Victory: Give it a Chance

Dear Nancy Pelosi .....





The Sniper



The sun beat like a hammer, not a cloud was in the sky.

The mid-day air ran thick with dust; my throat was parched and dry.

With microphone clutched tight in hand and cameraman in tow,

I ducked beneath a fallen roof, surprised to hear "Stay low."



My eyes blinked several times before in shadow I could see,

The figure stretched across the rubble, several steps away from me.

He wore a cloak of burlap strips, all shades of gray and brown,

That hung in tatters till he seemed to melt into the ground.



He never turned his head or took his eye from off the scope,

But pointed through the broken wall and down the rocky slope.

"About eight hundred yards," he said, his whispered words concise,

Beneath the baggy jacket he is wearing a device.



A chill ran up my spine despite the swelter of the heat,

"You think he's going to set it off along the crowded street?

The sniper gave a weary sigh and said "I wouldn't doubt it,

Unless there's something this old gun and I can do about it."



A thunder clap, a tongue of flame, the still abruptly shattered:

While citizens that walked the street were just as quickly scattered.

Till only one remained, a body crumpled on the ground,

The threat to oh so many ended by a single round.



And yet the sniper had no cheer, no hint of any gloat,

Instead he took a logbook out and quietly he wrote.

"Hey I could put you on TV, that shot was quite a story!"

But he surprised me once again- "I got no wish for glory."



"Are you for real?" I asked in awe, "You don't want fame or credit?"

He looked at me with saddened eyes and said "You just don't get it.

"You see that shot-up length of wall, the one without a door?

Before a mortar hit it, it was a grocery store."



"But don't go thinking that to Bomb a store is all that cruel,

The rubble just across the street -it used to be a school.

The little kids played soccer in the field out by the road,"

His head hung low, they never ever thought a car would just explode.



"As bad as all this is though, it could be a whole lot worse,"

He swallowed hard; the words came from his mouth just like a curse.

"Today the fights on foreign land, on streets that aren't my own,"

"I'm here today 'cause if I fail, the next fights back at home."



"And I won't let my Safeway burn, my neighbors dead inside,

Don't want to get a call from school that says my daughter died;

I pray that not a one of them will know the things I see,

Nor have the work of terrorists etched in their memory."



"So you can keep your trophies and your fleeting bit of fame,

I don't care if I make the news, or if they speak my name."

He glanced toward the camera and his brow began to knot,

"If you're looking for a story, why not give this one a shot."



"Just tell the truth of what you see, without the slant or spin:

That most of us are OK and we're coming home again.

And why not tell our folks back home about the good we've done,

How when they see Americans, the kids come at a run."



You tell 'em what it means to folks here just to speak their mind,

Without the fear that that tyranny is just a step behind:

Describe the desert miles they walk in their first chance to vote,

Or ask a soldier if he's proud, I'm sure you'll get a quote."



He turned and slid the rifle in a drag bag thickly padded,

Then looked again with eyes of steel as quietly he added:

"And maybe just remind the few, if ill of us they speak,

That we are all that stands between the monsters and the weak.



by Michael Marks - a Marine - 2006

Nancy Pelosi: $24.5 billion in pork ...This is fiscal responsibility?

Is it just me? or does this article make you feel like we are living in the Twilight Zone?

The House is scheduled to vote on Thursday on the $124 billion bill, which includes more than $95.5 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The bill also would demand that troops come home before fall 2008 and possibly earlier if the Iraqi government does not meet certain benchmarks.

Now, recent articles from the past hour have the total amount of the bill at only $121 billion but regardless, we are looking at some $20 billion in pork added on to this bill. President Bush, if given the opportunity to veto this bill, should simply do so on principle. There is no reason for that much pork to be added to a bill of this magnitude. Some are voting on this bill because of the relief that it would provide for hurricane victims across the country instead of the leading reason, the future of our nation.

I know that may sound melodramatic but I think if we were to ask the 30,000 from The Gathering of Eagles what their opinion would be, then I think we would get a good barometer for whether or not this idea is an exaggeration.

The protesters are truly living in the Twilight Zone as they keep drinking the Koolaid thinking that "no war is good", "war is bad", "give peace a chance". That is all well and good in the abstract but really, I would suggest that one of them get in the face of one of the terrorists and ask them to just sit down and talk. The irrationality of the mindset of both the terrorists and the Code Pink folks is the scariest part of this whole issue. Yet, as I have said before, the Code Pinkers will be the first ones screaming for someone to protect them when these fundamentalist Muslims come knocking.

In honor of Mr. Griffin, my high school history teacher, one needs only to examine the epistemological starting point of this dictomy to realize that logic will not be recognized by either side. One is just as narrow minded as the other. The terrorists see the Code Pinkers as an asset, much like the anti-war ilk of Fonda and Kerry was for the VC during Vietnam. Yet the Code Pinkers look at this issue, dare I say, through rose colored glasses. They don't want to end just this war, they want to end all wars. The naivite of their thinking is in the fact that it is not full circle. They see the end of the war as a victory and cannot look beyond that. They do not, nor does it appear some in Congress, grasp where our nation will be after Iraq ...thankfully, there are others of us who do.

The Silent Majority is silent no more.

McCain and Kissenger: Strange Bedfellows?

I just love this political cartoon. Kudos to the artists at Cagle Cartoons!


NewsMax just reported that former Secretary of State Henry Kissenger has thrown his support behind the McCain 2008 Campaign. For some this may not be anything to write home about but this article might well be the reason why Kissenger is suddenly being thrown into the limelight during his 2008 Campaign.

Now, in his latest shift to the right, McCain is openly embracing Kissinger. Hotline On Call reports that McCain has chosen Kissinger to be the Honorary Co-Chair for his presidential campaign in New York.

Ok, understandably, McCain may well feel that he needs a boost in New York considering the grasp that Hillary has on NYC and her "home state". If you ask this New Yorker and just about any other, we will tell you that Hillary isn't a New Yorker. She may live here but she isn't one of us. Regardless, McCain may want a voice in Hillary's backyard as well as Rudy Guiliani's. An obscene amount campaign donations come from the New York City area and obviously, McCain wants a piece of that pie.

Yet, if you look at the second link above, you will see quotes from Kissenger such as;

Kissinger sensed wobbliness everywhere on Iraq, and he increasingly saw it through the prism of the Vietnam War. For Kissinger, the overriding lesson of Vietnam is to stick it out.

In his writing, speeches and private comments, Kissinger claimed that the United States had essentially won the war in 1972, only to lose it because of the weakened resolve of the public and Congress.

In a column in The Washington Post on Aug. 12, 2005, titled “Lessons for an Exit Strategy,” Kissinger wrote, “Victory over the insurgency is the only meaningful exit strategy.”

McCain is making his friendship with Kissenger more public because of Henry's POV on Iraq and it's inevitable comparison with Vietnam, a war that Kissenger claims the US had won but didn't have the longevity to stay the course. Yet, due to the atmosphere at home, very similar to the air today over Iraq, we left before the job was done. This is the one campaign issue that McCain doesn't seem to be flip-flopping on (too much). So Henry gives him, as well as Bush, some credibility on Iraq.

McCain has made Kissenger his honorary co-chairman of his finance efforts in NY. Here is another place that lists many prominent New Yorkers who have agreed to join the McCain Train. One of them being former Ambassador to Vietnam, Pete Peterson. It seems that McCain is attempting to discretely campaign on his Vietnam experience, something that groups like the US Veteran Dispatch, the soon to be Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain, and just about every POW/MIA group you can think of, will do all they can to discredit.

Yet, it appears that Kissenger may well be taking a page from McCain's book of tricks as you can see here . A November 2006 Washington Post article cites Kissenger as saying that victory in Iraq was not possible. So I guess flip-floppers enjoy each others' company as well. Imagine my surprise!

More "he said", "she said" with Nancy Pelosi

Fox News is reporting:

Pelosi... said Cheney's comments wrongly questioned critics' patriotism and ignored Bush's call for openness on Iraq strategy.

"You cannot say as the president of the United States, 'I welcome disagreement in a time of war,' and then have the vice president of the United States go out of the country and mischaracterize a position of the speaker of the House and in a manner that says that person in that position of authority is acting against the national security of our country,"

Ok Nancy, well, what did he say? here

The question: “Because Congressman Murtha and Nancy Pelosi made it clear that what they would like to do is they would like to stop the surge. Can they do it, do they have the power to stop the surge, Mr. Vice President?”

CHENEY: I think he's dead wrong. I think in fact if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we'll do is validate the Al-Qaeda strategy. The Al-Qaeda strategy is to break the will of the American people. In fact, knowing they can't win in a stand-up fight, try to persuade us to throw in the towel and come home, and then they win because we quit.

So what have you said?

Here is an interesting list

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”

“America will be far safer if we reduce the chances of a terrorist attack in one of our cities than if we diminish the civil liberties of our own people.”

“We must remain focused on the greatest threat to the security of the United States, the clear and present danger of terrorism. We know what we must do to protect America, but this Administration is failing to meet the challenge. Democrats have a better way to ensure our homeland security.”

The president led us into the Iraq war on the basis of unproven assertions without evidence; he embraced a radical doctrine of pre-emptive war unprecedented in our history; and he failed to build a true international coalition.

“I have absolutely no regret about my vote against this war. The same questions remain. The cost in human lives, the cost to our budget, probably 100 billion. We could have probably brought down that statue for a lot less.”

The new Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, has told colleagues that her goal is to "end the war" source

Today in George Will's sindicated piece he has several very poignant ovservations.

-

Congressional Democrats aim to hamstring the president with restrictions on the use of the military. The restrictions ostensilby are concerned with preparedness but actually are designed to prevent deployments to Iraq.

-

Regarding Iraq, the Democratic-controlled Congress could do what Democrats say a Democratic president would do — withdraw U.S. forces. A president could simply order that; Congress could defund military operations in Iraq. Congressional Democrats are, however, afraid to do that because they lack the courage of their (professed) conviction that Iraq would be made tranquil by withdrawal of U.S. forces.

-

Indiscriminate criticism of President George W. Bush is an infectious disease. Some conservatives seem to have caught it, but congressional Democrats might be crippled by it.

-

They lack the will to exercise their clearly constitutional power to defund the war. And they lack the power to achieve that end by usurping the commander in chief's powers to conduct a war.

-

They can spend this year fecklessly and cynically enacting restrictions that do not restrict. Or they can legislate decisive failure of the Iraq operation — withdrawal — thereby acquiring conspicuous complicity in a defeat that might be inevitable anyway. A Hobson's choice? No, Nancy Pelosi's and Harry Reid's.

So Nancy, I really have to ask why you are running to the principal when you are strategically attempting to end the war in Iraq, be it through your posturing or through the threat of legislation, which is also Al-Qaeda's goal. You claim to put the national security of our nation above individual liberties and at the same time prevent the possibility of a terrorist attack on US Soil.

How then is pulling out of Iraq, giving a victory to Al-Qaeda thus emboldening the enemy, limiting the possibility of a terrorist attack on US Soil?

This woman is really starting to scare me.

Nancy Pelosi: Power vs. Responsibility

Hat Tip to Black Five, Point Five, Blue Star Chronicles and finally Charlie Daniels for an open letter to Nancy Pelosi that he has on his Soapbox and Message Board.

First a little about Charlie Daniels, he is one patriotic American, and I mean the true blue hero kind of American, the kind of American that Congress needs to emulate. His song, "In America" (lyrics here) should be blaring over any air wave that the troops can tune in to. The astonishing thing about this song is that is wasn't written since 9/11 or since the War on Terror started, it was written in 1980. "In America" ranks up there with Toby Keith's "The Angry American", that is just how powerful it is. Now, if you haven't gone back and read the lyrics, please do and I would truly appreciate it if you would find the tune on iTunes or the like and really listen to it. It Rocks!!

Now, on to the focus of this post. Daniels' letter to Reid and Pelosi plainly states what the Democrats should be thinking about; the fallout from leaving Iraq without the job being done. He lists quite a few realistic outcomes and asks if they have a plan to counter that effect. It is quite remarkable.

What I am seeing with Pelosi is that she is still on her Speaker Honeymoon. She is flexing her muscles, making sure that everyone knows she is in charge. Just take a look at many of her photos and in particular some moving footage, there is an obvious smirk on her face. She is loving the limelight. Sadly, she is, as Daniels pointed out, thinking short term and only honing in on way to inflict pain on the White House. In short, she is concentrating on power.

Looking back to recent weeks with the issue over her requested military transport, she was fixated on her status, appearance and place in history as the first female Speaker. A responsible person who protests to be concerned with the lack of armor and equipment for the troops would have conversely taken a smaller plane, or flown commercial flights and then ask that the saved funds be put into equipping the troops.

A responsible person would, instead of attempting to smear the Commander in Chief at every opportunity, quietly go to the White House and talk with the President to hammer out significant, real and valuable answers to the problems facing our country in private. Instead, she is behaving like a newly selected team captain of the cheer leading squad at the high school of your choice.

I shudder to think how she will react when the terrorists bring their attacks to US soil, when Iran takes over Iraq for Al-Qaeda, when the Kuwaiti oilfields are cut off, and on a deeper level, how we are perceived on the world stage considering we have not seen a military event to its end since 1945. Daniels makes some amazingly chilling points in this letter and I hope that Pelosi and her followers realize that power and responsibility are not mutually exclusive.

Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Vietnam

The humble Senator from NY


There are far too many reasons to deny being a New Yorker these days. From a Victory Caucus stand point, the top two reasons aren't really reasons, but names; Schumer and Clinton. Watching them muddle through their self-made minefield on the Iraq War was entertaining for a while but now it is bordering on shameful. Both this weekend have gotten press, Hillary for stating that redeployment needs to start within 90 days or Congress will start legislating and Schumer stating that even with this defeat of the non-binding resolution in the Senate, the Democrats will be "relentless" proposing resolution after resolution "just like in the days of Vietnam."

Now, if you stop by here often, it is quite clear that I know Vietnam. The simple fact that Schumer would correlate Iraq with Vietnam shows just how little he knows and understands about this quasi fictitious war. Now, I know it was a real war, I use the word fictitious because few know the real Vietnam. Many take their understanding of Vietnam from Hollywood and the likes of Oliver Stone or even worse, the ramblings of John Forbes Kerry as he systematically used these heroes as a springboard to his political career. For more fun on Kerry, I would suggest visiting this site.

The NY Times provides a Reuters piece that conveniently leaves out the Vietnam reference. In fact, I have been hard pressed to find the initial source of this quote. If anyone has it, please forward it to me. The best I could find was this article by McClatchy Newspapers.

So, at this point, we can tentatively come to two conclusions 1) it was a misquote or 2) the MSM has collectively decided to exclude that portion of the quote in the hopes that it will become dormant. Knowing Schumer like I do, I tend to believe the latter rather than the former. He, in typical down-state NY fashion, likes to showboat, give the heated comment to get attention of the crowd and get some press.

Why even make the Vietnam comment? Was it necessary? Do we really need more Vietnam references in this war? And, in case Chuck missed it, Vietnam didn't end very well or maybe in his mind, it did. If that is the case, then I may have more to worry about than I thought.

Numbers II : What McCain "knows" about Tet '68

Map of Vietnam ~ circa 1967

Numbers again come into play as Congress continues the debate over the President's troop surge plan. As you may recall, a few days ago I took a look at numbers comparing the number of homicides in major US cities vs. the number of casualties that we have thus far in Iraq. I then took those same numbers and compared them to our troop losses in Vietnam. A gruesome comparison, I know, but one that truly needed to be looked at as Congress relentlessly reminds us of the US casualty total in Iraq in their statements on H.Con. Res. 63.

It seems that John McCain (R-AZ), as an '08 presidential candidate, felt the need to step into the spotlight and get some press in the middle of the oncoming Surge storm. I will blatantly tell my readers, I do not like McCain, for reasons that ironically lead back to Vietnam. It has been reported earlier this week by the AP and expounded on here by Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily, that McCain feared a Tet '68-like offensive, the turning point in Vietnam, which wielded more propaganda than collateral damage. It appears that McCain was skilfully taking a page from his North Vietnamese captors' playbook by making such a comparison. The Vietnamese used propaganda at all levels during the war, Jane Fonda and her followers are just one sad example. The Iraq insurgency is obviously a student of this same Vietnamese propaganda machine.

Farah quotes AP's report of McCain's Tet analogy with this brief summary;

"Tet, a massive invasion in 1968 of South Vietnam by Communist North Vietnamese, inflicted enormous losses (my emphasis) on U.S. and South Vietnamese troops and is regarded as a point where public sentiment turned sharply against the war."

Farah criticizes this quote by giving a numbers analysis complete with stats that someone should fax to McCain's camp ASAP. Read on ...

Some 1,536 U.S. troopers were killed in the weeks-long campaign. South Vietnamese troops lost an additional 2,788 troops. But compare those numbers with enemy losses!

According to the best statistics now available, some 45,000 North Vietnamese and Viet Cong were killed in what was planned as a last-ditch, roll-of-the-dice effort to persuade Americans they could never win the war. Another 6,991 enemy soldiers were captured in the offensive.

In other words, no matter how you slice it, Tet was an unmitigated battlefield disaster for the enemy in Vietnam. But it proved to be an unmitigated media disaster for the U.S. at home.

As a student of the Vietnam War, I can assure you unequivocally that Vietnam was "lost" in the same fashion and with the same propaganda expertise that we are seeing today in Iraq. The positive is ignored while the press magnifies the casualties. Those of us old enough to remember will never forget the night that Walter Cronkite told America that we were losing the war in Vietnam. In that same vein today we see journalists beating their editors' doors down with gloom and doom at every turn of the page.

We see members of Congress referencing this same flawed gloom and doom journalism when they question high ranking DoD staff during hearings over the past few weeks, simply perpetuating the myth. Case in point, Sen. Carl Levin's (D-MI) obsession and later exaggeration of the intelligence community's use of the word "inappropriate" in a 2002 Pentagon briefing on the Iraq/Al-Qaeda connection, "has whipped into a political lather" as Douglas Fieth so appropriately states in the Albany Times Union today.

I highly recommend the Farah piece as it is overflowing with telling hindsight from Vietnam. McCain isn't the only one in Congress who should see this. Many of the "White Flag Republicans" need it as well. Along with a reminder, "Those who do not learn from History are doomed to repeat it."

How do we define "Support"?

Reminiscent of Bill Clinton's "What is is" Word Game, it appears that Congress has decided to take a page from the Clinton playbook and now, in a much more defiant and detrimental move, are playing with the word "support".

In today's WaPo article by Jonathan Weisman,GOP Looks Beyond War Measure to Fight on Funding, outlines the course of action for the GOP in reaction to the debate that is unfolding on the floor of the House and Senate this week over the deployment of more troops to Iraq. Sadly, many Republicans are bowing to pressure from the left to join them in supporting that non-binding *cough* useless resolution for reasons that simply boggle the mind.

Weisman's piece gave his readership the following quote;

When Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.) charged that the resolution offers no support for troops not yet deployed to the battlefield, House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) showed just how sensitive Democrats are to the charge.
"No one ought to hide behind the troops. No one ought to come to this floor and say that this Congress, 435 of us, will not support whatever soldier or sailor or Marine is deployed to Iraq," Hoyer said angrily. "Whether it is today or tomorrow, they will have our support."

Now, please go back and read that again. Hide behind the troops? By thinking in the best interest of the troops and their morale is an act of hiding behind the troops? They will have our support? If we take away belief in their mission, the funding for their operations and the trust that the Iraqi people put in our hands when they stood beside us at the start of this war, someone please tell me, what is left? What class of support is left? Again, mind boggling. It is abundantly clear that Congress needs an English Lesson on the meaning of the word support. There are obviously various shades to the dictionary definition yet I would like to specifically focus on definition 5;

to maintain (a person, family, establishment, institution, etc.) by supplying with things necessary to existence; provide for: to support a family.

This specific definition actually uses the example "to support a family". These troops truly are the deepest extent of family. Few Americans can say that they have no one whom they care for, whom they consider "family" that has put on the uniform of the USA. Is this how we treat family? Taking away things necessary to existence? Not truly supporting them by not providing for them? Of course not!!

As I write this I am watching the House debate on this non-binding resolution and I suggest that you ALL get your hands on the statement of Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI), he is simply kicking ass! He has it all out there and he is making a stand. God Bless him! He is not leaving anything in the clubhouse! Screw NY, I am moving to Michigan!

One last comment on this, as McCotter called "idiotic resolution", if we truly want an idea of what to do, I suggest we get some ballots sent to Iraq and ask the men and women on the ground, they are the ones who are truly making the sacrifice, they are one who are giving their lives, ask them what needs to be done. They obviously have a better grasp on the reality of Iraq than anyone in Congress ever will. Therefore once I hear what the troops say ~ then we will know what support truly is. Are you listening Congress?

Amen!

The "Numbers" Game

Numb3rs

Uncle Jimbo over at BlackFive had an interesting idea of attempting to calculate the insurgent body count so we can get a better idea of how we are eliminating the insurgency, one bad guy at a time. I decided to spin off Uncle Jimbo's idea and take a look at numbers comparatively speaking from OIF, Vietnam and four major US Cities to attempt to put things in perspective as far as the left's obsession with "the rising toll of casualties in Iraq."

Just a quick thought on the body count that Uncle Jimbo requested. While researching for this post, something striking came to light. There are many organizations tracking casualties, both military and civilian who are actually counting civilian deaths and blaming them on the Coalition Forces indiscriminately. That is to say, if a suicide bomber walks through a crowded Baghdad market and kills 37 innocent civilians, that is, overall, blamed on the Coalition Forces in a twisted attempt to say that these individuals were some sort of collateral damage from Coalition operations. No one is tracking how many civilians are killed by the insurgency vs. Coalition operations, they are simply collectively attributed to the Coalition. This also is the case with those who are wounded as well.

This is always a delicate position because of the idea of making the lives of our military men and women appear as simply numbers devoid of human life, tragedy and the mourning of family and friends. Make no mistake about it, I am not, nor would I ever reach such depths of disrespect for these heroes. I personally know the sense of loss that family members are left with as I too have people close to me who still have yet to be found and returned from Vietnam, the pain never truly subsides.

Albeit, there are others who do not value these lives as most of us do, for others, these lives are merely numbers that they use to justify their arguments, either on the Senate or House floors, in the press, on Sunday Morning talks shows, on demonstration platforms or even here in the blogosphere. So, in order to defend those who are still on the battlefield eager to finish the fight and bring true democracy to the people of Iraq, I have attempted to put together some data that truly does substantiate the claim that we have suffered very few casualties in OIF.

At the time of this post, the number of US Casualties is at 3,125 in close to 4 years. The DoD gives an average of 170,000 troops on the ground at any given time (pre "Surge"). Now, to get into the stats:

2003

NYC - 596 homicides
LA - 505 homicides
CHI - 600 homicides
PHI - 347 homicides

total: 2,048 homicides

OIF - 486 casualties

*Nam - 2,000 casualties

*1965 first year with 175,000 troops on the ground



Our fighting men and women, who are in a war zone, fighting the insurgency yet they have less than an quarter the number of casualties with the same general number of troops on the ground. They also have less than a quarter of the number of casualties compared to homicides reported in the four most populated cities in the USA; New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago and Philiadelphia. (NYC, CHI and PHI stats here)

So, where is the outrage? Where are the bills before Congress making more stringent sentences for homicides? Where are the government programs to help curb violence in out major cities? If these numbers are unacceptable for our military why is it not unacceptable for our civilians to kill each other on the streets of our cities? Why aren't stats like these front page news everyday?

Ready for more?

2004

NYC - 570 homicides
LA - 489 homicides
CHI - 445 homicides
PHI - 330 homicides

total: 1834 homicides

OIF - 848 casualties

**Nam - 5,300 casualties

**1966 Second year of war with 390,000 troops on the ground

=======================================

2005

NYC - 540 homicides
LA - 489 homicides
CHI - 448 homicides
PHI - 377 homicides

total: 1,854 homicides

OIF - 846 casualties

**Nam - 9,500 casualties

**1967 Third year of war with 490,000 troops on the ground

=============================


2006

NYC - 582 homicides
LA - 489 homicides
CHI - 423 homicides
PHI - 406 homicides

total: 1,900 homicides

OIF - 821 casualties

**Nam - 14,600 casualties

**1968 Fourth year of war with 549,000 troops on the ground

===============================

It is worth restating, that if the left is going to use the casualty number against us, even as uncomfortable as it is for us to use these numbers for any reason, we must defend the argument.

In the close to four years of this War on Terror we have lost (not "wasted" - á la Obama) approximately 3125 American lives in Iraq. Yet on the streets of our major cities we have lost 7,636 lives. Keep in mind that these numbers come from just four US Cities.

So, again, we need to ask Congress to why they choose to focus on Iraq's numbers yet maintain blinders on with regard to the number of homicides. Is it because Iraq allows them a platform to throw knives at the Administration with the DoD as an added bonus? Could it be because threatening to control the troops' pursestrings is sexier than homicide? Could it be because the MSM finds it sexier as well? Dare I go on?

Point being, these OIF casualty numbers are a resounding HOOAH!! to US Troops on the ground, their training, their dedication to each other and most poignantly, their dedication to this nation. They want to finish the job and come home victors, which was something that Vietnam Vets were denied for the very same reasons that we see today. On the global scale, we need to be victorious to confirm our place as the true super power, maintain our foothold at the UN and most importantly, end the War on Terror with a deafening roar. After all, the world is watching.

Words

The guy has the right idea

The WaPo has been taking their hits lately with shoddy reporting and mixed up headlines and etc. and I am being very kind. But last Friday's op-ed by Charles Krauthammer was right on. It was basically, and obviously much more eloquently, what I had said a few days ago about this entire issue of the non-binding resolution and he even caught the same confusions regarding a "civil war" that I saw with the NIE's report that everyone was making so much hoopla about. I really have to take note with the entire idea of the NIE and the data that they generate with the disclaimer that is is all based on incomplete work and that it is not based on any evidence, it is merely an estimate and not a prediction.

OK, so here is the big question, then what is it? If the data is flawed, incomplete and imperfect at best, then where is its usefulness and efficacy? We have an agency within the US Government that simply mirrors Congress, it generates useless things that generate imperfect debate that doesn't amount to much of anything except wasted tax dollars and more dead trees.

The crux of Krauthammer's piece is really the heart of this debate that Congress is preparing to affront;

When it came to doing something serious about the surge, the Senate ducked. It unanimously (81-0) approved sending Gen. David H. Petraeus to Baghdad to do the surge -- precisely what a majority of the senators said they did not want done.

Congress had their chance to speak out and make an argument, and they curled up in the fetal position. Now, with the '08 elections on the horizon everyone is jockeying for position much like a NASCAR Nextel Cup race when the yellow flag comes out and everyone deciding if they should go to the pits or not.

Now, the American people have pit passes with the Congress on track and the entire world in the stands waiting to see who pits, when and with what needs. Then, everyone will roar back onto the track and this will all start again. Post ions will ultimately change and as more Congressmen and woman, in particular those with presidential aspirations, present their own resolutions, I find it hard for any one resolution to take center stage and have the kind of impact that the left would like it to have nor the wiggle room that many on the right would like as well.

Meanwhile, our fighting men and women sit in a political limbo attempting to implement a strategy that may have its funding pulled right out from under them while they are selflessly putting their lives on the line for a Congress that sees them as nothing more than pawns in thier political chess game. Sad, so sad.

A Call to Arms ~ Falls on Congressional Deaf Ears

Oh, Muslim Youths ....




I really have to wonder what planet our Congress is living on. Has an alien race thrown an unknown force field over the Capitol District that is now sucking common sense out of their brains at a faster rate than what we normally are accustom? It would appear so. This Message has just come via the Middle East from the Middle East Media Research Institute credited to Al-Qaeda's proclaimed Head of the Islamic State of Iraq, Abu Omar Al-Baghdadi entitled, "Victory from Allah, Victory is Near."

Uncle Jimbo over at B5 has a great reaction to this recent statement from Al-Qaeda's top man in Iraq here. I have no intention of taking away UJ's thunder, yet I'd like to add to his focus on this significant portion of the statement;

"Oh Muslim youths, remember the cut up bodies of the children, the voices of their bereaved [parents] and the anguished cries of the elderly. Let the volcano of your wrath burst forth. Burn the ground beneath the feet of the Jews and their helpers, eradicate their army, destroy their equipment, down their planes, ambush them in their homes, in the wadis and on the roads. Hide in the darkness of night and turn their morning into hell... We are not afraid of your coalitions...We have drunk blood [in the past], and we find no [blood] sweeter than that of the Byzantines [i.e. Christians]... Roast their flesh with car bombs, cut off their supply lines with [explosive] charges and tear out their hearts with sniper fire. Know that offense is the best [form of] defense, and be careful not to lay down your weapons before the war is over... We are not fighting out of nationalism, but with the aim of making Allah's word supreme.

Did the Head of the Islamic State of Iraq not remember that the cut up bodies of children and the voices of the bereaved were silenced for decades under the dictatorship of one Saddam Hussein? The only reason there is a voice today is so that the killing of those who align themselves with the Coalition can be murdered by their own Islamic brothers and blamed on the Coalition. Al-Jeezera says business is booming!

I find this portion extremely unsettling, "Burn the ground beneath the feet of the Jews and their helpers, eradicate their army, destroy their equipment, down their planes, ambush them in their homes, in the wadis [a type of riverbed] and on the roads." I don't know about you, but that sounds pretty bad to me and it surely doesn't give the impression that they will just be happy with watching us pack our bags and head back to the good Ol'US of A. They have goals, they want to "burn", "eradicate","destroy", and "ambush" us and let's not forget "down" our planes. Not to mention the fact that we have the sweetest blood which they intend to drink. Simply chilling words and how our Congress cannot grasp that this is not a war that we can turn our backs on leads me to no other explanation than some supernatural phenomenon.

The Speaker should be reading statements like these rather than worrying about the seating arrangements on her shinny new 757. It is crystal clear that this is not about Iraq, but about dominating the planet in the name of Islam. Nancy? Are you listening? There will be no shinny plane of you don't hear, "We are not fighting out of nationalism, but with the aim of making Allah's word supreme."

The Pink Elephant

I have been watching the political landscape this morning and this op-ed piece by E. J. Dionne, Jr in the WaPo caught my attention and I started to look around at some of the other major US papers, news websites and etc. and discovered something "astonishing". No one was addressing the big question, it was as if it were the proverbial pink elephant. There are pieces, such as the one cited above, that spend valuable space disecting the debate in the Senate today over the non-binding resolution which could well lead to an attempt to cut off funding for the war in Iraq. Dionne says,

"They are saying that the resolution is meaningless and that true opponents of the war should prove their sincerity by cutting off funding altogether. But they are doing all they can to keep the Senate from even voting on a bipartisan anti-surge resolution that would send a powerful message to Bush that most Americans have lost faith in his bungled war policy."

OK, I have some MAJOR problems with this quote simply because;

1) this is a NON-BINDING resolution. It literally is meaningless. The only group to truly benefit from this resolution is ... oops! Maybe the enemy? I love my country more than most I can assure you all of that but I am to the point of nauseaum with our politicians shooting us in the foot over and over and over. Like the analogy of the hamster running like mad on his exercise wheel, we keep going in circles doing the same things over and over expecting different results.

2) all of this talk about cutting off funding for the war is just posturing. This is the one point where I agree with Dionne, no one wants to be the first to officially have it on their Congressional Record that they voted to cut funding. Just not a good political move. Alas, what does that say about those screaming defiance from the pulpit over ending this war? All smoke and no fire.

3) no one is thinking about the impact of all of this beyond the Beltway. This is what those soldiers in the NBC NEWS piece were talking about last week which lead to the William Arkin lunacy (ref. MM). Imgine being thousands of miles away from home watching the news, or worse the live debate on C-SPAN, hearing all of this arguing and political tongue-lashing. Meanwhile, you are thanking God that with the help of one of those patriotic "Angels" over at Soldiers' Angels, you and your men finally got some kick ass tactical gun mount lights for your weapons. No more door to doors with two lights for your entire platoon. So you are feeling pretty good, then you hear your very own Senator blowing smoke on the Senate Floor and you are wondering, WTF?

Point being, in none of the major news outlets could I find anyone asking about the Pink Elephant. What would early withdrawl from Iraq truly mean, politically, economically and most importantly globally?

My thoughts on the "Pink Elephant" question in tomorrow's post.

What Redeployment and Protests Really Mean: A Lesson from Vietnam

Since Hanoi Jane is back in the limelight after her latest anti-war rally in DC, it’s worth looking back with a little 20/20 vision on Vietnam and what our pulling out did not just to Vietnam but to our nation as well.

There is a wealth of info out there on Vietnam that truly is amazing. Here are a few interesting ROE (Rules of Engagement) factoids for you.

1 – No matter the circumstances, do not shoot unless you are shot at first.
Translation: If you are out in the boonies with your platoon and see VC approaching across a rice patty. Keep those weapons down, Boys.
Yes, folks this was actually an ROE in parts of I Corps during the early phases of the war. Why? Because the enemy was not easily identified and civilian casualties were bad PR. Sound familiar?

2 – When an operation was going to be executed in a rural area that most likely had civilians in the vicinity, leaflets were dropped a day or two before to “warn” the locals that we would be coming. Hey! Nothing like letting the enemy know where to find you. No joke folks, I have actually seen copies of the leaflets. (Reminds me of that hilarious scene in “Heartbreak Ridge” when Gunny Highway blows a gasket because Major Powers has the ambush site pre-arranged for a training exercise)

I can tell you right now that these two ROEs did not come from the Pentagon but from those politicians in Washington who, for all extensive purposes left our fighting men with one hand politically tied behind their backs from the mid 60’s until the final pull out on 1975. Sound familiar?

The next step is to consider what the anti-war rallies did to the men in the field, those being held in POW camps and to the propaganda machine of the enemy. We are obviously seeing in recent days the beginning of what Vietnam Vets must have felt upon hearing Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden and others spouting what many believe equates to treason when we hear last Friday’s NBC Nightly News report from Iraq. In this report Staff Sergeant Manuel Sahagun was interviewed and stated, ”one thing I don't like is when people back home say they support the troops, but they don't support the war. If they're going to support us, support us all the way.” Here the Staff Sergeant is expressing frustration, which will most likely escalate to other, stronger emotions as the MSM has their way with the minds of the American people. The point that many reporters just refuse to accept is that the men in the field are more knowledgeable about what is going on in Iraq than they are and they don’t like it. What a reporter may see in the act of witnessing a tactical operation in the field will not have the same translation as the men who planned and organized the mission and who have the military training to know why they do what they do. A reporter, no matter how good, will not have the trained military eye to truly understand what is transpiring before their eyes. There is no “War for Dummies” book out there. The MSM just can’t handle this simple fact that a 19 year-old kid from Missouri has a better grasp of a given situation than a seasoned journalist who has spent the last ten years honing his/her craft. They aren’t about to let some snot-nosed kid show them up.

This next section is not well know outside of certain circles, and for those who don’t know a lot about the POW situation in Vietnam, please, pay close attention. When the anti-war machine started gaining momentum in the US, the North Vietnamese were quick to take advantage of this unsolicited propaganda and use it against the thousand or so US POWs that were held both in the North and South. Many misrepresent the Vietnamese as a ragtag loosely structured fighting force. We must not forget that the Vietnamese had been fighting off aggressors for decades before we arrived, the most recent aggressor before the US arrived in the early 60’s were the French and it is no secret that the French were paying off the Vietnamese behind closed doors long after their war ended in exchange for prisoners the Vietnamese held back after the French officially pulled out their troops. In short, these guys weren’t stupid, they knew exactly what to do and how and people like Fonda were just feeding the beast. Sound familiar?

Many uninformed Americans consider the insurgency to be a group of ragtag loosely structured fighting units. Today’s insurgency is fueled by more than our Vietnamese enemy was 40 years ago. In Nam it was the political threat of Communism yet the insurgency, because of the intermingling of their politics and their religion, have more at stake than their form of government. For those held in the now infamous Hanoi Hilton, tape recordings of Jane Fonda and others were piped right into their cells via a PA system. During torture sessions they were reminded that their fellow Americans considered them criminals by quoting these treasonous statement. Additionally, what I consider the most damning of statements, they attempted to drive home the fact that no one at home cared about them and claimed “we can keep you forever”. Even today, these former POWs question the short sightedness of these anti-war protestors and even many within our government. I highly recommend the DVD Stolen Honor which focuses on a series of present day interviews with former POWs from Vietnam who detail exactly what the anti-war movement meant to them when they were behind bars. Just imagine for a moment, knowing the kinds of excruciating torture that you were being subjected to both physical and mental only to have Fonda, Hayden and others come visit you in prison and reaffirm how thankful you must be for the kind treatment of your captors.

Now here is where Vietnam and Iraq diverge, once our troops were pulled out of Vietnam, we simply packed our bags and went home, left with the perception of having lost the first military conflict of our nation’s history. As false and untrue as that idea of defeat was, and as horrible as the reception our troops received upon their return home, at least it was definitely over for the US. The Vietnamese took their spoils of war and went home.

This is NOT the case with Iraq. Yes, if we pull out before the job is done as we did in Vietnam, there will be civilian atrocities that may well mirror Nam and many Vets of this latest conflict will have to deal with the difficult reality of the anhialation of their former counterparts who whom they fought the good fight. But Iraq will not end there. Many Americans have turned into perpetual ostriches refusing to accept the fact that the insurgency is about much more than who is in control in Iraq. The enemy will not stand up dust themselves off, pat each other on the back and go back home. They have been programmed to believe that their purpose in life is to destroy our way of life, our belief system and to either convert us to Islam or kill us for our defiance. They have openly stated this over and over.

This hasn’t been called the War on Terror for nothing, Folks. They will bring the war to a city near you in short order. And don’t think for a minute that pulling out of Iraq will not fuel their thirst even more giving them the perception, just as in Nam, that they were able to defeat the most powerful military force on the planet not by over powering them but by simply knowing the enemy and that we are a nation of instantaneous gratification. We are a spoiled people, always used to getting what we want at the drop of a hat. I think back to what my grandparents were asked to sacrifice during WWII in the name of the war effort, what has been asked of the American people today? “Support the Troops, all the way”, so little to ask compared to past generations yet the real question is, “What is the alternative?”

I don’t know about you but I like being able to pray to whom I want, when I want and that my daughters can be whoever they want to be.

How about you?

Blonde Ambition

Good Morning, Folks! I'd like you to run, don’t walk, on over to Fox News and check out their video "Hillary Sit-in". The story has me hopping mad. The follow-up interview with Rae Abileah of Code Pink, one of the arrested protestors is rather entertaining as she sits there looking like Ugly Betty with her pink pin and pink scarf spouting her desire to “support the first woman candidate for President” if she only were a “strong peace candidate”. Huh? I have to take major issue with a group that votes purely on the gender of a candidate, or any other asthetic charcteristic for that matter. I take issue with those who are hoping to vote for Obama because of his skin color, those who want to vote for McCain because he was a "war hero" and etc. These chacteristics have absolutely nothing to do with their ability to govern the most powerful and influential nation on the planet. Folks, I can assure you, that is NOT what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

First, let’s look at what has me hot under the collar. The video shows US Capitol Police arresting 6 to 8 protestors who were sitting-in in front of Hillary’s Russell Senate Office Building suite chanting, “Senator Clinton we’re blocking your door until you stop funding war.” Now before you read any further, make sure you go over to Fox News and watch the footage, these ladies are all dressed in pink, with pink boas, the whole nine yards. You really need the visual imagery to grasp the scene.

Yes, isn’t that fabulous? The US Capitol Police finally arrested someone this week? Impressive, isn’t it? They can arrest a few women in the hallowed halls of the Senate Offices but can’t arrest Saturday’s anti-war protestors as they deface and vandalize The Capitol Building. Do you think these officers had to call in to the Chief to ask of they could arrest these ladies? After all the cameras were rolling! On a side note, I wonder if the Chief has found time in his schedule to meet with Colorado Sen. Allard, the only US Congressman to request an tete-a-tete with the Chief over the rationale for allowing the law to be broken and ordering the officers on site to back down and not arrest any of the protestors.

Secondly, you have to love Sean Hannity. When he had his turn with the Code Pink representative he got her so tongue tied that by the end of the segment he had her outwardly admitting what we all knew already, Hillary has waffled on the war and made decisions based on her presidential ambitions rather than her principles, values or her constituents. According to Abileah, Senator Clinton has said that if she had known then what she knows now about the war, she never would have supported it. Yet, she has recently gone to Iraq (On whose dime? “I Love NY!”), taking the guided tour, and comes home to say that things aren’t going well, we need a change, but not what the President suggests. But she was for sending more troops back when it was the “in thing”. For now though, she says she isn’t going to vote for defunding (I know this isn’t a word but that is the lingo they are using) the war. For now anyway ....

It should be interesting to see how McCain fares with this topic, as it will surely become a central presidential campaign issue in the months ahead.