War of Wits

Hokie - “a word that people used to express feeling, approval, excitement, surprise” - Johann Norstedt - Retired VA Tech English Professor

Once again, a suicidal maniac hell-bent on exacting as much revenge as possible has struck one of the nation’s schools, this time a world-class university. But as information about the shootings, suspect and victims arrived at news desks in drips and drabs, the over-the-top coverage of the incident by the mainstream media wasn’t very helpful. In fact, the sensationalism with which NBC, Fox News and others covered this nightmare did nothing except feed disinformation and rampant speculation.

On the April 16th morning broadcast of Fox News Live, within hours of the conclusion of the massacre, Fox contributor and former D.C. Homicide Detective Rod Wheeler was asked about the possibility that an M-16 may have been this shooter’s weapon of choice. It is unclear -and may never be known- whether a witness reported an M-16, whether a witness assumed that an M-16 was involved due to the volume of fire or exactly where Fox obtained this information.

(more…)

Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

In a previous article, I made what I felt to be a compelling case why we should have at least tried to exploit Saddam Hussein’s influence among Iraq’s Sunni population, instead of handing him over to the hangman to be executed for his crimes.

The Bush Administration articulated from the beginning of the whole execution handover process that the execution of Saddam was a decision made by a sovereign Iraqi government in a clear and transparent process, free of American influence or interference. Bush’s speech might play well to his Republican base and Rush Limbaugh’s Ditto Heads, but not so well to those we are trying to convince of our intent; those who are continuing to attack our soldiers; those who will forthwith escalate their attacks on Americans; those who already viewed Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki as a stooge of the US and his government a tool of our foreign policy.

It seems clear that al Maliki rushed Hussein’s execution. The Iraqi Constitution allowed thirty days from the date the appeals court rejected Saddam’s appeal. Saddam was given less than a handful to ensure it was over before a holiday, despite apparent law and custom against this practice. The execution appeared to have taken place in a darkened stairwell on the upper floor of a building. The building was reportedly used by Saddam for the same purposes. Everyone present, except one man whose face was blurred, wore black hoods. Media reports confirmed that in the process of hanging Saddam, he was taunted. He was hung to chants of “Muqtada”, a reference to Shiite murderer and rabble-rouser Muqtada al Sadr. A grainy, cell phone video then surfaced on the Internet, showing Saddam’s final moments.

Collectively, all of these things will feed the perception among Sunnis that Saddam’s execution was a hastily crafted lynching; conducted by Shiite death squads in the pre-dawn darkness. I’m not saying that’s what it was, but we certainly shouldn’t be contributing to that perception in any way.

I don’t care if you are a liberal, a conservative, a terrorist, a pacifist or an atheist. You cannot violate the spirit of the law, while executing someone pursuant to the letter of it, and claim the moral high ground in a battle of good over evil.

Thus is the crux of my continued argument that the Bush Administration lacks the intellectual, moral and intestinal fortitude necessary to win in Iraq and more broadly against global terror.

I’m not suggesting that we hold the opinions of terrorists in high regard; to the contrary; for the last seven months, I have been stressing the need for us to escalate our use of force against terrorism, but here’s the dilemma when exercising military power:

If your goal is conquest, then kill your enemies and get it over with so our soldiers can come home and not get embroiled in a protracted bloodbath between feuding cousins. If your goal is not conquest, then you must win the hearts and minds of the indigenous people you’ve invaded in order to accomplish your objectives. That means all of them, not just the majority. At some point in the battle for hearts and minds, you have to be cognizant of the perceptions you are feeding if you are to be victorious in that battle.

This issue is not as simple as many would like it to be. Just because you take offense with the manner in which this execution was carried out does not mean you are “either with us or with the terrorists”. Nobody would have dreamed on September 12th, 2001 that conservatives would be criticizing our –arguably– conservative President for his myopia both in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Bush Administration went out of its way to wash its hands of Saddam’s death. For nearly four years, America has collectively wished that the Iraqis could stand up so we could stand down. Well, the Iraqis stood up and took charge of their judicial process. In that regard, as I said before, be careful what you wish for. Those who would argue that Saddam tortured and murdered hundreds of thousands and therefore is deserving of whatever he got are oversimplifying the problem. Of course he did, but the issue is not Saddam nor the way he died.

The issue is twofold: 1). that we deposed one dictatorship and we’re well on our way to creating yet another, and 2). that our hypocrisy has just made our mission objectives that much more difficult to attain. Shiite death squads have now supplanted the al Qaeda/Sunni partnership as the biggest threat to stability. Add to this not just the execution of Saddam, but the lack of dignity of the whole process and the Sunni minority seems to be in no mood for reconciliation.

Despite all of that, now that Saddam is gone, it is absolutely imperative that we win in Iraq. If we do not prevail Shiite tribal militias will. If we hastily retreat, that will bring not just civil war, but tribe-on-tribe violence and eventually a power vacuum. Dictators fill power vacuums. Withdrawal without a secure Iraq is no longer a viable option.

Milestone - mile - stone `mI(-&)l-”stOn

(n.) - A stone serving as a milepost. A significant point in development

2006 has now been relegated to the archives of history. It was a year to remember and a year to forget. It was a year of scandal and of missed opportunities; a year of increasing divisiveness, as demonstrated in the midterm elections and the year that the American conservative movement repudiated it’s Commander-In-Chief.

It was a year that found the New York Times leaking sensitive information on two occasions, while arguing that the public’s –therefore by default al Qaeda’s– right to know outweighed the Bush Administration’s right to use electronic intercepts to track our enemy’s domestic phone calls or money transfers, both of which incidentally would precede a major terrorist attack.

Above all, It was a year of milestones, most of which were never fully realized and even a few that were manufactured specifically to divide the country in a time of war.

Ted Kennedy, The Associated Press, Reuters News Service and other mental midgets in the media rang in the New Year celebrating the historic milestone of the 3,000th US servicemember killed in Iraq. Kennedy called it a “tragic milestone”, while the media variously referred to it as a “grim milestone” or “the death toll milestone”. Both Reuters and the AP were practically drooling, awaiting the announcement of the next dead soldier. As a matter of fact, for about two hours on New Year’s Eve, Yahoo News posted an article attributed to Reuters entitled “US death toll in Iraq reaches 2,999″ with no byline. A few hours later, it was replaced with the three thousand figure. The article was then attributed to Claudia Parsons (Reuters), and has been updated on several occasions.

Reuters is straining sooo hard to emphasize that this is a milestone, that the story was accompanied by those unauthorized photos of flag-draped coffins being offloaded at Dover Delaware that are several years old. In addition, according the the source they’re citing for the casualty figures, there has yet to be an official confirmation of the three thousand figure, yet the Reuters headlines scream “3,000 dead”. The figure was followed in the next paragraph by a sentence indicating the number of casualties had not been “officially confirmed” and then the author’s own insinuation that the figure was not being confirmed so Bush’s critics wouldn’t have any ammunition to attack him.

Let me clarify the misconceptions you are being inculcated with by liberals in politics and the media.

A milestone is something you use to measure either a). distance or b). progress. So unless you’re cheering for the terrorists in Iraq, no number of dead US soldiers is a “milestone”. And no body count should ever be the measure of the success or failure of an entire military campaign. Using the published methodology for icasualties.org, which is the source for the Reuters article, as of publication of this piece, there are 2,991 confirmed deaths with 11 pending confirmation for a total of 3,002 . I surmise that I subscribe to the same Dod feed that icasualties does and as of the publication of this column, US Army Sgt. Edward W. Shaffer, 23 Mont Alto, PA was the last confirmed US military death in Iraq. The trouble is that his death occurred on December 27th. The most recent death confirmed by DoD occurred on 12/28.

The entire methodology is suspect. In this first screenshot, observe the timestamp. The “current time in Baghdad” was 9:43:07 PM 1/1/07. There were reportedly 2,993 deaths with 9 pending confirmation. In the second screenshot , also observe the time. It reads: 10:33:24 PM, forty minutes later, but the confirmed body count went down by two in the 40 minutes between the two screenshots. How is this possible? Rushing to be the first and not confirming your sources, that’s how.

If the latest death was confirmed on 12/28/2006, and the icasualties figures keep bouncing up and down on 1/1/2007, Reuters, through Ms. Claudia Parsons has some ’splainin to do about the accuracy of her article. I have monitored DoD casualty reports for two years. DoD only confirms military deaths upon notification of the families and sometimes they are posted on DoD’s website out of chronological sequence. Therefore, I submit to you that the entire premise of this piece of garbage propagated by Reuters and then modified at least three times over the course of six hours is in question. The number 3,000 cannot be confirmed by any independent source and yet Reuters reported it as fact.

Even worse, not only does Ms. Parsons report suggest that an unconfirmed US body count is some sort of measure of progress, she disrespects all US soldiers by devoting half of her article on their deaths to the details of how Saddam Hussein was mourned in his hometown. Apparently she sees Saddam Hussein as morally equal and therefore deserving of just as much attention. What a sicko.

And people wonder why the influence and subscription rates of mainstream media publications continue to plummet. The only milestone worthy of mention here is the new lows that some people and organizations will descend to in order to advance their agenda.

And so with the imminent execution of Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti, the end of 35 years of thuggery and a 24 year stranglehold on Iraq is near. With his appeals now exhausted, Saddam is set to hang for some of his crimes. This will probably result in some measure of justice for many of his victims, but for many others, the pain of not knowing what happened to their loved ones will remain.

Word is that Saddam could swing to and fro’ in a matter of hours. As the old saying goes, “if you lie down with dogs, eventually you’re gonna get fleas.” Saddam may have been a sitting head of state, but his reign of terror is about to end with a whimper; swaying lightly in the breeze from the end of a noose.

His attorneys have been stressing for months that if Saddam is executed, there will be reprisal killings by loyal Ba’ath Party members.

Millions of Iraqis –along with millions of Americans– are no doubt rejoicing at the prospect of Saddam’s execution. Despite the many justifications for handing Saddam over to the hangman, this is the perfect opportunity for the US to show the world it can be just and merciful while defusing the situation in Iraq at the same time.

Given the current situation in Iraq, Saddam is currently worth much more to us alive than dead. I can hear fellow conservatives howling across the country, but let me explain. We allow Saddam to live out his remaining days in a cell. Somewhere inaccessible and secure. He is allowed to continue breathing under stringent conditions. First, he participates fully in bringing Sunnis to the bargaining table and convinces them to forsake violence and invest in the political process. He does his damnedest to help Iraqis heal their divisions or he swings.

Second, he cooperates fully and tells us what became of his weapons programs that we know existed. He publicly identifies all Iraqi weapons program scientists and any others connected with the programs. He also must attempt to account for all of his victims. As many prisoners and executions as he can, including Iranians from the Iran/Iraq war. He spills it all, or he swings.

And finally, he gives the family of Michael Scott Speichert some peace by telling them personally, once and for all, what happened to their son after he was shot down in the opening night of the first gulf war. He gives them comfort, or he swings.

Sparing Saddam’s life would have many more benefits than drawbacks. First and foremost, it would blunt any international criticism, whether it be European, UN or Arab. Arabs couldn’t use Saddam’s execution as an excuse to recruit terrorists, kill any nuns or rape any infidels and the French couldn’t use US brutality to distract from their declining world influence and massive social upheaval. Secondly, it would promote reunification and healing. The US would lead by example, which is what the world expects of us. There’s a possibility that Sunnis could lay down their arms at Saddam’s request.

The biggest foreseeable drawback is that by allowing Saddam to live, the majority Shia may feel a sense of injustice at having Saddam escape his date with the gallows and they may feel betrayed by the US flip-flop, but if the killing is to ever end, someone must consciously choose to spare the life of another and it must become contagious. The Shia could do that by sparing Saddam. It is probably too late –and a really bad idea– to interfere in the Iraqi justice system or to refuse to hand over Saddam, but it would be in our best interests to try and convince Iraqis to spare his life. Given the threat of Sunni violence upon his death, why should we make US troops targets? Spare his life and we stay. Execute him and we leave, it’s that simple.

With all of the mistakes the Bush Administration has made with foreign policy in general and Iraq in particular, there haven’t been many opportunities to seize the initiative or win the hearts and minds of Sunni or Saudi skeptics. When such an opportunity presents itself, as it does now, it must be exploited. Let’s not throw out the baby with the Ba’athwater.

Group·think - grüp-thi[ng]k [n.]- A pattern of thought characterized by self-deception, forced maufacture of consent and conformity to group values and ethics © 2007 Merriam Webster’s Online Dictionary

One look at the forces that are uniting to dissolve our borders and it is crystal clear that our biggest threat comes -not from international terrorism- but from the tactics used by so-called “civil rights” organizations such as the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC). This organization is -quite literally- the Enemy Within masquerading as a nonprofit organization.

In an Adobe® PDF® document I found on their website which reads like a how-to manual for a takeover of the US and was comically entitled “A Civil Rights Guide for a Prosperous America”, the authors use a combination of peer pressure, overt manipulation and detailed instruction in order to teach the reader how to bring about the demise of America by choking our court system to death with frivolous “civil rights” litigation.

LULAC’s stated policy objective is to end discrimination, particularly against Hispanics, in the areas of education, employment, law enforcement, lending and so on. This is a noble goal; a no-brainer, right? WRONG!

Perception; a mental image

Discrimination in education:

While admitting that factors such as high Hispanic dropout rates, lack of Hispanic student participation in extracurricular activities, shortage of “multiethnic”textbooks and lack of participation by Hispanic parents are all perceptions in the Hispanic community; rather than address the perceptions with those who hold them (incorrectly I must add), LULAC proposes to address those concerns first by starting with the teacher and if that doesn’t work, threatening your way all the way to federal court –if necessary– in order to right a perceived wrong.

In other words, Jose’s parents won’t come to his PTA meetings because they don’t understand English… But that’s your problem, they’ll see you in court. There is no constitutional right for anyone to have bilingual textbooks or PTA interpreters, yet in LULAC’s judgment, because they don’t have these things, there is a disparity that must be addressed in the courts.

Discrimination in employment:

Their position on employment is very simple: Full support of affirmative action. In addition, it is their mission to educate ignorant Americans that “numerical goals” concerning affirmative action aren’t “quotas”. They also believe that situations of their own making (such as when wages stagnate due to saturation of the labor market with unskilled immigrant labor) constitute a glass ceiling, which also must be rectified by hook or by crook. And finally, it seems to LULAC that the simple fact that a Hispanic failed a typing test or a job interview is enough grounds for a disparate impact lawsuit.

Let’s play devil’s advocate.

If, as is evident in LULAC’s case, one is aware that the feelings they have are a perception, as opposed to reality, fact, evidence, etc., then wouldn’t it stand to reason that LULAC should be attempting to validate those perceptions or come up with some sort of evidence before filing a lawsuit? If I wanted to hire a lawyer to sue someone based on no more than a perception, I would be laughed out of that law firm and yet LULAC has no reservations at all about bringing frivolous lawsuits.

As if that wasn’t bad enough; in a battery of what LULAC refers to as “Perceptions Inventories”, they actually use groupthink to pressure Hispanics into believing that they have been discriminated against, much like telling a hypochondriac they’ve been inflicted with an illness.

The reader is instructed: “Based on…dialogue with community groups… Your response is expected to reflect your judgment about the Hispanic community’s perception of disparity of treatment…”

They’re telling people how they’re expected to answer, and using pressure to do so. This is brainwashing; enemy proanganda, plain and simple. They can’t really prove that they’re being discriminated against, so they aim for the next best thing; a disparate treatment/disparate impact argument, even if the disparate treatment/impact is perceived, not real.

But by far, the most offensive thing that I found was when they discussed how to rectify these “problems”. They actually had the cajones to instruct the reader when complaining to use the term “perception”, “…so that you are not put in a position to prove anything”[1].

Taking this argument to it’s logical conclusion, one can only assume that LULAC’s aim is to litigate us into oblivion. Why else would the publish a how-to manual? It’s not your problem if they don’t assimilate, refuse to learn English or don’t have bilingual textbooks and yet, if you don’t succumb to their demands, they’ll sue. Instructing anyone how to file a lawsuit without proof is unconscionable for a so-called “non-profit” organization”. This organization should have it’s non-profit status revoked for their wholesale extortion of the American legal system.

This country needs to wake up. We will never be defeated militarily at home. Our biggest internal threat comes not from militant Islam, but from a broken immigration system; from the enemy within.

l - A Civil Rights Guide For A Prosperous America - Chapter 1 - Education - p.21 #5.

For too long, America has been subjected to an endless stream of propaganda. I’m not talking about militant Islam. Rather, I’m referring to the lies spread by illegal immigrants and their advocates, including President Bush himself. Recent events are beginning to erode the facade, revealing the underlying truth; the scope and impact of illegal immigration on the US.

In raids last week, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrested over 1,200 people at six Swift meat packing plants in six different states. There were numerous warrants and dozens of arrests for identity theft among other crimes. Thus, the myth that illegal immigrants only want a job is trampled to death, much like the rule of law and the ranches that they cross in wave after human wave to get here.

According to Rosa Rosales, President of LULAC, an organization that seeks to overthrow the United States by burying it in litigation (which we will examine in more detail in my next article), 65 arrests of ID thieves and other scofflaws doesn’t justify the raids. In her opinion, unless there is a national security or public safety concern, illegal immigrants who steal American identities should just be given a free pass.[1]

All illegal immigrants are criminals, otherwise they wouldn’t be called “illegal”. In truth, we tend to look more favorably on illegals whose only crime was crossing the border or remaining here illegally. We must still recognize, however, that there are smugglers, pedophiles, murderers, gang members and ID thieves that enter the US every year.

The second myth shattered in recent days is that illegal immigrants are only doing jobs that Americans don’t want or won’t do. In the days since the raid, there has been a dramatic upswing in the number of applicants applying for jobs at the Greeley, CO Swift plant - proof that there are more than enough law-abiding people that want or perhaps even need these jobs.

While last week’s raids were a start; while they give people hope that something may finally be done to solve this complex problem, we need to keep them in perspective. They were only one tiny step. The hypocrisy of your President, many members of Congress and a majority of US Senators remains a major stumbling block to ever fixing our immigration system. Actions always speak louder than words. While our leadership continues to make token gestures to try and show Americans that they’re serious about securing the border, they’re taking giant leaps to ensure that the effort is a miserable failure.

Two border patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean have been tried, convicted and sentenced to eleven and twelve years in federal prison respectively for a Feb. 2006 incident in which they pursued a drug smuggler near the border. During the pursuit, the smuggler attempted to ditch his vehicle and flee back to Mexico. In the process, a struggle ensuedand the smuggler was shot in the buttocks after cutting Officer Compean, but he escaped.

In a glaring example of the Bush Administration’s commitment to supporting the Border Patrol, he allowed this drug smuggler to sue the agents and then stood silent while they were both convicted and sentenced to prison for violating his civil rights. Considering the recent treatment of US Marines Frank Wuterich and his squad, John Jodka and his fellow Marines, or Ilario Pantano, despite what the President says, his actions call his commitment to supporting those who safeguard our nation into question.

1. “Hispanic groups slam Swift raids” - Jerry Seper - Washington Times Nation/Politics 12/20/2006

Nothing runs more contrary to common sense than the notion of a “botched” execution.

Capital punishment exists as the ultimate penalty; the final sanction; reserved for those who must be eliminated to protect society. Child rapists, cop killers, serial killers or those who are so greedy they would kill another for monetary gain. It is the only way to protect us from some people.

On Wednesday December 13th, Angel Nieves Diaz was executed by lethal injection for the 1979 murder of a Miami, Florida bar manager during a robbery.

In a December 15th, 2006 AP article entitled “Official says Fla. Execution was botched” that was totally slanted against capital punishment, author Ron Word wrote that Medical Examiner Dr. William Hamilton characterized the Diaz execution as taking longer at 34 minutes than the average execution at about 15 minutes. Dr. Hamilton was never quoted as having mentioned the word “botched”. Nor was any other government official. The “official” cited in the headline who did mention the word “botched” was Dave Elliot, spokesman for the National Coalition to abolish the Death Penalty.

This is hardly an objective piece of journalism. The title is misleading.

I get so sick and tired of the same old arguments. The Bottom Line: Don’t go to places like California, Florida or Texas and commit murder or you may very well end up executed after your twenty years of appeals have been exhausted. Period. Harsh, yes. Necessary, you bet.

Unless the death penalty is applied regularly when warranted, it loses the deterrent effect. That is precisely what opponents of capital punishment are banking on. When they can successfully argue there’s no more deterrent, it opens the door to their next argument; that capital punishment should be ended altogether. That is what liberals do best. Chip away at your laws, border, culture, traditions, your religion, morals, ethics and intelligence, one little morsel at a time. One day, you’re going to wake up and it’ll all be gone.

Inmates aren’t even arguing their convictions or the evidence anymore. For the last few years, most of the death penalty challenges have been –not to the evidence or the prosecution’s case– but to the constitutionality of the death penalty in general or to the legality of the method of execution.

This whole debate has gotten so far out of hand. I realize that Old Sparky making flames shoot out of people’s heads may not be the cleanest way to go, but give me a break. Much like the country in general, lethal injection isn’t perfect. Neither am I for that matter; nor you. Same goes for our laws and our system of governing. So we do the best with what we have and try to improve the process. Just because the condemned felt pain doesn’t mean we should throw the baby out with the bath water. It hurts to die in any manner.

Diaz was convicted of first degree murder, four counts of kidnapping, two counts of armed robbery and one count of possessing a firearm during commission of a felony. It is still unclear whether Diaz or one of his accomplices killed the bar manager, but all three discharged their weapons. Under Florida, as well as California law, they’re still guilty of murder. There were also five aggravating circumstances, including a prior conviction for a violent felony.

Why so much time spent agonizing over whether this felon felt any pain? I’m sure his life ended more comfortably than his victim; bleeding out on the floor whilst trying to earn a living. I have written often about words being used as weapons. The AP article is yet another example of this trend. The execution of Angel Diaz wasn’t “botched”. In fact, you might say it was flawless. The condemned died, didn’t he? About the only thing that was botched was the robbery that Mr. Diaz was involved in and he had no one to blame for that but himself and his two accomplices.

Ignoramus L. - Ig ~ n& ~rA’ ~m&s - Literally - we are ingorant of; An utterly ignorant person

Ignorant ig~n(&~)r&nt - Not in possession of knowledge or education.

Despite all of the rhetoric and hand-wringing over what to do in Iraq; when you look at the whole equation using mathematics and logic, it always comes down to the lowest common denominator. This is not difficult in theory. It is difficult in practice, only because we make it so. In a previous assessment of the insurgency that didn’t get much as much publicity as the December report, the Iraq Study Group concluded that unless America exhibited the political will to defeat the enemy, the effort would fail.

Despite the shortcomings of the Group’s latest report on the way forward, many of their conclusions ring true. Our biggest obstacle is that we lack the collective political will to defeat this enemy. There are many that would bristle at this characterization, but prove me wrong. If we had the political will; when we sent soldiers into battle, we would allow them to do their job unrestrained. The last man out of the sandbox would pull up the flag and we’d be done with it.

We wouldn’t be discussing premature withdrawal.

We wouldn’t be discussing withdrawal in phases so that our strength gets progressively weaker and our posture becomes defensive.

We wouldn’t give Korans to Guantanamo inmates.

We wouldn’t entertain giving them Constitutional rights.

We wouldn’t sentence traitors like Ariel Weinman, who tried to sell Tomahawk Cruise Missile technology to an “unnamed” country to only twelve years in prison with parole possible in four.

We wouldn’t prosecute Marines for murder and we would have killed Muqtada al Sadr with a hellfire missile when we should have over 2 years ago.

There are only two real choices we have; keep our troops there or pull them out. If we pull them out, the only question remaining is will it be a precipitous, speedy withdrawal or one that –as Democrats coined– is “phased”? Phased withdrawal, phased redeployment, whatever you call it, is an absurd proposition; our forces should either stay because they’re committed to a fight or you get them out. All of them.

This fundamental lack of understanding of the proper application of military force, not only by the President, but by the majority of Democrats in both the House and Senate, as well as many Republicans is frightening. We have put ourselves in a position to be seen by the majority of Iraqis as occupiers. We invaded a sovereign nation, toppled it’s leader and helped bring about the free election of a new government. Our President and his Administration failed to take into account for the religious, ethnic and tribal rivalries that have gone on for centuries and we’ve turned Iraqis into squabbling children (notwithstanding the fact they’re killing each other) incapable of solving their differences, at least in the near term.

Iraqi President Jalal Talabani feels that the Study Group’s recommendations are bad for Iraq because a beefed up American program of training Iraqi troops to fight terrorists so we can leave will somehow impede their sovereignty. 300 or more dead per month is pretty bad for Iraq too, don’t you think? If something isn’t done soon, there won’t be any subjects to exercise any sovereignty over. His entire statement should be dismissed as political posturing and is good for neither country. Looking at the whole picture, we are left with two only two options. Stay and take full control, defeat the terrorists or go home. Hundreds are already killed weekly at this point. House to house fighting would probably kill fewer than the “sectarian violence” that is consuming the country. It can’t get any worse.

We have nothing to lose at this point. There was more factional violence teetering on civil war in Palestinian territories today, as well as mass demonstrations in Lebanon by supporters of Hezbollah and admonitions from Saudi Arabia that the whole region is a powderkeg with many trying to light the fuse.

We are not at war with Islam. Islam is at war with itself.

It’s extremist vs. moderate and the extremists are kickin’ butt and takin’ names. They are better able to project the anger of the masses at the Jews and the Crusader Americans because of the smut peddled by Brintey Spears, Paris Hilton and Nicole Ritchie. Or they take comfort in the opinions of Gwyneth Paltrow, Mel Gibson or Natalie Maines, who feel compelled to use the camera to shove their foreign policy opinions down your throat.

There will always be political options for Iraq. Militarily, there are two options and no room for negotiation at this point.

Stay and let our men finish the job, despite the political ramifications; or pack them up and send them home, deal with far worse political ramifications and the possibility of more military action or Iraqi-based terrorist attacks in the future. These are the only options.

In a previous incarnation, I was a Systems Analyst for over ten years. Nothing more than a glorified title for one who uses computer code to solve problems. My world was black and white. Assumptions were forbidden and always resulted in having to do the job over again. The results of my work were either valid or invalid. My computer code, which was modeled on logic, either executed or failed.

It’s amusing how one’s thought processes are guided when forced to employ logic. It’s even more amusing watching faulty logic employed. All sorts of unintended consequences can result.

Currently, the Bush administration’s strategy is stuck in an infinite loop, the “blue screen of death” for lack of a better analogy. The only way out is to reboot the damn machine, and hope that when you log back in, you can recover where you left off, and if that fails, to recover from some known point in the past and move on.

Fuzzy logic involves translating the inputs to a problem into a predefined set of values. Various weights (ranks) are then assigned to the inputs, and the resulting outputs are then translated back into real world values. This works great for Internet search engines or computerized pattern matching, which both return thousands of results; not so good for producing the single, most desirable result for trying to end the most barbaric conflict in my generation, but I digress…

While we’re on the subject of fuzzy logic, the long anticipated report from the Iraq Study Group has been released.

Nothing Earth-shattering or new. It reads more like a PR campaign; chock full of action verbs calling on the US to support, stop, secure, prevent, promote, energize, validate, assist and help, but there is no mention of how to do any of those things without more military force - considering the violence is so widespread it now claims thousands of innocent lives monthly.

President Bush finally got an independent rebuke of his overall plan. It was also a candid assessment of the extent to which Iraq has deteriorated, and a list of 79 recommendations, the majority of which deal with what the Iraqis must do to bring order to chaos in their own country. The Group’s best shot –and their overriding message– is a strong diplomatic push, with heavy emphasis on consensus building. There are also lots of mixed signals. Regional diplomacy –as a solution to Iraq– is a pipe dream. Other Arab nations are either actively aiding the ongoing murder of US soldiers or are at the very least too afraid of their own populations to truly help. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait refuse to take even the most modest of steps; writing off pre-war Iraqi debt owed by the Hussein regime. After saving their bacon in 1990, they owe us.

The report states “some countries are undercutting stability”, but doesn’t name names - concurrently recommending actively courting those same countries on the diplomatic front and engaging them to help in some constructive fashion. Both countries were criticized in the report, but in the virtual context of passively refusing to help, as opposed to the absolute context of their active interference and support of foreign jihadists.

In the past, our over-emphasis on consensus building is what led to the appeasement and re-arming of Nazi Germany prior to the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide and is now leading to the execution of whole villages in Darfur while the world watches.

There are far too many assumptions made in the recommendations by the Study Group where the military is concerned. The military’s job is, as they say, “to blow things up and kill people”. The report suggests actually embedding US forces with Iraqi units[1]. Iraqi units whom the report also suggests have no loyalty, discipline or readiness. This, I believe, is asking too much of our soldiers. The report suggests that to satisfy the Shia, we need to fight the insurgency. The Sunnis won’t trust us unless we deal with the Shiite death squads. Neither side will give in, which hints that a political solution is premature and there’s still fighting to be done.

A comprehensive solution to the Arab/Israeli conflict can only occur if all of the players can at least recognize that Israel has the right to exist. Considering Hamas leader Ismael Haniyeh’s refusal on Arab television the same day the Baker report is released, it isn’t likely. This recognition must be the starting point of any Israeli peace effort. Any offer that falls short shouldn’t be taken seriously.

In terms of its assessment, the Study Group’s report is the same message the American people have been screaming loud and clear to a tone-deaf administration for 2 years. It just seems -all of a sudden– to carry more weight, when coming from a Blue-Ribbon government commission. The report’s major recommendations are diplomacy and a foreign policy makeover, accelerated training and deployment of Iraqis and reunification of disaffected Sunnis.

The Sunni population needs to be reminded they chose to boycott the political process and in a democracy, that has consequences. They need to be given one final opportunity to renounce violence and in return given a true stake in the direction and prosperity of their country or left to their own devices. The militias and death squads must be disarmed, eliminated and outlawed.

In a strange non sequitur, the report calls for moving all forces not necessary for “force protection” out of Iraq, in favor of embedded trainers and rapid reaction forces who would provide force protection if needed. It defies logic to move them further away from where they’re needed, if called to assist other US soldiers who are embedded with Iraqi units and are being overrun.

As if that weren’t enough, how about this paradox? The conservative approach (considering the indecision on whether to continue to apply military pressure) would actually be to completely withdraw. But the only way to accomplish the report’s recommendations are to increase troop levels. Just as in the case with Bush’s war plan, the failure of Baker’s commission to account for Iraqi failure to take control of their destiny or reunify is a critical input that is missing from the algorhithm. These are assumptions –as previously stated– and will lead to nowhere.

Two things are sure: I don’t envy the President and there are no easy solutions to this problem. A political solution is necessary, but in my opinion it’s premature. Withdrawal now, would send a clear signal to terrorists that if they hit hard enough, we’ll run away. And the region would descend into further violence, if that’s even possible. We would end up having to return because we started this mess. But next time, instead of rebooting, we may simply have to pull the plug, repartition the hard drive and reformat the media just to keep the system bug-free. Even then, the system may still crash.

1. Iraq Sudy Group Report PDF version p. 16- PARAGRAPH 3

The term “white noise” describes what would occur if one combined all audible frequencies and played them at the same time. An effect of white noise is that it tends to drown out the other noises around it. A songbird’s tune, a symphony or a thoughtful conversation; a veiled threat or an urgent warning.

Human beings are sensitive creatures. We have emotions that are affected by various stimuli. But we are also susceptible to sensory overload. Once overloaded, our senses aren’t reliable. And when our ears can no longer distinguish intelligent, logical discourse above the white noise, it affects everything; from the way we perceive our surroundings, to the way we react to them, to who we elect to represent us.

One thing is abundantly clear. I have no idea what the Administration’s current strategy is for completing the mission in Iraq. Neither do they. Do you?

It’s great that we live in a debatable society and all, but ultimately the buck stops with the Commander-In-Chief. It is he who makes the call. He’s free to seek the opinions of others as he sees fit, but the solution to Iraq should not have been a public spectacle, it projects weakness and indecision. Bringing in Vernon Jordan and Sandra Day O’Connor, who know bupkus about what it takes to win a war doesn’t raise the confidence level either.

A coherent message from the President is completely absent, due to these distractions. He has abdicated his responsibility to others. He had a solemn obligation to formulate an exit strategy along with his battle plan almost four years ago, whether that was when to stand down or when to double-time out of there. Without that piece of the overall plan, your order of battle is not complete.

By seeking the input of the Iraq Study Group, the suggestion of diplomatic overtures to Iran and Syria, the mere mention that al Anbar province is a lost cause [1], the discussions to potentially abandon unification efforts with the Sunnis [2] and the mixed messages [3] being sent from some senior military officials, it all adds up to so much white noise, it’s like falling into R.E.M. sleep on the couch at two A.M. after a bad science fiction movie with the TV test pattern hissing in the background. You can hear it, but can’t decide whether you even want to emerge from your stupor and get in bed or just spend the night on the couch.

Such is the Iraq war. Not so much a quagmire as a soupy fog. We’re not stuck in it. We can get out. Our leader just can’t find his way through the muck due to his tunnel vision.

In a Navy Times article, Gen. Peter Pace spoke of the need to throw more 10-pound brains at the problem, and that it matters not if they’ve ever worn the uniform. I heartily disagree. The last thing this war needs is more intellectuals.

If General Pace is so open to suggestion, how about some advice from someone who has served my country, and knows something about bleeding for it? Release the men you’re holding from the Camp Pendleton Brig, drop the charges against Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterich, and the rest of his men and allow your Marines to finish what you ordered them to start so they can get back home to their families.

Ten-pound brains are the result of either an inflated ego or a malignant tumor, rather than intellectual horsepower. The US military must be allowed to finish this war for it to go down in history as anything but a failure. A voice of reason must rise above the din, cut through the white noise and offer up a solution that can be accepted by the US and Iraq. It doesn’t concern Saudi Arabia, Iran, Lebanon, Syria or anyone else and it is because we didn’t stop their meddling that we are in this untenable position today.

###

Keep the members of the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit in your thoughts and prayers, as they deploy to Ramadi and elsewhere in al Anbar province. I had the pleasure of tipping a few with some these men in Japan as part of the same Battle Group back in 1990. True to form, [4] they represent the recklessness of youth, the steel resolve of Marines and the best this country has to offer.

The War On Terror continues… Remember the fallen

11/30/2006 US Army SSgt. Jeremy W. Mulhair, 35 - Omaha, NB (IED)

11/30/2006 US Army Spc.Chris Kleinwachter, 29 - Wahpeton, ND *

11/29/2006 US Army PFC Theodore M. West, 23 - Richmond, KY (IED)

11/28/2006 US Army Cpl. Jonerik Loney, 21 - Hartselle, AL (IED)

11/28/2006 US Army SSgt. Michael A. Shank, 31 - Binham, TX (IED)*

11/28/2006 US Army Spc. Jeffrey G. Roberson, 22 - Phelan, CA (IED)

11/28/2006 US Army Spc. Christopher E. Mason, 32 - Mobile, AL (KIA)

11/27/2006 USAF Maj. Troy L Gilbert, 34 - Litchfield Park, AZ (KIA)***

11/27/2006 USMC Lcpl. Michael A. Schwarz, 20 - Carlstadt, NJ(KIA)

11/26/2006 US Army Sgt. Jeanette T. Dunn, 44 - Bronx, NY (NCR)**

11/26/2006 US Army 1st. Lt. Benjamin D. Keating, 27 Shapleigh, MN (NCR) *

11/26/2006 US Army Cpt. Jason R. Hamill, 31 New Haven, CN (IED)

11/26/2006 US Army 1st Lt. David M. Fraser, 25 - TX (IED)

11/26/2006 US Army Pvt. Joshua C. Burrows, 20 Bossier, City, LA (IED)

11/25/2006 US Army 2nd Lt. Scott B. Lundell, 35 Hurricane, UT (KIA) *

11/25/2006 US Army SSgt. Daniel M. Morris, 28 - Clinton, TN (IED)

11/25/2006 USMC Cpl. Michael C. Ledsome, 24 - Austin, TX (KIA)

11/25/2006 USMC LCpl.Jeromy D. West, 20 - Aguanga, CA (KIA)

11/24/2006 USMC CPl. Nicholas P. Rapavi, 22 - Springfield, VA (KIA)

11/23/2006 US Army SFC James D. Priestap, 39 - Harwood, MI (KIA)

11/23/2006 US Army Cpl. Nathan J. Goodiron, 25 - Mandaree, ND (KIA)*

11/24/2006 US Army Pvt. Reece D. Moreno, 19 - Prescott, AZ (NCR)**

11/22/2006 USMC Lcpl. Joshua C.Alonzo, 21 - Dumas, TX (KIA)

11/22/2006 USMC Lcpl. James R. Davenport, 20 - Danville, IN (KIA)

11/22/2006 USMC Pvt. Heath D. Warner, 19 - Canton, OH (KIA)

11/21/2006 Command Sgt. Maj. Donovan E. Watts, 46 - Atlanta, GA (IED)

11/21/2006 US Army Sgt. James P. Musack, 23 - Riverside, IA (NCR)**

11/21/2006 US Arm.y Spc. Eric Vizcaino, 21 - New Mexico, (NCR)*

* Occurred in Afghanistan in Support of Operation Enduring Freedom

** NCR=Non-Combat Related

*** Classified as a crash of his F-16C Northwest of Baghdad, Iraq

1. This likely originated in the press, was probably an assumption on their part, and is not attributed to the military in any way. Gen. Pace denies anyone in the military ever having made those remarks, and I have no reason to doubt that.

“To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death…”[1]

They say that when you die, your life flashes before your eyes; that time itself is compressed. The first to go is your ability to communicate. As the march of death continues onward, your body’s organs and systems begin to shut down. The last thing to go is your hearing. Recent events have shown that indeed the bells are tolling - announcing the slow death of freedom itself. Our ability to communicate has ceased, the first step of the long march toward death.

It began with the fatwa against Salman Rushdie for the Satanic Verses. Next came the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo VanGogh by an adherent of Islam. More recently were the Muslim riots over innocuous Danish cartoons that lasted for weeks.

The campaign of victimization continued with the Pope’s September 2006 comments. He cited an obscure dialogue between a Byzantine Emperor and a Persian in 1391 from a lecture by Theologian Adel Theodore Khoury, in an attempt to promote a peaceful discussion about Islam and Christianity. Many Muslims took the speech out of context. Hundreds rampaged, burned cars and buildings, protested and threatened Christians. Still angry because the Pope failed to offer up a sincere enough apology, an adherent of Islam shot a nun in the back. Rioters engaged in all manner of threats and property destruction at the mere suggestion that elements of the Islamic faith could be violent. How ironic.

As the Pope visits Turkey, he is facing threats and massive protests. Ponder this for a moment: Just paraphrasing a conversation over 600 years old that is even vaguely negative about Islam can now get you killed, or at the very least threatened with death.

Absurd is the notion that the leaders of Islam –the world’s largest religion– claim their beliefs are being prostituted by a small group of “radicals”. When the “radicals”cite the Koran as their justification in beheading people for acts of “blasphemy”, not a single Muslim “leader”anywhere on the planet will step forward to disavow the violence. Religions persecuted people in the name of God as a matter of course in the Middle Ages. We also thought that bloodletting exorcised demons, the Earth was flat and that it was the center of the Universe. When people like Galileo challenged these beliefs, they were threatened with death.

But Christianity came out of the darkness long ago, underwent much soul-searching and eventually did away with coercion and violence in spreading it’s message. Islam must now unequivocally denounce the beliefs of Bin Laden and militant Islam worldwide –without exception– in order to fully emerge from that darkness. The war we have been dragged into is not a Holy War. It is not World War III. It is not Jihad against the Great Satan. It is certainly not a war for oil or civilization. It is a schism within Islam. It is a battle between peaceful Muslims and those who lust for blood and conquest.

Victory over global terror rests not in what America does in Iraq, Afghanistan or even Palestine, but whether or not Muslims will ever engage in even a minimal degree of introspection about their own faith. They are constantly accusing the West of insulting and blaspheming their religion, yet just today Bin Laden portrayed the Pope’s visit to Turkey as a “Christian Crusader” campaign. There was not one peep from a Muslim anywhere on the planet, much less from Turkey, who invited the Pontiff. The entire Muslim world cannot even collectively agree that Israel has a right to exist. When will Muslims respect the religion of others?

We can poke them and prod them. We can use the carrot, we can use the stick. We can threaten them with invasion, sanctions, blockades and military strikes; but unless the issue of Islamic reform is debated openly - in an academic, religious, contemporary context without people’s throats being slit, we won’t get anywhere. When Denmark was facing protests over those cartoons, not one American official stood up for freedom of expression, a bedrock principle of our government. Piss Christ good… Mohammed caricatures bad… Political correctness run amok.

Americans have a responsibility to uphold freedom of expression around the world, even when offensive. If the United States no longer defends the principles of our own Constitution, how can we expect anyone else to believe that democracy is worth fighting for?

1. Controversy VII, 3 b-c: Khoury, pp. 144-145; Förstel vol. I, VII. Dialog 1.6, pp. 240-243.

It’s easy to look back at something and say you would do things differently. Looking at the Iraq war in hindsight, it’s clear that it was filled with gross miscalculations. Our Administration miscalculated how the majority of Iraqis would receive us, the strength of the so-called insurgency and how long we would need to defeat it; while the only missteps the terrorists have made is bombing a hotel in Jordan and having their leader feed his giant ego by appearing on camera, but Zarqawi paid for that miscalculation with his life.

The biggest problem we have is that our miscalculations may very well affect the outcome of the war, while terrorist miscalculations only result in more killings, deepening international anger and hardened resolve against what Muslims perceive as US aggression. Every misstep we make is turned into a propaganda victory and broadcast immediately throughout the entire Middle East.

After the invasion in 2003, President Bush felt that there was no room for Ba’athists in the new government, so he ordered that all government institutions –including the military– should be purged of Ba’athists and their sympathizers. This single decision, more than any other –right or wrong– stoked the anger than fueled the terrorist campaign, because we essentially shut many Sunni Muslims out of their own political process by force. Guilt by association.

As the war dragged on, the Coalition began reconstruction, but before security was established. American, South Korean, Bulgarian and Italian contractors were beheaded in one of the more horrific legacies of this war. These men were simply trying to feed their families and bring peace to Iraq. As a result, their heads were mercilessly hacked off. Guilt by association.

The violence continued. The terrorists adopted a strategy of kidnapping westerners, journalists or even Iraqis that worked for the coalition as translators or drivers. Some were beheaded, others shot, but all were treated horribly for cooperating with America. Guilt by association.

Now, nearly four years later, what our administration calls “sectarian violence” is really a religious civil war. Foreign jihadists continue to stream across the border. The American and Iraqi death tolls reached a gruesome crescendo this month. Iraq has now descended into anarchy while we are merely spectators. Sunnis and Shiites are attacking Americans as well as other Iraqis. Sunnis are targeting Shiites. Shiites are targeting Sunnis. They’re attacking each other’s places of worship. It’s tribe against tribe, brother against brother-in-law. Guilt by association.

It seems like things are deteriorating faster than you can document them. The death toll is climbing faster than can be tallied. Against the backdrop of this carnage, the President has no clue how to put the genie back in the bottle. He is flailing around, grasping for something, anything to help him out of this mess.

Between his administration, the military generals, the Iraq Study Group, and the Congress, no one seems to have a solution to the violence. As a result, Bush has now sought help from Iraq’s neighbors Syria, Iran, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Iran and Syria hate us and will only represent their own interests. Saudi Arabia is too afraid of it’s own street to do anything concrete to help us. Jordan is the lone question mark.

In the end, there are only two realistic military solutions to Iraq. We can saturate the country with military force, wrest control from the terrorists and finish the job, or we can simply leave.  Both of these solutions stink, but we don’t have much of a choice. When we first joined the war on terror back in October of 2001, Bush said he would make no distinction between the terrorists and those who harbor them. Guilt by association.

We had high hopes that the moderate Muslim world would be a counterbalance to radical Islam. But instead, a large percentage of Muslims believe that it is OK to kill innocent Americans, liberals won’t escape retribution and the jihad will continue. Guilt by association.

The magnitude of the entire Bush Administration’s problem in Iraq continues to increase unabated.

After nearly four years and a higher body count than September 11th along with untold thousands of Iraqi deaths and immeasurable suffering, the military strategists couldn’t come up with any viable military options other than what the entire country already knew. Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Peter Pace is being given three possible military options by his generals for solving Iraq.

Go big: Increase the number of US troops in the country. The problem with this approach is that Iraq is a guerilla war. There are only 3 ways to win a guerilla war: Pounding the heck out of them from above - disrupting their supply lines and raining destruction upon them until they surrender, all-out invasion or classic counter-insurgency techniques. A return to airstrikes in populated areas is unlikely. The go-big and counterinsurgency approaches are mutually exclusive. More US troops won’t help. Add the lack of political will and the mounting costs and the go big scenario seems very unlikely.

Go long: This approach would allow for an immediate increase of perhaps twenty to thirty thousand troops in the short-term, to allow Iraqi units to accelerate their training so they can deploy quicker. It would then be followed by a significant, orderly decrease in the number of troops in Iraq. Those who remained would then dig in for the long haul until the country was under full Iraqi control. This seems to be the most likely approach. The problem is, this approach smells very much like “stay the course”. Americans have already registered their profound disapproval of that strategy. And unfortunately for politicians, judging by the number of state bans against same-sex marriage and burgeoning city bans on property rental to illegal immigrants, we also know when our voices are being ignored and we can yell very loudly when we disapprove of something. Ask O.J. Simpson.

Go home: Adopt the Democratic Party’s war fighting strategy and double-time back to Kuwait. At face value, this seems attractive to some. Stop the killing, bring our boys home… But this approach is  a slap in the face to the thousands of American men who gave their lives in this conflict as well as a wholesale desertion of the Iraqi voters, bakers, politicians, judges, police officers, military recruits, teachers, journalists and government contractors who have risked or given their lives in the hopes that they could help foster a democratic Iraq after thirty years of tyranny.

Those are the options. They are essentially the same options we started with. Not very much there to be optimistic about. This is not to say that the generals are at fault. To the contrary; They were put in this untenable position by the President and his advisors and are only carrying out his orders.

The War Of Wits Iraq strategy combines elements of all three available options. It’s called Go big, THEN go long, then go home. Here it is:

Go Big: Increase the number of coalition troops including tanks, APCs, armor, and attack helicopters to the correct level for the task at hand. Do not take into account Iraqi troops, trained or otherwise. They aren’t reliable, and may never be.

Go long: Finish the war. Disrupt the jihadi networks. Seal the borders. Confiscate the weapons. Crush the terrorists. Stay there as long as it takes, but FINISH THE JOB.

Go home. Honor this generation of soldiers by allowing them to accomplish their mission, instead of being sent on a snipe hunt, or withdrawn prematurely by Democrats.

Regardless of how it ends, this entire episode will go down in history as a textbook case of how NOT to fight a war. Rather than sticking to time-tested principles of military doctrine, Bush chose to adopt the “wing it”approach - depending on Iraqis to meet American standards of combat readiness. President Bush has left us with limited options and good men are dying every day as a consequence. Go big, go long, go home. Go figure.

On this Thanksgiving, let us all be thankful that we live in a place where you needn’t look very far for heroes. They’re all around us, from sea to shining sea. Emulate them. Honor them.

• 11/19/2006 USMC Lcpl. Jeremy S. Shock , 22 - Tiffin, OH (KIA)
  11/18/2006 US Army Spc. Bradley N. Shilling, 22 - Stanwood, MI (IED)
  11/16/2006 US Army Cpt. Rhett W. Schiller , 26 - ??, WI (KIA)
  11/15/2006 US Army Cpt. John R. Dennison , 24 - Ijamsville, MD (KIA)
  11/15/2006 US Army SFC Schuyler B. Haynes, 40- ??, New York (IED)
  11/15/2006 US Army Spc. Mitchel T. Mutz, 23 - Falls city, TX (IED)
  11/14/2006 US Army Spc. Eric G. Palacios Rivera, 21 - Atlantic City, NJ (KIA)
  11/14/2006 US Army Col. Thomas H. Felts Sr., - 45, Sandston, VA (IED)
  11/14/2005 US Army Spc. Justin R. Garcia , 26 - Elmhust, NY (IED)
  11/14/2006 US Army SFC Tung M. Nguyen , 38 - Tracy, CA (KIA)
  11/14/2006 USMC Lcpl. Mario D. Gonzalez, 21 - La Puente, CA (KIA)
  11/14/2006 USMC Lcpl Michael D. Scholl, 21 - Lincoln, NB (KIA)
  11/14/2006 USMC Lcpl. Timothy W. Brown, 21 - Sacramento, CA (KIA)
  11/13/2006 US Army PFC Daniel J. Allman II, 20 - Canon, GA (IED)
  11/13/2006 US Army PFC Jang H. Kim, 20 - Placentia, CA (IED)
  11/12/2006 US Army 1st. Lt. Michael A. Cerrone, 24 - Clarksville, TX (IED)
  11/12/2006 US Army PFC Harry A. Winkler III, 32 - Clarksville, TN (IED)
  11/11/2006 US Army Ssgt. William S. Jackson II, 29 - Saginaw, MI (IED)
  11/11/2006 US Army Ssgt.Misael Martinez, 24 - Chapel Hill, NC (IED)
  11/11/2006 US Army Sgt. Angel De Jesus Lucio Ramirez, 22 - Pacoima, CA (IED)
  11/9/2006 USMC Lcpl.Kristopher C. Warren, 19 - Resaca, GA (NCR)*
  11/9/2006 USMC Sgt. Bryan K. Burgess, 35 - Garden City, MI (KIA)
  11/9/2006 US Army Sgt. Courtland A. Kennard, 22 - Starkville, MS (IED)
  11/9/2006 US Army Ssgt. Gregory W. G. McCoy, 26 - Webberville, MI (IED)
  11/9/2006 US Army SFC Rudy A. Salcido, 31 - Ontario, CA (IED)
  11/7/2006 US Army Ssgt. Richwell A. Doria, 25 - San Diego, CA (KIA)

* NCR Non-Combat Related

Watching the workings of the two-party system over the last dozen years is sort of like your one hundredth trip to the city zoo’s primate exhibit.

At first, it was sort of interesting watching the monkeys groom themselves, picking lice and other harmful parasites from each other’s skin. But now, after years of watching them groom, then pummel each other in some sort of symbiotic, yet oxymoronic existence, the current alpha male –We’ll call him “Dennis”– decided it would be amusing to toss a handful of scat at his zookeeper.  And because monkeys are animals with a social structure, a defined hierarchy; when the alpha male sees fit to toss a fistful of scat at his caretakers, the Alpha female –we’ll call her “Nancy”– soon follows suit.

Such is the case with the American people and the current Democratic sweep of Congress. Instead of Democrats charting a new course or a strategy for victory in Iraq, we have here a straightforward case of monkey see, monkey do.

In a harbinger of Democratic Party intent, Charles Schumer, Dick Durbin and Patty Murray, who once fawned over Bin Laden, were given plum leadership positions; while in the House, Nancy Pelosi chose to support John “Cold-Blooded” Murtha for Majority Leader. Instead of showing voters a measure of restraint for giving them control and electing responsible leadership, the alpha female supports the anti-war constituency.

During the 2006 midterm, voter dissatisfaction was at stratospheric highs. Voters tossed Republicans without much thought about what they would get with Pelosi in control. Just in case you were unclear on Pelosi’s record, here are some of her more notable votes during the 109th Congress.

Pelosi voted against The Military Commissions Act giving the President authority to detain and try terrorist suspects. Pelosi voted against The Secure Fence Act to build a border fence on our southern border with Mexico. Pelosi calls herself a Catholic, but unabashedly supports abortion. She still receives Communion over objections from many Catholics. She also voted against the Public Expression of Religion Act.  Pelosi voted against the Child Custody Protection Act , which would simply prohibit the skirting of state parental notification laws by taking a minor across state lines in order to perform an abortion. Apparently, Pelosi thinks that the right of a child to obtain an abortion trumps both the rights of their parents to supervise their upbringing, as well as the rights of states to regulate medical practices within their borders.

Pelosi voted against The Immigration Law Enforcement Act which would allow state and local authorities to actually punish immigration violations. Pelosi voted against the Pension Protection Act. Pelosi voted against the Pledge Protection Act. Pelosi voted against intelligence and law enforcement programs to track terrorist finances, even when conducted with sufficient Congressional oversight to prevent the unlawful disclosure and publication of classified information. Pelosi even voted against the preservation of the Mount Soledad Veteran’s Memorial in San Diego, California.

In conclusion:

Nancy Pelosi won’t protect us from terrorism.

She won’t protect the border.

She won’t protect your right to religion.

She doesn’t protect the Pledge of Allegiance.

She won’t protect your pension.

She won’t even protect monuments to the fallen.

The only thing she will protect is the ability of a child to abort her fetus, at all costs.

The Democratic Party’s only strategy for Iraq is this absurd notion of “phased redeployment”. Don’t be fooled by Democratic speaking in tongues. The only “redeployment” that will be taking place is a retreat of all US troops behind the lines to Kuwait, which as Pelosi could never understand, is a slap in the face to my 3,000 brothers-in-arms who gave their lives for freedom in Iraq.