The Rock has spoken, it is so.....

2007-07-17T09:32:00.000-07:00

Democrats hold a defeatathon in the Congress.

Well my friends, it is the same old thing, same shit, different day. Harry Reed and the surrender party are on Capital Hill once again, yapping about how we've lost the war. Well, when are we going to lose? Where is the proof? Because there is still fighting going on? That hardly qualifies for defeat.

The Democrats are nothing but a puppets on strings, with the ultra left lunatics as the puppet master. The left wing blogs scream about hair brained conspiracy theories one after another, as fast as they can make them up they irresponsibly throw them on the internet for the gullible among us to lap up like a bunch of helpless puppies.

We have Democrats in the House and Senate, that do nothing but attack Bush, attack Bush, attack Bush. Does it take a brain surgeon to figure out what is going on? Look, the Democrats see losing in Iraq as their ticket to the White House and a Congressional majority and there you have it. That's what this is all about to them, it is all the matters to them. To hell with the troops, to hell with Iraqis, to hell with terrorism and to hell with national security, as long as they win. But what happens then? If they win I mean? Have any of them put forth a strategy? I tell you Rockheads, if the Democrats win in 08, we are one step closer to the demise of Western Civilization.

Look at some other issues as well and you can easily see what the Democrats are up to. The "Fairness Doctrine" what in the hell is that supposed to do? It is supposed to dilute talk show content by mandating the same amount of time to air the "other side" of an issue. Well, if they do that to talk radio, don't they have to apply the same stupid regulation to TV? Magazines and news papers? Don't they have to apply this "doctrine" to every form of public media? But, my friends they aren't thinking about that, they are trying to prevent conservative Americans from connecting with each other through talk radio, because it will give them an advantage and take away an effective form of media for conservatism. Typical liberal bullshit, if you can't win the debate, shut the other side up, shut them down, freeze them out of the discussion. That is the only way liberalism can gain a foothold. I tell you, Democrats today are nothing but socialists. They will raise our taxes and expand government social welfare programs, the modern day equivalent to slavery, make the populace dependent upon their largess and they have to vote for you for their very survival. I urge you to read up on "The Dictator" Chavez, and the laws he has put in place to control the media. The Responsibility in Media law, limits Venezuelan television and other media in how frequently, and how severely they criticize the government and my friends, that is exactly the same philosophy of the "Fairness Doctrine." To hell with freedom of speech. When I look at the internet, at liberal websites, I see some of the most irresponsible speech, the most reprehensible, hateful graphics, such as our the President of our Nation dressed in a Nazi uniform, made into the likeness of a chimp and so on, and the Democrats want to lecture me about responsible use of media? Give me a break.

My friends, you won't find the liberal media reporting this, but today the stock market opened at 14,000! Why is that significant? Well, if you were to believe the Democrats and the liberal media, you would think that we have soup lines in every city and town in America, because they want you to believe our economy is worse than it was under President Carter. The truth is, the economy is alive and well, it is robust, it is growing, and there is nothing that can stop it except electing Democrats. In our nation's entire history, the stock market has never hit 14,000 points. Unemployment is at a historic low, real estate is red hot, tax revenue is up and the list goes on. Don't you think that is worth a mention? I do, but you won't hear it from Democrats or the media, and you know damn good and well why. Because it would shine a positive light on the Bush tax cuts, and his economic policies. But all you will hear from them is nit picking about how this segment of America or that is living in poverty, in other words, splitting hairs and literally looking for any bad news they can find. Imagine if the "Fairness Doctrine" was applied to them today. Whoah Nelly! Oh, but I forgot, the "Fairness Doctrine" will only apply to talk radio.

The Democrats and the spineless left, would have you believe that the war in Iraq is all but lost. They claim the midterms were a mandate to end the war. Well, why don't they end it? They could do it in one day by defunding the war. The truth is, our hypocritical Democrats don't want the war to end, they want it to go on because they need it to beat the anti war drum daily. They don't have the courage to defund the war, because they know they don't have the support of the American people! I swear, I don't know how stupid Democrats think American are, but they don't seem to have any problems with lying to us and I'm sick and tired of it! I'm sick of watching elected representatives get up in front of a microphone and tell us the most incredible lies and thinking that they are making any kind of sense at all. It's just incredible.

We have a muslim in the congress now, did you know that? I saw a clip of him lecturing at a high school, and was he ever in stride. How irresponsible can one be? To stand in front of a class full of impressionable kids, and indoctrinate them with lies, with insane, crazy 9/11 theories? How irresponsible it is, to compare anyone in our government, Democrat or Republican to the Nazi party? What is this supposed to accomplish? It is supposed to make young people hate their own country, hate their own culture, hate their history, and to hate themselves. Now, this is not really anything new from the left, but I think it is significant because we have an American Congressman, and he IS a muslim remember, doing it. Did I mention the demise of Western Civilization? Sometimes I think that is exactly what our misguided brethren of the left really want. They want our nation to fall because they think it would give them an opportunity to rebuild our form of government from scratch. A socialist government.

Political correctness is slowly strangling the life's breath from our country. We have illegal immigrants literally flooding over our southern border by the thousands every day. We have people being sued, being fired, being tried in the court of public opinion and we have miscarriages of justice all because they said the politically incorrect thing. How flipping crazy are we going to allow this to get before we regain our senses? I remember a day when being discriminatory was a good thing, it meant you appreciated the finer things in life, that you valued quality, and demanded it. Now, it has a negative connotation, thanks to political correctness overload. I tell you, if it keeps going like this, we'll have political correctness police patrolling the streets writing out citations if they hear someone say something that "is not allowed." Our country is going under my friends, obviously our congress is paralyzed because all they care about is elections, instead of doing whats right for America and Americans. Our government seems to be worried about everything "except" America.

And so, the Democrats have been in charge for almost a year now. I think this presents the perfect opportunity to reflect upon the stupendous achievements of our Democratically controlled congress. Lets make a list shall we?

1. Passed a raise in the minimum wage.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6....................................

That's it my friends. The product so far of the blue tsunami. We've got the Democrats in congress today, wasting more time, arguing about the war. I wonder if the hookers in Washington D.C. will be putting in some overtime tonight, you think? Oh well, the Democrats don't claim to have any values anyway, so they are immune from practicing them right? And if they accidentally knock some hooker up, they can just run down to the drugstore and buy a pack of instant abortion pills and voila! No more baby. Yep, those Democrats, what a shining example for our children. What a joke.

Friends, the Democrats have sold their soul to the devil. Exchanged their opportunity for eternal life to reign on high during their very short time here on earth. And there is only one thing that can stop them from turning our nation into a socialist state. We must send a clear message in the upcoming elections, we must tell them that yes, although we are very angry with our government on the whole, we aren't willing to throw the baby out with the bath water.

My friends, I can say in all honesty that I've never been more concerned about our nation's future. Everything that is happening today was preventable. It is up to us to be responsible citizens, it is our sacred duty to vote and to vote inelligently, to vote for the person we think is the best candidate, not because we hate his opponent. We are at a crossroads, what will we do? Will we sell our collective soul to the devil in order to take the easy way out and leave our children and grandchildren with the mess when we are gone? I don't know about you, but I'm going to fight the socialist Democrats every step of the way. It is up to us to expose them for the liars that they are, to see through their scare tactics, and it is up to us to put them in their place. After all, they do work for us.

2007-06-22T06:45:00.000-07:00

Our government is out of control!

Friends, I am compelled to write my thoughts on the state of our federal government. Where do I start? It is not working as our forefathers designed it, and it's time for a revolution. A revolution of the people, not a violent revolution, but a revolution at the ballot box. Our nation is in great peril in my estimation. Great danger indeed, and I'm not kidding. American voters of all stripes, it is time for us to agree on ONE thing. And that ONE thing is, we must throw out the career polititcians and get some fresh blood on Capital Hill. For the ultimate state of our government and our country rests on the shoulders of the people. Although the congress, and the senate in particular seems to think that they can do anything they want, they can't, they don't have that right and I think they are mad about it. I submit to you that there are too many senators, and some members of congress, who have been in Washington too long and they have lost their grasp on reality. The recent immigration reform debacle is just the latest issue to demonstrate that fact.

Luckily, the American public was absolutely outraged over the fact that Ted Kennedy and a select group of career senators had the audacity to put together a disasterous immigration reform package in the dead of the night, behind closed doors and try to ram it through the system with as little publicity as possible. We caught them, and we spoke in uncertain terms, loudly and clearly, by the millions that we not only opposed the contents of the bill, but that we were pissed off that the senate tried to pull a fast one on us. And they listened to us. They called us stupid, they said we didn't understand, they called us racist, called us mean, they said we won't do those jobs, etc, etc, etc. And still, amnesty went down in flames. This means that the members of congress do still fear the American voter, but they are becoming more and more brash. That means it is time to exert our power at the ballot box, it's time to remind these careerists who they work for, it is time to show them who is the boss.

The immigration reform proposal contained nothing of benefit to the American citizen and everything for illegal aliens. So, why would the senate possibly want to give these criminals a legal path to citizenship? And who thinks the government could possibly conduct a background investigation in 24 hours? Sounds like the senate reallyl does think we are naive.

Did we ask illegal aliens to come here? Who invited them? They knowingly violated our laws, they ignored our soveriegnty knowing the possible consequences. We don't owe them a damn thing!

And here we have the senate, doing verbal backflips to justify the immigration reform proposal. They said that this is the best we can do under the circumstances. What? They said that we cannot possibly find and deport every illegal alien. But who ever said we should? I say, that we should try and catch everyone of them we can and yes, deport them. This creates a deterrence effect. Which is the basis for our entire legal system. Does the IRS stop trying to catch tax evaders because they can't possibly find every one of them? No. Have we given up on the war against drugs because we can't find every smuggler? No. Do you see my point? You create doubt in the mind of others who are considering breaking our laws.

I've got nothing against immigration. My wife is a legal immigrant, and by the way, she is a better American than most people I know born here. She doesn't take our freedoms for granted. She doesn't gripe, bitch and moan about little setbacks or hardships. She knows what it is like to live in a country less free than America. These are the ideal candidates for citizenship. And I'm not anti Mexico either. But we simply must take a principled stand against a government that encourages it's citizens to immigrate to our country illegally.

It is obvious to any thinking person that there is something very fishy going on up on the hill. Some think that our government is trying to merge the US, Canada and Mexico into a union akin to the European model. And further, that they are trying to accomplish it through using the inherent powers of the beuracracy of the executive branch of government. They are trying to do it secretly. This is not a representative republic my friends, this is something else. Our government can't do such a thing without our permission and they know we won't approve, so they are trying to accomplish it in the shadows.

I encourage all Americans, liberals, conservatives and indies to look into this. I think that when you do, you will come to the inescapable conclusion that our federal government is not acting responsibly. They have forgotten who they work for, or worse, they don't care and think that they know what is better for the country than we do.

An unfortunate side effect from serving on Capital Hill is that it is a world unto itself, and it isn't long before our elected officials forget what it is like out here. That is why we need to rotate a fresh crop of junior congressmen and senators through the congress on a regular basis.

It is now obvious that our government isn't looking out for our interests, but theirs, and big business. I say it's time to throw the bums out.

2007-05-21T11:42:00.000-07:00

RANT ON!

I received an email allegedly written by a housewife living in New Jersey. I cannot vouch for whether or not it was indeed written by a woman living in New Jersey, but I can certainly relate to the rant.

It is a great rant, that cuts to the quick of the matter regarding the war on terrorism. My friends, what in the hell is going on in our country?! I can't figure it out. Never have the consequences been more clear, not since we faced down Nazi Germany has our cause been more clearly cut. And I'll argue that the evil we are facing today is worse then Nazi Germany. Because, these dirty terrorist muslim bastards are not only out to wipe out Jews, they would like to wipe out all of Christianity, do you doubt that? Do you doubt that if Osama bin Laden could flip a light switch that would instantly kill every Christian on the face of the earth that he would think twice about it? He would not, he would flip that switch and he would celebrate afterward.

What is so demoralizing about the war on terror is that the Democrats have so blatantly politicized it, have spent the last four years flapping their gaping maws about George Bush, that the terrorists are almost lost in the cacaphoney.

The political opponents of the Bush Administration have expended far more energy trying to make our president look like an idiot than they have in helping to formulate a strategy that will protect America. If we are hit with another major terrorist attack, I pray to God that it is the congress that bears the brunt of it, it seems that is the only thing that will wake our worthless congress up to the danger, if they suffer, perhaps it will seem real to them. While they allow Rome to burn our courageous military continues to sacrafice, our military families continue to pay the cost; alone. Our troops are now conducting operations with ever dwindeling funds, while the fat cats in congress continue to make political hay out of the war and while some of the biggest malcontent, worthless pieces of shit socialist progressives hold their anti military protests holding signs like "Fuck The Troops" or "If we must kill, let it be capitalism" or how about this one? "I support the insurgency", wouldn't you like to wade into those idiots? I would. Congress doesn't seem to understand we are at war, half of America doesn't seem to understand it either. Something has to wake them up.

And now we have perhaps the most irresponsible legislation being proposed on Capital Hill regarding immigration reform. Congress doesn't know it's ass from a hole in the ground and can't tell a Mexican from an American. The only people who can change this situation is the American voter. Let us hope they can rise above the cacaphoney and realize what is at stake and mostly; that they will begin tossing these multiple term good for nothing members of congress out on their asses beginning in 2008.

You'd better wake up America. You'd better wake the hell up.

I digress, here is the rant I was talking about. This email is currently making it's way through military circles.

Please feel free to pass it around to all of your friends.

Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we?
Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001?
Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan, across the Potomac from our nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania?
Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?
And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was "desecrated" when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet?...Well, I don't. I don't care at all.
I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.
I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a crime in Saudi Arabia.
I'll care when these thugs tell the world they are sorry for hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling slashed throat.
I'll care when the cowardly so-called "insurgents" in Iraq come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques.
I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs.
I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their First Amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law instead of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights.
In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave marine roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care.
When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have been humiliated in what amounts to a college-hazing incident, rest assured: I don't care !
When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank: I don't care......
When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed "special" food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being "mishandled," you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts: I don't care.
And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled "Koran" and other times "Quran." Well, Jimmy Crack Corn, and -you guessed it: I don't care !!!!!
If you agree with this viewpoint, pass this on to all your e-mail friends. Sooner or later, it'll get to the people responsible for this ridiculous behavior!
If you don't agree, then by all means hit the delete button. Should you choose the latter, then please don't complain when more atrocities committed by radical Muslims happen here in our great country! And may I add: "Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world.
But, the Marines don't have that problem." -- Ronald Reagan.
I have another quote that I would like to add AND.......I hope you forward all this.
"If we ever forget that we're One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under." Also by.. Ronald Reagan.
One last thought for the day: In case we find ourselves starting to believe all the anti-American sentiment and negativity, we should remember England's Prime Minister Tony Blair's words during a recent interview.
When asked by one of his Parliament members why he believes so much in America, he said: "A simple way to take measure of a country is to look at how many want in... And how many want out."

2007-05-11T05:59:00.000-07:00

Is there anything that George Bush isn't responsible for? Not according to frothing at the mouth Democratic bomb throwers.

My dear reader. Greensburg Kansas is in ruins, blasted to smithereens by a F5+ tornado. The entire town was essentially destroyed. The good citizens of Greensburg Kansas stoically begin picking up the pieces of their lives, cleaning their streets, pulling together to being the long, painful process of rebuilding and burying their dead.

Two and a half days after the tornado mercilessly ripped through town, the Kansas Governor, Kathleen Sebelius shows up; it took her long enough. And what did she do with her opportunity to explain to the nation on national TV what her constituents in Greensburg are facing and perhaps who their fellow Americans might help, she seized that opportunity to blame George Bush for the alleged lack of National Guard equipment available for the clean up effort. That's right, she seized the opportunity to tow the far left wing Democrat party line. Blame Bush for everything and link it to the war in Iraq. No matter how stupid you sound, no matter if it's true or not. Senators Pat Roberts and Sam Brownback both made it to Greensburg before the leader of the state did, even though Pat Roberts had to travel from Capital Hill, and Sam Brownback was on the campaign trail, they made it there before she did. I guess it was tough for her to find anything out of Topeka over a weekend.

Chris Stigall, a local radio talk show host on 710 AM KCMO, has been rightly hammering Sebelius for her shameless behavior. And he got somewhat a scoop on the story. You see, Kathleen Sebelius was ordered (say anonymous sources) by none other than the biggest mouth in the Democratic party, Howard Dean NOT to request any assistance from FEMA. Later someone named "Dick" and I assume that to be Dick Durbin, told her that they should link the tragedy to the Iraq War.

I think Kathleen Sebelius should go back to Topeka and crawl back under the rock that she appeared from to lie to America about the state of the Kansas National Guard and stay there. Just stay out of Greensburg, period. All she seems to be capable of is politicizing the tragedy. But then again, that is a prerequisite of Democratic party membership these days.

Go to this link at Chris Stigall's talk radio show website and look at the proof that Kathleen Sebelius is a damn liar and Democratic tool. Judge for yourself.

2007-04-30T09:38:00.000-07:00

Are you going to line George Tenant's pockets?

George Tenant has no shame. Here we have the man who was responsible for an agency that provided intelligence to President's Clinton and now Bush, running around on TV shooting off his big yapper about how he has absolved himself of any blame for the pre Iraq War intelligence debacle!

Because this man has a connection to the Democratic party, through his service in the Clinton Administration, he is being handed a free pass. And now, he has the unmitigated gall to write a tell all book? Just imagine for a second, that Donald Rumsfeld wrote such a book. Do you think he would be given the same free pass the media is giving Tenant? Not on your life!

Where will all of the profits from Tenant's books sales go? Straight into his pockets. Do you think that perhaps the thought ever entered his mind to donate the profits to the Soldiers who were sent to Iraq based on his faulty intelligence? Probably not.

There are no morals to be found on Capital Hill today. George Tenant is barely better than Benedict Arnold, just barely. Everything is the fault of George Bush. Tenant doesn't even have the guts to stand up like a man and accept the consequences for the intelligence his agency produced. His "slam dunk" comment didn't mean what everyone thought? Oh, my goodness, hey Mr. Tenant, how stupid do you think I am? How stupid do you think Americans are?

And now, the final stab in the back. Tenant runs around from one television show to another jumping on the "Everything is George Bush's Fault" Bandwagon.

I have a suggestion for George Turncoat Tenant. Get on an airplane, fly to Iraq and apologize to each and every Soldier who is over there. Then come back and apologize to the family of every dead American Soldier, Sailor, Airman, Marine and Coast Guardsman. Seems like a funny time to write a tell all book to me. Now that it is okay to voice certain criticisms about the war, George Tenant speaks out. Yeah, now that it's safe. Now that the heat on him has died down.

I haven't forgotten your dismal performance George Tenant. I haven't forgotten, and I think you are one despicable human being.

You were for the war in the beginning and that is exactly what you mean with your "slam dunk" comment. Where is your courage of conviction Mr. Tenant? You were for the war then but you criticize it now. Lame! Just plain lame Mr. Tenant. I hope you choke on all of that money you are preparing to get standing on the back of the troops.

2007-04-26T06:00:00.000-07:00

Democrats; Demonizing the Military

Yesterday, General David Patreaus was on Capital Hill to brief government officials and members of congress about the current situation in Iraq. But if you were watching the main stream media you might not have even learned that he was in Washington D.C. Why was such a significant news event unreported? I submit to you that many members of the media and house democrats didn't want you to know, I submit to you that the main stream media and the democrats in congress are embarked on a disinformation campaign designed to demonize the military. They seem to be following the Vietnam template to set conditions that may well see the day when our returning Iraq Veterans return to a United States that does not appreciate their efforts, worse, that they step off the plane only to be spat upon by the self righteous anti war surrender monkeys.

As the military dutifully executes it's duty in Iraq, trudging forward, quelling violence block by block, attempting to create the conditions of stability that will permit diplomats the opportunity to find a political solution, there is an insidious effort, ongoing. A subtle propaganda campaign by democrats and members of the media, and our troops are their target. Democrats are fond of telling America that even General Patreaus himself states that the military cannot resolve the situation. This is true, but the democrats fail to add that the military is a vital component of the whole equation. Meanwhile, the media elite and democrats continue to slap our military in the face and undermine the faith most Americans feel toward the military and members of the military. Naively believing that they will eventually be given a fair shake in the media our military bravely meets the enemy, sacrificing life and limb for an increasingly ambivalent nation and an unsupportive congress.

Slowly but surely, the leadership of the surrender monkey party (Democrats), bang on the anti war bongo drum, subtly undermining the military. Anti military bomb throwers in the media and house democrats describe unfortunate breaches of high moral standards maintained by military members, not as the aberrations they are, but as the norm. They paint insignificant setbacks as shocking defeats. Statements made by insignificant Iraqi tribal members as representative of the Iraqi population. What passes for journalism when it comes to reporting on the war is simply irresponsible, inaccurate one sided propaganda.

The inane rantings of Cindy Sheehan, Rosie O'Donnell, Bill Mahr, John Murtha and Nancy Pelosi just to name a few begin to gain traction through sheer repetitiveness. And gradually, those who have always hated the military feel emboldened and crawl out from under the rocks they live under. And slowly, the nation gets accustomed to seeing their hateful and disgusting antics; they get used to seeing their repugnant message.

General Patreaus briefed members of congress yesterday but guess who was not in attendance? None other than the Shrieker of the House Pelosi, and the alpha surrender monkey John Murtha. How can this be seen as anything other than a clear and public rebuff of the General? He travels all this way and is publicly, symbolically slapped in the face by Murtha and Pelosi? Are you telling me that neither of them could make the appropriate adjustment to their schedules so as to allow them to attend this very important briefing? My friends, Pelosi and Murtha aren't interested in hearing good news about our efforts in Iraq. Their minds are made up; we lost. Which is exactly the perception they are trying to create.

Over the last few days the media have stumbled all over Jessica Lynch and the Tillman family appearing before members of the congress, you can almost picture various TV news anchors drooling over the prospect of what would be said in those meetings. But where was the coverage of General Patreaus' visit to Capital Hill? Well, his visit doesn't meet the prerequisites of the media's agenda which is to present news in a carefully crafted way to undermine men like General Patreaus and the men and women he leads.

The Democratically controlled Congress of the United States approved an emergency war funding bill yesterday that contains congressionally mandated time lines for troop withdrawal despite many promises by the president to veto it. The democrats seem to be hell bent on buying part ownership of the war in Iraq, resulting in them sharing the blame line with the president. Not a terribly astute move politically. But nobody has accused the Democrats of ever being politically astute. In the unlikely event that President Bush signs the bill, Democrats will be partly responsible for the consequences of the war and directly responsible for what happens if we leave prematurely, which is a subject that Democrats avoid considering like the black plague. For now, the Democrats will be satisfied if they can destroy the good reputation of our military.

What is the most frustrating thing about recent events is that the Democratic strategy is patently obvious, but the media steadfastly refuses to report it. The Democrat agenda is to stop victory in Iraq at any cost. To demonize the military. Deny President Bush any chance to claim even a modicum of success in Iraq and this is all for one prime objective. To land a Democrat in the Oval Office in January of 2009.

It amazes me that the Democrats are being taken seriously. Have any Democrats discussed what happens after we withdraw? Surely America understands the kind of total chaos that will rule the streets of Baghdad, of the high probability of very serious regional warfare? Of the likelihood that terrorists, freed from the task of meeting our troops in Iraq, will follow the troops home and begin operations inside our own borders? Does America understand that? I sometimes wonder.

Democrats are guilty of skewing the facts of Iraq. Omission of pertinent facts in describing events. Twisting other people's words, the embellishment of negative incidents as well as out and out lying to America. This is all because they must have defeat, after all, they are heavily invested in our defeat. The Democrats have painted themselves into a corner through their history of publicly saying irresponsible and stupid things about the subject. Ignoring our successes and playing up our missteps or setbacks, it is blatantly obvious which way they want the tide to turn in Iraq. They are on the side of the terrorists, they are allied with the enemy. Let there be NO doubt about that, it isn't even debatable.

I want to be understood. I don't think that the Army is perfect. Obviously, the Pentagon has mishandled some issues and given the Army a black eye, that kind of thing happens, even accidentally. The Pat Tillman issue is just sad all the way around. I do not defend the conduct of the Pentagon with regard to the Pat Tillman issue, but try and remember this. Could it be that the Army made it's decision based on compassion for the Tillman family? I don't blame the Tillman family for being bitterly angry with the Army. But lets keep it in perspective , the troops in Iraq, and Afghanistan by in large adhere to the high moral and ethical standards that have always been the basic tenants of Soldierly conduct.

In closing I ask you to ponder this. Will the Democrats be happy when they ultimately destroy the image of the military? The last remaining federal organization to enjoy the respect of the American people? Who will they attack after that? Look at the evidence, they have gone after the tobacco industry, automobile manufacturers, fast food, energy, Wal-Mart, the wealthy, anywhere they can extract money for their precious social welfare state, because control of that welfare state is the ultimate power and modern day slavery. They would blackmail their own grandparents if they thought they could get away with it. If the American public's complacency remains, the Democrats might be able to usher in a new era in government. For all of the disinformation that we all know is contained in the Democratic message, it is folly to trust them. And we do so at our own collective peril. The warning signs are ominous and the stakes could not be higher.

If the Democrats are willing to sully the reputation of the United States Military, they are willing to stop at nothing in their naked pursuit of perpetual power.

2007-04-05T11:18:00.000-07:00

Rockheads, I've neglected my blog that nobody reads. But I have been very busy with life and the pursuit of wealth, etc.

I don't even know what topic to comment on, there have been so many since my last entry.

How about the Shrieker of The House? Running around the middle east complicating foreign policy for the executive branch. Isn't it great that she decided this was alegitimate role for the legislative branch? Since when? Did I miss the amendment to the constitution? What unmitigated gall! The pure audacity, the arrogance, the selfishness, the megalomania! Of course, there are leftist, nutjob, kooks out there who will claim that congressional fact finding committees travel overseas all the time and that Pelosi's trip is common enough. But oh, if only that were so. If only she would stay!

How is it that the Prime Minister of Israel; according to Pelosi, gave her a letter stating that Israel was ready to have peace negotiations with Syria? Well how about that? Hey Peloski! Haven't you fucking heard? Israel doesn't negotiate with terrorists let alone bend over and kiss their feet. Well what do you know? Turns out that the Prime Minister's office claims they gave that wacky wench no such letter. Ha ha ha! Pelosi, isn't fooling me, I don't know about you but I'm tired of the Democrats treating me like a damn fool. Look, I'm not stupid and I know damn good and well why she made this trip and it reverts back to President Bush, doesn't it always with these nitwits?

I have yet to be disproved, that the liberal nut jobs across America are still stuck in the year 2000. They are still squinting their eyes trying to imagine up votes for Gore that weren't counted! Stuck in the past, that's the Democratic Party for you! So, why is it, that Dancing Nancy decided to take this little middle east junket? Was it so she could try out her brand new carbon discharging giant airplane? No, I know what she is talking about with these dictators and terrorists. She is saying that if a Democrat gets elected to the Oval Office, things are going to change, that we'll get out of the way and let them do whatever they want to do in their part of the world. Whatever they want to do is okay with her, even torturing it's citizens, killing women and children. And, my friends, have the Democrats ever been right when it comes to foreign policy? Think about it for a few minutes, just give it a second or two of honest thought; what did you come up with? Yeah, me too. Nothing.

I can picture the leaders of these terrorist states and our muslim enemy, laughing their little brown asses off at Pelosi, thinking that she could possibly come to the middle east, and think that she would have the same credibility and influence as a man. Do you think? I'll tell you this, those guys are playing her skinny ass like a fiddle! Pelsoi is giving these terrorist assholes the credibility they have sought for decades. Thanks a lot Pelsoi, you fucking DOLT!

Iran releases the captured British Sailors and Marines and call it a "gift" to the British people. What a load of crap!

I don't have time to comment at length, but keep your eyes open, keep your ear to the ground Rockheads. Be on the alert. The Democrats are stealth socialists and communists, pure and simple. If you think Bush is a fascist like the ultra hating liberal ass hats in this country? You just let our country fall under the free spending ways of Hillary Clinton from the Oval Office and Nancy Pelosi as Shrieker of the House. My fellow Rockheads, if we allow that to happen, the Republic is doomed.

And I mean that....

2007-03-15T10:57:00.000-07:00

College students are more selfish than ever before.

I remember when I was a young father and serving in the US Army hearing the psychobabble emanating from progressive circles that American parents should do all in their power to create an attitude of "I am special" in their children. I remember news reports of teachers marking up poorly written papers turned in by students because the old red pen was too harsh. I remember hearing of sporting events where every team and every participant went home with trophy in hand because it was important not to make any of the children feel like they had lost; to send them all home feeling like a winner no matter their performance. Daycare centers were told to use care and make sure that no children felt inferior to others or that any of them felt superior. These are but a couple of examples; but there are many more, of the philosophy in liberal progressive circles that it was important that all of our children feel a sameness. Superior performances were not to be rewarded for the sake of the kids who could not, or would not put in the same time and effort. And I remember at the time, this psychobabble was just a load of crap. Now the chickens are coming home to roost.

In an extensive study by five prominent psychologists it has been found that college students today are more selfish, self centered and narcissistic than their predecessors. And it is reason to be concerned, these psychologists claim. These students will tend to lack a sense of empathy, react aggressively to criticism and favor self-promotion over helping others.

Nice going liberals.

Today, General William S. Wallace, Commanding General of the US Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) announced that the results of a TRADOC survey among American youth contained some interesting responses. I make the connection of these the college study and TRADOC survey myself, General Wallace did not.

The TRADOC survey found that:

Propensity to enlist in the Army is at the lowest it has been in over two decades.
Patriotism has steadily decreased since 2002.

College is overwhelmingly the preferred post-high school choice, for both prospects and influencers. Educational opportunity is the major incentive.

Breaking through media "clutter" continues to be challenging.

The Army is perceived as "ordinary" vs. other services.

The Global War on Terrorism continues to have a polarizing effect on the youth market.

General Wallace continued; "We found out some pretty interesting statistics. Eighty percent of the youth today said the never watch the commercials on television. Ninety percent engage in text messaging in some form or another on a daily basis, 85 percent have access to an Internet connection that they access routinely." This explains why I see so many 250 lbs 13 year old kids these days.

If you haven't figured out why the college study and the TRADOC survey are important to our country and our Army, I'll tell you why. College students in my opinion, continue to be influenced and indoctrinated into the lunatic liberal, anti military camp and enlisting in the Army to these young people is looked upon with disfavor, even disdain. I think that young people tend to think they are above serving their country in the Army.

And yet, according to TRADOC; Only 27 percent of young Americans age 17 to 24 actually qualify to be in the Army. The other 73 percent are disqualified either morally, intellectually or physically. On a personal note, I can back up those numbers. Based on my experience as an Army Recruiter from 1995-98 in Denver, Colorado. It was a continual source of amazement to me, to watch potential recruits fail the military entrance examination. It isn't that hard, at least I thought it wasn't that hard. How could anyone who paid any attention in high school fail the entrance exam?

Our nation has more than one problem in this regard. Only 27 percent of 17-24 year old American youth are eligible to serve in the Army. The majority of this 27 percent do not consider the Army a valid career choice. High School and College campi across the nation seem to be doing their level best to bar military recruiters from school property. Our students continue to be indoctrinated into the lunatic left fringe rather than being trained to think for themselves. We are in a struggle for our very survival, engaged in what will be a decades long fight against global terror. So, who will man the front lines? Who will protect the homeland? Who will vanquish our enemy? Democrats have even broached the subject of reviving the draft. The progressives, liberals, socialist and communist faculty and staff across the land beware; continue to indoctrinate our young students, continue to preach an anti military attitude, continue to resist allowing recruiters to visit prospects on school property and stand by for the draft to be revived, and you have yourselves to thank for it.

Europe has for all intents and purposes lost it's culture and we are treading the same path. I tend to think that this is exactly what the far left wants. It is, it has always been incumbant upon those of us who have worn the uniform to be ambassadors for the military. Although many on the left can't stand this, it is a fact that we are looked upon more or less with respect and honor by most Americans even if they won't say it. People listen to what we say and we have great influence, our words have an impact, our mentorship is valued. We should mentor young Americans who in our estimation could be successful in the military to visit a recruiter and learn the facts. It is incumbant upon us to help dispell this inane beleif that all recruiters are crooks. It is incumbant upon us to do what we can. Most of us would put the uniform back on and man the front lines if we could, but most of us can't. So, lets do what we can to be a voice of realism, and reality when it comes to serving in the military today.

2007-03-13T10:45:00.000-07:00

A Gathering Of Eagles

My friends, you have no doubt heard the news that anti war protesters plan to meet on March 17th in Washington D.C. to demonstrate against the war. I suppose those of us who support our troops have grown accustomed to hearing the harping, sniping, hate filled drivel hurled by the likes of William Arkin, Cindy Sheehan, George Soros, Jane Fonda, Al Franken, Bill Mahr and an assortment of other loud mouthed liberal do gooders. Since the revelation of their plans to meet on hallowed ground, the Vietnam Memorial, a grass roots counter demonstration has evolved and has continued to attract patriotic Americans from every state. They are going to protect that memorial and to show America that the anti war rabble rousers aren't the only ones who can turn out the membership in force.

I have no problem with misguided anti Americans exercising their free speech, but when they think they can use the symbol of the generation of my older brothers; Vietnam Veterans, who bled and died for that wall. When elements of the closet socialist/communist movement in America plan to politicize the war, to cheapen the sacrifices of our nations patriots I've got a problem with it, to be sure.

I urge anyone who is so inclined, contact A Gathering Of Eagles at the link provided at the top of this post and go to Washington D.C. I don't know about you, but I'm getting sick and tired of these defeatists who want us to retreat from Iraq in defeat.

Who are these people? What motivates them to actively seek failure? With red faces and spittle flying from the corners of their mouths, they grandstand in front of military hospitals treating our war wounded, and yet they want us to think that they really care about our troops? Two years of outrageous lies, conspiracy theories, unfounded accusations, desperate tactics from people with no grounding in reality. It looks like the folks who will participate in A Gathering Of Eagles has had quite enough of it and the anti war cabal will no longer have the stage to themselves.

I refuse to post a link to any of the crackpot websites that protest the war. You can google them and read to your hearts delight, but I will not give them space on this blog. Just know that these anti war organizations have allied themselves with our enemy, some have even sent money to them.

There are indeed, two Americas my friends, which one do you belong to? The Democratic party has sold it's soul to a thousand different one issue special interest groups and can no longer hold them together, they are tearing apart at the seams. The Democrats are now ruled by the ultra liberal left, these are not your run of the mill lefties. These are people who lament over the near miss our vice president experienced in Afghanistan. These are the people who call our president an outright fascist. These are the people who deep down, want to see American torn asunder and for a socialist form of government to rise from the ashes. The people who want to steal your hard earned income and give it to the "poor", raise your taxes, people who think the government should be central to our lives, a people who want our government to replace God as judge of man.

Stand up patriots! Stand up and be counted because we are in grave danger. These lunatics are the minority and I don't care what poll numbers anyone tries to shove in my face. These people live in denial, they have no concept of the danger we live in today. Iraq is the issue that keeps their faces smashed against the glass of reality, that forces them to see the world as it is. Full of enemies, danger, mayhem, chaos and suffering. They don't like what they see. But there is a big difference between us and them. We know that we have to meet these dangers head on and that sometimes we have to fight, we must not shrink from them; for they will not go away, we have to make them go away by whatever means necessary.

My fellow Americans, our nation is in danger, from the socialist, communist, the dirty terrorist mufisden who live in our midst as well as enemies from the outside. A Gathering of Eagles will demonstrate how much and how many people who live in this great country are willing to stand up to aggression and tyranny wherever it may exist. Even if it is within the halls of our own congress.

2007-03-05T09:56:00.000-08:00

Hillary Clinton is a radical.

This is all that you really need to know about Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton. She is a died in the wool liberal, and that's a putting it mildly. At heart, Hillary Clinton is a socialist and probably believes communism would work in America. Of course this is my personal opinion, but I know it is an opinion shared by millions of my fellow Americans.

I have made it a point not to comment heavily on the topic of politics but I have very strong feelings when it comes to the Clinton's. Perhaps it is due to my career in the Army, but ethics and moral standards are important to me. I feel they are vital attributes in our president, for all our elected representatives in fact. This is why I have a favorable impression of President Bush. Regardless of whether I agree with him on an issue or not, I don't have to guess where he stands. The nation cannot rely on that kind of courage from Hillary Clinton. Isn't it obvious having observed her for the past two decades, that she has no problem with flip flopping? How many times do we have to witness her saying one thing to a group of people, to have her later say the opposite to another group in another forum? How can America possibly entrust it's future to her? What would she do? What would she try and do?

Well, we know this much:

She doesn't like the military. She insisted that military personnel not visit the White House in uniform, rather that they wear civilian clothing. Her husband wrote a paper in which he admitted loathing the military.

She has a terrible memory at the most convenient times, for her, especially if the truth would reflect badly upon her, read; Whitewater.

Hillary Clinton wants to appear to be an independent woman capable of standing on her own. But she needs her husband if she is to stand a chance at the Oval Office, and she knows it. This is why she stands behind her adulterating husband while he insults women.

Why did Hillary Clinton ask her Alma mater, Wellesly College to put her undergraduate thesis under lock and key? Because in that thesis, she embraces the model presented by a far left radical Saul Alinksky. A man who outlined the necessity of reforming our capitalistic society through a direct takeover of power.

I think, no, I know that Hillary Clinton is a socialist. Why does she hide it?

Because if that particular gene were let out of the bottle, she wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of ever getting elected president.

As first lady she told the country she was the "co-president" she actually headed the health care reform effort, an effort the failed miserably. Who in the hell did she think she was? She wasn't elected and she had NO right to insert herself to any position of authority.

Hillary Clinton is not the altruistic woman she would have us think. Her political career is based on lies and deceit. While claiming she had no intention of ever running for president and claiming that she only wanted to be a senator from New York; that she would give her undivided attention to the people of New York, every move she made since then as been with an eye on the White House. She saw the senatorship as punching her ticket, a way to pad her resume for a White House bid.

And so, Hillary Clinton has, and does continue to present an untrue image of herself that she thinks she can sell on the American electorate. You must always keep in mind, Hillary Clinton lusts for power, she will say or do anything to achieve it. She has sold her soul in pursuit of it. And I have to wonder, what would she do if she were the president? I don't think she even knows, to people like her, the thrill is in the campaign, the goal is the victory, what comes after is secondary.

I know that she would increase your taxes and she would confiscate corporate profits, she would gut the military and she would put America's future in the hands of the United Nations.

Hillary Clinton's strategy is obvious. She must appear to be a liberal because liberals vote in large numbers in the Democratic primary. But she must also convince America she is a conservative, because she can't win the general election without major conservative votes.

I actually shudder at the thought of our future with Hillary Clinton at the helm of our nation.

I do not know who I will vote for in the 2008 presidential election. But I have made a decision already. And that is I will not vote for Hillary, and I will actively work against her candidacy. Not that I dislike her personally. But because I don't trust her, and I don't respect her. The President of the United States at the very least must be trustworthy, and respectable. Even if we disagree with his policies, that is something we can work around. However, if you are constantly trying to figure out what your president really believes? Well, that's a recipe for the fall of America.

It is difficult for me to comprehend that Hillary Clinton is taken seriously as a presidential candidate, and I think it has much to do with the fact that she is the wife of Bill Clinton more than anything else.

I have heard liberals say anyone but George Bush, while I disagree with them I can relate to how they feel. Because in my mind, its anyone but Hillary Clinton.

I don't know about you, but I think our future is too important for a reactionary, socialist radical like Hillary Clinton to be entrusted with the office of the presidency.

I hope you will join me in pointing out her lies, hypocrisy and deceit whenever the opportunity presents itself.

2007-03-02T06:24:00.000-08:00

My fellow Rockheads, consider if you will. Operation Fadr al-Qanoon (which the media calls the “Baghdad security plan”) is underway. Progress is measurable, remember though, that this is a marathon, it’s still a bit early to know how it will turn out, but there is reason to hope.
The message for all of us, especially professionals like me who do this for a living, is patience, family members who have loved ones in Iraq can also counsel patience to their friends and acquaintances, we need to steady the nerves of our fellow Americans. The war has been going for almost four years, the current strategy just few weeks. We need to give it more time.
It will take time to bring security to the people of Baghdad and the Al Anbar Province. To do this , we need to build trust with the people, engage community leaders, develop intelligence and trusted networks, then compete with the insurgents and death squads to deny them access to their targets – their fellow Iraqis, whom they cynically exploit and kill. All these things we are doing, but the process cannot be rushed, and requires detailed local understanding: so we move at the pace the Iraqis can sustain.
Patience, determination, courage and stamina are vital. Political reconciliation at the grass roots level is what is going make this work, with security as a buffer. Needless to say, we are not leaving this to luck: some commentators have focused on the troop surge, but the main effort isn't the surge, the anti war crowd as usual focuses on the narrow, missing the big picture almost entirely. The main effort is a political effort, by Iraqis with our support, to reconcile at the local level. The surge is simply to create an environment for this political effort to take place. This is going to be a lot like heavy peace enforcement or police work, not so much like classical counterinsurgency, let alone conventional combat. And with just one additional brigade in Baghdad and four more on the way, look at the result; we are getting somewhere now on a political level. And there is an oil revenue sharing agreement; we've cleared a high hurdle.
Our task is to stay alert, focused, and with a keen eye, read the situation, ready to modify our approach as this develop.
I think these are the major trends:
Muqtada al-Sadr has run off to Iran, leaving some of his thugs scratching their heads and wondering if they have been Persian stooges all along.
Iraq on the whole has been relatively quiet, as it has been for much of the past year, nearly two. At least half the incidents in Iraq still happen within Baghdad city limits; control Baghdad, and you have the upper hand, the insurgents and terrorists knew this inherently having lived in the country all or most of their lives, it just took us a while to catch up.
Al Qa’ida in Iraq has successfully been marginalized, with alliances of local Sunni leaders, and some other jihadist groups, opposing its brutality and murder, its terrorist campaign of viciously murdering fellow muslims in the streets. They are contesting its self-styled, self proclaimed leadership.
Increased targeting of helicopters has led to increased shoot downs (out of hundreds of flights every day) a Baghdad helicopter ride is still safer than a cab ride in New York City..
Security in key neighborhoods of Baghdad shows positive signs of improvement, as Americans and Iraqis partner at the grass roots to clamp down on violence and insurgent influence. Terrorists have are now using car bombs against innocent bystanders in markets and public places a sign that they know where the danger lies (loss of influence with the population) and are trying to kill the “surge” using the most mass casualty producing terrorist weaponry available, in other words, they are truly desperate now to influence not only Iraqis, but the American public, you need to keep that in mind.
Some sectarian and insurgent groups have seemingly appeared out of nowhere to attack outposts, local communities working with the government, and security forces; more desperate measures.
This last trend is the most professionally intriguing. In counterinsurgency operations killing the enemy is not difficult, finding them is difficult. But finding them, and distinguishing them from the innocent population, can be terribly difficult. In shifting our tactics away from directly hunting down insurgents, and to protecting the people, we have undercut insurgent influence and they know it, their options are to flee, wait us out, or come into the open to fight, to contest control of the neighborhoods, they will not do this for it means certain death. But the fact that some are coming into the open suggests they realize that waiting us out is not an option. It also makes the job of finding the enemy far easier. This is good, but we must not lose sight of the focus; protect the people.
On this score, again, it’s too early to say for sure but initial signs are really encouraging. One indication that is not very useful is car bombs, we can expect these to be one of the last insurgent tactics to diminish, for a couple of reasons. It takes an entire community, coupled with its local security forces to defeat a clandestine suicide bomber, and it will take a while to build effective networks to achieve this. Second, insurgent tactics are driven by the need to capture the attention of the nearest television camera, nothing does this better than a big bomb; remember that. The bad guys will hang on to this method as long as the news media reward it.
Overall, then, though early signs give us genuine reason to hope, prudence, patience and professional judgment must be our watchwords. There will be tough days as always; the problems remain daunting, complex and deeply ingrained in the social and political fabric of the Iraqi society. Violence will ebb and flow, come and go, and there will be “spikes”. But over time, if the strategy works (and I think it will), we should see a downward trend in violence and an increase in trust and reconciliation at the local level, in remaining ready, as we certainly are, as we always have been, as we have been doing, to refine our approach if needed.
We must not allow ourselves to confuse the country of Iraq, where there is a real war, a real people, and a real obligation to provide security for them, with constant harping of the "Vietnam template, quagmire Iraq" of popular liberal, anti war, anti American, Democratic, wild-eyed imagination. The professionals have a duty to be clear-headed and to accurately analyze and assess the situation in a professional fashion, adapting as the situation dictates. We have a duty to care for our people, their families, and the Iraqis, America must give this time, take it slow and carefully, we must not allow the Democrats, liberals, or any other anti war organization rush us either to judgment or failure. We have a real shot now, we can do this. We will do this.

Thank God for our troops, for the overall professionalism, courage and determination to get this job done despite the best efforts of congress to stop them from reaching their goals.
I think we've learned much over the past four years, about our Army, our troops, our president, the congress, and the Iraqi people.

2007-02-16T05:54:00.000-08:00

American liberals, Congressional Democrats and anti war idiots across the fruited plain are doing their best to ignore something, they don't want you to notice either and are pulling out all the stops to divert your attention from it.

We are winning the struggle for Iraq.

I submit for your consideration. The main stream media, with it's predominantly anti war agenda has almost imperceptibly begun to broadcast positive news coming from Baghdad. And never forget, Baghdad is the key to Iraq. Baghdad and the Al Anbar Province is where the violence is concentrated, but Baghdad is generally recognized by the experts as the linchpin of Iraq. Control the situation in Baghdad and you control Iraq.

Mooky Al Sadr has fled Iraq and is now safely tucked away in Iran. Do you need any further proof that Iran has been supporting Mooky and his ilk all along?

Iraq has ordered her borders with Syria and Iran sealed.

Since our courageous troops began offensive operations in Baghdad, there have been no attacks on our troops.

The spectre of our troops going on the offensive and taking the fight right at the militias and death squads in Baghdad was enough to force them into hiding. Our troops are weeding them out and killing or capturing them at breakneck speed. And high ranking terrorists have been killed or captured as well.

Liberal bloggers both professional and amateur are going nuts! They have gone off the deep end. Our troops are now regularly being called mercenaries. In general, the liberal blogesphere has pulled out all the stops in a desperate smear campaign directed at our Commander in Chief and our Soldiers and Marines. It has been a very disgraceful display.

The Democratically controlled Congress, now full of yellow bellied anti war cowards have spent the last week debating a useless nonbinding vote to oppose a troop surge that has already begun?! Talk about desperation. I hold any representative who votes in favor of this measure in utter contempt! Words fail to describe how I feel about these traitors! Lets suffice to say that I think our troops will remember this in the next election; I know I will.

Consider if you will, the mass and power of the United States Army, and Marine Corps. If our ground forces are determined to out last the insurgents they can. It is a matter of numbers. While I don't think that ten Iraqi lives are worth one of our troops, I submit to you that our overall casualty rate in Iraq is mild in comparison to wars past. And considering what our troops have accomplished in Iraq, the casualty rate is astounding. Our troops, even with draconian rules of engagement and other rules that interfere with their ability to protect themselves have performed miraculously.

All classic insurgencies eventually transition from guerrilla tactics to conventional military tactics. Read your military history, there are a plethora of examples. Where is the insurgent Army? Where is it hiding? Fact is, they don't have an army and they can't take control of Iraq when or if we leave. One of the features of this war that makes it different from insurgencies of the past is that the conventional component of the insurgents is non-existent. In other words, the insurgents and the foreign terrorists goal is simple, to force us out of the country. Once this was accomplished, what you would have seen, was the Iranian military moving in and taking over the country and we can all agree that would be a disaster.

Our troops have turned the corner my friends. And the worst nightmare of the screeching anti war crowd is on the verge of coming to fruition. We are going to win! Our troops have had to fight against the odds since the day widespread looting broke out upon the fall of the Hussein regime. But our troops never gave up, they watched, and they learned. The applied those lessons learned and became experts in this kind of war.

During this operation, I had faith in our military, hell, I helped train some of the troops over there and I know their quality. While I became frustrated with Rumsfeld and the OSD, I never lost faith in the military. Now, we have who I consider the best General Officer in the entire US Military leading the best Army we have ever had. We are going to win.

Be happy my friends, be happy indeed. And witness the three ring circus on Capital Hill as the Democratically controlled Congress attempts to convince the American public that we are losing, that we can't win and that we simply must leave Iraq.

Too late. We're winning.

2007-02-06T05:42:00.000-08:00

William Arkin must go!

As you well know by now, William Arkin an employee of the Washington Post has created a firestorm in his blogs insulting, attacking the integrity of the American Soldier, questioning their motives for serving and berating them for craving the support of the American public.

I have been going to his blog since Feb 1 every so often to read responses to his hate filled diatribe and it can only be described as a circus.

I would caution anyone thinking about accessing his blog to see the responses, you will probably be disappointed. It is now dominated by five or six morons who have turned the comment's page into a running verbal abuse contest, not worth your time.

And as I pondered this issue, the thought occurred to me that Arkin may have created this controversy on purpose for the sake of ratings and attention. It seems like a strange way to go about it, but then again, Arkin is an avowed liberal lunatic, a hater in the first order who doesn't let facts get in the way.

I would urge Americans to respond in a way that Arkin, the Washington Post, NBC and General Electric will actually feel it.

Believe it or not, I subscribed to the Washington Post as a way to keep tabs on what the wacky left is up to, but two days ago I cancelled my subscription.

I will boycott NBC, if I could I would remove that channel from my television. Be that as it may, I will never tune to NBC again, or, until Arkin appears on national TV to admit his stupidity and apologize or, he is fired.

I have written an email to the CEO of General Electric, which is the parent company of NBC and the Washington Post and in that email I urged Jeffrey Immelt to have Arkin fired. I also informed Mr. Immelt that I'm dumping my shares of GE stock this week. I have procured a fair amount of GE stock as part of my kid's stock portfolio's that I intended to use to help pay for their college. But, there are plenty of blue chip stocks out there performing better than GE, it's no sacrifice to dump it.

I urge you all to stand up and be counted. This is something that you can do to really put some meaning in the statement "I support our troops."

Do it now people.

Jeffrey Immelt, Chairman & CEO
jeff.immelt@corporate.ge.com
General Electric Company3135
Easton Turnpike
Fairfield, CT 06828-0001

2007-02-01T14:08:00.000-08:00

DUNCE!

Rockheads, below, you will find a blog entry from William Arkin of the Washington Post. I must give credit where it is due, I have read some of Arkin's writings and found them to be generally well informed, articulate and sometimes interesting, others not.

But, in the case of his blog "Troops Should Also Support The America Public" Arkin strikes me as a big baby. As a man who "got mad" at the troops because they had the nerve to express an opinion about the lack of support from the folks back home. As you read this incredibly ill advised blog, keep in mind that Arkin is a professional journalist, working at newspaper with a global readership and a good amount of influence. I think that Arkin's blog is more damaging then he realized.

One thing that I hoped that America would be able to avoid regarding the war in Iraq is an us versus them mentality i.e. an anti military movement against Soldiers. It appears that intended or not, Arkin's ill advised words have moved us one step closer to that catastrophe.

I would advise Mr. Arkin, that the I believe the vast majority of America does support the troops in so far as they will not tolerate a journalist using his position to attempt to discredit them. In fact, I think a good number of Americans are downright protective of their troops. From the number of responses his blog prompted, I'd say that is logical assumption.

If you are going to blog about the troops Mr. Arkin, weigh your words carefully and never presume, assume or guess.

I might add that this has turned into a running event. William Arkin has updated his blog in the attempt to explain why he was so critical of our troops and why he used the pejorative term "mercenary" to describe them, but I'd say he has a lot more to answer for than that. For his blog was more than inflammatory, it was divisive and even hurtful. If your going to blog like this Mr. Arkin, you should expect such responses, like they say. If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch.

I recommend reading his blog entries of Jan 30, 31 and Feb 1. His original attack on the troops, his condescending response to the hundreds of angry responses he received, and his attempt to explain why he did it.

William Arkin's blog

I've been mulling over an NBC Nightly News report from Iraq last Friday in which a number of soldiers expressed frustration with opposition to war in the United States.
I'm sure the soldiers were expressing a majority opinion common amongst the ranks - that's why it is news - and I'm also sure no one in the military leadership or the administration put the soldiers up to expressing their views, nor steered NBC reporter Richard Engel to the story.
I'm all for everyone expressing their opinion, even those who wear the uniform of the United States Army. But I also hope that military commanders took the soldiers aside after the story and explained to them why it wasn't for them to disapprove of the American people.
Friday's NBC Nightly News included a story from my colleague and friend Richard Engel, who was embedded with an active duty Army infantry battalion from Fort Lewis, Washington.
Engel relayed how "troops here say they are increasingly frustrated by American criticism of the war. Many take it personally, believing it is also criticism of what they've been fighting for."
First up was 21 year old junior enlisted man Tyler Johnson, whom Engel said was frustrated about war skepticism and thinks that critics "should come over and see what it's like firsthand before criticizing."
"You may support or say we support the troops, but, so you're not supporting what they do, what they're here sweating for, what we bleed for, what we die for. It just don't make sense to me," Johnson said.
Next up was Staff Sergeant Manuel Sahagun, who is on his second tour in Iraq. He complained that "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."
Next was Specialist Peter Manna: "If they don't think we're doing a good job, everything that we've done here is all in vain," he said.
These soldiers should be grateful that the American public, which by all polls overwhelmingly disapproves of the Iraq war and the President's handling of it, do still offer their support to them, and their respect.
Through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform, accepting that the incidents were the product of bad apples or even of some administration or command order.
Sure, it is the junior enlisted men who go to jail. But even at anti-war protests, the focus is firmly on the White House and the policy. We don't see very many "baby killer" epithets being thrown around these days, no one in uniform is being spit upon.
So, we pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?
I can imagine some post-9/11 moment, when the American people say enough already with the wars against terrorism and those in the national security establishment feel these same frustrations. In my little parable, those in leadership positions shake their heads that the people don't get it, that they don't understand that the threat from terrorism, while difficult to defeat, demands commitment and sacrifice and is very real because it is so shadowy, that the very survival of the United States is at stake. Those Hoovers and Nixons will use these kids in uniform as their soldiers. If it weren't about the United States, I'd say the story would end with a military coup where those in the know, and those with fire in their bellies, would save the nation from the people.
But it is the United States, and the recent NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary - oops sorry, volunteer - force that thinks it is doing the dirty work.
The notion of dirty work is that, like laundry, it is something that has to be done but no one else wants to do it. But Iraq is not dirty work: it is not some necessary endeavor; the people just don't believe that anymore.
I'll accept that the soldiers, in order to soldier on, have to believe that they are manning the parapet, and that's where their frustrations come in. I'll accept as well that they are young and naive and are frustrated with their own lack of progress and the never changing situation in Iraq. Cut off from society and constantly told that everyone supports them, no wonder the debate back home confuses them.
America needs to ponder what it is we really owe those in uniform. I don't believe America needs a draft though I imagine we'd be having a different discussion if we had one.

Pretty incredible stuff huh? And some people wonder why the main stream media has such a terrible reputation.

2007-01-30T11:56:00.000-08:00

We are going to defeat the Iraqi insurgents, and we are going to accomplish what we set out to do!

My fellow Rockheads. That movement you have been detecting underfoot over the past few days is the earth shaking. And the reason that the earth is shaking, is because some are beginning to say that we can achieve our goals in Iraq. Finally, people are beginning to think about Iraq in a logical manner, leaving politics and personal feelings out of the equation.

Can it be? Is America beginning to understand the consequences of leaving Iraq undone? It must be so. I'm beginning to see articles offering hope.

It is far too early to tell if this idea will catch on, and of course there is that stubborn, reflexive, unthinking element on the far left determined to relive the "glory days" of the anti Vietnam War movement. Never mind the fact that we were beating the shit out of the enemy in Vietnam, and the ONLY reason we did not win there is because we gave up. Lets hope the America is coming to that realization about Iraq.

Insurgencies take a long time to put down because the insurgents objective is so easy. All they have to do is create doubt long enough that the counter insurgents give up. Some car bombs here, a few midnight murders there, and they have the American public ready to throw in the towel in no time. But maybe, people are coming around to the President's way of thinking.

George W. Bush, while maybe not the most intelligent president we have ever had, certainly is the most determined since Lincoln. I admire his determination and his ability to keep faith while those around him crumble, criticize and complain.

What folly it would be to give up on Iraq after investing what we have to date! My friends, we are winning in Iraq. The insurgents control very little ground in Iraq, they have to hide and operate in secrecy. They have to threaten and murder to stay in the game. They have no conventional Army to speak of, how are they going to control the urban areas? All insurgencies have to move from the insurgency and guerrilla operations into conventional military operations sooner or later, the insurgents in Iraq don't have such a force. We will out last them if we have the will to see it through.

The newspapers tell of an insurgency getting the hell beat out of it over the past week, with hundreds of enemy killed and captured. And of the cleric Muktada Al Sadr ready to cooperate with the realization that with the additional troops on the way the handwriting is on the wall. Rather than giving up and going home as the insurgents were counting on, and as the mindless anti war cabal has been screaming about, when all is said and done George Bush is sending MORE troops? I think that maybe the insurgents are beginning to realize that they miscalculated the determination of President Bush and the United States Military!

My friends, the fastest way to bring this operation to a close and to get our troops back home is to get on board and support our troops, support the president and bring Operation Iraqi Freedom to an historic and successful close.

2007-01-22T14:38:00.000-08:00

How to solve Iraq.

My fellow Rockheads. My Holiday hiatus at an end, it is time to begin posting to my blog once more.

Over the Holiday break, the war in Iraq weighed heavily on my mind as it always does. With the Democrats taking over the majority in Congress it is time for the Bush Administration to do something bold or the Democrats will most assuredly doom any future attempts to bring the operation to a successful close. The mindless anti war crowd in America continues their inane screaming, and it's giving me a headache. So, here is my proposal.

What do we have in Iraq today? Who are we dealing with? Well we are essentially dealing with the same groups. We have the Kurds in the oil rich north and their region is relatively peaceful but for tension with Turkey, nothing that level headed people can't deal with.

In central Iraq we have the Sunni, Saddam Hussein's people. They are the ethnic minority in Iraq, but enjoyed most favored status while Hussein was in power. The area of Iraq in which the Sunni live however, is resource poor. The Sunni made up the bulk of the insurgency, at first because they actually harbored the illusion that Hussein would come back. Now, they are fighting for their survival.

This brings us to the Shia. For over four decades they were governed and abused by Hussein, Hussein's tribe and his fellow Sunni Muslims. Now, the Shia (in my opinion) want to be the only real power in the new Iraq government, I don't think they are into any kind of power sharing with the Sunni. The Shia have the Sadr Army, militias and death squads who are prosecuting a sort of ethnic cleansing of Shia neighborhoods and towns of the minority Sunni. This isn't good. While the Shia are the majority in Iraq, it is the Sunni that are the majority in the whole of the middle east. The Shia simply are in no mood to relinquish a thing to the Sunni and I think Prime Minister Malaki is one of those people, but that's just me, and I could be wrong but I don't think I am.

We are reaching the limits of the American publics support for the effort in Iraq. I have to confess that as a supporter of the effort my will has been tested too. But, it is the essence of war to have ups and downs, victory and defeat. But like a football game, you don't know who the winner is until it is over. For the anti war crowd to say we are not winning is to forget this concept because you can also make the claim that we are not losing either. A classic case of is the glass half empty or half full?

Nobody had presented to me a good case for why we should leave Iraq now. Or that we are losing. And I'm still of the opinion that most of the anti war crowd is composed of people who hate President Bush. And I think they hate him because they have not been able to put the 2000 and 2004 elections behind them. In 2000 the election results were contested and we waited weeks for ballots to be examined, we saw the election issue go to the US Supreme Court and Bush prevailed. 2004, most of the main stream media was forecasting a Kerry victory, but by next morning Bush had made a furious comeback; he won by a hair. Losing elections that way has to be disappointing but it is no reason to turn into a Bush hating moron. And due to this and more it is my opinion that the left simply can't stand to see Bush get credit for anything and they are willing to suffer defeat in Iraq to prevent it.

But what to do about Iraq? The most basic component that is missing is resolve from the folks on the home front. But it is also a fact of history regarding counterinsurgency operations that the local populace must get involved. We seem to be missing both in Iraq. So, I must admit that we have gotten to the brass tacks of the issue. Prime Minister Malaki is going to have to prove he is serious about sharing power with the Sunni, he is going to have to take on his Shia militias, the death squads, insurgents and terrorists that are feeding upon the people of Iraq. Malaki must preside over a national reconciliation process and spread around the oil revenue. Short of that there is always the option of creating three autonomous sectors in Iraq, Sunni, Shia and Kurd with perhaps a central government in Baghdad.

We must put training and equipping the Iraqi Army on the fast track. The Police force is an unmitigated debacle and I think General Patreaus will have to address that issue with a clean slate, because the police are key to ending the insurgency, more so that the military.

Let me close by saying that this effort would be over more quickly if the American public stood shoulder to shoulder. It is our infighting that is encouraging the enemy to continue the fight. To be quite honest about it, I'm ashamed of the American people. We have our kids over there in Iraq trying their level best to accomplish a mission that we approved of initially. We shouldn't have (we don't deserve) the luxury of changing our minds in the middle of the fight or when the going gets tough. Americans used to be made of tougher stuff. I think we can all agree that our troops have proven their mettle. How about you?

2006-12-21T13:28:00.000-08:00

My fellow Rockheads, today I write to vent my frustration. I've had it with liberalism. I'm tired of their condesending, arrogance, their anger, and their meaness.

It is plain to see, there are examples of it all around you. The latest example of course is that woman, Rosie Odonnell. Has she every said anything nice about a conservative? Has she? Oh maybe if there were money involved, but I mean other than that?

Donald Trump is her latest target, and he is not standing for any of it by the way, and it's about time somebody slapped her fat jowels. You see, Rosie O'donnell is a raging lesbian, a radical lesbian, a feminist, in short, she is everything unattractive in a women today. Brash, confrontational, mean, loud, rude, arrogant, ugly, condesending, but the thing is this, she thinks that because she is a woman, and a lesbian that nobody can challenge her. You see, according to the unwritten rules of political correctness, nobody should be allowed to stand up to her, due to her various minority status she enjoys, she thinks that puts her off limits while allowing her to viciously attack others with impunity.

Why is it that liberals cannot debate based on the merits of the facts? Why is it that liberals cannot debate without calling their opponents nasty names? Why must liberals wallow in the mud like that? I'll tell you why, because conservatives aren't willing to go there, it is the liberal sanctuary. Why is it that liberals cannot defend the tenants of their philosophy? Hell, do you even know a liberal who can describe their philosophy to you? Bet you don't. Because they don't have one. It seems to me that liberalism is a ghost movment, a loose conglomoration of single issue radical groups pushing their particular cause and all falling (thankfully) under the Democratic umbrella. My friends, a simple experiment can demonstrate this for you easily. Ask a conservative to explain conservatism to you, and he can do it in about thirty seconds. Ask a liberal to explain theirs and you'll never get the same answer twice.

I know conservatives who have had their cars egged for no other reason that they have a George Bush bumper sticker on their car. I know conservatives who have had their yards toilet paperd for no other reason that they had a campaign sign touting a Republican in their yard.

In some liberal internet discussion boards I participate on I have read some of the most offensive, inaccurate, mean statements about President Bush that I can scarcely beleive an American wrote them. I never saw such inflammatory things written about President Clinton, because conservatives refuse to stoop to that level.

My friends, I'm planning on writing about this topic in detail after Christmas and New Years. Untill then, remember the reason for the season. Thank the Lord above for your life and your family, thank him for being blessed to live in this land. And don't let the liberal cabal get you down. Feel free to post some comments describing some of your experiences with liberals and progressives and I'll incorporate them into my next blog entry.

Merry Christmas friends.

2006-12-04T12:41:00.000-08:00

World War III?

Well, here we are, a month after the Democratic "blue tidal wave of change" swept the nation.....yaaaawn. And so far, I'm not impressed, not a bit. The thought occurred to me the other day that, regarding Iraq and the middle east at large, events have been fairly easy to predict. In fact, I've made so many correct predictions that I scare myself. Surely I thought to myself at this epiphany, I'm not the smartest man in the United States am I? If I am, we're in serious trouble. No, of course I'm not the smartest American, intelligent, yes, I am. But I think what separates me (and most Americans) from our politicians is that we aren't afraid to, or we aren't prevented from using our logic and common sense to stay ahead of international events. And because we don't have to reach consensus, we are able to see these things and speak our opinion, while our government needing to reach consensus before taking action is always behind the population in this regard.

As usual, I'm going to make some comments about Iraq, and the middle east because frankly I'm more than a little bit concerned. When I was stationed with the 11th ACR in Bad Kissingen Germany, on the East/West German Inter zonal Border, I often received phone calls at 0200 (2:00AM) notifying me of an alert. This was during the height of the Cold War, and with Soviet and East German troops just thirty minutes from the border we had to stay ready for anything and the balloon could have gone up at any moment. Consequently, whenever I got one of those early morning phone calls and I'd begin racing around the house grabbing my gear and some pogy bait, my wife would instantly begin to worry, and my standard answer was, there is no need for you to worry unless I'm worried. Having been through many of these alert exercises I could tell when something was out of the ordinary. I have kind of developed that knowledge from experience. As far as the middle east is concerned, having been in the region myself, having fought a war there and having participated in writing On Point, and studying the war, and small wars in general, I'm afraid that the region is not drifting toward war; it is running. Don't throw yourself off a cliff Rockheads, it's just my opinion, and in this case I wouldn't mind being wrong for a change.

How do I support this contention? Fair question, first and foremost, I have to say that Rumsfeld quit two years too late. There was most definitely a window of opportunity for us to quash the insurgency in it's infancy. When the Hussein regime fell, the time was as ripe as it would ever be to consolidate the support of the average Iraqi family. Instead, we dillied and we dallied. Rumsfeld; loathe to admit he was wrong about anything in Iraq, specifically in admitting that the General Officers who urged him to deploy more troops initially were right, well, he just kind of shrugged his shoulders and said shit happens (my words, not his). I will spare you the laundry list of terrible decisions, costly blunders, lapses in judgement and even condescending arrogance that emanated from OSD. Suffice to say, OSD blew the every real chance we had to end this operation quickly. And, the weeks and months passed, the situation became more fluid, new players and organizations seeking power emerged. But we stayed the course when we should have been seriously altering our operations, tactics, techniques and procedures (TTP).
Don't get me wrong, our troops have performed magnificently, and the successes that have been realized in Iraq, has been due to the bravery, sacrifice and the ingenuity of our troops. Their ability, their drive to succeed even when poorly lead has been inspirational and in the spirit of everything that is great about our military. Our troops performance thus far measures up to anything that any generation of past American fighting men and women have ever done in the history of our country in any war.

I worry about a regional war in the middle east, not because I give a rats ass about the region or the people, but because I worry about the welfare of our troops and the possibility that we will one day find ourselves over there again, a participant in a much bigger, more costly and deadly war involving many nations. For the life of me, I can't understand how liberals cannot understand and accept that fact. I have come to the conclusion that the first priority of the left is the denial of any semblance of success attributed to the Bush Administration, I think their mindless opposition to the war comes from the 2000 election and the stolen election conspiracy theory, they haven't gotten over it after six years! Isn't it ironic how the left is silent regarding stolen elections when they win? Yeah, ironic. And note, Republicans aren't making the claim either, you win some, you lose some. Anyway, back to the middle east. I have always given allot of credit to the Generals who have been speaking in public about the war. And I still give them credit. For example, a speech that was not covered by the main stream media, a speech that General Abizaid gave at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government in Cambridge. I what General Abizaid calls "the Long War" he likens radical Islam to the rise of Nazi Germany and says that if we can't muster the courage to stand up to radical Islam now, we could find ourselves fighting World War III tomorrow. I agree.

Take the comments from President Amadinejahd of Iran over the past year. Can we afford to believe him when he says his country is not seeking nuclear weapons? What if Iran does become a member of the nuclear club? How long do you think it will be before Iran uses nuclear weapons on Israel? I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that if they can, they will. Take a look at some of the things he has said, and remember, he actually said these things, they are direct quotes:

"They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets."
"We ask the West to remove what they created sixty years ago and if they do not listen to our recommendations, then the Palestinian nation and other nations will eventually do this for them."
"The real Holocaust is what is happening in Palestine where the Zionists avail themselves of the fairy tale of Holocaust as blackmail and justification for killing children and women and making innocent people homeless."
"The West claims that more than six million Jews were killed in World War II and to compensate for that they established and support Israel. If it is true that the Jews were killed in Europe, why should Israel be established in the East, in Palestine?"
"If you have burned the Jews, why don't you give a piece of Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to Israel. Our question is, if you have committed this huge crime, why should the innocent nation of Palestine pay for this crime?"
"Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury."
"Remove Israel before it is too late and save yourself from the fury of regional nations."
"The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land. As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."
"If the West does not support Israel, this regime will be toppled. As it has lost its raison d' tre, Israel will be annihilated."
"Israel is a tyrannical regime that will one day will be destroyed."
"Israel is a rotten, dried tree that will be annihilated in one storm."
"[There is] no significant need for the United States."
"Iranians possess delicate characteristics. They introduce their merits, which are extremely attractive to whole the world."
"We are ready to hold dialogue with all countries of the world except for the Israeli regime."
"Those who insulted the prophet should know that you cannot obscure the sun with a handful of dust. The dust will just get back and blind your own eyes."
"We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point - that is the Almighty God. My question for you is, 'Do you not want to join them?"

Iran is funding, equipping and training Shia militiamen who then enlist in the Iraqi Police Force and who execute Sunni Iraqis in a revenge killing campaign, but the Sunnis are fighting back and thus, the sectarian violence we hear about. But where are the Sunni getting their support? Are they getting outside assistance? Yes, I believe they are, and it is coming from Saudi Arabia. You see, Sunnis are the majority in the middle east. The Shia are the majority in Iran and Iraq. And if we leave Iraq before we finish the job, how long do you think it will be before Iran and Saudi Arabia find themselves on a collision course that neither can avoid? The likely scenario goes like this. We leave Iraq and Iran moves in overtly, in response, Saudi Arabia floods the oil market causing an oil glut and the price per barrel on the world market decreases by at least half. Saudi Arabia can survive such a drop in oil revenue, but Iran can't. That puts the ball in Iran's court, what will they do? And, rumor has it that Saudi Arabia has already begun construction on some hard surface roads that will expedite the transport of military equipment in the general direction of Iran, given the location and direction of these new roads, there is no other conceivable use for them. If Saudi Arabia and Iran become belligerents in an open war, how long will it be before other Sunni nations join Sauid Arabia? How long do you think it will be before Iran gives the green light to terrorists all over the world to set their long standing plans of attack into motion? And, when the oil pipelines are destroyed, and the world's demand for oil cannot be met, how long before oil consumer nations get involved? And what if Israel is attacked, for this would surely happen if warfare broke out in the middle east. The Palestinian Territories will become a blood bath, Lebanon will also re-ignite, prompting the entry of Syria into the war. And if a nuke is used by Iran anywhere, I promise you that the US will respond militarily. Possibly using tactical nuclear weapons to destroy nuclear facilities buried too deep to be reached by conventional weapons.

You get the general idea. And although this is only my personal opinion and, I hope I'm wrong I don't think I am. This scenario might not play out exactly as I have described, but I'm confident that it will be something along these lines.

So, before we rush into a hasty decision in leaving Iraq, lets think this thing all the way through this time and make the correct decision. And in my opinion, the correct decision is to stay and fight. Stay and finish the job and ignore that warm breeze, the hot air coming from the liberal left insisting that leaving Iraq tomorrow. Leaving Iraq prematurely will only ensure that we end up back there in the near future fighting a regional war that has the potential to ignite World War III. Think I'm nuts? That's what the anti war folk were saying prior to World War II, it isn't our fight, stay out of it. We couldn't stay out of it then and with the world now a global village how can we stay out of it today? Unfortunately we can't live without oil and we will fight to have access to it. You remember that the Empire of Japan attacked Pearl Harbor precisely because they were starved for oil?

2006-11-07T11:44:00.000-08:00

Don't vote for a Democrat!

Good Day fellow Rockheads. Today is voting day, and right after work I'll be making a bee-line to my polling station to cast may ballot. Now, as you know I'm a registered Independent voter, but I will probably vote for Republicans in most elections. Why? Because I'm so sick of the Democrats that I can hardly keep from putting a combat boot through my television screen upon sight of Rangle, Murtha, Kerry, Clinton, Pelosi, Cuomo, Conyers, you name the Democrat and I probably want to kick in his teeth, and I could too, no problem. I'm sick already of the allegations of Republican operatives committing voter fraud! The election isn't even over and already, they are setting the stage for either contingency, win, or lose. And yet, Democratic operatives like ACORN are out their conducting their black ops, and not a peep from the main stream media.

This will be a short blog entry, short but sweet. The world wide web is full of bloggers who try and write like PhD's they try to emulate journalists, etc. Not me, I'm just a veteran grunt who has something to say. If you vote for Democrats, and they take control of the House of Representatives, stand by for gridlock the likes of which we haven't seen in fifty years, look for funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to dry up in an effort to force the redeployment of our troops. Other than that, who in the hell knows what the Democratic plan is? If anyone does know, please send it to me, I'd like to see it.

As to the endless, whining about voter fraud, lets not forget which party invented it. Voter fraud has been around since the beginning of our Republic. I abhor it no matter what party affiliation is involved, it erodes the integrity of our voting process and it is in the pursuit of naked power that it is committed. It's a national travesty; a disgrace! But if you were paying attention the the main stream media only, you'd think only Republicans are doing it, and you'd be wrong. Ever hear of a little group called ACORN? Check out this report, and be sure to view the video.

The reason that Republicans get the nod on my ballot in most cases is because I know their platform, I know their plan. They have core values and I can recite them for you in thirty seconds. Not so with the Democrats. Now, don't get me wrong, I vote for the person I think is best qualified for the office. And today, election day, I know nothing more about the Democrats than I did two years ago. And I'm not the only one, even a die hard liberal like Michael Kinsley doesn't know what the Democrat plan is, see his latest editorial on the topic in the Washington Post. The Democrats might come away with the House of Representatives, and if you vote for a Democrat for the sake of change, excuse me, but your an idiot. You are choosing a unknown for a known. And my fellow Rockheads, your going to get the exact government you deserve. A government that will be less effective than it is today.

The Democrats have offered nothing but doom and gloom, demonized Republicans, and insulted the intelligence of average Americans, and if you vote for them your wasting your vote. Now, let me be clear, I'm far from pleased with the performance of President Bush, his cabinet, or the Republican dominated Congress. But, I'm not going to reward the Democrats for running such fear mongering, negative campaigns. If the Democrats ever return to their Blue Dog roots, perhaps they will get my vote, but as long as they continue the shrill, radical screaming, they don't get the time of day from me.

Go and vote my fellow Rockheads, by all means, the more people who vote the better. But before you punch a hole in your ballot, before you touch that interactive screen give it some thought. And let reality sink in, think about what you are voting for, not what you are voting against, because in voting against something, you are opening the door for the unknown which could very well be worse than what you have.

2006-10-18T08:37:00.000-07:00

Are you brave?

My fellow Americans. It has come to my attention that support for the war in Iraq is falling. Why? I ask you to sincerely reflect upon this in your quiet moments.

During discussions I've participated in with people who support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq I have attempted to understand their point of view. I'm perfectly willing to be convinced that we should withdraw from Iraq. But nobody has convinced me. I have yet to hear a war opponent give me a good argument for leaving Iraq. And now, I'm beginning to think that their opposition to the war is grounded in the selfish, short sighted and possibly disastrous desire to oppose anything and everything that comes from the Bush Administration; in other words, their opposition to the war is based on politics. Since the presidential election of 2000, I've heard people claim that the election was stolen by Bush. And in 2004, sure that they would see John Kerry win only to see him lose in another close election, the opposition to Bush has grown into irrational hate. When I cruise the World Wide Web, and I come across chat boards in which I find images of George Bush photo shopped into grotesque images of Adolph Hitler, or a chimpanzee or any number of childish things, I automatically tune them out. I refuse to listen to anyone devoid of the self discipline to participate in a discussion in an adult, civil manner.

The war in Iraq is an unconventional fight. It is a kind of war we have little experience with. It is not quite an insurgency, and it is not quite a fight against terror, it is something else, something in between, it is a hybrid war, a war with the hallmarks of several different kinds of war, but for the sake of this entry I refer to it as an insurgency. It will take us some time to figure out how to fight it effectively, the history of warfare tells us that. To expect the insurgency in Iraq to be put down by now is unrealistic. Historically insurgencies have always been lengthy efforts, requiring patience and determination from the counter insurgent. But in the society we live in, where we routinely receive instant gratification our ability to stay focused, our willingness to accept delayed gratification seems to have gone the way of the Do Do Bird. My friends, the only way we will lose in Iraq is if we allow it. Our military has had a steep learning curve, but they've figured this out and now, they need our unwavering support. Indications are, that our government has finally figured it out as well, and they need our support as well. This will not require any sacrifice on the part of the average American family, all it requires is for America to stop being hyper critical.

And now my friends, what will happen to Iraq if we leave? First, you must answer this basic question; do you care? It seems to me that in listening to the war opponents lament the loss of innocent Iraqi lives, that America does care. And since that is the case, pulling out of Iraq now makes no sense at all. Because if we do, Iraq will become a blood bath. If you think the sectarian violence is bad, consider this. If we leave, an all out civil war will erupt in Iraq, pitting the Shia majority with the active support of Iran, against the Sunni and Kurd minority. The killing will be countrywide, it will be Kosovo all over again only worse, ethnic cleansing on such a massive scale that it might be better described as genocide.

Do any of you trust Iran? Why would you possibly support our withdrawal and hand Iraq over to Iran complete with gift wrapping and ribbon? This my friends, without a doubt, will give international terrorism a home base, a sanctuary the likes of which they have never had before, complete with military arms, ammunition and equipment sitting around unattended ready to use. If we leave, who will be left in Iraq to prevent this? The Iraqi government is not strong enough, the Iraqi military isn't strong enough, there will be nobody to oppose the bad guys and the Iraqi people will be at their mercy.

The basic problem, most Middle East experts agree is the situation with Israel and the Palestinians. If we leave Iraq, our credibility or whats left of it, will be in tatters. It was bad enough that upon driving the Iraqi Army out of Kuwait during Operation Desert Storm that President Bush told the Iraqi Shia that if they took up arms against Saddam Hussein that we would assist them, and then to have abandoned them allowing Saddam to massacre them by the thousands. What will remain of our credibility, if after overthrowing Saddam, allowing chaos to ensue, only to leave before the job was done? Who would possibly take the chance in trusting us again? Iran will become the sole dominant force in the Middle East, along with a much weakened Israel. Israel, still smarting from the Lebanon conflict, and with the prospect of unilateral withdrawal completely discredited, will have little leverage with Iran. And my friends, it would only be a matter of time. A simple matter of time if we left, that the sectarian violence in Iraq turned into all out civil war, drawing in Iraq's neighbors, igniting a regional conflict and ultimately resulting in a military attack against Israel. And then, guess what? We will be back in the Middle East, participating in a bigger, more costly, more deadly war as an ally of Israel.

It is time for Americans to find their backbone. It is time to draw from the well of the generations of Americans past. For, they had the courage, discipline, the basic understanding that if they did not do the hard thing now, that they would be required to do a much harder thing later.

This fight is more important than perhaps most of the war opponents think. This fight isn't about oil or imperialism, those are just meaningless buzzwords used cavalierly by the opponents. It is a fight for our survival. This is a fight to change the attitudes of future generations of Iraqis, Arabs, and muslims. If we do not defeat the enemy in Iraq, they will have virtual free reign to recruit, finance, plan future terrorist operations and to train future terrorists for generations to come. Is that the kind of prospect that you want to leave to your children and grandchildren? Radical Islam is on the march. Who is going to oppose it if we do not?

My friends, it is far too early to give up. You defeatists out there who lack the courage of our ancestors, you need to educate yourselves and you need to wake the hell up. For all of the talk of how grim the situation is, to those of your prone to believe the politically motivated doomsday sayers I say; think for yourself! We overthrew the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein, liberated more the 50 million people from these two murderous, oppressive regimes. Don't you feel good about that? To write off the effort in Iraq as lost at this point would be like writing off the possibility of democracy in Europe because the failure of the revolutions in 1848. The problem in Iraq isn't that the people reject democracy. It is that there is not enough democracy there yet.

The enemy is getting support from Iran Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Syria. Do you note any democracies in that bunch? For all the yammering about how democracy doesn't stand a chance to grow in Iraq, has a credible alternative been offered by the anti war crowd? That's my whole point. The anti war crowd isn't thinking this through! Are we to return to the pre 9/11 paradigm and supporting our "friendly" dictators like Mubarak or the Saudi Royal Family? If our support for the Shah of Iran or of Yasser Arafat taught Americans anything, it should surely be that a secular strongman cannot keep the lid on indefinitely. We have to fix this, just like we did in Europe and Japan.

Again, we will not win overnight so stop acting like we should people! The President has told us from the outset that this fight would be a long one, and since the American people aren't suffering in support of it, whats the beef? Do not forget my friends many Americans were in utter despair at the prospect of the Cold War. In the late 1940s, communism appeared to be an unstoppable force, just as Islamism does to us today. Our enemies then; China and the Soviet Union were far, far more powerful than Al Qaeda and Iran are combined today. When Whittaker Chambers publicly broke with the Communist Party in 1948, he declared, "I know that I am leaving the winning side for the losing side." Yet the West ultimately prevailed. And just as the Soviet Union collapsed in record time, with the dismantling of the Berlin Wall and the Inter zonal German Border Fence, so, the cancer of Islamism in the Middle East could fall apart even faster than any of us expect! It could be, that all that is required is for a functioning model of democracy in a major Middle Eastern country. There is a little talked about fact of the Middle East the main stream media doesn't tell you about, there is a huge, underground, grass roots hunger for democracy among the younger generations in the region, yes, it's true. In Egypt, Iran, the people of the region yearn for change, to modernize, the dissatisfaction is palpable in the streets from Cairo to Tehran and the spark these people may only need is for Iraq to succeed and they will set themselves free.

My fellow Americans, as we well know, only democracy can satisfy the deepest desires of human nature. The question is not the outcome in Iraq now, it is how many people on both sides will die in the intervening decades? As our historic fight against communism and fascism suggest, determined American leadership can lower the death toll and speed up freedom's victory.

A retreat from Iraq now, will only serve to delay the inevitable emergence of democracy in the Middle East, it will only prolong the suffering of the Iraqi people and the people of the Middle East (for they are indeed suffering) and it will almost preordain, a major conflagration in the region, a conflagration that will draw us back to the region only under much more dire circumstances.

Think about it.

2006-09-26T10:02:00.000-07:00

Ahmadinejad; Graduate of the Adolph Hitler School of how to win friends and influence people.

Ahmadinejad; Hitler reincarnate.

In my previous blog I commented on Hugo Chavez's speech before the UN. I can't comment on that babbling monkey without commenting on his partner in crime, the current President of Iran.

Like Chavez, Admadinejad addressed the UN recently. Although Admadinejad attempted to present himself as a genuine, enlightened, worldly politician, the reality of his deeds do not jibe with the picture he attempts to paint.

Ahmadinejad is attempting to remake his image in the west. He would like us to forget the prominent role he played in the Tehran Hostage Debacle during the Carter Presidency. Unfortunately, Americans have a short memory so it serves us well to examine this sorry excuse for a human being.

Ahmadinejad's speech to the UN was overflowing with lies and illusions that were designed to capture the imagination of the UN membership. So, he conveniently left his Islamic-fascist ideals back in Iran. Missing from his UN speech was his call for the outright destruction of Israel. Relying on his penchant for revising history, which appeals the the left of America. He continues to try to deny the legitimacy of Israel's existence.

Also missing from his UN speech? His declaration that "Islam will conquer all the mountain tops of the world." In it's place he called for "justice, spirituality, ethics, compassion and respect for human dignity." But who are the enemies of these universal values? According to Ahmadinejad, certainly not Islamic fundamentalists such as himself! After all, Islamic fundamentalists kill most non-muslims with equal vigor and elan, be they Christian, Hindu or Jew in the name of muslim supremacy and who also murder their own people for crimes like political dissent. Of course, the enemies of these universal values are the United States, and the United Kingdom, isn't that obvious? The guilty parties are the "hegemonic powers" who abuse their "privileged" status on the UN Security Council to escape accountability for their "aggression, occupation and violation of international law."

By comparison to Chavez's clownish performance before the UN, Ahmadinejad tried to present himself as an enlightened leader, modern and inclusive. But it is exactly this hypocritical posturing that makes this megalomaniac such a dangerous man. Ominously Hitler-like, Ahmadinejad is attempting to lull the world into appeasement and passivity while he plans behind closed doors to develop nuclear weapons and finances global terror with his nation's oil profits.

This man is intelligently playing the Palestinian victim hood card before a willing international audience. But his stand boils down pretty much to this. Why should a group of European survivors of the Holocaust (which he denies ever occurred) have any right to occupy a land thousands of miles from Europe "at the expense of driving millions of rightful inhabitants of the land into homelessness? To anyone with even a general understanding of history, Ahmadinejad is telling lies wrapped in a sympathetic package of bogus claims.

If I could speak to Mr. Ahmadinejad I would tell him I'm sorry to pop your delusional bubble, but the Holocaust did happen. It is beyond disingenuous for him; in the face of overwhelming evidence to deny it happened. To deny the Nazi slaughter of six million innocent Jews, demonstrates a true madness, a calculating evil temperament and an sinister motivation.

His accusations that the Israel has no right to exist stems from his delusional mind. The Jews preceded the muslims in that region by centuries. The Jews have been living in Israel for over three millennia. The Persian, King Cyrus recognized Jew's claim to their homeland. After King Cyrus conquered the city of Babylon (central Iraq) in 539 BC, he liberated Jews held captive in Babylon for three generations and encouraged them to return to their homeland in Israel and rebuilt the Jewish temple in Jerusalem. About a thousand years later in 641 BC, the Caliph, Umar decreed that Christians and Jews should be removed from most of Islamic holy lands of Arabia, and resettled them by force in lands assigned to them in Syria and Palestine. During this time in history, followers of Muhammad themselves believed that the Jews belonged in Palestine.

In 1948, Israel was recognized as an independent state by the UN . But the Arabs rejected the presence of an independent Palestinian state. The Palestinians already living inside Israel could have stayed, as some did and became Israeli citizens. Yet it was neighboring countries who encouraged the Palestinian inhabitants to leave their homes, with the promise that they would be allowed to return in short order after the Arabs attacked and drove out the Jews. For over twenty years the Palestinians could still have had their own state on the West Bank. Israeli forces were not driven out, from there or in Gaza until the 1967 when war convinced the nation of Israel that for their security the needed to be there out of necessity.

All Israel has ever wanted is to be left alone to live in peace and openly as Jews in their own lands without interference, and they were forced to fight for it on several occasions. In so doing Israel has never suppressed the rights of others who lived in Israel to practice their own faiths, which is exactly what Islamic fascists like Ahmandinejad have refused to tolerate in muslim controlled lands regarding non-muslim faiths. Instead of peace, Israelis have faced escalating campaigns to wipe them out. His words on justice, peace and human dignity before the UN runs hollow in the face of his actual intentions. If Iran ever procures a nuclear device he will use it on Israel, I guarantee it. And that will only be the opening act of his cause of global conquest in the name of Islam.

The United States and United Kingdom have proven to be responsible members of the UN Security Council and that international peace is their prime motivator by the blood and treasure our peoples have sacrificed for those causes. The US and UK championed the formulation of the UN from the destruction of WWII and together we have kept it together with financial contributions over it's life span. The US alone pays 22% of the UN's annual regular budget and billions more for other UN functions and programs. Guess how much oil rich Iran has contributed? .15%. No member of the Organization of Islamic Conference or the African continent are even in the top ten list of contributors to the UN's 2006 budget. Considering Ahmadinejad's repeated call for the destruction of Israel, a member in good standing in the UN, Iran should be expelled immediately from the UN altogether for violating this basic UN Charter! Rather, Iran is rewarded while Israel is penalized and vilified for protecting herself. Israel pays three times the amount that Iran pays, even though Iran is rich from oil sales and it has three times the share of the world's Gross Domestic Product than Israel.

The US and other functioning democracies in the world have consistently displayed compassion for the world's poor with massive public and private donations of aid. While the pretenders like Ahmadinejad of Iran seek to exploit their plight for political advantage, it's repugnant! While the US has acted as a leader in trying to prevent new genocide, such as Dafur in the Sudan, Africa, while members of the Non-Aligned Movement and Organization of Islamic Conference have either sat on their money or have aligned themselves with those who are committing genocide against their own people.

The history of WWII must be re-taught again and again to new generations of Hitler wannabes like Ahmadinejad. But alas, it seems the world democracies who lived through that horror and conquered fascism are the only ones who possess the courage to display the moral authority to rise and challenge fascism again, in our own lifetimes.

In a revealing editorial called "Sleeping with a devil in Islamic clothing," by a Somali journalist Bashir Goth, he describes the new Islamic fascist regime in Somalia, we get a taste of the Islamic-fascist idea of peace, justice and human dignity. It is not a pretty picture. The Somalians' native culture, identity, including their language is being wiped out before their eyes, much as the Taliban did in Afghanistan and the Arab muslims have done for centuries in Persia where Ahmadinejad is the latest in a long line of Islamic fundamentalists who have tried to stamp out the native Persian language, religious beliefs and culture.

Basic human rights are being denied in Somalia, as radical Islam has done in every area it has managed to take root. "The warlords use brute force to coerce people and the Islamists use brute religion to dehumanize people" wrote Bashir Goth. Islamic law (Sharia) is being applied through brute force. People who do not dutifully pray five times a day face the death penalty, he reports. Women are shackled at home.

Bashir Goth concludes: "Allowing them (the Islamists) to fulfill their agenda under the pretext of returning Somalia to peace is not only myopic but also foolhardy and sleeping with a devil in Islamic clothing." (Source: The Middle East Media Research Institute, Special Dispatches Series - No 1290, September 15, 2006, from Awdalnews.com, August 26, 2006).

This is the kind of world that this little man, (Ahmadinejad) has in store for the world if he gets his hands on a nuclear weapon. You are a FOOL if you believe this Islamic fascist nutcase when he boldly lies and manipulates the vocabulary of Western enlightenment and democratic values as he did in his pack of lies and accusations at the UN last week.
Ahmadinejad is an evil man bent on bringing about the Islamic version of the apocalypse. He desires to hasten the appearance of the hidden Imam which is supposedly to usher in an era of Islamic domination of the world.

I say, if you give this man an inch, he will take a mile, and then you will discover too late, you were a willing fool. He will lead you to slaughter. He will smile at you and shake your hand if it brings about the downfall of everything non-muslim in the world. Ahmadinejad is as evil as they come. He is trying to use our open, freedom loving society, our compassion, our freedom of speech and our tolerance to bring about our own destruction.

2006-09-21T11:27:00.000-07:00

THE DEVIL!

Hugo Chavez is the devil!

I watched the President of Venezuela deliver a speech to a virtually empty UN a couple of days ago. A speech in which he called President Bush "The Devil" no less than eight times. I sat on my sofa doing a slow burn as I watched theatrics the likes of which have not been seen since the days of Adolf Hitler. Somehow I think Fidel gave him some tips on his delivery during Chavez's visit to old Fidel a few weeks ago.The few UN members who bothered to stick around and listen to this chattering monkey were given quite a treat, but it was not a speech befitting the UN. It was a display of arrogance, it was the epitome of self righteous indignation. It became obvious to me that the UN members who stayed in their seats to listen to this idiot were of the same mind as Chavez, for I heard laughter, chuckles and applause throughout his inane, baseless diatribe and I took solace in the fact that most of the UN members knew that he wasn't worth their time. In short, Hugo Chavez made an absolute idiot of himself in front of the entire nation. He should have painted his face with clown makeup.

Hugo Chavez had the audacity to criticize the United States and our president, as though Venezuela is perfect. Lets just take a moment to take a look at the wonderful state of Venezuela under the dictatorship of Hugo "The Devil" Chavez shall we? Who knows, maybe we'll learn how to govern a proper democracy?

The members of the UN who graciously sat through Chavez's speech against President Bush are among the very same UN members that have urged Venezuela to repeal laws that allow for the prosecution and imprisonment of it's citizens who disrespect certain state officials, naturally including El Presidenta Chavez for up to 40 months. Additionally, Chavez's Venezuela may also prosecute citizens for "defaming" the government as well. The UN and Human Rights Watch have urged Venezuela to repeal such laws as Argentina, Costa Rica, Paraguay and Peru have done already. Chile and Panama are in the process of repealing such laws.

Human Rights Watch has also expressed concern as the Venezuelan Congress dealt a sever blow to independence by packing the country's Supreme Court with 12 new justices. Five years ago Presidential Candidate Chavez promised to enshrine the principle of judicial independence with a new democratic constitution. After his election, the Chavez government betrays that promise by expanding the court from 20 to 32 members with the 12 new members all being members of Chavez's Fifth Republic Movement. This court packing law also gave the governing coalition the power to remove judges from the court without the two-thirds vote required under the constitution.

The state effectively controls television and radio broadcasting. Through the Law of Social Responsibility in Radio and Television the state, through loosely worded rules on incitement of breaches of public order can penalize broadcasters legitimate expression of political views.

The people of the United States should be outraged by Chavez's remarks. His criticism should ring hallow for every day, he increases his power through abuse of his authority.

Chavez is a socialist, claims to embrace democracy while totally rejecting the claim he's a dictator. But if you'll recall your history, Chavez eventually was elected president after his failed coup attempt in 1992 which resulted in the deaths of 14 soldiers and over 100 civilian and military injuries. Ever wonder why Venezuela is even more divided that the United States? Chavez and his allies took it upon themselves to circumvent democracy with their coup attempt! And he now has the audacity to claim he believes in democracy? Where were his beliefs in 1992? Ultimately the president they were trying to overthrow was removed from office the next year as a result of charges of corruption, which makes it abundantly clear, the Venezuela political system was healthy and capable of dealing with such abuses through legal means, his coup was a complete waste of time, and unfortunately people died as a result.

In 1994 after serving two years in prison for his coup attempt, he was graciously pardoned as was his main ally Francisco Cardenas. In 1998 he ran a populist campaign that was funded in large measure by millions of dollars in illegal contributions by two foreign banks. During his campaign he swore to abolish the traditional political system, put an end to corruption in government and eliminate poverty in the country. In 1999, the Venezuelan Constitution was rewritten by a group of Chavez supporters. This new and "improved" constitution tremendously increased the power of the president and weakened the power of the legislature.

In 2000, Chavez was not surprisingly re-elected under the new constitution. Amazingly enough, his opponent was his chief ally, Cardenas, and between the two of them, they captured 97% of the vote. Surprise of surprises, Cardenas is now the Venezuelan ambassador to the United Nations. This would seem to indicate that the voters of Venezuela had to choose between the lesser of two evils that had a mere eight years prior, been traitors to the country.

In 2004, Venezuelans attempted to recall Chavez was impeded by the government, recall supporters were subject to intimidation but eventually a recall referendum was held. Chavez, allegedly survived with 60% of the vote in his favor. That recall was endorsed by President Carter, but exit polls indicated the opposite; that Chavez was effectively recalled by 60% of the voters. The vote was marred by a lack of transparency and obstructionism during the process that led to the US News and World Report to agree that there was compelling reason to believe that Chavez only retained his presidency due to massive voter fraud!

Has Chavez made good on his campaign promise to improve the lot of the poor in his country? It seems doubtful according to most UN and Human Rights Watch reports. Chavez seems to be spending the bulk of his time and effort in office in rigging a way for him to stay in office longer than the constitutionally mandated two terms. Time will tell in that regard.

Chavez undoubtedly engaged in traitorous acts against his country, was imprisoned, accepted illegal campaign contributions from rich multinational companies while claiming to being interested in helping the poor, he created a new constitution handing him more and more power. His only subsequent election was against a coup co-conspirator of his 1992 coup attempt who is now ambassador to the UN, it is likely that he was recalled by the voters of Venezuela in 2004, his government is rife with the exact corruption as previous governments and he is already attempting to rewrite the constitution so he can continue as the president.

Chavez deserves nothing from Americans but our contempt. Over the past few years, Chavez has made headlines not through anti poverty campaigns or fighting corruption in the government, but through a domestic was-the-dog campaign in which he has attempted to convince the citizens of Venezuela that an American attack is imminent, and by a more recent international campaign that is characterized by an inflammatory anti-American message. His domestic agenda is clear, to unite Venezuelans against an imaginary American military strike, in this way he distracts the people from whatever complaints they might otherwise voice against him as the move ever closer to the election in December. His anti-American rhetoric seems to be focused on gaining prominence in the eyes of the world and to gain support for his call for Venezuela to be given a seat on the UN Security Council; which is laughable and would be an utter disaster.

If it were not bad enough to have an idiot, tinpot dictator in the western hemisphere to step into the role of Castro, Chavez is supporting Iran in their nuclear program. He has also allied himself with Syria and hopes soon to meet with the pot bellied pig in North Korea. He has threatened to stop selling oil to the US. Chavez is clearly an irrational man conducting a dangerous foreign policy that borders on brinkmanship. He is attempting to solidify a bloc of anti-American nations to oppose and undermine the US. He even went so far as to recommend that the UN be moved from the US to some other location, and naturally he offered Venezuela as an option. While he obviously hates our President, he has also made it abundantly clear that he is opposed to the "American Empire", and that does not refer to President Bush alone, he's talking about America proper. I predict that Chavez is going to be the President of Venezuela for decades, when Bush is long gone.

Many countries may not be fond of our President, but there is a difference between disliking our President and creating an anti-American alliance that will in all probability be in existence long after Bush leaves office. I tell you here and now, the only way Chavez will relinquish office is through death or political uprising at the hands of the people of Venezuela.

Americans should understand and remember that Chavez is not our friend. He is a liar who will stoop to any means necessary to bring about our downfall. Not only is he actively engaged in creating an anti-American alliance, he is forming that alliance with the most brutal and irrational governments on the face of the earth, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba. At least two of these unstable countries is in or about to join the nuclear club. And all are safe haven to state sponsored terrorists. This week for example, Iran and Venezuela signed an agreement to produce gun powder and small aircraft in Venezuela, why gun powder? Does Iran intend to use it for their peaceful alternative power program too?

My fellow Americans, we have our differences, and regardless of how you feel about President Bush, that fact is Chavez is opposing him to curry the favor of those who do not support him. Do not let Chavez fool you into thinking he is your friend. Remember the reality of how Chavez got to the presidency. Remember he is a socialist, his lack of attention to his campaign promise to alleviate the suffering of the poor, who constitute 50% of the population of Venezuela by the way. And remember the fact that he is trying to recruit rogue states into an alliance against our country.

Think about this, Chavez hangs onto his power by using the tactics that many accuse Bush of using regarding election fraud. It is reasonable to conclude that those who make these kinds of accusations against the President of the United States should hold Chavez to the same standard, should they not? Yet, some who accuse Bush excuse Chavez. In so doing, they do a disservice to the democratic principles they claim to hold in such esteem.

In the 1980s the US treated an Iraqi dictator as a friend because he was opposed to the US's enemies in the region; Iran. Ten years later, he became our enemy and the conflict that ensued has torn our unity apart. Some Americans that approve of Chavez are the same ones that accuse past administrations of stupidity in supporting Saddam in the early years. But these same people have not learned an important lesson from that mistake; That the enemy of your enemy is not always your friend. Just because Iraq stood against Iran did not make Saddam any less brutal. Likewise, certain Americans need to come to the realization that the fact that Chavez opposes Bush does not make him a friend of the American opponents to Bush.

We have far more things in common with one another than we do differences. One thing, one man that should unite us, is that cackling monkey, Hugo Chavez.

2006-09-18T10:42:00.000-07:00

Christiandom stirring?

Once again my friends, we are treated to the spector of peaceful muslims on the march in western cities, over the reading of statements uttered during a religious war that occured over 500 years ago. Pope Benedict is now the target of vicious attacks, from verbal insults to threats of death.

Pope Benedict's merely reading a historical quote has touched off yet another firestorm of muslim protest, yet another round of red faced, frothing at the mouth protests as well as murder, vandalism and threats.

My friends; think, think about what has transpired. It is high time that westerners, whether religious or not, begin think about what we are faced with.

I will not belabor the fact that Islam is full of contradictions, which is really where it derives it's strength. That Islam easily lends itself to the justification of violence and making war. That once a person becomes a muslim, he is fairly considered a slave to the religion. That politics and Islam walk hand in hand. In the Islamic world, everything is based on Islam, the law, government, worship, dress, diet, personal conduct, there is no such thing as free will in Islam; one does indeed "submit" to the religion. Read more about Islamic teachings here.

A fellow blogger who happens to be a Catholic attended mass this past Sunday. After the mass was concluded and he was leaving historical Westminster Cathedral was met with about 100 muslim protestors. You can read his account here.

An Italian nun was shot in the back in retribution in Mogadishu.
Pope threatened with suicide attack.
Greek Orthodox Church in Gaza Attacked.
Pope apologizes, but violence continues.
Transcript of the Pope's speech.

My friends, if it is not now patently obvious to you then you are purposely hiding from reality. There is an element within the Isamic world community that while finding it perfectly legitimate to comment on Christianity, indeed to openly condem and criticize it, they cannot and will not tolerate the same.

What does the future hold in store regarding Christian/Muslim relations? I do not know, but the consequences are quite ominous. It is my hope that moderate muslims will soon speak out and that the radical element be effectively marginalized and be squeezed out.

Voices of reason from Muslim leaders.

2006-09-01T08:25:00.000-07:00

Muslims are to blame for the Crusades.

I offer you the Crusades.

The Crusades are often cited a major justification for terrorism, especially by the tall dog, Osama bin Laden who never fails to describe the American war against terrorism as a new Crusade against Islam. It is this kind of historical ignorance that contributes to the sad situation and feeds the fire burning in the Islamic world. Muslims seem predisposed, indeed eager to believe this tripe. And it appears, so do many of us in the west. I have heard this statement so many times that I began reading about the Crusades extensively and what I found indicates that the Christians did not strike Islam first. It is often said that those who do not understand the past are doomed to repeat it. That is a relevant statement, for it appears we in the west do not understand that Islam has been a religion of violence since it's inception and throughout history. Let us take a few moments to examine the history of the Crusades.

It begins with the holy book of Islam, the Koran. According to the Koran. In my research I discovered some passages in it, that indicate to me that Islam is a religion based on not only submission, but violence and warfare! Take a look for yourself:

"Slay them wherever you find them...Idolatry is worse than carnage...Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme." (Surah 2:190-)

"Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it." (Surah 2:216)

"The only true faith in God's sight is Islam." (Surah 3:19)

"Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people...They desire nothing but your ruin....You believe in the entire Book...When they meet you they say: 'We, too, are believers.' But when alone, they bite their finger-tips with rage." (Surah 3:118, 119)

"If you should die or be slain in the cause of God, His forgiveness and His mercy would surely be better than all the riches..." (Surah 3:156-)

"Seek out your enemies relentlessly." (Surah 4:103-)

"The Jews and Christians say: 'We are the children of God and His loved ones.' Say: 'Why then does He punish you for your sins?" (Surah 5:18)

"Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends." (Surah 5:51)

"Believers, when you encounter the infidels on the march, do not turn your backs to them in flight. If anyone on that day turns his back to them, except it be for tactical reasons...he shall incur the wrath of God and Hell shall be his home..." (Surah 8:12-)

"Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God's religion shall reign supreme." (Surah 8:36-)

"If you fear treachery from any of your allies, you may fairly retaliate by breaking off your treaty with them." (Surah 8:51-)
"...make war on the leaders of unbelief...Make war on them: God will chastise them at your hands and humble them. He will grant you victory over them..." (Surah 9:12-)

"It ill becomes the idolaters [non-Muslims] to visit the mosques of God..." (Surah 9:17)

"Fight against such as those to whom the Scriptures were given [Jews and Christians]...until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (Surah 9:27-)

"It is He who has sent forth His apostle with guidance and the true Faith [Islam] to make it triumphant over all religions, however much the idolaters [non-Muslims] may dislike it." (Surah 9:31-)

"If you do not fight, He will punish you sternly, and replace you by other men." (Surah 9:37-)

"Prophet make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home." (Surah 9:73)

"Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them." (Surah 9:121-)

"Fight for the cause of God with the devotion due to Him...He has given you the name of Muslims..." (Surah 22:78-)

"Muhammad is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another." (Surah 48:29)

"Shall the reward of goodness be anything but good?...Dark-eyed virgins sheltered in their tents...They shall recline on green cushions and fine carpets...Blessed be the name of your Lord..." (Surah 55:52-66-)

So, you see, the Koran demands, orders, compels muslims to seek the destruction of all who will not bow to Islam. I didn't bother to post the Koran's guidance about the issue of owning slaves, marrying more than one wife, etc. I think these passages are enough to illustrate my point. Islam is a religion of domination.

You might ask yourself, why not all muslims pick up the rifle and fight? I submit to you, that violence is not the only option available to muslim crusaders. Take a look at the immigration rates of muslims to Europe, how about the use of oil as a weapon? The use of the media to spread propaganda, brainwashing their children? Give it some thought, you'll find that the muslim crusader is quite devious. But, the goal is the same, to make Islam the dominate religion on earth.

To further illustrate my point take a look at this:

Omar M. Ahmad founder of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) said:"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant" he said. "The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America , and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth," he said.

Are you paying attention now?

Misconceptions about the Crusades are all to common. The Crusades are generally portrayed as a series of holy wars against Islam led by power hungry popes, fought by fanatical Christians. They are often further defined as having been an early breed of imperialists bent on forcing western ways on poor peaceful muslims in the Middle East.

To begin, the Crusades were in every sense, defensive wars, a response to muslim aggression. The Crusades were an attempt to defend against muslim conquests of Christian lands!

The Christians of the eleventh century weren't paranoid religious fanatics. The muslims were attacking them, invading and conquering their lands. During this period in history, Islam was spread almost exclusively by the sword! Muslims divide the world into two abodes, the abode of Islam and the abode of war. No other religion, in the eyes of Islam has an abode. As a rule, Christians and Jews can be tolerated but only in a muslim state, dominated by Islam! But by traditional Islamic teaching, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed, their lands conquered and their people subjugated, converted to Islam, or killed. In the seventh century when Mohamed was waging a war against Mecca, Christianity was the predominant religion of the region.

Islam struck against the Christians shortly after Mohammed's death. They achieved successes in Palestine, Syria and Egypt which were at the time, the most heavily Christian areas of the known world, but the were vanquished quickly. By the eighth century, muslim soldiers had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk (Turks) conquered Asia Minor (modern day Turkey), which had been Christian since St. Paul. The Roman Empire, known then as Byzantine, was reduced to little more than Greece. Out of these desperate circumstances, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to Christians in western Europe that they would fall next without their intervention.

This is what gave rise to the Crusades. It was not the brainchild of a power hungry pope or rapacious knights seeking plunder. It was an understandable response to more than four centuries of muslim aggression, and by that time they had conquered two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christians had to defend themselves or be subjugated by Islam. The Crusades were that defense!

Pope Urban II, called upon the knights of Christiandom to push the muslims out during the Council of Clermont in 1095. The knights responded. Thousands took the vow of the cross and prepared for battle. The generally accepted portrayal is that they were eager for plunder, that they were nothing more than lackeys of the pope. But think about this. Scholars verify that most of the crusading knights were generally wealthy men with more than enough land and money to last a lifetime. Nevertheless, they willingly gave up everything to undertake what they thought was a holy mission. Since crusading was not cheap, many of the Crusaders financed the campaign with their own money and assets, many impoverished themselves in the effort. The Crusaders believed in the cause and did believe it was a holy cause. Each of the Crusading Knights were well aware of their sins, the sinful nature of man. Some volunteered for the Crusades as a sort of penance to cleanse themselves of sin. Europe is littered with thousands of medieval charters attesting to these sentiments, charters in which these men still speak to us today, if we will only listen! Yes, some Crusaders became rich from the campaign, but the vast majority of them returned with nothing!

Pope Urban gave them two goals, both would be central the effort. First, rescue the Christians of the East. The second goal, to liberate Jerusalem and other holy places made holy during the life of Christ.

Consider the writings of Pope Urban II's successor, Pope Innocent III who wrote:

How does man love according to divine precept his neighbor as himself when knowing that his Christian brothers in faith and in name are held by the perfidious muslims in strict confinement and weighed down by the yoke of heaviest servitude, he does not devote himself to the task of freeing them? Is it by chance that you do not know that many thousands of Christians are bound in slavery and imprisoned by the muslims, tortured with innumberable torments?

Professor Jonathan Riley-Smith, an expert on the era says "Crusading" was understood as an "act of love," in this case, the love on one's neighbor. The Crusades were seen as an errand of mercy to right a terrible wrong. As Pope Innocent III wrote to the Knights Templar, "You carry out in deeds the words of the Gospel, "Greater love than this hath no man, that he lay down his life for his friends."

Pope Innocent also speaks to us from the past, through his writings:

Consider most dear sons, consider carefully that if any temporal king was thrown out of his domain and perhaps captured, would he not, when he was restored to his pristine liberty and the time had come for dispensing justice look on his vassals as unfaithful and traitors...unless they had committed not only their property but also their persons to the task of freeing him? And similarly will not Jesus Christ, the king of kings and lord of lords, whose servant you cannot deny being, who joined your soul to your body, who redeemed you with precious blood condemn you for the vice of ingratitude and the crime of infidelity if you neglected to help him?

Indeed, the Crusading Knights believed their mission a holy one.

The fact of the matter remains, and it is a fact; the reconquest of Jerusalem, was not imperialism, or colonialism, but an act of restoration and an open declaration of one's love of God. Medieval men knew, that God had the power to restore Jerusalem himself. But they interpreted his refusal to do so, a test, a blessing on them.

So, we can see that the motivation of the Crusading Knights, saw their mission as holy.

It is also often assumed the the goal of the Crusades was the forced conversion of the muslim world. But nothing could be further from the truth. From the perspective of medieval Christians, muslims were the enemies of Christ and his church. It was the Crusader's task to defeat and defend against them. That was all. Muslims who lived in Christian lands were allowed to retain their property, and livelihood, and always their religion. Throughout history it has been the muslims who demanded that others convert to Islam.

I don't need to drive the issue into the ground. But it is obvious to me, and I hope to you also and if not, I hope that you will reflect upon the history of the Crusades with all of the intellectual honesty you can muster.

A total of five Crusades were launched to free the holy land, but the first Crusade was the only one that realized the goal of freeing Jerusalem and Christians who lived there. It is also interesting to note, that upon taking Jerusalem, no campaign to convert muslims to Christianity was undertaken. Christianity is about forgiveness, Islam is about submission.

Looking back over time, it is too easy to look in disgust at the Crusades. Religion is a poor excuse for war after all. But we should at least be honest with ourselves as to why the Crusades occurred. We should also be ever mindful, that our ancestors would have been just as disgusted at us for fighting wars over political ideologies. But, both the medieval knight, and the modern Soldier fight for their own world and everything in it, for things important to them. Both are willing to suffer in service to something they hold dear, something greater than themselves. Whether or not you choose to admire the Crusaders or not, it is an undeniable fact that the world as we know it today would not exist without their sacrifices. The ancient faith of Christianity, with forgiveness as its core value, with it's respect for women, disdain for slavery not only survived the muslim onslaught, but flourished. Without the Crusades, Christianity might well have followed Zoroastrianism, another of Islam's rivals, into extinction.

In the year 2006, we find ourselves once again at odds with Islam. And as it was in medieval times, it is today. The west is defending itself from a religion predisposed to violent behavior, with world domination at it's goal. It would do us well to recall the Crusades and remember throughout history, just who has been attacking whom?

2006-08-30T10:06:00.000-07:00

Convert to Islam or die!

I wonder if anyone else thinks that the recently released FOX news reporter Steven Centanni disgraced himself when he converted to Islam at the end of a gun? Something to think about isn't it?

I say it is Gutless! Absolutely gutless! What would you have done? What would I have done? I would have told the savages that kidnapped me that I'm not converting to a backward religion of violence that celebrates the killing of people that don't think like me, I've been a Christian all my life and now in my last moments on earth you expect me to flush it down the toilet? Shove it up your ass! As a stubborn crusty old sergeant, I think I can safely say, I'd either not be a muslim right now, or I'd be dead!

If I would have converted to Islam, I would at least hope I would come back to my family ashamed of myself. But more than that, I would expect my country to be disappointed in me. I truly hope that my country would classify my conversion to Islam as a convenient act of cowardice.

As of yet, I have noted no sign from Centanni of even a little shame. Lets just get down to brass tacks here shall we? Centanni took the cowards way out. He did it to save his precious hide. And worse yet, I see no indication that our society sees his conversion as an act of cowardice. This is an indication of how spineless Americans have become. We don't even seem to recognize categories of courage or cowardice any more.

What does this say about us? Americans are willing to convert to Islam in the face of adversity? Gutless! Centanni only served to deepen the opinion of our enemy that we want to live so badly that we will convert to Islam when faced with torture or death.

Another nail in the coffin America. Just another nail in the coffin. Wake up! We are in a fight for our very survival!

2006-08-18T14:13:00.000-07:00

Support the troops!

I know Iraq hasn't turned out quite like we were told it would. But I want America to think about something. Just because the going has become tough doesn't mean we should give up, cut and run, whatever you want to call it. All it means is; the going has become tougher and we knew that it would. This is an insurgency, and historically an insurgency is a tough nut to crack.

The one thing that should be foremost in the minds of every American is that our troops need and deserve our unwavering, total support. Americans, with the exception of higher fuel prices and inconveniences of additional security measures at airports have not been asked or required to sacrifice anything. We should be exceedingly grateful to our troops, who have taken 100% of the sacrificing in this war on their shoulders alone, they are sacrificing, we aren't. Except for the occasional homemade billboard displaying "We Support Our Troops" or the yellow magnetic stickers on vehicles, I don't see an outpouring of support for our Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Airmen and Coast guardsman and frankly as a combat veteran myself this just flat out pisses me off. Don't they deserve our support no matter what our individual opinion of the war is? I hear it time and again, "I support the troops but not the war," but nobody has been able to explain how to do that, I call bullshit on them!

How has the war impacted your lifestyle here at home? What's the beef really? Be honest about this, your life has hardly been negatively impacted at all with very few exceptions and those are more inconveniences than sacrifices. What we have in Iraq, are dirty, filthy, scum of the earth, murdering bloodthirsty, power hungry terrorists, mufisden, who deliberately murder innocent Iraqis, kindnap civilians, cut the heads off of innocents and desicrate the dead in an effort to do exactly what seems to be happening, to divide Iraq along sectarian lines, and scare and demoralize the Americans back home. Why are we giving the enemy exactly what he wants? Did you not understand the nature of these animals? We have come to a crossroad. What will America do? What are YOU willing to do?

As for me? I'm supporting the troops as I always have. I will support their mission as well, for the two cannot be separated. I'll continue to write on my little blog, and call for the redoubling of our efforts in Iraq. That means sending more troops to Iraq to get this civil war thing under control, to deny freedom of movement to the mufisden, to expose them as the liars they are, and to provide adequate security for the Iraqi people. To do that, we must make some adjustments to our strategy and tactics. I think the prime concern should be in providing a secure environment in Iraq, to do that we have to have Soldiers everywhere. They need to be visible to the Iraqi people, they need to mingle with average Iraqis, to build good relations, the Iraqi people need to get to know our Soldiers as people, not just Ninja Turtle looking stormtroopers laden with battle gear stuck under a kevlar helmet passing by on patrol, this does not build trust.

There is one basic reason for the current situation in Iraq and that is that we failed to project our military might in sufficient strength and numbers to control the terrain, towns and cities of Iraq. Our troops are not being out-fought, they aren't being out-thought, however in the strategic realm, our civilian leaders seem to be stuck in reactive mode. The insurgents have the initiative. Americans need to demand we fight this war harder! Demand we fight seriously with every means at our disposal rather than whining like whipped puppies to withdraw! My God, I can't for the life of me figure out what happend to America's backbone!

We are just a few adjustments away from turning things around in Iraq permanently. Insurgencies have been defeated before and this one can be defeated too. President Bush warned us early on that this war would be a long one and it would take resolve to see it through. Back then the Congress and the American people supported him in this endeavor. Why have we turned out back on him, and our troops?

Everyone knows the the mainstream media lie. There are multiple instances of prominent media personalities being caught red handed lying, even manufacturing documents to damage the president's reputation. Everyone knows the media sensationalizes, everyone knows they will tell the tragic story while ignoring the boring good news, highlight the alleged war atrocities as though they were fact, they are quite content in sullying the reputation of our military over unsubstantiated accusations, painting our recruiters as rapists and thugs who press kids into the military, it's crap! The media is every bit as culpable for the drop in support of the war effort as anyone, probably more so. But they could care less, it gets ratings and to the media moguls, that's what its all about, that's all that matters, and Americans are sucking it up. If today's media were reporting on world war II, do you think we would have had the guts to stick with it? Close your eyes and imagine Dan Rather informing the country of American casualties at Iwo Jima, imagine him describing the landing at Normandy, The Axis would have won and Jews might be extinct. Imagine the main stream media reporting the Civil War. The media would have taken a neutral stance on the issue of slavery no doubt. And would have supported the Confederates in their right to secede from the United States. Face the facts America, we knew this war would get tough at some point and we would have to adapt, innovate and overcome, we have always had to do that, in every war we've ever been involved in! Face the fact America, the main stream media doesn't mind lying to you if it gets them ratings. Think for yourself! Terrorism isn't going away anytime soon, even if we gave up in Iraq today!

Remember your roots, remember your history! Forget about what Europeans think about us, how do they impact your life? Do you think they really care about us? Screw the UN! What have they done for America lately? Remember what our ancestors faced, remember the sacrifices that every day Americans made in support of the troops back then, and that you have sacrificed nothing. At least not yet. But if we give up in Iraq, we will feel the ramifications for generations, and we'll fight them again (if we survive), you can count on that, only next time we might be fighting them in our own backyards. You had better wake up America, nothing can stand in the way of a united American people. The only reason we will lose in Iraq is because the folks back home gave up on the troops. Don't let that happen!

2006-08-15T10:35:00.000-07:00

Lets talk about Democrats

Before the euphoria over the earth shaking victory of Ned Lamont over Joseph Lieberman in the Connecticut primary, the liberal Democrats have had cold water rudely splashed in their faces. How can this be? Joe Lieberman is now polling in front of Ned Lamont in the Connecticut general election campaign. But the liberals had not finished slapping each other on the back for this stunning anti war referendum, this clear cut rebuff of President Bush's war in Iraq! The polls are suddenly not to be trusted! Maybe the Connecticut voters at large know something about Ned Lamont that the rest of America doesn't. Allow me to offer my opinion of this "cut and run" spineless liberal; Ned Lamont is not a serious man. His family background suggests at best a tradition of tone-deafness to threats from America's enemies. He is the grand-nephew of Corliss Lamont, an infamous Stalinist who , if he was not, as he claimed he was not, a card-carrying member of the Communist Party, arguably cheated the party of dues payments. This is not to suggest the sins of the ancestor should be visited upon the child, but it is legitimate to notice when failure to take the measure of our enemies runs in the family of a would-be U.S. Senator, if the candidate himself today appears to be carrying on that tradition. And I also happen to think Ned Lamont hates the military. He deserves a drubbing in the general election.

I apologize to those of you who, like me, knew what was going to happen in Connecticut. I am a bit disappointed that I must explain this, but how could a liberal not realize it? As is normally the case, liberals are in denial, they continue to burrow their heads ever deeper into the sand, exposing their backsides. And Lieberman is preparing to kick it but good.

I am an independent voter, I don't carry water for either party. But I'm sick and tired of the liberals who hold Republicans to a higher standard of conduct then they do themselves. So, if any liberals read this, allow me to give you a few pieces of advice that might help the Democrats in the upcoming election cycle.

Get rid of your tired, old, worn out, failure of a campaign strategy. Dump it, have you not learned the lesson? It isn't working and it won't work this time either.

For the last thirty years or so all I've ever heard from Democratic candidates is; Republicans are bad, Republicans are evil, Republicans want to take away your civil rights, constrain your liberty, force you to go to church, take money from your pay check, allow the ultra rich to get away with not paying taxes, cut social programs, cut education, increase military spending, start wars, etc, etc, etc. When should I expect these bad things to happen?

Tell me this liberals, because as an independent voter I have no problem casting a ballot for a Democrat. But what you have consistently failed to do is tell me why I should vote Democrat. All I've ever heard from liberals is why I shouldn't vote for Republicans. But I've learned through trial and error, that voting for something is far better than voting against something. And that's basically it. So, this begs the question; why haven't the Democrats tried to convince me why I should vote for one of them?

When I talk to Republican friends of mine, they have no problem in explaining their core values and vision for America, they can run it down for me in thirty seconds. But my Democrat friends can't do that. Most of them are filled with so much angst and anger that all they can do is spew a hateful diatribe against President Bush and Republicans. But they can't articulate their core values or their vision for America, they simply cannot do it. This leads me to the conclusion that they don't have core values. When I look at the Democratic party, I see a loose conglomeration of single issue activist groups, all huddled under the Democratic umbrella, and the Democratic leadership doesn't know what to do with them. They dare not alienate any of them. So the Democrats have no choice but to cater to the demands of these diverse one issue groups in the hope to keep them in the camp. Promise them anything until you get what you want.

How is it that I hear that prominent Democrats are holding meetings and conferences in remote locations to figure out what their core values are? What their message should be? Because, they don't have core values.

I hear liberals constantly saying things like, "we need to set a clear agenda" " we need to get the country going in the right direction." that's all well and good and the Democrats will capture their base, but that's not going to get any of them elected.

The liberals are cock sure that anti war sentiment will grow under their care and that alone will sweep Democrats into Congress and the Oval Office. But if you liberals refuse to heed the lesson of the Connecticut primary and the looming Joe Lieberman victory in the general election, you don't deserve to become the majority in Congress, or to win the White House, because your just plain dumb if you don't get it. The American voter doesn't want to be reduced to voting for the lesser of two evils, they want to vote for something. The liberals are forgetting about our booming economy, low unemployment, the fact that we have not had another terrorist attack on our soil, and so on and so on, etc, etc. If, the American voter is reduced to voting for the lesser of two evils, they will be more likely to vote incumbent. And the Democrats will be left scratching their heads once again and behind closed doors lamenting how stupid the average American is, that he could be so easily duped by the Republicans. When the real reason is, the Democrats don't stand for anything.

The Democrats are actually positioned by dumb luck to do well in the upcoming elections, but they aren't smart enough, they aren't disciplined enough to knock off the negative politics and focus on themselves, to find their message, articulate their agenda and how they plan to implement that agenda.

You watch, Joe Lieberman will win the Connecticut general election, I predict that officially here and now. Democrats will call me stupid, and ignore all of the warning signs, they won't change their tactics and will end up on the short end of the stick again. You can bet on it, just sit back and enjoy the Democrats in the center ring.

2006-07-10T12:47:00.000-07:00

I take no pleasure in criticizing our president, in my opinion he occupies the Oval Office in what must be the most demanding term of any US President since Lincoln. But I've got to call'em they way I see'em so here it is. I started to smell a rat some months ago when the illegal immigrant debate heated up. Watching the protests of thousands in the streets of our cities holding Mexican flags high, US flags upside down. Having to listen to immigrants brag to the television cameras about how they were intimidating the Congress. And the deafening silence from the Senate, and the White House, I was perplexed and I was pissed off. It is clear to me that the nation wants the president to take firm, bold action to curb the virtually uncontrolled illegal immigration flow into our country.

I've learned additional details that make the hair on the back of my neck stand up. I recently have had what previously would have been considered an insane thought, and that is that there is a secret movement to merge the US, Canada and Mexico into a kind of "supernation."

Here is just some of what I've found.

President Bush seems to have an irrational resistance to take any action on the southern border or to enforce our existing laws that require the deportation of illegal immigrants. Is it possible that some in government know something that we do not? We have been unaware of the backroom wheelings and dealings with the governments of Mexico, Canada, business leaders and certain groups who favor a sort of merger of the three nations. Is there a movement to eliminate the borders between the US, Canada and Mexico? Read on.

Ever heard of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP)? I'll tell you more about it shortly, it is a very interesting group.

Few news organizations have addressed this issue. I thought it was a silly thought when it first entered my mind. Who could possibly be in favor of merging three sovereign nations? But, it seems that at least some in news media have taken notice.

Lou Dobbs of CNN Moneyline said this: "A regional prosperity and security program?" He asked in a recent program. "This is absolute ignorance. And the fact that we are - that we reported this, we should point out, when it was signed. But, as we watch this thing progress, these working groups are continuing. They're intensifying. What in the world are these people thinking about? You know, I was asked the other day about whether or not I really thought the American people had the stomach to stand up and stop this nonsense, this direction from a group of elites, an absolute contravention of our laws, of our Constitution, every national value. And I hope, I pray that I'm right when I said yes. But this is - I mean, this is beyond belief."

It looks like Lou Dobbs is on the case; this is good. What has Mr. Dobbs and a growing number of Americans troubled began March 31, 2005, when elected officials of the US, Mexico and Canada agreed on the agenda of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. The agenda of this group has been secretive until now. These leaders agreed to work toward easier and faster moving of goods and people between the countries. Here is a transcript of Lou Dobbs from a June 21 edition of his news program on CNN:

Republican Representative Tom Tancredo (Colorado) who is chairman of the House Immigration Reform Caucus and who authored a book called "In Mortal Danger," seems to be the only elected representative who has called the White House to task. He has demanded that the Bush Administration fully disclose the activities of the government office implementing the trilateral agreement, and notes that if it is true, it has no authorization from Congress. Further, he wants to know who makes up the membership of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) groups along with all documentation that exists.

The co-founder of the Minutemen Jim Gilchrest chimes in; "It's time for the Bush Administration to come clean. If President Bush's agenda is to establish a new North American union government to supersede the sovereignty of the United States, then the president has an obligation to tell this to the American people directly. The American public has a right to know." The right to know indeed Mr. Gilchrest!

The head of the SPP Office; a woman named Geri Wood told Worldnet Daily, that the work had not been disclosed because, "we did not want to get the contact people of the working groups distracted by calls from the public."

Is the actual reason for President Bush's foot dragging on taking action on our southern border because he has a secret goal to expand NAFTA into something bigger? Phyllis Schlafly commented on the topic by saying this: "Is the real push behind the guest-worker proposals the Bush goal to expand NAFTA into the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, which he signed at Waco, Texas, last year and reaffirmed at Cancun, Mexico, this year?" She asks. "Bush is a globalist at heart and wants to carry out his father's oft-repeated ambition of a 'new world order.'" She out and out accuses the president and others behind the effort of wanting to obliterate US borders in an effort to increase the Mexican population transfer and lower wages for the benefit of US corporate interests. Schlafly continues; "Bush meant what he said at Waco, Texas, in March 2005, when he announced his plan to convert the United States into a 'Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America' by erasing our borders with Canada and Mexico," she said. "Bush's guest-worker proposal would turn the United States into a boardinghouse for the world's poor, enable employers to import an unlimited number of 'willing workers' at foreign wage levels, and wipe out what's left of the US middle class. Bush lives in a house well protected by a fence and security guards and he associates with rich people who live in gated communities. Yet for five years, he has refused to protect the property and children of ordinary Arizona citizens from trespassers and criminals." Harsh words, but not completely inaccurate. And an eye opening remark coming from one of Ronald Reagan's most loyal supporters.

The Pittsburgh Tribune Review, noticed the seeming momentum toward some kind of North American Superstate. The paper mentions an idea of replacing the US and Canadian dollars and the Mexican peso with "the amero" along with the current efforts to build a NAFTA - like super state. Citing the meeting of the three national leaders at Baylor University in Waco, Texas, in March, 2005, the editorial warns: "Canadians, Mexicans and Americans who value the sovereignty of their respective nations should be concerned."

The Tribune Review noted a synergy between the plans of the national leaders and the agenda of the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) seen by them as a secretive, shadowy elitist style governmental body. The CFR did issue an announcement in Waco that was signed by President Bush and his Canadian and Mexican counterparts.

The CFR also published a report in May called "Building a North American Community, it calls for, redefining the borders of the US, Canada and Mexico, and the creation of a super-regional governmental body and the North American Paramilitary Group to ensure that Congress does not interfere with whatever the trilateral union feels like doing." said the paper.

The CFR report is a five year plan for the establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community with a common outer security perimeter.

When I consider all of this I see it as laying the groundwork for a merger of the US, Canada and Mexico, what else could it be? It calls for common economic space, for all people in the region, a space in which trade, capital and people cross all borders freely as well as the creation of a paramilitary group for it's defense.

The CFR strategy calls specifically for the nations to harmonize visa and asylum regulations and efforts to harmonize entry screening. The report goes on to state that Bush, Fox and Martin "committed their governments" to this goal March 23, 2005 in a meeting at Waco, Texas.

The Amero is not a new idea for it was proposed by the Fraser Institute, a Canadian think tank, in a monogram titled "The Case for the Amero" in 1999.

Get this! Last month, the SPP made a move in plain sight. In Washington, on June 15, US Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, Mexican Economy Minister Sergio Garcia de Alba and Canadian Minister of Industry Maxime Benier joined North American business leaders and named the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC). This seems to indicate that the March 2005 meeting was not a joke and that plans announced by the three national leaders then, would continue to advance. The NACC was first announced by Bush, Harper and Fox, although few took notice then.

The NACC is comprised of ten high level business leaders from each country, the NACC meets annually with North American government officials to provide recommendations and help set priorities for promoting regional competitiveness in the global economy. Take a look at the membership, these are highly powerful businessmen and we all know the influence that business can leverage on our governments. United Parcel Service Inc. Chairman Michael Eskew; James Kilt, Vice Chairman of Gillette Inc.; Douglas Conant, President of Campbell's Soup Co.; Frederick Smith, Chairman of FedEx Corp.; Lou Schorsh, Chief Executive of Mittal Steel USA.; Joseph Gilmour, President of New York Life Insurance Co.; William Clay Ford, Chairman of Ford Motor Co.; Rick Wagoner, Chairman of General Motors Corp.; Raymond Gilmartin, CEO of Merck & Co, Inc.; David O'Reilly, Chief Executive of chevron Corp.; Jeffrey Immelt, Chairman of General Electric.; Lee Scott, President of Wal-Mart Stores Inc.; Robert Stevens, Chairman of Lockheed Martin Corp and Michael Haverty, Chairman of Kansas City Southern.
That is an impressive list by anyone's standard.

Gutierrez stated that the Bush Administration is determined to develop a "border pass" on schedule despite worries about it's implementation. The new land pass is to be in effect for Canadians, Americans and Mexicans by Jan 1, 2008.

Consider the relative secrecy of the US government in the work to build the NAFTA Superhighway and the US/Mexican Totalization Agreement and who knows what else and you have a recipe for a government making some potentially nation shaking news. And so far, this has been done very quietly, I for one am quite shocked by it, even if it does tend to explain the lack of vigor with which our government is taking on the illegal immigration issue.
As a member of the voting public we should all do our duty to educate ourselves on this issue and begin communicating with our elected officials about it.

For some shocking news read about the NAFTA Superhighway project and further take a look at this chat board frequented by American truck drivers, . And if that weren't enough take a look at the US/Mexico Totalization Agreement, this agreement provides (among other things) social security benefits for naturalized Americans which seems perfectly reasonable. However, the agreement allows naturalized citizens to make the date of their social security benefits retroactive to the date they came to America, even if they did so illegally, and that in the event of their death, the benefits will go to a designated beneficiary even a non-US citizen living abroad, . Although our government would like us to remain blissfully unaware of these two items, there are some good websites that address both. I recommend that you google up some of them and read.

In closing, I'd like to mention that the president of North American Super Corridor Coalition (NASCO) a non-profit group that describes itself as being dedicated to developing the world's first international, integrated and secure, multi-model transportation system along the International Mid-Continent Trade and Transportation Corridor to improve both the trade competitiveness and quality of life in North America. The president of NASCO (George Blackwood), who earlier began the North American International Trade Corridor Partnership. As a matter of fact, NAITCP morphed into NASCO. A NAITCP summit meeting in 2004 that was attended by senior Mexican government officials, heard a speaker by the name of Robert Pastor, an American University professor who wrote "Toward a North American Community"
A book promoting the development of a North American union as a regional government and the adoption of the "amero" as a common monetary currency to replace the dollar and the peso. Pastor was also the vice chairman of the May, 2005 Council of Foreign Relations task force entitled "Building a North American Community" that presents itself as a blueprint for using bureaucratic action within the executive branches of the US, Mexico and Canada to transform the current trilateral Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America into a North American union regional council.

My fellow Americans, think about this. Bush, Fox and Martin the "Three Amigos" have already gone too far and it is up to us to stop this insanity. Americans have no obligation to finance the economic recovery of Mexico, nor should we take on a similar responsibility for Canada, that is work for the Canadian and Mexican governments and peoples. Don't Americans have enough on there collective plate at the moment?

I think so.

2006-06-29T11:19:00.000-07:00

Today the Supreme Court usurped the power of the President's authority as Commander in Chief of the United States Military to prosecute the Global War on Terror. In a 5-3 ruling, the Supreme Court put the administration on notice that is reached too far in the Hamdan case.

The GTMO facility, is quite possibly the most scrutinized detainment center in the world, where by some reports detainees are confined in relative comfort by comparison to prison or prison-like facilities of the present and past, or in other regions of the world.

The Supreme Court attempted to, and for the moment has blocked the appointing of military tribunals. It was not a defeat as many of the lunatic left fringe fishwrappers scream in the boldest possible print. What the Supreme Court did today in my opinion is to take another step in affirming the assertion that our Supreme Cout is evolving into a political body and is delving deeper into the legislative arena, an arena they have absolutely no business in.

The decision enraged alot of Americans including me, for I never thought I'd see the day that a ruling like this would come from the Supreme Court, but then again, I never thought I'd live to see the day that the Supreme Court would approve of state and local governments using eminent domain to steal private property for the purpose of increasing tax revenue either.

As Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the majority opinion: "Congress has denied the president the legislative authority to create military commissions of the kind at issue here. Nothing prevents the president from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary."
But for a far superior opinion, read the dissent penned by Justice Thomas here and here . His opinion is based upon two hundred years of precedent, the rule of law, the constitution and the Detainee Treatment Act passed by congress in 2005.

And this is precisely what President Bush stated he will do, responding to the ruling he said he would seek legislation explicitly authorizing the mililtary tribunals. He could also ignore the ruling of the Supreme Court as well.

Before the book closes on this chapter, giddy Democrats who have cheered this ruling as some kind of victory will find the spot light shining brightly on them, and they will be forced to pony up, to go on record as really supporting the GWOT or not. Considering the fact that the congress voted twice on two separate occassions recently to set some form of a timetable for the withdrawl of troops; the result was the same both times; overwhelming defeat. If these votes are an accurate barometer on how the congress truly feels about the GWOT, congress will give the president the authority to appoint military tribunals. And the liberal newspapers will eat a healthy portion of crow; again.

What concerns me about the ruling however is the fact that some members of the Supreme Court do not seem to understand basic facts that should have impacted on thier decision to even hear this case. First of all, Salim Hamdan a Yemini citizen claimed that military tribunals are unconstitutional because they allow the president and his subordinates to define the crime, prosecute the case and choose the judges who act as the jury. Mr. Hameden should not have opportunity to bring up the constitutionality of the situation because he is not a citizen and is not protected by our constitution. In fact, it is not clear that the detainees are even covered by the Geneva Convention. Incredibly, the Supreme Court cited both in it's decision.

Justice Ginsburg recently announced that the Supreme Court should, and has, sought precedent in some domestic cases through reviewing international law. WHAT?! Did I hear that correctly? How can this happen? The Supreme Court and the US Constitution, seems pretty simple to me. Its about the constitution stupid! Nothing else matters.

The Supreme Court is not perfect. The justices of the Supreme Court are human and are just as prone to be influenced by public opinion as anyone. And I believe strongly that public opinion seeped into the court regarding this ruling, eminant domain and more, public opinion; and politics that is.

2006-06-05T07:24:00.000-07:00

Despite Mr. Murtha's best efforts I have had the weekend to think the situation over in quiet solitude, reflecting on my Army career and experiences which include combat, I have placed myself (mentally) in situations that would test my professionalism and self discipline. To be perfectly honest, I can see how a squad of young Marines, or Soldiers might commit such an atrocity. This should in no way be taken as an indictment of the Marines in question on my part, I don't know what transpired. The facts of life in wartime, are brutal, the life of a Soldier or Marine under fire in Iraq are as far from the reality of life for the average American that it can be. A modicum of understanding from the American public is called for in this situation. The average American doesn't have the slightest idea what life is like for our troops in Iraq. The average American doesn't have the knowledge, expertise or the right to pass judgement on the outstanding young Americans serving this nation.

To date, a certain population of the American public has demonstrated what I consider to be a sickening tendacy to show support or remove support for our troops, depending on the situation. Our troops deserve all of our support, all of the time. Our "I want it now" mindset has proven to be our Achille's Heel. Americans want immediate justice, immediate service, immediate results, and in the case of Iraq; immediate victory. If you have never served in the military you don't have the slightest idea how important it is for our troops to know that their country supports them and that that support is unconditional. And yet, the support of the average American for our troops changes with the wind. America has done as much to sap the moral of our troops as the enemy has, probably more. But, being the fine professionals they are, they soldier on, fighting for each other if nothing else. As professional as our troops are however, they have a chip on their shoulder. The chip on their shoulder is the knowledge that if they don't conduct every mission perfectly, the anti war politicians the likes of Murtha and the anti war left will (and have) attempt to convict the entire United States Military. Should America's support for her military contingent upon always being in the right? I say no.

Put yourself in the combat boots of a Soldier or Marine on patrol in Iraq. You are driving through an Iraqi village on narrow streets. The Iraqis are out and about doing what they do. Kids are playing, men and women are chatting with neighbors and doing chores. You get an occassional wave, a suspicious look, some turn their eyes away after making brief eye contact with you. For the most part, you and your patrol drive through the town uneventfully. Later in the day, as you return to base, you drive through the same village. Immediately you realize a big difference, it looks like a ghost town. You see nobody outside. As you drive through the last intersection and can relax to some degree and cruise the last few miles of patrol to the safety of your base you see your lead vehicle engulfed in a violent cloud of dust, you see the gunner of the vehicle blown from the turret, his mangeld body flung through the air like a sock puppet. A split second later you hear it, the sharp crack of a detonation the thunder of the full explosion and the air is knocked from your lungs, your eyes feel as though they have turned to painful spoonfulls of jelly as the concussion wreaks havoc on your body; it really hurts. Your ears are ringing, you can't hear a thing. Instinctively your men exit their vehicles and form a defensive perimeter as they have been trained to do. The medic rushes with his aid bag to begin evaluating the casualties of the lead vehicle. The gunner is dead, one of his legs is blown off, his body is mangeld horribly. The driver can't see, he is blinded, blood runs from both of his ears, he has shrapnel wounds to the left side of his body, blood spurts from his neck like a grotesque fountain, long, powerful, gushing spurts, and with each heartbeat he is closer to death, the medic does not know if he can stop the bleeding, the vehicle commander is unhurt, but he is shaken, blood is running from his ears too, he is more pissed off than hurt. He dutifully takes a position on the perimeter anyway, scanning for enemy movement. In the village all is silent, no movement, no sound, nothing to indicate any enemy activity, or any activity at all for that matter. As the medic struggles with the wounded driver, and one of your men tries to contact dustoff on the radio to get a medevac to your location you feel anger, it slowly grows like a thunder cloud, the more you think about what just occured, the more pissed of you get, couldn't a friendly Iraqi have waved your patrol off? One of your men is dead, another lies in an ever growing pool of blood, dying. You had almost completed this patrol, but at the last intersection before base, your lead vehicle is hit with an IED. Your anger contiues to grow, the frustration you feel with the Iraqis in the village is incomprehensible. You are in this country to liberate these people, to free them from a mad dictator, to protect them from radical jihadists, to establish a democratic form of government, to rebuild the infastructure of their nation. And this is how they repay your efforts? They don't even give you a warning that after you passed through this morning, that some foreginers came to the village and emplaced an IED? Surely, the foreigners would not have gone unnoticed by the villagers and yet, they didn't make any effort to warn you in fact; they all took shelter in their homes and allowed your patrol be blown up and one of your men, an eighteen year old kid, killed, another dying.

You still can't hear anything but ringing in your ears. None of your men can hear, you communicate using hand and arm signals. Along with a couple of your men, you see what appears to be the flash of a rifle barrell muzzle from a home in the village. One of your men returns fire. In an instant, all your men are blasting away. You begin to manuever your men toward the house in question. You break down the front door and you find crouching bodies, before you realize it, they are all dead. Your men have shot them dead.

That my friends is a scenario that has played out hundreds maybe thousands of times in Iraq and Afghanistan. Up till now perhaps, our troops have for the most part, made the correct decisions. But this time, due to anger, frustration and fear, perhaps, just perhaps you and your men made the wrong decision. When your dead and wounded are evacuated, your patrol returns to base where you report the incident to your immediate supervisor. What they do about it, you cannot control. You made an on the spot decision, you did what you did, you can't take it back.

Whether or not our Marines are guilty of war crimes has yet to be determined. I for one will wait for the results of the investigation. The media should assume these Marines are innocent until proven otherwise. And yet, I have read articles describing the event as a "massacre" "murder" and an assortment of other omionous adjectives. I can't help but recall the recent past, reading accounts of terrorists killing innocent civilians or cutting the heads off of hostages described as "slayings," "killings," "executions." Does anyone else detect a double standard here? It seems that the press is almost giddy at the opportunity to dig up the specter of Vietnam war crimes. The use of colorful language to describe alleged war crimes by our troops and the almost sanitary language used to describe the numerous war crimes perpetrated by the enemy puts the agenda of the liberal main stream media on display.

Lets all realize something right here and right now. War crimes are committed in all wars, thus it has been since the dawn of time. It doesn't excuse them but, it happens. Everyone has a breaking point, even our magnificent troops do. As a population we have done a very poor job of showing support for our troops. The media never misses an opportunity to bring the conduct of our troops into question. And yet, we never hear about acts of courage, heroism and sacrafice. Shame of us for that, and shame on the press in doing a lousy job in supporting our warriors in the field. From the first war in human history, to Vietnam, atrocities have taken place. The only difference is that today, with the advent of the 24 hour cable news services, the news is in your face, we hear the news repeatedly, its the same story rehashed over and over and over again. The court of public opinion is in session and Judge Murtha has reached his verdict. The Marines in question are guilty and he seems hell bent on pushing the responsibility for this alleged war crime as far up the chain of command that he can. Shame on you Mr. Murtha. As a Marine, as a former officers, it seems that Mr. Murtha would be counseling the media and the American public to wait untill the facts are in. That at the moment, the most important thing is to protect the constitutional rights of these Marines. I think if Mr. Murtha could, he would hand these Marines over the the Iraqis.

If this alleged war crime is substantiated, we must ask ourselves why? As I previously indicated our troops in Iraq hear what is being said back here at home. Can we honestly look ourselves in the mirror and say that we have done more than put a magnetic yellow "support our troops" sticker on our car? Have you written your elected officials and told them to stop politicizing the war for their own selfish political gain? Do any of you realize that the Army is for all intents and purposes broke as you read this? Yes, its' true, Congress in a rock solid demonstration of support to the troops adjourned for the week long Memorial Day Break without taking action on the emergency supplemental spending bill that the Army desperately needs to continue operations. And this does not apply exclusively to our forces in Iraq, it applies to the entire Army! Take a look at the bill if you have time, and also take note of the riders that our selfless elected officials have tacked onto the bill; yeah, its pork barrell spending in all of its sickening glory.

As for me? I will maintain that these Marines are innocent and I refuse to beleive they are guilty of anything unless you can prove otherwise to a jury of their peers. There is a time and place for that to occur. But the time is not now, and the place is not in the media.

God bless our troops. They are doing a job that 99% of Americans are afraid to do. All this talk about being against the war? It's just thinly veiled cowardice. If you aren't going to join the fight, then how about supporting the troops?

2006-06-01T05:56:00.000-07:00

I have to say that the comments made on national television by retired Marine Colonel Murtha stunned me right down to my toes.

I never thought I would live to see the day that a Marine, a former officer would so cavalierly throw his fellow Marines under the bus. The fact that Mr. Murtha is doing this for political gain makes me feel like throwing up.

It is patently obvious to me that Mr. Murtha is seizing this alleged tragedy as a way to discredit President Bush, but he is sullying his beloved corps in the process, and sending a clear signal which is more important to him. Its politics over the Marine Corps and for this, Mr. Murtha should hide his head in shame!

It seems to me that, rather than yelling from the rooftops that there was a cover up, rather than acting as the judge and jury of these Marines, he should be advising caution. He should be protecting the constitutional rights of his brother Marines. Instead, Mr. Murtha has already tried and convicted these Marines in the court of public opinion and embarked on a disgraceful, partisan campaign to push responsibility for this alleged incident as far up the chain of command that he can. For political gain.

Where is the sympathy for a squad of overworked grunts who could well have been on their second or third deployment in the GWOT? These Marines had allegedly just witnessed their squad leader get blown to pieces. An emotional reaction is completely understandable, and while the commission of this alleged crime is not out of the question, the fact is that we simply do not know all the facts yet. This should be Mr. Murtha's guiding principle in this matter. But it seems that he feels he must strike while the iron is hot, and facts be damned.

I find Mr. Murtha's conduct to be disgraceful, most un-Marine like and repugnant. Mr. Murtha's membership as a Marine should be revoked post haste.

2006-05-10T12:49:00.000-07:00

I want the reader to understand that I am not one who is calling for Mr. Rumsfeld's resignation, at least, not yet.

I was channel surfing the other day as I flicked through the channels, Donald Rumsfeld flashed upon my televison screen, so I watched. What I saw troubled me.

Mr. Ray McGovern, a 27 year CIA analyst seemed to be getting the better of Mr. Rumsfeld with some specific, pointed questions. With facts and quotes in hand Mr. McGovern was well prepared to take on Mr. Rumsfeld on the question of WMDs in Iraq, and pre war intelligence in general.

The most troubling portion of the event came when Mr. McGovern bluntly asked Mr. Rumsfeld why he "lied to get us into a war that was not necessary?" Mr. Rumsfeld replied that "I didn't lie then," and the audience applauded loudly, he also said Colin Powell worked for weeks on his UN presentation and that he really believed what he said at the UN regarding WMD in Iraq. And further he stated "I'm not in the intelligence business." Now to me, this is a strong indication that Mr. Rumsfeld was beginning to feel some heat. Mr. Rumsfeld continued "It appears that there were not weapons of mass destruction there." At that point Mr. McGovern told him, "but you said you knew where they were." Obviously deflecting the question Mr. Rumsfeld said, that no he did not say that, that he said that he "suspected" there were some areas where they "might" be. At this juncture, I'm sitting straight up on my sofa, engrossed in the exchange because although I did not enjoy seeing Mr. Rumsfeld squirm, I cannot deny that he was indeed, squirming like a worm in hot ashes. It would do the reader well to remember that Mr. McGovern served this country for 27 years in the intelligence field, and that he is highly educated and served in the military too, a distinguished record regardless of his political affiliation. Mr. McGovern shot back with another quote, reminding Mr. Rumsfeld of statements he made on George Stephanopoulos' show on March 30, 2003, which was "We know where they are" refering to WMD "they are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." The uncritical audience began to applaud every word Mr. Rumsfeld said and Mr. McGovern stated in an interview with BuzzFlash, that the audience began to shout him down saying "get him out of here!" As security personnel began to remove him from the room, Mr. Rumsfeld instructed them to let him stay. Mr. McGovern moved on to Mr. Rumsfeld's comments refering to the Al Qaeda-Saddam Hussein relationship, pointing out that Zarqawi was in Kurdish territory, not under Saddam's control, except for a trip to the hospital. Obviously, Mr. McGovern had turned his sights to the claim that there was a direct link between Hussein and Al Qaeda. Mr. Rumsfeld, normally very adept at press briefings was totally off of his game at this point and he told Mr. McGovern, "your getting plenty of play sir."

What is America to make of this brief, yet pointed exchange? To me, it is rather ominous, for I clearly remember Mr. Rumsfeld making the statements, or statements very, very close to the quotes offered by Mr. McGovern. To see Mr. Rumsfeld rocked, totally on the defensive, using deflecting tactics and obsfucation, avoiding questions, trying to change the subject indicated strongly to me that he had been had.

I do beleive that Mr. Rumsfeld and most of the Bush Administration felt that invading Iraq was necessary, but that doesn't make it right. I see cracks beginning to appear in the administrations justifications for the invasion.

History will be the judge, and we shall see if the righteousness of invading Iraq will stand the test of time.

I think I'm like many Americans, I find myself in an untenable posititon. I want our troops to come home, but I know that the mission they are on is worthwhile if for nothing else, to liberate and entire nation. While I have full faith in our troops, and I support them 100%, I cannot say the same for the administration. At the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, I was fully behind the adminstration, slowly, but surely my attitude has begun to change. I'm uncomfortable with this because I want to beleive the President and his cabinet members. What is an American supposed to do now? I fully support the troops, yet, I find myself seriously questioning the integrity and honesty of the administration regarding the war in Iraq. That is a feeling I do not like, one that causes me much emotional turmoil.

2006-05-03T12:56:00.000-07:00

My fellow Americans, I've had it up to here! If I see one more illegal alien with a stupid toothless smirk on their face, Mexican flag in one hand, upside down American flag in the other I might just go postal. Maybe all of us should?

We have allowed our compassion and our good will, coupled with the cancer of political correctness to bring us to the brink of chaos.

What is so hard to understand that 70% of Americans want action now on our southern border? What is so hard to understand that illegal aliens broke the law to get into our sovereign territory? I don't give a rats behind what job an illegal alien is willing to take. They do not have any right to be here and we don't owe them a thing!

I don't care how well behaved the illegals demonstrating in the streets of our cities are. They do not have the right! The liberal media and Ted Kennedy would have us beleive that we are witnessing the civil rights movement II. How stupid does the liberal media and Ted Kennedy think we are? As illegal aliens, modern day squatters, these people are not in a legal position to demand a thing! In order to enjoy constitutional rights you must be a US citizen, something they seem to conveniently forget and something they do not possess.

The border with Mexico is perhaps the second biggest threat to our national security at home, following closely behind our ports. Can the government tell us with any accuracy, that terrorist have not hidden among the wetbacks who sneak across the border and are now awaiting orders to strike? How many terrorist have we allowed entry into our country already? What about the mountains of drugs that are moved over and under the border? Aren't we as a nation about tired of that as well? Twelve million illegal aliens, twelve million bodies unaccounted for. Twleve million people who like parasites suck from our social systems, health care and schools, how many of these twelve million people are paying their fair share of taxes?

Where is our government?

Speaking of our government, they are obviously paralyzed with fear. I strongly suggest that you write your representatives and remind them they are in the business of making tough choices. Rather then trying to figure out how to squeeze some votes out of this issue, instead of trying to craft a bill that will keep everyone happy I want the government to do what is right for the country, track these illegals down wherever they are hiding and put them on the first thing smoking back to Mexico where they rightfully belong, they are President Fox's problem, not ours. President Bush never seems to tire of reminding us that his first priority is to protect the American people, Mr. President, this is one of those times!

President Fox, what a piece of work huh? The man is an abject failure, eager for the dollars to be returned to Mexico via the illegals in America he has taken a page from Castro's playbook, export your poor and your criminal element. Mexico is on the verge of legalizing drugs! Not just marijuana, but hard drugs! What kind of president is that? The Mexican government is corrupt, rotten to the core, 40% of the Mexican population lives below the poverty line! Mr. Fox preaches to Mr. Bush that putting up a fence is an insult to Mexico, who cares? Mexico has militarized their side of the border, I have read reports of Mexican military personnel trespassing on our side of the border and actually firing on our border agents. The next time that Mr. Bush and Mr. Fox meet, it is my fervent wish that Mr. Bush advise Mr. Fox to shove it! The illegals demonstrating in our streets would be well advised to take their placards and bullhorns to Mexico City and improve their own country.

What is so hard to understand about this issue? Have you ever heard of Aztlan? This is what many Mexicans call the American southwest region; Aztlan. They feel the freedom to migrate to America unhinderd is their birthright, do you know why? Yes, thats right, because it used to be part of Mexico. A radical element of the illegal alien population and it's supporters see the migration of illegals as nothing short of righteous military action, an invasion, an insidious plan to take back Aztlan through a rapid shift in the demographics of the region. They say that the Anglos are not making babies, they are dying. Sounds like the makings of American patriots doesn't it? I don't need to remind the reader that history will show, all great civilizations are built upon conquest and this includes Mexico, does anyone remember a civilization called the Aztecs? We fought a war with Mexico and we won, to the victor go the spoils. Thats just a brutal fact of life.

God bless the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps. Volunteers who monitor the border on their own time. As a symbolic gesture meant to be a clear message to our government, they have begun to build a fence along a strategically important portion of the southern border. What is not to understand about this issue? Its simple, stop the flow of illegal aliens, pass a bill to document illegals already in our country and give them a path to citizenship and lets just see if citizenship is really what they desire.

The demostrations by the illegals and their idiot supporters have taken so much pride in over the last couple of weeks has backfired. The sight of so many illegals, so many ungrateful malcontents who think they have any right to demand anything from us has gotten Americas dander up. Historically the American people have been slow to anger, they have an ability to temper their passion. But this is reaching critical mass. America does not have the capability to absorb and infinite number of illegal aliens. There is a saturation point, there is a limit not only to our ability to support the additional people, but to our patience as well.

If the illegal aliens continue to throw these demonstrations in our face, if they continue to brag about how they have seized the attention of our congressmen and senators, the more likely it becomes that the reaction they get from the American people, and hopefully from our government will not be the one they are counting on.

I heard Trent Lott on FOX news this morning opine that the tougher congressional bill on illegal immigration has the momentum. Lets hope he is right.

On a placard held high by fat greasy wetback in Los Angeles I saw on TV proclaimed threateningly, that "Today we march, tomorrow we vote." Well, let me tell you something you fat good for nothing squatter! Today I vote, tomorrow I vote too!

Illegal aliens, GO HOME! And stay on your side of the river!

2006-04-28T13:07:00.000-07:00

Regarding the criticism of Mr. Rumsfeld by a growing list of retired general officers, I want to know one thing. Will it mean a thing at the end of the day?

As a retired Soldier, I am at times amused and others, very concerned. I am amused in reading and listening to the commentary of people who know absolutely nothing about the Army make absurd claims, and concerned that the matter will be ignored until it is forgotten.

I am not among those who believe that Mr. Rumsfeld need resign. I am not among those who make the idiotic claim that the retired generals are trying to take control of the military from civilian command. Something is going on inside the Pentagon, and we need to learn what it is. I suggest that the President appoint a panel of subject matter experts to compile a report. Perhaps he might convene a group of retired general officers and former civilian leaders of the Pentagon to examine the facts, view evidence and conduct interviews. The fact that so many general officers have come forward to put their credibility and reputations on the line is a solid indication to me that something in the Pentagon is broken. What could it be that has compelled these generals to take such extraordinary measures? Certainly, squabbles between the Commander in Chief and a few generals have erupted in the past, but never, has this many generals come forward.

Those who claim that the generals would have the military removed from civilian oversight are missing the point. They practice selective recall when addressing the subject. Let us review the main complaint, which is; a failure to plan for a post war Iraq. When I reflect back to the liberation of Baghdad it seems to me that there was no plan for controlling the streets of Iraq after the combat phase was over. And why was that important? Recall if you will, watching the television news on the day that the mass looting began in Baghdad. I saw it right there on my television screen, thousands of giddy Iraqis flitting about Baghdad in chaos, carting off fire extinguishers, air conditioners, toilets, anything that was not bolted down; stacked precariously upon the wheel barrows or rickety one burrow carts and wheeled away right under the noses of overwhelmed, bewildered troops who appeared to realize something was very wrong with the picture but lacked any guidance as to what they should do about it. This was my epiphany. Important government records and other irreplaceable documents vital to the reconstruction effort and capture of former Hussein officials disappeared among the looters, lost to the four winds forever. That was the day we lost the initiative in Iraq. Since that day, we began to see the ravages of the IED, we heard the news reports of Soldiers going down to sniper fire, kidnappings, beheadings, assassinations. All indisputable signs of a failure to prepare for maintaining law and order upon the collapse of the Hussein regime, and the main reason that the mission has been as dangerous and as difficult as it has.

I hope that a search for answers will be initiated. We should take a look at the unvarnished truth, learn from any mistakes that were made and implement measures to ensure we don’t do it again. The world is an increasingly dangerous place; the stakes are growing ever more ominous. We are fortunate that the consequences of our missteps in Iraq have not been catastrophic, but with Iran looming on the horizon, our military needs to operate with the efficiency of a Swiss clock.

2006-04-19T10:12:00.000-07:00

The recent criticism of the Secretary of Defense by several retired General Officers compells me to write on the topic.

I have heard one crackpot politician after another attempt to put some kind of spin on the issue in order to position themselves in a favorable political position and from Rush Limbaugh complete with some moronic callers to his show, to John Stewart, I've heard radio and TV personalities characterize the dispute as an all or nothing affair yet they only succeed in demonstrating how precious little they know about the inner workings of the Army. I'm not a retired General Officer, I'm a retired Noncommissioned Officer, just a dumb crusty old grunt with an opinion. But I do know a little bit about leadership, gained through twenty years of continuous, honorable active duty service to this wonderful nation in the United States Army including combat in Iraq. I most certainly understand this issue better than 90% of our current elected members of the federal government, Rush Limbaugh or John Stewart.

I will begin by saying that there is blame enough to go all around regarding the disintegration of cohesion between the uniformed and civilian leaders at the Pentagon.

Some are asking the obvious question, where were these retired Generals with their critical statements before the war began? First of all, none of us are privy to any conversations that may have occurred in the planning phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom, (OIF).

It is the opinion of The Rock that most of the General Officer Corps hesitated to voice disagreement with Mr. Rumsfeld prior to OIF because they feared that their career may have been in jeopardy, why? Let us go back in time shall we?

If you are familiar with the military you might know what the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) is, if not, look it up. During the most recent QDR, there were some questions raised concerning a new artillery weapons system known as the Crusader. It had been pretty much common knowledge that the land forces of the USA had been at a disadvantage in the indirect fire weapons systems for some time in fact, the Iraqi Army during Desert Storm was in possession of more and better quality artillery systems that the Army so it’s a good thing they did not know how to employ them, but I digress. The Crusader had gone over budget as usual, and it became the issue of an internal Pentagon debate. Former Chief of Staff of the Army (CSA) General Eric Shinsecki supported the Crusader platform as did the former Secretary of the Army (SA) Brigadier General (Retired) Thomas White. The Secretary of Defense (SecDef) Donald Rumsfeld as well as the Deputy Secretary of Defense (DSecDef) Paul Wolfowitz was not as inclined to support Crusader. To cut to the chase, the Crusader was cancelled. I think this apparently disappointed some Army brass. I think this is where the cohesion between the civilian and uniformed members of DoD suffered a parting of ways and the command climate began to degenerate with the civilian leadership of the opinion that Army brass was stuck in Cold War mode and the uniformed leadership of the opinion that they were being ignored.

During testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, the CSA was responding to general questions in reference to the QDR. General Shinsecki was asked what his thoughts on troop level deployments were. The CSA obviously did not want to answer that question but he eventually relented and gave an estimate; several hundred thousand troops. Not to win the battle, but to keep law and order in the streets of Iraq. The former SA, Thomas White echoed the sentiments of the CSA on the matter in his own testimony before the committee. So, we have two honorable men giving an honest answer to direct, specific questions asked by members of a committee assigned to provide a measure of oversight to military matters. What was the result of their testimony? Well, the liberal media had some fun with it, attempted to spin it in the usual manner. But shortly after both the CSA and the SA provided these estimates the DSecDef, Paul Wolfowitz appeared before the same committee and was asked his opinion of General Shinsecki’s remarks pertaining to troop deployment numbers. Wolfowitz said General Shinsecki was “wildly off the mark” He went on to say that he thought a much smaller force would be sufficient to police and rebuild postwar Iraq. He said that since there was no history of ethnic tension in Iraq, as there was in Bosnia or Kosovo. He said Iraqi civilians would welcome our troops as liberators that “stayed as long as necessary but left as soon as possible,” but would oppose a long-term occupation force. Continuing, he said that nations that oppose war with Iraq would likely sign up to help rebuild it. “I would expect that even countries like France will have a strong interest in assisting Iraq in reconstruction.” Mr. Wolfowitz also offered that he could not think of a scenario where it would take more people to keep the peace than it would to win the war. Remember that these comments were all made before the war began. What did Mr. Rumsfeld have to say about the matter? “The idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. Forces I think is far off the mark.” When General Shinsecki retired from active duty, guess who was conspicuously absent from the ceremony? Was that also a silent message to the rest of the General Officer Corps? I believe it was interpreted as such.

General Shinsecki, had about eighteen months left to serve in his term as CSA, when out of the blue, his replacement was identified publicly. Within Army circles this was perceived as a shot across the bow, a slap in the kisser, no CSA’s replacement had ever been named that far in advance before. General Shinsecki was more or less marginalized for the rest of his term, and the Secretary of the Army, Thomas White was issued his pink slip and vanished almost overnight quietly. What was the question again? Why did the current batch of retired Generals not speak out earlier? I offer this as a possible explanation; they didn’t want to be Shinseckifried.

I like to listen to Rush Limbaugh, but the last few days, I’ve been rather angry at the almost cavalier manner he has written off the comments of the Generals as a simple case of sour grapes over Mr. Rumsfeld’s leadership style. Excuse me Rush, but these men have all been in the Army for over thirty years, am I to understand that they never encountered a leader with Mr. Rumsfeld’s style before? I reject that theory. Rush also theorized that the Generals were trying to hype books they were writing, but as far as I know only General Zinni has a book coming out. I heard a caller to Limbaugh’s show, claiming to be a retired officer who stated, that the Generals are all cowards, he asked where they were before the war. That they were derelict in their sacred duty to raise these concerns before the war began. Once again, I refer you to the example of General Shinsecki and Thomas White. I heard another caller to Limbaugh’s show ask why, if these Generals felt such strong doubt about the campaign plan why did they not resign? I offer the example of my own experience in the Army. You can disagree all you want, but you support the boss’s decision and that’s all there is to it. You must be a team player in the Army if you want to survive and prosper. For a General Officer to resign in protest seems counter productive to me. My experience taught me that since seeing to the overall welfare of my troops was priority number one during peace time and number two during war that the best course of action when faced with this dilemma is to go along with the plan and do your best to lesson any negative impact on your troops as much as possible. To maintain positive control over everything you can within your sphere of influence, whatever that might be. That is what I call acting on a sacred duty, making the best of the situation. Resigning in protest is tantamount to quitting on your troops, leaving them flapping in the breeze under brand new leadership on the eve of war is stupid and selfish.

The victory that those critical of the Generals always point to in the overthrow of the Hussein regime was not due to any brilliant campaign plan. It was the result of courageous, smart, ingenuous captains, lieutenants and sergeants leading their troops during the run up country and in the Thunder Runs. Our troops were victorious in the combat phase of OIF despite the campaign plan, not because of it. And while I’m on the subject of the campaign plan, I have heard the statement along the lines that look, General Franks was in command and yet he is not criticizing the prosecution of OIF. Well, yeah. Of course he isn’t going to offer a criticism for to do so would mean he is criticizing himself. Lost in the debate are small facts not widely known, facts like General Franks’ original campaign plan called for the deployment of some 300,000 troops and a prolonged air campaign similar to Desert Storm. How did the troop level get cut by 100,000 or so you might ask; good question. Because I think that is not what the SecDef wanted, General Franks was sent back to the drawing board on multiple occasions until I believe it incrementally morphed into Mr. Rumsfeld’s campaign plan. Mr. Rumsfeld had been eager to shake the Army up, to transform it, this is a good thing. But the Army, being as steeped in tradition as it is, as big and cumbersome as it is, and given it’s deadly profession is an organization that plans slowly and methodically if time permits, so large that it moves slowly and cautiously if time permits, and with the consequences of failure so ominous, that it is somewhat risk averse, Army brass wants to try and make sure they have all bases covered, and I happen to think that is a good thing. With the luxury of hindsight, it seems to me plausible, that Mr. Rumsfeld used the battle fields of Iraq as a way to validate his vision of the new, transformed Army, in forcing the Army to speed up the planning process, forcing it to send in the ground forces without a prolonged air campaign he was showing the Army brass that the old ways may not always be necessary. This is why I say our troops obtained victory despite the campaign plan, not because of it. But this forced our troops to fight without a tested and approved doctrine. According to some Army leaders every unit movement during the combat phase was movement to contact, this form of movement is more physically and emotionally exhausting than you can imagine, it is also the slowest. But the greatest disadvantage to this form of tactical movement is that you do not control the terrain, you move through it and bypass it, leaving it empty for the enemy to reoccupy and attack the next formation to move through. This is where a higher troop level makes sense, along with giving the land forces more flexibility to keeping law and order in the streets during the post combat phase. Mr. Rumsfeld is also an advocate of high tech equipment, nothing wrong with that. However, when it comes to gathering raw intelligence, nothing can beat a scout team with binoculars and a radio. These are the commander’s eyes and ears, helping him to form a picture of the enemy disposition in his zone so that he can plan accordingly. Satellite photographs are of little use to a division commander, and of no use to the tactical commander. Intelligence should be pushed up, not down. The intelligence information in a satellite photographs are degradable, it loses its usefulness quickly as the enemy moves his forces. In short, our troops fought OIF using an ad hoc; make it up as you go doctrine against an enemy they did not expect. I contend that OIF should have been prosecuted using the latest doctrine that our troops were trained in, equipped for and expert at, rather than to fight relying almost solely on their ingenuity.

What we have in Iraq is a slow, ponderous move toward some form of democracy. I’m not personally in agreement that Mr. Rumsfeld need resign. We have come too far in this effort under his leadership. I think we should see it through until he sees fit to resign, or we win. But the lesson we seem to relearn over and over again is that this is what you get when civilian leadership puts any kind of constraints on an Army at war. Politicians and statesmen have years to try and solve international issues peacefully, but when they decide that further negotiations will bear no fruit, and they turn it over to the military they should turn it over to them completely, that they should not demand or even suggest to the military how to prosecute it. History tells us that when this occurs, we end up with an unsatisfactory conclusion to the war. Korea, it was seen by our politicians as a police action, and our forces were constrained for fear of widening the war and the entrance of China, what happened? China entered the war and prolonged it. Vietnam, politicians told our troops where you can bomb and shoot and where you can’t, and what happened? We lost. Desert Storm, rather than complete the annihilation of the Iraqi Army retreating north, we were ordered to cease fire, in order to appear humane, what happened? We are back there now, fighting over some of the same territory yet again. Do you see a pattern here?

Mr. Rumsfeld is an honorable man, and a great Secretary of Defense. But he was a Navy pilot. With this being his military background, it is understandable that he is the kind of leader who demands quick action, some pilots fly by the seat of their pants, it is the nature of their kind of war. But this does not translate well when it comes to an infantry company commander, too many moving parts; a lot of coordination is required. It seems that Mr. Rumsfeld has little patience for this, but I think he would have been better served to have heeded the advice of General Shinsecki, and the former Secretary of State General Powell. There is no shame in deploying more troops than you need in the opening stage of a war. The Rock is just a grumpy, crusty old noncommissioned officer, but I think it better to have more troops than you need and have the luxury of withdrawing them at your leisure as the mission permits.

2006-03-31T08:16:00.000-08:00

Let me be very clear, I support our beleaguered president; he occupies the oval office during what in my estimation is the most difficult, complex and ominous era in world history. I have no doubt that he firmly believes that he is doing the right thing regarding the global war on terror (GWOT). And I’m behind him every step of the way. Even so, it is clear that mistakes have been made at several levels of government and opportunities missed that can now be examined with the passing of time and the luxury of hindsight. This article is not intended to point out failures for the sake of bashing the president or any of our national leaders. It is my small contribution offered as a basis for considering future endeavors in conducting the GWOT. Call it constructive criticism, for that is exactly what it is intended to be.

The next time that we must take the military option in conducting the GWOT, I suggest that our civilian leadership remove itself from the picture in the planning stages and allow the experts, our military leaders to formulate a plan that will maximize the use of our military personnel and equipment to the greatest extent possible. You see, some civilian leaders had the view that the Army had become cumbersome and too slow to get moving and into the action. They thought the Army had become risk averse, afraid of making a mistake. Prior to 9/11, under the guidance of the then Chief of Staff of the Army, General Eric Shinseki and the former Secretary of the Army, General (Retired) Thomas White, the Army had embarked on a path of transformation. The goal of this transformation was to turn the Army into an organization able to deploy specialized units of action to a theater more rapidly, an agile, mobile yet lethal smaller force. But transforming an organization as large and steeped in tradition as the Army takes time. After 9/11 time was a luxury the Army no longer had. It became crystal clear; we must take the fight to the enemy, in their backyard. Fortunately, the terrain of Afghanistan allowed us to deploy small teams of Special Forces to guide Air Force, Navy, Marine and Army attack aircraft to their targets. OEF was a rousing victory, the Taliban were routed and Al Qaeda took to their heels trying to make the Pakistan border.

I think the biggest mistake regarding OIF was in not sending enough troops to Iraq initially. The Army, in the process of transformation should have been allowed to fight the war in Iraq under the old doctrine, the doctrine in which our troops were trained, expert at and equipped for instead of being forced to conduct the operation as a way to validate the vision of the new Army our civilian leaders held. It is always better as per the Powell Doctrine that when on the attack you seek numerical advantage over the defender. Further, it is my opinion that it is always favorable to deploy more troops than you need and withdraw them at your leisure as time and mission permit, rather than to send in too few and discover tragically that you should have deployed more, this is the case in Iraq. In testimony before Carl Levin and the Senate Armed Services Committee, after being painted into a corner on the question of how many troops he thought we should deploy, General Shinseki said significantly more, 200,000. This was still under half the number deployed for Desert Storm (in which the writer participated). The Secretary of the Army Thomas White said the same thing, and he was fired from his position shortly thereafter. General Shinseki’s successor was named almost 18 months prior to the end of his term as the Chief of Staff of the Army. Clearly, this was a slap in the face. And when General Shinseki retired, conspicuously absent from the ceremony, was the Secretary of Defense, so, it is clear to me that there was some disagreement at the Pentagon on the issue of how many boots to put on the ground and probably other matters as well. Also, testifying before Carl Levin and the Armed Services Committee, Paul Wolfowitz had this to say about General Shinseki’s troop numbers comment; “wildly off the mark.” Further, he said he “couldn’t conceive of how you would have a case where it takes more people to secure peace than it does to win the war.” Well, I was just a grunt in the Army, but I do read and there is a definite pattern that emerges if one reads enough about military history. It indeed does take more troops to keep the peace then it does to win the war. This axiom was quantified the day looting broke out on the streets of Baghdad, as bewildered Soldiers stood around without clear orders and giddy Iraqis criss crossed the streets with anything they could get their hands on, including important records and documents from government buildings. Records that perhaps contained information on where other bad guys were or who they could contact to get public services back online, records that may have helped speed up the reconstruction effort, where to find military leaders necessary to get the Iraqi Army on the streets to keep law and order. But we didn’t have enough troops to keep order and that is what it boils down to.

The war in Iraq started out well enough. The combat phase was a stunning display of élan by our troops. And lets be honest about this, it was not brilliant planning that brought about the capitulation of Baghdad and overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s regime. It was the quick thinking, improvisation of our squad to company level leaders. It was the actions of our captains, lieutenants, sergeants and the guts of our Soldiers and Marines on the ground that made it possible.

The intelligence community was faced with a very daunting task with Iraq. I know that erring to the side of caution is good policy. But because intelligence was in essence fed to combat units in Iraq from the top down and often times wrong, our small unit leaders were forced to employ movement to contact tactics which are time consuming and physically exhausting. Intelligence of use to tactical leaders does not come from satellite photographs, it comes from the bottom up and that intelligence is collected and forwarded by radio report by people, by the Special Forces, cavalry scouts, long range patrols and forward observers, we need more of these kinds of units.

When will our civilian leaders learn that General Officers of the United States Military are experts in planning military operations? They may take longer than civilian leadership would like, but if the military is rushed into an operation, or if their efforts are altered by our civilian leaders, one thing is certain; it will result in higher casualty rates and perhaps more collateral damage. From the War in Korea forward, our civilian leaders have become more involved in planning military operations than they ever had in the past and the results are recorded for history. The result is a negotiated end to hostilities and an unsatisfactory outcome that may well re-ignite in the future, just like Iraq did, and Korea probably will. Once our politicians have run the course of diplomacy and military action becomes the last option, they should turn it over to the military and stay out of the way.

Iraq is not a lost cause. The president, Vice President, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, numerous General Officers and more, have stated many times over that this fight could be one that lasts for generations. We can achieve the end state if we will unite in the endeavor, recognize what the stakes of this fight are and steel ourselves and our families for what might come. The only way we will lose this war, is if we allow ourselves to.