Confessions of a Pilgrim

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No.

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.

**UPDATED**

13 nights and counting and fiddlin’ gets serious at Hôtel Matignon…

de Villepin declares state of emergency…

Golly…two weeks in to this mess and you are just now considering an emergency?

“We must be lucid: The Republic is at a moment of truth,” Villepin told parliament. “The effectiveness of our integration model is in question.” He called the riots “a warning” and “an appeal.”

First thing I have to say about this is that I hope this sounded better in French. “We must be lucid”??? Yeah France…WAKE THE **BLEEP** UP! “integration model”??? What integration model??? Of course it’s in question, YOU NEVER HAD ONE!!! “Riots a warning”? “an appeal”??? What is this guy smoking?

Bloggers to blame says French Authorities…

heheheheh…gotta hate those bloggers. These guys, if it’s true that is, are no better than the thugs outside burning France to the ground.

Ya know, I’m really feeling sorry for the average Frenchmen right now. I just can’t begin to believe that all of the French are as dimwitted as the folks they put in the Hôtel Matignon…

*********

12 nights and counting…more cars burned…more people injured…more fiddlin’ at the Hôtel Matignon…riots spread to many other cities…blah…blah…and blah.

Oh yeah…blah.

When de Villepin decides to put down his fiddle I’ll give another update…

*********

11 nights and counting and more rumor/facts emerge(time will tell which is which):

In the Washington Times this morning:

Police officers, exhausted and dispirited after 11 nights of street battles, say their mainly young African and Arab adversaries have access to sophisticated weapons including grenades and could soon begin using them.

and…

French authorities have hinted that Islamic militants may be manipulating angry teenagers to defy the government, using the Internet to organize the unrest.

I’m hoping they can nail this down one way or the other. France is, by definition, a weak country politically. If this is some kind of Islamofascist thing getting started there it really would be wise to kill it now.

*********
Tonight makes 10 nights of “riots” in France. It’s no longer localized to the Paris slums as “riots” have been reported by Reuters in other cities:

The violence that began in Seine-Saint-Denis has escalated this week and spread to a few other towns in France — Rouen in northern France, Dijon in the east and Marseille in the south.

Reports say the “rioters” are:

…Muslims of North African and black African origin, has partly been stoked by their frustration at high unemployment and the perception they lack economic opportunities.

The “riots” are organized via the Internet says the London Telegraph:

There are now concerns that the violence is being organised by groups of youths using the internet to incite copycat incidents.

So…let’s see what we have here. Groups of Muslims “rioting” all over France and coordinating their activities using the Internet. Okay…so we have disgruntled folks(I don’t care about their religion right now) trying to make a point to the Government. We went through this in the US in the 1960’s right? Of course, I didn’t see the leaders of America’s Civil Rights movement torching old ladies(AFP):

At least two people have been badly burnt by Molotov cocktails: a fireman, and a handicapped woman unable to get off an ambushed bus. A 61-year-old was also in a coma after being hit by an assailant in a public housing estate.

or preventing rescuers from getting to “sick” folks(AP):

In one attack, youths in the eastern Paris suburb of Meaux prevented paramedics from evacuating a sick person from a housing project. They pelted rescuers with rocks and then torched the waiting ambulance, an Interior Ministry official said.

While all this is going on PM de Villepin gathers up his posse and tries to find a political answer(Telegraph).

The French prime minister, Dominique de Villepin, has summoned eight key government ministers to his offices, to try and find a political answer to France’s worst rioting in decades.

de Villepin fiddles while France burns. Sarkozy has the better approach, call it for what it is and deal with it. But we can’t expect France to change from it’s infamous past ways can we? As Wretchard points out, they have waited to long to deal with this and that’s what put the Nazis on the Champs Élysées.

We know what deVillepin will do…nothing. He will wring his hands and call more meetings. Eventually the “rioters” will either quit or takeover. Since the “riots” are spreading and are organized one has to believe there is no quit in these poor mistreated immigrants…ahem.

I’m left pondering two questions.

1) Why are these people consistently called “rioters”? In one of the comments in the Jawa Report’s piece, Mrs Aginoth compares what’s going on in France to the LA Riots(Rodney King):

The UK went through the same thing in the late 70’s/early 80’s (Brixton, St Pauls riots), the USA did it in the 90’s (the LA riots), and France will have to sort themselves out now.

Uh…Mrs. Aginoth…what are you talking about? The LA Riots happened because a bunch of thugs took advantage of a bunch of cops going alittle over the line(yeah, understatement). If they wanted to protest the beating of Mr. King, why would they burn down their own community? Try to kill innocent people just because they were white? If the two events have anything in common it is the “thugs” and the mentality that says, “hey, here’s an opportunity to raise some hell!”

If their anger is against the government then destroy GOVERNMENT PROPERTY if you must destroy something. Don’t torch old women and interfere with the rescue of the injured and sick. That behavior is reminiscent of the activities of other barbarians in Falujah.

2) It has been reported, albeit reluctantly, that the thugs involved in this rebellion are Muslim. The constant undertone to that, among some in the New Media, is they are Islamofascists. If this is the case can we expect to see more serious attacks in the future? If this is the case will NATO have to come to the aid of the pathetically incapable French Government to quell this rebellion? Will it be, once again, the US to the rescue of the French? I think we’ve repaid the French several times over for their assistance at Cowpens.

PM deVillepin is convinced he can find a political answer by gathering up the thugs and everyone just having a big group hug. I say send in the RDP and the Legion and END. THIS. NOW. If they don’t, this will continue to spread and will eventually destabilize an already unstable France. I really don’t want to see US Forces once again on French soil. We’ve been there many times and many of our boys are still there.

Richard Cohen’s piece “A War without Winners” is something I would expect to find as part of a Creative Writing class.

In some respects, Jordan is not having a bad war.

Jordan? At war? With who?

In some other respects, the war is not going well at all. The neighborhood — one of the worst in the world for a small country — has gotten considerably less stable since the war began. It is true, of course, that Saddam Hussein, the mad bully of the region, is locked up — and that is not an inconsiderable achievement. Although it is often overlooked, ridding this area and the world of a dictator who started two wars and savaged his own people has to be cause for a certain amount of cheer.

Vodkapundit has some fun with the “certain amount of cheer” comment. I could almost see him dipping his olive just before he wrote that.

The bit in Cohen’s piece…and oh what a piece it is…that really set me off is:

In short, and not taking into account the stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace plan, the war in Iraq has hardly made this area more stable. It’s true, of course, that nothing catastrophic has yet occurred in the region, but the casual assurance that nothing will happen must now be held to a new post-Iraq standard: Just about everything Washington said was happening (weapons of mass destruction) and would happen (an easy occupation) has turned out to be utterly false.

While I admit that the post-fall-of-Baghdad occupation has not been easy, I don’t think any one that has read alittle military history expected the occupation would be easy. Hussein’s plan was to fall back, give the country to the “kafirs” and then start this little guerrila action. Fear not, Mr. Chamberlain…er…Cohen, our boys and girls in uniform along with the Iraqi people will continue to open up cans of whoops-@ss on these barbarians and before your little appeasing heart knows it, Iraq will be a solid democracy.

The thing that climbed under my skin is this tired meme that BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! Chimpy McBushitler LIED for OIL! oh…wait…that’s not right…Chairman Dean? What’s the talking point again? Sorry, he’s busy practicing his scream.

Bottom line is simple. Every nation on the planet KNEW Hussein had chemical weapons. We saw the results in Halabjahand Iran.

UN Security Counsel Resolution 687 said in clear and unambiguous terms:

8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of: (a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;

[emphasis added]

After 9/11, President Bush held Hussein’s feet to the fire and forced the UNSCR into resolution 1441 which said:

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations

God Bless Secretary Powell and his staff. He tried to get the UN to use harsher words than “serious consequences” but the Frenchies and Russians couldn’t bear to part with their Blood for Oil money and forced us into loosening the language. Everyone around the table knew what it meant though.

If Hussein no longer had his WMD then he had the responsibility under UNSCR 687 to TELL the UN what he had done with them and SHOW THEM the documentation of the destruction. He didn’t. Now we are faced with the question where did they go? We haven’t found anything more than a few hundred missiles designed for firing binary agent chemical weapons along with several hundred barrels of the precursor chemicals for Sarin and Mustard gas.

If President Bush lied, then so did virtually every member of the US Congress along with the leaders of every western nation. If we are going to impeach the President for lieing then let’s clean out the rest of the Congress and start over. Not a bad idea, that.