Klotzy's Contemplation Corner

Cowards, Nothing More Maybe A Lot Less

2004-12-09T10:50:00.000+03:00

In her opinion piece titled “AWOL and AINO (American in Name Only)” Michelle Malkin takes a deserter to task. She starts:

Fugitive U.S. soldier Jeremy Hinzman is an unrepentant embarrassment to his country of birth. Last year, he deserted from the 82nd Airborne Division, fled to Canada and became the anti-war movement's sexiest man alive. Now, in a desperate bid for refugee status, this AWOL poster boy is collectively smearing our brave men and women in Iraq as war criminals to save his hide.

She contrasts these deserters from the “draft dodges” of the Vietnam War (another group of sniveling cowards). She points out that in the 60’s the dodgers were not volunteers like they are today. Not that would make a difference. In my opinion, they are all cowards. Although, it does make Hinzelman more of an idiot, it was all good for him while the military was another part time job for him. When the call came, as it inevitably would, he begrudgingly went to Afghanistan after all of a sudden deciding he was a conscientious-objector.

As I said, I believe these people are nothing more than cowards at worst or they just don’t want to have their comfortable life upset. It is a real hardship to be over here away from all the people you love. I have two boys in middle school that I miss terribly. I have missed many things including baseball and football games. I am missing a choir concert tomorrow where my youngest has a small solo. However, I believe there are some things much bigger than my comfort and convenience. I want a better world for the very children I miss. I hope that in some small way my contribution here will pay big dividends for my children and grandchildren.

The peace at any cost fools say “war does not solve anything.” My reply is just how do you solve tyranny? A dictator hell bent on domination will not be placated. That cluster of clowns conveniently overlooks all the problems the Hussein regime caused and wanted to continue to cause. To not see the evil of the Hussein and the terrorist who support him is foolish in the extreme. I remain optimistic that there will be a change for the better over here in Iraq and it will foster change for the better in the whole region, only time will tell. I am also confident that Hinzelman and his ilk are in the minority. They have a privilege to their opinion, however wrong it may be. I fight for the freedom of wrongheaded opinionated fools as much as every other American. It is funny, but Hinzelman types want freedom to express opinions but don’t want to fight for it when the time comes. That’s alright, there are over 130,000 of us over here who are willing and able to fight.

The entire article is at Townhall.com at http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/mm20041208.shtml

Can Bush 41 Get Peace on the Road Again?

2004-12-06T08:31:00.000+03:00

George Bush Can Save The Middle East. Bush 41, That Is.
By Jonathan Rauch, National Journal

Jonathan Rauch in National Journal says that Bush 41 could be the key to moving forward the peace process in the Middle East. Now that Arafat is gone, the road seems to be cleared of some of the obstacles that where there while he was in power. However, it will take bold action to get the process moving in the right direction. After citing others including Clinton as possible candidates and giving the reason why they would not work, Rauch hits upon Bush 41 and says;

Only one person hits every bull's-eye, and that is former President Bush. His authority, experience, and stature are beyond dispute. As for time, what does he have to do that's more important? Israelis view him as pro-Arab, but Arabs view his son as pro-Israel, so the two would form a balanced ticket. His very presence would transform the diplomatic scene by signaling a new level of U.S. involvement.

After reading the opinion, I agree, I would join Rauch in urging President Bush to ask his father to come back to public office to help facilitate this endeavor. In my mind, the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is one of the big keys to LASTING peace in this whole region. Without that conflict to constantly inflame the Arab populace, the whole region could be much more peaceful. One can only hope.

You can find the whole article here: http://nationaljournal.com/rauch.htm

Are there any Heros in Iraq or how about just some Good News?

2004-12-02T13:18:00.000+03:00

I have written about this before, but today Thomas Sowell brings it up again eloquently in his piece “No heroes?” at www.Townhall.com.

It is reprehensible the way the media is covering this war. They play up the American military deaths and any news about a bad apple in the military but hardly ever have any good news fit to print on the “Front Page.” When I mobilized to come over here back in February the media made it seem every convoy was getting hit and if you went out on the roads you were almost certain to die or get maimed in a horrible road side bombing. When I finally got over here after some fear and trepidation, I quickly realized the media had blown the situation WAY out of proportion. There are literally hundreds of convoys running around this country. Not only that, in most areas the military convoy is sort of an armored parade for the local Iraqis. It is entertainment for the kids who all come out and cheer and jump up and down when a convoy passes. Getting hit in a convoy is somewhat less likly than getting into a car accident in the US. (Now saying this, I hope I have not jinxed myself to prove an ironic point:) But I digress from the main point of this post….Tom Sowell says in his piece:

You cannot fight a war without many brave men taking risks with their lives in order to try to accomplish their mission. Yet can you name a single American hero in either of the two wars going on today in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Chances are you can't -- not if you rely on the mainstream media. You may be able to name someone from the little band of people involved in the prison scandal in Iraq or perhaps Jessica Lynch who was rescued, but not those who rescued her.

There are apparently no heroes among the more than 100,000 men and women fighting for us overseas -- only victims. At least, that is how the news gets filtered and spun in most of the media.

He goes on to what I think is the main point….

Those who are busy "honoring" the deaths of American troops in Iraq seldom have much to say about what those troops accomplished. The restoration of electricity, the re-opening of hospitals and schools, and all the other things being done to try to restore a war-devastated country get little attention, and everything that has gone wrong makes the front pages and TV news for weeks on end.

I would recommend reading the whole article here:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20041202.shtml

As a soldier who has been over here for 10 months, I am extremely upset at the portrayal of this war in the MSM. Like Tom Sowell, I say any one has the right to oppose this war, but to only play up the bad facts that are taking place over here while down playing the good facts on the front page is just plain wrong for the troops. Taking a more balanced approach to reporting the facts and leaving the opinion to editorialist would be a smart move.

Happy Birthday Winston Churchill

2004-11-30T20:26:00.000+03:00

Justin D. Lyons writes a piece on Churchill worth reading, especially today on his birthday. Churchill is one of those historical figures that looms over many of the great men in history. I have tried (in vain) to find the time to read the vast array of writings on him. He was also a prolific writer. This essay sums up (if there can be a summary) the essence of Churchill’s political thought. Lyons concludes with this…

The study of Churchill’s statesmanship deserves a central place in the scholarship of the politics of freedom. He believed in the metaphysical freedom of mankind, and he insisted that it should be reflected in political arrangements, that political freedom was necessary to the flourishing of the human spirit. But the conditions of freedom do not simply occur. Humanity must fight to establish them, struggle to maintain them, and sacrifice to defend them. Because these tasks have no end in this world, the lessons of Churchill’s words and deeds will remain central to the human political experience. They are, to echo the Greek historian Thucydides, "a possession for all time." We may therefore take Churchill’s message as inspiration to undertake the tasks we have still before us: "The day may dawn when fair play, love for one’s fellow men, respect for justice and freedom will enable tormented generations to march forth serene and triumphant from the hideous epoch in which we have to dwell. Meanwhile, never flinch, never weary, never despair."

I think the bolded statement sums up what is going on over here in Iraq. The conditions of freedom have never “just occurred in history. It has always taken a lot of blood, sweat and toil to establish it. Moreover, liberty will not last in any country without people willing to defend it. I recommend the entire essay for your reading on this great man’s birthday.
http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/oped/lyons/04/churchill.html

Also, it was Winston Churchill that said, “a reservist is twice the citizen” because he/she has both civilian responsibilities and job along with the responsibility to answer the nation’s call to defend it and lay down his/her life. Here’s to all my fellow reservist who have admirably responded to these two responsibilities in the past and who will again respond in the future.

10 reasons elections in Iraq will succeed

2004-11-28T13:58:00.000+03:00

Let's hope Quentin Langley is correct in his assesment. I happen to agree with all his reasons, especially number 1. Go read for your self http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/columnists/guests/s_277082.html

Also, for the nattering nabobs of negativity that say the elections should not take place unless this country is as placid as the state of Vermont I recommend Fighting the good fight by Charles Krauthammer
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/charleskrauthammer/ck20041126.shtml\

I just cannot understand the people who whine about how hard it is to bring democracy to this area of the world when in our own country we fought a bloody civil war 85 years after it's founding. Moreover, the whole of United States history from the beginning of the Republic to this very day is marred by uprisings and violence at different points. I guess this is just one more indication of the poor state of education in the US.

Reagan Given Credit for Soviet Downfall

2004-11-28T10:13:00.000+03:00

In an editorial titled "Two Dissidents" in The New York Sun available online http://www.nysun.com/article/5169. The writers discuss the bond that has developed between President Bush and deputy prime minister of Israel, Natan Sharansky.

At Mr. Bush's invitation, the two men spent more than an hour discussing Mr.Sharansky's new book, "The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror." Mr. Bush has not only read the book, but also recommended it to other officials in his administration, such as the secretary of state
designate, Condoleezza Rice.

Mr. Sharansky writes in his book that there were few dissidents in the Soviet Union in the 1930s because they were all killed. When the penalty changed from death to imprisonment, more dissenters emerged. Mr. Sharansky found the courage to stand up against the Soviet Union because he knew the free world would stand with him. That was the significance of Reagan's "evil empire" speech. "We dissidents were ecstatic," Mr. Sharansky has written. "Finally, the leader of the Free World had spoken the truth, a truth that burned inside the heart of each and every one of us."

One thing that infuriates me is the denial on the left of Reagan's contribution to the downfall of Soviet Russia. I have read it several times in the past months over here. They want to give all the credit to Mr Gorbechev and none to President Regan. I, on the other hand, do not deny the fact that it was a two way street and that it is a happy quirk of history that these two leaders came to overlapping power. However, President Reagan (and his policies that the left decried as warmongering) set the table for the ultimate demise of what Mr Reagan called the "Evil Empire." Without the build up of our military, there would have been no realization by Mr Gorbechev that Soviet Russian economy could not compete with the US. We would have simply spent the Soviet Union into bankruptcy and chaos. It took Mr Gorbechev to realize this and change the course of his country. This of course took great courage on his part. However, it also took President Reagan to understand the changing face of the Soviet Union. Without the two pieces, the puzzle would never have fit together. Without either the courage of Mr Gorbechev or the responsive politics of President Reagan, the change would never have occurred.

Mr Sharensky points this out in his remarks above. The evil empire speech awakened the dissidents and made them ecstatic, a little of which must have been hidden in Mr Gorbechev. The same is true of the Middle East. To abandon the common people over here to continued tyranny for the sake of "stability" is ludicrous. No only because it is inhumane, but because it has patently not worked to keep the United States secure. We tried to "keep stability" in the Soviet Union for 40+ years only to be under the constant threat of possible nuclear war. Radical change in Russia brought the peace of no nuclear holocaust of the (Massive Assured Destruction) MAD policy.

Now we are threatened by a different menace, terrorism, which is also born out of the tyrannical regimes of Middle Eastern countries. The only way to change this situation is radical change to the governments in this area. How will this be done? Either through revolution or through the US shifting the power to more moderate democratically minded people in the countries. Revolution was tried in the past (a couple of times) in Iraq. The revolutions (uprisings as they are called in the media) were brutally put down by Saddam. He had built a political machine, not in democratic sense but in blood that rivaled Hitler and Stalin. The only other option to bring about change was US intervention. I am hopeful that the change will bring about freedom and democracy to this country. I continue to hope that dissidents who want freedom and liberty will come forward to lead this country. Furthermore, I hope that dissidents in other tyrannical countries (Iran) are emboldened by the actions of a strong US President in Iraq and Afghanistan and throw off the yolk for the freedom of self rule by a truly democratically elected government. Liberty, freedom and prosperity are the only way to rid the world of terrorism and have safety for our descendants.

1984 being practiced as PC in California

2004-11-26T09:14:00.000+03:00

A principle at a Cupertino school near San Francisco requires a fifth grade teacher to submit all his lesson plans for approval. Apparently, she has rejected all material that mentions God in them.

Among the materials she has rejected, according to Williams (the teacher), are excerpts from the Declaration of Independence, George Washington's journal, John Adams' diary, Samuel Adams' "The Rights of the Colonists" and William Penn's "The Frame of Government of Pennsylvania."

"He hands out a lot of material and perhaps 5 to 10 percent refers to God and Christianity because that's what the founders wrote," said Thompson, a lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund, which advocates for religious freedom. "The principal seems to be systematically censoring material that refers to Christianity and it is pure discrimination."

You can find the whole report here: "Declaration of Independence Banned at California School" Reuters Report By Dan Whitcomb http://www.reuters.com/printerFriendlyPopup.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6911883

Again, it is appalling to me that people who are entrusted to teach children (like the principle cited above) will stoop to the Orwellian censorship of historical documents. From the news reports, you get the sense that if the tacher were to take out the reference to God in these offending documents, then they would be OK. Did this woman ever read "1984" by George Orwell? I would suggest to the teacher (who is suing) that in any settlement or demand that the principle be required to read 1984 and submit a 1500 word essay on how her actions were consistent with Big Brother's intent to rewrite history.

Here is an (correct) version of the first part of the Declaration.

Declaration of Independence
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—that whenever any Form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Thanksgiving Proclamation - THANK GOD

2004-11-25T08:37:00.000+03:00

George Washington
October 3, 1789
City of New York

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor, and Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their Joint Committee requested me “to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanks-giving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.”
Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th. day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be. That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks, for his kind care and protection of the People of this country previous to their becoming a Nation, for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his providence, which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war, for the greatest degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed, for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted, for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions, to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually, to render our national government a blessing to all the People, by constantly being a government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executived and obeyed, to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shown kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord. To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and Us, and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

This is reprinted from George Washington: A Collection edited by W.B. Allen and published in 1988 by LibertyClassics.

However, Michele Malkin found that one school does not know how to teach all-inclusive history: http://michellemalkin.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/496 It never ceases to amaze me how so called educated people can overlook history like the proclamation re-printed above. One of the very first acts of Congress after the new Constitution was ratified was to direct President Washington to set aside a day to THANK GOD for all the blessings bestowed upon the new nation.

Well, contrary to the simpletons at St Mary’s who teach small children, I want to THANK GOD for my family and friends. I especially want to THANK GOD for my two beautiful sons, my girlfriend, Rachel, and her beautiful daughter. I want to THANK GOD for my mom and dad and my sister Karen who died almost 16 years ago (I believe with all my being she is with the GOD whom I now Thank). I want to also THANK GOD for my sister, Kathy, who is alive and well, THANK GOD, and for my beautiful nieces and nephew. I would like to also THANK GOD for all my friends, too numerous to list (THANK GOD for so many) that have all supported me and prayed for me throughout this deployment. Finally, I would like to THANK GOD for all the brave men and women who have served with me over here in Iraq. They are the reason freedom has a chance to flourish in this country, Iraq, and they are the reason Freedom will continue to shine brightly from our great country The United States of America. THANK GOD for freedom and GOD Bless America.

I would also like to wish you all a Happy Thanksgiving and hope you also have a lot to THANK GOD for.

Shocking Discovery in Iraq

2004-11-23T19:11:00.000+03:00

Happy Iraqis! You would think they were non-existent watching the news. But they are out there, in droves. I see it every time I go on a convoy. The Coalition is doing great things over here. You would think that would be just as much news as a Marine killing a rouge belligerent on one day of the war. Go see the shocking pictures too much for the media to handle.
http://www.aim.org/static/2194_0_7_0_C

Media Does not Know a Damn Thing!

2004-11-20T10:35:00.004+03:00

Now first off, I should tell you that I am not in the United States right now. I am in Iraq, where the fighting is taking place daily. So, I am not (thankfully) watching the onslaught of coverage of the Marine who shot a rouge belligerent (who the media call an insurgent). For if I were, I would (I am sure) be yelling at the TV in a futile attempt at trying to get the idiot talkinghead to hear me, "You fool! the Geneva convention does not apply to rouge belligerents! Agggh!"

In my net surfing, I have read several commentators say the same thing; the Geneva Convention does not apply. On the left, there is a furor over this interpretation of international law. The fact that it is the correct interpretation does not matter to the left. Now, I am not advocating a wholesale disregard for the GC by the United States. It is wise for the US to adhere to the GC in this war even though the other side does not. However, it should be kept in mind that in the long run, they just do not apply to belligerents who do not wear a uniform and does not fight in a recognized Army.

Moreover, assuming for argument sake the GC does apply to these belligerents, in the Marine's case (from the reported facts) he would be justified in the shooting. One of the well known (except in media social circles) tactics, techniques and procedures (TTP) of the rouge belligerents is to fake death or injury and then shoot as the soldier or Marine gets near. Moreover, even if the person were dead, another TTP of the belligerent is to booby trap the dead body. In fact, some Marines were killed and injured (in the very Fallujah action) by both booby-trapped bodies and wounded soldiers pretending to surrender. As a result, the belligerents have forfeited the (perceived) right under the GC by their violation of the GC with these TTP. Another blatant violation (if the GC applies) is the use of places of worship as a military garrison (to store weapons) or attack from. The Marines were attacked repeatedly from that mosque. If anyone should be condemned for GC violations (again assuming they apply) it would be the media's favorite cause the "insurgents" fighting the Marines. (This argument does not, of course, even get into the sawing off the heads [of civilians who's crime is just being present in Iraq (and God forbid helping the Iraqis)] by that same darling of the media known as insurgents)

There are some great articles on the web on this subject I would commend:
"Damned if they do, Dead if they don't" by Mark Alexander
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/markalexander/ma20041119.shtml

Also, "War Crimes?" by Oliver North
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ollienorth/on20041119.shtml

Little speech Looms Large 141 Years Later

2004-11-19T18:16:00.000+03:00

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense - we can not dedicate,we can not consecrate - we can not hallow - this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us-that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion-that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain-that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom-and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Peter Schramm at No Left Turns reminds us that the Gettysburg Address was given on this date 141 years ago. He also wrote a good essay on this speech breaking down its meaning. These "few appropriate remarks" Lincoln gave at the dedication of the cemetery at Gettysburg have (contrary to what Lincoln said in the remarks) been long remembered. They have been noted precisely because the words succinctly sum up the continuing struggle for a free government based on the consent of the governed. We as a nation must be ever vigil to keep the light of liberty shining, not just on the United States, but also on other countries striving for freedom. I believe that the United States was given the unique opportunity by God to bring freedom to other humans around the world. In Iraq, we are not here to occupy or rule over the area as a colony, but to make the country stable for a fledgling democratic government that is based on the premise of the consent of the governed. Once the people of Iraq understand that they are in control of their own destiny, then they will be able to embark on the same journey we have been on since the great American experiment began 11 score and 8 years ago.

The Schramm essay "A Few Fine Words" can be found at: http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/onprin/v5n6/schramm.html

Re-election of W, how will France and GB Cope?

2004-11-16T20:16:00.000+03:00

Timothy Garton Ash in his Newsweek International piece Living With America talks about the differences between the approaches of Tony Bliar and Jacques Chirac's to American power in the world today. I do not agree with it, but the piece is mostly well thought out and written. It gives a good synopsis of how France and Great Britain are dealing with the lone superpower in the world. There are a couple of glaring opinions that gives away his political leaning. However, the one at the end of the article (which I will comment on later) he disguises as fact. I want to start with this:

"Here was the president whom foreigners like to caricature as a cowboy, the "toxic Texan," sounding not merely like Woodrow Wilson but like a contemporary disciple of the German Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant. "The reason why I'm so strong on democracy,' said the philosopher-president, "is democracies don't go to war with each other."

Once again, I would like to point out that President Bush has a grand vision for the world as a peaceful place. History bears out the statement the President makes. Since the end of WWII, democracies have been loath to make war on each other. It is by and large the dictatorships and tyrannical states that make war happen with their grand schemes and their thirst for power. For those Libs who want to argue that the US made war on Iraq, I would say WRONG. I would be glad to remind you why in the comments section, if you so choose to take that course. Mr Ash goes on,

“Yet Blair's well-mannered, idealistic-insider approach has its limits, too. For there's another side to the policy of the Bush administration: a fierce, even militaristic American nationalism that reaches sometimes too quickly for the gun (partly because the United States has such big ones) and seems to believe that its war on terror can be won simply by hunting down and shooting terrorists. In the one longer conversation I have had with President Bush, I was struck by a certain "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" quality in the way he talked about foreign affairs. Often he was the courteous Yalie Dr. Jekyll, keen to get on with allies, very much his father's son; but then the impatient Texan Mr. Hyde would suddenly stomp out, just itching to ride off the ranch and kick butt. Listening to other senior figures in the administration, especially Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, I find the old Greek word hubris comes involuntarily to mind: the pride that goes before a fall, the overestimation of your own power that ends with nemesis.

Between them(France and Great Britian), these free countries have the power both to welcome and assist the Wilsonian part of Bush's agenda, and to deter the militaristic, nationalistic part; to embrace Dr. Jekyll and restrain Mr. Hyde. What's more, they will find, in the nearly half of America's politically engaged citizens who did not vote for Bush, in the Blue States that shared the world's postelection primal groan, a formidable ally inside the United States. As Karl Marx did not say: Blue States of the world, unite!”

To the above, I would say; this is the type of President I want. One who is willing to sit down and talk with reasonable leaders of the free world. However, one who also knows that talk is that, just talk. Actions speak louder. When a rouge state, say Iraq or Iran, talks all the while DOING the opposite, then there is a time when diplomacy ends in military action. Lets take a little walk down memory lane. Just before Germany invaded Poland and started the blitzkrieg on Western Europe, Lord Chamberlain, PM of Great Britain got Hitler to sign a peace agreement. What got the PM and other countries engaged in peace talks with Germany? The fact that Hitler was obviously disregarding the Versailles Peace Treaty that ended WWI at that time Hitler was rearming Germany for WWII. Lord Chamberlain announced over radio what we now know to be the singularly idiotic remark in the 20th Century, “we have achieved peace in our time.” Shortly after, Hitler unleashed the blitz and started mankind on the most destructive course in its history. A dictator was willing to take on the entire free world. He even toyed with plans to invade the US, however, GB (now under the wartime PM Churchill would not bow under and blocked Hitler’s plans) Mr Ash ends the article with this,

“President Bush begins his second term in a world of great dangers—terrorists with the ability to carry weapons of mass destruction in a carry-on suitcase, tyrannies, appalling poverty, drugs, AIDS, the undoubted fact of rapid global warming. It's also a world of great opportunities. More people in the world are more free than ever before. And the possibilities of spreading freedom are large. The old West of the cold war will never be re-created.”

(my emphasis)

Here is where the article really goes off the deep end in my opinion. Most of the statements I would agree with, but “the undoubted fact of rapid global warming” ??? Really??? I say, only a fool would not doubt global warming. How in hell can we predict the temperature 20, 50, 100 years from now when we cannot predict the weather a week from now? The “science” behind this bunk is more political agenda than actual science. The fact that anyone actually believes that crap amazes me much less states it as an “undoubted” fact.

You can find the whole article here….

President Bush Thanks Veterans

2004-11-13T15:13:00.000+03:00

Here are excerpts from President Bush's remarks at Arlington Cemetery on Veterans Day. He again reiterates what he said in my previous post on the Iraq conflict. That I am here to help a country be free so the United States will remain free and safe. The whole speech can be found at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/11/20041111-3.html

"Veterans Day is set aside to remember every man and woman who has taken up arms to defend our country. We honor every soldier, sailor, airman, Marine and Coastguardsman who gave some of the best years of their lives to the service of the United States and stood ready to give life, itself, on our behalf.

Our veterans are drawn from several generations and many backgrounds. They're Americans who remember the swift conflict of the Persian Gulf War; and a long Cold War vigil; the heat of Vietnam and the bitter cold of Korea. They are veterans in their 80s, who served under MacArthur and Eisenhower and saved the liberty of the world. And still with us in the year 2004 are a few dozen Americans who fought the Kaiser's army and celebrated the end of the Great War on this day in 1918.

All who have served in this cause are liberators in the best tradition of America. Their actions have made our nation safer in a world full of new dangers. Their actions have also upheld the ideals of America's founding, which defines us still. Our nation values freedom -- not just for ourselves, but for all. And because Americans are willing to serve and sacrifice for this cause, our nation remains the greatest force for good among all the nations on the Earth.

Some of tomorrow's veterans are in combat in Iraq at this hour. They have a clear mission: to defeat the terrorists and aid the rise of a free government that can defend itself. They are performing that mission with skill and with honor. They are making us proud. They are winning.

From the very day George Washington took command, the uniform of the United States has always stood for courage and decency and shining hope in a world of darkness. And all who have worn that uniform have won the thanks of the American people.

Today we also recall the men and women who did not live to be called "veterans," many of whom rest in these hills. Our veterans remember the faces and voices of fallen comrades. The families of the lost carry a burden of grief that time will lighten, but never lift. Our whole nation honors every patriot who placed duty and country before their own lives. They gave us every day that we live in freedom. The security of America depends on our active leadership in the world to oppose emerging threats and to spread freedom that leads to the peace we all want. And our leadership ultimately depends on the commitment and character of the Armed Forces.

May God bless our veterans and their families, and may God continue to bless our great nation. Thank you."

Color me "Neo-con"

2004-11-13T09:40:00.000+03:00

Well I have not been able to Blog for a while. I had to go to Baghdad and run around, then I found out I am going home sooner than expected so there has been a lot to do. Yea! Can you believe that, the Army sending someone home early? Well, I am not going to look a gift hoarse.... Any way, I have had several blogs running through my mind but this one came up today. President Bush said at his first interview the following:

"There is a certain attitude in the world, by some, that says that it's a waste of time to try to promote free societies in parts of the world, I just strongly disagree with those who do not see the wisdom of trying to promote free societies around the world. If we are interested in protecting our country for the long-term, the best way to do so is to promote freedom and democracy. And I simply do not agree with those who either say overtly or believe that certain societies cannot be free."

The pundits say that he is taking a "neo-con" tack when he says such things. This is opposed to a "realist" view that says we (the US) should deal with the reality we know instead of the unknown of overthrowing a government and trying to "stand up" a democracy. Does this sound familiar? Yes, Virginia this is the struggle of what the policy over Iraq should have been.

When you wipe away all the hype over the Iraq war, you are left with competing visions of the future. Some people believe (fear would be a better word) the future should not be guided by people with great and expanding vision. President Reagan was a good example. The country had been dealing with the Soviet union, the satellite states with oppressive regimes, the Berlin wall, etc. for almost 40 years by the time Reagan took office. Many on the left (who really liked socialism and communism) wanted at lest the status quo, if not a continued march of communism. What they really, really did not want was a President who was willing to look beyond all this to a new world without Soviet Russia. Reagan used to say he did not see the political spectrum as horizontal (ie left to right) but vertical (up and down). He saw the tyrannical state run communism as an abyss which kept the people down and he wanted to pull them up out of that abyss and give them a chance in the light of freedom. So when he called the Soviet Union an "evil empire" the realist, chicken littles saw the sky falling. My goodness he actually thought he could change the world. Now over twenty years later, the Soviet Union is on the ash heap of history and the Freedom loving United States is the strongest country in the world.

Now we are faced with different challenge but analogies can be drawn. If you look at the world the same way as President Reagan, the people in the middle east need to be pulled out of an abyss of tyranny that has been created by people who have exploited a religion to place/keep those people in oppression. It is not, by far, a religious struggle, although many people frame it that way to gain sympathy for the side opposing the United States. America, through its leadership has never said and does not want to impose any religion on the people of Iraq. All it wants to do is give the people freedom to make all the decisions in their own life, which would include what religion they want to follow. As long as I have been in Iraq, I have never heard even a whisper of "we need to get these heathen....(insert you own epithet)" Everyone has respect for the Islam faith. What they don't have respect for is radicals who have so twisted that faith so as to think they have the will of God to kill other humans for what ever purpose (religion or political power).

President Bush has the broad vision of changing the world. He wants to bring freedom to a people who have lived under oppression for a long period of time. The "realist" want to keep the status quo because they can't see over the horizon whether there is a dawn or sunset. If we stay frozen in fear of the unknown, then we will NEVER see a peaceful world. A fundamental change in the way government is conducted over here must take place to have the possibility of peace. The status quo only resulted in 9/11.

The Sweetness of Victory!

2004-11-04T13:58:00.000+03:00

I am still in the glow of the enormous victory the Republican Party had on 2 Nov 04. Not only did President Bush win with a sizable majority of the popular and electoral collage vote, but also we added to the majority in the HOR and Senate. Not only that, Tom Daschle, that perennial pain in the ass, went down in flames. Also, finally, finally the population of my home state, Louisiana, got smart and elected a Republican Senator. With the GOP in power in both houses and gaining, if your state does not have a GOP Senator, it will be relegated to the fringe of the debates. This is especially true when the majority of the state (N.O. excepted) is conservative as it is in LA.

GREAT JOB and congratulations Mr. President, please work hard to keep the promises that you made in the election, especially the one about seeing the Iraq conflict through to a stable democracy. That will ensure the soldiers who gave their lives up for freedom and our time spent over here was not wasted.

There are two views on how to treat the voters on the losing side in the blogsphere, both of which I agree with to some extent. The first is to be nice to the Dems and that can be found at Bob-O-Rama http://bob-o-rama.blogspot.com/ I agree, we should try to reach out to them, but not give in to their every demand just to get along. The other view is to flame them, especially the vile Michael Moore and Hollywood types. If you so choose to vent in this way you can do so at Dizzy-Girl http://www.dizzy-girl.net/index.php I must admit, I indulged at Dizzy Girl's site. Isn't the blogsphere wonderful, you CAN have your cake and eat it too.

Normandy Invasion; Miserable Failure

2004-11-02T21:49:00.000+03:00

This is just too damn funny

After more than sixty years, John Kerry has called on Franklin Roosevelt to
apologize for the failures of the Normandy invasion and for lying about the War
in Europe. From the very beginning, President Roosevelt promised not to take
America to War.
However, after he lied about going to war, the least he could have done was not lose any of our guys. John Kerry says, if he were president, he would have fought WW2 in a better way.
Because of Roosevelt's incompetence as commander in chief, we suffered more than 2,400 casualties on a single day! Only 2 of 29 amphibious Sherman tanks made it to the beach - And with the exception of one, no unit of the 116th landed where it was planned. The paratroopers were way off. The President lied about how easy it would be and now the French hate us. John Kerry repeated his statement, "Not only would I have fought WW2 in a better way, I would have fought WW2 even better.
Found it here - http://www.kerrycore.com/ There is a lot more, go take a look.

You know being over here and listening to the MSM and Kerry one would think we can't do anything right. All is lost, I should just demand to go home now. NOT! See my rant from a couple a days ago.

Beautiful Day in Iraq

2004-11-02T17:43:00.000+03:00

Sooo, yesterday this wonderful wet stuff started coming from the sky. I think they call it rain. I vaguely remember the stuff, but have not seen it since April. In case you don’t know, there are only two seasons in Iraq (at least where I am, just north of Baghdad). Wet and Brown/ Dry (hot) and tan. We seemed to have finally moved back into the wet and brown phase, which is a good thing because that is the season I started in when I came over. That can only mean one thing; it is getting close to my departure date, Yea!

The rain continued today, so it is official, the wet brown season is upon us. Also the temperature has gone down to the low 70s, and when you have become used to the mid 110s, it is down right cold! However, as I said before, this all means I am close to getting out of here and seeing good old New Orleans again. Never thought I would really know what it means to miss New Orleans, especially since that is where my sweetheart is. Love ya, Rach

Kerry claims victory after Redskins' loss

2004-11-01T18:20:00.000+03:00

Well, I guess it's over, after months and months and months and.....months of politiking it all came down to the Redskins vs. Greenbay game the weekend before the election. These two could have spared us all the hoopla and just waited for the outcome of this game to see who would win. In case you don't know, yahoo news put this out....

The National Football League's Redskins lost 28-14 to the Green Bay
Packers at home on Sunday and, if tradition holds, this means
President George W. Bush is bound to lose the White House.
The legend surrounding the Redskins' last home game before Election Day is
simplicity itself: If they win, the White House incumbent will remain president.
If they lose, the incumbent loses.
Going into the 2004 vote, the Redskins' electoral barometer has held
true for 17 straight elections -- a record that professional pollsters can only
dream of.
"I couldn't be more thrilled with the Packers win today," Kerry said in a
statement titled "Packers Win -- Kerry's In!" released soon after the final
whistle blew at Fedex Field outside Washington.
However,
Back on the sports field, fans of divination are still mulling the possible electoral impact of the historic World Series (news - web sites) win last week by the Boston Red Sox (news) baseball team -- its first world championship since 1918.
Some believe it augurs a Kerry win, given that Boston is the Massachusetts senator's home team. They also point out that the Red Sox won the World Series in two other election years -- 1912 and 1916 -- and in each case the Democrat candidate came out on top

I think the Sox win is the big wild card in this prediction game. The Sox won in 1918, not a presidential election year, true, but the Republicans won the house that year at the mid term election. Also, in the next Presidential election, Warren Harding won in a landslide.

Finally, no one has taken into account the ending of the New England winning streak and the lunar eclipse that happened a couple of days ago. Oh, and the fact that Martha went to jail too, anyone thought of that? Well, I guess the prediction game is not complete yet after all.

We will have to see how that little thing that happens tomorrow turns out after all.

I predict a Bush Landslide, Martha in jail, a lunar eclipse, the SOX winning and the Pats losing all in one year... It must be in the cards (oh, yea they were swept in the WS after having the best record of the year) See it all comes together nicely.

The REAL American Pie

2004-10-31T19:55:00.000+03:00

I, being as old as I am, grew up in the 70's. One of the songs I remember and really liked is Bye, Bye Miss American Pie by Don McLean. This, unlike the recent move series called American Pie had real substance and meaning. Although I thought the movies had some really funny moments, there is just something wrong with turning an American icon, Apple Pie, into a means to sexually satisfy oneself. I did not really think that joke was all that funny. Any way, I digress... The song, when I heard it in my younger years was a big hit and I, being as young as I was, could remember the catchy chorus like all the kid my age. As I grew older, I began to realize the song had some real meaning. While I was wandering the net looking for another McLean tune, Starry Starry Night, (another song with a lot of meaning, but I'll leave that for another post) I ran across a great site called Understanding American Pie. I whole heartedly recommend the site for your reading.

Here is the site.

http://www.understandingamericanpie.com/

What really burns me up is...

2004-10-31T16:42:00.000+03:00

the MSM. That is what. There are over 100,000 military troops and untold number of civilians over here working hard, most with their lives on the line, to rebuild this country. Who gets the headlines..... the bad apples and bad news......

---Abu Gareb, a bunch of adolescent idiots who decided make an attempt at what they thought was having fun during the wee hours of the morning, they were caught in their criminal idiocy and punished. As well they should have been. However, the first couple of months I am over here, that was all that was on the news. When I was mobilized in February, that story was already old news, the military was already investigating and moving towards Courts-Martial for the accuseds. However, once the MSM found there were pictures--well, you would have thought the military had been caught with its pants down and the blame went all the way to the White House for the actions of some idiot privates and sergeants on the ground in Iraq.

---The unit that refused a mission a few weeks ago. (I can not comment on the facts of an on- going investigation directly) However, I can say there is no "we don't have uparmor" defense in refusing an order to go on a mission. What ever happened to form up, were moving out, on foot! We as a military and a society have gotten into the mode of war should be fought without any cost. Ideals worth fighting for such as liberty and freedom will require sacrifice. It seems that there is now a belief that if we just armor more, Individual Body Armor, up armor HUMVVE, etc we will be able to save all lives in combat. I am not suggesting that we should not endeavor to protect the troops as much as possible, lord knows I want armor. However, we can not allow the mentality of the troops to be, if there is no armor, or not enough armor then we don't go. That would mean the mission will not be accomplished. In this case, the mission was to deliver needed supplies to posts out in the middle of no where, posts that sorely need the supplies.

---the "lost" munitions flap. PLeeeze, this place is awash in munitions. Near here there is a huge bunker complex with all types of munitions scattered to the high heavens. There are civilian contractor working furiously to destroy it. There are munitions and weapons dating all the way back to WWII, that is 60 years! Moreover, since this "story" broke, the lefties have been huffing about why can't the Bush administration explain its self, Huh, huh??? They seem to believe that war, or any real life endeavor can be neatly played like a plot line in a 2 hour move. It escapes all the conspiracy theory loonies that the military is a hugh behemoth of an organization. Hell it is hard to find a light bulb sometimes in the Army, much less be able to answer a complex question of what happened 18 months ago while divisions were on a battlefield moving through an area handing off responsibility. I am not saying that the Army is not capable of screwing up, (which God knows it has in the past in spades) but to bring up an issue and expect it to answer the questions in nanosecond time, is asinine.

Also, to expect it to keep tract of every thing, looters, museums, chemical facilities, bad people we want to catch, not to mention killing of enemies on the battle field is preposterously. To do all the thing the MSM (and the Dems) wanted the military to do we would have needed a force as large as that used in WWII. BTW, even with that force in WWII, there was still those problems in 1945. The fact of the matter is this military (all voluteer) has done an extrodinary job and I just do not see, the MSM, the Dems or Mr Kerry saying anything positive about what is going on over here.

There are a lot of positive things, I see schools being built, factories being opened, people going back to work, getting their houses back in order. Everytime I look when out on convoy, there are new satellite dishes up (these were banned under Saddam). Also, there are NO more government sponsored systematic rape and murder programs in effect in Iraq. The US is looked at as liberators, not conquerors. As is has been for a long time in US history.

But do you see the good in the news as much as and with as much fanfare as the bad? NOOOO.

There now I feel beeter. (well for at least a few minutes)

Now in Kerry's corner....OBL!

2004-10-30T15:04:00.000+03:00

Here is and excerpt from OBL's ramblings :

I am so surprised by you. Although we are in the fourth year after the
events of Sept 11, Bush is still practicing distortion and misleading on you,
and obscuring the main reasons and therefore the reasons are still existing to
repeat what happened before. I will tell you the reasons behind theses
incidents.

I will be honest with you on the moment when the decision was taken to
understand. We never thought of hitting the towers. But after we were so fed up,
and we saw the oppression of the American Israeli coalition on our people in
Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind and the incidents that really touched
me directly goes back to 1982 and the following incidents. When the US permitted
the Israelis to invade Lebanon with the assistance of the 6th fleet. In these
hard moments, it occurred to me so many meanings I cant explain but it resulted
in a general feeling of rejecting oppression and gave me a hard determination to
punish the oppressors. While I was looking at the destroyed towers in Lebanon,
it came to my mind to punish the oppressor the same way and destroy towers in
the US to get a taste of what they tasted, and quit killing our children and
women.

We didn't find difficulty dealing with Bush and his administration due to
the similarity of his regime and the regimes in our countries. Whish half of
them are ruled by military and the other half by sons of kings and presidents
and our experience with them is long. Both parties are arrogant and stubborn and
the greediness and taking money without right and that similarity appeared
during the visits of Bush to the region while people from our side were
impressed by the US and hoped that these visits would influence our countries.
Here he is being influenced by these regimes, Royal and military. And was
feeling jealous they were staying for decades in power stealing the nations
finances without anybody overseeing them. So he transferred the oppression of
freedom and tyranny to his son and they call it the Patriot Law to fight
terrorism. He was bright in putting his sons as governors in states and he
didn't forget to transfer his experience from the rulers of our region to
Florida to falsify elections to benefit from it in critical times.

We agreed with Mohamed Atta, god bless him, to execute the whole operation
in 20 minutes. Before Bush and his administration would pay attention and we
never thought that the high commander of the US armies would leave 50 thousand
of his citizens in both towers to face the horrors by themselves when they most
needed him because it seemed to distract his attention from listening to the
girl telling him about her goat butting was more important than paying attention
to airplanes butting the towers which gave us three times the time to execute
the operation thank god.

Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or Al Qaeda. Your security is in your hands. Each state that doesn't mess with our security has automatically secured their security.

First, whenever someone tells me they "will be honest with me" I immediately get suspicious. If you have to tell me your being honest, you are most likely doing the opposite. Second, this statement has a begging ring to it, not the fire and brim stone crap he usually spouts. Finally, it must be comfoting to extreme Bush hating lefties that OBL is persuaded by their rhetoric. Stolen election.... Bah.