Quote of the Week

Amanda White doesn't want anyone to feel sorry for her.

The 31-year-old Colton resident is proud of her husband, Washington National Guard Spc. Kyle White, and she doesn't appreciate being approached by people who oppose the war and are overly sympathetic about his upcoming deployment in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

"Don't feel sorry for me, or us," she said. "This is a career. We chose it. We're proud. I say, 'Our presence is still needed (in Iraq),' and remind them we could have a war on our land. That usually shuts them up.'"

- "Guard soldier tying up loose ends; Kyle White of Colton will bid wife, children farewell Monday to prepare for fall deployment to Iraq," Moscow-Pullman Daily News, August 16, 2008

So much for that whole "support the troops, oppose the war" argument....

Iraq-Pullman

There were a couple of stories in the Moscow-Pullman Daily News today about the Iraq War and its impact in Pullman.

In the first story, it was disclosed that the approximately 60 Pullman-based members of Detachment 2, Company B, 1-161st Infantry Battalion, 81st Brigade Combat Team (Heavy), Washington Army National Guard received their mobilization orders yesterday. After a stop at Camp McCoy in Wisconsin for training in August, they will be headed to Iraq once again this fall.

In the second story, it was reported that a group of five gathered at St. James Episcopal Church in Pullman last night for a vigil to mark the fifth anniversary of the Iraq War. This pathetically small number (for a college town) can perhaps be explained by a Gallup Poll that came out last Friday. The success of the surge has convinced a majority of Americans that victory is possible in Iraq and that U.S troops should not leave before the job is done.

65% of Americans feel the U.S. has an obligation to establish a reasonable level of security and stability in Iraq before withdrawing. That's exactly what our Pullman boys in the National Guard will be doing. 63% feel that it is likely al-Qaeda will use Iraq as a base for terrorist operations if the U.S. withdraws and 57% believe that even greater number of Iraqis will die if the U.S. withdraws. This despite the fact that 59% say of Americans think that involvement in Iraq was a mistake.

Not only is this bad news for the protesters at St. James, it's bad news for presidential candidate Barack Obama and his pledge to immediately withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq.

Beyond (Liberal) Borders

Note to Harry Reid: If you've lost Hollywood liberalati Angelina Jolie, you've lost the country.

Jolie, an ambassador for the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, had an op-ed published in today's Washington Post stating that the surge has worked and that U.S. troops must stay in Iraq to help the millions of displaced persons.

Change? How About Changing This Ad?

I hardly ever watch network TV anymore. But I do love "Lost." As I was watching last night's episode, I saw Barack Obama's Washington State caucus 30-second ad on KXLY out of Spokane.

Towards the end of the ad, you hear Obama stating:

And I'll be a President who ends this war in Iraq and finally bring our troops home.

On the screen, we see first Obama with a soldier, then a homecoming scene. In that homcoming scene, (at about 0:26), notice the solider is wearing the 6-Color Desert Battle Dress Uniform, informally known as the "chocolate chip." That particular uniform was phased out around 1994. This means that the scene was probably shot during 1991 after Gulf War I. If anything demonstrates the Obama crowd's lack of military knowledge, this is it.

I'd like to see our troops come home too, but I would prefer it to be after they had finished the job like in Desert Storm versus some arbtitary deadline set by George Soros and MoveOn.org.

The only thing we have to fear...is a lack of fear?

Nate Balko yet again demonstrated in today's Daily Watermelon why the WSU student newspaper continues to be a brilliant model of modern journalism. In his work, "An Ulterior Motive," Mr. Balko takes a very simple subject and complicates it with political mumbo-jumbo and subjective opinion and attacks. Essentially, he accused the CR's of using the movie "Obsession" depicting radical, fascist Islam to instill fear in the minds of those who watch it. He even goes as far as to challenge anyone of the CR's:

If just one of the College Republicans will write in and admit to me that this whole debacle is not about "eliciting discussion" but rather about pushing an agenda and instilling fear, then I will shut my mouth on the issue.

As much as I'd like to believe he'd "shut his mouth on the issue," somehow I doubt it. But it's worth a shot. Here is the "humble" response of one College Republican.

As a member of the College Republicans (As a MEMBER, mind you. Not as THE College Republican or ALL College Republicans) I will take the bait. I'm writing on Palousitics since, for certain reasons, I have been prevented from submitting to the Daily Watermelon. I guess I'm worried that my true identity to will be revealed to the literally dozens of people that read the Daily Watermelon.

Nate Balko accuses the CR's of wishing to instill fear. And as the Red Knight I will admit that that is exactly what I want. I want people to be afraid of Radical Islam. I want people to be afraid of being terrorized and murdered by suicide bombers in the streets of America and elsewhere. I do want to instill fear, and my response to that is...

So?

What's so wrong with that? Why else does anybody, whether conservative or liberal, black or white, rich or poor, whether this or that, push any agenda? They want to put some form of fear for something in someone's mind! For Mr. Balko to chastise someone like me for wanting to do this has clearly demonstrated a lack of understanding for human nature and politics. Such a statement is hypocritical.

Why else does Al Gore fly around the world showing "An Inconvenient Truth?" He wants people to FEAR global warming and its consequences.

Why do we wear seat belts when driving? Because we FEAR being seriously injured in an accident.

People buy health insurance because they FEAR becoming sick without a way to pay for it.

People wash their hands after using the toilet because they FEAR becoming sick from infection.

People put sunscreen on at the beach because they FEAR getting a sunburn.

Televisions and political ads (Democrat and Republican) reflect this principle every day.

The list could go on further, but I'm sure that even Nate Balko will get my point: Fear is one of the most primitive of human emotions, and it is good. Fear warns us of danger to our person, our property, and our family, and prompts us to formulate responses to eliminate or decrease that danger.

As a member of CR's, I want people to be informed of how dangerous radical Islam can be so they will FEAR it. That is not to say they should go around beating up anybody that looks like they may be Muslim. Not in the least. What I wish is for people to realize the danger of turning a blind eye to radical Islam, believing there is really no risk. While fear itself is something to be feared, if it becomes paralyzing, a lack of fear for subjects like radical Islam can be equally dangerous.

Perhaps Nate Balko should look in the mirror before writing. While he accuses the CR's of fear-mongering, what does he believe he's doing himself? Trying to get people to fear the CR's influence.

When In Doubt, Starve Them Out

When I read an article by the AP regarding the legislation from Congress to denounce the Armenian Genocide during World War One, the little 'conspiracy theory' light went on in the back of my mind. For the mostly Democrat-controlled Congress to suddenly pass legislation of this kind begs the question of why now? Why now, when Turkey is a much needed ally in the war in Iraq, should Congress suddenly feel compelled to denounce the actions of the Turkish government almost a century ago? Nobody alive today was involved in that agreeably horrific activity. Turkey doesn't appear to have a currently policy aimed at Armenian extermination.

So why would the Democrats use our tax dollars to draft such legislation? Why the Armenian genocide? Why not chastise the government of German for Hitler's actions? After all, there are still people alive today that were involved in the Nazi party. And why stop there. Let's attack the South for slavery, attack Spain for the Aztecs and Inca of the Americas, attack Rome for destroying the Celtic culture of southern Europe almost two thousand years ago.

Of course, this would be absurd. The Democrats wouldn't gain nothing besides a headache from it. However, insulting the government of Turkey would have a nice result. As a long-standing supporter of the US military in our efforts in Iraq, I believe the Dems (and some Republicans) have found a golden goose among the ugly ducks. After repeatedly failing to draw the Iraq war to a close by cutting funding for the war, this is their chance to do some damage without overtly being anti-war. In fact, to many they sound down-right angelic: they order a decent helping of strong marks for human rights, and get a thorn in Bush's side on the house. What could be better?

The thought of Turkey disallowing American supply routes from and over their territory must have the Dems salivating. While it may not completely threaten the war, it offers that much more aggravation to the Bush Administration. Perhaps it will be the straw that breaks Bush's back. Who knows?

Of course, the Dems will not come out and say this is the case. Their leading candidates for 2008 have all declared they will not withdraw the troops if they are elected. And why should they? That would count as a loss on their clock. If anything, let the Iraq war crumble while Bush is in his lame-duck presidency, then swoop in to be the ones to pat the American public on the back and say "well, we tried our best but the leadership just wasn't up to snuff."

What good does it do the American public to officially state what it already knows to be true? It doesn't take an act of Congress to acknowledge atrocities and educate our children about the past. Congress needs to leave well enough alone.

Democrats - The Party Of Traitors

The current brouhaha over Rush Limbaugh and his "phony soldiers" comment brings up an interesting point. What if his comment was meant exactly the way liberals are claiming?

"Why," Dems sputter, "John Kerry, John Murtha, Jim Webb, and Tom Harkin are war heroes!" Yeah? So was Benedict Arnold. His role at the Battle of Saratoga ensured a victory that brought France into the war and secured independence from the British. But Arnold's greed, ambition and ego later led him to betray his comrades-in-arms.

Based on a new Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll, Arnold would have been right at home in the modern Democratic Party.

The question asked of respondents was "Do you personally think the world would be better off if the United States loses the war in Iraq?"

Note, the pollsters did NOT ask "Do you think the world would be better off if the U.S implemented a timetable for troop withdrawals from Iraq?" or "Do you think the world would be better off if Iraq were partitioned?" No, it specifically stated "lost," with all the despair, destruction, disruption, dishonor and death that accompanies losing a war.

A stunning 19% of Democrats responded "Yes." Finally, we can cut through all the "Support the Troops, Not the War" crap. Desiring defeat and humiliation is not supporting the troops in any possible scenario.

Chris Adamo wrote in 2006:

Having vacillated continually on the terror war issue for the past five years, they saw their electoral fortunes ebb. Now, in a desperate effort to reclaim dominant status inside the Beltway that they believe to be inherently theirs, they are again on the attack. But their attack is no less directed at the heartland of America than are the attacks of the Islamists.

Every whisper of wrongful action by the U.S. military is greeted with a mix of jubilation and enthusiastic condemnation by leftists on Capitol Hill and the nightly news. Concurrently, the upbeat stories of progress and improvement in the stability of post-Hussein Iraq invariably generate skepticism and disparagement.

The President's recent visit to Iraq, itself a great milestone on the road to total victory in that theater of the terror war, was nonetheless demeaned in every possible manner by the liberal establishment.

Just as al Zarqawi's memos and communications indicated that the tone inside al Qaeda is getting desperate in the face of imminent defeat, so do the derisive reaction from the left to every bit of good news out of Iraq prove that liberals are becoming similarly desperate.

Their loyalties plainly do not lie with the well being of this nation. Nor can they legitimately claim any noble or patriotic motivation for continuing their campaign of declaring doom and defeat for this country.

For those on the left, every contest is solely determined only from the perspective of political gain or loss to the cause of liberalism. And time and again, the proponents of this sordid political strategy have proven themselves to be wholly indifferent to any negative consequences reaped by the nation or its military. Such behavior does not fit any definition of "loyalty."

Moreover, it is indefensible to assert that, owing to their veteran status, all criticism of anti-war mouthpieces John Kerry or John Murtha, and the political class they represent, should be censored.

Although these are among the best examples liberals are able to present as "war heroes," any actual heroic deeds that might have been perpetrated by Kerry and Murtha occurred more than three decades ago. And particularly in Kerry's case, the validity of such deeds is extremely dubious.

Military commendations and service awards are ultimately meant as tribute to the events of a particular period in time. Often, they represent a single episode in the life of the recipient. They were never intended as a license of lifetime immunity from criticism for any and every outlandish behavior on the part of the bearer, including de facto collaboration with the enemy.

Kerry and Murtha's strategically disastrous demands that America cut and run from the terrorist insurgency at a time when it is desperately attempting to rally its dwindling forces, belie something that is hardly less than a dark alliance between the terrorists and the American left.

After Arnold had switched sides, he captured an American officer. "What would be my fate if I should be taken prisoner by the Americans?" he asked the prisoner. "They will cut off that leg of yours wounded at Quebec and Saratoga and bury it with all the honors of war. Then they will hang the rest of you on a gallows!," replied the officer. On the Saratoga battlefield today, at the spot where Arnold was shot in the leg, there is a small statue of a leg with no name.

What body part of Kerry or Murtha will we immortalize? The hindquarters?

Those Who Study History Are Able to Repeat It

I was reading through a book about Ancient Greece this last week and came across something that boggled my mind. It made me wonder if the Democrats in Congress are better student's of history than I originally thought. Either way I couldn't help but feel that history was repeating itself 2500 years later.From 431 to 404 BC the Greek poli of Sparta and Athens were fighting a constant war with each other. Pericles was elected general (strategos), the "commander-in-chief," by the Athenian Assembly, and entrusted with the protection of Athens and the defeat of Sparta. When it became clear one year after voting to go to war that Sparta was proving to be a more worthy enemy than originally thought, the Assembly accused Pericles of being careless and incompetent, removing his title of strategos and threatening to imprison him.

In this speech before the Athenian Assembly in 430 BC, Pericles defended his honor and reminded them that they were every bit as responsible for the war as he was:

"I have summoned this special Assembly to remind you of certain facts, and to protest against some of your errors.

You, in your private affairs, are angry with me that I persuaded you to declare war. Therefore you are angry also with yourselves, that you voted with me. You took me to be what I think I am, superior to most in foresight, in oratorical ability--for if a man cannot explain himself clearly, he might as well have no foresight--in patriotism, and in personal honesty. But if you voted with me because you took me to be like this, you cannot fairly charge me with doing you any injury. I have not changed: it is you who have changed! A calamity has befallen you, and you cannot persevere in the policy you chose when all was well: it is the weakness of your resolution that makes my advise seem to have been wrong. It is the unexpected that most breaks a man's spirit.

You have a great city, and a great reputation; you must be worthy of them. Half the world is yours--the sea. Attica [the region surrounding Athens proper] you must think of as only a small garden, surrounding a mansion. If you shrink from the labors of sovereignty, do not claim any of its honors: and do not think that you can safely lay down an empire which is in fact a tyranny. For you, the alternative to empire is slavery. [The term "tyranny" did not mean the same thing as it does today. It referred to a government that ruled absolutely.]

The blows of the enemy we must bear with courage; those of the gods, with resignation. You must not blame me for misfortunes which are beyond calculation, unless you are going also to give me the credit for successes which were also uncalculated."

Athens lost the war with Sparta, and most scholars agree that it was more for loss of will than men or money. Perhaps the current Democrats in office understand this better than anyone.

I imagine that President Bush must feel a lot like Pericles did. After 9-11 Congress was so willing to stand beside him in the face of terror. Now, six years later, with the enemy still strongly opposing us, that same Congress has turned its back on our President and our military. They blame him for the choice that they themselves supported when spirits were high, yet turned away from when the chips were down. It's pathetic.

It's interesting how history has a way of repeating itself. Let's hope we too don't end up like Athens in the end.

"Poll surprises out-of-touch paper"

As Michael reported earlier , two of the New York Times staunchest war critics are coming around on the surge. So are the American people. That didn't stop the Old Gray Lady from rerunning a poll that showed support for the war increasing, however. Debra Saunders of the San Francisco Chonicle writes:

When the New York Times poll found that the number of Americans who think it was right for the United States to go to war in Iraq rose from 35 percent in May to 42 percent in mid-July, rather than promptly report the new poll findings, the paper conducted another poll. As the Times' Janet Elder wrote Sunday, the increased support for the decision to go to war was "counterintuitive" and because it "could not be easily explained, the paper went back and did another poll on the very same subject."

Round Two found that 42 percent of voters think America was right to go into Iraq, while the percentage of those polled who said that it was wrong to go to war had fallen from 61 percent to 51 percent.

The headline for Elder's piece read, "Same Question, Different Answer. Hmmm." But it should have read: "America's Paper of Record out of Touch with American Public."

...

Since this war began, there always have been people rooting for failure. With the death toll of U.S. troops surpassing 3,560, Americans have cause to be wary and distressed. They may tell pollsters that they are pessimistic, but that does not mean that they are prepared to lose.

Make the other poor liberal die for his country

Really funny (and true) video on YouTube featuring what General Patton's take (a la George C. Scott) on Iraq would be. Where is Ol' Blood and Guts when we need him?

Appeal for Courage

Speaking of petitions....

An Appeal for Redress petition is currently being circulated in the military. An Appeal For Redress is an authorized means for active duty military to submit a grievance to Congress. It can be signed by Active Duty, Reserve, or National Guard military personnel. It is authorized by DoD Directive 1325.6 and DoD Directive 7050.6.

The wording of the Appeal is:

As an American currently serving my nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to fully support our mission in Iraq and halt any calls for retreat. I also respectfully urge my political leaders to actively oppose media efforts which embolden my enemy

If you are active duty, reservist or National Guard, you can sign here. I would imagine contract ROTC cadets could sign as well.

"Why I Joined"

This was posted by a young Army Second Liuetenant on his MySpace blog on October 29, 2006:

Sunday, October 29, 2006
WHY I JOINED
Current mood: optimistic

Why I Joined:

This question has been asked of me so many times in so many different contexts that I thought it would be best if I wrote my reasons for joining the Army on my page for all to see. First, the more accurate question is why I volunteered to go to Iraq. After all, I joined the Army a week after we declared war on Saddam's government with the intention of going to Iraq. Now, after years of training and preparation, I am finally here.

Much has changed in the last three years. The criminal Ba'ath regime has been replaced by an insurgency fueled by Iraq's neighbors who hope to partition Iraq for their own ends. This is coupled with the ever present transnational militant Islamist movement which has seized upon Iraq as the greatest way to kill Americans, along with anyone else they happen to be standing near. What was once a paralyzed state of fear is now the staging ground for one of the largest transformations of power and ideology the Middle East has experienced since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Thanks to Iran, Syria, and other enlightened local actors, this transformation will be plagued by interregional hatred and genocide. And I am now in the center of this.

Is this why I joined?

Yes. Much has been said about America's intentions in overthrowing Saddam Hussein and seeking to establish a new state based upon political representation and individual rights. Many have framed the paradigm through which they view the conflict around one-word explanations such as "oil" or "terrorism," favoring the one which best serves their political persuasion. I did the same thing, and anyone who knew me before I joined knows that I am quite aware and at times sympathetic to the arguments against the war in Iraq. If you think the only way a person could bring themselves to volunteer for this war is through sheer desperation or blind obedience then consider me the exception (though there are countless like me).

I joined the fight because it occurred to me that many modern day "humanists" who claim to possess a genuine concern for human beings throughout the world are in fact quite content to allow their fellow "global citizens" to suffer under the most hideous state apparatuses and conditions. Their excuses used to be my excuses. When asked why we shouldn't confront the Ba'ath party, the Taliban or the various other tyrannies throughout this world, my answers would allude to vague notions of cultural tolerance (forcing women to wear a veil and stay indoors is such a quaint cultural tradition), the sanctity of national sovereignty (how eager we internationalists are to throw up borders to defend dictatorships!) or even a creeping suspicion of America's intentions. When all else failed, I would retreat to my fragile moral ecosystem that years of living in peace and liberty had provided me. I would write off war because civilian casualties were guaranteed, or temporary alliances with illiberal forces would be made, or tank fuel was toxic for the environment. My fellow "humanists" and I would relish contently in our self righteous declaration of opposition against all military campaigns against dictatorships, congratulating one another for refusing to taint that aforementioned fragile moral ecosystem that many still cradle with all the revolutionary tenacity of the members of Rage Against the Machine and Greenday. Others would point to America's historical support of Saddam Hussein, sighting it as hypocritical that we would now vilify him as a thug and a tyrant. Upon explaining that we did so to ward off the fiercely Islamist Iran, which was correctly identified as the greater threat at the time, eyes are rolled and hypocrisy is declared. Forgetting that America sided with Stalin to defeat Hitler, who was promptly confronted once the Nazis were destroyed, America's initial engagement with Saddam and other regional actors is identified as the ultimate argument against America's moral crusade.

And maybe it is. Maybe the reality of politics makes all political action inherently crude and immoral. Or maybe it is these adventures in philosophical masturbation that prevent people from ever taking any kind of effective action against men like Saddam Hussein. One thing is for certain, as disagreeable or as confusing as my decision to enter the fray may be, consider what peace vigils against genocide have accomplished lately. Consider that there are 19 year old soldiers from the Midwest who have never touched a college campus or a protest who have done more to uphold the universal legitimacy of representative government and individual rights by placing themselves between Iraqi voting lines and homicidal religious fanatics. Often times it is less about how clean your actions are and more about how pure your intentions are.

So that is why I joined. In the time it took for you to read this explanation, innocent people your age have suffered under the crushing misery of tyranny. Every tool of philosophical advancement and communication that we use to develop our opinions about this war are denied to countless human beings on this planet, many of whom live under the regimes that have, in my opinion, been legitimately targeted for destruction. Some have allowed their resentment of the President to stir silent applause for setbacks in Iraq. Others have ironically decried the war because it has tied up our forces and prevented them from confronting criminal regimes in Sudan, Uganda, and elsewhere.

I simply decided that the time for candid discussions of the oppressed was over, and I joined.

In digesting this posting, please remember that America's commitment to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his sons existed before the current administration and would exist into our future children's lives had we not acted. Please remember that the problems that plague Iraq today were set in motion centuries ago and were up until now held back by the most cruel of cages. Don't forget that human beings have a responsibility to one another and that Americans will always have a responsibility to the oppressed. Don't overlook the obvious reasons to disagree with the war but don't cheapen the moral aspects either. Assisting a formerly oppressed population in converting their torn society into a plural, democratic one is dangerous and difficult business, especially when being attacked and sabotaged from literally every direction. So if you have anything to say to me at the end of this reading, let it at least include "Good Luck"

Mark Daily

2LT Mark Daily was killed in action by an IED in Mosul, Iraq on January 19, 2007. God rest his soul.

HT: Michelle Malkin

"The Democrats' Gonzales"

When liberals like David S. Broder are ready to throw Harry Reid overboard, you know the 'Rats ship has already started sinking just a few months into their honeymoon cruise.

From last Thursday's Washington Post:

Here's a Washington political riddle where you fill in the blanks: As Alberto Gonzales is to the Republicans, Blank Blank is to the Democrats -- a continuing embarrassment thanks to his amateurish performance.

If you answered " Harry Reid," give yourself an A. And join the long list of senators of both parties who are ready for these two springtime exhibitions of ineptitude to end.

President Bush's highly developed tolerance for egregious incompetence in his administration may have met its supreme test in Attorney General Gonzales, who at various times has taken complete responsibility for the firing of eight U.S. attorneys and professed complete ignorance of the reasons for their dismissal. This demonstration of serial obfuscation so impressed the president that he rushed out to declare that Gonzales had "increased my confidence in his ability to do the job."

As if that were not mind-boggling enough, consider the mental gyrations performed by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) as he rationalized the recent comment from his majority leader, Harry Reid, the leading light of Searchlight, Nev., that the war in Iraq "is lost."

On "Fox News Sunday," Schumer offered this clarification of Reid's off-the-cuff comment. "What Harry Reid is saying is that this war is lost -- in other words, a war where we mainly spend our time policing a civil war between Shiites and Sunnis. We are not going to solve that problem. . . . The war is not lost. And Harry Reid believes this -- we Democrats believe it. . . . So the bottom line is if the war continues on this path, if we continue to try to police and settle a civil war that's been going on for hundreds of years in Iraq, we can't win. But on the other hand, if we change the mission and have that mission focus on the more narrow goal of counterterrorism, we sure can win."

Everyone got that? This war is lost. But the war can be won. Not since Bill Clinton famously pondered the meaning of the word "is" has a Democratic leader confused things as much as Harry Reid did with his inept discussion of the alternatives in Iraq.

Nor is this the first time Senate Democrats, who chose Reid as their leader over Chris Dodd of Connecticut, have had to ponder the political fallout from one of Reid's tussles with the language.

Hailed by his staff as "a strong leader who speaks his mind in direct fashion," Reid is assuredly not a man who misses many opportunities to put his foot in his mouth. In 2005, he attacked Alan Greenspan, then chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, as "one of the biggest political hacks we have here in Washington."

He called President Bush " a loser," then apologized. He said that Bill Frist, then Senate majority leader, had "no institutional integrity" because Frist planned to leave the Senate to fulfill a term-limits pledge. Then he apologized to Frist.

Most of these earlier gaffes were personal, bespeaking a kind of displaced aggressiveness on the part of the onetime amateur boxer. But Reid's verbal wanderings on the war in Iraq are consequential -- not just for his party and the Senate but for the more important question of what happens to U.S. policy in that violent country and to the men and women whose lives are at stake.

Given the way the Constitution divides warmaking power between the president, as commander in chief, and Congress, as sole source of funds to support the armed services, it is essential that at some point Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi be able to negotiate with the White House to determine the course America will follow until a new president takes office.

To say that Reid has sent conflicting signals about his readiness for such discussions is an understatement. It has been impossible for his own members, let alone the White House, to sort out for more than 24 hours at a time what ground Reid is prepared to defend.

Instead of reinforcing the important proposition -- defined by the Iraq Study Group-- that a military strategy for Iraq is necessary but not sufficient to solve the myriad political problems of that country, Reid has mistakenly argued that the military effort is lost but a diplomatic-political strategy can still succeed.

The Democrats deserve better, and the country needs more, than Harry Reid has offered as Senate majority leader.

Aligning the Evergreen State with Terrorists

I received this e-mail from a Palousitics reader who lives near Hay:

I urge all Washingtonians to contact our esteemed senators on their disgraceful Iraq vote.

Dear Senator,

It is time to place politics on the back shelf and support the military your party voted overwhelmingly to send to Iraq.

The namesake of the state which you represent did not wavier in his mission to bring freedom and independence to the land you serve, even though fortune turned against him on several occasions.

The mission in Iraq is just and far reaching in its goals. Your lack of support brings dishonor to the memory of General Washington and the state which bears his name.

With your vote you have aligned yourself and my state with terrorists.

I doubt they will slap their foreheads and change their votes, but if we don’t comment of their votes they can continue to ignore their responsibilities.

In A Word: Ouch

HT: Captain Capitalism


At least we don't live in Connecticut.

[Cross-posted from Versus the Mob]

An Infinitely Worse Error

Last Wednesday night, we heard from some Iraq combat vets. They felt the cause they had fought for was noble and that thinsg in Iraq were gradually improving.

I would like to now submit the following simple questions to all those out there who are suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome, those that think Dick Cheney is the Antichrist, those that think Donald Rumsfeld is a boob, those that think we have wasted too much blood and treasure in Iraq already, those that think the pre-war intelligence was a lie, and those that think the Iraq war has been horribly mishandled. Let's suppose for a moment that all you believe is true. What next? Should we follow the lead of the Congressional Democrats and precipitously pull U.S. troops out of Iraq in Septmember 2008, no matter what? Is that the wisest course? And what would the consequences of such an action be?

“The Mesopotamian” is a blog run by an Iraqi civilian that goes by the name of “Alaa.” Back on August 14, 2005, he theorized what would happen in Iraq following a unilateral U.S. withdrawl. As you can see below, it’s a nightmare scenario.

Day 1: The American and other Multinational forces have almost completed withdrawing hastily, the decision having been taken by the U.S. administration to “cut and run” as it is said.

Day 2: The Anbar province - whole formations of Saddam’s previous organizations emerge from their holes and take control of the streets: Presidential Guards, Mukhabarat, Fedayeen Saddam, General Security, Private Security, Military intelligence, Party Units, etc. etc. ; in addition to Al -Qaida and various assortments of “Isalamists”. The whole of the province falls very quickly even before the last American soldier leaves Baghdad. The takeover takes place without any serious resistance apart from assassinations and murder of all those who are not entirely to the taste of the abovementioned. This takeover takes place over the entire western region right down to Abu Ghraib and Ghazaliya and other suburbs in Baghdad. Some fighting takes place in certain areas of Al-Anbar, but those tribes who were considered insufficiently hostile to the Americans and their friends, are quickly subdued with much bloodshed. In short the regime that is going to take over the country quickly takes shape in this region.

Other Parts of the Sunni Triangle: Similar situation develops in other areas such as Mosul, Tikrit, Sammara etc. in the North but with varying degrees of resistance and bloodshed, however the balance of force is in favor of the “insurgents”.

Diala Province: In the east considerable fighting and sectarian bloodshed, all civil services are disrupted and fighting continues.

South of Iraq: Badr Brigades, the Mahdi Army and various assortments of armed groups take to the streets and considerable fighting takes place near the southern approaches to Baghdad (the triangle of Death Latifya-Usufiya-Mahmodiya etc.) between Shiaa and Sunni groups, without any definite results initially.

Baghdad: All the middle class new neighborhoods start to be taken over by various armed groups with much looting and arson. This will be directly influenced by the speed of the U.S. army withdrawal; in particular the western part of Baghdad starting from Abu Ghraib right down to the up-scale Mansur Area.

The Mahdi Army and other Shiaa militias and tribal armed groups appear in the streets of Sadr City, Kadimiya and other neighborhoods with clear Shiaa majorities. In other mixed areas street fighting, looting ravaging and murder of families in their houses takes place on a large scale under various pretexes..Those who are weak and unarmed suffer most.

The little of electricity, water supply, sewerage and other municipal services, that there is comes to a complete halt. All shops, markets etc are closed and start to be looted.

Day 3:

The well defined main provincial areas, from the sectarian point of view, have quickly come under control of the various sectarian forces, Sunni ones in the Sunni areas and Shiaa in the Shiaa regions, and the most dangerous and destructive civil war in the history of Iraq has formally started, a war that will continue for many years and bring the country to a state worse than what followed the Mongol Invasion of Hollako in the 13th century. Ethnic and sectarian cleansing is going on within these areas with large scale movements of refugees from the various regions in all directions.

Days 4,5,6 etc.; and subsequent weeks, months and years.

It has become clear to everybody that the U.S. and other western powers are not going to come back, therefore the arena is free for all, so to speak. The Kurds withdraw into their mountainous region, and then decide to make a dash on Kirkuk. Fierce fighting erupts in and around Kirkuk, but the Kurds, being better organized and determined; initially succeed in controlling the town. Turkey cannot allow that so the Turkish army pours in from the North and the war starts between the Kurds and the Turks. The Turkish army advances quickly on Kirkuk through Mosul and after very bloody battles wrests control from the Kurds in the city. The Kurds retreat to the Mountains and start a classic guerilla war against the Turks. Turkey in effect occupies most of Northern Iraq.

Meanwhile vicious sectarian battles between Shiaa and Sunnis rage in and around Baghdad with tremendous bloodshed and huge numbers of civilians caught up in the fighting. Due to shut down of water supply the population of Baghdad starts to become desperate, and is under serious threat of thirst, so they leave their houses and flock to rivers, all that in the middle of raging battles in the streets. Organized gangs go around peoples’ homes checking identities and murdering whole families just because they happen to be Shiaa, Christian or Kurd (this is already actually happening, by the way, in a low key way in some areas).

Initially, the Sunni forces score some successes against the less organized and less experienced Shiaa forces in the Baghdad zone and south of it, despite the fierceness and carelessness about death of the latter. Hard pressed and threatened with extinction and having been abandoned by the West, the Shiaa’s have no other alternative but to turn towards the Iranians for protection. Iranian Revolutionary Guards start to pour in tens of thousands across the border to join the fighting. Soon the Iranians will be in virtual control of the entire south of Iraq and many parts of eastern Iraq. Likewise, the Kurds have no option but to turn to the Iranians in the face of the Turkish onslaught. On the other hand the previous trickle of arab terrorists and religious fanatics across the western and southern borders from Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia turns into a veritable torrent with tens and hundreds of southands pouring across to join their Sunni brothers. Turks, Iranians, Arabs, Sunni Iraqis, Shiaa Iraqis and Kurds all join in an infernal orgy of fighting destruction and death the like of which has seldom been seen.

All activities connected with oil exports from Iraq come to a complete standstill resulting in a world crisis and the rocketing of oil prices to above $ 100 a barrel at the least. Some oil fields burn and black smoke starts to spread all over the country reaching neighboring countries. The oil supplies in the entire region are jeopardized as fanaticism sweeps the region.

Al Qaeda and its affiliates and sympathizers throughout the world are jubilant, elated and drunk with the euphoria of a resounding victory against the U.S., Crusaders, Zionists, the Kafirs, the Shiaa and all other apstates. They transfer their entire cadres to the Sunni controlled areas of Iraq and establish themselves not as fugitives and underground movement but as an established force on the ground. Ripples are spread throughout the world and cells are preparing themselves to bring the battle to the very heartland of the Crusader Kafirs in The U.S. and Europe.

The U.S.A and her allies are completely discredited, and no one will ever think of putting any trust in them anywhere in the world in the future. In particular all factions involved in the fighting in Iraq will be vehemently anti-American and anti-western, especially erstwhile allies and friends who feel particularly betrayed and treacherously abandoned.

The U.S. and allied nations look on this general conflagration and explosion in the M.E. region with helpless dismay. It would take not 130 000 troops, nor one division or two or three to control such situation. All the resources of U.S., despite their tremendousness, will not suffice. It is then, that the American and Western people realize with shock and belated remorse, that if some considered the War on Iraq to be a mistake; the precipitate withdrawal and retreat is an infinitely worse error.

No matter the legitimacy of our cause to go to war in Iraq, it must now be won. As Ermest Hemingway stated, “Once we have a war there is only one thing to do. It must be won. For defeat brings worse things than any that can ever happen in war.”

Thoughts from an evening at Outside the Wire: What It Means to Truly Support the Troops

In the context of the contemporary university campus, it takes bravery to present the particular side of things the WSU College Republicans showed to the WSU campus by screening Outside the Wire. It certainly is not bombs and bullets that our CR's have to face, which they admitted before the film rolled, but it would be wrong to dismiss as insignificant the social toll that comes with speaking truth to the left-indoctrinated around these parts. It’s an ugly job, but someone’s got to do it.

More than anything else I witnessed last night, it was this frank admission on the part of the CR’s - that they have not fought in the war they support – that struck me, bringing into sharper focus for me the importance of each individual's contributions to a war effort. Having been an infantry soldier, I was for a long time given to believing that only those of us of the "we've put up, the rest of you shut up" set had a legitimate say in and contribution to war efforts. I was wrong.

This is exactly what many of the leftist/unreasonably-pacifist set will often claim, particularly against individuals like our CR's. But the leftists do not say so because they've been in my boots, but only because they perceive this attack as being an all-undercutting criticism of individuals and their support of our nation’s various wars, individuals who have not carried arms in defense of our nation. It is a cowardly ad hominem the leftists know to have some force because of the weight typically given to it by veterans.

That is exactly why I have consciously stopped endorsing that line of reasoning: it only has a hint of legitimacy so long as we warriors also endorse it, which is unfortunate as its most frequent users are those who would do us harm. Veterans – do not endorse this thinking; those who use it are at best not our friends, they are otherwise our enemies, and the notion itself is false!

When one considers everything that goes into winning a war, it is plainly obvious that there is more to it than beans and bullets. No army of any democratic nation will ever win any war in the absence of supporting ideals and individuals; the idea of doing such a thing is meaningless to us. We do not make war for the sake of war.

Overwhelming force is obviously necessary to win strictly as a matter of physics, but human beings are more than simple mechanisms of action and reaction. We require something to believe in to propel us forward; we require ideas. As such, it is our ideas that are truly powerful, for without them we might lack inspiration to do anything at all with our troops and weapons, much less anything else. We know this to be true because the human race has seen it again and again throughout history - if there is not heart in the fight, the fight will be lost.

Therefore the support of those who are not directly involved in this fight is not only welcome, it is necessary for victory! Conversely, those who oppose this war and who actively work against it, their works will contribute to defeat (particularly by emboldening an enemy who might otherwise be demoralized and defeated); defeat is the only other outcome possible if the outcome is not victory. Human beings, being possessed of free will, can choose what it is that they will individually endorse, so it is then worthwhile to examine what it is that individuals do endorse and why to see which endorsement is moral.

In this fight, we are faced with an avowed enemy who is out to destroy our way of life. They are openly hostile to the core values that our nation is founded upon, and they make no bones about not distinguishing between civilians and soldiers as they kill to achieve their objectives. We have been shown numerous times their willingness to kill innocent people, with the September 11th attacks being the most spectacular, and in other attacks they have carried out against our allies, such as the triple hotel bombings in Amman, Jordan on November 9th, 2005, which saw one of those bombs being detonated in the midst of a wedding reception. In the UK and in Spain, they have deliberately killed hundreds of civilians in separate train bombings. Kenya, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Israel, the Netherlands, India, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Lebanon… the list goes on.

To support the war on terror, and thus to support our troops, is to oppose these things, to be against the murderers who have set themselves against us. It is to place your personal endorsement on our core values of freedom and justice, to align yourself with the belief that the proper destiny of each person is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It acknowledges that our enemies will not confine themselves to mere words, but do actively seek to kill us, and that they must therefore be destroyed. This is why we fight.

To oppose the war is to endorse the evil committed by our enemies, if not overtly, then at least by a cowardly, passive permissibility, as what they do is without any excuse and can rightly only be condemned and eliminated. The evil acts committed by our enemies do not permit us the space to not act, since their evil is of such a type and degree that it is morally abominable to not fight and defeat them. They must be answered, and they must be made to answer to justice. If you will not do so, or at least agree that this is so, then you might as well be one of them. Weakly throwing in "I support the troops!" as a disclaimer does not redeem you.

With that, I’d like to close with a few words penned by John Stewart Mill:

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse…A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

Thank you for what you’re doing, CR’s. What you’ve done and what I’m sure you’ll all continue to do really does mean a lot to our veterans, both those currently in the field and those of us who have been.

To the protesters… you’re welcome.

VFW Statement On Iraq Supplemental Funding Bill

In case you missed this – please read. Then send a message to your Congressman, Congresswoman or Senator to let them know if you agree with the Veterans of Foreign Wars. If you live in the Washington’s 5th District (Eastern Washington) you may contact Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers at jwmcmorris@yahoo.com. Please forward this message to your family and friends.

Statement by George Lisicki
Senior Vice Commander, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States
Las Vegas, Nevada
April 3, 2007

VFW Statement

As we all know, President Bush has vowed to veto the war supplemental legislation that Congress recently voted to pass.

Both the House and the Senate funding packages were loaded with extraneous spending not related to the war on terror. The funding packages also contained artificial troop withdrawal deadlines that would ultimately break the morale of our troops in the field and directly jeopardize their safety.

Speaking on behalf of America's largest organization of combat veterans, I am calling on all members of the United States Senate and House of Representatives to, for now, reserve further debate and provide the funds needed by our troops to prosecute the Global War on Terror, Iraq clearly being the centerpiece of that war.

This isn't a Democrat or Republican issue. It's about American men and women tasked with fighting a war and now being told their effort and sacrifice don't matter because a date on the calendar will send them home whether they've finished the job or not.

At this time we ask Congress to never cut or withhold funding for troops deployed or being deployed to a war zone. They must ensure that those who are sent to war have the best equipment and strong support of this congress. Give them the tools necessary to complete the mission you sent them on, and do it without further delay.

When Congress reconvenes, they need to approve funding for war related requirements ONLY and debate the other issues in separate legislation.

Today, there are disturbing reports that the Senate Majority Leader from the great state of Nevada, Senator Reid, has stated that he will introduce legislation that would immediately cut off funding for the war. By proposing this type of legislation, Senator Reid would be abdicating the responsibility he has to help protect and defend our nation and to the men and women serving in our Armed Forces.

Simply put, it's reckless and is tantamount to waving a white flag of surrender to the enemy.

If such legislation is introduced by Senator Reid, he can be assured that the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States will strongly urge its membership to work to defeat its passage.

This concludes my statement.

George Lisicki Senior Vice Commander Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States.

How to Motivate the Defeatocrats

You just have to give them a worthy enemy. From Eric Allie, PoliticalCartoons.com.

Technorati Tags: wal-mart walmart

Pork, The Other White Flag

Not even the French know how to quit with such indignity.

Jim Lileks, one of my favorite writers, has a fine column today that lays bare the Democrats' disgusting strategy for surrender.

Congress wants the troops to have sufficient bullets to cover their retreat. What's really getting all the attention, besides the requirement that the U.S. quit the field by 2008, are the payouts given to various members of Congress who wanted their palms greased before they voted YES to supply the troops. Let's examine some of the delights contained in the bill's rich nougat center.

— $5 million to compensate tropical fish breeders for losses suffered when a virus took out their stock. You can't really argue with this, since the Supreme Court long ago struck down the supposed ``wall of separation'' between Tank and State. It's an obvious national priority, lest we find ourselves beholden to foreign fish cartels. There was even talk of creating a Strategic Clownfish Reserve, but experts agreed that Congress already performed that role admirably.

— $25 million to the spinach growers who lost money during the contamination brouhaha. If you were one of the unlucky people who ate the bad spinach, and missed work because you were up brouhahaing all night, you get no recompense.

— $13 million for Ewe Lamb Replacement and Retention. An unexpected side effect of the Pterodactyl Reintroduction Act of 2005 meant that huge, leather-winged reptiles were carrying off portions of the nation's flock; this provision compensates herders. In a nod to fiscal responsibility, however, a rider that set up an Internet video monitoring system for sheep flocks called ``Ewe Tube'' was struck from the bill.

— $400 million for "wildland fire suppression.'' Just have the fires speak out against the war; if you believe Sean Penn and Rosie O'Donnell, administration officials will suppress the fires with just a few words of criticism.

— $74 million for peanut storage. Sources on the Hill note this is a victory for freshman Rep. Planters, D-Licious, a colorful character who wears a monocle and top hat.

— $525,000 for the National Park System to beef up its avian flu detection efforts. Which means that the national Ewe Crisis is 26 times more important than avian flu detection? No. Another provision spends almost a billion dollars for flu pandemic preparation. But you know how things are today — trying to spend that much money to combat a dread disease is a hard sell, and you have to hide the appropriation in a bigger bill and hope no one finds out.

— $5 billion for education. Possibly more; the bill is 87 pages long. But ammunition procurement for the Air Force is $95.8 million, which might mean arrival of the long-awaited day, predicted on many a thoughtful bumper sticker, when the Air Force has to hold a bake sale. That will prompt Bill Maher to assert that Girl Scouts are braver than pilots, because the Scouts deliver cookies in person and the Air Force drops the boxes from 30,000 feet. Still, it makes sense; while education is an obvious federal obligation, there is nothing in the Constitution about an Air Force, and if the Founders had intended to spend money on "sky militias'' they would have mentioned a "Balloon'd Musketry Corps'' in the Federalist Papers.