.

And no, as much as I would probably like to, I won't go out looking for some moonbat to wail on.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


.

A Disgusted General Speaks

We hear so much rumbling from some of our retired generals about the war in Iraq. The dinosaur media is quick to put a camera and microphone in front of them and give them a world wide audience so that they can condemn our policies and criticize our war efforts. Hat tip to Bill Shannon for forwarding us in email to the website the views of one of our retired generals who isn't aspiring to political ambitions.

The following can be found in full at Go-Patriots.com:

MIDDLE EAST IMPERATIVE
BY JIM CASH

I wrote recently about the war in Iraq and the larger war against radical Islam, eliciting a number of responses. Let me try and put this conflict in proper perspective.

Understand, the current battle we are engaged in is much bigger that just Iraq. What happens in the next year will affect this country and how our kids and grandkids live throughout their lifetime, and beyond.

Radical Islam has been attacking the West since the seventh century.

They have been defeated in the past and decimated to the point of taking hundreds of years to recover. But they can never be totally defeated.

Their birth rates are so far beyond civilized world rates that in time they recover and attempt to dominate again.

There are eight terror-sponsoring countries that make up the grand threat to the West. Two, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, just need firm pressure from the West to make major reforms. They need to decide who they are really going to support and commit to that support. That answer is simple. They both will support who they think will hang in there until the end, and win. We are not sending very good signals in that direction right now, thanks to the Democrats.

The other six, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea and Libya will require regime change or a major policy shift. Now, let's look more closely.

Afghanistan and Iraq have both had regime changes, but are being fueled by outsiders from Syria and Iran. We have scared Gaddafi's pants off, and he has given up his quest for nuclear weapons, so I don't think Libya is now a threat. North Korea (the non-Islamic threat) can be handled diplomatically by buying them off. They are starving. That leaves Syria and Iran. Syria is like a frightened puppy. Without the support of Iran they will join the stronger side. So where does that leave us? Sooner, or later, we are going to be forced to confront Iran, and it better be before they gain nuclear capability.

In 1989 I served as a Command Director inside the Cheyenne Mountain complex located in Colorado Springs, Colorado for almost three years.

My job there was to observe (through classified means) every missile shot anywhere in the world and assess if it was a threat to the US or Canada. If any shot was threatening to either nation I had only minutes to advise the President, as he had only minutes to respond. I watched Iran and Iraq shoot missiles at each other every day, and all day long, for months. They killed hundreds of thousand of their people. Know why? They were fighting for control of the Middle East and that enormous oil supply.

At that time, they were preoccupied with their internal problems and could care less about toppling the west. Oil prices were fairly stable and we could not see an immediate threat. Well, the worst part of what we have done as a nation in Iraq is to do away with the military capability of one of those nations. Now, Iran has a clear field to dominate the Middle East, since Iraq is no longer a threat to them.

They have turned their attention to the only other threat to their dominance, the United States. They are convinced they will win, because the United States is so divided, and the Democrats (who now control Congress and may control the Presidency in 2008) have openly said we are pulling out.

Do you have any idea what will happen if the entire Middle East turns their support to Iran, which they will obviously do if we pull out? It is not the price of oil we will have to worry about. Oil will not be made available to this country at any price. I personally would vote for any presidential candidate who did what JFK did with the space program---declare a goal to bring this country to total energy independence in a decade.

Yes, it is about oil. The economy in this country will totally die if that Middle East supply is cut off right now. It will not be a recession. It will be a depression that will make 1929 look like the "good-old-days".

The bottom line here is simple. If Iran is forced to fall in line, the fighting in Iraq will end over night, and the nightmare will be over.

One way or another, Iran must be forced to join modern times and the global community. It may mean a real war---if so, now is the time, before we face a nuclear Iran with the capacity to destroy Israel and begin a new ice age. I urge you to read the book "END GAME" by two of our best Middle East experts, true American patriots and retired military generals, Paul Vallely and Tom McInerney. They are our finest, and totally honest in their assessment of why victory in the Middle East is so important, and how it can be won. Proceeds for the book go directly to memorial fund for our fallen soldiers who served the country during the war on terror. You can find that book by going to the internet through Stand-up America at www.ospreyradio.us or www.rightalk. com.

On the other hand, we have several very angry retired generals today, who evidently have not achieved their lofty goals, and insist on ranting and raving about the war. They are wrong, and doing the country great harm by giving a certain political party reason to use them as experts to back their anti-war claims.

You may be one of those who believe nothing could ever be terrible enough to support our going to war. If that is the case I should stop here, as that level of thinking approaches mental disability in this day and age. It is right up there with alien abductions and high altitude seeding through government aircraft contrails. I helped produced those contrails for almost 30 years, and I can assure you we were not seeding the atmosphere. The human race is a war-like population, and if a country is not willing to protect itself, it deserves the consequences...

And he has SO MUCH MORE to say about the Bush administration, the Clinton administration, all the way back to the Nixon administration; it's an incredible read, and gives the insights of an incredible mind.

The bottom line is this: he's right on target with the things that he says, and he backs up the opinions of many Middle East analysts and observers. By his own admission he has nothing to gain politically by stating his observations, and his credentials are more than sufficient to back up what he says.

This is the difference between a general who is a warrior and one who is a politician. George Patton, at the end of World War II, had the foresight to realize that the United States needed to deal with the Soviet Union RIGHT THEN, but the politicians would have none of it. The result of not listening to one of our warriors was decades of "Cold War" between the U.S.A and the U.S.S.R.

Who will we listen to this time? The warriors, or the politicians?

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


.

Behind Enemy Lines...

In the old days they were called "sappers." From the earliest conflicts of man against man, there have been special groups, elite units, who were tasked and trained with doing the exceptional and the extraordinary.

Special Operations took on a new life during World War II with the use of Army Rangers and Airborne troops so heavily during the Normandy invasion, and the reliance of Navy "frogmen" for disarming sea mines.

Out of necessity for changing warfare came the Navy Seals, the Green Berets, and their forerunners from the British Commonwealth, the Special Air Service, or SAS.

We see today how important a role SpecOps plays in conducting modern warfare, and in preventing it, with this report from the Times Online:

SAS raiders enter Iran to kill gunrunners

Michael Smith

BRITISH special forces have crossed into Iran several times in recent months as part of a secret border war against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s Al-Quds special forces, defence sources have disclosed.

There have been at least half a dozen intense firefights between the SAS and arms smugglers, a mixture of Iranians and Shi’ite militiamen.

The unreported fighting straddles the border between Iran and Iraq and has also involved the Iranian military firing mortars into Iraq. UK commanders are concerned that Iran is using a militia ceasefire to step up arms supplies in preparation for an offensive against their base at Basra airport.

An SAS squadron is carrying out operations along the Iranian border in Maysan and Basra provinces with other special forces, the Australian SAS and American special-operations troops...

This is where it's very important to know exactly what your enemy is up to. Joint operations between allies, in this case the UK, Australia, and the US, means that information can be shared more quickly and efficiently between the three nations to conduct other operations.

UK special forces operating in Iran
By JPOST.COM STAFF

Talkbacks for this article: 2

British special forces have carried out several operations inside Iran in recent months in an attempt to prevent the Revolutionary Guard's Al-Quds force from shipping weapons to Iraq, the Sunday Times reported.

The British and Australian SAS forces are reportedly working with American special forces to patrol the border to prevent weapons - including surface-to-air missiles and parts for IEDs (improvised explosive devices) - from reaching the hands of Iraqi insurgents.

According to the article, the SAS have engaged in at least six "intense firefights" with both Iranian and Iraqi Shi'ite arms smugglers. The fighting has reportedly taken place on both sides of the Iran-Iraq border, and Iran has fired mortar shells across the border.

The Times said that officials have stated that while the British troops are working to prevent arms smuggling, they do not cross the border into Iran...

Analysis of the information that comes back from these operations is vital for regular forces in knowing exactly what sorts of measures they need to take in their own operations. It also allows for more direct analysis of doing things to prevent the smuggling of weapons from Iran INTO Iraq. It also gives insights on how to secure our own southernmost border here at home; the border we share with Mexico:

U.S. to build watchtower at Iran-Iraq border
Structure to target smuggling of shipments that authorities allege are illegal arms for war

By Sam Enriquez
October 21, 2007

ZURBATIYA, Iraq - About 300 trucks cross the border here every day, ferrying fruit, rugs and building supplies from Iran - and, if U.S. authorities are to be believed, illegal weapons.

Intercepting the smuggled arms should be simple enough, because shipments have to be unloaded from Iranian trucks and transferred to Iraqi trucks at the border. The trouble is, the reloading is done on the Iranian side, behind a wall.

So the U.S. is planning to build a 100-foot watchtower for Iraqi border agents. This solution is one of many to seal a 900-mile desert and mountain border that U.S. authorities allege is used by smugglers to ferry Iranian-made explosives and rockets used in attacks against Iraqi civilians, police and U.S. forces.

Critics say the U.S. hasn't proved that the weapons come from Iran or that the Iranian government is complicit with trafficking. But the allegations have heightened tensions between Washington and Iran, raising the prospect of U.S. military action.

The crossing station here in eastern Wasit province, a moonscape desert with summer highs pushing 120 degrees and the dangerous litter of Iraq's eight-year war with Iran, illustrates the challenge of setting modern controls on an ancient frontier.

Although the United States' latest border problem is half a world away from Mexico and its illegal drug and immigrant traffic, the U.S. military hopes to incorporate some of the techniques used on the U.S.-Mexican border. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is lending border patrol and customs officers to help, and some former officers are working here under private contracts.

"This is a lot tougher than the Mexican border," said Army Col. Mark Mueller, who is in charge of U.S. forces advising Iraq's Department of Border Enforcement and the Iraqi army in this region. "There are leftover mines and munitions everywhere."

Don't expect, however, after reading this, to be able to pull up Special Operations mission reports at random and read them. The vast majority of them are classified information that is not available to the general public. There are a great many reasons for this, none the least of which is the safety of the soldiers and sailors and marines involved in these missions, and the safety of their families.

Keep these specialists in your thoughts and prayers. They put themselves very heavily in harms way to keep you safe.

Once and Always an American Fighting Man
(That last one is my regimental crest. Notice the tie in with the one at the top of the page?)


.

MoveOn.org calls Petraeus a traitor, earns an RC award

[Updates below as well as a link to part #2 of this thread]

I don't know...

When I can remember...

Being quite...

So...

Pissed...................

Do you ever reach a point of anger where your blood just chills inside of you and you have the most calm, collected, cold rational thought processes running despite the rage? That's where I am now.

Why, you ask? I'm glad you asked that.

The LEFT have taken a whole new slant (as if they weren't slanted enough already) in their efforts to make us look like a nation of damned fools. I am so sick and tired and fed up with MoveOn.org and groups like them...

They're playing right into the hands of our enemies around the world, especially with this, their latest stunt:

MoveOn.org Calls Petraeus a Traitor
Do Democrats in Congress agree?
by Pete Hegseth
09/09/2007 5:28:00 PM

Tomorrow--as General David Petraeus provides his Iraq assessment to Congress--the antiwar group MoveOn.org is running a full-page advertisement in the New York Times under the headline: "General Petraeus or General Betray us? Cooking the books for the White House."

Let's be clear: MoveOn.org is suggesting that General Petraeus has 'betrayed' his country. This is disgusting. To attack as a traitor an American general commanding forces in war because his 'on the ground' experience does not align with MoveOn.org's political objectives is utterly shameful. It shows contempt for America's military leadership, as well as for the troops who have confidence in him, as our fellow soldiers in Iraq certainly do.

General Petraeus has served this country for over 35 years with honor, distinction, and integrity. And this is not just about General Petraeus. After all, if General Petraeus is "cooking the books," then the entire military chain of command in Baghdad, and all the staff, military and civilian, who have been working with General Petraeus are complicit, since Petraeus did not write his report in isolation. They are all, apparently, 'betray[ing] us.'

MoveOn.org has been working closely with the Democratic congressional leadership --as an article in today's Sunday New York Times Magazine makes clear. And consider this comment by a Democratic senator from Friday's Politico: "'No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national TV,' noted one Democratic senator, who spoke on the condition on anonymity. 'The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for
us.'

More...

Sunday, September 09, 2007

Don't Question His Patriotism! [Cliff May]

MoveOn.org, it seems, is questioning the patriotism of Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq. Tomorrow, the anti-war group is running a full-page advertisement in the New York Times under the headline: "General Petraeus or General Betray us?"

Folks, this is about as original as "Elvis the Pelvis" was. What makes it SO MUCH WORSE is that the world is watching us to see how we, as a nation, and our government, will react to the report. And what are they seeing? Such divisive tripe as this.

WE CAN NOT CONTINUE TO GO ON ALLOWING OUR NATION TO BE RIPPED APART BY THOSE WHO WISH TO DESTROY US NOT ONLY FROM THE OUTSIDE BUT FROM WITHIN AS WELL.

Is it going to take an escalation of things into violence, again, within this nation for us to unite AS a nation? Let me warn you of this, those of you who are BUCKING for a second "Civil War" in the United States: the MINUTE lines are draw and ranks are formed for us to do battle against one another, do you HONESTLY THINK that the rest of the world is going to stand idly by and let us duke it out amongst ourselves may the best side win? HELL NO! Russia and China are watching this with baited breath, mark my words. The Taliban and al-Queda are CHEERING us on to continue to pull apart internally. Our ALLIES are watching us to see what happens. And we have MoveOn.org planning to run this add calling the top general in Iraq a traitor because they don't like the war.

TOUGH.

No one in their RIGHT MIND likes war. But sometimes things have to be done to protect our way of life.

IF WE CONTINUE DOWN THE PATH THAT WE ARE TAKING, one very, VERY similar to the path we took prior to 1860 in this nation, and find ourselves fighting each other, you can BET YOUR SWEET ASS that there will be foreign factions who will be MORE THAN WILLING to jump into the fray to make sure that we are finally and ultimately destroyed as a nation.

To those American citizens supporting MoveOn.org: if you seek traitors, take a long, hard look in the mirror and ask yourself, honestly, is the organization that you are supporting working in the best interests of your country?

To the Congress and the Senate: How much longer will you continue to work at odds and allow our nation to become more divided? How much longer will you allow leadership within the House and the Senate who blatantly seek the division of the American people? How much longer will you continue to make political partisan play out of something that is so literally life and death, NOT JUST for our troops, but for our citizenry as well? HOW MUCH LONGER will a political party have WEEKLY CONFERENCES with a group SUCH AS MoveOn.org, paying credence to them RATHER THAN THE PEOPLE WHO PUT THEM IN OFFICE? We the people are watching you, and we will remember what you do, and how you respond.

To the American People in general: how much longer will you allow yourselves to listen to the rantings of a sick and deranged old man HIDING IN A CAVE and telling you what to believe? How much longer will you listen to those who would see our nation discredited LIE to you by telling you that we are fighting an illegal war? How much longer will you continue to support leaders who clearly have their own political survival in mind rather than doing what is right for our nation, and what best protects our nation. How much longer will you IGNORE the threat of radical Islam that calls for our destruction by focusing on lines drawn on a map rather than the VERY REAL problem that this ideology CROSSES national boundaries and involves a multinational group that may or may NOT have the support of any particular government or governments.

To the New York Times: disgraceful.

This war, the war on terrorist groups, the war that John Edwards has called a "bumper sticker war," has long lasting implications for more than a handful of reasons.

Our world changed on 9/11. We cannot forget that, no matter how much we would like to do so.

Traitor my leathery ass.

You know, I have personally not said anything untowards in regards to the generals who dissented in conducting operations in Iraq. As a soldier (once a soldier, always a soldier), I understand that there is a difference between peace time leadership and war time leadership. I could understand the dissenting opinions of the peace time general staff. No way would I call them traitors. They served our nation, they did their duty, and they voiced their opinions. General Petraeus has served our nation, as well, and he has done so IN THE CAPACITY of a war time general.

MoveOn.org has gone TOO FAR with this one. Too far.

I call on Congress, and I call on the American people, to hold them accountable for their sedition.

MoveOn.org wins the Rubber Chicken Award for this week, hands down.


Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


(NOTE: Instead of leaving you with the advertisements I usually have at the bottom of each post, I will leave you with one of the videos from Freedoms Watch) [30 second video.]


Wounded Veteran:



.

[Update] Despite the Democrats and Move On Org. doing everything in their power to discredit General Petraeus, or perhaps because of those attempts, the NYT/CBS poll, with obvious bias in how they asked questions, STILL showed one little gem. 68% percent of the American population trust the militray more than anyone else on the war.

I think they have overplayed their hand and the public sees this.

[Update #2] Pete has another piece out asking whether Democrats will denounce Move On for this ad, or whether they will be complicit in Move On's actions by staying silent. If they do not speak out against Move On because of the fear of the orgination, then they will, rightly so, continue to be associated in everyones mind with this group.

PART #2 OF THIS THREAD, INCLUDING REACTIONS FROM THE POLITICIANS CAN BE FOUND HERE.




.

A little blue Kool-aide for the Senator from Virginia, please

Or maybe he prefers pink.

In a move that flies in the face of recommendations by OTHER senators and members of Congress, from both parties, who have visited Iraq, Virginia's John Warner has returned and is suggesting that our troops be withdrawn from Iraq by Christmas.

Warner's Call for Withdrawal Met by Plea for Patience (Update1)

By Edwin Chen and William Roberts

Aug. 24 (Bloomberg) -- Senator John Warner, an influential Republican on defense matters, urged President George W. Bush to announce by Sept. 15 a plan to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, a suggestion the administration rejected.

Yesterday's statement by Warner, a five-term Virginia senator, combined with a new report by U.S. intelligence agencies that concluded Iraq's political leaders still can't govern effectively, will add fuel to the debate over the war when Congress returns from recess next month.

``We simply cannot as a nation stand and continue to put our troops at continuous risk of loss of life and limb without beginning to take some decisive action,'' Warner, who returned from Iraq last week and met with top administration officials yesterday, said during a news conference at the Capitol.

Political and foreign-policy analysts said Warner's remarks will increase Republican defections to oppose the war even if it is unlikely to change the president's mind.

For Republicans who may be on the fence, ``it's really nice to have some highly respected, senior, conservative senator go out on a limb,'' said Charlie Cook, publisher of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.

Still, he said, it won't be sufficient opposition to force Bush's hand. ``The president doesn't want Iraq lost on his watch,'' Cook said.

Perhaps the Senator has forgotten his history, and doesn't remember that OUR OWN nation went through first the Articles of Confederation and THEN the Constitution when our nation was forming out of the ashes of colonization.

Brian Baird offers a very different outlook in his piece in the Seattle Times:

Our troops have earned more time

By Brian Baird

Special to The Times

The invasion of Iraq may be one of the worst foreign-policy mistakes in the history of our nation. As tragic and costly as that mistake has been, a precipitous or premature withdrawal of our forces now has the potential to turn the initial errors into an even greater problem just as success looks possible.

As a Democrat who voted against the war from the outset and who has been frankly critical of the administration and the post-invasion strategy, I am convinced by the evidence that the situation has at long last begun to change substantially for the better. I believe Iraq could have a positive future. Our diplomatic and military leaders in Iraq, their current strategy, and most importantly, our troops and the Iraqi people themselves, deserve our continued support and more time to succeed.

I understand the desire of many of our citizens and my colleagues in Congress to bring the troops home as soon as possible. The costs have been horrific for our soldiers, their families, the Iraqi people and the economy. If we keep our troops on the ground we will lose more lives, continue to spend billions each week, and, given the history and complex interests of the region, there is no certainty that our efforts will succeed in the long run. We must be absolutely honest about these costs and risks and I am both profoundly saddened and angry that we are where we are.

Knowing all this, how can someone who opposed the war now call for continuing the new directions that have been taken in Iraq? The answer is that the people, strategies and facts on the ground have changed for the better and those changes justify changing our position on what should be done.

I have a brilliant idea! Why don't we ask all the nay sayers and surrender mongers to do simply this: sit back and wait for General Petraeus to make his report next month and discuss it OBJECTIVELY. Think they'll go for it? Of course not, they're already foaming at the mouth and gnawing at the bit trying to discredit the man even before he makes his opening statements.

Food for thought, don't you think?

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

.

Fickle Irony, thy Name is Webb...

It's an amazing thing how our pasts come back to bite us so soundly right square on the ass sometimes. Lord knows I've had things enough from my past come back to haunt my nightmares often enough, things I would have preferred left in the past, buried, forgotten, tucked away safely in their own little compartments where they could do no harm.

The truth of the matter is, the more things we do in the public eye, the more there is to come back to catch us at a later date. And when we say things or do things for no other reason than out of mere political motivation, things done simply to be in contrast with the opposing side, we make of ourselves hypocrites.

Witness the following, and bear ye witness to exactly the sort of political pandering and hypocrisy of which I speak:

The Corner

Friday, August 24, 2007


"The Aftermath of Saigon's Fall Is Rarely Dealt With At All." [Byron York]


An analysis of Vietnam strikingly similar to what we're hearing today, beginning with a discussion of Congress' 1975 decision to cut funding to the South Vietnamese:

This Congress was elected in November 1974, only months after Nixon's resignation, and it was dominated by a fresh group of antiwar Democrats. One of the first actions of the new Congress was to vote down a supplemental appropriation for the beleaguered South Vietnamese that would have provided $800 million in military aid, including much-needed ammunition, spare parts and medical supplies.

This vote was a horrendous blow, in both emotional and practical terms, to the country that had trusted American judgment for more than a decade of intense conflict. It was also a clear indication that Washington was abandoning the South Vietnamese even as the North Vietnamese continued to enjoy the support of the Soviet Union, China and other Eastern bloc nations. The vote's impact was hardly lost on North Vietnamese military planners, who began the final offensive only five weeks later, as the South Vietnamese were attempting to adjust their military defenses.

Read the full article here. The author of this article, not the one today, but the original article? Why that would be none other than Senator James Webb of Virginia. That's right, the same Senator James Webb of Virginia who refused to shake hands with President Bush and berated him about bringing home the troops.

It's almost as if the man was trained under the direct tutelage of a certain Senator from New York who has no political bearing of her own other than to go whichever way the polls lean. Mayhap they're related, for surely this must be some sort of genetic anomaly that causes these people to act as if they have no conscience, no honor, and certainly no valor.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

.

A House Divided...

George Will sees us at a point similar to Germany in 1918 in his column regarding the pending report by Gen. Petraeus scheduled for next month.

I'm not so sure.

What September Won't Settle

By George F. Will
Thursday, August 23, 2007; Page A19

Come September, America might slip closer toward a Weimar moment. It would be milder than the original but significantly disagreeable.

After the First World War, politics in Germany's new Weimar Republic were poisoned by the belief that the army had been poised for victory in 1918 and that one more surge could have turned the tide. Many Germans bitterly concluded that the political class, having lost its nerve and will to win, capitulated. The fact that fanciful analysis fed this rancor did not diminish its power.

The Weimar Republic was fragile; America's domestic tranquility is not. Still, remember the bitterness stirred by the accusatory question "Who lost China?" and corrosive suspicions that the fruits of victory in Europe had been squandered by Americans of bad character or bad motives at Yalta.

So, consider this: When Gen. David Petraeus delivers his report on the war, his Washington audience will include two militant factions. Perhaps nothing he can responsibly say will sway either, so September will reinforce animosities.

Read the full article here.

I can understand the Weimar analogy. I really can.

Personally I'm not quite so optimistic.

Already the media and the Pelosi/Reid crowd are doing their best to kill the messenger before he even arrives. In my mind there is only one reason for them to do so; they have to discredit him before he makes his presentation because they know the positive nature of what his report is going to be.

Hence my not seeing us in a situation so similar to the Weimar scenario.

I see us more back where we were in the 1840's, prior to the Compromise of 1850, the difference being that this time westward expansion, industrialization, and slavery are not the issues. North and South were divided camps then, Left and Right are divided camps today. This time, however, we have no Henry Clay, Stephen Douglas, or Daniel Webster to offer forth any sort of compromise, rather we have Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Murtha, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and last but certainly not least Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama.

See any hope for compromise out of that crowd? Or do you see further polarization of the American people, polarization that puts us in dire straights on the road to armed confrontations between the two camps in the streets?

God help us all if we break down into another civil war in this nation.

God help the world if we do...

This time there WILL BE NO winners.

Unless you're a Jihadist, waiting for this to happen to our nation so that you and your "brothers" can come in and establish Sharia law out of the rubble.

Time to open your eyes, sleepyheads.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

.

I suppose they'll blame Bush for this, too...

[Update 8:15 pm CST]

This just in at Operation Iraqi Freedom:

MULTI-NATIONAL FORCE-IRAQ
PRESS DESK
BAGHDAD, Iraq
http://www.mnf-iraq.com
703.343.8790

Aug. 20, 2007
Release A070820a

Coalition Forces Kill Eight, Detain Three, Capturing a Special Groups Leader and Smuggler of Iranian Weapons

BAGHDAD, Iraq – Coalition Forces captured a weapons smuggler and Special Groups extremist leader before dawn Monday near Qasirin, north of Baghdad.

Coalition Forces conducted a raid targeting this known weapons distributor and Special Groups leader. The captured weapons facilitator was responsible for the storage and distribution of Iranian weapons. Coalition Forces intelligence suggests the weapons facilitator has traveled to and from Iran numerous times and is responsible for smuggling and distributing deadly explosively formed penetrators (EFPs). The target was also responsible for the distribution of those weapons to Special Groups operating throughout the Baghdad area and was connected to a very large network of weapons facilitators and Special Groups associates. The weapons smuggler is believed to have had ties to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps-Quds Force...

I believe you and courtneyme had dissenting points of view earlier, John?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How long have we been warning that this sort of thing was going to happen? How long have people who study and analyze things been saying to you "Iran is preparing to do something."

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM?

I DO hate to do the "I told you so" thing, but sometimes, dammit, you just have to so that you can make a point.

Kurds flee homes as Iran shells villages in Iraq

· Guerrillas in clashes with Revolutionary Guards
· Conflict threatens stability of Kurdistan region

Michael Howard in Irbil
Monday August 20, 2007
The Guardian

Iraqi Kurdish officials expressed deepening concern yesterday at an upsurge in fierce clashes between Kurdish guerrillas and Iranian forces in the remote border area of north-east Iraq, where Tehran has recently deployed thousands of Revolutionary Guards.

Jabar Yawar, a deputy minister in the Kurdistan regional government, said four days of intermittent shelling by Iranian forces had hit mountain villages high up on the Iraqi side of the border, wounding two women, destroying livestock and property, and displacing about 1,000 people from their homes. Mr Yawer said there had also been intense fighting on the Iraqi border between Iranian forces and guerrillas of the Kurdistan Free Life Party (PJAK), an armed Iranian Kurdish group that is stepping up its campaign for Kurdish rights against the theocratic regime in Tehran.

On Saturday the Iranian news agency Mehr said an Iranian army helicopter which crashed killing six Republican Guard members had been engaged in a military operation against PJAK. Iranian officials said the helicopter had crashed into the side of a mountain during bad weather in northern Iraq. PJAK sources said the helicopter had been destroyed after it attempted to land in a clearing mined by guerrillas. The PJAK sources claimed its guerrillas had also killed at least five other Iranian soldiers, and a local pro-regime chief, Hussein Bapir.

"If this escalates it could pose a real threat to the Kurdistan region, which is Iraq's most stable area," said Mr Yawar, who said he expected the Iraqi government and US officials in Iraq to make a formal protest to Tehran about the "blatant violation of Iraqi sovereignty".

HOW MUCH MORE CLEARLY DOES IT HAVE TO BE SHOWN that Iran is just ITCHING to get into the mix with us?

More as it develops.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

.

al-Queda attrocities...

If you've never heard of Michael Yon, prepare to be impressed, and at the same time, appalled, by what follows. Yon is a blogger, embedded with the military ON THE GROUND in Iraq, funding his stay with the troops through donations and private contributions, bringing us an eyewitness account of the things that happen over there.

After reading over some of his writings, especially the one I'm going to discuss today, I can't imagine how, with this information available, the Democrats are so willing and ready to abandon the Middle East to al-Queda. I honestly can NOT imagine living under the shadow of these people, knowing what I know now, in detail, concerning the lengths that these people will go to to instill terror and fear in the hearts of those they intend to subjugate.

If you have had any doubts that these people are barbaric, cruel, and ruthless, then put yourself in the situation that you're about to read from Michael Yon's writings and see if you can do anything other than feel absolutely sickened...

Since my reporting of the massacre at the al Hamari village, many readers at home have asked how anyone can know that al Qaeda actually performed the massacre. The question is a very good one, and one that I posed from the first hour to Iraqis and Americans while trying to ascertain facts about the killings.

No one can claim with certainty that it was al Qaeda, but the Iraqis here seem convinced of it. At a meeting today in Baqubah one Iraqi official I spoke with framed the al Qaeda infiltration and influence in the province. Although he spoke freely before a group of Iraqi and American commanders, including Staff Major General Abdul Kareem al Robai who commands Iraqi forces in Diyala, and LTC Fred Johnson, the deputy commander of 3-2 Stryker Brigade Combat Team, the Iraqi official asked that I withhold his identity from publication. His opinion, shared by others present, is that al Qaeda came to Baqubah and united many of the otherwise independent criminal gangs.

Speaking through an American interpreter, Lieutenant David Wallach who is a native Arabic speaker, the Iraqi official related how al Qaeda united these gangs who then became absorbed into “al Qaeda.” They recruited boys born during the years 1991, 92 and 93 who were each given weapons, including pistols, a bicycle and a phone (with phone cards paid) and a salary of $100 per month, all courtesy of al Qaeda. These boys were used for kidnapping, torturing and murdering people.

At first, he said, they would only target Shia, but over time the new al Qaeda directed attacks against Sunni, and then anyone who thought differently. The official reported that on a couple of occasions in Baqubah, al Qaeda invited to lunch families they wanted to convert to their way of thinking. In each instance, the family had a boy, he said, who was about 11 years old. As LT David Wallach interpreted the man’s words, I saw Wallach go blank and silent. He stopped interpreting for a moment. I asked Wallach, “What did he say?” Wallach said that at these luncheons, the families were sat down to eat. And then their boy was brought in with his mouth stuffed. The boy had been baked. Al Qaeda served the boy to his family.

Let's read that last bit again, one more time, to make sure that it soaks in sufficiently, shall we?

I asked Wallach, “What did he say?” Wallach said that at these luncheons, the families were sat down to eat. And then their boy was brought in with his mouth stuffed. The boy had been baked. Al Qaeda served the boy to his family.

Sit back, envision that in your minds. Those of you who are parents, imagine your child being brought out roasted like a pig at a luau and presented to you as dinner. Will your mind allow you to go there? I pray to God that you can't envision it. But it is happening. Today. In the 21st Century, on planet Earth, this is happening. This isn't something from Steven King or Clive Barker or Wes Craven. This is al-Queda.

Is this what we want for the children and families of Iraq? Can you IMAGINE the wholesale slaughter of civilians if we withdraw?

Now consider this. Should we withdraw from Iraq at this point,right now, at this stage, how much time would al-Queda need to grow strong enough to begin anew in their attempts to come HERE to OUR shores? How strong will we allow them to become? How effective will we be in protecting ourselves when they finally DO go into full assault mode on the United States?

Go hug your children and think about these things. Look at your children, ask yourself, "can we afford to allow this evil to exist?" I think you'll find the answers in their eyes...

Especially if you envision them roasted and the main course on the dinner table.

This cannot be allowed to continue.

Once and Always (and maybe some of you understand better why now), an American Fighting Man

.

A liberal in Soldier's clothing...

When is a door not a door? When it's ajar.

Silly old kids joke, I know, but it leads into another question: when is a liberal not a liberal? Answer: a liberal is ALWAYS a liberal, no matter how hard it tries to pretend it isn't.

I've seen a lot of strained, forced behavior in my day, but Spencer Ackerman takes the cake in his piece entitled The Bitter End. I can't even begin to figure out exactly where he's going with his article, it's that convoluted and, as my seventeen year old son would say, "random." On the one hand, he tries to make the case for Congressional demands that the war in Iraq come to an end; on the other, he tries to show the troops impressions on how they feel about a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

Haunted by Vietnam, Democrats are determined to express support for the troops. This is admirable. The truth of the matter, however, is this: many troops in Iraq, perhaps even most of them, want to stay and fight. That doesn’t mean that we should stay in Iraq any longer. It does mean, however, that if Democrats want to bridge the divide between themselves and the military—an effort further complicated by their opposition to the war—they’re going to have to recognize that arguing in the name of the troops isn’t going to work.

Okay, so the Democrats don't want the war, but they don't want to be seen as not supporting the troops, so they try to say that since they care about the troops, they want them safe, let's bring them home? Is that the message? John "Breck Boy" Edwards seems to think so. I hope to gods I don't see any of his damned suggested signs this weekend, either, by the way. I think I may just have to go off on someone.

Ahem.

Sorry, sidetracked.

We continue.

Democrats, liberals, have tried to use this "protect the troops" tactic for quite a little while now. Is our military so pitiful it needs the brave, protective Congress to protect it? I don't think so. "George W. LIED to the American people, he LIED about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, he LIED about al-Qaeda involvement in Iraq." Is that a fact. I reckon Bill and Hillary Clinton and Al Gore lied about it, too, then, because they said the same things before W was elected to office. Amazing how liberals gloss over that and ignore it.

Soldiers may see that their unit is accomplishing its objectives and feel a boost in morale. They may search a house and find a weapons cache, for instance, or they may track down a crucial member of a terrorist cell and take him into custody. Frustratingly, as obvious and long as the list of tactical successes may be, absent dramatic political improvements they rarely coalesce on their own into a change in a counterinsurgency’s overall fortunes. And these aren’t questions soldiers can afford to concern themselves with. “Once you’re engaged, eyeball to eyeball, you tend not to think about those strategic issues at all. You’re trying to shoot and shoot back,” says retired General Merrill McPeak, a former Air Force chief of staff and Vietnam veteran. “Your entire focus becomes tactical.”

In addition, with the bar for success getting increasingly lower, even small improvements feel big. “They have a new commander over there, and at least the appearance and the rhetoric of a new strategy,” says military expert Richard Kohn of the University of North Carolina. The soldiers, says Kohn, will tell themselves, “All right, this is it. This is the one last chance.” (Indeed, this is almost exactly what Smith and Miller expressed to me.)

Okay, has the man not heard of gathering intelligence and information from unit and squad debriefing sessions? You put all the information together that comes in from the battlefield, from the rear, from the support units, the firebases, and so on and so on and so on and you put together a big clear picture of what's going on.

Fortunately, Congress seems to be, grudgingly, admitting at last that we can't abandon Iraq or the Middle East. For the record, before I include what follows, I want it made perfectly clear for the record that I still WILL NOT watch CNN news for their traitorous act of showing an American soldier being executed by a sniper first on television, then as a download on their site. WUA still uses them as a source, however, and sent this to me, ergo I felt compelled to include it. CNN remains, however, on my shitlist until they make ammends for treasonous acts.

House, Senate pass war funding bill
POSTED: 0202 GMT (1002 HKT), May 24, 2007

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Congress sent a $120 billion war spending bill to the White House late Thursday, abandoning a call for most U.S. troops to leave Iraq after an earlier veto by President Bush.

The bill replaces the earlier goal of withdrawing U.S. combat troops by March 2008 with a series of political benchmarks for Iraqi leaders to meet in order to receive continued American support.

But the move sharply split the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives, where 140 members -- including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- voted against the plan.

Simmer down, Nancy, at least your plastic surgeon hasn't signed up. It's about damned time that Congress did something right. Lord knows they've done enough wrong, ESPECIALLY in the last six months since this Congress was sworn in.

This bickering back and forth, the media lies, the Congress men and women and Senators with yellow stripes down their backs, are wearing on the people in the uniforms of our nation's service. Instead of being part of the solution, they're being part of the problem. A HUGE part of the problem. In some cases, they ARE the problem:

Carlson: Shift news to successes in Iraq, soldier urges

JOHN CARLSON'S IOWA

A tired and disgusted Iowa soldier fired off an e-mail a few days ago, telling family and friends how things are going in Iraq.

A Blackhawk helicopter pilot, Chief Warrant Officer Jim Funk has flown more than 80 combat missions since he arrived there in October.

He described his Boone-based unit's successes after 5,000 hours of flying out of LSA Anaconda, a huge American base north of Baghdad. He talked about the tragedies he and his fellow Iowans have witnessed and his worries of becoming complacent as he goes on mission after mission.

Morale?

"We're treading water," the Ames man told the people closest to him. "We continue to kick butt on missions and take care of each other, even though we know the American public and government DOES NOT stand behind us.

Ohhhh, they all say they support us, but how can you support me (the soldier) if you don't support my mission or my objectives. We watch the news over here. Every time we turn it on we see the American public and Hollywood conducting protests and rallies against our 'illegal occupation' of Iraq."

His greatest frustration? The performance of the people who deliver the news to the American people

.

Go read the full article, read his letter, his words are compelling and from the heart.

Can a liberal pass himself off as a conservative? Not really. Not well, at any rate.

This is Memorial Day weekend. Honor well those who have fallen in defense of our freedom, in defense of our way of life. Respect those who wear the uniform still today, and support them. Not just with lip service, really, honestly support them.

They put themselves in harms way to make sure that the American people don't have to.

God bless them one and all.

To our soldiers, Marines, airmen and sailors, you have the thanks of this veteran, and I salute you. And I think regular readers of our site know that that ain't just lip service...

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

.