Monday, November 29, 2004
So now where is Danny Rather, and the rest of his ilk? Where is the New York Times on this? Where is the left wing outrage? Could it that their outrage is saved only for what these sniveling little bastards can possibly use for political gain? Where is their outrage? I will tell you where it is....it is being saved to condmen the American military for doing thier job. What a bunch of phony appeasers! - Sailor
Zarqawi's city of death
Washington Times Editorial
The liberation of Fallujah, a terrorist stronghold, by American and Iraqi forces has given the world an extraordinary close-up of day to day life in a city controlled by archterrorist Abu Musab Zarqawi. Coalition forces searching the city have found makeshift prisons where hostages were slaughtered, mosques that were turned into armories and laboratories where crude chemical weapons were apparently produced.
A New York Times reporter recently visited several terrorist safehouses in liberated Fallujah. In one, a black banner with the words "One God and Jihad" (the former name of Zarqawi's terrorist organization) and a yellow sun frequently seen in the background on hostage beheading videos was prominently displayed. In another house there was a wire cage large enough to hold a human being, and a wall marked with what looked to be a fingerprint in dried blood. Soldiers carried away handcuffs, knives and bayonets and jihadist propaganda materials much like those found in al Qaeda hideouts in Afghanistan after the United States drove the Taliban from power three years ago. Some of the items were crusted with a substance that looked like blood.
Inside one such house, soldiers found a handcuffed man along with rotting food. The man told U.S. troops that he thought he was in Syria. In fact, he had been held captive by Syrian terrorists. In all, coalition forces have found at least 20 of what they refer to as "atrocity sites" in Fallujah that were used by insurgents to imprison, torture and kill hostages. At one such site, a room had "handprints on the walls and along the sides of the walls," said Marine Maj. Jim West. "There was blood covering the entire wall and on the floorboard area....We found numerous houses where people were just chained to a wall for extended periods of time." Coalition forces found signs of "torture, murder, very gruesome sights," Maj. West added.
In one building believed to have been Zarqawi's headquarters, soldiers found documents with information on shooting down aircraft, along with drawings of American F-16 and F-18 planes. There was a repair shop for antitank rounds and a factory used to build car bombs. Throughout Fallujah, U.S. forces found large caches of weapons amassed by the Zarqawi terror network, including rocket-propelled grenades, mortars and surface-to-air missiles.
There were also factories for the production of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) — roadside bombs — which have been responsible for countless American and Iraqi deaths since the war began last year. The devices were found all over Fallujah — in furniture, toys, doorways and rooms inside buildings that U.S. Marines were attempting to clear.
"So clearly, besides being a safe haven for [terrorist] leadership and command and control, Fallujah was a center for making the IEDs that were being produced and used in other parts of the country to attack the coalition," said Air Force Lt. Gen. Lance Smith.
Soldiers found a chemical weapons laboratory with lethal chemicals such as sodium cyanide, hydrochloric acid and sulfuric acid. U.S. soldiers and intelligence officials believe that the terrorists were using the chemicals in an attempt to manufacture bombs. Iraqi security officials said they found a suspected chemical laboratory in a house in southwestern Fallujah where terrorists also discussed anthrax production.
Military planners at U.S. Central Command said that every one of the 77 mosques encountered by Iraqi and coalition forces in Fallujah was used as a weapons storage facility or a fortress from which to launch attacks. On Wednesday, U.S. troops announced that they had recovered the largest weapons cache to date at a Fallujah mosque. American forces also found what they believe was a mobile bomb-making factory in the mosque compound.
In sum, the terrorists who have controlled Fallujah for much of this year made it into a terrorist base from which to maim and murder Iraqis and coalition forces who came to liberate them. They had no compunctions about turning mosques and private homes into military targets by using them in their murderous plots. That needs to be kept in mind as fighting intensifies and coalition forces step up their hunt for Zarqawi's terrorists inside other densely populated cities.
Thursday, November 25, 2004
We have much to be thankful for in this great land of ours. As you sit down with your family and friends to dinner, give thanks for those who sacrafice for us on the battlesfields of foreign lands. Without their willingness to sacrafice, our Thanksgivings may not be as thankful. - Sailor.
George Washington's 1789 Thanksgiving Proclamation
Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:
Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.
And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have show kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.
Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3d dy of October, A.D. 1789.
(signed) G. Washington
Tuesday, November 23, 2004
Here is an editorail taking the lefties to task on the Bush Cabinet appointments. Some one give these lefties some cheese, I am sure they would orefer smelly french cheese, with their whines. - Sailor.
Bush's new Cabinet
Washington Times Editorial
Early in Ronald Reagan's first term, Secretary of State Alexander Haig opened a Cabinet Room meeting by arguing for continuing the Law of the Sea Treaty, even though the president was against it, because doing so would please U.S. allies. The secretary then began to list options for modifying the treaty, until Mr. Reagan interrupted: "Uh, Al," he said, "isn't this what the whole thing was all about?" As the president would go on to explain, the "whole thing" was winning the election and governing as he saw fit to govern.
We were reminded of this incident recently after listening to the Democrats and their liberal counterparts in the media bemoan President Bush's new Cabinet appointees. The new liberal line is that the president is surrounding himself with "yes men" and "flunkies" whose sole responsibility is to toe the administration line on everything. We are told that newly appointed Attorney General Alberto Gonzales owes his entire career to Mr. Bush and therefore wouldn't dare offer a dissenting opinion. Newly appointed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice? She's just a Bush "toady," who will play marionette to Mr. Bush's puppet master. Meanwhile, conservative pundit (and John Kerry supporter) Andrew Sullivan, in an article for the Sunday Times, lamented that Mr. Bush "regards his re-election as a vindication of almost everything he has done in the past four years, and so feels confident to have servants, rather than peers, to pursue the same course in the future."
Aside from Mr. Sullivan's unfortunate use of the term "servants," isn't this what the whole thing is, and always has been, all about? Since President Jimmy Carter, who asked his entire Cabinet to resign in 1979, presidents have attempted to rein in their bloated bureaucracies by appointing those who would hold White House priorities above all others. Speaking to The Washington Post, Clinton White House domestic policy chief Bruce Reed stated the obvious: "It's a good idea to promote from within and there's nothing wrong with wanting a Cabinet whose agenda is the same as the president's." Appointing qualified candidates to Cabinet positions is a president's prerogative and the constitutional responsibility of the Executive branch.
The liberals' recent caricature that the president has lost patience with internal debates flies in the face of their previous caricature that the president is controlled by his advisers. The truth is that Mr. Bush will continue to receive differing opinions on every decision he is asked to make. The question is whether, after the decision is made, he continues to receive dissent in the underhanded way that has characterized too much of his first term. Lest we forget that Mr. Bush is the first president to have a Harvard MBA, streamlining the top echelons of his administration is nothing more than good management. At least, this is one instance where Harvard can feel good about itself.
By John Podhoretz
New York Post
November 23, 2004 -- PRESIDENT Bush proved in his first term that he had a talent for provoking fits of madness in the brains of liberals who disagree with him. It appears his second four years will be no different. For a week now, you see, authoritative Washington pundit-types have been making a very serious and deeply reasoned argument about the president's new Cabinet choices for which there is only one possible word:
They claim, in all seriousness, that Bush is exceeding his political, executive and electoral authority by nominating experienced administration officials to serve in his Cabinet. These choices are bad, they say, because — get this — the president is daring to appoint people who are a) loyal to him (horrors!) and b) don't disagree with him enough (meanie).
David Gergen wrote in The New York Times that Bush is "closing down dissent and centralizing power in a few hands."
E.J. Dionne of The Washington Post said on National Public Radio that "the president has made a conscious choice for his second term to . . . have people who broadly agree with his policy" and therefore, "people won't raise the kind of questions that we wish had been raised more forcefully."
Dana Bash of CNN: "It's going to make the president too insulated. Not enough healthy debate will go on."
You know who else chimed in? None other than John Kerry, who thundered that "healthy debate and diverse opinion are being eliminated from the State Department and CIA."
(How proud Dana Bash must be that she and John Kerry have used the exact same words. And how proud her masters at CNN must be, too.)
There's no question that "healthy debate" is an important part of every serious enterprise. But let's not beat around the Bush. When these characters talk about the need for "debate," they mean one thing and one thing only: They fear Bush won't be forced to take account of opinions and judgments they like and will instead fall back on opinions and judgments he likes.
Here's the thing: We Americans elected him because we want him to exercise his judgment. We elected him to serve as the steward of our interests and the representative of our views. What we Americans know, based on his campaign for re-election, is what he stands for, what he believes, what he's done and what he says he'll do.
He was not elected to provide a forum for the healthy debate of Colin Powell's views. If he chooses to listen to Powell, that's his right and privilege. But it is equally his right and privilege — under the provisions of our system, which allows him to fire anybody he chooses from a political appointment to the executive branch of the U.S. government — not to listen to Colin Powell.
Nor must he listen to the views of E.J. Dionne, may the blessed God be thanked. That goes double for the views of David ("I'll work for anybody") Gergen.
And he is almost obliged to ignore the views of John Kerry, despite the fact that Kerry received 57 million votes on Nov. 2, because to do so would be a violation of the compact he made with the 61.06 million people who voted for him.
There is one crucial way, though, in which he must listen to John Kerry. And that is when Kerry expresses his views officially in the U.S. Senate by voting on legislation (when he bothers to do so, that is).
Under the Constitution, Bush is required to listen to the views of other elected officials in the Congress, because those views are expressed in the form of legislation that crosses his desk. He must also listen to the Senate because its members are given the responsibility to "advise and consent" to his Cabinet and judicial nominees.
Did the president benefit from hearing Colin Powell's views during his first term? On some matters, certainly, and on others probably not as much. But it's simply comic to assume that with Powell gone, there will not be healthy debate between incoming Secretary of State Condi Rice and the secretary of Defense (Rummy or whoever follows him).
There has always been and will always be tension between these departments, because they step on each other's toes. The fact that their presiding officers will be more loyal to the president than they will be to Bob Woodward won't mitigate that fact of Washington political life.
The only surprising aspect of this argument is that it completely ditches the old, reliable "Bush is a moron" meme for a new and more ominous "Bush is a control-freak mastermind" theory. The man who, we were told, had no interest in policy and could barely tie his shoes now wants to vet every minute decision made at the departments of State, Justice and Education and at the Central Intelligence Agency.
Hey guys: Pick an argument and stick to it, will you? Otherwise, people will start thinking you're crazy.
Monday, November 22, 2004
Liberals have always been racists, but have been too stupid to realize that they are or so full of their own self importance that they do not understand they are. - Sailor.
Liberals' Racism Exposed
Monday, Nov. 21, 2004
Last Monday morning, President Bush announced that Condoleezza Rice, his national security adviser and a black woman, would succeed Colin Powell as the next secretary of state. By promoting Ms. Rice to the position, President Bush continued his policy of picking the best man or woman for the job, and won another decisive victory in the battle to encourage a color-blind America.
On Tuesday morning, benefactors of racial tension got their revenge. The Washington Post ran a cartoon portraying Ms. Rice with protruding lips and buck teeth. CNN announced the president’s decision with a photo of Ms. Rice, with the words “Movin’ on up” – a reference to the once-popular "black" sitcom "The Jeffersons" – superimposed over it. And John Sylvester pulled out all the stops by referring to Ms. Rice as an “Aunt Jemima” on national radio.
Story Continues Below
This is not the first time Ms. Rice has found her race in the grip of the media beast, and it certainly won’t be the last. However, the media’s portrayal of Ms. Rice, coupled with the silence of African-American politicians, organizations such as the NAACP, and the Democratic Party, highlight once again their belief that racial integration takes a back seat to maintaining their hold on the black vote.
It is no secret that the cornerstone of the Democratic Party is the black vote, but what is a secret is that liberals don’t share a single vision with African-Americans.
The majority of African-Americans oppose same-sex marriage, Democrats support it. Democrats preach higher taxes, while African-Americans benefit from lower taxes. African-Americans support smaller government and states' rights, while the Democratic Party has whittled away at local government and urged the surrender of the most basic aspects of our lives to the federal government for decades.
So, then, if the Democratic Party opposes African-Americans on almost every issue, then why does the black vote continue to be the cornerstone of the party? The answer is affirmative action.
Coming out of the civil rights movement three decades ago, affirmative action was an attempt to address our nation’s long history of racial and sexual discrimination. Ideally, affirmative action would require managers, or admissions officers, faced with two similarly qualified candidates to take into account the individuals' backgrounds and the obstacles they had to overcome.
In reality, affirmative action continues the racist polices of the past by instituting the use of race-based criteria, such as quotas and timetables, to increase diversity. The end effect of affirmative action is that it cements the racial divide as whites blame affirmative action for robbing them of promotions, and minorities and women resent the perception that their success is unearned.
While the obvious answer to the broken policy of affirmative action is to mend it or end it, those who have built their careers on the racial divide prefer to keep affirmative action just as it is. By maintaining affirmative action in its current form, Democrats and the media are able to portray the Republican Party as racist and hold on to the black vote in spite of opposing African-Americans on every issue that matters.
That is why they hate Condoleezza Rice. As a successful black woman who grew up under Jim Crow segregation in Alabama, she epitomizes what is possible in a society that rewards hard work and commitment. Instead of celebrating her promotion to secretary of state as a collective victory for all Americans, those promoting the racial divide have tried to vilify and reduce her through racially loaded images and words.
These race brokers divide not only the nation but also African-Americans, because they know that only together we shall overcome.
Antonio Williams, an African-American, is a former speechwriter for the federal government and a Republican. He is also a graduate of Macalester College.
Saturday, November 20, 2004
A very insightful article. Take the link to Patriot Petions and sign it! - Sailor.
Damned if they do, Dead if they don't...
The Collegiate Patriot
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it." --Thomas Paine
In their latest campaign to eradicate Jihadi vermin on the Iraqi warfront with Jihadistan, U.S. Marines and Army infantry have, in the last two weeks, purged Fallujah of more than 5,000 terrorist insurgents who were dug in throughout the city. The combat has been fierce.
A week into the Fallujah operation, an NBC photographer embedded with the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, recorded video of a young combat-hardened Marine entering a room in a mosque where he found several insurgents on the floor under covers. Unable to determine if these enemy combatants were injured, dead or preparing to ambush his unit, the Marine raised his rifle in preparation to defend himself and his fellow Marines. When he detected movement from one of the combatants, the Marine yelled, "He's (expletive) faking he's dead! He's faking he's (expletive) dead!" and killed the Jihadi -- and that is where this story should have ended.
As it turned out, however, the Jihadi had been wounded the day before and the NBC photographer, Kevin Sites (whose photographs are featured on many anti-war Website), stepped up to get his 15 seconds of fame. Sites turned the video over to his network, telling them that he did not think the Jihadi was a threat, and within 24 hours, Lefty lynch mobs were forming to hang themselves a Marine.
Notably, the loudest protests of "war crimes" were from those who have never been closer to combat than the distance between their living-room lounge chairs and TVs. (Of course, it is a war crime to store weapons in a mosque as was documented, but the Lefties are not protesting that.) Indeed, the Leftmedia's mindless promotion of this video (as with the Abu Ghraib feeding frenzy: see --Link) was tantamount to shaking a hornet's nest -- making the task of our fighting forces in Fallujah and elsewhere in the region all the more difficult. Actions have consequences, and the exploitation of this video empowered Jihadis in the region -- in effect, making life very difficult for our Armed Forces.
But what you're not hearing from NBC's Tom Brokaw or any other Leftmedia talkingheads in their wholesale condemnation of this incident is that Jihadis (knowing that U.S. military personnel have the decency to tend to wounded enemy combatants) have routinely booby-trapped the bodies of dead insurgents. In fact, one member of the Marine squad now being scrutinized was killed (and five others wounded) when attempting to check on a wounded Jihadi only days earlier. In addition, the Marine now being questioned for killing this wounded Jihadi suffered a wound to his face a day earlier when an injured Jihadi fired on him.
These facts notwithstanding, the Left and their media minions have now made this young Marine their poster boy for U.S. atrocities. Here, we would remind these hypocrites that a few short weeks ago, they were doing all in their power to support John F. Kerry's campaign for the most powerful office in the world. This would be the same JFK who received a Silver Star (with and erroneous "V") for chasing a wounded Vietcong combatant (described as a young boy in a loin cloth) around a hutch and shooting him in the back.
While we have strenuously questioned the merits of John Kerry's Silver Star for this action, we have never questioned his decision to kill this VC enemy, whom he judged to be a threat to his boat crew. By the Kerry standard, the young Marine in question should get a Silver Star. (Of course, enlisted personnel really have to do something spectacular to pin one of those on.)
Now that the Left is once again decrying military actions to liberate Iraq, please take a moment and join more than 115,000 grateful Americans who have already signed An Open Letter in Support of America's Armed Forces in support of our Patriots in uniform. These American Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen have plowed the ground for liberty while protecting their countrymen back home. We remain the proud and the free because they have stood bravely in harm's way and remain on post today.
For this, we, the American People, offer our heartfelt thanks. Please support our troops -- let your voice be heard! Join fellow Patriots on the front lines in defense of our liberty and national sovereignty. Link to -- Patriot Petitions
Memo to the Pentagon: Leave the reporters embedded, but have them check their cameras in the rear. Otherwise, the resulting Leftist hype will continue to jeopardize our mission -- and jeopardize the lives of American military personnel.
Quote of the week...
"Some 40 Marines have just lost their lives cleaning out one of the world's worst terror dens, in Fallujah, yet all the world wants to talk about is the NBC videotape of a Marine shooting a prostrate Iraqi inside a mosque. ... The al-Zarqawi TV network, also known as Al-Jazeera, has broadcast the tape to the Arab world, and U.S. media have also played it up. The point seems to be to conjure up images again of Abu Ghraib, further maligning the American purpose in Iraq. Never mind that the pictures don't come close to telling us about the context of the incident, much less what was on the mind of the soldier after days of combat. Put yourself in that Marine's boots. He and his mates have had to endure some of the toughest infantry duty imaginable, house-to-house urban fighting against an enemy that neither wears a uniform nor obeys any normal rules of war. ... When not disemboweling Iraqi women, these killers hide in mosques and hospitals, booby-trap dead bodies, and open fire as they pretend to surrender. Their snipers kill U.S. soldiers out of nowhere. According to one account, the Marine in the videotape had seen a member of his unit killed by another insurgent pretending to be dead. Who from the safety of his Manhattan sofa has standing to judge what that Marine did in that mosque?" --The Wall Street Journal
H-hour has arrivedCaroline B. Glick
November 20, 2004
The agreement that France, Germany and Britain reached with Iran this week signals that the diplomatic option of dealing with Iran's nuclear weapons program no longer exists. To understand why this is the case, we must look into the agreement and understand what is motivating the various parties to accede to its conditions.
The agreement stipulates that the European-3 will provide Iran with light water reactor fuel, enhanced trade relations and more nuclear reactors. In exchange, the Iranians agree that for the duration of the negotiations toward implementing the agreement – including a European push for Iranian ascension to the World Trade Organization – it will not develop centrifuges and will not enrich uranium. At the same time, the Europeans accepted Iran's claim that it has the legal right to complete the entire nuclear fuel cycle – meaning, it has the legal right to enrich uranium. Strangely, in a separate Iranian agreement with the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency, the Iranians announced that they would cease enriching uranium effective Monday, November 22, rather than immediately. This apparently annoyed the Europeans, but it wasn't a deal breaker.
The Weekly Standard this week explained that light water reactor fuel of the type that the Europeans have agreed to give Iran can be used to produce bomb material within nine weeks. Since the IAEA inspectors only visit Iran every three months, it would be a simple matter to divert enough light water fuel to produce a bomb between inspections. And so, the agreement itself holds the promise of direct European assistance to Iran's nuclear weapons program.
While the Europeans were congratulating themselves for their feckless diplomacy, the Iranians were taking to the airwaves and arguing that they gave up nothing in the deal and received everything. Hamid Reza Asefi, a spokesman for the Iranian Foreign Ministry, said the suspension of nuclear activities would last only until Iran and the Europeans reached a long-term agreement. For his part, Iranian chief nuclear negotiator Hassan Rowhani said that enriching uranium is "Iran's right, and Iran will never give up its right to enrich uranium."
Iran's interest in making the deal is clear. The IAEA governing board is set to meet next week to discuss Iran's nuclear program. By agreeing to the deal with the Europeans, Iran has effectively foreclosed the option, favored by the US, of transferring Iran's nuclear program to the UN Security Council for discussions that could lead to sanctions on Iran.
Aside from that, all along, Iran has been gaming the system. It has pushed to the limits all feasible interpretation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, of which it is a signatory, to enable it to reach the cusp of nuclear weapons development without breaking its ties or diminishing its leverage over the Europeans as well as the Russians and Chinese. In so doing, it has isolated the US and Israel – which have both gone on record that Iran must not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons – from the rest of the international community, which is ready to enable Iran to achieve nuclear weapons capabilities.
In the meantime, as Iran has negotiated the deal with the Europeans, it has moved quickly to develop its nuclear weapons delivery systems. Its recent Shihab-3 ballistic missiles tests seem to have demonstrated that Iran can now launch missiles to as far away as Europe. In addition, last week's launching of an Iranian drone, as well as this week's Katyusha rocket attacks on northern Israel, have shown that Iran has developed a panoply of delivery options for using its nuclear (as well as chemical and biological) arsenals to physically destroy Israel.
For their part, the European powers must know that this deal is a lie. The ink had not dried on their signatures when Iran announced that it wasn't obligated by the agreement to end its uranium enrichment. As well, on Wednesday, just two days after the deal was announced formally, the Iranian opposition movement, the National Council of Resistance – the political front for the People's Mujahedeen (which the deal stipulates must be treated as a terrorist organization comparable to al-Qaida) – held press conferences in Paris and Vienna where its representatives stated that Iran is continuing to enrich uranium at a Defense Ministry facility in Teheran and that it bought blueprints for nuclear bombs three years ago from Pakistani nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan's nuclear bomb store. The Council of Resistance is the same organization that blew the whistle on Iran's nuclear program in 2002, when it exposed satellite imagery of Iran's nuclear facility in Natanz.
Aside from this, European leaders themselves have said that in their view there is no military option for taking out Iran's nuclear facilities. In an interview with the BBC this week, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said, "I don't see any circumstances in which military action would be justified against Iran, full stop."
Straw made this statement the same week that French President Jacques Chirac made an all-out diplomatic assault against British Prime Minister Tony Blair for his alliance with US President George W. Bush. Speaking to British reporters on Monday, Chirac said, "Britain gave its support [to the US in Iraq] but I did not see much in return. I am not sure that it is in the nature of our American friends at the moment to return favors." Chirac added that he had told Blair that his friendship with Bush could be of use if the US adopted the EU position on Israel and the Palestinians.
Since Bush has refused to do so, Chirac argued, Bush has played Blair for a fool.
From these statements, two things about the European agenda become clear. First, by bringing Britain into the talks with Iran, the French have managed to ensure that the Americans, if they decide to do something about Iran's nuclear weapons programs, will be forced to act without British backing and at the expense of the British government, thus causing a serious fissure in the Anglo-American alliance. Straw's statement is breathtaking in that it shows that on the issue of Iranian nuclear weapons, the British prefer to see Iran gain nuclear weapons to having anyone act to prevent them from doing so.
Chirac's statement exposes, once again, France's main interest in international affairs today. To wit: France wishes only to box in the US to the point that the Americans will not be able to continue to fight the war against terrorism. The French do this not because they necessarily like terrorists. They do this because as Chirac has said many times, he views the central challenge of our time as developing a "multipolar" world. France's obsession with multipolarity stems from Chirac's perception that his country's primary aim is not to free the world from Islamic terror, but to weaken the US.
Given this state of affairs, it is clear that the newest deal with the mullahs has removed diplomacy from the box of tools that can be used against Iran. In the unlikely event that the issue is ever turned over to the Security Council, France will veto sanctions even if Russia and China could be bought off to abstain. As the Iraqi oil-for-food scandal has shown, even if sanctions were to be levied, there is no credible way to enforce them.
So where does this leave the Jews who, in the event that Iran goes nuclear, will face the threat of annihilation? Crunch time has arrived. It is time for Israel's leaders to go to Washington and ask the Americans point blank if they plan to defend Europe as Europe defends Iran's ability to attain the wherewithal to destroy the Jewish state. It must be made very clear to the White House that the hour of diplomacy faded away with the European Trio's latest ridiculous agreement with the mullahs. There is no UN option. Europe has cast its lot with the enemy of civilization itself.
The prevailing wisdom in Washington these days seems to be that the US is waiting for an Israeli attack on Iran. There is some logic to such a policy. No doubt, the Arabs and the Iranians will all blame America anyway, but they are not America's chief concern here. Britain and Germany are.
What the US needs is plausible deniability regarding an Israeli strike vis- -vis Britain and Germany, in order to get itself out of the trap that Paris has set for it. An Israeli strike against the Iranian nuclear program will leave Germany in an uncomfortable public position. Berlin cannot condemn the Jews for doing what we can to prevent another Holocaust without losing whatever crumbs of moral credibility it has built up over the past 50 years.
As for Britain, if Israel were to conduct the attack on its own, the British would be hard-pressed to abandon the Americans; thus, the danger that British involvement with the Paris-based multipolarists on Iran will breach the Anglo-American alliance could be somewhat mitigated.
On the other hand, if the Bush administration does not accept Israeli reasoning, the fact will still remain: Israel cannot accept a nuclear Iran.
Caroline B. Glick is the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post, where this article first appeared.
Seems the MSM is all in a lather about this. - Sailor.
Long Live Free Fallujah!
By Stephen Schwartz
Tech Central Station
With the liberation of Fallujah and the fall of the jihadist regime in the town, it is apparent that American media intend to keep their story on message: the message being that the U.S. military operation there has failed and that Fallujans, and Iraqis in general, still hate the intervention forces.
At the same time, other reports tell a more significant and eloquent story: the jihadists had set up a Taliban-style dictatorship, in which women who did not cover their entire bodies, people listening to music, and members of spiritual Sufi orders -- that is, ordinary Fallujans -- were subject to torture and execution.
The Fallujans have learned the same lesson the Shias learned before them, and the Afghans before them: U.S. boots on Muslim soil may be onerous, but American military action is preferable to the unspeakably vicious criminality of Islamist extremists financed, recruited, and otherwise encouraged by Wahhabism, the state religion in Saudi Arabia.
When Phnom Penh fell to the Khmer Rouge almost 30 years ago, Western media reported it as the liberation of a city. Noam Chomsky hailed the forced evacuation of Cambodian towns as a noble social experiment. But many journalists were soon forced to record the truth about Khmer Rouge cruelty.
It took longer for Western, and especially American media, to stop glamorizing the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and the Stalinist guerrillas in El Salvador, and to admit that the masses of people in those countries rejected their claims to represent them. An editor at the San Francisco Chronicle, where I worked, on the day after Violeta Chamorro (remember her?) won election in Managua in 1990, told me, "Nicaragua is no longer a news story for us." I asked, "is that because there will be no more violence?" He said, "No, it's because the U.S. is no longer a target." I am sure he meant "a target of our reporting."
Since the Vietnam era, American journalists seem to operate by an ethic reversing the infamous slogan of antiwar demonstrators, who chant "media lies, people die." Much more accurate would be to say "people die, media lies." American media lied about Vietnam, telling us the Communists won the Tet offensive when they were defeated -- and when, by the way, the recapture of the traditional capital city of Hue disclosed that the Communists had rounded up and executed some 6,000 people. American media lied about Central America, as noted; American media still lie about Cuba, portraying the Castro regime, which has driven the average standard of living of the people drastically down, as the most progressive in Latin America.
Much of American media lied about the wars in Yugoslavia, depicting Slobodan Milosevic, early on, as a reformer in the style of Gorbachev. They continued by "explaining" Serbian aggression against Slovenes, Croats, Bosnian Muslims, and Albanians by the alleged wholesale collaboration of the victims' great-grandparents with the Nazis. Presumably, the 1,100 children killed in the siege of Sarajevo were all members of a Bosnian Waffen SS division about which much propagandistic ink has been spilled over the years. And they repeated ad nauseam the false charge that equal atrocities were committed on all sides, when the great majority of mass murders, rapes, deportations, and expulsions were carried out by the Serbs.
Where the ink of lies is spilled, the blood of victims soon follows. Media liars are sharks; they gather at the smell of blood. And in this deadly cycle of untruths, Iraq has set new standards for media mendacity. President Bush and his team are reviled because the Iraq war was described by one adviser as a "cakewalk;" well, the conquest of Baghdad was a cakewalk, remember? Then the administration was defamed because the Iraqis did not strew roses in the path of our service personnel. Terrorism suddenly became "insurgency" and "resistance," with the veteran fabricators of The New York Times -- who lied about Stalin's famine in the 1930s and on numerous occasions thereafter -- adopting the propaganda vocabulary of al-Jazeera.
Strangely, throughout the Iraqi struggle, Western media have joined Western politicians in a reluctance to name the "foreign fighters" in Fallujah as what they are -- mostly Wahhabis, and mainly Saudis. Those who monitor Arab media know this to be true because when jihadists die in Fallujah, their photographs and biographies appeared in newspapers south of the Iraq-Saudi border. Western media "analysts" added to the fog of disinformation by alleging that the Shia rebels of Moqtada ul-Sadr would join the Wahhabis in Fallujah. But Islamic media around the world began to produce curious items: Moqtada ul-Sadr issued an order for the execution of any Wahhabis caught infiltrating the Shia holy cities; Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, in turn, supervised the beheading of an Iraqi Shia accused of spying for the Americans. Top Shia cleric Ayatollah Ali Sistani issued a fatwa saying that anybody who obstructed the U.S.-sponsored elections in Iraq is destined for eternal fire. And the 26 leading Wahhabi radicals in Saudi Arabia published an open letter to the Iraqis calling for stiffened resistance in Fallujah and forbidding any cooperation with the U.S. forces. Little of this was reported in or digested by American media, which stuck to their story: Americans bad, terrorists in Iraq good.
Most Western journalists seem to have fled Fallujah as the fighting there heated up. But news is now trickling out of the liberated city, and it is fascinating to read. The London Times on Monday, November 15, described Fallujah as "terrorized" by the jihadists, who posted notices ordering death sentences on walls and poles throughout the streets. "Mutilated bodies dumped on Fallujah's bombed out streets today painted a harrowing picture of eight months of rebel rule," it began. The characteristically arbitrary, if not insane tone of Wahhabi/Taliban "governance" was clearly in evidence: An order dated November 1 "gives vendors three days to remove nine market stalls from outside the city's library or face execution. The pretext given is that the rebels wanted to convert the building into a headquarters for the 'Mujahidin Advisory Council' through which they ran the city."
Orders to conform to Wahhabi "virtue" were backed up by graphic examples: "An Arab woman, in a violet nightdress, lay in a post-mortem embrace with a male corpse in the middle of the street. Both bodies had died from bullets to the head… Many of the residents who emerged from the ruins welcomed the U.S. marines, despite the massive destruction their firepower had inflicted on their city. A man in his sixties, half-naked and his underwear stained with blood from shrapnel wounds, cursed the insurgents as he greeted the advancing marines on Saturday night.
"'I wish the Americans had come here the very first day and not waited eight months,' he said, trembling. Nearby, a mosque courtyard had been used as a weapons store by the militants. Another elderly man, who did not want his name used for fear the rebels would one day return and restore their draconian rule, said he was detained by the militants last Tuesday and held for four days before being freed… 'It was horrible,' he told an Agence France-Presse reporter. 'We suffered from the bombings. Innocent people died or were wounded by the bombings. But we were happy you did what you did because Fallujah had been suffocated by the Mujahidin. Anyone considered suspicious would be slaughtered. We would see unknown corpses around the city all the time.'"
The account continues, "Even residents who regard themselves as observant Muslims lived in fear because they did not share the puritan brand of Sunni Islam that the insurgents enforced. One devotee of a Sufi sect, followers of a mystical form of worship deemed heretical by the hardliners, told how he and other members of his order had lived in terror inside their homes for fear of retribution.
"'It was a very hard life. We couldn't move. We could not work,' said the man sporting the white robe and skullcap prescribed by his faith. 'If they had any issue with a person, they would kill him or throw him in jail.'"
There are, perhaps, some Western Islamophobic ideologues who, from the safety of their suburban homes, would love to tell these Muslim victims of terrorism that their torment was their own fault for not changing or altering their traditional Islamic faith. Some people have no shame. But sooner or later Americans will understand what Iraqis are learning: that our troops went there to free Islam, not to destroy it; that in a choice between American supervision and Taliban atrocities, the ordinary Sunnis and the mystical Sufis and the majority Shias will opt for our help.
Meanwhile, the body count is encouraging: in Fallujah, 38 Americans and five Iraqi regulars lost; 1,200 terrorists killed. Long live free Fallujah!
Now mind you, it is the left that talks about uniting. Seems they are talking out of their assholes once again. - Sailor
By Pejman Yousefzadeh
Tech Central Station
Everyone has heard the old story about the candidate for public office who comes to meet his supporters on election night. Things have not gone his way, his opponent is the clear victor, and while the losing candidate wants to be gracious, he just cannot summon grace from his bitter heart. So he goes to the podium and announces "The people have spoken." And then he adds "The bastards."
Denial and anger precede acceptance, which helps to explain why the joke works. It also helps to explain the palpable fury of those who wanted to see George W. Bush lose this election, and are now frustrated. Perhaps Republicans and pro-Bush voters would have been similarly upset if John Kerry were elected President -- although of course, in a counterfactual situation, one cannot tell for sure. But what is most interesting about the post-election reaction from anti-Bush voters is that instead of looking inwards to try to figure out how best to recalibrate their message for future elections, they have taken instead to condemning -- in bitter and virulent terms -- those who voted to give President Bush a second term in office.
Thus, we have a website telling a large region of the country that it should go and perform anatomical impossibilities upon itself. Another website has resolved to apologize to the rest of the world for the results of the Presidential election (this latter website has naturally led to derision). Apparently, the idea of moving to Canada is more appealing to some of those put out by the election results than slogging it out any further in the current political climate. For those who don't want to go to Canada, but can't abide the thought of "four more years," secession is being openly talked about as an option -- with this geographic arrangement being one of the more popular ones in quasi-serious secessionist corners. Columnist Jane Smiley helpfully informs us that the so-called "red states" are "unteachably ignorant," and that the re-election of President Bush "reflect[s] the decision of the right wing to cultivate and exploit ignorance in the citizenry." It is columns like Smiley's that prompted Mark Steyn to point out that "Bush Derangement Syndrome is moving to a whole new level. On the morning of Nov. 2, the condescending left were convinced that Bush was an idiot. By the evening of Nov. 2, they were convinced that the electorate was." Perhaps the second part of Jane's Law is being proven right all over again.
The rage may be an understandable human reaction when one is at the losing end of a very hard-fought political contest. But that doesn't make the wholesale condescension and the secessionist talk any more acceptable. Color me naïve, but I have a hard time understanding the wisdom of the talk coming out of Democratic circles -- talk that is reaching at least a semi-serious level of resonance. Whatever their fervent hopes, secessionists will not be successful in creating "The United States of Canada" to stand opposite of "Jesusland." The condescension towards the red states is not only childish and gratuitous, it is also wholly unwarranted.
And even if the condescension were warranted, in two years for the midterm elections and in four years for the next Presidential elections, Democrats will need to go back to the red states and ask for votes. So before the anti-Bush contingent tells red-staters that they are ignorant, and before they tell an entire region of the country to go and perform anatomical impossibilities upon itself, would they care to explain how this turned into this within eight short years? Is it simply because a number of states suddenly got stupid? Or is it because there is a serious problem with the way the Democrats run campaigns nowadays? Additionally, is the anti-Bush contingent going to explain away the very close margins in traditionally Democratic states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Pennsylvania by saying that the residents of those states are increasingly getting stupid and could very well cross the threshold of stupidity in the next few years by voting for a Republican Presidential candidate? Or is there something more complicated -- more "nuanced," if you will -- afoot?
Beyond the fact that all of this fury and condescension isn't exactly recommended in How To Win Friends And Influence People, the problem with the post-election meltdown is that it deprives us of the ultimate luxury in a democratic republic; the existence of a viable and coherent opposition party. I know that Democrats may be unwilling to take advice on winning elections from a libertarian-conservative Republican like me, but is it too much to ask that the gnashing of teeth give way soon to the emergence of a positive agenda from the Democrats? My party may have control of the White House and Congress but I still want it to be challenged and kept on its toes. Democratic-republicanism thrives and flourishes when there exists a healthy and vigorous national debate. We're being deprived that kind of debate now with one party looking for all the world like it wants to take its ball and leave -- but not before calling the other party and its supporters unworthy of even having a discussion with. This behavior is not constructive, to say the least.
Democrats should take comfort in the fact that politics generally runs in cycles, and that means that Democrats will find themselves on the winning end of elections eventually. When they do, I hope that my party will eschew talk of secession, condescension towards voters whose votes will be needed in the next campaign, and idle talk about emigrating to distant shores. You may think the voters are bastards for not agreeing with you, but those are the breaks in a democratic republic. And they'll never agree with you if you spend your time berating them instead of wooing and persuading them.
Thursday, November 18, 2004
Hurt troops need clothes, toiletries
By Justin Willett
LANDSTUHL, Germany - When wounded troops arrive at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center they often are wearing the same clothes they were wearing when they were injured; usually a dirty desert camouflage uniform, sometimes just a pair of boxer shorts.
The troops receive a $250 voucher from the Department of Defense.
But they are often unable to make it to the nearest Army and Air Force Exchange Services store at Ramstein Air Base for clothes or toiletries.
That's where Landstuhl's Pastoral Services Department comes in.
Pastoral services runs the Chaplain's Closet, a tiny building packed full of donated clothes, toiletries, books,
movies and other personal items.
Lt. Col. Robert Hicks is a chaplain with the Alabama Air Guard. He works with Army, Marine, Navy and Air Force chaplains on getting the troops what they need.
This weekend, volunteers delivered wheelchairs full of items to hundreds of troops who arrived from Fallujah in the past week.
Senior Airman Karly Vogel, who is in the Minnesota Air Guard and is a chaplain's assistant at Landstuhl said the biggest need right now is large and extra-large sweatpants and shirts for Germany's cold weather.
"We rely on donations." she said. "There's so many troops that come through here, we have to work quick to get them what they need."
Col. Eric Holmstrom is an Army reservist who was activated for one year and made chief of pastoral services at Landstuhl.
He said the hospital is a good place to minister, but there are always needs.
"We always have patients," he said. "And we always have a need."
Holmstrom said men's shoes sizes nine to 12 are in high demand as is cash.
Pastoral services only accepts new items. Ongoing needs at the Chaplain's Closet include: men's shoes sizes nine to 12, women's shoes size six to nine, men's and women's winter coats sizes medium through extra-large, and backpacks, gym bags and small suitcases.
Send checks to:
USAREUR Chaplains Fund
Commander, Landstuhl Regional Medical Center
Attention: MCEUL-CH/Chaplains Office
CMR 402 APO AE09180
Take it from the Sailor, these packages are the best morale builder these kids can receive! - Sailor
Some Tips for Sending Care Packages to the Troops
Written by Doc Farmer
Wednesday, November 17, 2004
I was sitting here in my new flat, feeling sick as a dog from the cold that has been passed around the office a few times, racking my brain for something to write about this week. The election is finally over (thank God!), the cabinet shuffle is continuing apace, the weather is turning rotten(er) outside, and I can feel the chill of winter in me old bones. I'm slightly zorked out of my head on Theraflu, which
should have a warning label for its hallucinogenic effects.
I could rant and rave about whatever injustice has me honked off this week, but you've probably had a snoot-full of that by now. Frankly, so have I. I could remind everybody to send letters to their senators demanding that Kerry be ousted from Congress; no, wait, I did that last week. I could give you my father's super-secret recipe for Swiss Louie dressing, but I'm actually going home for Thanksgiving next week and would prefer not to be shot, thank you very much.
I was just about ready to give up and send my editor a letter of apology, when something on the ChronWatch Forum discussion board caught my eye. These photos of packages sent by well-meaning family and friends to their loved ones over in Iraq:
Link to Photo 1
Link to Photo 2
As you can see, the boxes didn't quite arrive in the same condition they were sent. Sadly, a lot of soldiers will end up with a handful of crumbs instead of a delicious batch of cookies. Or worse, they'll end up with a delicious batch of cookies firmly and permanently embedded in their underwear.
Now, over the years of living overseas, I've learned a trick or three about sending packages. I've actually sent lasagna as a Christmas
gift (and believe me, FedEx and dry ice are an expensive combination). I once packed a three-foot tall camel (don't worry, it was a stuffed toy) into a piece of luggage for my kids when they were (much) younger. I've moved from America to England to Saudi Arabia to Qatar and back again to America, and have survived remarkably unscathed.
Except for when I fly through Detroit. They always lose my luggage in Detroit. Still haven't figured out why.
But I digress.
My mom is great at sending packages for long-haul journeys. She didn't ship much overseas to Dad when he was in the Navy, but Mom was meticulous in the way she'd pack all the stuff she would send. Only problem was, she extended that same care and attention to the Christmas wrapping. I swear she had stock in Scotch Tape! My sisters and I would struggle valiantly with those damnable packages that Mom would wrap (for we knew that it was worth it). I'm eternally grateful that Mom didn't pack our lunches in
the same way, or we'd have starved to death!
Anyway, as I looked at those boxes in the photos above, it occurred to me that a lot of folks might not know how to pack packages for long-distance travel, especially for our service men and women around the world.
Here are some tips for the folks sending CARE packages. Some are my own creation, and some are suggestions from the good folks at the ChronWatch Forums:
- Buy a very large supply of Ziploc Bags (quart and gallon sizes) and put everything you send into those first. Even if they're already wrapped, use the bags.
- You should get cookie tins at most cheapo stores. Use them when sending cookies or other semi-perishables. Pack them solidly (don't leave much wiggle room) and seal as tightly as possible. Wrap again in bubble wrap or something soft and bulky (like knitted stuff or socks). Once again, Ziploc everything. Tape the bagged socks around the cookie tins to add cushioning.
- Avoid sending liquids or syrups if at all possible. If there's any possible way for them to leak, they will find a way. Trust me on this one. If you must send something like that, seal it in a couple of Ziplocs, fold over and tape them, and put it inside something solid (another cookie tin or coffee can).
- No glass. If something you're sending comes in glass, take it out and put it in plastic or metal, and then in Ziploc.
- (For those of you wondering, no, I don't have stock in Ziploc.)
- If you're sending stuff to Iraq or Afghanistan, remember that these are primarily Muslim countries, so everything you send must be Halal (the Islamic version of kosher). Halal is a lot simpler than kosher, actually--no pork or pork products of any kind. Don't send pork rinds, Stove Top Stuffing for Pork, Hush Puppies (the shoes, I mean, not the deep fried thingies), hot dogs, Vienna Sausages, etc. I'm not kidding about the shoes, by the bye. Some of the Hush Puppies shoes use pigskin, and those will be confiscated and destroyed.
- Also, no booze. Seriously, you don't want to play around with that stuff. Even as a ''joke.'' It will be viewed as an insult to the host countries, and they may confiscate or destroy the entire package.
- Don't send meat (like hotdogs), cheese, fresh fruits, or fresh veggies. You don't want your loved ones getting sick, after all. You'd be surprised how many times people forget. If you're sending foodstuffs of any kind, understand the term shelf-life will weigh heavily on the minds of the recipients.
- Send toilet paper. Also send other toiletries like their favorite toothpaste, antiperspirant (gel or stick, not spray), etc.
- If your loved one is in a tank, APC or Humm-V, chuck in a few dozen of those car air fresheners. Believe me, it'll be appreciated by EVERYONE on board.
- Send baby wipes. I know that sounds silly, but it is a way for soldiers to give themselves a waterless bath out in the field. If you can get some of those germ-killing kitchen or bathroom wipes, those can come in quite handy as well. Another good thing to send are those little bottles of hand sanitizer gel. Yes, I know the main ingredient is alcohol, but it's not the drinkable variety and is therefore safe to send.
- If your loved one left America in a hurry for his assignment, he might not have packed carefully. It could be he left a lot of odd socks at home. If you want to be rid of those silly things, and have a bit of fun at the same time, carefully sew the socks together, end to end, into a very long sock scarf. Leave enough room in the stitch for your soldier to safely cut the thread. It will get a great laugh. I know it did for me--my Mom actually pulled this stunt on me, when I was working in England!
- Now, for the box. Don't use cheap cardboard, or throw-aways from the grocery store. Go to a party supply store or packing/moving company (like U-Haul or Ryder) and buy some good, sturdy boxes. You'll note the plural. Get one box that will fit all the stuff you're sending (including the packing materials and padding) and then get another box one size larger than that. You're going to nest the boxes.
- When you put the boxes together, use good sturdy packing tape. Wide, reinforced and if possible, waterproof. Run that packing tape along EVERY seam and edge. For added security, run tape along the inside of the box as well. Don't skimp.
- When you pack the main box (the smaller one that goes inside the larger one), do your best to distribute the weight evenly. Make sure to use lots of crumpled up newspaper for padding between all those Ziploc bags. This gives the package a bit of ''give'' to cut down on crush damage. It also gives your soldiers something to read from back home. Be sure it's the local paper, and within the past couple of weeks. No kidding, this makes a difference.
- On a large sheet of writing paper, write the FROM and TO addresses clearly. Put one on the inside of the box (bottom) and pack the stuff on top of it. When you're ready to close up the box, put another sheet with the same information on the inside of the box (top), then close and seal well. Mark the outside of the box with the FROM and TO addresses as well.
- Now, get a couple of very very large garbage bags -- the biggest you can find. If the box is small enough, just drop it in the garbage bag and tape the living sin out of it, sealing it shut tight as a drum. If the box is too large to fit inside a garbage bag, get some large plastic sheeting and wrap the outside of the box, taping it tightly. A combination of packing tape and duct tape works best here. Be sure whatever tape you use is waterproof, though.
- Once you've done that, line the inside of the slightly larger box with bubble wrap and carefully put the smaller box inside. Whack another sheet of paper on top of that with the name and address info, and then close the larger box and seal it with loads of tape.
- Mark the box FRAGILE on all six sides in LARGE BOLD RED LETTERS.
- Make sure you print the name and address information very clearly, and exactly as you're supposed to. Misspellings can mean that the package ends up in the wrong place, so be very careful with this one.
If you're stumped on what to send, and the suggestions here don't quite answer your needs, check with the USO, or your local military recruiting office. They'll have loads of good ideas on what our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and guards require, and what they'd love to see from home. Remember, a lot of them were on the receiving end of those Care packages, and they're an excellent resource.
About the Writer: Doc Farmer is a writer and humorist who is also a moderator on ChronWatch's Forum. He formerly lived in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, but now resides in the
Midwest. Doc receives e-mail at email@example.com.
This Article Was First Published In ChronWatch At: http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=11179
A Marine, doing his job, is about to be persecuted by the appeasing left and the terorist sympathizers. Act now! Sign this important petition! - Sailor
Please sign this petition to congress and voice your concern for the Marine that was doing his job.
To: U.S. Congress
Friday November 12 2004
U.S.Marines were fired upon by snipers and insurgents armed with rocket-propelled grenades from a mosque and an adjacent building. The Marines returned fire with tank shells and machine guns.
They eventually stormed the mosque, killing 10 insurgents and wounding five others, and showing a cache of rifles and grenades for journalists.
The Marines told the pool reporter that the wounded insurgents would be left behind for others to pick up and move to the rear for treatment. But Saturday, another squad of Marines found that the mosque had been reoccupied by insurgents and attacked it again.
Four of the insurgents appeared to have been shot again in Saturday's fighting, and one of them appeared to be dead, according to the pool report. In the video, a Marine was seen noticing that one of the insurgents appeared to be breathing.
A Marine approached one of the men in the mosque saying, "He's [expletive] faking he's dead. He's faking he's [expletive] dead."
The Marine raised his rifle and fired into the insurgents head, at which point a companion said, "Well, he's dead now."
The camera then shows two Americans pointing weapons at another Iraqi insurgent lying motionless. But one of the Marines step back as the insurgent stretches out his hand, motioning that he is alive. The other Marine stands his ground, but neither of them fires.
When told by the pool reporter that the men were among those wounded in Friday's firefight, the Marine who fired the shot said, "I didn't know, sir. I didn't know."
"You can hear the tension in those Marines' voices. One is saying, 'He's faking it. He's faking it,'" Heyman said. "In a combat infantry soldier's training, he is always taught that his enemy is at his most dangerous when he is severely wounded."
A Marine in the same unit had been killed just a day earlier when he tended to the booby-trapped dead body of an insurgent.
NBC reported that the Marine seen shooting the Iraqi insurgent had himself been shot in the face the day before, but quickly returned to duty.
About a block away, a Marine was killed and five others wounded by a booby-trapped body they found in a house after a shootout with insurgents.
Amnesty International has noted reports that insurgents have used mosques as fighting positions, and have used white flags to lure Marines into ambushes.
The Marine who shot the insurgent has been withdrawn from the battlefield pending the results of an investigation, the U.S. military said.
These terrorists do not follow the rules of war. These terrorists kill innocent women by disemboweling them, cut of the heads of innocent truck drivers, detonate car bombs in crowds full of innocent people, and fly planes into buildings filled with innocent Americans.
It is my opinion that NOTHING should happen to this American Marine. He should be returned to his unit or be given an honorable discharge. We don't need our young men and women taking an extra second to decide if its right to shoot an enemy terrorist when that could mean that one of our soldiers could lose their life. The lives of our soldiers should be the single most important factor in this war against terrorism. The rights of terrorists can come second.
Sign the Petition
Thursday, November 11, 2004
The left wing just cannot get past the fact that they lost and lost big time. So here we go with their asshole conspiracy theories on how the election was "stolen" from the poodle. Give it up alreay, get some professional help. You really do need it. Here is what happen...a majority of the American people rejected tht horse's ass you nominated. Get over it! - Sailor
Left Wing Claims Exit Polls Were Accurate, Bush Stole Election
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
November 11, 2004
(CNSNews.com) - An emerging conspiracy theory among some political left wingers acccuses Republicans of stealing the 2004 presidential election. While many Americans wonder why Election Day exit polling was so inaccurate and showed Democrat John Kerry winning, liberal bloggers and activists insist the exit polls were correct and that Republican forces used fraud to help President Bush win re-election on Nov. 2.
But the controversy isn't confined to bloggers and activists.
Greg Palast, a contributing editor to Harper's magazine, conducted an investigation into voter fraud for BBC television's Newsnight.
"I know you don't want to hear it. You can't face one more hung chad. But I don't have a choice. As a journalist examining that messy sausage called American democracy, it's my job to tell you who got the most votes in the deciding states. Tuesday, in Ohio and New Mexico, it was John Kerry, Palast said in his investigation reprinted at TomPaine.com.
Palast's assessment is echoed by U.S. Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), five other Democratic congressmen and liberal groups such as Common Cause and People for the American Way. They are demanding action on what they see as election fraud in key states including Ohio and Florida. Conyers has asked the General Accounting Office to probe the election results and hopes to get congressional hearings on the subject. Kerry's brother Cam Kerry has also weighed in on the allegations of voter fraud, assuring those concerned that "we are not ignoring it."
Noticeably missing from the accusers is the George Soros-funded group, MoveOn.org, and liberal film-maker Michael Moore, whose "Fahrenheit 9/11" alleged voter fraud on the part of Republicans in Florida in 2000. Both have opted to stay on the sidelines so far in the current dispute.
Palast, the liberal author of the New York Times' best selling book, "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy," explained that "Although the exit polls show that most voters in Ohio punched cards for Kerry-Edwards, thousands of these votes were simply not recorded.
"So what's going on here?" Palast asked his readers, before following up with the answer. "[T]he exit polls are accurate. Pollsters ask, 'Who did you vote for?' Unfortunately, they don't ask the crucial, question, 'Was your vote counted?' The voters don't know."
Palast is critical of the Democratic Party for not contesting the 2004 election results.
"So here we go again. Or, here we don't go again. Because unlike last time, (2000 election) Democrats aren't even asking Ohio to count these cards with the not-quite-punched holes (called 'undervotes' in the voting biz). Nor are they demanding we look at the 'overvotes' where voter intent may be discerned," Palast explained.
"Despite the Democratic Party's pledge, the leadership this time gave in to racial disenfranchisement once again," he added.
Activists alleging massive Election Day voter fraud, point to Warren County Ohio, a suburb of Cincinnati, where the vote count was conducted in secret. Warren County officials reportedly barred the press and other observers from entering their administration building during the vote tally, citing concerns about terrorism.
The liberal activists also point to Bush's better than expected vote tallies in some heavily Democratic precincts in Florida as evidence that the results were rigged. But behind the flurry of new charges of election fraud is little or no evidence of irregularities, much less of wrongdoing.
In Lafayette County, Fla., one of the areas cited as having produced a suspicious level of support for Bush despite the fact that it is overwhelmingly populated by registered Democrats, it turns out that the county also voted for Bush in 2000, voted for Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole in 1996 as well as Bush's father, George H.W. Bush, in 1992, according to ABC News.
As for the alleged voting irregularities in Ohio mentioned by many of Kerry's supporters, the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections announced that it was merely a computer glitch that added excessive absentee ballots to the final tallies in many precincts, without affecting the outcome of the voting.
Jacqui Maiden, the coordinator for the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections, said the computer error did not affect the vote tallies for any candidate, just the turnout totals, according to Wednesday's Akron Beacon Journal.
Also Wednesday, at least one group alleging voter fraud withdrew its accusations about Cuyahoga County after hearing Maiden's explanation.
'Need someone with Brass Knuckles'
Many others on the left are also venting their anger at the losing Democratic nominee, John Kerry.
The liberal website Buzzflash.com blasted Kerry in a headline, discouraging him from even considering another run for President in 2008.
"Why[?] To Let (Bush political advisor Karl) Rove Steal another Election from the Democrats. John, We Need Someone with Brass Knuckles Next Time," read the Wednesday headline.
Angry Kerry supporters are meeting around the country to plot how to expose what they see as a stolen election by the Bush administration and the GOP.
"I think we need to protest this election no matter what Kerry does," said Illinois resident Sue West at a meeting in Madison, Wis., on Nov. 6, according to the journalistic website, Madison.com. The meeting, titled "No Stolen Elections," was sponsored by the Madison Area Peace Coalition.
"I think it's fraud, pure and simple," West added.
Austin King, another activist attending the meeting, alleged that erroneous information on college campuses was "was clearly a coordinated national effort by Republicans to suppress the college vote," adding that he would "very much like to see someone put in jail for this, and I'm not a tough-on-crime guy," according to Madison.com.
Madison.com also quoted John Peck, a recent University of Wisconsin graduate who expressed a disdain for electronic voting machines.
"The Luddites had an answer to machines," Peck said, referring to the anti-technology movement in 19th century England that advocated the destruction of automation technology thought to be taking over manufacturing jobs.
Another Ohio group, calling itself "The League of Pissed Off Voters," is calling for public hearings in that state to investigate the election results. Joining the call to action are such groups as Common Cause Ohio and People for the American Way Foundation.
Conyers: 'Immediately undertake an investigation'
MSNBC television anchor Keith Olbermann picked up on the election fraud charges on his program Countdown on Monday. Olbermann interviewed Conyers, who said the voting "irregularities are sufficient in number, and more and more members are joining me every day on this ... that we need the General Accountability (sic) Office to document each and every incident and then investigate it."
Joining Conyers in his request for a General Accounting Office (GAO) investigation are U.S. Reps. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), Robert Wexler (D-Fla.), Rush Holt (D-N.J.), Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) and Melvin Watt (D-N.C.). Conyers demanded that the GAO "immediately undertake an investigation into the efficacy of voting machines and new technologies used in the 2004 election."
Conyers predicted his election investigation efforts "will probably lead to congressional hearings."
Kerry's brother, Cam Kerry, issued a statement on the allegations of voter fraud on Tuesday and acknowledged the groups seeking an investigation of the matter.
"I am grateful to the many people who have contacted me to express their deep concern about questions of miscounting, fraud, vote suppression, and other problems on Election Day, especially in Florida and Ohio," Cam Kerry wrote in a statement.
"I want to you to know we are not ignoring it. Election protection lawyers are still on the job in Ohio and Florida and in D.C. making sure all the votes are counted accurately. I have been conferring with lawyers involved and have made them aware of the information and concerns people have given me. Even if the facts don't provide a basis to change the outcome, the information will inform the continuing effort to protect the integrity of our elections," Cam Kerry explained.
Bush's 'friends in high places'
Theories abound as to how the president allegedly stole the election from Kerry. BuzzFlash.com columnist Maureen Farrell wrote a Tuesday editorial explaining how Bush was able to secure victory in Ohio.
"And luckily for Mr. Bush, he had friends in high places in the Buckeye State, too. After all, Walden 'Wally' O'Dell, head of the voting machine company Diebold, had already expressed a commitment 'to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President' and Ohio Secretary of State Ken 'Paper Weight' Blackwell appeared to have Bush's back, as well," Farrell wrote.
"Pundits have been asking how exit polls, which have historically been accurate, could have been so wrong. Well, that's easy: There's an elephant in the voting booth. Now, will someone please alert the media?" Farrell concluded.
Another article on BuzzFlash.com even accused the Bush administration of timing the recent offensive in Fallujah to drown out media reports of voter fraud.
In a Nov. 8 article titled, "Stolen Election. America Hijacked," writer Chuck Muziani wrote that, "nothing occurred in the day after the election to elicit the order (to attack Fallujah) at that moment ... except ... the web bloggers, and blackboxvoting.org, and votergate.tv investigating reports of vote result discrepancies, and potential fraud in Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, and a (sic) other states.
"In fact, the Fallujah offensive timing was engineered to steal attention away from voter fraud reports," Muziani wrote.
"Forget planes being hijacked. America, as a whole, has been hijacked. Not by Islamic-based terrorists. Not by Middle Eastern zealots who 'hate our freedom,'" Muziani added. "And not by suicidal bomb-packing sycophants programmed to praise their God by personally delivering their murder victims to His pearly gate. America has been hijacked by a greedy, power hungry political machine that could never win an election without stealing it."
Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway dismissed the election fraud charges.
"To the anti-Bush Left, the so-called 'October Surprise' arrived a few days late, on November 2. They invested everything they had into defeating the President. Having lost, they now desperately try to reinvent the results, revise history and deny reality," Conway wrote CNSNews.com in an email.
"They are touting a conclusion ('Kerry Won!') hopelessly in search of evidence. Their bitterness and denial consumes them. Defeated above board, they have taken to the underground to blog and bloviate. But no serious people are listening; they are just talk[ing] to themselves, much like they did for the past year," Conway added.
Onceagain the feeble minded of the liberal press get it wrong. What a bunch of whining pussies and left wing assholes they are. - Sailor
VICTORY IN FALLUJAH
BY RALPH PETERS
New York Post
November 11, 2004 -- IN the Second Battle of Fallujah, military operations are ahead of schedule. Our casualties have been blessedly light. The terrorists who haven't fled are being killed by the hundreds. Our troops will soon achieve their goal of eliminating Iraq's key safe haven for terrorists.
Our Marines and soldiers have carried the ball inside the 10-yard line. The media's response? Move the goalposts.
The legions of pundits ("Will talk for food") now suggest that a win in Fallujah will be meaningless because we failed to kill or capture the terrorist leadership, because some of the thugs ran away and because Fallujah won't resemble Darien, Conn., by next Sunday.
On Tuesday, as our troops handily pierced the defenses terrorists had spent months erecting, The New York Times carried two front-page stories implying that our forces were facing possible defeat. The Times' military analysis was incompetent and just plain wrong. And the photo its editors ran above the fold showed a Marine curled in a ditch under enemy fire.
It wasn't reporting. It was a mix of anti-American propa- ganda and wishful thinking. Al-Jazeera couldn't have done it better.
Now that our troops are winning so lopsidedly that it can't be denied, the Times likely will tell us that Fallujah didn't matter, anyway, that our efforts were wasted. Then Seymour Hersh, the New Yorker's greatest living fiction writer, will follow up with a fairy tale called "Failure In Fallujah."
What's really happening?
We're winning a critical victory. Since the political decision to stop short in Fallujah last April, the terrorists had bragged to the world that the city would never fall to the infidel. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his thugs turned Fallujah into a vast dungeon, complete with torture chambers and execution halls. The terrorists stockpiled weapons and ammunition, welcoming thousands of international "Jihadis" and using the city as a base to spread terror across central Iraq.
Fallujah became the new world capital of terror. And Allah's butchers proclaimed that they'd slaughter U.S. troops in the streets, if they tried to enter the city.
Guess who's dying now?
By fleeing without fighting to the death as they promised they would, the terror-masters discredited themselves. After Coalition leaders lost their nerve last April, the terrorists portrayed themselves as having faced down America's military might. This time, they ran away, leaving untrained recruits to take the bullet-train to paradise.
The swift fall of Fallujah is not only a practical disaster for the terrorists, but a massive loss of face for them throughout the Muslim world.
Plenty of tough street-fighting remains, but three-quarters of the city is under the control of Coalition and Iraqi forces. Contrary to smug media predictions, the Iraqi units didn't run away. They did their part to free the city and save their country.
What have we found in Fallujah? Hostage slaughterhouses — butcher shops for human cattle. Stockpiles of ammunition and explosives in mosques. And a city scarred by all the marks of an Islamic reign of terror.
Talking heads may smirk and say that we'll still have to fight the terrorists elsewhere. True enough. But no one claimed that Fallujah would be the last battle. Of course, the terrorists who ran away will try to refurbish their image with more bombings, assassinations, kidnappings and beheadings.
But they've lost their greatest stronghold. They've lost their sole tangible symbol of success. And they've lost their image as dauntless warriors able to stand up to the U.S. military.
In this imperfect world, where results are never what amateurs demand, the Second Battle of Fallujah is already a huge win for the good guys — even before the shooting's over.
In the coming weeks, the terrorists will try to re-infiltrate the city. They'll stage photogenic car bombings and assassinations. Then we'll be told that we still don't control Fallujah, that we've failed. But a city where terrorists have to sneak in to plant a bomb is a far better place than one in which they rule.
Meanwhile, our troops and their Iraqi allies remain engaged in brutal street-fighting. The remarkably low friendly casualty list is bound to grow. But no one need doubt the outcome. Our troops will complete the mission they were given.
But the media need to stop inventing missions of their own, then blaming our troops for not accomplishing them.
Ralph Peters is the author of "Beyond Baghdad: Postmodern War and Peace."
I salute my brother and sister Veterans and I especially salute those that have picked up the torch from us and fight today so that we may still be free. - Sailor
THOSE WE HONOR TODAY
BY FREDERICK J. CHIAVENTONE
New York Post
November 11, 2004 -- "We few, we happy few, we band of
brothers . . . " — Wm. Shakespeare (Henry V)
IT'S late night, maybe 10:30 already, and I'm outside putting the trash out for the morning pick-up. I pause for a moment and enjoy the unusual warmth and the sound of crickets and cicadas chattering in the trees. It's their last gasp, as the coming cold weather will soon silence them for the winter months.
A warm breeze wafts in from the plains of Kansas and, as it sweeps up over the bluffs, it brings with it the sound of distant volley firing.
The rifle ranges at Fort Leavenworth. Remarkable because they are small and hardly ever used. The home of the Command and General Staff College, the only operational units there tend to be in the military police garrison.
Odd they should be operating at this time of the night, but then, after more than two decades as a line officer, I have been there before. I know the feel of the hot summer night, the buzz of insects as sweat rolls down your nose, the sharp report and recoil of the weapon and the acrid smell of cordite.
What, one wonders, are they getting ready for? Is it a routine familiarization firing? But seldom are these done so late at night. More than likely it is some unit — probably National Guard or Reserves — doing what they can to get ready for a deployment overseas.
That means Iraq. Or Afghanistan.
It also means long separations. Children who sleep with their arms locked around their teddy bears and their cheeks stained with tears; wives, or husbands, who jump when the phone rings. Long sleepless nights and dreams that startle one awake sweating and shivering at once. Prayers uttered in silence or aloud for the safe return of a loved one and the solemn, horrific knowledge that some of these prayers won't be answered.
Some children will grow to adulthood without fathers, perhaps without mothers. The thought is enough to bring you to tears.
But infinitely worse is the thought of what if . . . What if there were no one who was willing to shoulder the burdens carried by the men and women of our armed forces?
I go back inside the house where my two young sons are sleeping and think back on a chat with an old friend over lunch one day. We have been friends, fellow soldiers, for over 30 years.
He talked about his retirement and one of his last tours — commanding a tank battalion during the first Gulf War. It was a unit I had commanded in beforehand, and I had given him my "leadership tabs" for good luck — an old tradition. He smiled thinking about it, then remarked that he had a son who was now assigned to the same outfit — a scout. Shaking his head he said, "I don't know him."
All those years away from home. All those tours of duty, those long separations, the danger, the adrenaline highs, the loneliness, the broken homes.
My friend said that in many ways he'd missed watching his son grow up. But when I asked him, "If you knew then what you know now, would you have chosen another career?" He shook his head. "No." No other career that he knew of was so important.
Now we hear on the radio or TV constant reports of how many of our sons and daughters have died in Iraq or Afghanistan — over 1,000. And we hear critics saying that enough is enough, and we should not be engaged and should bring the troops home as soon as possible. But the troops disagree.
When President Bush visited a young soldier in the hospital, he found that the man had lost his leg to a landmine in Iraq — but, when the president asked what the soldier wanted, the young man replied that he wanted nothing so much as to get on with his recovery and to rejoin his brothers in arms as soon as possible. This is the stuff dreams are made of. Sad dreams but proud . . . and praiseworthy.
The arithmetic of combat is a terrible thing. Yes, we've lost over 1,000 brave men and women to a terrible enemy over the past year. But, when you start the tally, don't forget about a previous math problem: 3,000 men and women — brokers, waiters, policemen, secretaries, firemen, emergency workers, janitors, airline pilots, grandmothers, children. They died in this fight as well.
They did not choose to fight. They were simply living their lives and the enemy made the decision for them, and they died not over a period of a year, or two, or three — they died over the course of a couple of hours. Don't ever forget that.
The brave men and women of our armed forces fight — and sometimes die — by choice. Because they believe in the value of what they are doing for all of the policemen and firemen and brokers and secretaries and janitors. They risk their all for us and the least we can do is say thank you . . . and God speed.
Frederick J. Chiaventone, an award-winning novelist and screenwriter, is a retired Army officer who taught counterterrorism at the U.S. Army's Command and General Staff College.
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
Well the commie and left wing scum bags over at DU are showing their true colors now. You can have at them there, but you will be banned in a heartbeat. It will be worth it though. In the meantime, write to your elected officials and the IRS. - Sailor
Tuesday, November 09, 2004
DemocraticUnderground Advocates Killing of American Troops in Fallujah
My original article was going to show the difference between comments made on conservative and liberal blogs, regarding the Battle of Fallujah. Most Americans view the Battle of Fallujah as a defining moment in the fight against the terrorists in Iraq.
I started viewing some of the Democrat blogs like Dailykos, and Bop News, and then I came across Democraticunderground.com.
After reading the comments on that website, my blood was boiling and my hair was raised. Immediately, I erased all the other Anti-American/ Anti- Bush comments that I had compiled from the other liberal sites.
Dummocraticunderground stole the show.
After reading the anti-American, treasonous, seditious comments on Democraticunderground, I became convoluted about unlimited free speech. We all enjoy free speech.But, should it be used to advocate the killing of U.S. troops at war?
The U.S Government defines a Terrorist Organization as a group that "advocates destruction of the United States"
Description of DemocraticUnderground from website:
"...DU has become one of the premier left-wing websites on the Internet, publishing original content six days a week, and hosting one of the Web's most active left-wing discussion boards."
Marines turn to God ahead of anticipated Fallujah battle
(comments from above article)
"they might as well drink kool-aid. I guess they have to turn to something, doesn't sound like their leaders have much on the ball."
"its a f*cking crusade.
God is not going to bless this. God does not bless murders of human beings in wars based on lies."
"Lots of simple, rustic, ignorant, young men and women from Jesusland
Are about to become Shredded Hash for the Halliburton and Bush Criminals."
"may they get what they deserve"
"What do you mean by that?
Don't be coy, just come out and say it"
(the only poster who questioned advocating the killing of American Troops)
"We should praise for more blood bath
God help the innocent Iraqi civilians"
"I'm speechless with anger. They want a little light amusement before they get down to the serious business of murdering and destroying."
"Yes, just like at Abu Ghraib
'just having us some fun' "
"They're ABOUT to re-enact the "City of Hue" battle of '68
where 140 marines died to "free" another city from another 'evil'. "
"Well, they can't appear sensitive to the enemy...
Our army has gone insane... bringing the image of the ROMANS to Iraq!"
"at least it must help the saner Marines be less afraid of dying,because
they realize if they get killed they at least won't have to be around these fanatic pea-brains anymore"
"God will bless the meek and the innocents that will lose thier lives"
"Poor Iraqi civilians....100,000 of them dead and still counting
"Evangelicals put blessed oil on their heads for protection."
"If they want to pretend it's the second crusades, what the heck, let 'em do it. It's not too far from the truth anyway. May their Screamin' Jesus spare the remaining civilians from bullets and shrapnel and napalm fire."
"They have always done this
They are full of sh*t, but it makes them feel better that their soul will go to heaven when they get snuffed out by an Iraqi national who is attempting to liberate himself from US colonial control."
"Lawd, give me the strength to bomb little babies in your name, amen."
"Not my problem anymore.
F*ck 'em. If they want to pray, go for it. If they die, too bad, but not my problem anymore. They have the choice not to fight, they choose to fight and support the emperor Bush. Too bad."
"They better pray
After all the innocent lives they are about to take, it will take a lifetime of prayer to wash themselves clean of their sins and save themselves from Hell. That is, assuming they survive this little Crusade of theirs."
"Sick, sick, sick.....
these people are sick. If one of them dies, how do the rest rationalize his death? Well, let's see...he didn't pray enough...he didn't pray the right way.....Gawd had to pick and choose which prayers he/she would answer.....I'm tellin' ya' - these fundies are wacko."
This board doesn't allow you to feel compassionate about the Military"
"This whole spectacle reminds me that they are no different than jihadists and Islamic fundamentalists. They are the same creatures."
Iran Says Will Retaliate if Nuclear Plants Hit
(comments from above article)
"IRAN has THREE submarines.....
All it takes is one to destroy an aircraft carrier...."
"Iran could beat the U.S. Navy and this is how
The U.S. Navy currently sends it's warships through the Strait of Hormuz. This is a very tight choke hole. If the Iranian could sink a Carrier in the Straits of Hormuz, the U.S. Navy would be sitting ducks over time in the Gulf. "
"Iran's modern missiles can do plenty damage, no system is fool-proof.Iran can't take out the US fleet, but they can cause plenty damage and nuisance to US supply lines in the Gulf."
"I hope they nuke US forces.
Maybe that'll teach us. They have a right to defend themselves from our imperialist advances, and we have a right to a non-Holocaust mindset in our government."
"Handle your business Iran. Do what you gotta do!"
"Bring it on
It's a terrible thing to say, but I find myself rooting for the Axis of Evil."
There you have it. Now if that is not seditious speech, then there is no such thing.
Is there a limit to Freedom of Speech? If so, what do you think should happen to that website? Would it be a dangerous precedent for the Government to act upon terrorist sympathisers, such as DemocraticUnderground.com?
I have mixed feelings. On one hand I realize that the comments were probably posted by some hippie-drug addict- 1960's burn-outs, who hate America, and are harmless. On the other hand, I feel that it is the administrators responsibility to filter out such comments.
If it were up to me, I'd have the owner, David Allen, arrested for inciting violence against U.S soldiers. Period.
Perhaps the IRS should look into Mr. David Allen's tax returns. I wonder if Mr. Allen is claiming all of the donations he receives from his loyal traitors. Hmmm...