8/27/2007
Comic Strip Pulled for Poking Fun at Radical Islamists
The popular comic strip Opus poked fun at Jerry Falwell last week with out incident. But, it’s a different story when they poke fun at Radical Islamists. Several papers — including the Washington Post — decided to pull this past weekend’s cartoon.
A popular comic strip that poked fun at the Rev. Jerry Falwell without incident one week ago was deemed too controversial to run over the weekend because this time it took a humorous swipe at Muslim fundamentalists.
The Washington Post and several other newspapers around the country did not run Sunday’s installment of Berkeley Breathed’s “Opus,” in which the spiritual fad-seeking character Lola Granola appears in a headscarf and explains to her boyfriend, Steve, why she wants to become a radical Islamist.
This has become an all too common occurance in our society. People are all too willing to poke fun at Christians, even going so far as to ridicule them. But, many in the media aren’t willing to stand up to radical Islamists. There are many examples of this. Everything from the Danish cartoon mess, to refusing to identify terrorists as terrorists (instead, they call them insurgents).
8/26/2007
So, it appears that the Iraqi Parliment didn’t take August off after all. The Iraqi Parliament has reached an agreement on several key pieces of legislation seen as the best chance for easing the sectarian strife plaguing the country.
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq’s top Shi’ite, Sunni Arab and Kurdish political leaders announced on Sunday they had reached consensus on some key measures seen as vital to fostering national reconciliation.
The agreement by the five leaders was one of the most significant political developments in Iraq for months and was quickly welcomed by the United States, which hopes such moves will ease sectarian violence that has killed tens of thousands…
White House spokeswoman Emily Lawrimore congratulated Iraq’s leaders on the accord, hailing it in a statement as “an important symbol of their commitment to work together for the benefit of all Iraqis.”
The apparent breakthrough comes two weeks before U.S. President George W. Bush’s top officials in Iraq present a report that could have a major influence on future American policy in Iraq.
Maliki’s appearance on Iraqi television with the four other leaders at a brief news conference was a rare show of public unity.
The other officials present were President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd; Sunni Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi; Shi’ite Vice President Adel Abdul-Mahdi, and Masoud Barzani, president of the semi-autonomous Kurdistan region.
Iraqi officials said the five leaders had agreed on draft legislation that would ease curbs on former members of Saddam Hussein’s Baath party joining the civil service and military.
Consensus was also reached on a law governing provincial powers as well as setting up a mechanism to release some detainees held without charge, a key demand of Sunni Arabs since the majority being held are Sunnis.
This agreement shows that there has been great progress on the political front in Iraq, and of course, we know that there has been progress on the military front as well. The latest NIE talked about the progress made militarily because of the surge troops. And, of course, we have great front line reporting by guys like Michael Yon. Yon has written at length about the progress made in both Al Anbar and Baqubah. There are first hand accounts of progress being made in Baghdad itself from Iraq the Model as well, and General Petraeus gave a wide ranging on air interview to Hugh Hewitt detailing the progress being made in Iraq. The agreement also sheds new light on comments made by Maliki the other day which were directed at Senator Hillary Clinton (D - New York) and Carl Levin (D - Michigan).
Democrats and war opponents have been screaming for months that the fight in Iraq is not winnable solely through military force. They’ve been beating on Iraq’s leaders for not making progress on the political front. So, now the question is, what excuse will they use to pull our troops out now that there has been progress on the political front?
The Democrats have dug themselves a hole that won’t be easy to get out of. They’ve constantly fought to portray the war in Iraq as unwinnable. I think that this has had more to do with delivering a defeat to President Bush and the Republicans than any real thought that the war was actually unwinnable.
Take for example James Clyburn’s (D - South Carolina) comments that it would indeed be bad for the Democrats if we win in Iraq. Or, for example, Murtha’s plans for changing the rules for deployment so that the military wouldn’t be able to deploy surge troops needed to secure the peace so that progress could be made on the political front. In my mind, these actions and comments can only be seen as an attempt to preemptively lose the war for political gain.
My guess is that one of three things will happen.
- The Democrats will quietly pass another funding bill for operations in Iraq, and will hope that their past comments and actions will slip quietly from the consciousness of the American public.
- They will say that progress has been made both militarily, and on the political front, but it is not happening fast enough.
- They will say that since there’s been progress made both on the security front and the political front that our mission is accomplished, and it is time to pull our troops out and let Iraq defend itself.
In my mind, option number one is the most likely. Options two and three are too easily debunked. Option two — progress isn’t happening fast enough — is easily debunked because Iraq doesn’t run on our timetable. A timetable which is based more on our next election cycle than anything else.
Option three is flawed because the Iraqi Army is not capeable of sustained solo operations. They are making great progress, and by all accounts, they fight like lions. But the logistics infrastructure is not there yet. Neither are there enough trained and seasoned Iraqi troops to conduct the constant anti insurgency operations that will be necessary for a long time to come in that country.
One final thought. We are making progress in Iraq. The Iraqi government is making progress. Lets not throw away all the blood, sweat, tears, sacrifice, and treasure that has been expended to get this far.
Hat Tip: Captain’s Quarters
8/23/2007
Project: “Letters From Home” Update IV
Peter Wehner has a great post up over at Contentions about the costs of leaving a people who desire liberty. He points to a passage from Kissinger’s memoirs which relates the story of a Cambodian official who was asked if he wanted transport out of the country.
Former Prime Minister Sirik Matak sent this note to Ambassador John Gunther Dean:
Dear Excellency and Friend:
I thank you very sincerely for your letter and for your offer to transport me towards freedom. I cannot, alas, leave in such a cowardly fashion. As for you, and in particular for your great country, I never believed for a moment that you would have this sentiment of abandoning a people which has chosen liberty. You have refused us your protection, and we can do nothing about it.
You leave, and my wish is that you and your country will find happiness under this sky. But, mark it well, that if I shall die here on the spot and in my country that I love, it is no matter, because we all are born and must die. I have only committed this mistake of believing in you [the Americans].
Please accept, Excellency and dear friend, my faithful and friendly sentiments.
S/Sirik Matak
Kissinger continues:
On April 13th, the New York Times correspondent [Sydney Schanberg] reported the American departure under the headline, “Indochina Without Americans: For Most, a Better Life.†The Khmer Rouge took Phnom Penh on April 17th . . . . The 2 million citizens of Phnom Penh were ordered to evacuate the city for the countryside ravaged by war and incapable of supporting urban dwellers unused to fending for themselves. Between 1 and 2 million Khmer were murdered by the Khmer Rouge until Hanoi occupied the country at the end of 1978, after which a civil war raged for another decade. Sirik Matak was shot in the stomach and left without medical help. It took him three days to die.
Go read Wehner’s whole post. It’s well worth your time.
Hat Tip: Hugh Hewitt
8/22/2007
Courtesy of Freedom Watch, a request that you call your Congressmen and Senators and tell them to finish the job in Iraq and Afghanistan.
8/17/2007
Maha seems to think that terrorist and all around dirt bag Jose Padilla was tortured, and that his conviction is tantamount to the shredding of the Constitution. Hmm, since when is solitary confinement torture? Oh, and while we’re at it Maha, it really is kind of silly to profess your intolerance of intolerance, and then shut down comments so that dissenting views cannot be heard. Oh, yeah, and all of us who think that the jailing of a convicted terrorist is a good thing? We’re radical and un-American. Silly Lefties…
Hat Tip: Neptunus Lex
8/14/2007
Enough With The Editorial Comments
One of the things I despise the most about the AP are their constant editorial comments. I found this one in a straight news piece on a new military offensive going on north of Baghdad.
On the political front, government leaders prepared for a crisis council as Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki seeks to save his crumbling government. [emphasis added]
First of all, are their problems in the Maliki Government? Yes, there are. Frankly, Maliki was a mistake, and should have been replaced long ago in favor of someone who wants to get the job done on the political front. Unfortunately, we’re not in a position to choose their leaders.
Next, on to the editorial comment. I’ve no problem with editorial comment. That’s what I do on this blog. However, editorial comment has no place in straight news stories. Save it for the editorial pages.
8/13/2007
Project: “Letters From Home” Update III
Well, we’ve hit 156 letters so far! Great job everyone! We need a total of 1000 though. Please keep spreading the word to friends and family.
Rove Resigns, and the Democrats Wish Him Well….
Yeah, well, okay. They didn’t wish him well. In fact, some of them were rather flippant about it. And, of course, the jerk of the week quote comes from none other than CBS News.
As Karl Rove embraced President Bush today following an emotional farewell announcement on the South Lawn, the solemnity of the moment was shattered byBill Planteof CBS, who bellowed to Bush: “If he’s so smart, how come you lost Congress?”
Here are some quotesfrom prominent Democrats:
EDWARDS in Iowa: “Goodbye and Good Riddance!”
OBAMA: “Karl Rove was an architect of a political strategy that has left the country more divided, the special interests more powerful, and the American people more shut out from their government than any time in memory. But to build a new kind of politics, it will take more than the departure of a man or even an Administration that constructed the old - it will take a movement of everyday Americans committed to changing Washington and reclaiming their government.”
WILSON: “Karl Rove’s resignation signals the final chapter in the Bush administration’s betrayal of the identity of a covert CIA officer. When this breach of national security occurred, the President promised the American people that anybody in his administration responsible for the leak would be removed. Rove, identified by the prosecutors as one of the leakers, not only was not summarily dismissed, but has been allowed to leave on his own terms, to praise from the President. This sordid tale of compromising national security to cover-up and distract from the false rationale for the invasion of Iraq will forever remain in history a black mark on the Bush presidency.”
PAT LEAHY: “Earlier this month, Karl Rove failed to comply with the Judiciary Committee’s subpoena to testify about the mass firings of United States Attorneys. Despite evidence that he played a central role in these firings, just as he did in the Libby case involving the outing of an undercover CIA agent and improper political briefings at over 20 government agencies, Mr. Rove acted as if he was above the law. That is wrong. Now that he is leaving the White House while under subpoena, I continue to ask what Mr. Rove and others at the White House are so desperate to hide. Mr. Rove’s apparent attempts to manipulate elections and push out prosecutors citing bogus claims of voter fraud shows corruption of federal law enforcement for partisan political purposes, and the Senate Judiciary Committee will continue its investigation into this serious issue.
“The list of senior White House and Justice Department officials who have resigned during the course of these congressional investigations continues to grow, and today, Mr. Rove added his name to that list. There is a cloud over this White House, and a gathering storm. A similar cloud envelopes Mr. Rove, even as he leaves the White House.”
CHUCK SCHUMER: “Karl Rove’s resignation will not stop our inquiry into the firings of the U.S. attorneys. He has every bit as much of a legal obligation to reveal the truth once he steps down as he does today.”
JOHN CONYERS:“The need for Karl Rove to explain his role in the firing of the U.S. Attorneys does not diminish when he leaves the White House. Our investigation to date has revealed the White House’s contempt for the rule of law and its interest in the politicization of the Department of Justice. While resignations at DoJ and the White House continue to mount, questions raised by this investigation remain. We will continue to seek answers to these questions and expect full cooperation from Mr. Rove and other officials regardless of whether they are employed by the White House.”
Gee, how charitable. Of course, this is coming from the party that has wished death on our Vice President a number of times.
8/12/2007
Dan Riehl has a great round up of the ties between the two men stopped in South Carolina with a pipe bomb in their trunk and Sami Al-Arian. You might remember, Al-Arian was the USF professor who was charged with supporting terror organizations. Al-Arian was eventually accuitted of all but one charge. He pled guilty to one count of “conspiracy to make or receive contributions of funds, goods or services to or for the benefit of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a Specially Designated Terrorist [sic], in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371″.
Go check out the whole post. It’s well worth the read.
8/9/2007
Project: “Letters From Home” Update II
Well, were up to a total of 45Â letters today. Please spread the word to your friends and family, and if you haven’t written yet, write an encouraging letter to a hero at letters@thinking-right.com.
8/8/2007
Project: “Letters From Home” Update
Wow, the response so far has been great. I’ve recieved 14 letters today alone. We’ve still got a long way to go though. Remember, our goal is to put a letter into the hands of every Marine and Sailor in 1st Battlion 1st Marine Regiment. That’s about 1000 emails. A big thank you to each of you who have emailed in so far. A special thank you to my fellow bloggers who have posted on this project. Remember, even if you don’t have a blog, you can still pass this along to friends, family, and coworkers via email. I’ll continue to keep you all updated on our progress each day.
8/5/2007
A. Whitney Brown is obviously starving for attention. And, although I try my best to not feed the trolls, like I said last time he opened his big mouth, the idiocy of the left needs to be pointed out.
Anyway, one would have thought after the condemnation  he justly recieved for his last idiotic rant, he might have softened his position on the troops a little. Alas, it was not to be. He’s posted another anti-military screed on that fine example of moderation; The Daily Kos. Here’s just a taste of Brown’s latest.
…For this view, Â I have been called Anti-Military.
My response is this: Who on earth could be Pro-Military! The purpose of a military is to kill. It is at best a necessary evil. Â Necessary only because someone else has a military that threatens our survival.
Pro-Military? That’s like being Pro-Abortion! Or Pro-chemo-therapy!
No! In a world of ignorance, greed, and ambition it is a practical matter that we defend our peace and security against the militaries of others, but the goal is always to have as little military as needed, and no more than absolutely necessary. Currently we spend more than all the rest of the world put together.
A military is an extortion demanded of us by other militaries, a practical acquiesence to the world as it is, but only a sadist, a brute, a glory-monger, a thief or a tyrant can look at a military as a good thing, noble in itself.
Only a society blind with avarice or fear would see a military  as anything other than an indictment of our inability to persuade! And yes, an indictment of our courage to try.
Here is an Unknown Known - something we all know but are not aware we know: A Man Cannot Be a Hero in Service To an Unjust Cause. What kind of society would rob it’s soldiers in such a way? A twisted, sickened society.
When men and women are young, they often make mistakes. When we call them mistakes, it hurts, but it may prevent others from making the same mistake.Â
Meanwhile, I still, under threat of prison, involuntarily, support our troops with 35 percent forcibly taken from every paycheck.
To borrow a phrase from Brown, I see his view of the military as moraly retarded.
Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin
8/4/2007
It’s official now. The Army has released the results of it’s investigation into Scott Thomas Beauchamp’s lies which TNR published as fact. Here’s the email from Col. Steven Boylan PAO for General Petraeus.
To your question: Were there any truth to what was being said by Thomas? Answer: An investigation of the allegations were conducted by the
command and found to be false. In fact, members of Thomas’ platoon and
company were all interviewed and no one could substantiate his claims.As to what will happen to him?
Answer: As there is no evidence of criminal conduct, he is subject to
Administrative punishment as determined by his chain of command. Under
the various rules and regulations, administrative actions are not
releasable to the public by the military on what does or does not
happen.
Notice that Col. Boylan doesn’t say that the allegations are un-corroborated. He says that they are false. Not a lot of room there for either TNR or Beauchamp’s supporters to wiggle out of this one. Of course, we can expect the usual suspects to come out with claims of cover-up, but that won’t fly either. See, the Army has dozens of soldiers who have signed affidavits under penalty of perjury. TNR has anonymous testimony, and lies from a lying lier.
8/3/2007
Beauchamp’s Allegations “Proven False”
From Matt Sanchez’s site:
After a thorough investigation that lasted nearly a week the 4th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division has concluded that the allegation made by Private Thomas Scott Beauchamp, the “Baghdad Diarist”, have been
“refuted by members of his platoon and proven to be false”
The official investigation the 4th IBCT Public Affairs Office qualified as “thorough and professional” concluded late August 1st. Officials would not speculate on the possibility of further action against Private Beauchamp, nor would they confirm his current whereabouts or status.
Of course, now we await the inevitable cries of “cover up” from the defenders of TNR and Beauchump. My guess; it won’t take long.
8/2/2007
Scott Thomas Beauchamp chump’s story has fallen apart… or at least a portion of it has. The rest of it has been neither proven or disproven. TNR released a statement today that reads in part:
In the first, Beauchamp recounted how he and a fellow soldier mocked a disfigured woman seated near them in a dining hall. Three soldiers with whom TNR has spoken have said they repeatedly saw the same facially disfigured woman. One was the soldier specifically mentioned in the Diarist. He told us: “We were really poking fun at her; it was just me and Scott, the day that I made that comment. We were pretty loud. She was sitting at the table behind me. We were at the end of the table. I believe that there were a few people a few feet to the right.”
The recollections of these three soldiers differ from Beauchamp’s on one significant detail (the only fact in the piece that we have determined to be inaccurate): They say the conversation occurred at Camp Buehring, in Kuwait, prior to the unit’s arrival in Iraq. When presented with this important discrepancy, Beauchamp acknowledged his error. We sincerely regret this mistake.
I’d like to highlight a couple of problems with this whole thing. First of all, the obvious. Now TNR and Beauchump are saying that this whole thing took place in Kuwait, when initially Beauchump claimed that it took place in Iraq at FOB Falcon. The whole premise of the article was that war is hell, and it does horrible things to people. So the fact that this now supposedly happened in Kuwait before the unit even got to Iraq destroys the whole premise of the article. Let me remind you of what Beauchump wrote in his story.
Am I a monster? I have never thought of myself as a cruel person… Even as I was reveling in the laughter my words had provoked, I was simultaneously horrified and ashamed at what I had just said. In a strange way, though, I found the shame comforting. I was relieved to still be shocked by my own cruelty—to still be able to recognize that the things we soldiers found funny were not, in fact, funny.
As Michael Goldfarb writes in The Weekly Standard:
Relieved that he was still shocked at his own cruelty? After his tour in Germany and the long flight to Kuwait? This whole essay was meant to demonstrate the damage war does to our own troops–but if this incident occurred at all, it only proves that Beauchamp was a vile creep to begin with.
The second problem with the above portion of TNR’s statement is that they refer to the woman as facially disfigured. In Beauchump’s story he says that she was the victim of an IED. Why the sudden change of terminology? Was she really the victim of an IED attack?
The last problem with this portion of TNR’s statement is that they still do not provide any definitive proof that this incident even took place. They offer more anonymous testimony from other soldiers in Beauchump’s unit, that’s all. There is a similar problem with the rest of the statement in regards to the other aspects of Beauchump’s story. They offer no proof that the incidents took place other than more anonymous testimony from un-named soldiers. TNR is moving the goalposts as fast as they can hoping that they can stall this thing long enough for the outrage to die down.
In the long run though, it doesn’t matter if Beauchump’s stories are true or not. Really, it doesn’t. TNR published Beauchump’s stories without a bit of context. By publishing these stories without context they slandered the 160,000 some odd soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen that are serving in Iraq honorably. That’s the real scandal.