Pelosi's Honeymoon is over .... Thank God!

E. J. Dionne, Jr. at the Washington Post has a great piece yesterday, "Testing Time for Democrats". It is truly worth the read. He strikes on something that I suggested a while back, the honeymoon is over for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She has been extremely quiet these past few weeks since the Senate put the kibosh on her attempt to give the White House a congressional raspberry and single handedly put an end to the war in Iraq. Well, I think that Nancy was on the receiving end of a sincere reality check and is learning that things in Washington work a little differently at the top and that in order to lead, she must be a true leader. Her odd alliance with Jack Murtha has been quite a bit of smoke and mirrors and he too is realizing that he has to think more realistically if he truly has the troops in mind with his proposed legislation. I think they are both beginning to see the light.

Their power is not omnipotent, it has to be earned.

March on the Pentagon: Will ANSWER have control over their people?

We all hope that the anti-war protesters use their heads and appreciate their right to protest on March 17th. Yet, as it is with many of these events, others join in with different ideas, goals and objectives. I have always been an advocate for the expression, keep your friends close and your enemies closer. With that said, check out what the anti-war protesters from ANSWER are discussion on their message boards. I would encourage you to take a look at their "List of Endorsers" link at the top of the page. Quite a potpourri of groups, beliefs and motivations. With ANSWER being more concerned with visible numbers for the MSM to report, I have to wonder if they will have control over such a diversely motivated group.

I hate to say it, but I see things getting ugly quickly with this event. It is obvious from reading their message board that many will be attending to simply follow their anarchistic tendencies. Ending the war is not their motivator. Some appear to be welcoming the opportunity to simply "Rage Against the Machine".

Even with all of this, I feel sorry for them. Not just for their twisted beliefs but for what lies in waiting for them. There will be more participants from
Gathering of Eagles than the protesters are imagining and their motivation is singular, the protection of our war memorials and those who gave their lives in each of those conflicts. I wrote about this last week and even more examples of vandalism have been discovered, here.

I have the honor of knowing many Vietnam Veterans and I know their resolve. There will be some who will have a short fuse and there is no doubt that there will be protesters well armed with a verbal barrage of taunts for our Vets.

Just remember, the blame goes squarely on the Chief of the Capitol Police who ordered officers on the scene of a January, 2007 protest there to not interfere and not arrest anyone. Here is his statement after the fact. This act of cowardice gave the anti-war crowd the shot in the arm they were looking for and on March 17th, I want to see just how well the Capitol Police handle their own mess. I shudder at what this all will hold.


UPDATE: It seems that one of the splinter groups has a plan for the 19th of March as a follow up to the 17th. See here.

Jonah Goldberg: Reviving the Vietnam War

It has only been recently, due to all of the comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam that I have been able to truly see just how Walter Cronkite and his minions honestly did effect the outcome of the War in Vietnam. I was well aware of the impact that John Kerry, Jane Fonda and Tom Hadden had on our POWs and the propaganda that the Communists used with such efficency against us to win the war on paper.

I just read a very eye-opening op-ed piece by Jonah Goldberg in USA Today (he is a good guy from over at National Review Online) and felt like he had been sitting here with me all of these years as I attempted to grapple with where Vietnam fit into our national history and what lessons we were supposed to glean from it.

Please read it, it will give you insight and clarity that has been missing for over 30 years. It will also give you a strong grasp on our present day situation and not just the importance of victory but the necessity of it.

Walter Reed: Possibly the beginning of something?

For some, it may be difficult not to see the present awakening at Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC) as a political stepladder due to the obvious ramifications on both sides of the aisle. Yet, just for a moment, I would like to think that there isn’t an American alive who isn’t thankful that this issue, politics aside, is being addressed in what seems to be a correct and appropriate manner. There are some that may not be able to separate the politics of this from the simple fact that these heroes are going to get better care, better facilities and over all recuperation will dramatically improve for all of them.

I am sure there are patients at WR today whose lives will be forever changed for the better due to that handful of people who had been worn down by the system to a depth of despair that made it clear they had nothing left to lose. Many have questioned the Washington Post reporters who broke the story for having waited almost four months to bring this issue to the forefront. For whatever the reason, we truly must ask ourselves, who else was in a position have a similar impact? My thoughts are better late than never. Here,here and here you have some less slanted reporting eventhough still staying failthful to the MSMs "Bush is to blame" mantra.

Getting back to the politics of this, we already have our fans on the left pointing fingers, placing blame and in some cases, enjoying the rainstorm that is befalling Washington right now. Here is a perfect example. I had to laugh because Benen’s title, ””The Right Explains the Walter Reed Scandal” gives you the impression that he is going to give that side of the aisle’s perspective, yet all is does is give his sides typical blame game rhetoric. My question for the left is, how many of you have sat down and written a letter of support to a deployed soldier or Marine? Because after all you don’t support the war but you support the troops, right? How many have quietly and without fanfare gone to Walter Reed or Bethesda Naval Hospital to visit the wounded without cameras rolling?

This reminds me of the horrific story of the Ziegenfuss Family as US Army Major Chuck Z was recuperating at Walter Reed in 2006 from one of his 34 surgeries after being wounded by and IED in 2005. He and his wife were visited by Arizona Senator and 2008 presidential hopeful John McCain, this alone should keep McCain out of the White House, read here. This event may surprise some, but not me. Yet, this serves as a perfect example of those who still consider the wounded as a necessary evil for those much needed photo ops.


I sincerely hope that this is just the beginning of the exposure of many other military agencies that are charged with providing care and assistance to our heroes and their family members both past and present. Walter Reed will surely be the beginning of peeling pack the layers of chronic problems with the VA and it’s care not just for present day heroes but those from the Vietnam Era as well who continue to go through similar difficulties over their care and benefits from three decades ago.

I can only dream that this will be a springboard for not just those Vietnam Vets who still have the internal and external scars but for those family members of those brave men who are still MIA who have fought for decades to get answers to the questions that they know our government and those of our former enemies may well have. They too have been forgotten and hidden away in the hopes that they would be worn down by the system much like these wounded warriors of today.

Rosa, Rosa Rosa! What are you thinking?

Rosa, Rosa, Rosa …

I wanted to touch base with you over a few major inconsistencies in your op-ed piece in today’s LA Times, “The lunatic right returns”. Initially, you claim that the statements made by the Swift Boat vets were “defamatory insinuations”. If these men served with Kerry and witnessed how he carried out his duties as an officer in the US Navy, how can you term their statements as insinuations if they were there and you weren’t? You must admit that Kerry receiving three purple hearts in approximately four months in combat is somewhat questionable. Could the fact that you were an advisor on the Kerry-Edwards Campaign in 2004 be the catalyst for your piece?

Regarding Col. Bud Day, he was not a Swift Boat Vet but a POW along with John McCain in Hanoi, in fact he never even served in the Navy, instead he proudly served our nation in the US Air Force. Another significant piece of information that you conveniently omitted was that Col. Day is also a Medal of Honor winner. You might want to read the citation, it tells of his amazing bravery and leadership while a POW in Vietnam. So how you can refer to Day as one of the Swift Boaters from Kerry’s last presidential bid is a bit confusing. Additionally, Mary Jane McManus is the wife of a former POW who also served in the Air Force, again not the Navy as Kerry did. If anyone knows first hand how the left influenced the lives of POWs, it would be Day and McManus. Carlton Sherwood was a Marine during Vietnam who later became a journalist and was the producer of an amazing documentary, Stolen Honor, that chronicles the story of about a dozen Vietnam POWs who tell of their harrowing experiences and how their captivity was directly and negatively effected by the anti-war movement. Are you going to deny the veracity of these men and what they experienced at the hands of their captors?

Are you denying that the left doesn’t have a campaign against the American Soldier just as it did during Vietnam? I have seen Stolen Honor, spoken personally with former POWs and these men are brave, honorable, and the most patriotic men you will ever have the pleasure of knowing. Are you also denying that Murtha is using the troops as a pawn in the left’s War on Bush? He himself has said, “Our troops have become the enemy. We need to change direction in Iraq.” Our Troops? Those who defend our nation and her beliefs are “the enemy”?

You claim that the situation in Iraq has gone from bad to worse and back again. Oddly enough, you are again taking the word of those simply reporting the war from those on the ground and in uniform who strongly believe in their mission and regularly report success and advancement in the lives of civilian as well as military Iraqis for those who are willing to listen.

You quoted that the casualties from Iraq have tripled since 2004. That quote is the definition of disingenuous as the war started in early 2003. In your way of calculation you are comparing the first year of the war with years 2 and 3. In 2003 there were 486 casualties, 2004 had 848, 2005 had 846 and 2006 had 821. You claim that Americans are dumb, well maybe in this case, this American saw through your rouse, not quite so dumb after all.

You state that, ‘What's depressing about the reemergence of the Swifties, though, is that it's symbolic of the increasing takeover of the "conservative" movement by unprincipled, right-wing extremists.” So, am I correct in assuming that you are referring to Col Bud Day, as an “unprincipled, right-wing extremist”? Well, in the very next paragraph of your piece you quote John McCain as saying that Swift Boaters are “dishonest and dishonorable” yet McCain himself has referred to Col. Bud Day here as, “one of the greatest men I have ever had the honor to know.” If I'm not mistaken, that quote came directly from McCain's autobiography. So again you have me confused, if McCain, who was held with Day calls him “the greatest man”, then how can he also be dishonest and dishonorable?

Your closing comments on Oliver North and Michelle Malkin truly show your lunatic tendency. North was a decorated Marine who fearlessly served his country and Malkin’s recognition, while obviously difficult for you to swallow, is well deserved as she and those that collaborate with her truly investigate and dig deep into the layers of a story to find the truth. She will call a spade a spade no matter what their political affiliation.

In closing Ms. Brooks, you might benefit in a bit of accuracy in your reporting as the entire premise of your op-ed piece is a misnomer.

*PS -Kudos to the editorial and research team at the LA Times by the way for obviously not validating who you wrote about as Day, McManus and Sherwood had nothing at all to do with the Swift Boat Vets of 2004.

Update: I have contacted the LA Times and asked for a correction/retraction as well as an admission on the part of Ms. Brooks that she served as an advisor to the Kerry-Edwards 2004 Campaign. I will keep you posted if I hear anything more from the LA Times.

Oh No! Howard Dean is Mad (again)!!

The DNC's Howard Dean


I don't know what should be a bigger surprise, that Ann Coulter said something offensive or that Howard Dean is mad? here

After Coulter's tongue and cheek remark Dean is reported to have immediately issued a press release is which he said,

“While Democrats and Republicans may disagree on the issues, we should all be able to agree that this kind of vile rhetoric is out of bounds. The American people want a serious, thoughtful debate of the issues.”

This quote is out loud laughable. Does Dean issue statements to Pelosi, Murtha, Levin and their minions? Has Dean ever heard the expression calling the kettle black? Has he taken a look at the liberal blogosphere and read all the anti-Bush and anti-Christian fanfare that is out there? (Does the name Amanda Marcotte ring a bell?) Has he called on all Democrats to "agree that this kind of vile rhetoric is out of bounds?" If he has, I can make a long list of those who didn't get the memo.

Was Ann wrong for using the word "faggot"? Absolutely! She was and why she felt that was necessary is beyond me. I have always hoped that people in the public eye learned a hard lesson from the Dixie Chicks in as far as the backlash for their comments about President Bush while on tour in the UK two years ago. The Chicks knew better than to make those claims to their US audience who is staunchly Republican and pro-military. This is the kind of mistake that many make thinking that comments like these are safe when you are with an audience of like minded individuals.

In the age of paparazzi we should always take heed to the fact that someone is always watching, always listening, always looking for the story that is going to get their by-line on the evening news. I have no doubt that there were Democratic moles at CPAC looking for some dirty laundry.

Regardless, Dean's press release isn't worth the paper is was printed on. Nice try, Howie!

The Desecreation of War Memorials has begun ....

I know in my last post I said I would look into more on Duncan Hunter's run for the White House but something else has taken center stage. An e-mail from a Vietnam Vet came into my inbox a few minutes ago and the title of this post says it all.

An obviously little seen story, Melanie Morgan, Chairman of MoveAmericaForward.Org tells of gruesome vandalism to some local war memorials all over the nation, here. It appears that the antiwar folks, discontented about the "Gathering of Eagles" raining on their parade by protecting the national war memorials during the upcoming March 17th antiwar rally in DC, they have decided to go after the local war memorials. The WorldNetDaily article states;

In a late January anti-war rally, a contingent of protesters broke off and spray painted the U.S. Capitol building and steps with anti-war and anarchist messages and slogans.



Anti-war protesters spray painted anti-Bush slogans and smashed glass panels at the Medal of Honor Monument in Indianapolis, Ind.




In Boise, Idaho, the son of a Democratic state senator was accused of vandalizing flagpoles and desecrating flags at the State Capitol. The flags are memorials to soldiers who lost their lives in the war on terror.

In Pennsylvania, someone attacked the South Connellsville War Memorial, destroying the lighting grid at the monument.

Another war memorial was desecrated in Vermont. A Vietnam memorial was vandalized in Chicago. The list just goes on and on.

The rage and anger that I feel inside me is like little I have felt in my life. My first thought is of the son of the Idaho State Senator, did he believe that he would get away with this because of his father's position and I want to know what this State Senator has said and done in the wake of this behavior. Events like this make we want to reinstitute corporal punishment. Not only that, I want to know what kind of son the State Senator raised, like it or not, this falls squarely on his shoulders.

I really hate to say this but the simply fact that the major media outlets have NOT picked up on this story speaks volumes. One would think that these people, these reporters who truly live under the umbrella of the freedoms that those honored by our nation's war memorials gave their lives for, they among all of us would be the first to speak out against these types of deviant behaviors, yet they have remained silent.

Let's just hope that this isn't a precursor to the antiwar ANSWER people have planned for March 17th. One thing I do know, let them go after The Vietnam Wall and all bets are off.

Duncan Hunter - Moving into the Limelight

Presidential Candidate,Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA)

NewsMax is reporting that Duncan Hunter is running a "close second" to Rudy Gulliani is a straw poll completed in South Carolina yesterday,more here. I have read up on Hunter, listened to his recent interview with Pundit Radio available here and I like the common non-sensical way he looks at things. He is strong on defense, strong on the border security yet wants illegal treated respectfully as he shows here by his recent firing of his South Carolina advisers for recent comments and actions that do not reflect Hunter's views and ideals. This is the exact kind of leadership action that the Edwards' Campaign should have shown when they allowed their debacle with the hiring of their bloggers become an issue over weeks rather than days.

Another positive for Hunter is that he is a student of Reagan and if anything is going to save us, it is that Reagan-like mentality that America is strong, proud and defiant in the face of any adversary. You can find is campaign website here.

It also appears that many of those at the Conserative Political Action Conference (CPAC) held this weekend in DC are anxious to hear more as his "close second" in the straw poll will most likely peak the interest of those at the Conference. Once can only hope. The fact that the press is already looking at his campaign ads in the hopes of finding campaign finance violations, read here, is a sign that they are at least taking notice of Hunter at this point.

I am going to spend some time today reading with the lefties have to say about him and will try to play devil's advocate in my next post. For now though, I am glad that Hunter is moving closer to center stage.

More disdain for John McCain

Presidential Candidate John McCain

Great stories here:

Michelle Malkin
Mary Katharine Ham
Rob Bluey

McCain's roadshow continues. I really have to think that McCain is making up his campaign as he goes along. Announcing on Letterman? Come on! Many of the nation's most seasoned reporters have been regularly asking him about his potential candidacy yet he remained elusive. Then he gives the carrot to David Letterman. What was he trying to say with announcing in that fashion? We have always joked that politics in a cheap form of entertainment but this is truly taking things to a new level.

While on Letterman, as we all know by now, he appears to be attempting to distance himself on the troop surge that he claimed to support by now pulling an Obama and referring to the lives lost in Iraq as "wasted". At the McCain level of politics things are very meticulous and it is difficult to gauge what his motivation was for his performance on Letterman.

It all seemed to backfire on him as he was hoping to have his announcement be the main story in this news cycle but instead it was his use of the word "wasted" that seemed to be the hot topic today. Check out the above links, it appears that since Conservatives have taken strong note of McCain's absence at this weekend's Conservative Political Action Conference, he is attempting to pull something together at the Conference to appease the masses. Sadly, appeasement seems to be his only campaign strategy which will not get him into the White House. The American voter is much smarter today than they were in 2000. Sorry Senator ...

Let's talk ....Immigration

Welcome to America

Everyone has an opinion on Immigration, from the Mexican here on a work visa, the second generation Mexican-American to the European immigrants who arrived here in the early part of the 20th century. Each with a passion for their beliefs and an epistemological starting point that may we be difficult to argue with. Yet, this issue is one that needs to be address in the here and now as our national security truly depends on it.

This may come as a surprise to some of you, but former 1970's entertainer turned California Congressmen, Sonny Bono left me with a pearl of wisdom many, many years ago long before his death 1998. During a congressional sub-committee on immigration had linger on far too long and touch on topics that Bono felt irrelevant, he said something to the effect that if it is called "illegal" immigration than why are we even talking about it. It truly is and should be that simple. Unfortunately, there are so many mitigating circumstances that have developed over the last three decades that today immigration can only be called a labyrinth at best.

Here are some few know immigration facts. There are millions upon millions of illegal aliens in this country who obtained Social Security ID cards that were stolen from various government agencies or simply fabricated by individuals who quickly saw the marketability of such a business and charge anywhere from $300 to $1,000 for a card. Keep in mind that this illegal cards could have any Social Security number on it, it could be yours, mine or your next door neighbors. Suddenly, you have identity theft to deal with.

Then there is the issue of taxes. The next time you hear an advocate for illegal immigrants tell you that they pay taxes, know that is a half truth. While in college I worked in the restaurant business for a few years and while I was studying Spanish, I befriended many of these illegal aliens. They are usually good people, don't get me wrong, but more on that later. They have taxes taken out of their weekly pay, yes, that is correct but they claim a high number of dependents so that very little is taken out and, here is the kicker, they do NOT file taxes annually with the IRS. Meaning that they are never made to prove who their dependents are or made to repay if they under paid and etc. Yet, these same individuals are entitled to every type of federal program that you and I are. There children are entitled to an education in our schools, health care and the list goes on and on.

Sadly, for every illegal that comes her with honest intentions to carve out a new life in a new country, there are others with less than impressive intentions. Many come here, live at low levels only to save a significant amount of money that that send directly back to their mother country; part to help their family and part to build a home for them to return to in a few years. So many are here temporarily to take advantage of our system to then return home once they have achieved their financial objective. It is no secret that many who may well be here legally, are allowed to claim their family members in another country as their dependents, thus, through a Social Security loophole, billions, yes you read that correctly, billions of US dollars are sent to Mexico each year.

Mexico - ah yes - the land of sand and beaches. Well, it will be no secret to you that Mexico is a staunch supporter of the Immigration movement in the US. The Mexican government employs individuals in border towns to educate those attempting to cross over into the US on how and where to safely cross, where to find water as they cross and what to do once they get there. Face it folks, the Mexican economy needs illegal immigration to keep its poorer population at bay. If it weren't for the opportunities north of the border, Mexico would have another revolution on her hands.

Many US companies, large and small, depend on the illegal workers to do jobs that some Americans may feel is below them for a wage that is much higher than the same work would produce in Mexico. Therefore, it is more profitable to, for example, come to the US and work in a factory making $7 a hour vs. working in Mexico making half that for the same work. In the restaurant I worked in the management knew full well how this process worked. If an illegal came in to request work, after filling out their application, they would be asked to come back in a few days and if their Social Security number wasn't rejected by a "system" then they were allowed to begin work. If it was a bad number they were simply asked to "try again" with a different number. I had more than a handful of situation where I was asked to translate for the manager so this is not a secondhand story, and this happened all over in just about every restaurant in an area with a high Hispanic population.

The issue doesn't stop there. One co-worker asked me about my opinion on the following; his sister lived in Tijuana and she and her husband were expecting their first child. The husband worked in the US but lived in Mexico, crossing the border legally each day to work. Yet, his wife had yet to be naturalized. She was considering coming across the border into TX to have her baby because it would be free. This is a very regular occurrence in many of the border states and it is the direct cause for the high cost of health care in these states and the multitude of problems that the health care field is forced to confront due to this fact. Then the new twist is, of this baby is born in the US, he is now a US citizen and he is entitled to stay in the nation of his birth and later, this will serve as a way for the mother to receive naturalization in the US much easier than before.

Are you beginning to see the complications here?

Now let's open the door to the politicians! Those who would like to blame President Bush for everything from the war in Iraq, global warming and the death of Elvis, now after 9/11 want Bush to solve this problem without taking away a potential voting base for the Democrats. California in particular is the blue state that has the most to loose and also gain if immigration laws are implemented. But here is the thing, illegal immigration, for reasons obvious to national security should be quell immediately but this is the big mistake that many Americans make, the collectively lump Immigration and Illegal Immigration into one category. If you read here You will see that we need immigration to help in certain fields, medicine in particular but again, there is a gray area in regards to who gets the now famed "greed card" and who doesn't. The above linked article tells of abuses within the greed card system that prevents those who actually are needed here to work in place of those who use the green card to stay in the country with legalized family members without having to go through the process of naturalization. (Note: There cards are green anymore but the name is still used. Today's cards are pretty high tech with hallograms and the like to deter falsification.

How to fix this problem? It obviously cannot be fixed during the last two years of the Bush Administration but there are some thing that could be implimented to begin to better protect our borders. Immigration and Naturalization can being to crackdown on this illegal immigrants who are here without the proper papers and who are here without a family to complicate their status. They will be easier to return to their homelands and most likely will be a large number of individuals thus sending a powerful message.

We will continue with Immigration more I am sure as the months leading up to the '08 Elections approach.

Let's just go there .... my disdain for John McCain

I haven't written in a few days, simply because I didn't find anything of interest to write about. Then I was reminded that we all need to write everyday, no matter what. So being the perpetual student that I am, I went looking at the other great blogs, those that I admire and gained some insight, remembering that I can write an opinionated essay of sorts.

So here goes ....

Politically many consider John McCain a loose cannon, a hot head, unpredictable and so on. Within the small circle of the POW/MIA Community, he is on the same level as the treasonous John Kerry. Many consider him untouchable, he was a POW, held in the Hanoi Hilton for over 5 years and finally released in 1973 along with the other 591 released during Operation Homecoming. Many use the fact that he was offered an early release and didn't take it as some sort of shining example of his patriotism and his dedication to his fellow POWs. Well, there is another spin on this that few seem to want to consider; McCain would have been considered a traitor by his fellow POWs. There was a chain of command within the camps, the senior officer making policy and serving as the governing body if you will for the POWs. There was a unwavering policy, no one takes early release unless ordered to do so. There was one POW, Doug Hegdhal, who was ordered to accept early release because he has somehow memorized name, rank and branch of over 200 men being held. His release gave invaluable information to the military and the family members who were unaware of the fact that their loved ones were being held. Still to this day, he remembers the entire list. He, is a hero.

During his captivity, McCain gave multiple interviews with foreign correspondents in which he appeared well kept, jovial and enjoyed cigarettes,coffee and tea with the visiting reporter. Go ask the others being held if they ever enjoyed those luxuries. There are discrepancies in his book vs. the official documents of the USG as well as these news articles that the visiting journalist generated. You can find many of these documents here, as well as other interesting tidbits. You will see there that some of the SROs had no information about McCain ever being beaten or tortured.

Now, here is where things get interesting and this is the part that few publicly know. McCain, being a POW himself, has a hatred for POW/MIA Families that many would consider impossible to believe. He refers to them as zealots, conspiracy theorists and on and on. There is no need to go into details here because this info can be found all over the Net. So the question is, how could a former POW function as a barrier rather than an advocate for the family members who were not as fortunate as his own family? Why would he attempt to water down legislation that would help POW/MIA Families? There are many possible explanations for this behavior. He wanted to distance himself from his POW status and be considered a politician. He possibly was influenced by his captors, not necessarily brainwashed but the Vietnamese were master propagandists so the possibilities are endless as to what they could "have" on McCain. Lastly, he made a political decision that aligning himself with these family members would cripple his political career and for that reason has decided to join the majority in pushing the POW/MIA issue under the rug.

Taking all of this into consideration, the next question that is raised is why he would insist on being not just on the 1992 Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs but being the Committee's Chairman (the Chairmanship was given to John Kerry of all people). During those session he took every opportunity to verbally dismantle anyone with a view opposite his own. There is actually video footage of his rant on Delores Apodaca-Alfond, the sister of a missing man, who serves as the president of the National Alliance of POW/MIA Families. His rant brought her to tears. For more on McCain and Kerry's conduct during the POW/MIA Senate Select Committee, please go here. The documentary "Missing Presumed Dead" will leave you in a fog for days after viewing it.

I just found a great piece by syndicated columnist Maureen Dowd, an op-ed piece here about McCain. I guess I'm not the only one seeing the same thing. Additionally, head on over to my favorite milblogger, Major Z, here and find out the details of McCain's visit to he and his wife while the Major was at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. It will amaze you.

You may be trying to connect all of this and may be wondering about the picture above. Well, in the well-known words of Paul Harvey, here is "the rest of the story". Somewhere in the above picture there is a Marine who is still MIA from Vietnam, his case has been systematically and negatively effected by the likes of John Kerry and John McCain. The Marine in the photo is part of my family and I want him home.

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.

Plans to Commemorate 1967 March on the Pentagon

A major hat tip to the Capitol Police! Your stupidity and lack of foresight has now fueled the flames of the ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) Coalition. They have just announced on their Party for Socialism and Liberation website, complete with Che Guevara icon, that they have had their permits approved to demonstrate on March 17, 2007 and march on the Pentagon,here.

They are organizing, strategizing and getting ready to pump their fits in the air to Rage Against the Machine. They claim to have buses already coming in from 100 major sites across the country to converge on DC on St. Patrick's Day.

You may be curious as to how I would be aware of this so quickly. Since the demonstration is to form in the general vicinity of the WWII, Korean and Vietnam Memorials, POW/MIA Families have been asked to come to DC if possible to protect the Vietnam Memorial Wall from vandalism. I sit here with tears in my eyes and a promise. Let one of them, take one step near The Wall, and moreover, near the name of my family member on that wall and the expression, "Hell hath no fury ..." will take on a whole new meaning. Let one can of spray paint be lifted, I will defend The Wall at any cost. More here.

I place the blame squarely on the shoulder of Capitol Chief, Phillip Morse. If it weren't for his spineless order to not interfere with the protesters a few weeks ago, they would have easily been deterred from attempting this march.

The sheer irony is in their statement they say, "The First Amendment is not a gift that can be given or taken away by politicians or bureaucrats." My question to this group is who gave you that First Amendment right and who defends that First Amendment right still today? The American Soldier that's who. And instead of protesting, these people should be supporting these heroes as they defend all that is good about this great nation, yet they decide to continue on in their Kerry-esque behavior of providing aide and comfort to the enemy ....

***UPDATE*** 3:52 PM
Just found this letter on the Capitol Police website in which the Chief gives a very different summary of events during the most recent demonstration in DC. I would have found this story a bit more credible had he named this so called "splinter group". Additionally, if he were well aware of their tactics, why were they not better monitored and why were no arrests made.

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."