Carol Platt Liebau: Supporting Our Troops

Sunday, November 27, 2005

Supporting Our Troops

Check out this magnificent slide show, and ask why The White House isn't doing something like this . . . (HT: Dan M, New England Republican).


Blogger Ruth Anne Adams said...

Wow. The silhouette of the salute to the fallen comrade was chilling. The whole thing was spectacular and worth the time to download and view. Thanks, Carol!

7:45 PM  
Blogger filch said...

Romance!!! What a great substitute for competent leadership and a coherent plan! Bravo!

8:34 PM  
Anonymous TomSongs said...

Here's my non-parody song/video aptly titled "BushWhacked".
I'm an American Veteran (Infantry Hospital Corpsman, USMC/USN) and a songwriter opposed to Bush's war.

Please share the links.

High res. 9.3 MB

Low res. 4 MB

9:00 PM  
Anonymous dodger said...

Pardon the following paste but the maker of the video says what needs to be said, "There are so many strong feelings that run deep in times of war especially with those who suffer great losses. During such times it is easy to lose sight of the end goal. Over 30 years ago, this nation sold a part of it's soul to purchase peace. The hole left behind continues to fester to this day in the hearts of men and women who gave so much for what they felt was a just cause. They returned to an ungrateful nation that had bought into the spin of certain poorly-principled, ill-informed, and perhaps even over-privileged individuals. We have learned our lesson to be supportive of those we send to defend us. But once again the spin begins spouted by strangely familiar voices.

This presentation is dedicated to those who will "stay the course." They know that if we do not, it is our children or their children that will have to finish or even repeat what we have started and those who have sacrificed so much will be all for not."

6:41 AM  
Anonymous dodger said...

I went to and am saddened that so many want to profit from tragedies. I would like to see two pictures, first Cindy Sheehan receiving the American flag at her son's funeral, second Cindy Sheehan sitting, forlornly, at a table to sign her book.

6:49 AM  
Anonymous TomSongs said...

To clarify, TomSongs music/film resources are entirely free of charge. Zero commercial interest. Purely from the heart!

As for your comment:
"This presentation is dedicated to those who will "stay the course."

I believe that most of America would like to have the "course" for our troops in harm's way defined clearly and finally with no rhetoric or lies.

10:15 AM  
Anonymous Dodger said...

Rhetoric is defined as the effective use of language. How is one to explain the "course" without using rhetoric? Carol has previously defined "lie." Clearly, lies or no lies, any war is a day to day reactionary exercise. Unlike TV wrestling one doesn't write a script, at least one the enemy is likely to follow.

10:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

enough said:


Letters to the Editor for Monday, November 28, 2005

Stars and Stripes

European and Mideast editions
(EDITOR’S NOTE: These are the letters that appeared in each edition of Stripes on this publication date. Click here to jump ahead to the Pacific edition letters)

War based on a lie
Weapons of mass destruction? I’m still looking for them, and if you find any give me a call so we can justify our presence in Iraq. We started the war based on a lie, and we’ll finish it based on a lie. I say this because I am currently serving with a logistics headquarters in the Anbar province, between the cities of Fallujah and Ramadi. I am not fooled by the constant fabrication of “democracy” and “freedom” touted by our leadership at home and overseas.

This deception is furthered by our armed forces’ belief that we can just enter ancient Mesopotamia and tell the locals about the benefits of a legislative assembly. While our European ancestors were hanging from trees, these ancient people were writing algebra and solving quadratic equations. Now we feel compelled to strong-arm them into accepting the spoils of capitalism and “laissez-faire” society. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy watching Britney Spears on MTV and driving to McDonald’s, but do you honestly believe that Sunnis, Shias and Kurds want our Western ideas of entertainment and freedom imposed on them? Think again.

I’m not being negative, I’m being realistic. The reality in Iraq is that the United States created a nightmare situation where one didn’t exist. Yes, Saddam Hussein was an evil man who lied, cheated and pillaged his own nation. But how was he different from dictators in Africa who commit massive crimes again humanity with little repercussion and sometimes support from the West? The bottom line up front (BLUF to use a military acronym) is that Saddam was different because we used him as an excuse to go to war to make Americans “feel good” about the “War on Terrorism.” The BLUF is that our ultimate goal in 2003 was the security of Israel and the lucrative oil fields in northern and southern Iraq.

Weapons of mass destruction? Call me when you find them. In the meantime, “bring ’em on” so we can get our “mission accomplished” and get out of this mess.

Capt. Jeff Pirozzi
Camp Taqaddum, Iraq

7:54 PM  
Blogger Carol Platt Liebau said...

I thank Capt. Pirozzi for his service. But the sad fact is that he loses any credibility when he begins parroting Democratic talking points, including the canard that we went to war based on a "lie."

No one is trying to foist the worst elements of American culture (like Britney Spears) on Iraqis. Rather, we have removed a psychopathic dictator and his even more psychopathic sons -- at the same time eliminating the possibility that he would procure and share WMD's with terrorists. And judging from the lengths to which most Iraqis have gone to participate in their own elections, the many Iraqis signing up to defend their country -- whether as soldiers or policemen --it seems clear that the Iraqis value the opportunity to participate in their country's life far more than Captain Pirozzi acknowledges. As for the "nightmare situation" that Pirozzi says we created, well, it's one where girls now can be educated and women can participate in civic and professional life, relieved of the fear that they'll be plucked off the streets to serve as one of Qusay Hussein's sexual playthings or hauled off to a rape room.

It's sadly evident Captain Pirozzi is no admirer of the country whose uniform he wears. That's clear from his jaundiced reference to "spoils of capitalism and “laissez-faire” society" that he defines as Western-style freedom. Given that's the case, why would anyone expect him to be a supporter of his mission?

If his view of the situation in Iraq is as flawed as his assessment of America and what it stands for, then his views on Iraq aren't really worthy of being taken seriously.

8:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Have you heard the story about the fire that erupted the other night? A neighborhood was set ablaze, a huge five-alarm fire that took all the city's firefighters to contain.

While the fire raged, it became clear that the arsonist was none other than the fire chief. As the townspeople encircled him with clenched fists, the chief fidgeted. Finally, as the crowd grew ever closer, he put on the most anguished expression he could conjure, pointed to the firefighters and cried, "You all shut up! Look what you're doing to their morale! I can't believe you are questioning me instead of supporting these firemen! They're bravely fighting this fire for you and they don't deserve your criticism!"

But this story had a happy ending. After scratching their heads trying to follow his twisted logic, the townspeople just shrugged, grabbed the chief, and threw him in the fire.

8:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course, Carol. It would take a parrot to know one, wouldn't it? You, like so many other GOP parrots, immediately seek to impeach this man's (Captain Pirozzi's) opinion simply because it doesn't comport with yours. How do you know what it is like on the ground in Iraq?! You don't! Captain Pirozzi, who happens to have had infinitely more contact with everyday Iraqis than YOU knows what the reality there is. YOU are the one who lacks credibility.

But like all the others of your ilk, you latch onto the tiniest shred of his words to turn the argument into one of patriotism. He has a jaundiced view (and who among us wouldn't under those conditions?), therefore "his views on Iraq aren't really worthy of being taken seriously."

You really are a piece of work.

9:04 PM  
Blogger Dan M said...

It is amazing how that slide show seemed to drag out some visceral hostility to the war, the President, and really, the country.

As for the WMD thing, people who fixate upon what was known, or not known about the Iraqi program, PREFER to obsess over those marginal details, instead of focusing on the big picture. Which is the last 1,000 plus years of Arab pathology.

On September 11th, when that first plane was taken, and when those planes started their final approach towards their targets, a FUNDAMENTAL reorientation of our foreign policy occurred. Many of you can go on all you want about Joe Wilson, Larry Wilkerson, Hans Blix, et al. But for all of your ranting and hysterics, a sad and somber fact remains.

To wit: The policies that prevailed on September 10th, are DEMONSTRABLY inadequate to the demands of September 12th.

Unlike many of you, I don't need a report from the IAEA, or any other bill of health from any of its bureaucrats to take action to close with, and destroy the enemies of this country.

This war was in the wind long ago. How long? Oh about when T. Jefferson sat down in a chair and wrote that famous sentence: "WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF-EVIDENT THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL...."

That universal, radical statement of the equality of man, under the loving gaze of a Comman Father, is comprehensively at war with the tenets of Islam. They believe in effectively a CASTE system. Wherein Muslims are at the front of the bus, and all others firmly relegated to the back.

This was coming, and it was always going to come. It's no wonder that one of our first conflicts was with Muslim piracy. And that piracy flowed from their reading of their history and religious law.

Presently, there are some Muslims who feel themselves sufficiently capable to take on the USA. And our rejoinder to their challenge had better damn well be swift and decisive. Or else we invite decade long civilizational collision.

12:27 AM  
Anonymous dodger said...

Thank you Dan M, and Carol. It is the big picture that counts.

8:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, we've already invited a decades-long civilizational collision with our bomb-the-turbin-heads mentality. Furthermore, the invade first, ask questions later (er, never) strategy by the current idiot-in-chief has pretty much assured that when a TRULY IMMINENT threat looms, there will be no coalition of the willing next time.

Now that we've radicalized all one billion Muslims into hating us, it's going to take a lot more than our current troop levels to conquer them all. So I suggest all of you who are so committed to this civilizational collision to get to polishing those boots and strapping on your rifles, 'cause it's going to take all of us to do the empire's dirty work.

And it'll take a lot more of your precious tax dollars too; you know, the ones we're not paying NOW for the quarter-trillion dollar fiasco underway. Unless, of course, you have in your sights another country with much better spoils than Iraq.

8:30 AM  
Blogger Dan M said...

"[B]omb the turbin-heads mentality..."??????????

Dude, I don't know where you've been over the last 30 years. But I can recall endless attempts to establish "contacts," "discussions," "back channels," etc.

We have done our very best to quietly reason Iran, Iraq and Syria away from their sad and morbid fascination with terror. Likewise the PLO, {or its more recent emination, the PLA}. What have we got for it?

When our hostages were taken way back in 1979? How many bombs dropped on Iran? What military action did Carter take against the Mullahs, or their Revolutionary regime? The minor action he finally took, was aimed at liberating the hostages, not aimed at destabilizing the regime itself. For 444 days, the whole world saw America humiliated. If we were governed by a "bomb the turbins" policy, wouldn't you be able to point me to some Mullahs who were obliterated.

Can you name me how many times we have unleashed our Strike Eagles against the Syrians? Yet we all know that the Syrians are the Chief Lieutenant of the Iranian Mullahs, and are wholly directing Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad?

We can go through a whole list of Muslim states up to their neck in supporting terror, yet which never knew an American bomber in bound, and bearing ordinace.

September 11th did not occur because of any reliance upon a gunboat diplomacy. It occurred because Muslims hold our constancy and courage to be non-existent. And what's more, they question our manhood.

They hold us in contempt.

Let us go through a brief history lesson. The men of the South held their Northern counterparts in contempt. War resulted. The Prussians never thought we would be able to wage a war like WWI, so they had no problem approaching the Mexicans to cause us problems along the Rio Grande and Rio Bravo. Hitler held the French and the British in contempt. And the Japanese militarists rated us no higher.

When a group of people, a state, a religion holds you in contempt, and rates your manhood cheap, history strongly suggests that you are going to be in a war very soon.

And that is exactly what happened after the Clinton years. Totalitarian Islam deemed us soft, and ripe for the taking. This doesn't mean that Clinton is in anyway responsible for the creation of the longstanding pathology amongst the Arabs, but his disregard of American honour contributed to their valuation of us.

10:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are absolutely correct in that the bomb-the-turbin-heads mentality is a nascent response to what has for centuries been a cultural chasm between Islam and the West. We have finally stooped to the same unsophisticated level of the terrorists by lumping Muslims into the same category: that of a Godless, uncivilized people who are all bent on our destruction (the mirror image of their -- the terrorists -- view of us Americans).

It's not convenient to dwell on those pesky details you alluded to in your previous post, the ones that might complicate BushCorp's mission to pave over Iraq with Air Force bases and runways. No, it's much easier to dwell on the so-called "big picture" of thousands of years of turmoil (which, I might add, included a few Crusades), throw up our hands, and declare occupation, conflagration, and domination to be what the doctor ordered.

If we could have some honest dialogue in this country about what was really behind this thrust into Iraq, instead of the usual conflation about 9/11 and Iraq -- obfuscation that continues to this day in spite of official findings to the contrary -- then we would be a lot closer to figuring out how the hell to get out of there and restore some of our credibility.

But instead, we're still arguing about stupid things like defending our "manhood" (??!!) in response to their (the nebulous "they") contempt for us. So we'll just show them who the bigger men are. This, in a nutshell, is what got us into this war: the big macho Texan needed to show what a stud he is. Screw the details!

If his motives hadn't been so shallow and self-serving, he and his underlings wouldn't have to defend those motives by hiding behind the troops ("You're hurting their morale!) or impugning the masculinity and/or patriotism of anyone who dares to question him.

Blind faith in bad leadership is not patriotism.

11:36 AM  
Blogger Dan M said...

Annihlating your enemy is not "stooping" to his degraded level. If that were the case, than FDR and Churchill were lowered in the eyes of history because of their day and night bombing effort against Germany, and our later air campaign against Japan. Such a conclusion is clearly contrary to common sense.

Are our enemies "Godless" and "uncivilized?" This is an edgier variant of whether Islam is peaceful or otherwise? Loaded rhetoric will not suffice to shield Islam from the question that every civilization must be asked. To wit, does it advance the prosperity, health and tranquility of its members, and its neighbors. Go ask those in India, or the Sudanese Christians, and Animists. Go query the Nigerians whether they enjoyed seeing the Miss Universe Contest cancelled in their midst because of riots and violence done in the name of Islam. Go ask the Fillipinos whether they enjoy battling Muslims for complete control of their islands. Go ask the elderly in Europe whether they are happy harboring deep anxieties about their future, that of their children, their country and culture. Loaded rhetoric dissolves before a fusillade of fact.

You scorn the suggestion that National honour often drives nations to war. What drove the British to war in the First World War, but questions of honour. If you had read some of the Ancient Greek histories, you would not be surprised or taken aback by the suggestion that perceptions of the manhood of the potential foe plays a HUGE role in the deliberations of tyrants, preditors and conquerors. Let us put it this way, it is far better to have a potential foe think your country is populated by men like Nelson and Sherman, than John Kerry and Neville Chamberlain. Or is that too, a little too much common sense introduced into the discussion?

Nitpicking the use of pronouns is almost as lame as fixating on those 16 words. Pronouns are used to generalize, but are not intended to blast each and every Muslim. Faoud Ajami for instance is Muslim, has a clue, and is even more condemnatory in his writings about Islam, than I've ever been. Or is he too going to fall under the taint of racism?

Stating that GW's goals were "shallow and self-serving"???????????????????

Dragging a community but a stones throw from the stone age into the modern age is hardly "shallow." Rather it is bold, audacious, idealistic, distinctly American. If anything, a more telling critique of the policy might be that it is far TOO bold and audacious. "Self-serving?" When GW is long dead, moldering in the grave, his policy, made reality by the valour of men shown in the slideshow over GCS Distributing, will be of enormous benefit to literally "a people living in darkness."

In over a thousand years, Islam has never produced a single functioning democracy, not a single genuine republic. The two elections held in Iraq were the first legit elections EVER HELD in Arab history. And absent American vision, heroism, grit, they never would have occurred.

If you think that the world is going to be a tranquil place with neighbors motivated by the darkest of impulses latent in Totlitarian Islam, you are beyond the constraint of reason. If so, you are living in a fantasy land. Others have made dwellings in that fantasy land. But they don't usually get to long enjoy them. Creatures like Hitler emerge in human history. Chamberlain died in Britain in 1940, and he lived to see his fantasy of peaceful coexistence with the Nazis become a nightamre. He died seeing the French go down, and he died while his own country was fighting for liberty and truth in that desperate year of 1940.

Conflating 9/11 and Iraq. Not me, rather those uncomfortable facts. Go read Stephen Hayes book about the relationship between OBL and Saddam. No less a luminary than Richard Clarke expressed fear that OBL would "boogie to Baghdad" if the Clinton administration went after OBL in Afghanistan. Now why would OBL go somewhere he wasn't welcomed, and was unwanted.

Facts, they can be mighty inconvenient, can't they?

But this is all important if you give two damns about whether Saddam actually had WMD, {instead of just posturing about it} and what was the EXACT OPERATIONAL level of support that he provided for terror.

I only need to ask a single question after 9/11? Was Saddam, or was he not on the State Dept list of state sponsors of terror? And if the answer after 9/11 was yes, then GAME ON! Taking down a state sponsor of terror can only be called a "diversion" in the war on terror if you are strategically brain dead.

5:00 PM  
Blogger Mr. Twister said...

Dan M wrote, "Conflating 9/11 and Iraq. Not me, rather those uncomfortable facts." By uncomfortable facts, I assume Dan M doesn't mean the following...

We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States.--National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

He also probably doesn't mean this statement...

"No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th,"--President George W. Bush

No, Dan wants us to "Go read Stephen Hayes book about the relationship between OBL and Saddam." Here are some comments from others on Mr. Hayes' reportage in this matter.

The classified annex was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, and it drew no conclusions.

Individuals who leak or purport to leak classified information are doing serious harm to national security; such activity is deplorable and may be illegal.
--Department of Defense Press Release on the Feith Memo and Stephen Hayes' use of the same.

W. Patrick Lang, former head of the Middle East section of the DIA [Defense Intelligence Agency], said yesterday that the Standard article "is a listing of a mass of unconfirmed reports, many of which themselves indicate that the two groups continued to try to establish some sort of relationship. If they had such a productive relationship, why did they have to keep trying?"

Another former senior intelligence official said the memo is not an intelligence product but rather "data points ... among the millions of holdings of the intelligence agencies, many of which are simply not thought likely to be true."
--Walter Pincus (Washington Post) on the Feith Memo and Stephen Hayes' use of the same.

A leaked Defense Department memo claiming new evidence of an “operational relationship” between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein’s former regime is mostly based on unverified claims that were first advanced by some top Bush administration officials more than a year ago—and were largely discounted at the time by the U.S. intelligence community, according to current and former U.S. intelligence officials. -- Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball (Newsweek) on the Feith Memo and Stephen Hayes' use of the same.

In order for Dan's recommendation to be meanigful, you have to believe Stephen Hayes and discount the claims made by Newsweek, the Washington Post, the 9/11 Commission, the Department of Defense and the President of the United States. I personally won't choose to go down that route, but your mileage may vary.

9:29 PM  
Blogger Mr. Twister said...

Dan M said, "If you think that the world is going to be a tranquil place with neighbors motivated by the darkest of impulses latent in Totlitarian Islam, you are beyond the constraint of reason."

And how does attacking Iraq, a secular nation, and converting it into an Islamic Republic like Iran going to help us constrain Totalitarian Islam? Inquiring minds would like to know.

9:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Duh-bya's motives were, yes, shallow and self-serving. Dan, of course, begins repeating some of the RETRO-rationales for the invasion, beneficial corollaries that MIGHT emerge from this debacle (assuming, as Mr. Twister points out, the whole place doesn't emerge a clone/extension of Iran or descend into civil war).

What got us into the war were the base impulses of this small, greedy, simple-minded man. When he took office, he was already sporting a raging stiffie to avenge Daddy. That personal vendetta started all of this in motion. The rationale(s) followed.

I believe in my bones that what kept the moron in his seat for seven minutes after being told 'the United States is under attack' were thoughts of how this event could be manipulated to rally the public into backing his foray into Iraq. He knew who was attacking even before he got out of his chair (even a dolt like him must have remembered that PDB from a month earlier that apparently was only good for kindling for the ranch's chimenea). And so it began, the ad nauseam conflation of 9/11 and Iraq.

Because it was a personal matter, the commander-in-chief had diminished objectivity. Combine diminished obectivity and raging machismo (the kind that reverberates throughout Dan's writing) and you get poor decisions that, while they might fulfill certain Americans' desire for vengeance, do not reflect smart policy.

Cherry-picked intelligence, an opposition cowed by the patriotism card, and heightened paranoia following 9/11 all contributed to his scheme. He had the country right where he wanted us -- aching for something tangible to blow up instead of scouring caves for the real culprit of 9/11. And most Americans drank the Kool-Aid.

But his poor leadership qualities did not begin with, nor are they limited to, this misguided war. With the help of the hoofed one, Karl Rove, he has fused together a powerful amalgam of voting blocs who would not ordinarily be aligned: the God/guns/gays crowd so dazzled by his rhetoric that they end up (largely) voting against their own economic interests; the wealthy who in spite of their personal fiscal conservatism are all too willing to abandon that philosophy at the federal level, as long as they get their chunk of the treasury; and the military/industrial complex, who wield more power in Washington than any standing committee in Congress.

Slaving to the interests of these factions has made him the worst president ever, and I am sickened by all that he has squandered that I hold dear. I love my country and my opposition to the war then and now does not make me a "Saddam-lover" or an abettor to the terrorists. These are the slings and arrows used by those who have nothing else to cling to.

8:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well Carol?.....we're all ears!

10:42 AM  
Anonymous dodger said...

Of course, Carol. It would take a parrot to know one, wouldn't it? You, like so many other GOP parrots, immediately seek to impeach this man's (Captain Pirozzi's) opinion simply because it doesn't comport with yours.

That's usually why we try to impeach someone's opinion.

How do you know what it is like on the ground in Iraq?!

How do you know there even is an Iraq? Ever been there?

You don't! Captain Pirozzi, who happens to have had infinitely more contact with everyday Iraqis than YOU knows what the reality there is.

Well, then, I guess we better do whatever it is Captain Pirozzi wants.

YOU are the one who lacks credibility.

Don't forget reality as well.

But like all the others of your ilk, you latch onto the tiniest shred of his words to turn the argument into one of patriotism.

You mean the words where he declares President Bush lied? Since President Bush didn't lie we have to give little credibility to someone who says he did. What the President said was, "Based on intelligence given me by our intelligence agencies, by international intelligence agencies, Saddam either possesses weapons of mass destruction or the capability of developing same." Here is the scenario the Bush lied crowd envision:

Mr. President, there are no WMDs in Iraq. But you need to say there are.

Remind me, why?

Because the other 17 reasons you have, the no safe harbor doctrine, etc. aren't sufficient. The fact that Saddam has declared he will start developing WMD as soon as the sanctions are lifted and place them in the hands of terrorists isn't sufficient for the dopes out there.

10:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Some say the intelligence was cherry picked. Namely, the president had intelligence available that others did not have. Colin Powell says all other intelligence was readily availableto others, upon their request, and further, the other intelligence even more forcefully supported the condlusion that Saddam had or would be able to develop WMD. So what, then, was the intelligence that was passed over? And since Bush never gave as a reason to pre-empt Saddam a link to 911, or to alquaeda, there just isn't any "picked-over" intelligence.

12:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dodger, it was widely known before the war that Saddam had no WMD. Saddam told us this repeatedly. It was widely known before Columbus' voyage that the earth was flat. And that Columbus would sail off the edge. He didn't. Those who said the earth was flat were liars.

1:37 PM  
Blogger Dan M said...

Totalitarianism within Islam has TWO variants. There is the Iranian Mullah variant, a naked Theocracy. BUT THERE IS ALSO the perduring strongman variant, exemplified by Saddam.

Our problem with Islam emcompasses BOTH pathologies.

And the cure to this 1,000 year plus pathology is CONSENSUAL GOVERNANCE. Which our troops are seeking to establish in the heart of the Arab world, which is the heart of the Caliphate.

Islam's early successes through the scimatar has left within Islam a nostalgia for the glories of a by-gone era. Both theocrats and strongmen have played upon that nostaligia for their own ends.

The answer to the siren song of the past is to create a future for Muslims. And the only answer is free minds, free markets and free societies.

That is the LONG-TERM plan, the short-term one is delivering ordinance on target.

That's why those that suggest that there "is no plan" are posturing at best, nakedly dishonest at the worst.

Secularism vis-a-vis OBL?

OBL received assistance from Saddam. That is undeniable. Questions remain about the role that Saddam may, or may not have played with the OPERATIONAL DETAILS of 9/11.

The Prague meeting between Saddam's intelligence and Atta were not the only incidents that demand further investigation. Richard Clarke expressed fear that OBL would, IN HIS OWN WORDS, "boogie to Baghdad" if Clinton went after Al Qaeda in its stronghold in Afghanistan.

WHY, if you are right, would a demonstrable religious lunatic go to the "secular" Iraq if forced to flee Afghanistan? I mean some of the ways that people speak about Saddam's devotion to secularism, one would think we were discussing France. We're not. It was Saddam's regime, which introduced words from the Koran to the pre-existing secular flag of Iraq. Why did he do that, if he was such a naked and avowed secularist.

This is just more pettifogging.

Your forefathers in pettifogging were equally CONVINCED that Hitler and Stalin would NEVER conlude a concordat. They LAUGHED at the mere suggestion that Hitler and Stalin would come to an agreement.

It's time to end your ceaseless and damaging criticism, which is clearly motivated NOT by the facts, NOR by a desire to accelerate our victory. You are using this war to advance an agenda that has been REPEATEDLY REJECTED at the polls. You've lost your 40 majority status, you have forfeited the mantle of the party of FDR, Truman and JFK. You are now the plaything of creatures like Moore, Kerry and McGovern.

2:17 PM  
Blogger Dan M said...

40 YEARS of complete control of the White House, the House and the Senate are GONE. And now you desire to piggy back to victory upon discontent with the toll of warfare.

This is a political self-indulgence that has long ago entered the realm of squalor and decadence. This is degeneracy.

We carried you to victory in the Cold War. And it looks like we are going to have to do the same in the war on the Islamic Terror sponsors

2:19 PM  
Blogger Dan M said...


Was Saddam, or was he not on the State Department list of State SPONSORS of Terrorism. That was a list maintained over many administrations, and completely in the control of the establishment at the State Department. Which is hardly a Republican/Conservative hang-out.

When the President said we were going after terror groups of global reach, was that in any way LIMITED TO Al Qaeda? Of course not.

What we are seeing in this fixation in whether or not Saddam played a role in the OPERATIONAL DETAILS of the 9/11 attack, is an attempt to limit this conflict to the latest terror group du jour to arise within the mideast, namely Al Qaeda. But this war is not exclusive to Al Qaeda. The Left hopes to narrow the scope of the conflict to Al Qaeda, which they thing will allow them to more persuasively argue that this is NOT a war at all, but nothing more than a criminal investigation on steroids.

The reason they want to argue that it's not a war is because since the late 60's they have become temperamentally INCAPABLE of waging warfare. They have entered a post-modern, post-Christian and post-heroic existence. Wherein all disputes are dealt with through anger-management and therapy. They have little more to offer to high-strategy than trotting out platitudes one would hear on Oprah.

Tell ya what. Stick to Oprah. Leave the heavy lifting of killing to us. And shut the hell up during the pendancy of the conflict.

2:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, you'd like that wouldn't you, Dan? We shut up and let you and other "real" men like you who know ONLY force take care of matters. Oh wait! We already did that! And look where it got us.

There's your ultimate hottie, Lynndie England, dragging those dirty Muslim men around by a leash. (Do you have anymore of her calendars? I want to send one to Dick. Lynn will wonder why he's so randy this Christmas.)

Then there's Afghanistan, a mission I fully support, by the way, except for the part about your guys nabbing the innocent cab driver and beating him to death. (His innocence was known by several of the interrogators, but heck, why not have some fun?)

Then there are the black sites, some of which are even in old Soviet detention camps. How fitting?

Yes, your idea of doing the "heavy lifting of killing" sure has made us safer. You really are a Bush accolyte, aren't you? In fact, he seems to be the very essence of what you love in a president: "9/11! No need for statesmanship. 9/11! Screw the world. 9/11! We're Amurrca, dammit! 9/11!"

Yep, you found yourself the perfect knuckle-dragger for the Oval Office.

Oh, and belated thanks for winning the Cold War for me. I nearly spewed my beer when I read that.

See you over at a more recent post.

6:02 PM  
Blogger Dan M said...

I know you feel insecure about your manhood, that's natural when you preach policies that are pusillanimous, and doctrines that are defeatist. Our country was built, and has been maintained by men like Audie Murphy, "Commando Kelly," and men like Alexander Hamilton, who also killed for this country. Lincoln, the most poetic of our Presidents volunteered for the Mexican War. You, and many others, have entered into a world inhabited by leisured elites. They scorn that sad, somber reality. They prize sarcasm, irony, mockery. Marksmanship isn't important for them, rather the glib putdown.

Newsflash dude: The glib putdown did not end the 3d Reich. Nor did it end slavery and Southern separatism. Have you any idea of what you speak?

I don't know what Lynndie Englund has to do with your argument, unless you are trying to suggest that her actions not simply cast a pall upon those of her fellow soldiers, but extend over the entirety of this war effort, this administration, and the GOP. Is that what you are trying to do, if so, again, you have entered into a realm, where reason is not a gravitational constant.

Let me tell you a little story from the history of the Pennsylvania National Guard, the 28th Infantry Division. It was during WWII, amidst the carnage of the Huertgen Forest, {a place where my Ranger Uncle was buried alive for 3 days, but that's another story...}. A patrol of ours passed through a town that was constantly changing sides, the Wehrmacht grabbed some of our men, and CRUCIFIED THEM, OVER THE ALTAR of the Church in the town. The next day, another patrol found those men. Now what do you think our men did. Stephen Ambrose tells us they waited, in ambush for the next German patrol, they didn't have long to wait. So our guys captured more Germans, and they crucified them, in the exact same spot where the Germans crucified our own men.

That ended the German precedent of Crucifying Pennsyvlanians. That little tale can be found in Ambrose's "Citizen Soldiers," which I recommend, especially for one who is so dainty, so squeamish about what NEEDS to happen to many of our Muslim enemies.

You nearly "spewed your beer" when you read that WE in the GOP had to drag you, {kicking and screaming by the way, cause you were whining then too, engaged in hysterics like the "Nuclear Freeze Movement" then too, you see little has changed with you in the Left, the far Left, the "far from the madding crowd" Left}, yes, we had to drag you to victory. Don't you recall Zell Miller's speech where he highlighted JUST A FEW of the many weapon systems Kerry voted against, just about every one of which was instrumental in our victory in the Cold War, and in the many challenges we have met since. I recall Kerry's votes, and guys like former Congressman Bob Edgar, I recall them all dude.

So, tell ya what, if you're not a two-can-Sam, which I strongly suspect, seeing you're all dainty like, I suggest you start reading some of the works of Ambrose, and go read Shelby Foote's 3 volume series on the Civil War.

Then, you just might, just might mind you, have a greater insight on what needs to be done today.

11:47 PM  
Anonymous dodger said...

Thanks, Dan M, your words are insightful and helpful towards understanding an untraditional war in traditional terms. War is an ugly, savage enterprise. During the Indian wars it was a common tactic for U.S. soldiers to attack an unprotected village populated only by women and children. The theory was that the men would then have to come out from hiding and fight in the open. Our military has not resorted to this tactic but our enemy has. They attack unprotected women and children as a tactic to draw our forces into range of fire and bombs. Maybe what is needed is more media coverage that identifies this heinous aspect of our enemy.

8:49 AM  
Blogger Dan M said...


Here is one of their nifty little tricks they pull in Iraq.

They pull over several cars, drag out the occupants, kill 90% of them, and then just wound the rest of them, and leave them by the side of the road, alongside the cars. They do this along a road they know we are patrolling.

So along comes an American patrol, and our guys see this, hear some of the cries of the wounded, and get out rushing to save the wounded, and get them medical attention.

What our guys don't know, is that one of the cars isn't one that was pulled over. Rather it was planted at the scene by the dirtballs. As our guys are responding to those who were left wounded, the terrorists detonate the car.

So they lure us in, KNOWING our compassionate ways will cause us to try to help the wounded.

They also pull this little trick with the Iraqi Police.

That is the kind of enemy we are facing, and that is the enemy that Murtha and Kerry want to deliver millions of Iraqis over to.

The viciousness of the enemy does not argue for a pull out, but argues precisely the opposite, that no matter how long it takes, or how tough it becomes, no country can be allowed to fall into their grip.

11:26 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home