12/29/2006
Just a quick note. Jim is once again in the hospital with pneumonia and asthma. The good news is that the docs don’t believe that it is quite as severe as in the past. For those that are so inclined, we would wppreciate your continued prayers for Jim’s recovery.
Guy (Jim’s Dad)
12/24/2006
Don’t Forget The Real Reason We Celebrate Christmas
I know that it’s easy to get hung up in the presents, giving, and receiving. Especially if you have young kids or are around young kids. But, I want to urge you all to take some time tonight or tomorrow to think about the real reason we celebrate Christmas. We celebrate Christmas because Jesus Christ came to earth to become God among us. To be our savior.
[1]In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. [2](This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) [3]And everyone went to his own town to register.
[4]So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. [5] He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. [6] While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, [7] and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.
[8] And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. [9] An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. [10] But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. [11] Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ[a] the Lord. [12] This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.”
[13]Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying,
[14]”Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests.”
[15]When the angels had left them and gone into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, “Let’s go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has told us about.”
[16] So they hurried off and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby, who was lying in the manger.[17] When they had seen him, they spread the word concerning what had been told them about this child, [18] and all who heard it were amazed at what the shepherds said to them. [19] But Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart. [20] The shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things they had heard and seen, which were just as they had been told.
[18] This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. [19] Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.
[20] But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. [21] She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,[c] because he will save his people from their sins.”[22]All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: [23] “The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”[d]—which means, “God with us.”
[24] When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. [25] But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
Have a Merry Christmas everyone. We’ll see you later in the week.
The NYT Editorial board — in typical fashion — calls for adding troops, but slashing the Airforce and Navy budgets. Their plan includes adding 10,000 troops, slashing the Navy’s budget, slashing the Air Forces budget, and cutting the overall military budget.
There are so many things wrong with this plan that I’m not even sure where to begin, so I’ll just start at the beginning.
Military reality finally broke through the Bush administration’s ideological wall last week, with President Bush publicly acknowledging the need to increase the size of the overstretched Army and Marine Corps.
President Bush has seen the need for more troops from the beginning, his first priority has been to fight the war though.
Larger ground forces are an absolute necessity for the sort of battles America is likely to fight during the coming decades: extended clashes with ground-based insurgents rather than high-tech shootouts with rival superpowers. The president’s belated recognition is welcome, though it comes only after significant damage has been done to the Army’s morale, recruitment standards and fighting readiness. Given the time required to recruit and train the additional troops, the proposed increase will not make much difference in Iraq’s current battles. But over time it will help make America more secure and better prepared to meet future crises.
I agree, a larger ground force is necessary, and as I said before I think President Bush agrees as well.
Now, on to the morale, recruitment standards, and fighting readiness of the Army. As far as the morale, from everything I’ve seen and heard morale is good — and that includes an interview with the troops. Of course, no one is happy about being 9,000 miles from home facing hostile insurgents everyday, but I haven’t heard anyone but far left pundits say that morale is bad.
I suspect that recruitment standards are the same as well. There are certain statutory limits as to what the services can accept and that’s that. Therefore, standards cannot fall below a certain point. Furthermore, I challenge anyone to name one neutral source that has said that recruitment standards have fallen.
As far as fighting readiness is concerned; certainly our troops are stretched. It’s been that way in any major conflict since WW II. That’s part of the reason I agree that we need to increase the size of our ground forces.
The need for more troops has for some time been obvious to Americans. They have heard from neighbors or from news reports of tours of duty involuntarily extended, second and even third deployments to Iraq, lowered recruiting standards and members of the National Guard and Reserves vowing to get out. That is the inevitable consequence of trying to squeeze out an additional 160,000 soldiers for Iraq and Afghanistan year after year without significantly increasing overall ground forces. [Emphasis mine — Jim C]
I emphasized that one particular sentence because it is clearly hearsay. “They’ve heard from neighbors or from news reports of… and members of the National Guard and reserves vowing to get out.” Sorry, not everyone has heard that from neighbors. Furthermore, we know how news reports can be twisted to fit one’s ideological views.
I want to get to the meat of my disagreement with the editorial though.
Every year since 2001 has brought increased demands on America’s slimmed-down and dollar-starved ground forces, while billions continued to flow into sustaining the over sized and underused Air Force and Navy, and modernizing their state-of-the-art equipment. As a result, the overall Pentagon budget is larger than it needs to be, while the part going to overtaxed ground forces is too small.
Increasing those ground forces will cost roughly $1.5 billion a year for every 10,000 troops added, as well as tens of billions in one-time recruitment and equipment expenses. But America can afford it and it can be done without any significant increase in the annual military budget.
For example, the estimated $15 billion a year (plus start-up costs) needed to add 100,000 more ground troops could easily be found by slashing military pork and spending on unneeded stealth fighters, stealth destroyers and attack submarines, and by trimming the active duty Air Force and Navy to better reflect current battlefield requirements.
First of all, lets start with the equipment side of things. New and state of the art equipment takes years to develop. In other words; designers and developers need to look ten, twenty, even thirty years down the road to stay ahead of the “competition” (the competition being our potential enemies). Take a look at the F-22 for example; that plane is the best in the air, and will be for the foreseeable future, but it took starting development on it years ago. The money for the development and production of the F-22 has been spent over the last several years. If we were to cut the Airforce or Navy budget in order to increase funding for the Army and Marine Corps and still not increase the overall military budget they would not be able to stay ahead of our enemies. This same theory can be applied to all of the systems on the battlefield whether it be planes, ships, submarines, targeting systems, or weapons.
It’s clear that if we are to increase the number of ground forces and still keep air and sea superiority we need to increase the overall military budget. Let’s not make the mistake of robbing Peter to pay Paul.
12/23/2006
The United Nations passed sanctions against Iran today. The resolution calls for all countries to stop supplying technology and parts that would aid Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, and freezes assets of ten companies and twelve individuals associated with these programs.
Here’s the problem, the UN has a long history of toothless resolutions. There’s no military concequence and China and Russia played their usual part in the play when they insisted that the resolution be amended so that it’s even more toothless.
The administration had pushed for tougher penalties. But Russia and China, which both have strong commercial ties to Tehran, and Qatar, across the Persian Gulf from Iran, balked. To get their votes, the resolution dropped a ban on international travel by Iranian officials involved in nuclear and missile development and specified the banned items and technologies.
Iran gave the usual response in that it said that the resolution was invalid.
The Iranian government immediately rejected the resolution, vowing in a statement from Tehran to continue enriching uranium, a technology that can be used to produce nuclear fuel for civilian purposes or fuel for a nuclear bomb. The government said it “has not delegated its destiny to the invalid decisions of the U.N. Security Council.”
The only unknown in all of this is the new Secretary General. Will Ban Ki-Moon change things at the UN? The speech that he gave at his swearing in ceremony certainly leads me to believe that he will be more likely to punish Iran than Kofi Anan.
12/21/2006
Another Soldier Speaks His Mind
Tom McLaughlin has an interview with a Marine who has served four tours in and around Iraq and Afghanistan. Go check it out.
12/19/2006
What’s Wrong With This Picture?
Senator John Kerry has landed in Syria to negotiate with the enemy. He had this to say to reporters in a telephone conference call on Friday:
Kerry, in a teleconference Friday from Amman, Jordan, was careful to insist he was not in the Middle East to contradict Bush administration policy in any way. But Congress does have its own interests in the region.
“The administration has their position, and it’s not my job at this point - from here particularly - to make comments about their policy,” Kerry said. “They have their position as the executive branch and we have our position as a separate, co-equal branch of government.”
You know I could be wrong… actually, no I’m not wrong. I was under the impression that there was only one position when it came to US foreign policy and that’s the US position… to be decided by the President of the United States. John Kerry is actively subverting the policy of the United States and he needs to be called on the carpet for it… and quick!
Hat Tip: Gateway Pundit
12/17/2006
The Syrian Ambassador had the gall to say that the Sunni / Shiite rift — a rift that has lasted 1,400 years — is the direct result of American foreign policy.
(CNSNews.com) - Syria’s ambassador to Washington joined a group of American Muslims Tuesday in calling for the United States to pull its armed forces out of Iraq immediately, blaming America for the violence in that country.
“The Sunni-Shia rift is a direct result of U.S. policies in Iraq — the policies of invasion and occupation,” Syrian Ambassador Imad Moustapha told a meeting at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., hosted by the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a U.S. Islamic advocacy group.
“The Bush doctrine has miserably and dramatically failed,” Moustapha said.
One wonders if anyone has told him about his own countrymen sneaking into Iraq to incite violence between the two factions.
12/16/2006
I received the text below in the form of an email today from an anti-war liberal who I’ll call Mr. Smith. I’m withholding his real name because I really have no desire to humiliate him in front of his family and friends. What I will do is refute his arguments with logic and fact and then publicly demand an apology for his hatred and mean spiritedness towards both the troops and myself.
This is paid for by tax dollars because it is part of the Pentagon effort to influence public opinion (and a fine job that’s turning out to be) as support continues to drop. I wouldn’t worry though because Bush is going to sink us even deeper into a lost cause. I got the link from the DeLay blog. Another fool leading the ignorant down the slippery-slope of defeat.
Of course the Pentagon is trying to influence public opinion. That’s what their PAO office is there for. Besides, we know we can’t depend on the mainstream media to accurately report what’s going on in Iraq.
“Bush is going to sink us even deeper into a lost cause…Another fool leading the ignorant down the slippery-slope of defeat.”. I’m not sure whether he’s calling President Bush or myself an ignorant fool. I find it ironic though that he’s accusing the right of leading us down the “slippery-slope of defeat” when it’s people like him calling for an immediate pull-out and surrender in the middle of a war. As far as the lost cause charge; Iraq will only be a lost cause if the American public allows it to become one. The US Military cannot loose to the insurgents. We are better trained, better equiped, and have better funding. The only way our military can loose to the insurgents is if the American people loose the will to fight.
So I hate the troops huh? Well, my argument would be that Bush hates the troops cause he put them in harm’s way behind a lie (where are the WMDs of which both Bush and Cheney claimed there was “no doubt”?) and insists that they stay there. From the under-manned force (overwhelming force doctrine was blown off), to the ill-trained units (couldn’t deal with resistance), to the lack of proper equipment(troops buying their own up-armor) this has been a fiasco. Bush bravado (” . . .Bring em on”) shows up on resistance/recruitment web sites. No, I’d suggest Bush and his Cabal of Incompetents hate the troops. And when you do this to me I don’t care cause the troops know the support is ebbing away and they need to come home cause this is pointless.
Your response to my charge that you hate the troops is Bush hates the troops. That’s sad, you never refuted my charge, you just responded with one of your own — a charge which you provide absolutely no documented evidence to back up. The truth is that President Bush doesn’t hate the troops. To suggest that is just plain idiotic.
As far as putting the troops in harms way; that’s what they do, They are in the military. The military’s main function is to participate in combat. Combat is dangerous. Furthermore, we have an all volunteer army. These brave men and women signed up for this. They knew when they enlisted that combat was possible. If they signed up after 9-11 then they knew that it was more than likely. I’m really surprised that I have to explain something so simple to you.
On to your accusation that President Bush lied to get us into the war; I’m really surprised –once again — that we’re still having this discussion. Bush did not lie to get us into Iraq. To believe that you would have to believe that Clinton, Pelosi, Gore, Albright, Kerry, Kennedy, Edwards, and most of the world’s major intelligence agencies all lied as well:
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…”
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998“We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.”
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.”
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
Now, back to the email. As far as the WMD’s are concerned I might remind you that the AUMF signed by the President and passed by both houses of congress cited 17 different reasons for action in Iraq. WMD’s were only one of them. Furthermore, there’s a Senate Intelligence committee report out that states that we have found WMD’s in Iraq. Many on the left will argue that they are left over from the Iran Iraq war. The fact of the matter is; so what. They’re still WMD’s that he wasn’t supposed to have. There’s a school of thought that says that the bulk of Iraq’s WMD’s were moved to Syria. Here’s an article supporting that.
I happen to agree with you about us being undermanned. I don’t believe we were when we went in, however now it’s obvious that we need more troops in Iraq.
As far as being ill trained; this is an insult. Our military is the best trained and brightest fighting force in the world. You obviously subscribe to the Charley Rangel and John Kerry school of thought.
Just so you know, the story that our troops had to buy their own armor has been proven to be a lie.
If you want to talk about things that have shown up on recruitment websites how about the Taliban and Al Qaeda bragging that the Democrats won the election and how that means victory for them? Go ahead, talk about things that are showing up on recruitment sites.
Now, your next charge: “…the troops know the support is ebbing away and they need to come home ’cause this is pointless”. Rediculous, did you not read the interview I posted? The soldier I interviewed basically said that it would be foolish to bring our troops home now.
And I know you all are over there fighting for my freedom except when the opinion voiced is determined (by you) to be hateful. What a joke. Ain’t nuthin changed since the last lyin Texan did the same thing Bush has done to America - lie and deceive and finally admit the war couldn’t be won. I only hope Bush doesn’t “hate” them enough to kill 58,000+ of them.
I’ll let the last paragraph speak for itself… except for two questions; Do you really hate George Bush so much that you’re willing to hurt the men and women that are keeping your pathetic butt from having to live under Sharia law? Are you willing to apologize for the lies and exaggerations in your email and the things you’ve said that would likely insult our troops?
12/15/2006
Will The democrats Reverse The Border Fence Vote?
If this Fox News report can believed, then it sure looks like it.
The 700-mile border fence Congress approved for construction in a session-ending deal was little more than a fast act of political cosmetics in an election year and may never come to fruition, say immigration advocates looking ahead to the Democratic-led 110th Congress.
Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., will re-evaluate the border fence issue when he becomes chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee in January.
[…] […] […] […] “I think the fence vote was about people keeping their jobs … I think it was a political vote that doesn’t represent very deep thinking on enforcement,” said Angela Kelley, deputy director of the National Immigration Forum, a pro-immigration advocacy group. “The real debate is one about full-fledged reform. You can’t just take a little piece of it and hope that’s enough”
“There is no quick fix to our nation’s immigration problem and acting like simply building fence will solve it is insulting to the intelligence of the American people,” Graziano said.
Thompson likely will be working closely with the House Judiciary Committee, which has oversight for broader immigration issues. Sources say Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a California Democrat who was an immigration attorney before getting elected, is at the front of the line to be head of the House Judiciary immigration subcommittee.
“When the time comes, I’m sure all parties with a stake in the issue will sit down, vet ideas and figure out the best way to deal the fencing issue,” Graziano said.
So, it seems that the Democrats may try to thwart the will of the people.
82% say that the United States is not doing enough to keep illegals from entering this country. 62% favor taking whatever steps are necessary at the borders, including the use of the military, to cut the flow of illegals into this country. 56% favor building a security fence along the U.S.-Mexican border. 71% support major penalties for employers who hire illegals.
So much for being the party of the people…
12/13/2006
The All Important Opinion Of The Boots On The Ground
***The opinions expressed in this interview are those of myself and the interviewee only and necessarily not those of the Army or the DOD***
First of all, I’d like to offer a special thank you to Spc. Chris Erickson with the CENTCOM Public Affairs Office for setting up this interview, I’d also like to offer a special thank you to Sgt. Kane for taking part in the interview.
I have been looking for a chance to interview a soldier that’s serving in Iraq. I believe that it’s important to get their opinion on not only how things are going in Iraq, but also their ideas on how to move forward in Iraq. Sgt. Kane has a blog that he posts on often, it’s linked further down in the post, and yes, I forgive him for being a Nebraska fan. So, without futher delay I offer you an interview with the boots on the ground unedited.
Jim,
I wanted to give you a little background before I got to the questions. I am a National Guard soldier from Nebraska, so this is quite a different experience from my civilian career. I am a Legal NCO, so I spend my time on base mostly doing paperwork. Not quite as exciting as the tv show, but my job keeps me pretty busy. So, I don’t have hardly any interaction with the Iraqis. I can share what it is like to serve in a combat zone, albeit from a large and well protected base.
*Tell me about some good things that are happening there… hospitals, schools, Iraqi troops, etc.
Our unit has already completed over 15 Civil/Military missions worth over 1.6 million, with another 72 planned for over 8.6 million. We are working very diligently on improving the quality of life for the local population and they appreciate the effort.
*What’s a typical day like for you?
I am fortunate to work in an office so I have a fairly decent schedule. I usually get up around 0600 and get into the office by 0700. I spend the majority of my day working with our commanders and first sergeants on their various legal issues, from military justice to administrative investigations. My job involves a lot of coordination between different departments, and it wouldn’t be the Army without lots of paperwork to do. We usually take a break in the late afternoon to hit the gym and get dinner, and then wrap up the day with any business we need to take of with our contacts back in the states. Most days I’m out of the office by 2000 and head back to my room to either watch a movie or read a book.
*If you could get one care package from someone in the states what would it have in it?
Well, if it could be anything I would want a fresh 20 oz Ribeye from Leon’s Grocer in Lincoln, NE. Unfortunately you can’t send meat to Iraq. The folks back home do a great job of supporting us, especially now that we are around the holidays we’ve gotten a ton of packages. Every one is appreciated.
*What can the American public do to help you… to support both the troops and the mission?
Read up on what is going on. Check out what the people on the ground are saying. Milblogs.com has a comprehensive list of military bloggers, with views from different soldiers doing all kinds of different missions. Understand that there is much more to this effort than the daily casualty counts.
As soldiers, we have a great support channel with our fellow soldiers and unit members. Perhaps what is most important is to know that our families are being taken care of back home. Do you know somebody that has a spouse/loved one deployed? Give them a call just to chat, ask if they need anything. Maybe offer to mow the lawn, change the oil on the car, babysit, or invite them over for dinner. Basically let them know that the American people know that they are sacrificing right along with the soldiers and appreciate all that they have given up.
Also, we can never get enough prayer. Pray for the leaders of our country to make good decisions. Pray for the military commanders to have wisdom and understanding. Pray for the safety of the soldiers, and also for their families.
*What can the American public do to better support those that are coming home?
Honestly, I think this is one thing that America has down pretty well. When I got to Dallas on the way home for my 2 week leave, there were people lined up in the airport, clapping, shaking our hands, and welcoming us home. The people in the airport waiting for the plane stood up and applauded as well. The gentlemen behind me bought me a Mocha at Starbucks, and another gentlemen gave up his tickets to a professional football game for the soldier that was traveling with me. We truly felt appreciated. Feel free to say thanks to a soldier if you see them, you may not get much more than a nod and a smile, but they will appreciate it.
*What is Iraq like… weather, sights, sounds, smells, the people, etc.
Iraqi is flatter and browner that I could have imagined. We are fortunate to be North of Baghdad, and are in the Tigris river valley, so we actually have a few trees and some shrubbery, so it is much nicer here than in other areas. The weather lately has been phenomenal. Highs in the 60s, very little breeze, sunny every day. The summer it was brutal. We had about 3 months where it was over 110. What I wasn’t expecting was how it got hot early and stayed that way (over 100 by 1000 and some days it didn’t drop under 100 until midnight). I’ve only been to Baghdad once. The most striking thing I will always remember is that every house appeared to have some sort of damage from a bomb, small arms fire, or some other weapon of war.
*What are your thoughts on the ISG report and the call by some on the left for an immediate pull out.
I honestly haven’t had a lot of time to get into the details. I did see the executive summary and got a general feel for it. I did notice that it didn’t look like they had any troops with recent combat experience over here, or any of the so called troops on the ground. Mid level NCOs (Staff Sergeants and Sergeants) and lieutenants are the ones running things over here, and it seems like you would want to get their input.
I wrote about the call for a pull out on my blog recently:
In my opinion the issue lies in the getting the timing right. We do need to step back at some point and force the Iraqis to step up, take the training wheels off so to speak. But the risk here is more than just the numbers not adding up at the end of the month. What do you think happens if we leave too early and the country disintegrates? Thousands (hundreds of thousands? millions?) of innocent Iraqis die due to widespread sectarian violence and extrajudicial killings. Or someone else Iran swoops in and fills the power void. Would that be better for America? I don’t think so. Now, if we can set up Iraq to govern themselves we lessen the more radical nation’s influence on the Middle East which I believe is a good thing. Which of course is the challenge in front of us. I don’t think you can say we are stepping back in 4 months and have this thing work. The Commanders on the ground need to make that decision.
*What do you think the results on the ground would be if we pulled out or re-deployed right now.
I don’t think that is the right move to make at this point. I would love to get on a plane today and get back to my wife, my son, and my career. There isn’t a day go by that I don’t wish I was at home. But, I think the only thing that would solve is less dead Americans and many more dead Iraqis. I don’t understand how we as Americans can be for a solution that while saving our lives, we allow for the killing of many more innocent Iraqis. It goes against everything America stands for. Are we not the land of the free and the home of the brave? Or is that just when it is convenient? How many other times have we gone overseas on peacekeeping missions to stop genocide? Why is this different? Regardless of your views on how we got here, I haven’t heard one argument that our leaving will not result in a humanitarian crisis. For that reason alone I think we need to ensure that the Iraqi government has a fighting shot at stability.
*What else do you want to tell me about your mission there in Iraq.
I appreciate your reaching out to get a soldier’s view on the war. I am proud to serve with the finest Armed Forces in the world in defense of the greatest country in the world.
Once again, thank you to both Spc. Erickson and Sgt. Kane for making this interview possible. I hope you all have enjoyed this special feature, I hope to do more of these interviews in the future.
12/12/2006
Santorum Seems To Be The Only One In D.C. Who Gets It
Rick Santorum (R) outgoing Senator from Pennsylvania seems to be the only politician in Washington who understands the threat that we face. We know that the incoming head of the Intelligence committee surely doesn’t. He can’t even define the difference between the Sunni and Shiite factions in the middle east.
Once again, elections have consequences. It’s really too bad that we are loosing such a serious and studied Senator. It appears we could use several more like him. Here are a couple of key paragraphs from the article:
This is undoubtedly an unpopular war. Those who define the enemy as radical Islamic fascism are ridiculed by the media and others; the term is dismissed as inflammatory and inapt. It is not inapt, and thus it is not inflammatory. The term “Islamic fascism†is no harsher than those we used to describe our enemies in the Second World War. And just as we did not call all Italians “fascists†then, so too we do not call all Muslims “fascists†now.
Words define the enemy we confront. They help the American people comprehend what motivates the enemy. Without clear, accurate words, we cannot fight effectively: our own people become confused and divided, and the fascists are encouraged to believe that we fear them. When we fail to recognize the connection between Iraq and Iran, we postpone the day when we define a strategy to win the war, instead of a list of steps to retreat from the Iraqi theater.
The Gates nomination and confirmation show that our leaders do not understand the true dimensions of the war. So long as they do not understand this, how can we ever expect to win?
Hat Tip: Guy @ Geezzerville USA
12/11/2006
Iraq’s Pre-war Connections To Terror
Amazingly, there are still those out there who would deny Iraq’s pre-war terrorism connections. For those of you who read this blog (and you know who you are), I give you this from a speech given by Stephen F Hays:
In July 2004, a report from the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded: “The Central Intelligence Agency did not have a focused human intelligence collection strategy targeting Iraq’s links to terrorism until 2002. The CIA had no [redacted] sources on the ground in Iraq reporting specifically on terrorism.†And that same report quoted an unnamed Intelligence Community official who made this breathtaking admission: “I don’t think we were really focused on the [counterterrorism] side, because we weren’t concerned about the [Iraqi Intelligence Service] going out and proactively conducting terrorist attacks. It wasn’t until we realized that there was the possibility of going to war that we had to get a handle on that.â€
Again, think about that. Saddam Hussein claimed that the Mother of All Battles, as he called the Gulf War, never ended. His government harbored several of the world’s most notorious terrorists—Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal among them. Within days of the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, his government facilitated the escape from U.S. authorities of the Iraqi who mixed the chemicals for that bombing. Less than two months later, his intelligence service botched an attempt to assassinate George H.W. Bush on a visit to Kuwait. By the late 1990s, he was supplying chemical weapons expertise to terrorist-friendly Islamic fundamentalists in Sudan. He wired $150,000 to his intelligence chief in Prague to blow up the U.S. government’s headquarters of Radio Free Europe. An Iraqi government-run newspaper called Osama bin Laden an “Arab and Islamic hero†and there were several credible reports—including some from open sources—that Saddam Hussein offered bin Laden safe haven in 1998.
All of this, and yet the U.S. intelligence community wasn’t “really focused on the [counterterrorism] side†of the threat from Iraq. I’d submit to you that that was an oversight.
Let’s spend a moment on two of those matters:
On October 2, 2002, a young Filipino man rode his Honda motorcycle up a dusty road to a shanty strip mall just outside Camp Enrile Malagutay in Zamboanga City, Philippines. The camp was host to American troops stationed in the south of the country to train with Filipino soldiers fighting terrorists. The man parked his bike and began to examine its gas tank. Seconds later, the tank exploded, sending nails in all directions and killing the rider almost instantly.
The blast damaged six nearby stores and ripped the front off of a caf� that doubled as a karaoke bar. The cafe was popular with American soldiers. And on this day, SFC Mark Wayne Jackson was killed there and a fellow soldier was severely wounded. Eyewitnesses immediately identified the bomber as a known Abu Sayyaf terrorist.
One week before the attack, Abu Sayyaf leaders had promised a campaign of terror directed at the “enemies of Islamâ€â€”Westerners and the non-Muslim Filipino majority. And one week after the attack, Abu Sayyaf attempted to strike again, this time with a bomb placed on the playground of the San Roque Elementary School. It did not detonate. Authorities recovered the cell phone that was to have set it off and analyzed incoming and outgoing calls.
As they might have expected, they discovered several calls to and from Abu Sayyaf leaders. But another call got their attention. Seventeen hours after the attack that took the life of SFC Jackson, the cell phone was used to place a call to a top official in the Iraqi embassy in Manila, Hisham Hussein. It was not Hussein’s only contact with Abu Sayyaf.
One Philippine government source told me: “He was surveilled, and we found out he was in contact with Abu Sayyaf and also pro-Iraqi demonstrators. [Philippine Intelligence] was able to monitor their cell phone calls. [Abu Sayyaf leaders] called him right after the bombing. They were always talking.â€
A subsequent analysis of Iraqi embassy phone records by Philippine authorities showed that Hussein had been in regular contact with Abu Sayyaf leaders both before and after the attack that killed SFC Jackson. Andrea Domingo, immigration commissioner for the Philippines, said Hussein ran an “established network†of terrorists in the country. Hisham Hussein and two other Iraqi embassy employees were ordered out of the Philippines on February 14, 2003.
Interestingly, if the Iraqi regime had wanted to keep its support for Abu Sayyaf secret, the al Qaeda-linked group did not. Twice in two years, Abu Sayyaf leaders boasted about receiving funding from Iraq—the second time just two weeks after Hisham Hussein was expelled.
Yeah, no terrorism connections what so ever. You know, being wrong about something is one thing… being intelectually dishonest is a completely different animal.
12/9/2006
Iran Wants Nuclear Program In Return For US Retreat In Iraq
Iran has decided to help the US — and the region stabilize Iraq… for a price. If we drop our opposition to their nuclear program they will let the region know how they can help stabilize Iraq.
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki has said Tehran is willing to help the US withdraw from Iraq. But he added that Iran would only assist if the Americans changed their attitude towards Tehran.
The BBC’s Frances Harrison in Tehran says Mr Mottaki did not spell out the change of attitude required. But she adds that Iran probably wants the US to drop its insistence that it freeze its nuclear programme before any kind of talks. …
Speaking in Bahrain, Mr Mottaki said the key issue in solving the problems in Iraq was the withdrawal of foreign forces. “If the United States changes its attitude, the Islamic Republic of Iran is ready to help this administration,” he told a Gulf security conference.
He added: “When they have said they have decided to withdraw from Iraq, then we will explain how the region can help.
Obviously, to even talk with the nut job in Tehran would be a huge mistake. One wonders how the revered problem solvers in the ISG could have come up with a solution so disastrous to US foreign policy, and so dangerous to the security of our nation. I sincerely hope that the worst that will come from the releasing of this report is that the policy makers in the Whitehouse — and the rest of Washington — will get a good chuckle, however if the fawning media coverage is any indication we’re in trouble.
RUSSERT: This was such a sobering report. Powerful. Passionate. Bipartisan. Unanimous. I think it’s not only a wake-up call for the Bush White House, but for the whole country. We are in very difficult straights. Here’s a sample of the coverage from NRO’s Media Blog:
And later:
RUSSERT: I mean, when you sit here and read these recommendations, it is numbing how passionate, how bold they are, and how bleak the assessment is.
Washington Post columnist David Broder was even more enthused:
Whatever the final impact of the Iraq Study Group report being issued today, for the 10 commission members this was an exhilarating experience, a demonstration of genuine bipartisanship that they hope will serve as an example to the broader political world.
Hat Tip: Captain’s Quarters
“Jimmah” Accused Of Plagiarism and Lying
Well, it appears that “Jimmah” has been accused of plagiarism and lying in his new book Palestine: Peace not Apartheid. One former close associate (I say former because he’s split from the ex-President over the book) have accused the former President of plagiarising maps that he drew up for his book, the other has accused Jimmah of lying about key details of meetings.
WASHINGTON — Former President Jimmy Carter faced new criticism Friday over his controversial book on Palestinian lands when a former Middle East diplomat accused him of improperly publishing maps that did not belong to him.
The new charge came as Carter attempted to counter charges from a former top aide that the book manipulates facts to distort history.
Ambassador Dennis Ross, a former Mideast envoy and FOX News foreign affairs analyst, claims maps commissioned and published by him were improperly republished in Carter’s book.
“I think there should be a correction and an attribution,” Ross said. “These were maps that never existed, I created them.”
12/8/2006
The economy is booming! One can only wonder why they have failed to notice until now. Could it be because the Democrats will soon be in control of the House and Senate?
12/6/2006
One word: ridiculous. That’s it. That’s what I think of the report. It’s an exercise in silliness. That anyone could think that Iran (never mind Syria) is in favor of a stable and democratic Iraq when their stated goals are 1) wipe Israel off the map, 2) establish a local caliphate followed by world domination, and 3) build nukes to accomplish goals one and two is… like I said; ridiculous. As I indicated in my earlier post, I don’t have the energy or will right now to dive into this any deeper. Suffice it to say though that I feel that the ISG report is a victory for the defeatist media and the cut and run Democrats, and a loss for the victims of 9-11 and America.
Posting will be light over the next few days. A good friend of mine passed away yesterday and I just don’t have the energy or will to get involved in blogging right now. She suffered from Guillain Barre Syndrome like I do. She fought hard to the end, and all that knew her will miss her. Good bye M, rest well.
12/3/2006
The Boston Herald’s Jules Crittendon has written a great column on the “Jamil Hussein” scandal at the AP. Here’s the key excerpt:
Curt at Floppingaces, www.floppingaces2.blogspot.com, led the charge. He thought there was something strange about an AP report, and took a second look at it, then a third look. He and others blew the lid off it. The AP is making up war crimes. But the resulting stink in the blogosphere has barely wrinkled a nose in the mainstream press. The ethics-obsessed Poynter Institute seems to be oblivious to it.
It has to do with the AP’s Iraqi stringers and an oft-quoted Iraqi police captain named Jamil Hussein. Problem is, the Iraqi police say Capt. Hussein does not exist. The Iraqi police and U.S. military say an incident described in an AP report - Iraqi soldiers standing by as people were burned alive in a mosque - didn’t happen. Another AP-reported incident, U.S. soldiers shooting 11 civilians, also never happened, the military says.
When the AP was forced to acknowledge this situation, it did so in a story about a new Interior Ministry policy regarding false reports. The AP buried the fact that its own false report prompted this new policy.
The AP stands by its reporting.. The AP has cast “Capt. Jamil Hussein†simply as someone not authorized to speak, and AP Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll has sniffed morally: “Good reporting relies on more than government-approved sources.â€
The AP has another Iraqi stringer problem. Photographer Bilal Hussein is in U.S. custody, and the AP has been clamoring indignantly for his release. AP reports have buried the U.S. explanation that Hussein is being held without charge because - quite aside from producing photos that showed him to be overly intimate with terrorists in Fallujah - he was in an al-Qaeda bomb factory, with an al-Qaeda bombmaker, with traces of explosives on his person when he was arrested.
The AP, of course, has been delivering unbalanced reports about U.S. national politics for some time, as when President Bush, whom AP reporters despise, is barely allowed to state his case on an issue before his critics are given twice as much space to pummel him. The AP, once a just-the-facts news delivery service, has lost its rudder. It has become a partisan, anti-American news agency that seeks to undercut a wartime president and American soldiers in the field. It is providing fraudulent, shoddy goods. It doesn’t even recognize it has a problem.
Of course, the blogosphere has been talking about “Jamil Hussein” and the shoddy reporting at the AP for a long time. It’s nice that at least someone in the MSM has caught on to their antics though.
I have one complaint about Crittendon’s column; take a look at this — the last paragraph — of his column.
If newspapers don’t have an alternative, readers do. It’s called the Internet. That’s why newspapers, if they don’t want to be dragged further into irrelevance and disrepute, have to tell The Associated Press they are dissatisfied with its product. [Emphasis mine — Jim — Thinking Right]
Many American newspapers have fallen into irrelevance not because of the AP, but because of their own shoddy and / or biased reporting. Take the New York Times for example; how can a paper claim to be fair and balanced (or relevant) when they not only repeatedly publish state secrets — which damage the war effort, our safety, the President, and the country — but have nothing but far left voices on their editorial staff.
Yes, I understand that an editorial staff is there to provide opinions, but you would think that a paper with not only a national reputation, but an international one would want to provide a little diversity for it’s readers.
12/2/2006
This Is Not Stay The Course… It’s Called Finish The Job
One of my biggest complaints about the Bush Administration right now is that they’re allowing the Democrats to define the debate over Iraq right now.
Many on the left look at Bush’s recent statements about how withdrawl isn’t an option in Iraq and define it as “stay the course”. Bush’s plan right now isn’t stay the course, it’s called “finish the job”. The tactics used in Iraq would define “stay the course” and these tactics change as the situation changes on the ground. So it’s not fair to define Bush’s plan as stay the course.
Finishing the job in Iraq is important for a number of reasons. First of all, if we were to outright leave Iraq right now it would make the situation on the ground right now look like a Sunday School picnic. Without the US military there as a stabilizing influence Shiite Vs. Sunni violence would increase several times over, and the fledgling Iraqi military and police forces would be virtually incapable of stopping it.
The second reason that we have to stay is that without the stabilizing influence of the US military Iran and Syria would destabilize Iraq even more than they already have and it would be a new terrorist safe haven for our Islamofacist enemies. Our enemies have already promised that even if we left Iraq, they would simply follow us home to the US. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I would much rather see us fighting them in Iraq then see another 9-11 here at home.
I believe that the end game will include a military confrontation with both Iran and Syria. Exactly how that will unfold, I don’t know. Both countries are causing us endless amounts of trouble in Iraq and elsewhere in the region.
12/1/2006
Expansive Agenda, But How Will They Pay For It?
The Democrats have a pretty expansive agenda mapped out for the first month of their term. That is, if speaker to be Pelosi (D), CA has her way. The only problem is; how are they going to pay for it? They did promise no new deficit spending… didn’t they? These measures will cost taxpayers untold Billions in tax money.
WASHINGTON - Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has told fellow Democrats she wants to pass the party’s six top legislative items and toughen ethics rules before President Bush delivers his State of the Union address.
The president’s speech is tentatively scheduled for Jan. 23, meaning that Pelosi, D-Calif., and the new Democratic majority would have less than three weeks to pass the bills that formed the core of the party’s campaign platform.
The measures would raise the minimum wage, expand the opportunity for federally funded research on embryonic stem cells and permit - but not require - the government to negotiate for lower Medicare drug prices with pharmaceutical companies…
The first measure which comes to mind is the Minimum wage hike. This will hit small businesses particularly hard. Many of them will have to lay off workers in the critical post holiday period when many are working hard to pay off credit card debt. There will also be a few small businesses that will go out of business because of the hike. For those larger businesses that aren’t grossly effected by the wage hike, they will simply pass their increased overhead down to the public. In other words, their prices will go up. This in turn will hurt the very people that the minimum wage hike was intended to help… along with the rest of us.
The second measure that caught my eye was the embryonic stem cell funding. This one’s a non-starter.
First of all, despite what Democrats and Michael J. Fox want you to believe, the best hope for medical advancement in this area is adult stem cell research. There are two other factors as well; there is a common misconception that the Bush administration has outlawed embryonic stem cell research altogether. This is simply not true. Privately funded research goes on in this area everyday. President Bush has simply said that because of legitimate ethical concerns,