How You can Help

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

The Downing Street Memo

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

Gitmo grandstanding

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

Fathers deserve more than a day

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

Durbin slanders his own country

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

Guantanamo Bay and the War on Terror

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

Tagged again!

I got tagged once again by http://americandinosaur.blogspot.com/2005/06/freakin-book-meme.html. That means I need to post the answers to four questions and then tag five others. If you found an invitation to read this in your Comment Section that means you have been tagged.

So here are the questions and my answers.

(1) Number of books you own: I do not think I can count that high.....LOL
(2) Last book bought: Talon of the Silver Hawk. I needed some SciFiFantasy to get away from the day to day realities of life.
(3) Last bookI read: The Art Of War by Sun Tzu. Well re-read actually. As David said, theChinese still use these priciples of warfare.Our elected officials andt heir appointees need to constantly re-read this book.
(4) Five booksthat mean a lot to me: So many books, so few to select.
(1) TheFederalist Papers. They are the explainations of the Republic.
(2) TheArt Of War by Sun Tzu. His thoughts and ideas are still taught and used in China today. If your concerned about China's policies you should read this book. No need to improve on this answer.
(3) The Anti-Federalist Papers. Alwaysgood to see the opposing point of view.
(4) Diplomacy by Henry Kissinger
(5) Without Remorse by Tom Clancy. For reasons best known to only me.

I will be posting invitations some time early morning. So watch your comments!


Update: I have selected my victims:

Cao's Blog One smart lady!
e-Claire Another really smart lady!
Indigo Insights Another very smart lady and my beloved BlogMom!
Obnoxiuos Droppings My BlogBrother and I always did wonder what went on in the head of a Marine.
Pirate's Cove I always wanted to be a Pirate.

Let the games begin!

The War on Terror is not a popularity Contest

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

Bloggers Lose a Friend at the FEC

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

U.S. military: Al Qaeda leader in Mosul captured

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

Durbin Goes Over the Top

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

Tin Foil Hat Time

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

Take Back the Memorial!

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

Gourmet Fare at Gitmo 'Gulag'

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

Flag Day

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

A Pacific forces reshuffle

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

THE FINAL INSPECTION

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

Source

Bin Laden in Iran?

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

Unilateral self-flagellation

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

Campaign Finance Reform: The law of unintended consequences?

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