"Americans have a long and honorable tradition of taking exception with their governments, even during wartime. After Mr. Bush's speech, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid described Iraq policy as "adrift, disconnected from the reality on the ground and in need of major mid-course corrections." Surely anyone offering such a biting critique won't object if we examine precisely what "corrections" the loyal opposition has in mind.

Let's see: As best we can tell, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's main suggestion Tuesday night was that we spend more on veterans benefits. Former General Wesley Clark--a man who should have something valuable to say on the subject of waging modern war (he wrote a book with that title)--lamented that Iraq has become a recruiting and training ground for terrorists, as if Abu Musab al-Zarqawi only entered his current profession in April 2003. And as if jihadists aren't also still hitting us in Afghanistan, which is a campaign General Clark says he supports.

By the logic of Mr. Clark's critique, the U.S. should withdraw from Iraq immediately because the terrorists will then leave us alone. But when Fox's Brit Hume pursued the question, Mr. Clark backed away. As for helpful policy alternatives, we didn't hear any."

"Then there is Delaware Senator Joe Biden, whose thoughts on the subject are particularly worth attending to because he is the Democratic Party's lead spokesman on the issue. Consider his track record to date:
• In April 2004, Mr. Biden predicted there would be "absolute chaos" in Iraq following the handover of sovereignty to the interim Iraqi government of Ayad Allawi. "Who's going to be the referee when [U.S. Ambassador Paul] Bremer leaves?" he demanded to know on CBS's Early Show. But Mr. Allawi helped smooth the transition to the current representative government, and he has taken his place as a leader of the opposition.

• In December 2004, Mr. Biden said prospects for a successful election in Iraq were "receding rapidly" because of Administration mismanagement; a month later, he predicted the election was "going to be ugly." But the January 30 elections were peaceful and inspiring.

• Earlier this month, Mr. Biden called the de-Baathification of the Iraqi army one of the "major mistakes" of U.S. policy, and called for Iraqis to rehire some of Saddam Hussein's old colonels. But it was precisely the April 2004 effort to re-enlist Baathist officers in the so-called Fallujah Brigade that was among the Administration's greatest mistakes so far in Iraq.

The Senator's latest ideas are to accept an Egyptian offer to train Iraqi police and to get NATO to deploy some troops to police the border with Syria. On the former, we weren't previously aware that the Cairo constabulary was a paragon of efficiency and probity, which is perhaps why the Iraqi government has discreetly turned away the offer. On the latter, has he talked to the French? They've barely allowed NATO forces to help in Afghanistan, much less be deployed in numbers in Iraq.

We stress Mr. Biden's views because he strikes us as one Democrat who understands the stakes in Iraq and seems genuinely interested in a good outcome. The thinness of even his policy alternatives suggests that Democrats really don't have any better ideas than the two-pronged Bush strategy of 1) supporting a new, inclusive democratic Iraqi government and 2) training and deploying Iraqi security forces as rapidly as possible.

As for the sincerity of Mr. Biden's colleagues, we are less sure. That goes especially for the 122 House Democrats--Barney Frank, Rahm Emanuel and Charlie Rangel among them--who last month supported a Congressional resolution calling for a timetable for withdrawal. This is a guarantee of defeat. These are the "Pottery Barn" Democrats, who claim to support the war effort on the premise that since the U.S. "broke" Iraq (rather than Saddam), the U.S. has to fix it--even as they have nothing but criticism to offer."

"President George W. Bush forcefully explained last night — some of us would say finally forcefully explained last night after too long a lull — why our military operations in Iraq are crucial to success in the war on terror.

It was good to hear the commander-in-chief remind people that this is still the war against terror. Specifically, against Islamo-fascists who slaughtered 3000 Americans on September 11, 2001. Who spent the eight years before those atrocities murdering and promising to murder Americans — as their leader put it in 1998, all Americans, including civilians, anywhere in the world where they could be found.

It is not the war for democratization. It is not the war for stability. Democratization and stability are not unimportant. They are among a host of developments that could help defeat the enemy.

But they are not the primary goal of this war, which is to destroy the network of Islamic militants who declared war against the United States when they bombed the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993, and finally jarred us into an appropriate response when they demolished that complex, struck the Pentagon, and killed 3000 of us on September 11, 2001.

That is why we are in Iraq."

"Saddam Hussein's regime was a crucial part of that response because it was a safety net for al Qaeda. A place where terror attacks against the United States and the West were planned. A place where Saddam's intelligence service aided and abetted al Qaeda terrorists planning operations. A place where terrorists could hide safely between attacks. A place where terrorists could lick their wounds. A place where committed terrorists could receive vital training in weapons construction and paramilitary tactics. In short, a platform of precisely the type without which an international terror network cannot succeed.

The president should know he hit the sweet spot during his Fort Bragg speech because all the right people are angry. The New York Times, with predictable disingenuousness, is railing this morning that the 9/11 references in the speech are out of bounds because Iraq had “nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks.” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and the tedious David Gergen, among others, are in Gergen's words “offended” about use of the 9/11 “trump card.”

If the president is guilty of anything, it's not that he's dwelling on 9/11 enough. It's that the administration has not done a good enough job of probing and underscoring the nexus between the Saddam regime and al Qaeda. It is absolutely appropriate, it is vital, for him to stress that connection. This is still the war on terror, and Iraq, where the terrorists are still arrayed against us, remains a big part of that equation.

And not just because every jihadist with an AK-47 and a prayer rug has made his way there since we invaded. No, it's because Saddam made Iraq their cozy place to land long before that. They are fighting effectively there because they've been invited to dig in for years."

"On that score, nobody should worry about anything the Times or David Gergen or Senator Reid has to say about all this until they have some straight answers on questions like these. What does the “nothing whatsoever” crowd have to say about:

Ahmed Hikmat Shakir — the Iraqi Intelligence operative who facilitated a 9/11 hijacker into Malaysia and was in attendance at the Kuala Lampur meeting with two of the hijackers, and other conspirators, at what is roundly acknowledged to be the initial 9/11 planning session in January 2000? Who was arrested after the 9/11 attacks in possession of contact information for several known terrorists? Who managed to make his way out of Jordanian custody over our objections after the 9/11 attacks because of special pleading by Saddam's regime?

Saddam's intelligence agency's efforts to recruit jihadists to bomb Radio Free Europe in Prague in the late 1990's?

Mohammed Atta's unexplained visits to Prague in 2000, and his alleged visit there in April 2001 which — notwithstanding the 9/11 Commission's dismissal of it (based on interviewing exactly zero relevant witnesses) — the Czechs have not retracted?

The Clinton Justice Department's allegation in a 1998 indictment (two months before the embassy bombings) against bin Laden, to wit: In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

Seized Iraq Intelligence Service records indicating that Saddam's henchmen regarded bin Laden as an asset as early as 1992?

Saddam's hosting of al Qaeda No. 2, Ayman Zawahiri beginning in the early 1990's, and reports of a large payment of money to Zawahiri in 1998?

Saddam's ten years of harboring of 1993 World Trade Center bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin?

Iraqi Intelligence Service operatives being dispatched to meet with bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998 (the year of bin Laden's fatwa demanding the killing of all Americans, as well as the embassy bombings)?

Saddam's official press lionizing bin Laden as “an Arab and Islamic hero” following the 1998 embassy bombing attacks?

The continued insistence of high-ranking Clinton administration officials to the 9/11 Commission that the 1998 retaliatory strikes (after the embassy bombings) against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory were justified because the factory was a chemical weapons hub tied to Iraq and bin Laden?

Top Clinton administration counterterrorism official Richard Clarke's assertions, based on intelligence reports in 1999, that Saddam had offered bin Laden asylum after the embassy bombings, and Clarke's memo to then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, advising him not to fly U-2 missions against bin Laden in Afghanistan because he might be tipped off by Pakistani Intelligence, and “[a]rmed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad”? (See 9/11 Commission Final Report, p. 134 & n.135.) "

"Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.

We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.

Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.

There's more. Stephen Hayes's book, The Connection, remains required reading. But these are just the questions; the answers — if someone will just investigate the questions rather than pretending there's “nothing whatsoever” there — will provide more still.

So Gergen, Reid, the Times, and the rest are “offended” at the president's reminding us of 9/11? The rest of us should be offended, too. Offended at the “nothing whatsoever” crowd's inexplicable lack of curiosity about these ties, and about the answers to these questions.

Just tell us one thing: Do you have any good answer to what Ahmed Hikmat Shakir was doing with the 9/11 hijackers in Kuala Lampur? Can you explain it?

If not, why aren't you moving heaven and earth to find out the answer?"

"Thank you and good evening. I am pleased to visit Fort Bragg — "Home of the Airborne and Special Operations Forces." It is an honor to speak before you tonight. My greatest responsibility as president is to protect the American people, and that is your calling as well. I thank you for your service, your courage and your sacrifice. I thank your families, who support you in your vital work. The soldiers and families of Fort Bragg have contributed mightily to our efforts to secure our country and promote peace. Americais grateful — and so is your commander-in-chief.

The troops here and across the world are fighting a global war on terror. This war reached our shores on September 11, 2001. The terrorists who attacked us — and the terrorists we face — murder in the name of a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance, and despises all dissent. Their aim is to remake the Middle East in their own grim image of tyranny and oppression — by toppling governments, driving us out of the region, and exporting terror.

To achieve these aims, they have continued to kill — in Madrid, Istanbul, Jakarta, Casablanca, Riyadh, Bali, and elsewhere. The terrorists believe that free societies are essentially corrupt and decadent, and with a few hard blows they can force us to retreat. They are mistaken. After September 11, I made a commitment to the American people: This Nation will not wait to be attacked again. We will take the fight to the enemy. We will defend our freedom.

Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war. Many terrorists who kill innocent men, women, and children on the streets of Baghdad are followers of the same murderous ideology that took the lives of our citizens in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. There is only one course of action against them: to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home. The commander in charge of Coalition operations in Iraq — who is also senior commander at this base — General John Vines, put it well the other day. He said: "We either deal with terrorism and this extremism abroad, or we deal with it when it comes to us."

Our mission in Iraq is clear. We are hunting down the terrorists. We are helping Iraqis build a free nation that is an ally in the war on terror. We are advancing freedom in the broader Middle East. We are removing a source of violence and instability — and laying the foundation of peace for our children and our grandchildren.

The work in Iraq is difficult and dangerous. Like most Americans, I see the images of violence and bloodshed. Every picture is horrifying — and the suffering is real. Amid all this violence, I know Americans ask the question: Is the sacrifice worth it? It is worth it, and it is vital to the future security of our country. And tonight I will explain the reasons why.

Some of the violence you see in Iraq is being carried out by ruthless killers who are converging on Iraq to fight the advance of peace and freedom. Our military reports that we have killed or captured hundreds of foreign fighters in Iraq who have come from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Yemen, Libya and other nations. They are making common cause with criminal elements, Iraqi insurgents, and remnants of Saddam Hussein's regime who want to restore the old order. They fight because they know that the survival of their hateful ideology is at stake. They know that as freedom takes root in Iraq, it will inspire millions across the Middle East to claim their liberty as well. And when the Middle East grows in democracy, prosperity, and hope, the terrorists will lose their sponsors, lose their recruits, and lose their hopes for turning that region into a base for attacks on America and our allies around the world.

Some wonder whether Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. Among the terrorists, there is no debate. Hear the words of Usama bin Laden: "This Third World War … is raging" in Iraq. "The whole world is watching this war." He says it will end in "victory and glory or misery and humiliation."

The terrorists know that the outcome will leave them emboldened, or defeated. So, they are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to take.

We see the nature of the enemy in terrorists who exploded car bombs along a busy shopping street in Baghdad — including one outside a mosque. We see the nature of the enemy in terrorists who sent a suicide bomber to a teaching hospital in Mosul. And we see the nature of the enemy in terrorists who behead civilian hostages and broadcast their atrocities for the world to see.

These are savage acts of violence — but they have not brought the terrorists any closer to achieving their strategic objectives. The terrorists — both foreign and Iraqi — failed to stop the transfer of sovereignty. They failed to break our Coalition and force a mass withdrawal by our allies. They failed to incite an Iraqi civil war. They failed to prevent free elections. They failed to stop the formation of a democratic Iraqi government that represents all of Iraq's diverse population. And they failed to stop Iraqis from signing up in large numbers with the police forces and the army to defend their new democracy.

The lesson of this experience is clear: The terrorists can kill the innocent — but they cannot stop the advance of freedom. The only way our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lessons of September 11 … if we abandon the Iraqi people to men like Zarqawi … and if we yield the future of the Middle East to men like bin Laden. For the sake of our Nation's security, this will not happen on my watch.

A little over a year ago, I spoke to the Nation and described our Coalition's goal in Iraq. I said that America's mission in Iraq is to defeat an enemy and give strength to a friend — a free, representative government that is an ally in the war on terror, and a beacon of hope in a part of the world that is desperate for reform. I outlined the steps we would take to achieve this goal: We would hand authority over to a sovereign Iraqi government … we would help Iraqis hold free elections by January 2005 … we would continue helping Iraqis rebuild their nation's infrastructure and economy … we would encourage more international support for Iraq's democratic transition … and we would enable Iraqis to take increasing responsibility for their own security and stability.

In the past year, we have made significant progress:

One year ago today, we restored sovereignty to the Iraqi people.

In January 2005, more than eight million Iraqi men and women voted in elections that were free and fair — and took place on time.

We continued our efforts to help them rebuild their country. Rebuilding a country after three decades of tyranny is hard — and rebuilding while at war is even harder. Our progress has been uneven — but progress is being made. We are improving roads, and schools, and health clinics … and working to improve basic services like sanitation, electricity, and water. And together with our allies, we will help the new Iraqi government deliver a better life for its citizens.

In the past year, the international community has stepped forward with vital assistance. Some thirty nations have troops in Iraq, and many others are contributing non-military assistance. The United Nations is in Iraq to help Iraqis write a constitution and conduct their next elections. Thus far, some 40 countries and three international organizations have pledged about 34 billion dollars in assistance for Iraqi reconstruction. More than 80 countries and international organizations recently came together in Brussels to coordinate their efforts to help Iraqis provide for their security and rebuild their country. And next month, donor countries will meet in Jordan to support Iraqi reconstruction. Whatever our differences in the past, the world understands that success in Iraq is critical to the security of all our nations. As German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said at the White House yesterday, "There can be no question a stable and democratic Iraq is in the vested interest of not just Germany, but also Europe."

Finally, we have continued our efforts to equip and train Iraqi Security Forces. Wehave made gains in both the number and quality of those forces. Today Iraq has more than 160,000 security forces trained and equipped for a variety of missions. Iraqi forces have fought bravely — helping to capture terrorists and insurgents in Najaf, Samarra, Fallujah, and Mosul. And in the past month, Iraqi forces have led a major anti-terrorist campaign in Baghdad called Operation Lightning — which has led to the capture of hundreds of suspected insurgents. Like free people everywhere, Iraqis want to be defended by their own countrymen — and we are helping Iraqis assume those duties.

The progress in the past year has been significant — and we have a clear path forward. To complete the mission, we will continue to hunt down the terrorists and insurgents. To complete the mission, we will prevent Al Qaeda and other foreign terrorists from turning Iraq into what Afghanistan was under the Taliban — a safe haven from which they could launch attacks on America and our friends. And the best way to complete the mission is to help Iraqis build a free nation that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself.

So our strategy going forward has both a military track and a political track.

The principal task of our military is to find and defeat the terrorists — and that is why we are on the offense. And as we pursue the terrorists, our military is helping to train Iraqi Security Forces so that they can defend their people and fight the enemy on their own. Our strategy can be summed up this way: As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.

We have made progress — but we have a lot more work to do. Today Iraqi Security Forces are at different levels of readiness. Some are capable of taking on the terrorists and insurgents by themselves. A larger number can plan and execute anti-terrorist operations with Coalition support. The rest are forming and not yet ready to participate fully in security operations. Our task is to make the Iraqi units fully capable and independent. We are building up Iraqi Security Forces as quickly as possible, so they can assume the lead in defeating the terrorists and insurgents.

Our Coalition is devoting considerable resources and manpower to this critical task. Thousands of Coalition troops are involved in the training and equipping of Iraqi Security Forces. NATO is establishing a military academy near Baghdad to train the next generation of Iraqi military leaders — and 17 nations are contributing troops to the NATO training mission. Iraqi Army and Police are being trained by personnel from Italy, Germany, Ukraine, Turkey, Poland, Romania, Australia, and the United Kingdom. Today dozens of nations are working toward a common objective: an Iraq that can defend itself, defeat its enemies, and secure its freedom.

To further prepare Iraqi forces to fight the enemy on their own, we are taking three new steps:

First, we are partnering Coalition units with Iraqi units. These Coalition-Iraqi teams are conducting operations together in the field. These combined operations are giving Iraqis a chance to experience how the most professional armed forces in the world operate in combat.

Second, we are embedding Coalition "Transition Teams" inside Iraqi units. These teams are made up of Coalition officers and non-commissioned officers who live, work, and fight together with their Iraqi comrades. Under U.S. command, they are providing battlefield advice and assistance to Iraqi forces during combat operations. Between battles, they are assisting the Iraqis with important skills — such as urban combat, and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance techniques.

Third, we are working with the Iraqi Ministries of Interior and Defense to improve their capabilities to coordinate anti-terrorist operations. We are helping them develop command and control structures. We are also providing them with civilian and military leadership training, so Iraq's new leaders can more effectively manage their forces in the fight against terror.

The new Iraqi Security Forces are proving their courage every day. More than 2,000 members of the Iraqi Security Forces have given their lives in the line of duty. Thousands more have stepped forward, and are now in training to serve their nation. With each engagement, Iraqi soldiers grow more battle-hardened, and their officers grow more experienced. We have learned that Iraqis are courageous and that they need additional skills. That is why a major part of our mission is to train them so they can do the fighting and our troops can come home.

I recognize that Americans want our troops to come home as quickly as possible. So do I. Some contend that we should set a deadline for withdrawing U.S. forces. Let me explain why that would be a serious mistake. Setting an artificial timetable would send the wrong message to the Iraqis — who need to know that America will not leave before the job is done. It would send the wrong message to our troops — who need to know that we are serious about completing the mission they are risking their lives to achieve. And it would send the wrong message to the enemy — who would know that all they have to do is to wait us out. We will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed — and not a day longer.

Some Americans ask me, if completing the mission is so important, why don't you send more troops? If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them. But our commanders tell me they have the number of troops they need to do their job. Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever — when we are in fact working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave. As we determine the right force level, our troops can know that I will continue to be guided by the advice that matters — the sober judgment of our military leaders.

The other critical element of our strategy is to help ensure that the hopes Iraqis expressed at the polls in January are translated into a secure democracy. The Iraqi people are emerging from decades of tyranny and oppression. Under the regime of Saddam Hussein, the Shia and Kurds were brutally oppressed — and the vast majority of Sunni Arabs were also denied their basic rights while senior regime officials enjoyed the privileges of unchecked power. The challenge facing Iraqis today is to put this past behind them, and come together to build a new Iraq that includes all its people.

They are doing that by building the institutions of a free society — a society based on freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and equal justice under law. The Iraqis have held free elections and established a Transitional National Assembly. The next step is to write a good constitution that enshrines these freedoms in permanent law. The Assembly plans to expand its constitutional drafting committee to include more Sunni Arabs. Many Sunnis who opposed the January elections are now taking part in the democratic process — and that is essential to Iraq's future.

After a constitution is written, the Iraqi people will have a chance to vote on it. If approved, Iraqis will go to the polls again, to elect a new government under their new, permanent constitution. By taking these critical steps and meeting their deadlines, Iraqis will bind their multiethnic society together in a democracy that respects the will of the majority and protects minority rights.

As Iraqis grow confident that the democratic progress they are making is real and permanent, more will join the political process. And as Iraqis see that their military can protect them, more will step forward with vital intelligence to help defeat the enemies of a free Iraq. The combination of political and military reform will lay a solid foundation for a free and stable Iraq.

As Iraqis make progress toward a free society, the effects are being felt beyond Iraq's borders. Before our Coalition liberated Iraq, Libya was secretly pursuing nuclear weapons. Today the leader of Libya has given up his chemical and nuclear weapons programs. Across the broader Middle East, people are claiming their freedom. In the last few months, we have witnessed elections in the Palestinian Territories and Lebanon. These elections are inspiring democratic reformers in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Our strategy to defend ourselves and spread freedom is working. The rise of freedom in this vital region will eliminate the conditions that feed radicalism and ideologies of murder — and make our Nation safer.

We have more work to do, and there will be tough moments that test America's resolve. We are fighting against men with blind hatred — and armed with lethal weapons — who are capable of any atrocity. They wear no uniform; they respect no laws of warfare or morality. They take innocent lives to create chaos for the cameras. They are trying to shake our will in Iraq — just as they tried to shake our will on September 11, 2001. They will fail. The terrorists do not understand America. The American people do not falter under threat — and we will not allow our future to be determined by car bombers and assassins.

America and our friends are in a conflict that demands much of us. It demands the courage of our fighting men and women … it demands the steadfastness of our allies … and it demands the perseverance of our citizens. We accept these burdens — because we know what is at stake. We fight today, because Iraq now carries the hope of freedom in a vital region of the world — and the rise of democracy will be the ultimate triumph over radicalism and terror. And we fight today because terrorists want to attack our country and kill our citizens — and Iraq is where they are making their stand. So we will fight them there … we will fight them across the world — and we will stay in the fight until the fight is won.

America has done difficult work before. From our desperate fight for independence, to the darkest days of a Civil War, to the hard-fought battles against tyranny in the 20th Century, there were many chances to lose our heart, our nerve, or our way. But Americans have always held firm, because we have always believed in certain truths. We know that if evil is not confronted, it gains in strength and audacity, and returns to strike us again. We know that when the work is hard, the proper response is not retreat, it is courage. And we know that this great ideal of human freedom is entrusted to us in a special way — and that the ideal of liberty is worth defending.

In this time of testing, our troops can know: The American people are behind you. Next week, our Nation has an opportunity to make sure that support is felt by every soldier, sailor, airman, coast guardsman, and Marine at every outpost across the world. This Fourth of July, I ask you to find a way to thank the men and women defending our freedom — by flying the flag … sending letters to our troops in the field … or helping the military family down the street. The Department of Defense has set up a website — AmericaSupportsYou.mil. You can go there to learn about private efforts in your own community. At this time when we celebrate our freedom, let us stand with the men and women who defend us all.

To the soldiers in this hall, and our servicemen and women across the globe: I thank you for your courage under fire and your service to our Nation. I thank our military families — the burden of war falls especially hard on you. In this war, we have lost good men and women who left our shores to defend freedom — and did not live to make the journey home. I have met with families grieving the loss of loved ones who were taken from us too soon. I have been inspired by their strength in the face of such great loss. We pray for the families. And the best way to honor the lives that have been given in this struggle is to complete the mission.

I thank those of you who have re-enlisted in an hour when your country needs you. And to those watching tonight who are considering a military career, there is no higher calling than service in our Armed Forces. We live in freedom because every generation has produced patriots willing to serve a cause greater than themselves. Those who serve today are taking their rightful place among the greatest generations that have worn our Nation's uniform. When the history of this period is written, the liberation of Afghanistan and the liberation of Iraq will be remembered as great turning points in the story of freedom.

After September 11, 2001, I told the American people that the road ahead would be difficult — and that we would prevail. Well, it has been difficult. And we are prevailing. Our enemies are brutal — but they are no match for the United States of America — and they are no match for the men and women of the United States military.

Thank you. And may God bless America."

"On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.
Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.

The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.

"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development.""

"Abandoning Iraq would be the equivalent of handing it over to al Qaeda terrorists or like extremists, providing them with a new beachhead in the Middle East. It could also result in Iraq becoming an Iranian-Syrian sphere of influence.

It would also teach the worst possible lessons — telling the Arab and Muslim world that we're not serious about Middle Eastern freedom and democracy, and proving to potential adversaries such as China, North Korea and Iran that America is a paper tiger.

The president must trumpet the (underreported) successes since Iraq's Independence Day: Eight million Iraqis braving death to vote in democratic elections, establishing a free government and drafting a new constitution is no small feat — and a good news story.

Of course, the president should "roger up" to the serious challenges that exist in dealing with the insurgency, while noting the progress in the training/equipping of Iraqi forces — without overselling their numbers or capability. Finally, he should articulate some of the steps he's going to take to advance the mission in Iraq in order to complete the transfer of power to the Iraqi government and bring our brave men and women home."

"A majority of Sunnis boycotted January's elections. But if the Iraqi state is to be fully representative of its people, the Sunnis must be brought in on the drafting of the constitution and made part of the mainstream political process ASAP.

Last Friday, President Bush welcomed Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al Jaafari to the White House. After a closed-door meeting, Bush said, "Today we're at a critical moment in the history of this proud nation."

He was talking about Iraq, but the fact is that United States is also at a "critical moment" in its history. We are deeply involved in a Herculean effort to reshape the Middle East, "draining the swamp" of extremism and repression that feeds terrorism.

America must decide whether it will finish the job in Iraq, or let the region be plunged deeper into the darkness of the likes of Saddam Hussein, the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. President Bush should make that choice clear to the American people."

"Last week, I was privileged to be part of a Department of Defense trip to the Joint Task Force - Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. I got to see the operations of this “controversial” facility up-close – something particularly important after Sen. Richard Durbin’s comparison of its guard to Nazi stormtroopers and calls of leftists to shut the center down. Our group went to GITMO to check out tales that the military was being too tough on these terrorist detainees. We left convinced that America is being extraordinarily lenient – far too lenient.

After speaking with soldiers, sailors, and civilians who collectively staff Gitmo, I left convinced that abuse definitely exists at the detention facilities, and it typically fails to receive the press attention it deserves: it’s the relentless, merciless attacks on American servicemen and women by these terrorist thugs. Many of the orange jumpsuit-clad detainees fight their captors at every opportunity, openly bragging of their desire to kill Americans. One has promised that, if released, he would find MPs in their homes through the internet, break into their houses at night, and “cut the throats of them and their families like sheep.” Others claim authority and vindication to kill women, children, and other innocents who oppose their jihadist mission authorized by the Koran (the same one that hangs in every cell from a specially-designed holder intended to protect it from a touching the cell floor – all provided at U.S. taxpayer expense). One detainee was heard to tell another: “One day I will enjoy sucking American blood, although their blood is bitter, undrinkable….” These recalcitrant detainees are known euphemistically as being “non-compliant.” They attack guards whenever the soldiers enter their cells, trying to reach up under protective facemasks to gouge eyes and tear mouths. They make weapons and try to stab the guards or grab and break limbs as the guards pass them food."

"Of the estimated 70,000 battlefield captures that were made in Afghanistan, only a tiny percentage, something on the order of 800-plus, were eventually evacuated to GITMO. These were the worst of the worst. More than 200 have been released back to their home country – if the U.S. is assured that the detainees would not be tortured by local authorities upon return. These men were freed because they were deemed by ongoing official military review processes to no longer pose a threat, or to possess no useful intelligence. And this process has proven too generous at times: more than 10 released GITMO detainees have been killed or recaptured fighting Americans or have been identified as resuming terrorist activities. Still, the process is up and running for review of cases, and if a Washington DC circuit court approves a government appeal, the system for military tribunals will get started. All mechanisms are in place and ready to go as soon as DoD gets a green light.

There is a good reason these unlawful combatants are being confined. They are evil and dangerous individuals. Yet these thugs are treated with an amazing degree of compassion: They are given ice cream treats and recreational time. They live in clean facilities, and receive a full Muslim religious package of Koran, prayer rug, beads, and prayer oils. An arrow in every cell points to Mecca. The call to prayer is played five times daily. They are not abused, hanged, tortured, beheaded, raped, mutilated, or in any way treated the way that they once treated their own captives – or now treat their guards."

""I've had more political pressure than I've ever had in all my years in radio," Hannity said to Klein during a radio interview. "Do you know the number of requests I've had to cancel you and not have you on this program? I've never in the history of this program had more demands to cancel the guest."


Hannity did not identify the source of the "political pressure."

Other hosts had similar experiences. Salem Radio Network's Mike Gallagher, syndicated nationwide, said he was deluged by emails opposing Klein's scheduled appearance and demanding he drop the author. Gallagher described the campaign as "very unnatural, like an orchestrated [effort]" and not from his listeners.

But other networks, particularly television, have succumbed to the pressure.

Klein's original schedule had him appearing on several top-rated TV shows. But all of them have cancelled. Among the cancellations: "Extra;" MSNBC's "Hardball with Chris Matthews;" and CNN's Paula Zahn show.


Several shows apparently expressed a keen interest in booking Klein until pressure from the Hillary camp stopped them, among them ABC's "Good Morning America," NBC's "Today" show, and CNN's "Aaron Brown."


Still more shows were expected to sign on after the book began hitting the bestseller lists. It has done just that, but Klein's publicist's phones are still not ringing."

"Others are noting the media's hypocrisy in dealing with the Klein book and how the same media treated Kitty Kelley's book "The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty." Kelley's book offered far more salacious allegations about George W. Bush.


The books are hardly comparable, though; Klein is a veteran, award-winning journalist known for serious, and non political biographies, while Kelley has developed a reputation as a purveyor of gossip on her targets.


Last week, Fox News host Neil Cavuto told his audience, "Kitty [Kelley] was booked on shows. Ed is getting no bookings, period ... Could it be the media relished dirt on the president, less so on the woman who wants to be president?"


With a heated presidential campaign underway last year, Kelley was given star billing on show's like NBC's "Today" show (with an unprecedented interview over three days); CNBC's "Capital Report;" CNN "Newsnight" hosted by Aaron Brown; CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight;" CNN's "American Morning" with Paula Zahn; MSNBC's "Hardball" with Chris Matthews, among others.


Though Kelley made unsubstantiated allegations, including charges of illicit sex and drug use against Bush (previously she accused President Reagan of date rape in a book that received page one coverage from the New York Times), her book drew huge media interest.


But today, Klein, once a favored media author for serious bestsellers including "All Too Human: The Love Story of Jack and Jackie Kennedy" and "Just Jackie: Her Private Years," has been banned from major TV shows."

After a lot of frustration and all that jazz, I have come up with a new template that works. The side bar may be very long, but it all fits together. Thanks to all of you that sent me tips and advice. Thank you for your patience. As soon as I have a nap, I will be posting again. - Sailor

There are for the moment, two sets of comments and links. Please use the second set.

The Supreme Court effectively has delcared part of the Fifth Amendment null and void. In it's ruling on eminant domain, the Courts liberals ,along with what ever leanings Justice Kennedy has, have expanded eminant domain from siezing private property for public works, towhat ever a town or city decides it wants to do with private property. Private proprty rights in this country are on their death bed, based on this ruling. The Fifth Amendment, does not grant eminant domain, it restricts it. Or, it used to. Here is OpinionJournal's take on the ruling.

"The Supreme Court's "liberal" wing has a reputation in some circles as a guardian of the little guy and a protector of civil liberties. That deserves reconsideration in light of yesterday's decision in Kelo v. City of New London. The Court's four liberals (Justices Stevens, Breyer, Souter and Ginsburg) combined with the protean Anthony Kennedy to rule that local governments have more or less unlimited authority to seize homes and businesses.

No one disputes that this power of "eminent domain" makes sense in limited circumstances; the Constitution's Fifth Amendment explicitly provides for it. But the plain reading of that Amendment's "takings clause" also appears to require that eminent domain be invoked only when land is required for genuine "public use" such as roads. It further requires that the government pay owners "just compensation" in such cases.

The founding fathers added this clause to the Fifth Amendment--which also guarantees "due process" and protects against double jeopardy and self-incrimination--because they understood that there could be no meaningful liberty in a country where the fruits of one's labor are subject to arbitrary government seizure.

That protection was immensely diminished by yesterday's 5-4 decision, which effectively erased the requirement that eminent domain be invoked for "public use." The Court said that the city of New London, Connecticut, was justified in evicting a group of plaintiffs led by homeowner Susette Kelo from their properties to make way for private development including a hotel and a Pfizer Corp. office. (Yes, the pharmaceutical Pfizer.) The properties to be seized and destroyed include Victorian homes and small businesses that have been in families for generations."

Now towns and cities can run amok using eminant domain to siexe private property for what ever reason they determine will be be for the "public good". In a city such as Las Vegas, this will have very serious implications as the city is ever growing and always on the look out for properties adjacent to the Strip and downtown. As if the likes of Steve Wynn and Donald Trump need the city tocondemn land for their casinoand hotel projects.

"And it's not just the "public use" requirement of the Fifth Amendment that's undermined by Kelo. So too is the guarantee of "just compensation." Why? Because there is no need to invoke eminent domain if developers are willing to pay what owners themselves consider just compensation.

Just compensation may differ substantially from so-called fair market value given the sentimental and other values many of us attach to our homes and other property. Even eager sellers will be hurt by Kelo, since developers will have every incentive to lowball their bids now that they can freely threaten to invoke eminent domain."

Developers will now be able to influence the citiy governments to take private property and in effect, be able to lowball "just compensation". Talk about opening the door for graft and influencing campaigns by making donations to politicians that would be developer friendly. So much for campaign finance reform.

"So, in just two weeks, the Supreme Court has rendered two major decisions on the limits of government. In Raich v. Gonzales the Court said there are effectively no limits on what the federal government can do using the Commerce Clause as a justification. In Kelo, it's now ruled that there are effectively no limits on the predations of local governments against private property.

These kinds of judicial encroachments on liberty are precisely why Supreme Court nominations have become such high-stakes battles. If President Bush is truly the "strict constructionist" he professes to be, he will take note of the need to check this disturbing trend should he be presented with a High Court vacancy."

All the more reason for the next Justices of the Supreme Court to be very strict constructionists. Those that whine about losing freedoms under the Patriot Act, should be up in arms over this latest SCOTUS ruling. - Sailor

Every day you see some headline, some where in the MSM, about a bombing of some sort in Iraq. You see headlines screaming about the slow progress in establishing a constitution and other governmental responsibilities. (Just a note here, some one should ask the MSM how long it took America to establish her government and Constitution.) The MSM, dem/libs, leftists, terrorist appeasers and ass kissers, and assorted others, gleefully point to polls showing the American people are supporting our efforts in Iraq less and less. This constant bombardment of negative news, without any attempt to balance this with all the positive things going on Iraq, is taking a toll. The fact of the matter is, the terrorists are losing and losing big time. They are alienating the Iraqi people with their assualt on Iraqi civilians. Since the majority of these so called "insurgents" are foreign terrorists, they really do not care whom they kill. Max Boot gord into some detail as to why the "rebels" are losing in his commentary.

"Support for the insurgency is confined to a minority within a minority — a small portion of Sunni Arabs, who make up less than 20% of the population. The only prominent non-Sunni rebel, Muqtada Sadr, has quietly joined the political process. The 80% of the population that is Shiite and Kurdish is implacably opposed to the rebellion, which is why most of the terror has been confined to four of 18 provinces.

Unlike in successful guerrilla wars, the rebels in Iraq have not been able to control large chunks of "liberated" territory. The best they could do was to hold Fallouja for six months last year. Nor have they been able to stage successful large-scale attacks like the Viet Cong did. A major offensive against Abu Ghraib prison on April 2 ended without a single U.S. soldier killed or a single Iraqi prisoner freed, while an estimated 60 insurgents were slain.

The biggest weakness of the insurgency is that it is morphing from a war of national liberation into a revolutionary struggle against an elected government. That's a crucial difference. Since 1776, wars of national liberation have usually succeeded because nationalism is such a strong force. Revolutions against despots, from Czar Nicholas II to the shah of Iran, often succeed too, because there is no way to redress grievances within the political process. Successful uprisings against elected governments are much rarer because leaders with political legitimacy can more easily rally the population and accommodate aggrieved elements."

The Iraqi people spoke at the polls. Despite the violence and threats of violence, they came out in droves to vote. The Sunni minority, which boycotted the elections, has come to realize that the political process passed them by and they are now clamoring tobe involved. Democracy is not an easy road, especially after decades of repression. It will also be a very bumpy road, as the Iraqis have the successes and failures. Our own trip down the Democracy raod was not an easy one either.

"So far, progress has been rapid on the political front and not-so-rapid in the deployment of security forces, which the coalition didn't emphasize until last year. We are finally seeing the emergence of some impressive Iraqi units, such as the Wolf Brigade commandos, who pursue insurgents all over the country, and the 302nd National Guard Battalion, which has pacified Haifa Street, a onetime insurgent stronghold in Baghdad.

The biggest advantage the insurgents still have, aside from their total disdain for human life, is that they can get reinforcements from abroad to make up for their heavy losses. The coalition needs to do a better job of policing the Syrian border and pressuring Damascus to crack down on the influx of jihadis.

But even if the border gets sealed, pacifying Iraq will be a long, hard slog that will ultimately be up to the Iraqis. The U.S. needs to show a little patience. If we don't cut and run prematurely, Iraqi democracy can survive its birth pangs."

More and more intelligence on the movements and identies of the terrorist in Iraq is coming from the Iraqi people. Military operations on the Syrian border are cutting down on the number of foreign terrorists entering Iraq. For those that whine and cry about how porous the Iraqi border is and use that as an arguement that we are losing, I point them to our own porous Southern border.

It will not be tomorrow when the Iraqi people are ready to stand on their own. This is not a short or easy process. To those that gnash their teeth over our committment tothe Iraqi people, I will tell them to look at the committment this country made to Germany and Japan after World War II. I defy them to tell me that the world is not a better place because of those committments. A functioning democracy in the heart of the middle east, is one of our best hopes for continued victories in the war on terror. - Sailor

The left and some others have beem whining, moaning and gnashing their teeth over the detainees at Gitmo, claiming they have not had trials. Once again, this assorted group keeps equating war to a criminal justice matter. But wait, each of these detainees has had a legal hearing, in the form of a military tribunal. Michelle Malkin gives some details in her commentary. The Washington Times also weighs in in an editorial. From Michelle Malkin's commentary:

" Gitmo-bashers attack the Bush administration's failure to abide by the Geneva Conventions. But as legal analysts Lee Casey and Darin Bartram told me, "the status hearings are, in fact, fully comparable to the 'Article V' hearings required by the Geneva Conventions, in situations where those treaties apply, and are also fully consistent with the Supreme Court's 2004 decision in the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld case."

Treating foreign terrorists like American shoplifters -- with full access to civilian lawyers, classified intelligence, and all the attendant rights of a normal jury trial -- is a surefire recipe for another 9/11. That is why the Bush administration fought so hard to erect an alternative tribunal system -- long established in wartime -- in the first place."

From the Washingtion Times' editorial:

" If the critics are right, and detained terrorists have an inalienable right to access U.S. courts, then they have created a new standard -- one which has no precedent in the Geneva Conventions, the Constitution or U.S. history. Even worse, as Mr. Barr suggested, it is a standard that would effectively make victory in the war on terror impossible.

"For every platoon of combat troops, the United States would have to field three platoons of lawyers, investigators and paralegals," Mr. Barr said. "Such a result would inject legal uncertainty into our military operations, divert resources from winning the war into demonstrating the individual 'fault' of persons confronted in the field of battle."

The critics, who are currently enjoying an increase in support from the right, of course couch their radical stance in terms of due process, as if what they are asking is the most ordinary thing in the world. And indeed, for American citizens it is. But never has the United States granted detained combatants this right. During World War II, for instance, the United States held hundreds of thousands of prisoners of war without charge, without legal representation and without a means to contest their designation as legal combatants taken on the battlefield.

This history conforms with the Geneva Conventions, as long as the detainee qualified as a legal combatant. If not, a detainee's rights as defined in the Geneva Conventions are considerably less. The reasons for this are simple. Article 4 of the convention on treatment of prisoners of war identifies a legal combatant as someone who fights under a recognized state which adheres to the Geneva Conventions; wears a fixed insignia or uniform; carries his arms openly; and conducts operations in accordance with the laws of war -- which rules out terrorists"

The recurring theme here is that there are those, mostly leftists that continue to attempt to equate war with criminal justice issues. The war on terror is not a criminal justice matter. It was that type of treatment of terrorism that contributed to 9/11. War is not limited to nation/states, but can also be applied to groups bent on bringing violence and death tothe citizens of this country. There is ample precedent for this. President Thomas Jefferson declared war of the barbary Pirates, a latter day terroris organiztion that preyed on Americans. There is also sufficient precedent for military tribunals. It is high time that these terrorist appeasers, enablers, ass kissers and those that seem utterly confused to get off the attmept to apply civil law to eradicating terrorism. - Sailor

The other day, I received some sad news from my good friend, Doc Farmer. His mom has been diagnosed with Alzheimer's. Doc has written a column about this and I ask you all to keep Doc and his family in your thoughts and prayers. He and his family will be going through a very difficult time. - Sailor

My friend who is a blue star mom, bless her heart, over at Pebble Pie, has some links to places where you can help our troops. So if you are not just paying lip service to supporting our men and women in uniform, like some leftists do, head on over and find out how and where you can help. Just click here, to get there. It is time to do more than talk. It is time to act. - Sailor

I have not said much about the Downing Street Memo. Quite frankly, when I first read it, there was nothing there of any interest, except to perhaps some historians that will eventually record the events leading up to the Iraqi invasion. The memo contains no information that was not already publically known, with the exception of the memo writer's interpretations of what he heard. This is not the "smoking" gun the left is so deperately looking for, it really a children's popgun, it lookslike a gun, makes some noise and fires off a corkon a string. Captain Ed over at Captain's Quarters has some interesting things to say as well as John over at PowerLine. You really should go read their analsys.

What I do find interesting is that the reporter who leaked the document, reproduced it and either destroyed the originals or returned it to his source. I find it a little funny that any reporter would either destroy or return source materials. That will surely fuel speculation that there is some thing less than above board going on here. Even, so this memo is all heresay and not fact. Here is an excerpt from an editorial from the Rocky Mountain News.

"Thus the most damning passage in the "Downing Street Memo." The memo is now touted as the smoking gun by those who believe the Iraq war is based on lies and deceit and not, primarily, erroneous intelligence. But read the passage again.

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam . . ." Of course he did. It had been U.S. policy since 1990 to favor regime change in Iraq.

"There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable." Actually, the idea the administration's attitude had shifted and military action was now seen as inevitable contradicts the theories of those who've claimed George Bush came into office determined to oust Saddam Hussein and only seized upon 9/11 as an excuse. No matter. The fact is we have no idea whose opinions Dearlove was relating, let alone whether he did so accurately.

By July 2002, in any case, the media were running many stories about U.S. preparations for a possible invasion of Iraq. Why is it a surprise that some officials, whether they wanted war or not, by then saw it as "inevitable"?

Ah, but the "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." Well, so says one man. But that's not what the 9/11 Commission and other probes have concluded. It's not what Bill Clinton's administration believed about Iraq's alleged possession of WMDs, or what the Germans or French thought, either.

The Downing Street Memo is an interesting document and more grist for historians. But it is no smoking gun."

All of the Western intelligence services as well as Russian intelligence were convinced that Saddam had WMDs. I find it interesting that these same leftists that point to the 9/11 Commission report to debunk and al-Qaeda/Iraq links, do not even mention that the 9/11 Commission Report found no evidence of any intelligence "cooking" of the books. What we have here is a memo, written by a staffer, that merely reports on his impressions of a meeting he attended. There is nothing there that can be construed in any way, well except in the minds of desperate lefties, as criminal or impeachable conduct. - Sailor

Dem/leftists, terrorist appeasers and ass kissers and the usual leftist suspects are trying to make some thing out of nothing with Gitmo. It all started with the bogus Amnesty International report and their leader, Kahn whining about how Gitmo was a gulag. What proof and evidence did they offer? None. One of Amnesty International's officials freely admitted that they had no evidence, but he refused to retract any of the gulag statements made. Now we come to Dirtbag Dick Durbin and his way over the top comparisons of Gitmo to the three most murderous regimes of the last century. Then there are the leftist loudmouth combination of Leahy and Kennedy. Their defense of Dirtbag Durbin is reprehensible at best. Jack Kelly has a good deal to say in his commentary.

"Time magazine obtained, and last weekend published, excerpts from the secret interrogation log of "Detainee 063," Mohammed al Qahtani, an intimate of Osama bin Laden who, it is thought, would have been the 20th hijacker had he not been denied entry into the United States in August 2001. He was later captured in Afghanistan.

The log, Time said, "offers a rare glimpse into the darker reaches of intelligence gathering, in which teams that specialize in extracting information by almost any means match wits and wills with men who are trained to keep quiet at almost any cost."

Time detailed some of the nefarious methods used by U.S. interrogators to get Qahtani to talk. He was stripped naked. He was forced to stand for prolonged periods. He was deprived of sleep. Water was poured over his head. A female interrogator invaded his personal space. Sometimes interrogators would poke him in the chest with their fingers. And he was forced to listen to Christina Aguilera music.

Sounds like Marine boot camp, without the PT that left us gasping for breath, muscles quivering. (We didn't have females invading our personal space, but most of the fellows in my recruit platoon at Marine Corps Recruit Depot San Diego wouldn't have minded that.)

Every American pilot or Special Forces soldier who has gone through SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape) training has been treated far worse in mock prison camps than al Qahtani and the others have been treated at Gitmo."

I well remember BUD/S and what we called E&E back then. What Qahtani experienced at the hands of his interrogators was a cake walk compared with what many in our military have been through as part of training. Imagine, having a female invade his personal space, the poor bastard. Later, Qahtani went and dined on lemon baked fish with vegetables and fruits. What torture! What a joke. How many prisoners have died at the hands of their interrogators at Gitmo? Zero. How many have been seriously injured? Zero. How manu did the Nazi's murder in their death camps? Apporximately 6 million. How many died in the Soviet gulags? 3 Million. How many did Pol Pot kill? 2 million. So enough with the rhetoric comparing Gitmo to any of these murderous regimes.

"There is one international organization with a legitimate beef about how the detainees are being treated: Weight Watchers.

The average weight gain among the prisoners at Guantanamo is 18 pounds, said a spokesman for the Joint Task Force there. This is because the detainees eat better than do U.S. soldiers in Iraq, says Rep. Duncan Hunter, the California Republican who is chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

Gitmo is the first POW camp in the history of the world where prisoners gain weight. Some gulag.

Durbin and fellow Democratic senators Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden and Patrick Leahy say Gitmo should be closed because it's giving America a black eye in world opinion.

Are Durbin et al. such weenies that they actually think having a finger poked in your chest is torture?

Have they lost all moral sense, to make such outrageous comparisons?

Are liberals such fools as to imagine the detainees could be released without consequence? (Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said last week that a dozen of those released earlier from Guantanamo have been recaptured or killed fighting again against America.)

What's giving America a black eye is the slander of our troops by Durbin, Amnesty and others. Americans should be outraged, but not by the conduct of our soldiers."

Perhaps to a panty waisted girly man like Dirtbag Durbin, a finger poke in the chest is torture. Perhaps he would have wet his pants if he were poked in the chest. For Biden, it is all about politics, as he has proclaimed he is a presidential candidate for 2008. Leahy nad Kennedy are just being their usual leftist selves, looking to make political hay over this.

What these four and the other leftists have accomplished is nothing less than providing aid and comfort to our enemies. Al-Jazera is having a field day replaying Dirtbag Durbin's outrageous comments. This will certainly increase the danger to our troops overseas and to American citizens overseas and here at home.

You damn sure can bet I am angry over these unsubstabtiated allegagtions made by Amnesty International and the simply stupid comparisons that Dirtbag Durbin made. Just a word of advice to those in the dems in the Senate up for re-election in Red states. I strongly urge you to rebuke Durbin and quickly, if you have hopes of being re-elected. We in the Red states support out troops, as well as those of us in the marginally Blue states and will remember those that do not rebuke Durbin on election day 2006. - Sailor

For years now, there have been those that have been constantly attempting to marginalize the role of fathers in our society. To hear them one would think that there is no need for dad to be around and be an influence on the children. Kathleen Parker takes exception to this in her fine commentary.

"But purposely creating ways to keep fathers from their children - either because personal bitterness makes it preferable or because moving far away makes his participation impossible - is not forgivable. When hurt fathers contact me for advice, knowing my concern about the long-term effects of father absence on children and ultimately society, I urge them to keep to the high road.

To be patient and understanding, to be strong and reliable, to be fatherly - in other words - in the old ways. That so many try in spite of the forces arrayed against them is reason enough to celebrate this day. Even to give ol' dad a call."

Happy Father's Day to all of you dads out there. I am off to brunch! - Sailor

Dirtbag Dick Durbin has sort of tried to step away from his libelous remarks of the US military. Sort of anyway. It is not nearly enough, he needs to fully apologize for them. The dem/leftists, instead of coming to his defens, need to join the chorus of those condemning hiscomments. Of course, they will not, as this is about politics and they will continue and try to spin their way out of this. I have already had comments here trying to justify what the Dirtbag had to say. Mark Steyn has some observation in his commentary.

"One measure of a civilized society is that words mean something: "Soviet" and "Nazi" and "Pol Pot" cannot equate to Guantanamo unless you've become utterly unmoored from reality. Spot the odd one out: 1) mass starvation; 2) gas chambers; 3) mountains of skulls; 4) lousy infidel pop music turned up to full volume. One of these is not the same as the others, and Durbin doesn't have the excuse that he's some airhead celeb or an Ivy League professor. He's the second-ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Don't they have an insanity clause?

Now let us turn to the ranking Democrat, the big cheese on the committee, Patrick Leahy of Vermont. Leahy thinks Gitmo needs to be closed down and argues as follows:

"America was once very rightly viewed as a leader in human rights and the rule of law, but Guantanamo has drained our leadership, our credibility, and the world's good will for America at alarming rates."

So, until Guantanamo, America was "viewed as a leader in human rights"? Not in 2004, when Abu Ghraib was the atrocity du jour. Not in 2003, when every humanitarian organization on the planet was predicting the deaths of millions of Iraqis from cholera, dysentery and other diseases caused by America's "war for oil." Not in 2002, when the "human rights" lobby filled the streets of Vancouver and London and Rome and Sydney to protest the Bushitler's plans to end the benign reign of good King Saddam. Not the weekend before 9/11 when the human rights grandees of the U.N. "anti-racism" conference met in South Africa to demand America pay reparations for the Rwandan genocide and to cheer Robert Mugabe to the rafters for calling on Britain and America to "apologize unreservedly for their crimes against humanity." If you close Gitmo tomorrow, the world's anti-Americans will look around and within 48 hours alight on something else for Gulag of the Week.

And this is where it's time to question Durbin's patriotism. As Leahy implicitly acknowledges, Guantanamo is about "image" and "perception" -- about how others see America. If this one small camp of a few hundred people has "drained the world's good will," whose fault is that?

The senator from Illinois' comparisons are as tired as they're grotesque. They add nothing useful to the debate. But around the planet, folks naturally figure that, if only 100 people out of nearly 300 million get to be senators, the position must be a big deal. Hence, headlines in the Arab world like "U.S. Senator Stands By Nazi Remark." That's al-Jazeera, where the senator from al-Inois is now a big hero -- for slandering his own country, for confirming the lurid propaganda of his country's enemies. Yes, folks, American soldiers are Nazis and American prison camps are gulags: don't take our word for it, Senator Bigshot says so."

Instead of roundly criticizing Dirtbag Dick's comments, thoes like Leahy have embraced them, using some convoluted logic to spin them into some thing that makes those comments appear to be some how acceptable. Dirtbag Durbin should be censured, not defended by the likes of Leahy and other dem/leftists. Next time you hear one of these sem/leftists whining about how patriotic they are and how much they support our military, one word will be sufficient in response, BULLSHIT. - Sailor

Over and over again. we keep hearing from the dem/leftists, terrorist appeasers and ass kissers and the usual leftist suspects about how evil Gitmo is. They go on and on about some imagined "rights" these terrorist thugs have. They whine about violations of the Geneva Converntion. Of course, they fail to mention that these terrorists are not afforded any rights under the Geneva Convention. It is possible that these leftists have not read the Geneva Convention, or, having done so, have no clue what they read. Then you have the likes of Dirtbag Dick Durbin, who makes wild assed comparisons to three of the most evil regimes of the last century. All for political purposes. If the dem/leftist support our troops as they claim, then they need to discipline Dirtbag Dickiee for his way over the top rants. Do not hold your breath waiting for that. Senator Jon Kyl has some comments of his own.

"At the hearing, Democrats criticized the Bush Administration, alleging that the 520 prisoners are in "legal limbo," that "there is no plan exactly how they're going to be handled," that their "rights under the Geneva Conventions have been violated," and that they deserve some sort of a "trial" or they should be released. A big problem if true, but none of it is.

The detainees at Guantanamo are not in a legal limbo any more than any other prisoners in any other war were in limbo when they were captured. International law allows any nation the right to detain enemy combatants for the duration of a conflict. The primary reason is to prevent them from killing more Americans, and, secondarily, to gather useful intelligence. That's why we are holding these men - they are enemy combatants who were shooting at our troops or otherwise involved in terrorism, and many have information that could help prevent further attacks. We certainly never "tried" captured Nazis or Japanese POWs in World War II (with the exception of a few leaders charged with war crimes) although many were held for years.

The Supreme Court has since ruled that because Guantanamo is under U.S. control, some traditional American legal procedures apply, including the right of each detainee to have his status reviewed. After that ruling, a special commission was established to determine whether, in fact, all of the detainees were enemy combatants, and a number of them were released. We know that at least a dozen went right back to fighting us, because they were subsequently captured again on the battlefield.

Those who remain in detention - a tiny fraction of the 10,000 enemy combatants we have picked up over the past few years - are terrorist trainers, bomb makers, extremist recruiters and financers, bodyguards of Osama bin Laden, would-be suicide bombers, and so forth. Because they indiscriminately target civilians and are not fighting for another particular country, among other reasons, these individuals do not qualify for the protections of the Geneva Conventions. Nonetheless, official U.S. policy is to apply Geneva standards, including access to lawyers, Red Cross visits, and so forth. Every single detainee receives a new review every year to determine whether he still poses a risk. That would seem to be a reasonable standard for a country at war, and surely a credible "plan" for "handling" their cases.

These terrorists are being treated better than any requirements laid down in the Geneva Convention. They are well fed, given access to lawyers and the Red Cross, their religious beliefs are well respected. If the US afforded our own military the same reliious support that we are affording these distorters of Islam, you can bet the ACLU would be in court in a heartbeat, claiming violations fo church and state. Some that have been released from Gitmo went right back to trying to kill Americans. The likes of Dirtbag Dick Durbin, with their lunatic and unsubstantiated ravings have done more to aid and comfort the enemy than any one.

Quite frankly, these scumbags are having it a hell of a lot better than any time in their wretched lives. Medical care, meals prepared in accordance with their distorted religious beliefs, allowed to pray the required five times a day, complete with prayer rugs and Qurans, all paid for by the US taxpayer. So much for Amnesty International's claims of a "gulag", which many of their officials are on record as saying they have no evidence of. The other day, these teroorists dined on lemon baked fish with two types of vegetables and two types of fruit. My son, with the 10th Mountain Division and his comrades in arms dined on MREs. - Sailor

To hear the usual suspects rant and rave on Gitmo, one would think that we are engaged in a war on image instead of a war on terrorism. With the left's usual knee jerk response to that phony Amnesty International report claiming that Gitmo is a "gulag", the left and a few on the right are all in a rush to close Gitmo. Amnesty International provided no evidence in their so called report and some of their officials freely admit that they have no evidence to support their allegations. None. Then their is Dirtbag Dick Durbin going way over the top with heinous comparisons to Nazi Germany, Pol Pot's regime in Cambodia and the very real gulags that the Soviets created. Do tell us, Dirtbag Durbin, how many are in slave labor or have died at Gitmo? Diana West has much to say on this in her commentary.

"And so what if closing Gitmo lets hundreds of jihadists out of their prison cages and into their terror cells? "Sure, a few may come back to haunt us," writes Mr. Friedman. But whatever. The point is, being haunted, which presumably requires some additional number of American dead to do the haunting, is apparently a risk worth taking in order to win the war.
Not, though, the so-called war on terror. It seem there's a been a change in plan. Islamic jihad is out. The war on "image" is in. And, according to the anti-Gitmo-nists, we'regetting creamed. Go figure: "They" kill people over a soggy Koran, and "we" lose the image war and all over the world, according Mr. Hagel. He thinks closing Guantanamo is the only way to win World Image War I. That's because closing the detention center would "give us a clean slate in the Muslim world," as Nancy Pelosi said, revealing an ignorance of history so vast and untamed that facts alone would perish there. Clean slatelike on September 10.
Projecting power is not the same thing as winning a popularity contest. Nor is winning a popularity contest the same thing as winning hearts and minds at home where it really counts, or abroad which seems to be another point of desperate confusion. But in our poll-driven age of celebrity worship, the popularity contest is becoming the preferred forum for geopolitics, a kind of "Survivor"-slash-"Do You Want to be a Superpower?" reality show for world leaders. If this is the case, by all means go for that "clean slate" and close Gitmo. Miss Congeniality would do the same. But don't stop there."

Perhaps Mr. Friedman would not be so cavelier if one of those released that might come back to haunt us, planted a bomb at the New York Times offices. Better yet, perhaps Tom would want to show his remorse for all the "evil" treatment one of these muderous scumbags received at Gitmo, by taking him into his home. Maybe Dirtbag Durbin would do the same. Some how I doubt old Tommy and Dirtbag Durbin would do that. As for a clean slate, how delusional is Pelosi? Do you think that the US will ever have a clean slate with these demented distorters of Isalm? This is not a popularity contesdt people,this is a war. Those detained at Gitmo. took up arms against this country. Perhaps they should have thought abot the consequences before they did that. Or maybe, they have been listening to the likes of Pelosi and thought there would be no consequences. - Sailor

The blogosphere will shortly lose their number one friend on the FEC, Commissioner Brad Smith will be returning to private life as his term on the FEC comes to an end. It was Brad Smith who sounded the warnings on the upcoming FEC judicially mandated reveiw and possible rules changes for the internet and blogs. Ryan Sager has some commentary.

"In his time at the FEC, Smith has served as the whipping boy of the campaign-finance-reform "movement" — the slew of "clean government" groups funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts and seven other liberal foundations, plus Sen. John McCain and his merry band of speech police. But they've never been able to lay a finger on his understanding of the law and his fundamental critique of the very idea that the federal government should be in the business of regulating political speech.

Speaking from his home in Virginia, yesterday, Smith discussed with me how some of the predictions from his 2001 book, "Unfree Speech," have borne out and what the pitfalls for the FEC will be going forward.

One of the most important points in his 2001 book, which has been proved in spades by the failure of the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reforms passed in 2002, is that no amount of regulation can truly control money in politics.

"There's not a stopping point here," Smith says. "As soon as you pass one reform, there's going to be another."

And, in fact, as soon as we had one election under McCain-Feingold's rules, the reformers were back calling for new regulations, such as a crackdown on so-called 527s, like the Swift Boar Veterans for Truth and the MoveOn.org Voter Fund.

Even more worrisome, in Smith's mind, is that, while the reformers have always claimed their laws would pose no threat to freedom of the press, the blurring of lines between journalists and average citizens is putting McCain-Feingold's vaunted "press exemption" in peril.

"We've had complaints that raise some serious questions about CBS, Dan Rather, Michael Moore," Smith says, referring to questions raised during the 2004 campaign about whether these entities should be considered neutral news-gatherers or de facto spokesmen for one political party over another. Similar complaints were made against the conservative Sinclair Broadcast Group.

And the line between citizen and journalist could get a lot fuzzier: Later this summer, the FEC plans to make rules for the Internet that could determine which bloggers and Web site will be eligible for the press exemption (and, the flip side of that, which could be accused of illegally donating time and/or money to a political campaign).

"This is going to erode the support for the entire idea of a free press," Smith says. People will ask, he says, "Why should some people who went to Ivy League schools and work at the Washington Post be protected and not me?""

The fight to preserve our First Amendment rights to express our political views goes on. We are going to lose one of the great champions of those rights. Mr. Smith will be sorely missed. - Sailor

The capture of the number one terrorist in Mosul, is being reported by CNN OnLine. Here is another of those "brave" ready to be martyrs, that surrendered withouta fight. You would think that some of his followers would figure out that a good deal of their leadership is not at all ready to become a martyr for Allah, as they are urfing their followers to become.

"BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The U.S. military on Thursday reported the capture of a man described as al Qaeda's leader in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul.

Air Force Brig. Gen. Donald Alston identified him as Abu Talha -- whose actual name is Muhammad Khalaf Shakar -- and said he was captured on Tuesday.

"Talha has been one of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's most trusted operations agents in Iraq," Alston said. "This is a major defeat for the al Qaeda organization in Iraq."

"Numerous reports indicated he wore a suicide vest 24 hours a day and stated that he would never surrender. Instead, Talha gave up without a fight," Alston said.

Talha surrendered to multinational forces in a quiet neighborhood in Mosul, Alston said, after information from Iraqi civilians contributed to his capture.

Civilians providing such information indicates they are taking steps against the "increasingly unpopular insurgency," he said."

One that were dedicated to the "cause", would surely have blown himself up, instead of surrendering so meekly. The other important part of this article, is how Iraqi civilians provided the intel necessary to capture this scumbag. It seems that the only ones rooting for these thugs these days are the usual leftist suspects and perhaps Dick Durbin. The Iraqi people have their first taste of freedom and are not going to continue to turn a blind eye to these mostly foreign terrorists. Chalk up another win for the good guys. - Sailor

Once again, Dick Durbin goes over the top by calling Gitmo a "death camp". Last time it was claiming that it was some "vast rightwing conspiracy" that was behind the MSM reporting on Howie Dean's attcks on republicans. One can only wonder what future bullshit will emerge from Durbin's mouth. Rowan Scarborough gives the details of Durbin's latest nonsensical outburst.

"The Senate's No. 2 Democrat has compared the U.S. military's treatment of a suspected al Qaeda terrorist at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay with the regimes of Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin and Pol Pot, three of history's most heinous dictators, whose regimes killed millions.

In a speech on the Senate floor late Tuesday, Minority Whip Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat, castigated the American military's actions by reading an e-mail from an FBI agent.

The agent complained to higher-ups that one al Qaeda suspect was chained to the floor, kept in an extremely cold air-conditioned cell and forced to hear loud rap music. The Justice Department is investigating.

About 9 million persons, including 6 million Jews, died in Hitler's death camps, 2.7 million persons died in Stalin's gulags and 1.7 million Cambodians died in Pol Pot's scourge of his country.

No prisoners have died at Guantanamo, and the Pentagon has acknowledged five instances of abuse or irreverent handling of the Koran, the holy book of Muslims."

This is what Durbin considers torture. Many of those that have served in the military have had it far more difficult during Escape and Evasion training. Quite frankly, these terrorist scumbags never had it so good. I doubt any of them had lemon baked fished served to them while they were of plotting and trying to kill Americans.

This is exactly the type of rhetoric that gives aid and comfort to those trying to kill Americans, simply because they are Americans. Dickie Durbin is an aider and abettor of terrorists by making statements and comparisons such as these. It is absolutely irresponsible for Durbin and the other dem/leftists to use this type of dialogue for political purposes. Durbin has absolutely no clue what torture is. Perhaps he can go and ask Saddam about what tirture really is. - Sailor

Here we go again with another conspiracy theory about how the WTC Towers ans building 7 collapsed. This time it is a former Bush Administration official bandying about an old conspiracy theory that the 3 building were imploded by the use of explosives. We have seen many buildings demolishe din that manner and some of the usual tin foil hat candidates posted and spread this particular theory around early after 9/11. This time it is Morgan Renolds who was a Labor Department economist during the first Bush Administration. Here is the article in full:

"By John Daly
UPI International Correspondent

Washington, DC, Jun. 13 (UPI) -- Insider notes from United Press International for June 8

A former Bush team member during his first administration is now voicing serious doubts about the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9-11. Former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds comments that the official story about the collapse of the WTC is "bogus" and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7. Reynolds, who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas and is now professor emeritus at Texas A&M University said, "If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling." Reynolds commented from his Texas A&M office, "It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7. If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either. The government's collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings.""

I have a few questiond for Reynolds and any others tht buy into this bunk.

First, when were these buildings rigged with explosives? Was it during the construction or after?

Second, do you have any idea of how many thousands of pounds of explosives it would take to collapse any of these three buildings? So, exactly how did all of thses explosives get into these buildings with no one noticing? If the buildings were rigged after construction, want to explain to us how that was accomplished? You do not just go around placing explosives here and there. The charges must be precisely shaped to get the desired effects. Also, why did not the tower that was bombed in 1993 have it's alleged pre-rigged explosives go off as a result of that blast? Or for that matter, why weren't there
secondary explosions after the planes struck?

Third, what type of detonators were used? Certainly it was not
primacord or any manual system. So that leaves radio frequency detonators. Do you have any clue how many thousands of radio frequency devices there are in Lower Manhattan on any given day? The odds would favor an accidental detonation. Now,all of these explosives need to be wired and set off in a very precise order. While the fires generated by the plane crashes did not achieve teperatures high enough to melt steel, (though the temperatures generated were sufficiently high enough to weaken the tensile strength of the steel by 50%), the temperatures generated would most certainly been high enough to have melted the wiring and detonators themselves. That goes for the fuel oil fire in building 7 as well.

If any of you care to challenge my remarks or answer any of the questions I have presented, feel free to do so. I will await your replies. As for Reynolds, he has no clue what he is talking about.- Sailor Source

A few days ago, I posted on the commentary Debra Burlingame wrote for OpinionJournal. She alerted us of the plans that the IFC plans tomake the 9/11 Memorial their showcase for their leftist view of history. One that blames America for the evils in the world. Their plan does not honor the memories of those that were murdered that day, but will be a platform for their usual diatribes against America. I have happened upon a new groups that is taking the fight on to see that the 9/11 Memorial is a Memorial to the victims of 9/11 and not a leftist hate fest against America.

Please go an visit their site and read what they have to say as well as using the links provided to speak your mind to those elected officials that need to intervene. - Sailor

Click Here

I have posted at several venues that the detainees at Gitmo are likely living better than at anytime in their wretched lives. Well, as usual, information has been released which backs up my claims. Congressman Duncan Hunter has revealed some of the treatment those detainees are receiving at the hands of the "evil" US military, including a dinner menu. All, naturally funded by the US taxpayer.

""For Sunday they're going to be having Orange Glazed Chicken, Fresh Fruit Roupee, Steamed Peas and Mushrooms, Rice Pilaf - we treat them very well," he told Fox.

Last night, Hunter said, the U.S. "torture victims" enjoyed the same kind of gourmet fare, including an entree of "Lemon-baked Fish.""

I will pass on the fish, never really did care for fish. MRE's would be considered abuse by some in Congress and by other assorted leftists, but they are good enough for our troops.

""We give them honey and dates when they break fast at Ramadan. We give them prayer beads and prayer oil - all paid for [by the U.S. taxpayer.]

"In fact," he said, "if you did that for American GIs - if you had a call to prayer five times a day - the ACLU would sue on the basis that we violated the separation between church and state.""

The ACLU is far more worried about the supposed "rights" of these terrorist scmbags than they are about any religious accomodations. Though the ACLU has been deafeningly silent of the force feeding of Islam in the public schools. Tell you where the ACLU stand, all in a dither over supposed rights of enemy combatants. Next some leftist, terrorist appeasing organization or just the usual terrorist ass kissers will be complaining that the diet at Gitmo is not a healthy one. - Sailor

Source

You're A Grand Old Flag,
You're a high flying flag,
And forever, in peace, may you wave.

You're the emblem of the land I love,
The home of the free and the brave.

Every heart beats true
'neath the Red, White and Blue,
Where ther's never a boast or brag,

But, should auld acquaintance be forgot,
Keep your eye on the grand old flag.

Words and Music by George M. Cohan

Forever in Freedom may She wave! - Sailor

In response to the ever growing Chinese military threat in the western Pacific, the Pentagon is remaking it's forces posture in that region. Richard Halloran details some of these upcoming changes in his article.Here are the highlights:

"Army: The Army headquarters at Fort Shafter would become a war-fighting command to devise and execute operations rather than to train and provide troops to other commands as it does now. The U.S. four-star general's post in Korea would be transferred to Hawaii.

I Corps at Fort Lewis, Wash., would move to Camp Zama, Japan, to forge ties with Japan's ground force. Japan would organize a similar unit, perhaps called the Central Readiness Command, to prepare and conduct operations with the U.S. Army.

In South Korea, the U.S. plans to disband the Eighth Army that has been there since the Korean War of 1950-53, to relinquish command of South Korean troops to the South Koreans, and to minimize or eliminate the United Nations Command set up during the Korean War.

Marine Corps: The Marines, who have a war-fighting center in Hawaii, would move the headquarters of the III Marine Expeditionary Force, or III MEF, to Guam from Okinawa to reduce the friction caused by the U.S. "footprint" on that Japanese island. How many Marines would move was not clear, but combat battalions would continue to rotate to Okinawa from the United States.

Air Force: The 13th Air Force moved to Hickam Air Force Base from Guam in May to give that service a war-fighting headquarters like those of the other services. General Paul V. Hester, commander of the Pacific Air Forces, was quoted in press reports: "We're building an air operations center and war-fighting headquarters that serves the entire Pacific region."

The Air Force plans to establish a strike force on Guam that would include six bombers and 48 fighters rotating there from U.S. bases. In addition, 12 refueling aircraft, which are essential to long-range projection of air power, would be stationed at Andersen Air Force Base there.

Further, three Global Hawk unmanned reconnaissance aircraft would be based on Guam. Global Hawks can range 12,000 miles, at altitudes up to 65,000 feet, for 35 hours, which means they can cover Asia from Bangkok to Beijing with sensors making images of 40,000 square miles a day.

Navy: The USS Kitty Hawk, the conventionally-powered aircraft carrier based at Yokosuka, Japan, is slated for replacement by 2008. The United States wants to station a nuclear-powered carrier there while some Japanese politicians want the last of the conventionally-powered carriers, the John F. Kennedy, to be chosen.

The Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, whose war-fighting element is Joint Task Force 519, has moved three attack submarines to Guam to put them in the western Pacific and would probably be assigned an additional carrier from the Atlantic Fleet to be based at Pearl Harbor."

This is a start, but I am not sure that the naval presence is enough. I would like to see more attack submarines in the region. Of course, in order to accomplish that, Congress may have to rethink the Seawolf approporiations and add money for more boats to be produced. All in all, this will still take some 3 years to accomplish. You can bet the rent or mortgage payment that the Chinese and our home grown leftists will be whining and bleating about this. - Sailor

A Soldier stood and faced God,
Which must always come to pass.

He hoped his shoes were shining,
Just as brightly as his brass.

"Step forward now, Soldier,
How shall I deal with you?

Have you always turned the other cheek?
To My Church have you been true?"

The Soldier squared his shoulders and said,
"No, Lord, I guess I ain't.

Because those of us who carry guns,
Can't always be a saint.

I've had to work most Sundays,
And at times my talk was tough.

And sometimes I've been violent,
Because the world is awfully rough.

But, I never took a penny,
That wasn't mine to keep...

Though I worked a lot of overtime,
When the bills got just too steep.

And I never passed a cry for help,
Though at times I shook with fear.

And sometimes, God, forgive me,
I've wept unmanly tears.

I know I don't deserve a place,
Among the people here.

They never wanted me around,
Except to calm their fears.

If you've a place for me here, Lord,
It needn't be so grand.

I never expected or had too much,
But if you don't, I'll understand."

There was a silence all around the throne,
Where the saints had often trod.

As the Soldier waited quietly,
For the judgment of his God.

"Step forward now, Soldier,
You've borne your burdens well.

Walk peacefully on Heaven's streets,
You've done your time in Hell."

~Author Unknown~

To the memories of all of those that have given their lives to the cause of freedom. Freedom is never free. - Sailor

According to a new book by investigative reporter Kenneth R. Timmerman, Osama bin Laden is in Iran where he is receiving medical treatmant and plotting new terrorist attacks on the US. Now, I am normally rather skeptical of claims such as this. But, there is some sense in it. Bin Laden is very ill and does require professional medical attention which would include hospital facilities. He is not going to get that in Pakistan, since there are eyes every where, even in those remote area's where he was protected by the locals. Iran has long been a funder and enabler of terrorism and would enjoy nothing more to see additional attacks on US soil.

Iran is on record as to having detained and "arrested" members of al-Qaeda, including family of bin Laden. There are no real Western intelligence operatives, that we know about, in Iran, so it would be very easy for the Iranians to keep bin Laden under cover. Even if we did have assests in Iran that could pinpoint bin Laden's where abouts, there is the difficulty of reaching out and either snatching or killing him. Timmerman makes an interesting case for bin Laden being in Iran.

"Osama Bin Laden met with top Iranian leaders in a regime safehouse in northern Iran in late 2004 to discuss future terror attacks against the United States and its allies.

The Iranian regime has been sheltering Bin Laden and providing him medical care since that time.

The Iranian regime is also sheltering other top al-Qaeda leaders, including Bin laden’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, and his top military planner, Seif al Adil.

Bin Laden’s eldest son, Saad bin Laden, has been in Iran since May 2001, where he was received as the "future leader” of al-Qaeda in the event his father was killed during U.S. retaliatory attacks for the 9/11 attack."

The CIA claims this defector, that Timmerman has interviewed extensively, is a master liar, which may well be true. Still it is plausible that Iran is sheltering bin Laden. Some serious investigating into these claims is warranted. - Sailor

SOURCE

Over and over again we keep hearing how Camp Delta at Gitmo is some kind of "gulag". Amnesty International went on and on about it in their annual report. When confronted, Amnesty International could provide absolutely no proof of their outlandish accusations. This is not the first time a lefist group, and yes, that is exactly what Amnesty Internationl has become, was long on accusations and very short of proof.

Now we have the usual suspects, the appeasers of Old Europe, terrorist appeasers and ass kissers, the usual crowd of dem/leftists and other leftists, whining that Camp Delta should be closed. Jimmy Carter once again has opened his mouth. He really needs to concentrate on building houses and remove himself from the world stage. He is, after all, a failed President and the guy who claimed that the recent fraud filled election in Venezuala was legit. These detainees at Gitmo are living a far more comfortable life then they did when they were out trying to kill Americans and any others that did not suscribe to their vision of Isalm. Ollie North takes those whiners to task in his commentary.

"First, a truth check. When confronted with the facts, Amnesty International, once respected for holding the Soviet Union and other totalitarian regimes accountable for human-rights abuses, backed away from their accusation. "Clearly, this is not an exact or a literal analogy," offered William Schulz, head of Amnesty's U.S. branch. "In size and in duration, there are not similarities between U.S. detention facilities and the gulag. ... People are not being starved. ... They're not being subjected to forced labor." He could and should have gone further.

Here's Amnesty's "gulag:" Upon arrival at Camp Delta, detainees are issued a blanket, a sheet, two orange "jumpsuits," flipflops, a foam sleeping pad, two bath towels, a washcloth, toothpaste, soap, shampoo, a prayer rug, and a Koran. They are allowed two 15-minute showers per week; they get recreation time and three culturally sensitive meals daily. Schedules are respectful of Islamic traditions, prayer calls are broadcast five times a day and arrows painted on the floors point to Mecca. Their regular quarters include a flushing toilet, running water and an off-the-floor bed. Detainees who ask for them are provided soccer balls, playing cards, chessboards and paperback books. All this, courtesy of the American taxpayers the detainees have sworn to kill."

There you have an admission by William Schulz, head of Amnesty's U.S. branch, that there is no conceivable way that Gitmo is remotely comparable to the Soviet Gulags. Looking at what each detainee is given upon arrival, it makes one wonder how many of the world's poor wouldkill to receive this treatment.I doubt that in the history of warfare, any group of enemy combatants has received treatment such as this.

"Abdullah Mehsud, spent two years in Guantanamo after his capture fighting with the Taliban. He convinced U.S. interrogators he was an innocent Afghan tribesman and was released. Last October, in Pakistan, his "country of choice," he kidnapped two Chinese engineers. He says he and his followers will "fight America and its allies until the very end."

Mullah Shahzada spent two years at a special "seaside house" with fellow teenage detainees. There he was taught English, played sports and watched videos designed to make him "like us." After swearing an oath against violence he was returned to Afghanistan. Just weeks later he became one of 12 former detainees confirmed killed by coalition forces while fighting with Taliban al Qaeda units."

Here are just two examples of what happens when some of these detainees are released. They go right back to thier former terrorist activities. It is not surprising that some of the leftists want them all released. After all, there are those on the left that are openly rooting for this scum to win

"As for all of the claims of abuse: An al Qaeda training manual captured by British intelligence instructs those captured, "at the beginning of the trial... the brothers must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them by state security before the judge. Complain of mistreatment while in prison."

These are enemies who refuse to observe any conventions, treaties or rules of warfare. They lie, cheat and violate agreements. They slice off heads like raw meat. They murder women and children. They fly airplanes into buildings.

But we're the bad guys."

The claims that Gitmo is a gulag, are pure and utter bullshit. I will remind you that this is a war, not a criminal justice issue. Others have tried to treat organized terrorism as a legal issue and have failed miserably. The detainees at Gitmo are not covered under the Geneva Convention as POWs, yet they are being affored many of the rights and privileges granted to POWs under the Geneva Convention, and in some cases, even more than that. It is time for the likes of Amnesty International to retract their outright lies. - Sailor

Thanks to McCain-Feingold and an activist judge, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, the Federal Election Commission is looking into regulating free political speech on the Internet. As those of you that frequent my corner of the blogosphere know, I have been posting on this for some time now. I have called attention to this potential travesty every where I can. I happened on this commentary by Mark Alexander over at TownHall.com. He gives a little more insight to the judges decision and mandate to the FEC.

"Then the reformers struck again. The boondoggling duo of McCain and Feingold sued the FEC, insisting that regulations on political speech did in fact apply to the Internet and to e-mail. U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly agreed: "The commission's exclusion of Internet communications from the coordinated-communications regulation severely undermines" the purpose of the campaign-finance law. The Commission's three Republicans couldn't convince any of the three Democrats to appeal the ruling, with the net result being that Big Brother is on his way to policing the cybersphere.

Under the law, which the FEC will have to enforce if Congress does not intervene, even a link to a candidate's website will be considered a political contribution. While the value of such a "contribution" remains uncertain, Bradley Smith, one of the FEC's three Republican commissioners, warns that FEC regulatory precedents don't bode well for the blogosphere. "Corporations aren't allowed to donate to campaigns," notes Smith. "Suppose a corporation devotes 20 minutes of a secretary's time and $30 in postage to sending out letters for an executive. As a result, the campaign raises $35,000. Do we value the violation on the amount of corporate resources actually spent, maybe $40, or the $35,000 actually raised? The commission has usually taken the view that we value it by the amount raised. It's still going to be difficult to value the link, but the value of the link will go up very quickly."

Sound bad? That's not all, warns Smith. "The judge's decision is in no way limited to ads. She says that any coordinated activity over the Internet would need to be regulated, as a minimum. The problem with coordinated activity over the Internet is that it will strike, as a minimum, Internet reporting services.""

This is interesting as both McCain and Feingold are on record as saying that they are opposed to any regulation of the blogs. Feingold went so far as to post his opinions on a blog. What exactly will be considered coordinated activity? If I post a link to another blog because it has a link to a candidates site, is that coordinated activity?

"This week's "Alpha Jackass" award:

"Some will argue that the First Amendment of the Constitution renders unlawful any restrictions on the right of anyone to raise unlimited amounts of money for political campaigns. Mr. President, which drafter of the Constitution believed or anticipated that the First Amendment would be exercised in political campaigns by the relatively few at the expense of the many?" --John McCain, March 2001

The big lie...

"To permit an entire class of political communications to be completely unregulated irrespective of the level of coordination between the communication's publisher and a political party or federal candidate, would permit an evasion of campaign finance laws." --U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ruling on the regulation of the Internet, ordering the FEC to revise its rules"

What the judge is really saying is that the First Amendment does not apply to the Internet, as least as she sees it under McCain-Feingold. Free political speech is a founding tenet of this country. SCOTUS was very remiss in not over turning McCain-Feingold. It is now up to the Congress to get up off their collective asses and enact legislation that keeps the First Amendment right of bloggers intact. Any legislation needs to be very specific and not open to any outlandish interpretation by the courts. - Sailor

Howard Dean has made a great deal of news of late, mostly for sticking his foot deep down his throat. His down right slanderous comments about republicans has even some in his own party, those that are presidential wannabees, running away from the chairman of the DNC. Just a note to Dr. Demento, I am a republican and I work my ass off, so that makes you either a moron or a liar when you said republicans never worked a day in their lives. You can decide which you are.

Then there are those like Senator Durbin, who are claiming that Dean's troubles are all caysed by the vats right wing conspiracy. Umm, yo, Durbin, did Dean say what he was quoted as saying? Durbin further claims that the GOP is behind all of this as a diversion from dealing with issues. So Seantor, want to fill us in on all the dem/leftist plans to resolve the issues that face the Nation? Oh, just saying no, is not a plan, or have you not figured that out yet?

David Limbaugh has some additional thoughts in his commentary.

"Assuming you're not dwelling in a cave with Osama, you've heard that Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said that many Republicans "never made an honest living in their lives," and that the Republican Party is "pretty much a white, Christian party." (As to the former, remember when Democrats, in their post-election, grief-born introspection promised to redouble their efforts to reach out to the Christian right and "values" voters? As to the latter, I haven't heard whether Howard cynically attempted this time to pepper his remarks with scriptural passages, as he is wont to do.)

Most of the Democrats who are even bothering to dissociate themselves from Dean's remarks are ones who aspire to the presidency, such as Sen. Joseph Biden and New Mexico gov. Bill Richardson, who said, variously, that Dean doesn't speak for all Democrats.

Oh? That's news to me, since he is occupying precisely the position of one who does speak for Democrats. Indeed, Democrat honchos were well aware of Dean's proclivity for GOP villification when they deliberately placed him in his current position. And need I remind you that Dean is a perfectly logical successor for Terry McAuliffe, who character-assassinated Republicans for sport?

Democrats knew what they were getting with Dean, and they chose him with malice aforethought. They either affirmatively support his endless defamation or have concluded it's the price they have to pay to mollify their antiwar, anti-Bush base. Either way, Dean's words were entirely foreseeable, even predictable.

Which is why it is a little hard to take Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid's disingenuous suggestion that Dean's comments were a mistake. Reid said, "Well, I think, as all of you know, that there isn't a single person that hasn't misspoken."

How true, but don't insult us by trying to pass this off as a misstatement. Did the faux mild-mannered Reid misspeak when he called President Bush a loser to school kids and a liar? As far as I know, he didn't retract the latter."

If Dean does not speak for all dem/leftists, then who does and why did they elect Dean as chair of the DNC? Perhaps they were all dazzeld by Dean's ability to raise money? Though that seems to have failed as some reports are showing donation to the DNC being severely outpaced by donations to the RNC. Dean is to the far left of the democrat party. His over the top rhetoric should really be no surprise to anyone that has follwoed his failed presidential run. As for Harry Reid, well Harry has lost it since he became Seante Minority Leader. I really think the pressure has gotten to him.

"Well, in full-throated Bill Clinton mode (attacking his accusers), Dean said, "You know, I think a lot of this is exactly what the Republicans want, and that's a diversion." He elaborated that Republicans are feigning outrage to divert the public's attention away from their problems on Social Security, gas prices and the war in Iraq.

Does this sound repentant to you? Next time I get caught robbing a bank, I'm going to accuse the police of diverting attention away from their failure to bring white-collar crime under control.

I agree with House Majority Whip Roy Blunt, who properly noted that "Democrats, while quick to publicly distance themselves from Dean, can't hide the fact that their national party chairman remains a sought-after presence in closed-door strategy sessions."

I'm afraid that Democrats know exactly what they're doing with Dean. They've decided, as a matter of strategy, that they have to vilify and berate President Bush and Republicans because it's the only real weapon remaining in their arsenal. For now, they've quit competing in the marketplace of ideas."

Quite frankly, I think it is the other way around. The dem/lefists, led by Howie Dean, are trying any way they can to divert from solutions and plans to fix the issues that face this country. By their continued attacking of the GOP and the President, they are keeping out of the media, the simple fact that they have no plan at all. Unless you call what they are doing now a plan. Soon you may see the slogan, "Howard Dean, the gift that keeps on giving, to the GOP". - Sailor

So much of what we see and read about the war in Iraq comes from reporters who sit in the relative safety of the "Green Zone", have never stepped foot inside of Iraq or were their for on a brief time. Michael Fumento donned the body armor and helmet and went to Iraq, embedded with the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force in the Anbar Province. Here is are his observations.

" I traveled to Iraq essentially for two reasons. First, I believed the mainstream media for whatever reason were missing many important stories. Second, I believed you had to see the war to truly understand it. I was fed up with the pompous pontificating pundits who can go to Iraq anytime but prefer the comfort and safety of home. I paid the price for my trip; a part of me will always remain in Iraq – literally. But I was right on both counts.

I observed that troop morale in even the most hostile areas was better than I would have believed. Unless I identified myself, nobody knew I was a reporter. Troops didn’t hold back antiwar feelings on my account. Yet I heard none. I also carefully fastidiously read the ubiquitous graffiti in the portable toilets and only once found a negative scrawling – a Bush bash. But three other scrawlings ambushed that first one."

I have to respectfully disagree on the MSM missing stories statement. I believe that the MSM is simply not reporting these stories since these stories do not agree with their political agenda. Troop graffitti is a telling bit of insight into what the troops think and believe, as well as the state of their morale. Finding as little as Fumento did, is an indicator that the troops on the ground believe in what they are doing. This is something you would never know from the MSM. I am sure the MSM goes out of their way to find troops opposed to the actions in Iraq.

"Overall – and this is based both on observation and outside study – I’d say the war is ours to lose. But I don’t think we will. In a true guerrilla conflict, time favors the insurgency. But progressively this war has shifted to one waging non-Iraqi terrorists against primarily Iraqi civilians, secondarily Iraqi military and police, and last against Americans.

Indeed, on one IED mission I joined MPs nabbed two men in track suits and tennis shoes running away from the trigger. Both wore head scarves with non-Iraqi-colors and they had Jordanian features.

It’s perfectly understandable that Iraqis resent any foreign troops on their soil. But they know the suicide bombers randomly turning Iraqi civilians into shredded wheat are also foreigners. They’re skeptical about a U.S. withdrawal; but they see the American route appears to be leading to independence. And they know the Jihadist route is one too horrible to contemplate."

Here is another fact seemingly being ignored by the MSM. Most of what the MSM call "insurgents" are foreign terrorists, waging a war of terror on the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people have figured this out and now more and more intelligence information is coming from them to the Iraqi government. Once again, these so called "insurgents" are nothing more than low life terrorists. It is time the MSM started calling them what they are.

For all the negative news the MSM is reporting, and for all of the whining and gnashing of teeth of the leftists terrorist appeasera and ass kissers, it seem that the Iraqi people understand the stakes. They know that the path to democracy is far better than anything the terrorists have to offer. My hat is off to Michael Fumento for having the courage and gumption to get this story out. - Sailor

Seems that Australia has problems with spies from China now as well. A few days ago, I posted on China's spying efforts in the US. Peter Brooks laid out this effort in the US. Now two Chinese defectors have given Australian authorities information on the Chinese spying efforts there.

"Two Chinese defectors - one of them a diplomat who walked away from his post - claim that their homeland is running a spy network in Australia and other Western countries.

The diplomat, Chen Yonglin, left his job as the first secretary at the Chinese Consulate-General in Sydney last month to seek political asylum in Australia. Chen, 37, claimed China ran a ring of 1,000 spies in Australia involved in illegal activities including abducting Chinese nationals and smuggling them back to China."

Yonglin's revelations have been verified by a second defector, Hao Feng Jun.

"But a second Chinese official seeking asylum in Australia, Hao Feng Jun, backed Chen's claim of a Chinese spy network in Australia in an interview with Australian Broadcasting Corp. television late Tuesday.

Hao, 32, said he was a member of China's internal security police engaged in the suppression of dissidents before he came to Australia in February as a tourist and sought asylum.

"I worked in the police office in the security bureau and I believe what Mr. Chen says is true," Hao told the ABC through an interpreter.

"They send out businessmen and students to overseas countries as spies. They also infiltrate the Falun Gong and other dissident groups," he said."

This also confirms much of what Peter Brooks wrote in his commentary of the Chinese spying efforts in the US. Of course, China denies all of this, using the usual rhetoric to besmirch the two defectors. It will be interesting to see if the information provided by these two defectors will put a major dent into Chinese intelligence gathering. - Sailor.

Robert (KKK) Byrd is up for re-election in 2006. Byrd, who is 87, may be facing the battle of his political life against GOP Rep. Shelley Moore Capito. Dick Morris explains in his commentary.

"He’s up for election in 2006, and the latest polling in West Virginia indicates that an attack of sanity and judgment may, at last, be hitting an electorate that has routinely elected the 87-year-old Byrd to the Senate eight times with never less than 59 percent of the vote. A survey by RMS Strategies, a West Virginia firm, shows Byrd barely ahead of Republican Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, 46-43 percent.

Byrd, who still boats a 62-28 favorable-unfavorable ratio, may have met his match and master in Capito, who has a statewide rating of 57-35."

Byrd is facing a popular republican and I would suspect that the RNC will be funding her with gusto. Byrd may also be impacted by the current goings on in the Senate. Let's not forget that West Virginia want for Bush by 56-43.

"But Byrd needs beating for a host of other reasons. His defense of the filibuster was natural, since it was he who conducted a lonely 14-hour attempt to kill the 1964 Civil Rights Act by talking until he almost dropped. He stays in office by being a pork-barrel machine who waxes eloquent, at the same time, on the perils of deficit spending.

If he is the Senate’s conscience, the body is in deep trouble.

You don’t have to be a Republican to like Capito, just somebody interested in restoring a modicum of integrity, intellectual and otherwise, to the once-august United States Senate."

Of course the MSM keeps that little tidbit about Byrd filibustering the 1964 Civil Rights Act, well under wraps. Now he is facing a popular republican in a state thats seems to be becoming increasingly conservative. Robert Byrd may be heading the way of Tommy Daschle. - Sailor

Looks like the far left is trying to highjack the 9/11 Memorial at Ground Zero. Instead of a lasting tribute to those that died there, it is shaping up to be a a very slanted lesson on the history of freedom. This is not the appropriate venue for this type of nonsense. Any memorial here should be for and about those that were murdered here and those that died trying to save them. I am disgusted that those who have been charged with creating this memorial have taken this path. Debra Burlingame details these plans and who is responsible in her commentary. I will post some excerpts, but you do need to read the entire commentary.

"The World Trade Center Memorial Cultural Complex will be an imposing edifice wedged in the place where the Twin Towers once stood. It will serve as the primary "gateway" to the underground area where the names of the lost are chiseled into concrete. The organizers of its principal tenant, the International Freedom Center (IFC), have stated that they intend to take us on "a journey through the history of freedom" -- but do not be fooled into thinking that their idea of freedom is the same as that of those Marines. To the IFC's organizers, it is not only history's triumphs that illuminate, but also its failures. The public will have come to see 9/11 but will be given a high-tech, multimedia tutorial about man's inhumanity to man, from Native American genocide to the lynchings and cross-burnings of the Jim Crow South, from the Third Reich's Final Solution to the Soviet gulags and beyond. This is a history all should know and learn, but dispensing it over the ashes of Ground Zero is like creating a Museum of Tolerance over the sunken graves of the USS Arizona.

The public will be confused at first, and then feel hoodwinked and betrayed. Where, they will ask, do we go to see the September 11 Memorial? The World Trade Center Memorial Foundation will have erected a building whose only connection to September 11 is a strained, intellectual one. While the IFC is getting 300,000 square feet of space to teach us how to think about liberty, the actual Memorial Center on the opposite corner of the site will get a meager 50,000 square feet to exhibit its 9/11 artifacts, all out of sight and underground. Most of the cherished objects which were salvaged from Ground Zero in those first traumatic months will never return to the site. There is simply no room. But the International Freedom Center will have ample space to present us with exhibits about Chinese dissidents and Chilean refugees. These are important subjects, but for somewhere -- anywhere -- else, not the site of the worst attack on American soil in the history of the republic."

Here are those that are responsible for this.

"In fact, the IFC's list of those who are shaping or influencing the content and programming for their Ground Zero exhibit includes a Who's Who of the human rights, Guantanamo-obsessed world:

* Michael Posner, executive director at Human Rights First who is leading the world-wide "Stop Torture Now" campaign focused entirely on the U.S. military. He has stated that Mr. Rumsfeld's refusal to resign in the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal is "irresponsible and dishonorable."

* Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU, who is pushing IFC organizers for exhibits that showcase how civil liberties in this country have been curtailed since September 11.

* Eric Foner, radical-left history professor at Columbia University who, even as the bodies were being pulled out of a smoldering Ground Zero, wrote, "I'm not sure which is more frightening: the horror that engulfed New York City or the apocalyptic rhetoric emanating daily from the White House." This is the same man who participated in a "teach-in" at Columbia to protest the Iraq war, during which a colleague exhorted students with, "The only true heroes are those who find ways to defeat the U.S. military," and called for "a million Mogadishus." The IFC website has posted Mr. Foner's statement warning that future discussions should not be "overwhelmed" by the IFC's location at the World Trade Center site itself.

* George Soros, billionaire founder of Open Society Institute, the nonprofit foundation that helps fund Human Rights First and is an early contributor to the IFC. Mr. Soros has stated that the pictures of Abu Ghraib "hit us the same way as the terrorist attack itself.""

All leftists to the core.

This is an outrage. When people see what has been done they too, will be outraged. I am a native New Yorker, I was born and raised in Brooklyn and I could see those towers from my bedroom window. I watched as they rose into the sky. I mourned the loss of 5 friends that served with FDNY, spent time comforting their widows. To say that I am disgusted with this plan is an understatement.

"The people who visit Ground Zero in five years will come because they want to pay their respects at the place where heroes died. They will come because they want to remember what they saw that day, because they want a personal connection, to touch the place that touched them, the place that rallied the nation and changed their lives forever. I would wager that, if given a choice, they would rather walk through that dusty hanger at JFK Airport where 1,000 World Trade Center artifacts are stored than be herded through the International Freedom Center's multi-million dollar insult.

Ground Zero has been stolen, right from under our noses. How do we get it back?"

Since there are federal funds earmarked for this memorial I urge all of you to contact your congressman and senators and demand that this be stopped and a new plan designed. For those of us who are native New Yorkers, get in touch with Governor Pataki and Mayor Bloomberg and express your disgust. - Sailor

For months now I have been posting on the threat China will be soon. Now Cal Thomas has much the same to say in his commentary.

"In a brilliant new book by the late Constantine Menges, Ph.D., titled China: The Gathering Threat, the former special assistant for national security affairs to President Reagan and national intelligence officer at the CIA soberly outlines the threat China already has become and persuasively argues how America can use its economic and moral weapons to stop the world's biggest nation without a shot being fired.

Menges writes that China has defined America as its ''main enemy'' and can now launch nuclear weapons at the United States that are capable of killing 100 million of us. China's effective espionage operation in the U.S. has managed to steal the designs of nearly all nuclear warheads and other military secrets, he says.

China has threatened to destroy entire American cities if the U.S. helps Taiwan defend itself against a military assault or invasion, Menges writes. China also buys weapons from Russia that are designed to sink U.S. aircraft carriers. It controls more than $200 billion in U.S. debt and sells more than 40 percent of its exports to America, using the profits to strengthen its economy and advanced weapons systems aimed at the U.S.

Until recently, American policy has been to give China access to U.S. markets in hopes that might reduce tensions and hasten democratic reform. It has done no such thing. Menges argues it is time to try another approach.

First, he says, the U.S. must finish development of a reliable missile defense system that can be easily expanded should China, Russia or any nation attempt to overwhelm us by building additional missiles. Menges says the cost of expanding a missile defense system is far less than building new missiles and such cost will be prohibitive to enemy nations once they realize the U.S. can't be successfully attacked.

Without a working missile defense system, he writes, the increased number of warheads and missiles now available and under construction will make the Chinese threat substantial - he estimates by 2008, China will have more than 400 warheads capable of reaching U.S. territory.

Menges believes in ''the importance of forthrightly informing the world about U.S. interests and actions. Truth is indeed the best policy.'' In his view, the United States often fails to respond to allegations by China and Russia that America seeks world domination."

The Missile Defense system which the left moans and whines about, is becoming more of a necessity each day. All too often the US is silent when China, Russia and the home grown leftists go on and on about the US wanting world domination.

"One of many countermeasures recommended by Menges is the expulsion of all companies that function as fronts for the Chinese People's Liberation Army or other military or intelligence-related entities in China, Russia or any other nonallied state. Investigative reporter Kenneth R. Timmerman estimates there are hundreds of such front companies in Southern California alone.

Secretary Rumsfeld's remarks and Menges' book reveal China's commitment to expanding its empire by intimidation and force, and how the U.S. had better take China's seriousness seriously if we are to confront and repel it."

It is high time that the US shut down all of these front companies. In addition, the US needs to be very careful on who is gratned work and student visas from China. Many of these visa recipients are working and studying in areas where new technologies are being reseerched. Adding to this explosive situation is China's thrist for energy. Having few oil reserves of it's own, China will be forced to look elsewhere for oil. It is not too far fetched to think that China would make a move into the Middle East or maybe even Siberia. This situation with China needs to be addressed and the sooner the better. - Sailor

I have been surfing around the blogosphere the last few days and I have seen a great deal of defeatist attitudes out there. Most of them are from the left, but that is to be expected since they are basically terrorist appeasers. Then there are the extreme leftists that are actually rooting for a tererorist victory. One only need to go to Democrat Underground to find them. The irony there, of course, is if the terrorists were to win, those at DU would be the first they would do away with. The MSM has ignored as much as possible any good news from Iraq, including the slow but steady progression in democracy. Many tend to forget that in our infancy as a Republic, it took years to get things in place. A. Heather Coyne gives an update on the progress in Iraq in her column.

"In spite of a constant threat from the various insurgencies over the past year, Iraqi government agencies, political parties, and civil society organizations have gradually expanded their capabilities and activities. They will tell you how much more they could have done had they not been constrained by security threats or - almost as important - the lack of reliable infrastructure, but what they have accomplished already is admirable, as is their unflagging determination in the face of these threats and constraints.

There is a phrase I hear in almost every conversation with Iraqis that captures the mood of this process: hutwa bi hutwa, or "step by step."

I hear it from National Assembly members talking about writing the new constitution, from anticorruption watchdogs trying to monitor the government, and from women's groups planning a campaign to reduce violence in schools.

The lead-up is the same: The conversation turns to the magnitude of a task at hand, and the seemingly insurmountable challenges involved. There is a shrug of the shoulders, a resigned smile, and the words hutwa bi hutwa. "Step by step" is the way Iraqis reconcile their great hopes for the future with recognition of the slow, painful march it will take to get there."

What the MSM fails to report is the strong determination of the Iraqi people to make there new found democracy work. The MSM is still focussed on the terroists and their attacks. Some of the MSM even speculating on a civil war. Once again, they just do not get it.

"While the media continue their longstanding tendency to focus on the most dramatic and destructive events - the capture of a terrorist, a deadly attack - the real story changes too gradually to make headlines: the steady stream of volunteers at recruiting stations that bit by bit brings force numbers up to significant levels, the increasing numbers of tips to the police, the growing sense of public ownership of the newly trained forces.

The same applies to the political process. Most Americans hear only about the milestones: the elections, the failure to form a government, the selection of a partial cabinet. But these headlines do not reflect the constant level of effort Iraqis are putting into the process of rebuilding political and governmental institutions.

The long delay in announcing the government was certainly frustrating to Iraqis, who want to see concrete signs that their participation in the elections was meaningful; that they really do have a say in their government. But the process, while painfully slow, is moving through necessary stages to reach the next step."

The journey from total repression to freedom is often a slow one, with pitfalls along the way. There will be setbacks, as there were with our journey to freedom back in the late 1700's. There is the added danger of terrorist activity, which is being orchestrated not by Iraqi's but by foreigners such as Zarqawi and his demented followers. The Iraqi people are striving to get all the necessary steps completed so that they too can enjoy the fruits of freedom and democracy. Those telling you any differently are deluding themselves. - Sailor

I always find it interesting when one of these self appointed watchdog groups get caught with their pants around their ankles. Such is the case with the ACLU. The New Yorks Times and several bloggers have been looking into allegations that the ACLU has been shredding documents. Turn about, being fair play and all, perhaps it is time that some one investigate the ACLU on this issue. Perhaps it should be the Congress, since much of what the ACLU does is tax payer funded. It is time we all signed this petition to demand that the ACLU come clean on this and that a formal investigation be started.

You should also drop by the Stop the ACLU Blog for more updates.

As I have travelled around the blogosphere today, I have seen a few comments here and there from the left, moaning and whining over this. One even suggested that another blogger's post on this was close to 'libelous'. So, just a short note to those leftists: This story was broken by one of you favorite news sources, the New York Times. If you have issues with this go and whine to them, not me. - Sailor

Every day you see a plethera news items on some terrorist attack in Iraq. From the the avalanche of bad news stories on Iraq, one would think that the terrorist scum are winning. In fact, there are those that want you to believe they are winning, simply because they want these terrorists to win. Once you considered all that has happened in Iraq over the last year or so, it is quite evident that these thugs are losing and losing badly. Amir Taheri explains in his article.

"When the insurgency appeared in the summer of 2003, it based its strategy on a number of illusions. First, it thought that by killing as many Americans as possible it would undermine public opinion support for the war inside the United States. When that did not happen, the insurgency tried to terrorize as many of the allies as possible into withdrawing from Iraq. But that, too, didn't produce the desired results.

Next, the insurgency decided that killing members of Iraq's nascent army and police force could do the trick. But two years of brutal killings have failed to reduce the number of new recruits or slow the training and deployment of new units.

Next the insurgency switched to the tactic of killing Iraqi Shi'ites at random. And once that had failed, random killing was extended to Sunni Kurds and Turcomen. With the insurgency's hope of provoking sectarian wars dashed, we are now witnessing a new phase, in which even Sunni Arabs are being killed indiscriminately.

The insurgents know how to kill, but no longer know who to kill. Nor do they seem to know why they are killing.

By adopting an extremist posture, the insurgency has forced many Iraqis who, for different reasons, resent the occupation or do not like the new government, into the position of passive onlookers."

Failure after failure has been the lot of these groups trying to take control in Iraq. Of course the MSM is relentless in trying top aint the worst possible picture in Iraq, including all these supposed terrorist victories leading to chaos and a civil war. Every where these groups have taken on the US and newly emerging Iraqi militray they have gotten their asses severly kicked. Their only strategy now is to kill as many civilians as possible. That has only served to have civilians provide more intelligence to the Iraqi government.

"The insurgency may continue for many more months, if not years, in the area known as Jazirah (island), which accounts for about 10 per cent of the Iraqi territory, plus parts of Baghdad. It may continue killing large numbers of people but will not be able to stop the political process. Its history is one of a string of political failures.

Over the past two years it has failed to prevent the formation of a Governing Council, the writing of an interim constitution, the transfer of sovereignty, the holding of local and general elections and the creation of a new government. This year it will fail to prevent the writing of a new constitution, already being drafted, the referendum to get it approved, the holding of fresh parliamentary elections and the formation of a new elected government in Baghdad.

As the Arabic saying has it: The caravan will continue its journey even if the wolves howl along the way."

Note all the failures of these thugs. They have not been able to stop the democratic process from going forward in Iraq. With all their violence and threats of violence, they were not able to stop some 8 million Iraqi citizens from voting. Even those groups that sat out the elections are now coming to the realizion that they too need to be in the process. Their leadership is being decimated, many now either captured or killed. Sure some of the big fish are still on the loose, but time for them to remain on the loose is dwindling rapidly. Sometimes you just have to wonder how the MSM figures that these guys are winning. - Sailor

Amnesty International comes out with a report making all kinds of wild assed accusations, to the point of calling Gitmo "gulag" and now the head of the US branch says they have no hard evidence. What exactly does AI have then? How very irresponsible of them to put out this report with no evidence to back up their claims. This only goes to show how far these leftists will go to discredit this country. James G. Lakely has more in his article.

"The head of Amnesty International's American branch yesterday acknowledged that he "doesn't know for sure" what is going on at Guantanamo Bay prison, although Amnesty International's secretary-general has called the terrorist prison run at a U.S. military base in Cuba a "gulag."

However, William F. Schulz defended the description made last week by Irene Khan, saying on "Fox News Sunday" yesterday that America's "archipelago of prisons throughout the world" are "similar in character, if not in size" to the Soviet gulags, where millions of political prisoners were killed. "

Sothey have no hard evidence and yet Schulz backs up Kahns outrageous claims. Similar in character? Oh really? So how many of these detainees have died performing slave labor? How many have been starved to death? It is phony claims such as these and the Newsweek bullshit story on the Koran, that help the enemis of this country. Is AI a terrorist enabler then? One might speculate that they are, based on their claims and total lack of evidence.

"Pressed to cite concrete evidence that Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales are the "architects" of "systematic torture" at the prison, Mr. Schulz could produce none.

"We don't know for sure what all is happening at Guantanamo and our whole point is that the United States ought to allow independent human rights organizations to investigate," Mr. Schulz said, adding that Amnesty International was careful to use the word "alleged" when accusing high-level Bush administration officials."

I am begining to doubt if AI has a clue about any thing they have published in their report. Allegations require proof of some kind. The use of the word "alleged" is simply a legal tool to keep from becoming involved in litigation. So here is the truth,AI has nothing toback up their claims. So now they are backpedalling, trying to claim that they only want the situation at Gitmo investigated. I can see that the MSM will have their hands full trying to spin this one. I am sure that all the leftists, terrorist ass kissers and the other usual suspects will be doing the samne spinning. - Sailor

Reports are surfacing that the ACLU has been shredding documents. Head on over to Ravings of John C. A. Bambenek and Stop The ACLU Blog for more information and links to other blogs looking into this. More on this as it becomes available. - Sailor

For about a year now, I have been posting about China's extraordinary military build up, especially it's navy. The Chinese are spending billions to upgrade all aspects of their military, priorities appearing to go to technology and striving for a "blue water" navy. In acquiring new technology, China has pulled out all the stops, (see related post). Just when I was becoming very concerned that this was going to slide in under the radar, SECDEF Rumsfield, has taken China to task on this unprecedented buildup. Matt Kelly explains in his article.

"Rumsfeld said the Pentagon's annual assessment of China's military capabilities shows China is spending more than its leaders acknowledge, expanding its missile capabilities and developing advanced military technology.

China now has the world's third-largest military budget, he said, behind the United States and Russia. He did not say how large the U.S. believes China's military budget is.

"Since no nation threatens China, one must wonder: Why this growing investment? Why these continuing large and expanding arms purchases?" Rumsfeld said at the conference organized by the International Institute of Strategic Studies, a private, London-based think tank."

The Chinese are significantly increasing their submarine forces capabilities. There is only one reason for this, th ability to challenge the US Navy in the western Pacific. There simply is no other naval power in that region that could present any challenge to China. If the Chinese have any designs on Taiwan or the Spratly Islands, they would need to neutralize the US fleet in the region. - Sailor

In their haste to make political hay over Jack Abramoff’s connections to Republican lawmakers, the dem/leftists have hit a bump in the road. Look likes Abramoff also gave heavily to some big name dem/leftists, including, Patrick J. Kennedy, Harry Reid, Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt. You can see more on this here.

"The Democrats’ hope of capitalizing on the investigation into lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s connections to Republican lawmakers has been dealt a serious blow by the revelation that he funneled money to Democrats as well.

Abramoff and an associate solicited millions of dollars from six Indian tribes with gambling interests and steered the money to powerful legislators – including top Democrats, a new Washington Post probe disclosed.

"Democrats are hoping to gain political advantage from federal and Senate investigations of Abramoff’s activities and from the embattled lobbyist's former ties to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay," the Post reported.
"Yet many Democratic lawmakers also benefited from Abramoff's political operation, a fact that could hinder the Democrats' efforts to turn the lobbyist’s troubles into a winning partisan issue.""

Lookslike the dem/leftists have some skeletons in their closets as well. It will be very interesting to see how they try and spin their way out of this one. The fact that this has appeared in the Washington Post, will make it difficult for the dem/leftists to use their usual media allies to make any attempt to bury this or make it go away. - Sailor

As far as the MSM is concerned, Fallujah is nothing more then a large pile of rubble. Naturally, you heard all about how the Marines in their quest to root out Zarqawi and his thugs, leveled Fallujah. What you have not heard or ead about in the MSM, and lilkey will not, is how Fallujah has risen from the ashes, much like the mythical Pheonix. The schools and hospitals are open and functioning, though they are crowded. Open air markets are thriving, vendors are out an about selling candies and ice cream. Still not a word on this from the leftist MSM, except of course, to make their obligatory Vietnam comparisons. Michael Fumento provides a look at what is happening in Fullajah.

"Fallujah, Iraq – Critics of the attack on Fallujah last November often invoked the damning (and mythical) utterance from Vietnam: "We had to destroy the village to save it." Never mind that the alternative to the massive assault on the city backed by artillery, tanks, and aircraft would either be a huge loss of American lives or simply allowing the al-Qaida cut-throat al-Zarqawi to keep it as the terrorist headquarters for all of Iraq. Forget that the city was already crumbling from the neglect of Saddam Hussein's regime. Today Fallujah is on the mend and then some, a symbol of renewal and American-Iraqi cooperation.

Although the area is still "red" – meaning hostile – as is all of the predominantly Sunni Anbar province, the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force is extending power lines and laying water and sewage pipes at a steady pace. Rubble and explosive ordinance – some left over from the fighting and some freshly laid by the insurgents – is being removed. Schoolhouses and hospitals are being fixed and erected. As a bonus, military-age males (known by the abbreviation "MAM") are receiving good wages to build things instead of blowing up people. "

First, take note of the byline location, Fallujah, not Baghdad from the relative safety of the "Green Zone". Mr. Fumento was boots on the ground in Fallujah and is giving you a eye witness account. The Marines are working with the Iraqi people, to get life back to as close to normal as possible.

"There are already enough schools and hospitals to serve the entire community, but they're overcrowded and far from ideal. Everything fixable has or is being repaired and new modern facilities are going up.

Iraqis are renowned for their engineering skills; the military encourages them and not only to make better structures. "The idea is that sooner or later they have to do these kinds of projects by themselves," says Hibner.

Do the insurgents interfere with the reconstruction efforts, I asked? They don't dare," says Williams. "They know if they screw with electricity, water, or sewer systems the people will get angry."

"We're certainly not trying to turn this into the equivalent of an American city," says Williams. "But it will be first class for an Iraqi one and that's going to win the hearts and minds of the people." From the smiles, the thumbs up, the waves, and the cries of "Hello!" in Arabic I got from the children in even the worst parts of the city, I'd say they're being won."

Instead of just retuning Fallujah back to how it was, the plan it to give Fallujah what it needs, not what it had. Improvement, not just repair. Even the thugs know better then to try and mess things up in Fallujah. Of course the presence of the Marines that sounldy kick their collective asses does serve as a powerfull deterrent. The MSM at one time comapred the Fallujah offensive to the TET offensive. The problem is that like TET, Fallujah was a major defeat for the Zarqawi mob. As I stated at the top of this item, the MSM has not said word one on this. Of course, it does not fit with their agenda. tomake the US and the US military look as bad as possible. I will continue to post good news from Iraq as I find good news of interest. - Sailor

To the Commissioners of the Federal Election Commission:

One of the most basic founding principles of this country was and is the right of free political speech. This possible attempt to regulate the blogs is flies directly in the face of that principle.

Consider this; The blogosphere is the electronic equivalent of the Town Square. Bloggers are those people, that in a bygone era would be upon a soap box in that town square, expressing their political beliefs. That being said, the government should no more attempt to regulate the free political speech of the bloggers, then it would have attempted to silence the citizen on that very soap box in the town square.

Having read some of the reasoning for this hearing, I have to wonder if the FEC will soon be trying to attempt to assess the worth of the campaign volunteer, who goes door-to-door handing out a candidates literature or spends time manning the phone banks. How much is a volunteer's time worth to any campaign? The FEC would not even consider assessing that volunteer's time as a campaign contribution. So why would the FEC even consider trying to assess the value of a bloggers link to a candidate's web site as a campaign contribution?

Any attempt by the FEC to regulate the political speech of any blogger is clearly a violation of the First Amendment and not at all what campaign finance reform was attempting to do.

Clearly, McCain-Feingold, was never intended to include the regulation of the free political speech of bloggers. Senators McCain and Feingold are both on the record saying this. As I see it, the Commissioners have a few paths they can go down:

Move America Forward is participating in Gourmet Coffee for Our Troops. As a retired sailor, I still live on coffee. I urge you all to participate. Here is the information on this worthy project.

"You can help make the daily routine of our troops serving in Afghanistan and Iraq a little more pleasurable. Send them Cookies and Gourmet Coffee.

Move America Forward is proud to participate in the Gourmet Coffee For Our Troops program launched in partnership with deluxe coffee roaster, Cornerstone Coffee and Stampers US Armed Forces Cookies. Both Cornerstone Coffee and Stampers Cookies strongly support our troops and the brave missions they are serving in Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (Iraq).

With your order, we’ll send boxes of cookies and full bags of premium ground coffee in a flavor-seal bag to a unit serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. This isn’t generic store-brand coffee and cookies … these are real Stampers US Armed Forces Cookies and a premium roast made from some of the finest coffee beans in the world! Our troops deserve nothing less.

Stampers Cookies are stamped with the seals of the Navy, Marine Corps, Army, Air Force, Army and Air National Guards, Coast Guard. They’re made from whole-wheat flour and contain no trans fats – best of all they are DELICIOUS.

Along with the cookies and coffee we will enclose a personalized message from you to our troops – so you can tell the men and women of our Armed Forces how much you appreciate their bravery, dedication and sacrifices.

Click Here to Send Cookies and Coffee to Our Troops !

With your order, we’ll send boxes of cookies and full bags of premium ground coffee in a flavor-seal bag to a unit serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. This isn’t generic store-brand coffee and cookies … these are real Stampers US Armed Forces Cookies and a premium roast made from some of the finest coffee beans in the world! Our troops deserve nothing less."

It is the little things that we here at home take for granted that will bring huge smiles to the faces of our troops overseas. Trust me, I know and I know how those care packages I send to my son make him smile. Please follow the Sailor's example and participate! - Sailor

"One good spy is worth 10,000 soldiers." - Sun Tzu, ancient Chinese military strategist

Sage advice from the great Sun Tzu, who's works I have studied extensively. The Chinese have not ignored the General either, nor this particular piece of advice. Peter Brooks expands on this in his article.

"China has seven permanent diplomatic missions in the States, staffed with intelligence personnel. But the FBI believes that as many as 3,500 Chinese "front companies" are involved in espionage for the People's Republic of China (PRC) as well.

And with the bureau focused on terrorism, the China challenge is overwhelming the FBI's counterintelligence capabilities.

The PRC has the world's third-largest intelligence apparatus (after the United States and Russia), and it's targeting America's governmental, military and high technology secrets.

China's goal is to replace the U.S. as the preeminent power in the Pacific - even globally. It's using every method possible, including espionage, to improve its political, economic and, especially, military might.

A senior FBI official said recently, "China is trying to develop a military that can compete with the U.S., and they are willing to steal to get it.""

Of course, the Clinton adminstration helpoed the Chinese along, add that to the spying activities and you can see how China has been able to rapidly advance the technological capabilities of their military.

"One example: Last fall in Wisconsin, a Chinese-American couple was arrested for selling $500,000 worth of computer parts to China for enhancing its missile systems. Even worse: The PRC recently fielded a new cruise missile strikingly similar to the advanced American "Tomahawk."

Chances that the similarities are a coincidence? Slim to none.

Naturally, America's hi-tech centers are a potential gold mine for Chinese spies. The FBI claims that Chinese espionage cases are rising 20 to 30 percent every year in Silicon Valley alone."

This reminds me of how the Soviets would introduse a new weapons system that was strikingly similiar to an American weapons system introduced some time earlier. Silicon Valley is a pumb target for espionage from many countries just not China. With so many resources dedicated to terrorism, our intelligence services are overwhelmed.

"Chinese intelligence collection uses numerous low-level spies to painstakingly collect one small piece of information at a time until the intelligence question is answered. Kind of like building a beach one grain of sand at a time.

For instance, it took China 20 years to swipe American nuclear warhead designs from U.S. national nuclear weapons labs, according to a 1999 congressional committee

China also doesn't rely on "professional" spies stationed overseas to the extent other major intel services do. Instead, it uses low-profile civilians to collect information.

The PRC's Ministry of State Security (MSS) often co-opts Chinese travelers, especially businesspeople, scientists and academics, to gather intel or purchase technology while they're in America.

The MSS especially prizes overseas Chinese students, hi-tech workers and researchers living in the U.S. because of their access to sensitive technology and research/development that Beijing can use for civilian and military purposes."

Spying does not have to be the what is seen in those 007 movies. The use of many innoucous types, students, scientists, etc., can net results if one is patient. One piece ofinformation here, another there and eventually you get the whole picture.

"Sun Tzu said that intelligence is critical to success on the battlefield. It applies to the political and economic "battlefield," too. Accordingly, China is investing heavily in espionage to match its geopolitical aspirations.

China will prove to be America's greatest foreign-policy challenge in this century. In recent months, the Pentagon, CIA, Treasury and Congress have voiced concerns about China's rapidly expanding political, economic and military clout. These are words to the wise.

We certainly can't take our eye off terrorist threats against the homeland, but neither can we risk not meeting the growing Chinese espionage menace. Both are major threats to our national security and merit significant resources and attention. "

While we cannot ignore the terrorist threat, we also cannot ignore the threat that China is posing. In time, it is a threat we will have to face. The build up of the Chinese navy, especially their submarine capability, should be hoisting red flags all over Washington. Perhaps we need more of our political leaders reading Sun Tzu and have them reading the polls a hell of a lot less. - Sailor

Back last fall, a federal court judge decided that the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act some how needed to include the Internet as part of that regulation. The FEC has been ordered to apply this law to the Net. This could have the effect of ending the free political speech of bloggers. Why the FEC never appealed this ruling is beyond me. Both Senators McCain and Feingold are on the record as stating that their Bill was never intended to stiffle the free political speech of bloggers. Either the FEC needs to appeal this decision or Cogress needs to pass legislation exempting the Internet and specifically bloggers from the reach of McCain-Feingold. The Washington Times has some things to say on this in their editorial.

" The fallout from this regulatory nightmare would have what the CDT rightly calls a "chilling effect" on Internet free speech. In keeping with the judge's order, however, the FEC has to do something. It has asked for public comment on the proposed rules and e-mails that can be sent to internet@fec.gov until the deadline tomorrow.

Barring a reversal of the judicial ruling, the only alternative would have to come from Congress, where there are currently bills in both chambers to exempt the Internet from FEC regulations. We encourage lawmakers to support the bills so that Internet free speech can advance unimpeded."

Free political speech is one of the basic tenets of our Constitution. This attempt to regulate the blogosphere is an attempt to muzzle the free speech right of bloggers. If the Courts and the FEC attempted to do this to private citizens speaking out in the old Town Square on political issues, there would be a furor of unprecidented proportions. The ACLU would be beside itself filing lawsuits. So why is it permissible for the FEC to even attempt to regulate the free political speech of the blogosphere?

One thing I do know, if the FEC makes rules that limit my First Amendment right to express my opinion on core political issues, I will not obey those rules. - Sailor

The cat is out of the bag, so to speak, and mark Felt has been positively confirmed as being the "Deep" Throat" source. I always was curious as to who "Deep Throat" was. Now that I know, that is all the information on this I want. You can read the John D. O'Conner article in Vanity Fair.

You can expect to see days of coverage from the MSM on this. After all, it was their big heyday and they will love throwing this up over and over, especially in light of their continued attempts to paint the War in Iraq as another Vietnam. - Sailor

The Dutch are voting on the EU constitution. It is expected that they will also reject this in over whelming numbers. This would add another nail into the coffin of the EU Constitution and put Tony Blair in a ver interesting position. TimesonLine explains.

"Tony Blair will attempt to pick up the pieces when Britain assumes the European Union’s presidency next month, but President Chirac complicated that task yesterday by appointing Dominique de Villepin as his Prime Minister in place of Jean-Pierre Raffarin.

M de Villepin, whose heroes are Napoleon and Charles de Gaulle, is a staunch nationalist whose views are mostly anathema to Britain.

As Foreign Minister, he fought passionately to stop Britain and the US going to war in Iraq. He champions the state-led French social model over “Anglo-Saxon” economics.

Both M de Villepin and M Chirac promised to inject fresh life into the French economy, but the President emphasised that this would be “with total respect for the French model . . . This model is not one of the Anglo-Saxon type”."

"Polls in the Netherlands showed the “yes” campaign trailing by 20 points, and even the most ardent supporters of the constitution admitted that it would be a “small miracle” if they win today. The European Commission and seven member states which have called referendums insisted that ratification would proceed regardless. But officials privately conceded that a second emphatic “no” from a founding member would probably prove fatal.

“There is a limit to what we can say before the Dutch vote. But things will change afterwards if they say ‘no’,” one Commission source admitted.

No country wants to be held responsible for killing the constitution by being first to abandon a referendum, but diplomats said that “everyone is talking to everyone” about how to proceed.

“We don’t want to be the first to say ‘no’. We won’t say ‘no’ unless there is a general decision not to go forward,” said one diplomat from a country which has promised a vote."

Our children are precious and our most valuable assets. That being said, I have added the Code Amber ticker to the blog. While this may slow the loading, I feel this is so important, that any inconvenience is well worth it. - Sailor

For any of you that think those we fight have not been studying us, think again. Unlike some on this side, al-Qaeda and others of their ilk, have studied us and learned some valuable lessons on how to influence the media and public opinion. Of course the MSM is more than willing to buy into all of this, take for example their overwhelming coverage of Abu Garhib and their Shockingly under coverage of the beheadings and murder of civilians by these same people. The word torture seems to make the dem/leftists, terrorist ass kissers and appeasers and the left leaning MSM salivate much like Pavlov's dogs, Amnesty International included. Who can forget saddam's attempt to get the usual suspects all worked up by bringing up the specter of Vietnam? Rowan Scarborough has some things to add in his column.

"In a raid on an al Qaeda cell in Manchester, British authorities seized al Qaeda's most extensive manual for how to wage war.

A directive lists one mission as "spreading rumors and writing statements that instigate people against the enemy."

If captured, the manual states, "At the beginning of the trial ... The brothers must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them by state security before the judge. Complain of mistreatment while in prison."

The handbook instructs commanders to make sure operatives, or "brothers," understand what to say if captured.

"Prior to executing an operation, the commander should instruct his soldiers on what to say if they are captured," the document says. "He should explain that more than once in order to ensure that they have assimilated it. They should, in turn, explain it back to the commander.""

" An example might have occurred in a Northern Virginia courtroom in February.

Ahmed Omar Abul Ali, accused of planning to assassinate President Bush, made an appearance in U.S. District Court and promptly told the judge that he had been tortured in Saudi Arabia, including a claim that his back had been whipped. He is accused of meeting there with a senior al Qaeda leader.

Days later, a U.S. attorney filed a court document saying physicians had examined Ali and "found no evidence of any physical mistreatment on the defendant's back or any other part of his body.""