Combs Spouts Off

"It's my opinion and it's very true."

  • Calendar

    December 2025
    S M T W T F S
     123456
    78910111213
    14151617181920
    21222324252627
    28293031  
  • Recent Posts

  • Tag Cloud

  • Archives

Posts Tagged ‘war’

Pelosi celebrates Flag Day

Posted by Richard on June 14, 2007

The buildup of 30,000 additional combat troops in Iraq known as the "surge" will be complete tomorrow, and the military said last week that "it could take up to two months for the newly arrived reinforcements to be fully effective." There are certainly signs of improvement, but it would be premature to declare the surge a success.

For the Democrats, however, it's never too early to declare it a failure, and that's just what Senator Reid and Representative Pelosi did yesterday. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that this is how Nancy Pelosi celebrated Flag Day today: 

Pelosi waves white flag

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 7 Comments »

Anniversaries

Posted by Richard on June 6, 2007

Today is the 63rd anniversary of D-Day. Noel Sheppard offered links to some commemorative videos and tribute posts. Justin Smith, noting that no one has spoken more eloquently on the subject, posted Reagan's 1984 Normandy speech. Go read the whole thing, but here's a brief excerpt of Reagan addressing the D-Day veterans (emphasis added):

The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead or on the next. It was the deep knowledge–and pray God we have not lost it–that there is a profound, moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest. You were here to liberate, not to conquer, and so you and those others did not doubt your cause. And you were right not to doubt.

You all knew that some things are worth dying for. One's country is worth dying for, and democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man. All of you loved liberty. All of you were willing to fight tyranny, and you knew the people of your countries were behind you.

Those words are all the more moving and poignant today, when many seem to have indeed lost what Reagan prayed we had not.

This week also marks the 40th anniversary of the Six Day War, which began on June 5, 1967. Charles Johnson linked to a remarkable historical document:

Reading TIME magazine’s account of the Six Day War, written in June 1967 shortly after it finished, is an amazing experience. The absence of cynicism and bias in this piece is a very marked contrast to the TIME magazine of today, and is a stark illustration of how deeply this magazine has gone wrong: The Quickest War.

And notice: not once are the Arabs who lived in the area referred to as “Palestinians.”

He's dead right. Just try to imagine the Time of today publishing this analysis (emphasis added):

Inevitably, the fact that so many Arab planes were trapped in their parking area-strung out wingtip to wingtip-suggested that Israel must have struck the first blow. The stunned Arabs, of course, said that it had, and Moscow angrily concurred. But, as Israel first told it, the Jewish jets scrambled only after early-warning radar picked up several waves of Arab planes headed straight for Israel. At the same time, a massive Egyptian armored column was reported to be rolling out of its base at El Arish and steering toward the Israeli border.

Historians may argue for years over who actually fired the first shot or dropped the first bomb. But the Realpolitik of Israel's overwhelming triumph has rendered the question largely academic. Ever since Israel was created 19 years ago, the Arabs have been lusting for the day when they could destroy it. And in the past month, Nasser succeeded for the first time in putting together an alliance of Arab armies ringing Israel; he moved some 80,000 Egyptian troops and their armor into Sinai and elbowed out the U.N. buffer force that had separated the antagonists for a decade. With a hostile Arab population of 110,000,000 menacing their own of 2,700,000, the Israelis could be forgiven for feeling a fearful itch in the trigger finger. When Nasser closed the Gulf of Aqaba, a fight became almost inevitable.

For an excellent account of the Six Day War with more historical perspective, read David Meir-Levi's FrontPageMag.com article. It also clearly explains how Israel's reviled "occupation of Palestine" actually came about (emphasis added):

A few days after the UN cease fire of 6/11/67, Abba Eban, Israel's representative at the UN, made his famous speech. He held out the olive branch to the Arab world, inviting Arab states to join Israel at the peace table, and informing them in unequivocal language that everything but Jerusalem was negotiable. Territories taken in the war could be returned in exchange for formal recognition, bi-lateral negotiations, and peace.

Israel wanted peace. Israel offered land in exchange for peace. As Lord Carendon, the UK representative at the UN, noted with considerable surprise after Abba Eban's speech, never in the history of warfare did the victor sue for peace — and the vanquished refuse.

Twice within a few weeks of the war's end, the USSR and the Arab Bloc floated motions in the UN General Assembly declaring that Israel was the aggressor. Both motions were roundly defeated. At that time, the world knew that the Arabs were the aggressors, and that Israel, victim of aggression, had sued for peace both before the war and after their amazing victory.

Unable to brand Israel the aggressor, and in disarray following Israel's public request for peace and reconciliation, The Arab world faced what for it was a difficult choice. Recognize Israel, negotiate for the return of conquered territories, and make peace…or not.

Rather than respond to Israel's invitation, the Arab states met in Khartoum, Sudan, for a conference in August, 1967. They unanimously decided in favor of the now famous three Khartoum "NO's": No recognition, No negotiation, No peace. This was only round 3. The Arab world could suffer many more defeats before its ultimate victory. Israel could suffer only one defeat. Better that Israel hold on to the territories taken in the war. Better that the refugees continue languishing in their squalor and misery. Better that the Arab states re-arm for round 4…than to recognize Israel's right to exist or negotiate toward a peaceful settlement of the conflict.

With the Khartoum "NO's", the Arab world forced Israel to unwillingly assume control over the approximately million Arabs living in the West Bank, Golan Heights, Sinai and Gaza Strip.

It's a shame and an outrage that an entire generation has never heard even a brief history of this war and how the current situation in the Middle East came about. It's utterly contemptible that a coalition of commies and 7th-century barbarians will commemorate the 40th anniversary of Israel's victory with a rally in Washington calling for its destruction. If you're anywhere near the District of Columbia (or NYC — there will be a bus), please join the Stand With Israel counter-rally.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | 9 Comments »

Our hero dead

Posted by Richard on May 28, 2007

On May 30, 2005, when this blog was just seven weeks old, I posted "What I did for Memorial Day":

I talked with my dad this weekend. That's not unusual; I call him or he calls me most weekends. He's 89, so there's no telling how many more conversations we'll have.

He wasn't a very good father — occasionally a bit abusive and otherwise always quite distant. For most of my adult life, I returned the favor by being distant (both physically and emotionally) myself. But with age came first a "water under the bridge" attitude, then forgiveness, and eventually love.

My dad was a career Army officer who served in both WWII and Korea. This weekend — for the first time — I said something to him that I should have said many times.

I thanked him for his service.

We both got pretty choked up. It felt real good.

My dad passed away last August. I'm so very glad that I thanked him while he was still alive. I wish I could visit his grave this Memorial Day and thank him again. He's in the veteran's section of Highland Memorial Gardens in Knoxville. I hope someone has put up flags, like they do in Arlington.

Last year, I posted Edgar Guest's moving poem and Isaac Wankerl's wonderful photo of Arlington. I can't improve on those, so here they are again. 

Please take a moment today to remember those who died "that liberty shall live," as Guest put it. And if you have friends or relatives — or maybe an elderly neighbor down the street — who are veterans, thank them now. Don't wait until they have a marker over their head. The WWII veterans in particular are rapidly dwindling in number, and they really did fight so that "free men wear no tyrant's chain."

Memorial Day

by Edgar A. Guest (1881-1959)

 
The finest tribute we can pay
Unto our hero dead to-day,
Is not a rose wreath, white and red,
In memory of the blood they shed;
It is to stand beside each mound,
Each couch of consecrated ground,
And pledge ourselves as warriors true
Unto the work they died to do.

Into God's valleys where they lie
At rest, beneath the open sky,
Triumphant now o'er every foe,
As living tributes let us go.
No wreath of rose or immortelles
Or spoken word or tolling bells
Will do to-day, unless we give
Our pledge that liberty shall live.

Our hearts must be the roses red
We place above our hero dead;
To-day beside their graves we must
Renew allegiance to their trust;
Must bare our heads and humbly say
We hold the Flag as dear as they,
And stand, as once they stood, to die
To keep the Stars and Stripes on high.

The finest tribute we can pay
Unto our hero dead to-day
Is not of speech or roses red,
But living, throbbing hearts instead,
That shall renew the pledge they sealed
With death upon the battlefield:
That freedom's flag shall bear no stain
And free men wear no tyrant's chain.

 

"Flags In" for Memorial Day, Arlington National Cemetary. Photo from Isaac Wankerl (www.iwankerl.com).
The grave of his father, Maj. Max W. Wankerl, is in the foreground.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Targeting our weak spot

Posted by Richard on May 22, 2007

Glenn Reynolds, with an assist from a reader, came up with the best damn Iraq post I've seen in quite a while. Like much good humor, it's based on truth — in this case, a bitter truth. Because my legions of fans may not all have seen the post at Glenn's little blog, here it is:

THE MAIN FRONT IN THE WAR IS CONGRESS:

Iran is secretly forging ties with al-Qaida elements and Sunni Arab militias in Iraq in preparation for a summer showdown with coalition forces intended to tip a wavering US Congress into voting for full military withdrawal, US officials say.

Well, if they're targeting Congress they're certainly targeting our weak spot.

UPDATE: Reader Drew Kelley emails: "Wouldn't we be better off if we gave them Congress?"

As I've said before, I oppose torture.

 <RIMSHOT />

Oh, and to further fill your needs for humor and a way to vent, don't miss Glenn's multipart Jimmy Carter poll.  

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Military madness

Posted by Richard on May 3, 2007

This may be the single stupidest decision to come out of the Pentagon since the Vietnam War days. It's so short-sighted and ignorant and insanely counter-productive that it causes weird conspiracy theories like the ones I sometimes have about the Stupid Party to cross my mind: Could this be the work of someone trying to ensure failure and defeat? Someone deliberately silencing the most knowledgeable, articulate, informative, effective, moving, and persuasive voices in support of the War Against Islamofascism? It might as well be; the effect is the same, regardless of the motive.

It's too late and I'm too tired to write up the lengthy but unfocused rant that's been bubbling up since I first heard this news. So I'll just let Hugh Hewitt fill you in:

The Pentagon has issued new regulations effectively shutting down all active duty military blogs. 

I find this decision to be so amazingly ill-informed about how the milblogs have served the war effort and the cause of the military as to raise real doubts about the military's ability to ever get ahead of the enemy in the information war.  Really, if such a blunder can happen without anyone even asking about the ill effects on the effort to keep information flowing from people in the know to combat the ceaseless propaganda from the enemy, then the brass involved cannot possibly understand how the information war is playing out.

Another story:

The new rules (.pdf) obtained by Wired News require a commander be consulted before every blog update.

"This is the final nail in the coffin for combat blogging," said retired paratrooper Matthew Burden, editor of The Blog of War anthology. "No more military bloggers writing about their experiences in the combat zone. This is the best PR the military has — it's most honest voice out of the war zone. And it's being silenced." 

In my mind, it's anybody's guess as to who's more interested in silencing milbloggers, the Islamofascists or the Democrats. Michelle Malkin has lots more info. The 2007 Milblog Conference is this weekend, making this story even more ironic and infuriating.

I can't even think clearly about what should be done — maybe tomorrow. Some moron with stars on his shoulders ought to be horsewhipped. Express your outrage to somebody somewhere who might make a difference. You are outraged, aren't you? 

UPDATE: The online firestorm this ignited seems to be having an effect. The Army is backing offsort of. Maybe. It sounds to me a bit like, "Well, the regulations don't really mean what they say. Unless your CO decides they do." I suspect we'll be hearing more about this.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

The veto pen

Posted by Richard on May 3, 2007

Words fail me. Michelle Malkin:

Reader Bill N. e-mails the back story of the veto pen Bush used to nix the Democrats' surrender bill:

Bush signed the veto with a pen given to him by Robert Derga, the father of Marine Corps Reserve Cpl. Dustin Derga, who was killed in Iraq on May 8, 2005. The elder Derga spoke with Bush two weeks ago at a meeting the president had with military families at the White House.

Derga asked Bush to promise to use the pen in his veto. On Tuesday, Derga contacted the White House to remind Bush to use the pen, and so he did. The 24-year-old Dustin Derga served with Lima Company, 3rd Battalion 25th Marines from Columbus, Ohio. The five-year Marine reservist and fire team leader was killed by an armor-piercing round in Anbar Province

Sign the damn petition.  

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The enemy

Posted by Richard on April 15, 2007

Joseph Heller is best known for his marvelous novel, Catch-22, which was immensely popular with anti-war types in the 60s and 70s, and is undoubtedly still much-beloved by leftists, at least those of my generation. I recently encountered a great quote from Catch-22: "The enemy is anybody who's going to get you killed, no matter which side he's on."

This quote triggered an ironic thought: If Heller's point is valid, one can argue that Nancy Pelosi and her leftist anti-war friends are no longer the loyal opposition, they are now the enemy.

If you're inclined to agree, you might want to join the Center for Individual Freedom in urging the President and the Republican leadership to "get some back-bone" and strongly oppose Pelosi's pursuit of her "alternate" (Chamberlainesque) foreign policy.

Thinking about Catch-22 made me think of an anti-war slogan popular in the 1960s: "What if they gave a war and nobody came?" Today, we need to ask a slightly different question: What if they gave a war and only one side showed up?

The anti-war left is growing louder and completely dominates the Democratic Party. Many short-attention-span Americans are weary of Iraq in particular and the "War on Terror" in general (partly because it was unfortunately named and inadequately explained). Most of the Republican leadership either can't clearly articulate the danger we face and the need to fight, or they're afraid to for pragmatic reasons, or they've become discouraged and given up.

So here's where things stand: A ruthless and growing global Islamofascist movement is waging war against every culture, society, and religion different from itself, and it vows not to stop until all the world has been forced to submit to its 7th-century rule. Only the United States and a handful of allies have recognized the global nature of this conflict and the seriousness of the threat. Now, it seems that our will is failing, and more and more of us are ready to join the Europeans in pretending there is no threat, or believing that some accommodation with the enemy is possible, or insisting that it's all about a handful of fighters in the mountains of Afghanistan and nothing else.

What happens when one side in a war decides to stop fighting, but the other side continues?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

A strange and dismal trip

Posted by Richard on April 7, 2007

In his new Townhall column, Dean Barnett compared a random collection of civilians unexpectedly facing death aboard an airliner to a group of British sailors and marines conducting military operations on a warship. The limeys don't fare so well in the comparison:

On 9/11, the passengers aboard United Flight 93 had an option – they could rely on the good intentions of their captors or they could fight back. When presented with this Hobson's choice, they responded with the words "Let's roll." Their ensuing actions were the very definition of heroism.

A few weeks ago, 15 British seamen and marines, soldiers of the Royal Navy, found themselves in a similar quandary. Belligerent Iranians had surrounded them and threatened them with both words and actions. Just as the passengers on Flight 93 had a choice, so too did the British seamen who ultimately spent a couple of weeks as hostages of the Iranian regime. Why did these soldiers, the products of military training and representatives of Her Majesty's flag, make the decision to surrender themselves? Because, according to their Captain at a Friday press conference, "Fighting back was simply not an option."

What a strange and dismal trip it has been for the Western world, going from "Let's Roll" to "Fighting Back Was Not An Option" in scarcely more than five years. One can only hope that when the history of our era is written, the former will turn out to be the immortal quote, not the latter.

Barnett acknowledged that he, as a "keyboard warrior," has slight status for criticizing those who were in harm's way. But he found strong support for his reaction from Medal of Honor recipient Jack Jacobs. Read the whole thing. Allahpundit has the relevant video clips, along with the dispiriting news that the British Navy has ceased inspecting cargo ships bound for Iraq.

Like Barnett, I'm hesitant to criticize those in uniform from the comfort of my civilian chair. But this whole incident leaves a bad taste in my mouth — especially with the culmination that Iran is now free to smuggle its sophisticated explosives and weapons into Iraq. How is this not an abject surrender by Britain and an undeserved victory for Iran?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

About Iran’s latest hostages

Posted by Richard on April 2, 2007

Does anybody do this sort of thing better than Scrappleface? I don't think so:

(2007-04-01) — In a fresh, un-coerced video communiqué released today by the Iranian government, 15 British sailors and marines held captive for eight days, said they would seek asylum in Iran, “the only country that really seems to want us.”

The hostages said they have already begun the paperwork to become Iranian citizens, and have started classes to prepare them for conversion to Islam.

“Whatever else you might think about President Ahmadinejad,” said one British sailor under no duress, “at least he took risks to get us, and genuinely desires to keep us in his country; which is more than we can say for Prime Minister [Tony] Blair."

On a more serious note, here's Newt Gingrich's brilliantly simple suggestion for an effective response to the hostage-taking:

 

Mark Steyn heaped appropriate scorn on the British (and European, and American) alternative plan:

The British ambassador to the U.N. had wanted the Security Council to pass a resolution "deploring" Iran's conduct. But the Russians objected to all this hotheaded inflammatory lingo about "deploring," and so the Security Council instead expressed its "grave concern" about the situation. That and $4.95 will get you a decaf latte. Ask the folks in Darfur what they've got to show for years of the U.N.'s "grave concerns" — heavy on the graves, less so on the concern.

The U.N. will do nothing for men seized on a U.N.-sanctioned mission. The European Union will do nothing for its "European citizens." But if liberal transnationalism is a post-modern joke, it's not the only school of transnationalism out there. Iran's Islamic Revolution has been explicitly extraterritorial since the beginning: It has created and funded murderous proxies in Hezbollah, Hamas and both Shia and Sunni factions of the Iraq "insurgency." It has spent a fortune in the stans of Central Asia radicalizing previously somnolent Muslim populations. When Ayatollah Khomeini announced the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, it was not Iranians but British, Indian, Turkish, European, Asian and American Muslims who called for his death, firebombed bookstores, shot his publisher, fatally stabbed his translator and murdered anybody who got in their way.

So we live today in a world of one-way sovereignty: American, British and Iraqi forces in Iraq respect the Syrian and Iranian borders; the Syrians and Iranians do not respect the Iraqi border. Patrolling the Shatt al-Arab at a time of war, the Royal Navy operates under rules of engagement designed by distant fainthearts with an eye to the polite fictions of "international law": If you're in a "warship," you can't wage war. If you're in a "destroyer," don't destroy anything. If you're in a "frigate," you're frigging done for.

Needless to say, it's Mark Steyn, so you should read the whole thing.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

“Blood on their hands”

Posted by Richard on March 29, 2007

Melanie Morgan of Move America Forward had harsh words for the senators who voted for retreat and surrender in Iraq:

The senators who voted to undercut our troops have blood on their hands — the blood of U.S. troops who will die from attacks by terrorists who will be emboldened by the Senate's cowardice," said Melanie Morgan, Chairman of Move America Forward.

"Our troops on the ground in the middle of a war don't need to have their missions' undermined by some armchair generals in Washington, D.C. If these senators won't stand behind our men and women on the frontlines, then perhaps they would prefer to stand in front of them," Morgan said.

Senate Republicans, led by Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, failed in their attempt to remove a March 31, 2008 "surrender date" from a bill funding U.S. military operations.

"Setting a date for withdrawal is like sending a memo to our enemies that tells them to rest, refit, and re-plan until the day we leave," McConnell said during debate on the bill.

He also said the consequences of having U.S. troops "walk away" will be devastating: "a Sunni minority exposed to the whims of the Shia majority, ethnic cleansing, and regional instability."

The Senate vote sends a message to terrorists that they are winning and that congressional leaders "lack the will and resolve to win the war on terrorism," said Melanie Morgan of Move America Forward.

She said her group is launching a national advertising campaign that will single out those who "seek to undermine support for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan."

To the Democrats, emboldening the terrorists, discouraging the Middle East's advocates of freedom and modernity, and encouraging ethnic cleansing are small prices to pay for the opportunity to force a U.S. retreat just in time for the 2008 election season.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

It’s not just a Republican war

Posted by Richard on March 28, 2007

At the Hugh Hewitt blog, Dean Barnett went to great pains to explain that MyDD is a responsible liberal blog, not a bunch of "lunatics and sociopaths," and to point out that MyDD is "influential far beyond its rather limited readership numbers." Barnett did so in order to put Ian Welsh's post into perspective.

Welsh chastised Sen. Hillary Clinton for being "pro-war" and for wanting "permanent bases" in Iraq "just as badly as the NeoCons." Barnett was struck by Welsh's reasoning:

Hillary’s purported policy prescriptions strike him as dangerously misguided, but listen why:

“Hillary's a pro-war candidate. And if Democrats nominate her, they will be nominating a pro-war candidate. And then the war will be a fully American war, not just a Republican one.

The last part of that statement, the part I bolded and italicized, is a rather remarkable admission. It’s even more amazing that Welsh makes that comment so casually, apparently unaware of its larger implications.

Almost certainly unwittingly, Welsh has revealed the moral atrophy that so afflicts the left. If you’ve gotten the sense that parts of the left and the Democratic Party are rooting against the war effort, now you know why. In their eyes, it’s not an American war; it’s a Republican one. And since it’s solely a Republican struggle, why not root against it? After all, if it goes poorly, the Democratic Party will surely prosper as a result.

Once again, the MyDD site is nothing like the Huffington Post. It offers mainstream liberal thought, not the addled barking of alienated misfits. And yet the fact that our men and women fighting in Iraq are Americans first, not Republicans or Democrats, seems to be completely beyond their comprehension.

All I can say is, gosh, Dean, does this really surprise you?? It doesn't surprise me at all. It seems to me that even the semi-rational (as opposed to moonbat) elements of the left have believed for some time that (1) 9/11 was a one-time incident, an aberration, (2) we're at war only because the Bush administration chooses to be at war, not because there is an organized enemy waging war against us, and therefore (3) if we simply withdraw our troops from Iraq, we'll no longer be at war.

In my humble opinion, these people are delusional and this is lunacy. But how do we prove that without doing irreparable harm to the cause of freedom and democracy in the Middle East and to our own security?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

House passes gradual retreat bill

Posted by Richard on March 23, 2007

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership's Gradual Retreat Caucus prevailed today, passing their $124 billion military spending bill by a vote of 218-212. The bill establishes a timetable for withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq by September 2008. It was opposed by Republicans and initially by the Democrats' Immediate Surrender Caucus, which wanted to cut off all funding for the Iraq conflict, presumably supposing that the troops there now could hitch rides home.

The Bush administration wanted $100 billion in military spending authorization. The remaining $24 billion is for pork projects added by the Democratic leadership to buy the Immediate Surrender Caucus votes they needed for passage. Yes, these are the same Democrats who owe their 2006 election success largely to voters' disgust with out-of-control pork-barrel spending, influence peddling, vote buying, …

Someone ought to crunch the numbers and compare the average pork per district needed to enforce party discipline on the Democratic side of the aisle versus the Republicans side. My first thought was that the Democrats' votes can probably be bought more cheaply. But then it occurred to me that Democrats spend tax dollars somewhat more freely, so the pork price might be bid up more easily. Clearly, it's a complex dynamic at work. Maybe some academic can get a government grant to look into it.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Monsters

Posted by Richard on March 21, 2007

The enlightened intelligentsia, the sensitive liberals, the sophisticated Europeans, the journalists whose goal is to make this a better world — they all agree that we unenlightened American yahoos need to be less judgmental and more understanding of the grievances of the radical Islamists, that we need to be willing to talk with them, to negotiate and search for common ground. That we need to temper our hostility, abate our anger, abandon our adversarial stance, and ask ourselves and them, "Can't we all just get along?"

Yesterday, Little Green Footballs pointed out this AFP story that further illuminates the nature of the enemy with whom we're supposed to reconcile. In case you missed it:

Insurgents in Iraq detonated an explosives-rigged vehicle with two children in the back seat after US soldiers let it through a Baghdad checkpoint over the weekend, a senior US military official said Tuesday.

The vehicle was stopped at the checkpoint but was allowed through when soldiers saw the children in the back, said Major General Michael Barbero of the Pentagon's Joint Staff.

"Children in the back seat lowered suspicion. We let it move through. They parked the vehicle, and the adults ran out and detonated it with the children in the back," Barbero said.

The general said it was the first time he had seen a report of insurgents using children in suicide bombings. But he said Al-Qaeda in Iraq is changing tactics in response to the tighter controls around the city.

They parked the vehicle between a market and a school. The explosion was relatively small, really. It only injured seven and killed five. Including the two children, of course.

No, we can't understand. Or talk. Or find common ground. Or get along. There is nothing to negotiate and no middle ground. Is that clear?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Appeal for Courage

Posted by Richard on March 21, 2007

If you support victory instead of retreat and defeat, go to Gateway Pundit and read about Appeal for Courage. Then, if you're active duty military, Reserve, or National Guard, visit AppealForCourage.org and sign their appeal for redress:

An Appeal For Redress is an authorized means for active duty military to submit a grievance to Congress. It can be signed by Active Duty, Reserve, or National Guard military personnel.

It is authorized by DoD Directive 1325.6 and DoD Directive 7050.6.

The wording of the Appeal for Redress is:

As an American currently serving my nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to fully support our mission in Iraq and halt any calls for retreat. I also respectfully urge my political leaders to actively oppose media efforts which embolden my enemy while demoralizing American support at home. The War in Iraq is a necessary and just effort to bring freedom to the Middle East and protect America from further attack.

[There's a clarification stating that "oppose media efforts" means oppose with words, not legislation.]

If you're a civilian, go there too, and check out the FAQ page for some things you can do to help. I can't find any way to contribute — maybe they don't need any funds, maybe they just haven't thought of it yet. But if you're so inclined, you might contribute to one of the organizations supporting this effort, such as Families United for Our Troops and Their Mission.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

The foolish and credulous among us

Posted by Richard on March 20, 2007

Four years into the struggle for a free, democratic Iraq, streets, plazas, and public places around the country were again filled by those who oppose that struggle (dwindling numbers of them, I'm happy to note). Gerard Van der Leun observed the demonstrators, and had trouble concealing his contempt:

Four years in. An inch of time. Four years in and the foolish and credulous among us yearn to get out. Their feelings require it. The power of their Holy Gospel of "Imagine" compels them. Their overflowing pools of compassion for the enslavers of women, the killers of homosexuals, the beheaders of reporters, and the incinerators of men and women working quietly at their desks, rise and flood their minds until their eyes flow with crocodile tears while their mouths emit slogans made of cardboard. They believe the world is run on wishes and that they will always have three more.

Four years into the most gentle war ever fought, a war fought on the cheap at every level, a war fought to avoid civilian harm rather than maximize it. Picnic on the grass at Shiloh. Walk the Western Front. Speak to the smoke of Dresden. Kneel down and peek into the ovens of Auschwitz. Sit on the stones near ground zero at Hiroshima and converse with the shadows singed into the wall. Listen to those ghost whisperers of war.

Four years in and the people of the Perfect World ramble through the avenues of Washington, stamping their feet and holding their breath, having their tantrums, and telling all who cannot avoid listening that "War is bad for children and other living things." They have flowers painted on their cheeks. For emphasis. Just in case you thought that war was good for children and other living things.

There were children and other living things on the planes that flew into the towers. They all went into the fire and the ash just the same. But they, now, are not important. Nor is the message their deaths still send us when we listen. That message is to be silenced. The rising brand new message is "All we are say-ing is give…." And it is always off-key.

Go. Read the rest. Please.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »