Archive for November, 2005


Wednesday, November 23rd, 2005

Tonight while making another “last trip” to the grocery I ran into a couple representin’ the honored 101st ABN with jackets and caps. I had to ask…

“Excuse me, did you serve?”

“Yeah, I was a door gunner and now our son is in Iraq.” He said as his wife was selecting spices from the rack. Before I could thank him he continued. “He was shot yesterday but he’s going to be fine.”

His wife turned away from the rack and I could see the redness in here eyes. I was speechless. I shook the proud father’s hand and thanked him for his service and sacrifice. Looked again to the scared mother and simply said God Bless you.

I bet this Thanksgiving is one that family will never forget.

What am I thankful for? Obviously my family and extended family. Like Blackfive, I’m also thankful for the troops. Today, however, I am especially thankful for loving parents of boys and girls who stand ready to do violence on our behalf. The sacrifice these parents make, the tears of worry they shed, the holes in the heart created by two men in Dress Uniforms paying an unwelcome visit have to be as cruel as any battlefield. There are no ribbons for their personal war. No embedded reporters and for damn sure there isn’t a “time table for withdrawal”.

Thank you military Moms and Dads. It’s because of you we have the kind of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines that we have. God Bless you all.

Protect your Privacy Website owners!

Tuesday, November 22nd, 2005

Alright people. There are bad guys in the world that if they take offense at something you put on your website might just try and track you down. Many people sign up with their web host provider and allow that provider to register a domain name. Usually it’s wrapped into the deal and people just jump on it. The webhost, through absolutely no fault of their own, use the account information the new client gave them. This information typically includes their name, billing address, and phone number. That information gets added into the Domain Name System or DNS.

DNS is what makes the world wide web so easy to use. It takes an easilly recognized domain name like “” and ultimately turns it into an IP address like “” which is the webserver that actually holds the information you see when you visit that domain name. Each DNS entry has 2 basic contacts; an Administrative and Technical contact. The webhost who registers your domain name for you will enter your information in the Administrative contact.

“Ok, so what’s the problem?” you ask? Well, here’s the deal, if you go to one of the many “whois” services out there you can query these DNS records and see this information. Let’s say I have decided that I want to do harm to the owner of the blog at C-J-DES.ORG.

Gelernter on Lincoln’s Thanksgiving to God

Tuesday, November 22nd, 2005

Abraham Lincoln is the father of the Republican party. Mr. Gelernter offers this piece in The Weekly Standard as a reminder of Lincoln’s piety as well as a query for the Nation. As I noted here:

The American Civil War cost the lives of roughly 360,222 Americans who fought for the Union. For those lives approximately 3,950,528 people of african ancestry were liberated. I ask you, dear reader, were those lives worth it?

and now, Mr. Gelernter, you have the floor….

Abraham Lincoln’s Thanksgiving Of Puritans, prayer, and the Capitol dome.
by David Gelernter
11/28/2005, Volume 011, Issue 11

FOUR THEMES FLOW TOGETHER AT one of the most remarkable points in American history–the evening when Abraham Lincoln for the last time proclaimed a national day of thanksgiving. It was April 11, 1865: two days after the Civil War ended with Robert E. Lee’s surrender at Appomattox; four days before the president was murdered. Our national Thanksgiving Day is a good time to remember the president who had more to do with the institution of Thanksgiving and the actual practice of thanking God than any other, and to recall his last public speech.

On that misty April evening, the world had a rare glimpse of the symbolism of a powerful prophecy literally fulfilled, if only for a few moments. The brilliant “city on a hill” that the 17th-century Puritan settlers spoke of seemed embodied in Washington, as the capital sprang to life in a blaze of gaslight. The president spoke of the nation’s long-sought victory in terms not of triumph but of reconciliation, and of the nation’s debt to God.

Some of Lincoln’s friends and admirers, recalling that night, remembered the president as if he were Moses looking “into the Promised Land of Peace from the Pisgah summit,” as one of them, the journalist Noah Brooks, wrote. Lincoln like Moses stood at the very brink of the promised land he would never enter. (It’s hard not to see Lincoln as the greatest religious figure this country has ever produced.)

Thanksgiving itself is theme number one. In 1621, the Pilgrims celebrated the famous first Thanksgiving at Plymouth. Many other days of thanksgiving were proclaimed by American colonial governments. President George Washington decreed one for the new nation in 1789, and another in 1795. Thanksgiving was celebrated intermittently after that until Lincoln declared a national Thanksgiving Day on the fourth Thursday of November, 1864, and this time the holiday stuck.

Lincoln’s devoutness grew throughout his life; when he spoke of God, he never spoke pro forma. In his message proclaiming that November 1864 Thanksgiving, he said that the Lord “has been pleased to animate and inspire our minds and hearts with fortitude, courage and resolution sufficient for the great trial of civil war.” And he prayed for the “blessings of Peace, Union and Harmony throughout the land, which it has pleased him to assign as a dwelling-place for ourselves and for our posterity throughout all generations.” The Biblical language is typical of Lincoln. Like many Puritan-minded Americans, he thought of his country as a new promised land.

Thanksgiving has been celebrated annually ever since. But the day of thanksgiving Lincoln proposed in his last public speech that final April of his life was a bonus, over and above the annual observance.

* * *

My second theme is the Capitol dome. When the Civil War broke out in 1861, the enormous iron dome we know today was only partly built. Work stopped when the war started. Contemporary photos show a mammoth two-layer wedding cake without the dome that was meant to sit on top, or the cylindrical lantern with the enormous statue of Freedom at the very top.

The English are fascinated by the Houses of Parliament, a great building and brilliant artistic achievement built largely during the 19th century. Americans pay remarkably little attention to the Capitol, a great building and brilliant artistic achievement built largely during the 19th century. Before the great dome and other massive extensions were added, the Capitol Building was decorous and pleasant–vaguely suggesting a Victorian zoo house. Ambitious changes transformed it into one of the world’s most majestic structures. No other building has its sheer, commanding presence–without a trace of the pompous, the overbearing, or the domineering.

The new dome was designed by Thomas Ustick Walter; construction began in 1859. When the war started, the construction company paused–and waited–and pondered–and finally continued. The dome was finished at last in 1863; the great statue was placed on top at the end of the year. Many Americans saw the finished dome as a symbol of the North’s resolve to win the Civil War.

* * *

On that April night in 1865, Washington was in a mood to celebrate, and the president was expected to speak. “An immense throng of people,” writes Noah Brooks, “with bands, banners, and loud huzzahs, poured into the semicircular avenue in front of the Executive Mansion.” The president appeared at a second-story window. He prepared to speak. “Cheers upon cheers, wave after wave of applause, rolled up,” Brooks writes, “the President patiently standing until it was all over.”

Now the third theme enters. Washington was lit up that night. But to understand those lights in the context of American history, we must go back to the ship Arabella, flagship of a small fleet carrying John Winthrop and a group of Puritans from England to Massachusetts in 1630. Before disembarking, Winthrop contemplated the future of their settlement in America. He wrote (with the famous Biblical passage in Matthew 5:14 in mind–“Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid”), “Wee must Consider that wee shall be as a Citty upon a Hill, the eies of all people are upon us.” Over the centuries many Americans recalled Winthrop’s words. Ronald Reagan was one; he spoke of America as a “shining city on a hill,” and used the image to help explain why America must be a beckoning light of freedom, and win the Cold War.

On the night of Lincoln’s last speech, the magnificent new dome atop the Capitol atop Capitol Hill was all lit up, and the Capitol building must have seemed (at that promising time of gratitude and peace) like a shining city on a hill. “The night was misty,” Brooks writes, “and the exhibition was a splendid one. The reflection of the illuminated dome of the Capitol on the moist air above was remarked as being especially fine; it was seen many miles away. Arlington House, across the river, the old home of Lee, was brilliantly lighted, and rockets and colored lights blazed on the lawn.”

* * *

And finally there was Lincoln’s speech, my fourth theme.

Most of it dealt with the fine print of postwar reconstruction–whether Louisiana, having repented, and ratified the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery, should be allowed back into the Union immediately. Naturally Lincoln said yes. He also said that “in the midst of this”–the city’s and the Union’s rejoicing–“He, from Whom all blessings flow, must not be forgotten. A call for a national thanksgiving is being prepared, and will be duly promulgated.”

And that ended Lincoln’s career–as a great American, savior of the Union, liberator of the slaves. Our greatest president, who spoke repeatedly of the nation’s duty to thank God.

* * *

The Union was in a good mood that night and deserved to be; it had fought a terrifically hard war to the finish. Lincoln hated slavery, but led the Northern states into the Civil War strictly to preserve the Union. Public opinion wouldn’t have supported a war to end slavery. But as the fighting continued and the casualties mounted, public thinking shifted. In September 1862, Lincoln changed the whole character of the war by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing all slaves in rebellious parts of the nation. He understood the Proclamation merely as a first step; he intended for all slaves to be freed by constitutional means (which the Thirteenth Amendment accomplished).

We are fighting a different war today. Like the Civil War, it began for reasons of self-interest and self-defense–fair grounds for war. Today we see a larger goal: to liberate Iraq; to fight tyranny and spread democracy. The casualties of Iraq are minute relative to those of the Civil War, though the grief caused by each is just as great; and the Iraq war is proving (like the Civil War) to be longer and harder than we ever imagined. Do we have the resolve and steady purpose and high ideals and guts we had then?

tracking Michelle Malkin

“This Nation, Under God,…”

Tuesday, November 22nd, 2005

Whoda thunk the LA Times would allow such an article as this to be printed in their OP/ED pages!

I present them here for safe keeping without comment…because no comment is necessary.

Lincoln’s words, our pledge

November 18, 2005

THE PLEDGE OF Allegiance has been in legal jeopardy for years, all because it contains the words “under God” — a phrase Abraham Lincoln stamped on the American consciousness when he used it on Nov. 19, 1863, 142 years ago, in the Gettysburg Address.

The pledge originated in 1892, was modified in 1923 and again in 1924, and most recently in 1954 when the words “under God” were added. In 2004, and again in 2005, a California atheist named Michael Newdow filed lawsuits claiming that it was unconstitutional for children to be asked to say the pledge in public schools. In September, U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled for Newdow. Inviting students to say the pledge violates their right to be “free from a coercive requirement to affirm God,” he wrote. Presumably the pledge — or at least the words “under God” — will wind up being vetted by the Supreme Court.

One of the tragedies in all of this is the attempt to remove history’s footprint from the pledge. The pledge asks children to state their allegiance to ” … one nation, under God … ” Lincoln spoke the words “this nation, under God” at the spiritual center point of American history. Today they remind us (or ought to) of how hard this nation has struggled and how dearly it has paid to move closer to its own sublime declaration that “all men are created equal.”

Lincoln hated slavery. But he led the Northern states into the Civil War for only one stated, official reason: to hold the Union together by preventing the Confederate states from seceding. At the start of the fighting, public opinion would not have supported a war to end slavery. But as casualties mounted, the public’s ideas shifted, and Lincoln felt them shifting. (As soldiers die in war, Americans raise their sights — as they have in Iraq. If Americans are to die, they must die for the greatest, noblest cause the public and its leaders can imagine.)

In September 1862, Lincoln dramatically changed the war’s character by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation. As of Jan. 1, 1863, all slaves in rebellious regions of the country “shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free.” Lincoln saw the proclamation as a first step. Eventually all slaves were freed by the 13th Amendment in 1865.

The Emancipation Proclamation “lifted the Civil War to the dignity of a crusade,” wrote Samuel Eliot Morison, Henry Steele Commager and William E. Leuchtenburg in their classic history, “Growth of the American Republic.” But crusades can succeed or fail. When the proclamation was issued, no one knew whether the North could beat the South and enforce the president’s dramatic edict.

The question was answered on the 1st, 2nd and 3rd of July 1863, in the bloody battle of Gettysburg. On the Union side alone, roughly 23,000 men were killed, wounded or missing. There was far more fighting ahead, but after Gettysburg there was virtually no doubt that the Union would win — and at last be in a position to free the slaves and start on the long, hard road to justice and reunification.

By delivering the Gettysburg Address, Lincoln built a sacred shrine out of words on the most important battlefield in American history — a small shrine, of wonderful beauty, that reminds us why an earlier generation of Northerners fought, bled and died to win the Civil War: So that “this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom.”

Lincoln added the words “under God” at the last minute. They don’t appear in drafts of the speech prepared beforehand. But he included them in copies he made afterward, and historians believe he said them in the speech. Lincoln had grown steadily more religious as he grew older. As his political and spiritual genius flowered, he re-conceived America as a nation where high ideals were not just words on parchment, they were marching orders, principles to fight and die for.

“It is my earnest desire to know the will of Providence,” he said, “and if I can learn what it is, I will do it.” He wished to be a “humble instrument in the hands of the Almighty, and of this, his almost chosen people.” He knew well that Americans are far from perfect. But he believed in their duty to make themselves better.

When we invite our children to say the pledge, including “one nation, under God,” we are asking them to repeat Lincoln’s phrase, and perhaps even to feel his presence. Children who were reared as atheists, whose parents are wiser than Lincoln on the subject of God, are free to keep quiet.

And even if children should feel coerced by peer pressure (as the lawsuits have argued) to say that terrible G-word, they won’t be magically converted into Christians or Jews or God-believers of any stripe. In fact, children who don’t believe in God might still like to be reminded how Lincoln saw this nation, might like to test drive the worldview of the man who saved the Union and set it on the path to justice.

If that’s unconstitutional, we have made a serious mistake somewhere along the line. If we have any guts, we will go back and put it right.

Senator Kerry gets verbed…

Tuesday, November 22nd, 2005

John O’Neill has a way of climbing out of his law office at just the right times. Yesterday he appeared in the New York Sun with a scathing article on John Kerry’s comments related to the Murtha comments.

Senator Kerry, supposedly defending Rep. John Murtha, said, “I won’t stand for the Swift-Boating of Jack Murtha!” As one of the 254 members of Mr. Kerry’s unit in Vietnam who belonged to Swift Boat Veterans and POWs for Truth, I found Mr. Kerry’s comments most ironic.

To us, Mr. Kerry’s comments meant that no one should do to Mr. Murtha that which Mr. Kerry did to all of us and our fellow Vietnam veterans, living and dead. Mr. Kerry’s disgraceful comments on many occasions in 1971 (while we were locked in combat), claiming falsely that we were “murdering” hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese and committing rape and mayhem on a daily basis, are a part of the public record for which he has never apologized. This might be called “Kerrying” our soldiers.

In his own strange way, in his recent comments, Mr. Kerry was trying by implication to compare himself to Mr. Murtha – the gravest of insults to Mr. Murtha, who was given a standing ovation by the House of Representatives (which then properly buried his immediate pullout suggestion 403-3). Mr. Murtha’s long military record stands in stark contrast with Mr. Kerry’s continuous self-promotion of his short and controversial service in our unit. More importantly, Mr. Murtha has never compared our troops in the field – now or then – to the “Army of Genghis Khan” or claimed our adversaries, whether the bloody communists and Khmer Rouge or the butchers of Al Qaeda, were simply democratic reformers. Can anyone – even in the cocoon of Washington or the incestuous world of Mainstream Media – imagine either side of the aisle spontaneously rising to clap for anything that Mr. Kerry ever did or said?

Excellent points as usual from Mr. O’Neill. Go read the whole thing…NOW!

UPDATE: This is what I get for trying to blog at work. I tracked Brainster’s definition of “Kerry” here and completely lost track of myself and didn’t include the link here! Apologies sir and thanks for the OUTSTANDING definition. 😉

Possible tragedy for the Al-Qaeda wing of the Democrat party

Sunday, November 20th, 2005

Rumors are swirling about the possible demise of that man without a country, Zarqawi.

If it turns true, I’ll be taking a donation for sympathy chocolate(heavilly laced with Exlax) to be sent to Senators Al-Kennedy and Al-Durbin.

Schoolyard Rhetoric – The last bastion of modern liberalism

Sunday, November 20th, 2005

Michelle Malkin has to be one of my favorite “talking heads”, columnists, and bloggers. She’s always on target with brilliant research, logic, and wit. It helps that she’s Conservative but I would appreciate her talents regardless of her political stripe.

Tonight I read her blog entry, “JUST A YELLOW WOMAN DOING A WHITE MAN’S JOB“, and found myself wanting to reach through the screen and either hug her or strangle the bastards causing her such grief. They can’t argue positions with her, for surely they would lose, so they begin insulting her. Not even insulting her positions…no…that would be a slightly higher road. No, they choose to go for the elementary school tactics of attacking her physical appearance and calling her names I wouldn’t reserve for a rabid dog.

Of course, we are used to this behavior from the left. When they fail to win the election at the ballot box and ultimately in the courts, they fall back on calling the President illegitimate, attacking his daughters, and constantly reminding him of his misspent youth. When the Vice President speaks out against Gay Marriage they tear into his family, reminding us all that his daughter is Lesbian. Can’t engage him in the arguement…no no…attack his family. Woe be unto the person who uses the same tactics against them but any rational person would never think of it.

We witnessed it again Friday night when the Republicans called Rep. Murtha’s bluff. Suddenly Republicans were calling him unpatriotic when the word was never mentioned. Suddenly Republicans were calling him a coward EVEN BEFORE Rep. Jean Schmidt relayed the message from her constituent.

It’s the same old story, the same old song and dance, my friend(c). I believe it’s here to stay. There is no way to wrench these attitudes, personalities, and character faults from these people. The Dems don’t have a monopoly in the Marketplace of Idiocy either. Republicans are chock full of them as well. It’s pure stupidity. The kind of stupidity that burns Crosses in yards, gathers Jews into cattle cars, and flys planes into buildings. The “people” saying these things about Michelle are no better, and possibly worse, than the barbarians we are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many many other places.

And now, at the risk of running afoul of Mr. Malkin, allow me to talk about the qualities of Michelle that the “loyal” opposition find so troubling. I won’t speak of her abilities and talents because they don’t. I will say she has her priorities in order. She’s a Believer in Christ first, a Mother to her children second, a wife\lover\friend to her Husband third, and somewhere down the list…she’s a Conservative. Her first priority tells everyone that these attacks are expected. Her second priority tells everyone that you really should think twice before attacking a Mother’s children. Her third priority tells everyone she’s sweet and gorgeous and probably had her pick of men…Mr. Malkin should count himself the second luckiest man in the World next to me. Somewhere down the list her Conservatism tells everyone that she understands that sometimes a line must be drawn.

When you attack someone’s family you are crossing a line that, up until recent years, can be a Very. Dangerous. Thing. Where I come from such a verbal attack would definately provoke an immediate violent reaction resulting in bruised knuckles and broken noses.

God Bless You Michelle Malkin. Your friends out here know you because of the content of your Character and not the color of your skin…which is sexy as “aw gitout” by the way. 😉

One good stunt deserves another

Saturday, November 19th, 2005

Yesterday House Republicans called Congressman Murtha on his bluff. The clear intent of Murtha’s statement the other day was to retreat from Iraq as quickly as possible and stating anything else would be intellectually dishonest. Duncan Hunter(R-CA) entered the “Sense of Congress” resolution that simply read:

It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.

Yeah, it was over the top. Yeah, they rushed it. Yeah, it was a stunt. But wasn’t it great? The “loyal” opposition has been calling for surrender since almost before the invasion of Iraq started. Now they had their opportunity to vote for it and they run from it like scalded dogs.

What is it boys and girls? Or are YOU the one’s playing politics with this war on terror while your sons and daughters are over there trying to kill the enemy before they lop off our heads?

And BIGTIME KUDOS to Congresswoman Jean Schmidt from Ohio for reading the words of her constituent to the House. No one called Murtha a coward and no one should. That was one Marine talking to another Marine and doing what Marines do…given an arse kicking when one is needed to bring a fellow Marine into line. Murtha knows better than to beg surrender.

This Sergeant gets it…and you should too

Friday, November 18th, 2005

Sgt Hook has posted an open letter from a Sergeant in the 101st ABN to the American people, dare I say the World. It is required reading. Like Hook, I’ve never met this lad and doubt I ever will. On the off chance I do, the beer is on me for as long as he’s vertical.

Sergeant, because you “Get it” so clearly and you are based in Kentucky, here’s your Half Horse – Half Gator brother.

Now, reprinted from Sgt. Hook, read this:


Be my voice. I want this message heard. It is mine and my platoon’s to the country. A man I know lost his legs the other night. He is in another company in our batallion. I can no longer be silent after watching the sacrifices made by Iraqis and Americans everyday.Send it to a congressman if you have to. Send it to FOX news if you have to. Let this message be heard please…

My fellow Americans, I have a task for those with the courage and fortitude to take it. I have a message that needs not fall on deaf ears. A vision the blind need to see. I am not a political man nor one with great wisdom. I am just a soldier who finds himself helping rebuild a country that he helped liberate a couple years ago.

I have watched on television how the American public questions why their mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters are fighting and dying in a country 9000 miles away from their own soil. Take the word of a soldier, for that is all I am, that our cause is a noble one. The reason we are here is one worth fighting for. A cause that has been the most costly and sought after cause in our small span of existence on our little planet. Bought in blood and paid for by those brave enough to give the ultimate sacrifice to obtain it. A right that is given to every man, woman, and child I believe by God. I am talking of freedom.

Freedom. One word but yet countless words could never capture it’s true meaning or power. “For those who have fought for it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know.” I read that once and it couldn’t be more true. It’s not the average American’s fault that he or she is “blind and deaf” to the taste of freedom. Most American’s are born into their God given right so it is all they ever know. I was once one of them. I would even dare to say that it isn’t surprising that they take for granted what they have had all their life. My experiences in the military however opened my eyes to the truth.

Ironically you will find the biggest outcries of opposition to our cause from those who have had no military experience and haven’t had to fight for freedom. I challenge all of those who are daring enough to question such a noble cause to come here for just a month and see it first hand. I have a feeling that many voices would be silenced.

I watched Cindy Sheehan sit on the President’s lawn and say that America isn’t worth dying for. Later she corrected herself and said Iraq isn’t worth dying for. She badmouthed all that her son had fought and died for. I bet he is rolling over in his grave.

Ladies and gentleman I ask you this. What if you lived in a country that wasn’t free? What if someone told you when you could have heat, electricity, and water? What if you had no sewage systems so human waste flowed into the streets? What if someone would kill you for bad-mouthing your government? What if you weren’t allowed to watch TV, connect to the internet, or have cell phones unless under extreme censorship? What if you couldn’t put shoes on your child’s feet?

You need not to have a great understanding of the world but rather common sense to realize that it is our duty as HUMAN BEINGS to free the oppressed. If you lived that way would you not want someone to help you????

The Iraqi’s pour into the streets to wave at us and when we liberated the cities during the war they gathered in the thousands to cheer, hug and kiss us. It was what the soldier’s in WW2 experienced, yet no one questioned their cause!! Saddam was no better than Hitler! He tortured and killed thousands of innocent people. We are heroes over here, yet American’s badmouth our President for having us here.

Every police station here has a dozen or more memorials for officers that were murdered trying to ensure that their people live free. These are husbands, fathers, and sons killed every day. What if it were your country? What would your choice be? Everything we fight for is worth the blood that may be shed. The media never reports the true HEROISM I witness everyday in the Iraqi’s. Yes there are bad one’s here, but I assure you they are a minuscule percent. Yet they are a number big enough to cause worry in this country’s future.

I have watched brave souls give their all and lose thier lives and limbs for this cause. I will no longer stand silent and let the “deaf and blind” be the only voice shouting. Stonewall Jackson once said, “All that I have, all that I am is at the service of the country.” For these brave souls who gave the ultimate sacrifice, including your son Cindy Sheehan, I will shout till I can no longer. These men and women are heroes. Their spirit lives on in their military and they will never be forgotten. They did not die in vain but rather for a cause that is larger than all of us.

My fellow countrymen and women, we are not overseas for our country alone but also another. We are here to spread democracy and freedom to those who KNOW the true taste of it because they fight for it everyday. You can see the desire in their eyes and I am honored to fight alongside them as an Infantryman in the 101st Airborne.

Freedom is not free, but yet it is everyone’s right to have. Ironic isn’t it? That is why we are here. Though you will always have the skeptics, I know that most of our military will agree with this message. Please, at the request of this soldier spread this message to all you know. We are in Operation Iraqi Freedom and that is our goal. It is a cause that I and thousands of others stand ready to pay the ultimate sacrifice for because, Cindy Sheehan, freedom is worth dying for, no matter what country it is! And after the world is free only then can we hope to have peace.

SGT XXX and 1st Platoon
101st Airborne Division (Air Assault)

When Murtha speaks, I listen.

Thursday, November 17th, 2005

Representative John Murtha(D-PA) came out today calling for the immediate withdrawal of American Troops from Iraq. I have consistently argued against such an idea when offered from by Al-Queda Americans like Senator Al-Kennedy and Representative Al-Pelosi. But I have to admit, when John Murtha comes out against the Battle in Iraq I have to think about what he’s saying. One of the reasons I have written off what Al-Kennedy and his minion have to say is the fact they have a demonstrated their hatred of the American Military since they first entered public life. Representative Murtha has been a strong friend of the American Armed Forces and was a hawk during the run up to the invasion of Iraq. He understands the military, it’s capabilities, and it’s shortfalls. When says:

U.S. and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq

I have to bow to his wisdom. When he says we have to leave Iraq immediately, I have to give it some serious thought. He says we can completely withdraw from Iraq in six months and laid out a plan where a QRF of Marines would guard our flanks as we retreat and surrender the field to the enemy. Obviously, he thinks we have lost this war and must tuck tail and run. After some serious consideration, and assuming we are packing our bags and leaving, I have another exit strategy for him to consider.

Check it out.


The Counter Attack

Wednesday, November 16th, 2005

Friday it was the President. Monday it was the President again. Tuesday it was the Vice President’s turn to step in the ring and kicked some arse. Some excerpts:

As most of you know, I have spent a lot of years in public service, and first came to work in Washington, D.C. back in the late 1960s. I know what it’s like to operate in a highly charged political environment, in which the players on all sides of an issue feel passionately and speak forcefully. In such an environment people sometimes lose their cool, and yet in Washington you can ordinarily rely on some basic measure of truthfulness and good faith in the conduct of political debate. But in the last several weeks we have seen a wild departure from that tradition. And the suggestion that’s been made by some U.S. senators that the President of the United States or any member of this Administration purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence is one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city.

and then…

What we’re hearing now is some politicians contradicting their own statements and making a play for political advantage in the middle of a war. The saddest part is that our people in uniform have been subjected to these cynical and pernicious falsehoods day in and day out. American soldiers and Marines are out there every day in dangerous conditions and desert temperatures – conducting raids, training Iraqi forces, countering attacks, seizing weapons, and capturing killers – and back home a few opportunists are suggesting they were sent into battle for a lie. The President and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone – but we’re not going to sit by and let them rewrite history.

and one more for the troops:

And far more important, we’re going to continue sending a consistent message to the men and women who are fighting the war on terror in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other fronts. We can never say enough how much we appreciate them, and how proud they make us. They and their families can be certain: That this cause is right … and the performance of our military has been brave and honorable … and this nation will stand behind our fighting forces with pride and without wavering until the day of victory.

Uh huh. Damn Straight.

Frist has to go

Tuesday, November 15th, 2005

If this is true, and it’s from the NY Times so ya never know, then Bill Frist has to go from his leadership position.

Senator Frist: Lead, Follow, or get the hell out of the way.

Battle of Wits

Monday, November 14th, 2005

This past weekend has been interesting. Here we are 5 years into the War on Terror and 2.5 years into the Battle in Iraq and President Bush has been quietly going about the business of freeing 50 million people while his political enemies have made all kinds of wild accusations against him personally as well as politically. He hasn’t said a word to directly counter these attacks(some legitimate, most not so legitimate).

Many of his “agents” have defended the policies of the President but they haven’t, and shouldn’t, have the weight of the President himself.

It’s like watching a boxing match where one fighter steps out of the corner and takes the punchs of his opponent for 5 rounds without so much as a hint of defense.

Then came this on, as fate would have it, Veterans Day:

While it is perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began.

Followed by this:

They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his
development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. Many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his
position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: ‘When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security.’ That’s why more than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.

and then this:

The stakes in the global War on Terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America’s will.

Ahhh…refreshing ain’t it? Three solid punches that sent the “loyal” opposition to the Sunday talk shows with wobbly knees. I almost felt sorry for Senator Rockefeller when I read the transcript from Fox News Sunday at Powerline:

WALLACE: But you voted, sir, and aren’t you responsible for your vote?


WALLACE: You’re not?

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No. I’m responsible for my vote, but I’d appreciate it if you’d get serious about this subject, with all due respect. We authorized him to continue working with the United Nations, and then if that failed, authorized him to use force to enforce the sanctions. We did not send 150,000 troops or 135,000 troops. It was his decision made probably two days after 9/11 that he was going to invade Iraq. That we did not have a part of, and, yes, we had bad intelligence, and when we learned about it, I went down to the floor and said I would never have voted for this thing.

WALLACE: My only point sir, and I am trying to be serious about it, is as I understand Phase Two, the question is based on the intelligence you had, what were the statements you made? You had the National Intelligence Estimate which expressed doubts about Saddam’s nuclear program, and yet you said he had a nuclear program. The President did the same thing.

And Glenn Reynolds caught an interesting exchange on CBS:

SCHIEFFER: President Bush accused his critics of rewriting history last week.

Sen. McCAIN: Yeah.

SCHIEFFER: And in–he said in doing so, the criticisms they were making of his war policy was endangering our troops in Iraq. Do you believe it is unpatriotic to criticize the Iraq policy?

Sen. McCAIN: No, I think it’s a very legitimate aspect of American life to criticize and to disagree and to debate. But I want to say I think it’s a lie to say that the president lied to the American people. I sat on the Robb-Silverman Commission. I saw many, many analysts that came before that committee. I asked every one of them–I said, `Did–were you ever pressured politically or any other way to change your analysis of the situation as you saw?’ Every one of them said no.

See Mr. President? Come out swinging and you get some backup QUICKLY. They look to YOU, sir, for leadership.

Tonight the President will continue his rebuttle in Alaska with a few more punches:

Reasonable people can disagree about the conduct of the war –­ but it is irresponsible for Democrats to now claim that we misled them and the American people.

and this:

Some of our elected leaders have opposed this war all along. I disagree with them, but I respect their willingness to take a consistent stand. Yet some Democrats who voted to authorize the use of force are now rewriting the past. They are playing politics with this issue and sending mixed signals to our troops and the enemy. That is irresponsible.

So…here we are, well into the fight and my fighter is beginning to land some punches. Of course, it’s easy to win a battle of wits when your opponent is so incredibly unarmed.

San Fran Proposition H to Ban Firearms

Wednesday, November 9th, 2005

San Francisco Proposition H:

Shall the City ban the manufacture, distribution, sale and transfer of firearms and ammunition within San Francisco, and ban City residents from possessing handguns within San Francisco?

Amendment II, United States Constitution:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

There is a STUNNING difference in these two items. One has been the guiding light of our Republic for 220 years while the other…well…hasn’t. This temporary ordinance will hit the 9th Circus and be roundly applauded before being smacked back to Alcatraz by SCOTUS. Until that happens I’m considering a pool. The winner will be the individual who picks the number closest to the number of firearm related crimes in the city of San Francisco above the rate from last year through the month of April. I’m thinking at least a 20% increase myself.