Surprise! Times Reporters Circling the Wagons Around Bill "Killer" Keller

Behind Bush's Fury, a Vow Made in 2001

By SCOTT SHANE
Published: June 29, 2006

WASHINGTON, June 28 — Ever since President Bush vowed days after the Sept. 11 attacks to "follow the money as a trail to the terrorists," the government has made no secret of its efforts to hunt down the bank accounts of Al Qaeda and its allies.

But that fact has not muted the fury of Mr. Bush, his top aides and many members of Congress at the decision last week by The New York Times and other newspapers to disclose a centerpiece of that hunt: the Treasury Department's search for clues in a vast database of financial transactions maintained by a Belgium-based banking consortium known as Swift.

Speaking at a fund-raising event in St. Louis for Senator Jim Talent, Mr. Bush made the news reports his central theme.

"This program has been a vital tool in the war on terror," Mr. Bush said. "Last week the details of this program appeared in the press."

Mr. Bush received a prolonged, standing ovation from the Republican crowd when he added, "There can be no excuse for anyone entrusted with vital intelligence to leak it — and no excuse for any newspaper to print it."

On Thursday, the House is expected to take up a Republican resolution supporting the tracking of financial transactions and condemning the publication of the existence of the program and details of how it works. The resolution says Congress "expects the cooperation of all news media organizations in protecting the lives of Americans and the capability of the government to identify, disrupt and capture terrorists by not disclosing classified intelligence programs." Democrats are proposing a variant that expresses support for the treasury program but omits the language about the news media.

Bill "Killer" Keller wants us to believe that he had a higher calling in revealing the Administration's international bank transaction monitoring. That higher calling is the people's need to know. "Killer" believes that the First Amendment trumps any claims of treason and this action by the Times is treasonous.

The Rights laid out in the Bill of Rights are not absolute. They never have been. Freedom of speech does not cover shouting "Fire!" in a theater. Free exercise of religion, according to the Supreme Court, does not include prayer in school. Freedom of the Press does not include the right to betray your country.

"Killer" doesn't care that revealing the details of this program aimed at interupting the flow of money from terrorist sympathizers to groups involved in the Global Islamic Jihad against the West might lead to more American deaths at the hands of these Islamic terrorists. "Killer" isn't interested in the people's right to know who within our government might be working against our efforts to defeat the Global Islamic Jihad. "Killer" is more concerned that President Bush might actually succeed in defeating the Global Islamic Jihad. "Killer" is more concerned with helping Democrats seize back control of Congress.

In defending their treasonous act, the Times reporters are conflating the President's declaration that we would do all we could to interupt the flow of cash to the terrorists and their blatant revelation of how that was being done. for those too stupid to understand, there is a vast difference between suspecting how something is being done and being filled in on all the details as to how it is being done. And Liberals are so stupid.

Full Story: Treason Ain't Freedom, Mr. Keller

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Bush Poll Numbers On the Rise...The Worm Turns

Nation Is Divided on Drawdown Of Troops
Poll Shows Growth In Support for Bush

By Dan Balz and Richard Morin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, June 27, 2006; Page A01

With military commanders weighing possible troop reductions in Iraq, Americans are sharply divided along partisan lines over whether to set a deadline for withdrawing all U.S. forces there, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

About half, 51 percent, oppose a deadline for getting out of Iraq, but the margin has dwindled as insurgents have continued to kill U.S. troops. The poll found that 47 percent now favor some kind of deadline, up eight percentage points since December. Two thirds of Democrats support setting a deadline, more than double the proportion of Republicans who want a timetable for withdrawal. Among independents, 44 percent support a deadline.

President Bush's approval rating rebounded from its lowest point a month ago and now stands at 38 percent. That is five points higher than it was in May, though still weak enough to cause Republicans to worry about their electoral chances in November.

But the survey offered some hopeful signs for Bush and the Republicans as they prepare for the midterm elections. The big advantage that Democrats held on virtually every major issue has narrowed or reversed. On the question of which party is best able to handle the situation in Iraq, the Democrats' 14-point advantage in last month's Post-ABC poll has been cut in half; they now have a 47 percent lead over Republicans' 41 percent.

A month ago, Democrats held a five-point lead over Republicans on dealing with international terrorism. Republicans now hold a seven-point advantage. On the economy, the Democratic advantage has narrowed from 18 points to 13 points since May.

Democrats must really be squirming these days. Even with the best efforts of pollsters to frame the questions to get the results they hoped for, the President's numbers are moving steadily upwards. This is the inevitable results of the recent successes which have occurred in the War in Iraq. It is also the inevitable result of the truth coming out about the progress of our war efforts and exposure of the extreme bias of paleo-media outlets like the New York Lies...excuse me Times and the Washington Pest...uh...Post. Finally it is the result of Democrats being exposed for what they are, lying, distorting, shrill, hate mongers more interested in attacking the Bush Administration and the Republicans than they are in protecting and defending the American people.

I believe as there is a strong possibility, much better than 50/50 that Republicans will not only preserve their margin in Congress, but actually increase that majority. Democrats have repeatedly shown themselves to be incapable of advancing a coherent strategy in conducting the war on terror other than the "cut and run" strategy of Mad Captain Jack Murtha and John "I actually voted for the funding before I voted against it." Kerry-Heinz.

When the American people actually sit down and consider the frightening possibility of Nancy "Wicked Witch of the Left" Pelosi becoming Speaker of the House and 3rd in line for the Presidency after the Vice-President, they will be motivated to retain Republican control of Congress. The current crop of Democrats in leadership positions within Congress pose the greatest threat to American freedom and security there is. This is not the Democrat Party of Tip O'Neal, when the American people could at least count on Democrat patriotism to protect them to a minimum degree. This is the party of John Conyers who would ascend to the Chairmanship of the House Judiciary Committee. This is the party of Charlie Rangel who would ascend to the chairmanship of the House Ways and Means Committee.

The idea of the Democrats taking over the reins of Congress, in either House is just too frightening to contemplate.

Full Story: Republicans Growing in Strength

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

For Left, Symbols More Important than Substance

Bigotry Beneath the Fog

By Eugene Robinson
Friday, June 23, 2006; Page A25

Once in a while the fog machine that's kept on "high" around here to obscure everyone's real intentions breaks down. There's always a mad rush to crank it up again, but for the briefest moment we can see our elected representatives for what they really are, not what they pretend to be. Wednesday we had one of those rare high-definition moments, when the House Republican caucus defied its leaders and refused to back renewal of the Voting Rights Act.

That tells you about all you need to know, doesn't it?

Speaker Dennis Hastert was ready to move forward with a feel-good, election-year extension of the landmark 1965 act that guaranteed voting rights for African Americans disenfranchised by Jim Crow law and custom in Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina and Virginia. In 1975 the act was expanded to cover Alaska, Texas and Arizona, where citizens with limited command of English -- Latinos, mostly -- were being treated as if they were black folks in the South.

Hastert understood that reauthorizing the act would be useful in efforts to convince voters that the Republican Party as presently constituted is just ultraconservative, not actually racist. But Hastert was sandbagged by fellow Republicans who rebelled in a private caucus meeting Wednesday. The renewal probably could have won easy approval on the House floor, since Democrats would have voted for it, but Hastert's policy is to not bring out any bill that lacks majority support from Republicans, so he had no choice but to yank it.

So much for the erstwhile "party of Lincoln."

In what was described as a contentious caucus meeting, Southern Republicans complained that their states were being singled out by the act, which was originally intended to do away with the poll taxes, literacy tests and other measures that were used to deprive black voters of their rights during the Jim Crow era. Having grown up in South Carolina during the "last throes" (to quote Dick Cheney in another context) of racial segregation, I can testify that the states in question went far out of their way to earn the enhanced scrutiny the Voting Rights Act forces them to endure.

Mr. Robinson inadvertently states the truth in arguing for his own version of bigotry. Mr. Robinson describes renewal of the Voting Rights Act as "a feel-good, election-year extension." So even though he admits that the law serves no purpose other than pandering to the Black and Hispanic communities, it should be enacted. Why? Why should Congress spend time passing laws which serve no purpose other than pandering to the feelings of one segment of our population? Laws should serve a purpose, have meaning, not simply stand as a symbol. Once again we are treated to the Democrat and Leftist principles of governing-symbol is more important than substance.

There are no "literacy tests" anymore, and haven't been for several decades. There are no "poll taxes" and haven't been for several decades.

The only purpose of this issue is to continue to punish the 7 Southern states for their past actions; actions I might add which occurred under Democrat Party control. It is a law which perpetuates the myth that people of the South are less than equal to those in the rest of the nation.

If this law is such a wonderful idea, wouldn't it be more appropriate to rewrite the law to include all 50 states? What's wrong with that idea? Is it possible that this would insult the feelings of the elitists of the Northeastern Liberal Biggots?

These inbred Brahmans in Boston and smug self-congratulating citizens of the "Big Apple" believe themselves to be better than us poor ole rednecks down here in the South. Funny thing, how many of them send their children to public schools? How many of their close friends are Black or Hispanic?

This law is directly aimed at perpetuating a myth that people in the South can't be trusted and that people in the North aren't biggoted. What a joke. Doesn't anyone recall the riots in South Boston when integration, which had largely been imposed on schools in the South for years, was attempted with their schools? But of course that's different-how I don't know-but it is...in their minds.

By the way, the first time I heard the "N" word in casual conversation was after my family and I moved from Houston, Texas to Morristown, New Jersey. While I lived in the "biggoted" South, that word was never used in polite conversation. Had I used that word in our house in Houston or in Shreveport, La. prior to that, I would have had "the tar whipped out" of me.

So much for the myth of the "biggoted South."

Laws which are largely symbolic have no place in our society.

Full Story: Mr. Robinson's Biggotry Against the South

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Democrats Distort Their Own Plan

Democrats Cite Report On Troop Cuts in Iraq
Pentagon Plan Like Theirs, Senators Say

By Michael Abramowitz and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, June 26, 2006; Page A01

Senate Democrats reacted angrily yesterday to a report that the U.S. commander in Iraq had privately presented a plan for significant troop reductions in the same week they came under attack by Republicans for trying to set a timetable for withdrawal.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said that the plan attributed to Gen. George W. Casey resembles the thinking of many Democrats who voted for a nonbinding resolution to begin a troop drawdown in December. That resolution was defeated Thursday on a largely party-line vote in the Senate.

"That means the only people who have fought us and fought us against the timetable, the only ones still saying there shouldn't be a timetable really are the Republicans in the United States Senate and in the Congress," Boxer said on CBS's "Face the Nation." "Now it turns out we're in sync with General Casey."

Sen. Carl M. Levin (Mich.), one of the two sponsors of the nonbinding resolution, which offered no pace or completion date for a withdrawal, said the report is another sign of what he termed one of the "worst-kept secrets in town" -- that the administration intends to pull out troops before the midterm elections in November.

"It shouldn't be a political decision, but it is going to be with this administration," Levin said on "Fox News Sunday." "It's as clear as your face, which is mighty clear, that before this election, this November, there's going to be troop reductions in Iraq, and the president will then claim some kind of progress or victory."

Democrats just can't seem to understand the finer nuances of policy decisions. For a group who believe that words are more important than actions, Democrats are unable to comprehend the difference between their cut and run proposals, and the withdraw where and when possible and appropriate policy of the President and General Casey.

How is "We are going to begin drawing our troops out of Iraq by (fill in the blank date certain)." the samething as "We will begin drawing our troop strength down as Iraqis stand up?" The President has been consistent since the outset of the war, that once the Iraqis are capable of defending themselves, we would begin withdrawing. President Bush has never wavered from this position, and General Casey's statement is fully consistent with this policy.

Democrats want so desperately to be seen as relevent that they will twist the meaning of their two withdrawal policy amendents into a convoluted version of what General Casey said. Note the difference in the way dates are used..."by December

For Carl "Combover" Levin to claim "It shouldn't be a political decision, but it is going to be with this administration," after having played politics with the Iraq waq from day one, is truly a case of the pot calling the kettle black. The President doesn't "play politics" with the lives of our troops or with any other policy decision. Once again we see that Democrats are incapable of understanding one simple fact, George Bush does exactly what he believes is the correct thing to do. He doesn't and never has cared about the polls. That is why he is for the most part such a good President.


Full Story: Dems Whine: We Wannabe Relevent!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Dismissal of WMD Proof by Democrats Predictable

Democrats Criticize Claim on Iraqi Arms
Republicans Cite Chemical Weapons; Official Says They Were From Pre-1991

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 23, 2006; Page A10

The assertion by two Republican lawmakers that a new intelligence study proves that chemical weapons were found in Iraq has triggered sharp criticism from Democrats that the GOP is distorting intelligence for political purposes.

At issue is a classified overview of chemical munitions found in Iraq since 2003 that was completed in April by the Army's National Ground Intelligence Center. One of the report's key findings was that since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, coalition forces have recovered about 500 shells, canisters or other munitions that contain degraded mustard gas or sarin nerve agent.

That finding was seized on by Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), a strong supporter of the war who is trailing his Democratic opponent in his reelection bid. The two said that the study indicated that Saddam Hussein, as president of Iraq, possessed weapons of mass destruction.

"Iraq was not a WMD-free zone," Santorum told reporters earlier this week. "We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons." He added that he had been chasing the intelligence report "for 2 1/2 months."

Yesterday, however, Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the intelligence panel, said the study contained "nothing new" and questioned the timing of its release, coming as it did in the midst of congressional debates on the war in Iraq.

That assertion was backed up by representatives of three intelligence agencies who told reporters that the study differed little from a 2004 report of a team of American weapons inspectors led by Charles A. Duelfer that concluded that Hussein was not in possession of significant stocks of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons at the time of the U.S.-led invasion.

If you ever had any doubt that there was a concerted effort by the Democrat Party and the Paleo-media to aid the terrorists, they can now be laid to rest. They are an active participant in the Global Jihad against the West. The leap to dismiss this revelation and to denigrate Santorum and Hoekstra for releasing this information to the public is proof that the Democrats are more interested in acquiring power than they are in protecting the American people.

Day by day we are finding more proof that the Democrat Party and the MSM have a vested interest in America losing the war in Iraq. They want the terrorists to win this war just so they can win back control of Congress and the White House. Your life and those of your fellow Americans mean NOTHING to the Democrats. They have proven that over and over again. You, the American public are merely tools by which they hope to regain the power they lost in the 94 elections.

These weapons are the real deal. They are just as deadly today as they were the day they were made. In the hands of terrorists one of these shells could, if properly placed, kill as many people as all four airliners killed on 9-11. Given this revelation, it is mystifying to me how any person could be so gullible as to trust the Democrats. They don't give a damn about our safety, as long as they can win elections. Only a fool would be so self-delusional as to believe the Democrats.

For Democrats winning at any price is more important than American Safety.

Full Story: For Anti-American Democrats WMD Still a Myth

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Washington Post, NY Times, LA Times Continue to Commit Treason: Revealing State Secrets

Bank Records Secretly Tapped
Administration Began Using Global Database Shortly After 2001 Attacks

By Barton Gellman, Paul Blustein and Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, June 23, 2006; Page A01

The Bush administration, relying on a presidential declaration of emergency, has secretly been tapping into a vast global database of confidential financial transactions for nearly five years, according to U.S. government and industry officials.

Initiated shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, the surveillance program has used a broad new interpretation of the Treasury Department's administrative powers to bypass traditional banking privacy protections. It has swept in large volumes of international money transfers, including many made by U.S. citizens and residents, in an effort to track the locations, identities and activities of suspected terrorists.

Current and former counterterrorism officials said the program works in parallel with the previously reported surveillance of international telephone calls, faxes and e-mails by the National Security Agency, which has eavesdropped without warrants on more than 5,000 Americans suspected of terrorist links. Together with a hundredfold expansion of the FBI's use of "national security letters" to obtain communications and banking records, the secret NSA and Treasury programs have built unprecedented government databases of private transactions, most of them involving people who prove irrelevant to terrorism investigators.

Stuart Levey, undersecretary of the Treasury for terrorism and financial intelligence, said in an interview last night that the newly disclosed program -- the existence of which the government sought to conceal -- has used the agency's powers of administrative subpoena to compel an international banking consortium to open its records. The Brussels-based cooperative, known as the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, or SWIFT, links about 7,800 banks and brokerages and handles billions of transactions a year.

It's become almost trite that Paleo-media outlets like the Washington Post and the New York Al Jazeerah Times are working as hard as they can to defeat Americas efforts in the War on Terror. Just like the Times revelations about the alleged Black Ops Prisons which apparently don't exist, and the international phone-call monitoring, this story in the Post once more strikes a blow for Al Qaeda.

This publication of this story is unconscionable. The Washington Post has chosen to reveal another of our weapons in the fight against the Global Islamic Jihad against the West. How proud these reporters' families must be that they have chosen to publicize information that can only damage our national security.

I believe it is time for Congress to investigate the leaking of these stories and place the leakers and the publicizers of those leaks on trial. In a time of war, and make no mistake we are at war no matter how vehemently the Democrats try to deny it, the revelation of this type of information is treason. It is clearly a case of giving "aid and comfort to the enemy."

In their desperation to damage and defeat the Bush Administration, the propaganda outlets of the Democrat Party (the Paleo-media) is willing to compromise your security. The penalty for this action according to the Constitution includes the death penalty.

Full Story: Treason in the MSM

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Time for Congress to Stop Pandering to Minorities

GOP Rebellion Stops Voting Rights Act
Complaints Include Bilingual Ballots and Scope of Justice Dept. Role in South

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 22, 2006; Page A07

House leaders abruptly canceled a vote to renew the 1965 Voting Rights Act yesterday after rank-and-file Republicans revolted over provisions that require bilingual ballots in many places and continued federal oversight of voting practices in Southern states.

The intensity of the complaints, raised in a closed meeting of GOP lawmakers, surprised Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and his lieutenants, who thought the path was clear to renew the act's key provisions for 25 years. The act is widely considered a civil rights landmark that helped thousands of African Americans gain access to the ballot box. Its renewal seemed assured when House and Senate Republican and Democratic leaders embraced it in a May 2 kickoff on the Capitol steps.

But many Southerners feel the law has achieved its purpose and become more nuisance than necessity in several respects. They have aired those arguments for years, but yesterday they got a boost from Republicans scattered throughout the nation who are increasingly raising a different concern: They insist that immigrants learn and use English.

Hastert's office said the Republican leadership "is committed to passing the Voting Rights Act legislation as soon as possible." Several House members, acknowledging that the GOP leadership had been caught flat-footed by the intraparty ruckus, said it was unclear whether the issue will be revisited before the week-long Independence Day recess.

The postponed vote is the latest example of divisions within the GOP that have complicated House and Senate leaders' efforts to move legislation backed by President Bush. Social Security revisions died in 2005, and a proposed overhaul of immigration laws is in peril despite the backing of Bush, who also supports extension of the Voting Rights Act.

The aims of the original Voting Rights Act have long ago been achieved. This law is now merely a chance for those Legislators in the North to bash the South, and pander to the "Black Vote." If there is still a concern that voting laws are not being equally applied to all people, perhaps the Voting Rights Act needs to be expanded to include all states, not just those states in the South. Bigotry is alive and well in America. Problem is, it is not a bigotry of Whites against Blacks, it's the long standing bigotry of those who live in the North against those of us who live in the South.
The arrogance of Northerners as a contemptible holdover from the days when Democrats dominated Southern Politics. The South is now predominantly Republican and racial discrimination down here is no more prevalent than it is in South Boston or New York City.

For Yankees, Southerners are still uneducated country bumpkins who are incapable of reading and who need watching lest we rise up and secede from the nation again. Given the second-class treatment we get down here, may be that's not a bad idea.

There is nothing more laughable than the self-congratulatory myth of the relative sophistication of Northerners compared to Southerners. Believe it or not, we actually have indoor plumbing down here, and some of us actually read.

The Voting Rights Act is a sad declaration of bigotry against the South, the with the addition of mandatory bilingual ballots, it is an insult to every American. It is past time to drive a stake into the heart of this hateful bill.

Full Story: Yankee Arrogance

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Minimum Wage: A Matter of Politics for Dems, Not Compassion

Minimum-Wage Increase Fails
Rate Has Stayed Same for 9 Years

By Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 22, 2006; Page D02

The Senate yesterday rejected a Democratic plan to boost the minimum wage for the first time in nearly a decade, but Democrats vowed to campaign on the issue this fall to highlight their differences with the Republican majority.

The measure, offered as an amendment to an unrelated defense bill by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), would have raised the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour from the current $5.15, where it has remained for nine years. The 52 to 46 vote was eight short of the 60 required to meet a procedural requirement and pass the measure.

We have had debates on gay marriage, we have debates on flag burning, and we have debates on estate tax," Kennedy said. "We're saying that it's time we take action to increase the minimum wage."

Democrats noted that the minimum wage has not been adjusted for inflation in nine years, despite soaring gasoline and energy prices and rising housing costs. Workers receiving the current minimum wage earn only $10,700 a year, "almost $6,000 below the poverty line for a family of three," Kennedy said.

The Post is again letting its slip show. Yes, the huge 41% increase in the minimum wage as proposed by Ted "the Lady Killer" Kennedy was voted down, largely along party lines, by the Republican majority, but when confronted by the Zeni alternative which was a more modest 21% increase with some compensatory offsets for the small businesses that would have to bear the brunt of the increase, one that should and would have passed, the Democrats voted unanimously against it. That's right not one of those "compassionate" Democrat was willing to vote to give those workers a raise. Why? Because the Democrats don't want to help minimum wage earners, they want to be able to use this issue to bash the Republicans in the upcoming elections.

The second vote, on the Enzi proposal, was 45 yea and 53 nay. This reflects the true nature of Democrat compassion. If just 15 Democrats had been willing to break with their party orders and voted for relief for the lowest wage earners in America, the minimum wage would be on its way to being law.

Democrats have an all or nothing at all attitude. They blame the President and the Republicans for not working in a bipartisan way, yet here is another example of the Democrats refusing to compromise in any way. They are the whiney spoiled brats in Congress. Would it not have been wiser and more compassionate for them to vote for the compromise offered by Senator Enzi, providing some relief for the poor wage earner over the next year and then return to the issue in a year or so? Instead, they took the political option so that those same wage earners would continue to suffer. What about it Teddy? Don't these people matter to you?

Of Course not, it's all about politics. What a jerk!

Full Story: Democrat "Compassion" is a Lie

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Insensitivity In the Press

Two U.S. Soldiers Found Dead, Iraq Official Says

By Jonathan Finer andJoshua Partlow
Tuesday, June 20, 2006; 8:58 AM

BAGHDAD, July 20--Two U.S. soldiers missing since an attack on a checkpoint last week have been found dead near a power plant in Yusifiyah, south of Baghdad, according to an Iraqi defense official.

Maj. Gen. Abdul Aziz Muhammed-Jassim, head of operations at the Iraqi Ministry of Defense, said the soldiers had been "barbarically" killed and that there were traces of torture on their bodies.

Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, spokesman for U.S. forces in Iraq, confirmed Tuesday afternoon in Baghdad that the bodies of two missing U.S. soldiers had been found. But he refused to identify them or discuss their condition or whereabouts, saying it was "inappropriate and very inconsiderate" to the families involved.

Caldwell said one U.S. soldier was killed and 12 others wounded in the extensive search for the missing soldiers, who were identified Monday as Pfc. Kristian Menchaca, 23, of Houston and Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker, 25, of Madras, Ore. They were attacked at a checkpoint near Yusufiyah. A third soldier, Spec. David J. Babineau, 25, of Springfield, Mass., was killed in the incident.

In a statement posted on the Internet, the insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq claimed to have abducted the soldiers. The organization had issued a series of Internet statements in recent days vowing revenge on U.S.-led forces for the killing of insurgent leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was targeted in a massive U.S. airstrike on June 7.

What a horrible thing that the press is so anxious to be first with a story that they are willing to cause the families of these soldiers so much pain by not allowing the military to notify them before the story is published. The MSM's behavior in this is reprehensible. There is no excuse for them to be so insensitive and disrespectful.

The MSM's anti-war agenda has led them to gross misbehavior. Surely the families of these men deserve the minimal respect required to allow them to be notified without having to find this news out by seeing it on the national news or by having a reporter barge in on their privacy for the sake of a "scoop." The MSM continues to meet my very low expectations. Their conduct in this is inexcusable.

The members of the MSM should be ashamed of themselves, but I doubt they care enough to be so. They are disgusting vultures.

Full Story: Absolutely Disgusting

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Jack Murtha: Another Democrat "War Hero?"

Murtha's War Hero Status Called Into Question

By Marc Morano and Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff
January 13, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - While Pennsylvania Democratic Congressman John Murtha has ascended to the national stage as one of the most vocal critics of President Bush's handling of the war in Iraq, he has also long downplayed the controversy and bitterness surrounding the two Purple Hearts he was awarded for military service in Vietnam.

Murtha is a retired marine and was the first Vietnam combat veteran elected to Congress. Since 1967, there have been at least three different accounts of the injuries that purportedly earned Murtha his Purple Hearts. Those accounts also appear to conflict with the limited military records that are available, and Murtha has thus far refused to release his own military records.

A Cybercast News Service investigation also reveals that one of Murtha's former Democratic congressional colleagues and a fellow decorated Vietnam veteran, Don Bailey of Pennsylvania, alleges that Murtha admitted during an emotional conversation on the floor of the U.S. House in the early 1980s that he did not deserve his Purple Hearts.

"[Murtha] is putting himself forward as some combat veteran with serious wounds and he's using that and it's dishonest and it's wrong," Bailey told Cybercast News Service on Jan. 9. Murtha served in the Marines on active duty and in the reserves from 1952 until his retirement as a colonel in 1990. He volunteered for service in Vietnam and was a First Marine Regiment intelligence officer in 1966 and 1967.

Murtha and Bailey, once allies, were forced to run against each other in a Democratic congressional primary in 1982 following redistricting. Murtha won the election.

Murtha has, in the past, publicly dismissed any questions about whether he deserved his two Purple Hearts, noting during his 1994 congressional campaign that "I am proud of my service in Vietnam."

In his Friday, Jan. 13, response to the Cybercast News Service investigation, Murtha again defended his military record.

"Questions about my record are clearly an attempt to distract attention from the real issue, which is that our brave men and women in uniform are dying and being injured every day in the middle of a civil war that can be resolved only by the Iraqis themselves," Murtha wrote in an email response.

"I volunteered for a year's duty in Vietnam. I was out in the field almost every single day. We took heavy casualties in my regiment the year that I was there. In my fitness reports, I was rated No. 1. My record is clear," Murtha added.

However, another source, World War II Navy veteran Harry M. Fox, previously indicated that Murtha in 1968 personally asked Fox's boss, then-U.S. Rep. John Saylor (R-Pa.), for assistance in obtaining the Purple Hearts, but was turned down because Saylor's office determined that Murtha lacked sufficient evidence of wounds. Murtha later challenged Saylor for his House seat in 1968 and lost. Fox said he personally viewed Murtha's military records in 1968 as Saylor's aide.

When Saylor died in 1973, Fox attempted to succeed his boss in Congress, but was narrowly defeated by Murtha in a 1974 special election.

"Pretending to be a big war hero and boasting about having medals is a slap in the face to our veterans who were seriously wounded or killed in action," Fox was quoted as telling the Uniontown Herald-Standard in the newspaper's Nov. 1, 1996 edition. "He campaigned as a war hero and I've never seen any documentation that he earned any of these honors," Fox reportedly stated.

There is an easy solution to the questions surrounding both Jack Murtha's and John Kerry-Heinz's medals, release the records. What are they hiding? Surely if they deserve the moniker of "hero" then they should be brave enough to release their service records in their entirety. Both of these men have made their service and their medals part and parcel of their campaigns. Remember Presidential candidate Kerry-Heinz "reporting for duty?" Did you see Retired Colonel Murtha berating his fellow congressmen for questioning his cut and run plan?

Posing as a hero for political gain when you haven't even earned the medals you tout dishonors all of those who legitimately received medals for their service. With all of the questions surrounding the circumstances under which Kerry-Heinz and Murtha received their medals, I would think that they would be eager to confirm their status. What better way to both silence and embarrass their critics? Their continuing reticence to do so merely adds veracity to the claims of their critics.

What a simple solution, what a reasonable request, what a lingering question.

We know that we have real heroes currently serving in Congress, men whose hero status is beyond questioning, men like Republican Congressman Sam Johnson spent seven years in the "Hanoi Hilton" and was awarded two Silver Stars, two Legions of Merit, the Distinguished Flying Cross, one Bronze Star with Valor, two Purple Hearts, four Air Medals, and three Outstanding Unit Awards. Why then are we called on to honor posers as heroes as well?

Full Story: Not a poser? Then prove it.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Who Do You Trust, Our Soldiers or Hostile Civilians?

Contradictions Cloud Inquiry Into 24 Iraqi Deaths

By JOHN M. BRODER
Published: June 17, 2006
This article was reported by John M. Broder, David S. Cloud, John Kifner, Carolyn Marshall, Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker, and was written by Mr. Broder.

What really happened in Haditha on Nov. 19, 2005?

On that day, marines killed 24 Iraqi civilians, including 10 women and children and an elderly man in a wheelchair. But how and why it happened and who ultimately bears responsibility are matters of profound dispute.

Interviews with marines who were present that day or their lawyers, Iraqi residents who witnessed the attack and military investigators provide broadly conflicting accounts of the killings. This article, based on those interviews, does not resolve those discrepancies. But it does lay bare the task facing investigators as they try to square the accounts with ambiguous forensic evidence, and suggests that the work will be hindered by the passage of time, the tricks of memory and the fog of fast-paced action at several different locations in Haditha, a tense Euphrates River valley city, seven months ago.

Investigators and townspeople have said that marines overreacted to a fatal roadside bombing and shot the civilians, only one of whom was armed, in cold blood.

Marines and their lawyers, who are only now beginning to speak out after months of harsh portrayals of their actions, contend that they believed they were under a concerted attack, and entitled under their rules of engagement to use lethal force against those who they believed were responsible for a roadside bomb that killed a marine.

The 24 Iraqis killed included 5 men in a taxi and 19 other civilians in several houses, where, marines have contended, their use of grenades and blind fire was permitted under their combat guidelines when they believed their lives were threatened.

This may have been a case of uncontrolled battle rage, but I doubt it. I am inclined to trust the words of our highly trained marines over the accusations of the residents of Haditha. I also find it distressing, but not surprising that we are once more being presented with information from "unofficial" sources who have been "briefed" on the investigation.

I distrust un-named sources because without knowing the identity of the source it is impossible to know if their is a hidden agenda involved in the revelation. I certainly don't trust reporters in the Paleo-media to maintain any sort of objectivity.

I much prefer to wait on the results of the investigations. The only concern then is that the military doesn't cave in to political pressures and reaches an unbiased and uninfluenced decision.

Full Story: Wait For the Results, Don't Report from Leaks

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Nothing New In Democrat Party's "New Direction"

Democrats Outline a Platform for the Fall

By KATE ZERNIKE
Published: June 17, 2006

WASHINGTON, June 16 — Declaring their party "ready for this election," Democratic leaders in Congress on Friday announced the platform they hope to use to regain the majority in November.

Their plan, presented at a news conference, included promises to raise the minimum wage, make college tuition tax deductible, eliminate subsidies for oil and gas companies, negotiate lower drug prices for the prescription plan passed last year, increase stem cell research and restore a pay-as-you-go policy for federal budgets.

They noted that Congress had not increased the minimum wage, now at $5.15, since 1997, a fact that Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader, declared "immoral." Their proposal to raise it to $7.25, they said, would benefit seven million workers. They rejected the argument that such a raise would shrink the economy, noting that jobs increased after the last raise.

The Democratic leaders also pledged a 25 percent reduction in oil use by 2020, largely by developing fuel alternatives in the United States. "We want to send our energy money to the Midwest, not the Middle East," Ms. Pelosi said.

Over and over, the leaders contrasted Republican priorities — which they deemed "the wrong direction" — with their own — "a new direction." Under Republican rule, they said, health care, college and gas costs have risen faster than incomes.

The "New" Democrat plan is truly "Much Ado About Nothing." The only "surprise" in this plan is that it fails even to mention the Iraq War. The Democrats still are the party of stale, old, failed ideas. This is naught but a case of cosmetic surgery when the Democrat Party is in dire need of emergency brain surgery.

Their plan? Raise taxes, spend more money. What's new about that?

Raise the minimum wage? Name a time when they haven't advocated that.

Reduce Oil Consumption? Great! How, by raising gasoline taxes? If you like paying $3.00/gal, you'll love paying $4.50/gal.

Lower Student Loan Rates? Raise taxes, spend more money, create another new entitlement.

Eliminate Subsidies for Oil and Gas Companies? Reduce exploration, raise prices for gasoline, heating oil, and natural gas.

Wonderful! In one fell swoop the Democrats are going to drive the economy into another recession while raising our cost of living. Jobs will disappear in droves. Corporations will increase their offshore outsourcing. We will be paying more for automobiles, more for gasoline, more for education, more for the products that Americans use everyday.

Sure makes me want to vote Democrat...NOT!

Full Story: Democrat Recipe for Economic Disaster

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Marine Corps Bows to Public Pressure of Accused's Families

Shackles removed from confined Marines, sailor

By Gidget Fuentes
Times staff writer

OCEANSIDE, Calif. — Military officials on Friday said they have decided to remove shackles put on seven confined Marines and one sailor whenever they’re outside their individual cells at the Camp Pendleton brig, a Marine Corps spokesman said.

The eight men, confined at the brig since May 24, were being held with “maximum” restraints based on their battalion commander’s decision following an initial investigation into the shooting. As of Friday, they were shifted into what’s called “medium-in” restraint in pre-trial custody, which does not require shackles to be worn, although they remain escorted anytime they are outside their cell, according to 2nd Lt. Lawton King, a base spokesman.

Under “medium-in,” they won’t have any personal restraint while inside the brig, but once outside – such as to go to a court hearing – each “is restrained with handcuffs attached to a leather belt … and their respective escorts carry along leg cuffs in the event they are needed,” King said.

The decision to lower the restraint level came after a June 15 review by the brig commander, he said.

Hopefully this is a portent of things to come. I have to believe that the families of these Marines had some effect on the decision of the brigade commander. I have been unable to understand why these men should be shackled even when visiting with their family members. These families have been subjected to enough pain simply by having their family-members charged and held.

The fact that this comes on the heels of the initial investigation offers the hope that these men will be exhonerated.

Certainly if they have been guilty of attrocities they need to be punished, but I have faith in our troops and their training. All though I know there will always be a few "bad apples," I (unlike most Liberals) am inclined to assume their innocence until they are proven guilty.

Semper fi!

Full Story: Treating Marines Like Marines

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Democrats Whining Over Being Exposed

Congress Erupts in Partisan Fight Over Iraq War

By ROBIN TONER and KATE ZERNIKE
Published: June 16, 2006

WASHINGTON, June 15 — The House and the Senate engaged in angry, intensely partisan debate on Thursday over the war in Iraq, as Republicans sought to rally support for the Bush administration's policies and exploit Democratic divisions in an election year shadowed by unease over the war.

It was one of the sharpest legislative clashes yet over the three-year-old conflict, and it came after three days in which President Bush and his aides had sought to portray Iraq as moving gradually toward a stable, functioning democracy, and to portray Democrats as lacking the will to see the conflict through to victory.

In the House, lawmakers moved toward a vote Friday after more than 11 hours of debate on a Republican resolution promising to "complete the mission" in Iraq, prevail in the global fight against terrorism and oppose any "arbitrary date for withdrawal." In the Senate, lawmakers voted overwhelmingly to shelve an amendment calling on the United States to withdraw most troops by the end of this year, although Democrats vowed to revisit the debate next week.

Both actions were carefully engineered by the Republicans in charge, and for the moment put both chambers on a path to rejecting Congressional timetables for withdrawal.

House Republicans asserted that their resolution was essential to assure American troops and the world that the United States was behind the war in Iraq and the broader struggle against terrorism, conflicts they said were inextricably intertwined.

Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois opened the formal debate on a war that, the government announced Thursday, had claimed the lives of 2,500 American troops. "It is a battle we must endure and one in which we can and will be victorious," he said of the fight in Iraq and beyond. "The alternative would be to cut and run and wait for them to regroup and bring the terror back to our shores."

He said the American troops in Iraq knew their cause was noble. "It is time for this House of Representatives to tell the world that we know it, too, that we know our cause is right and that we are proud of it." Democrats, divided over the wisdom of the war but more or less united in condemning Mr. Bush's management of it, countered that the Republican resolution was a political ploy, "a press release for staying the course in Iraq," as Representative Jane Harman, Democrat of California, put it.

At the start of the debate, Representative Ike Skelton, Democrat of Missouri, asked for a moment of silence to recognize the 2,500 American military deaths in Iraq. Many lawmakers talked about visiting the troops, in Iraq and in hospitals, and about the toll in death and suffering.

Representative John P. Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat and Vietnam War veteran whose call for a speedy withdrawal of troops transformed the debate last year, rose repeatedly to tell Republicans, "Rhetoric does not solve the problem." He added: "We need a plan. It's not enough to say stay the course."

Referring to the sectarian violence cleaving Iraq, Mr. Murtha said, "They're fighting each other, and our troops are caught in between."

Five months before the November elections, partisan passions ran high. Republicans argued repeatedly that their Democratic opponents lacked the toughness to confront terrorism, returning to themes that they used successfully in 2004. "Many, but not all, on the other side of the aisle lack the will to win," said Representative Charlie Norwood, Republican of Georgia. "The American people need to know precisely who they are." He said: "It is time to stand up and vote. Is it Al Qaeda, or is it America?"

Democrats countered, at times with barely controlled fury. Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader, described the war "as a grotesque mistake." She and others said Congressional Republicans were simply trying to "trap" Democrats, not engage them in a true debate. The resolution Republicans offered could not be amended, but only voted up or down.

Democrats in the Senate cried foul when Republicans forced a vote on a withdrawal amendment originally developed by Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts. Mr. Kerry had held off from seeking a vote on it, while working with other Democrats to seek a broader consensus. But Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican whip, simply scratched out Mr. Kerry's name, replaced it with his own and offered it for debate. Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, characterized the amendment as "cutting and running."

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, one of many Senate Democrats who oppose Mr. Kerry's amendment, rose to declare, "There are two things that don't exist in Iraq: cutting and running, and weapons of mass destruction." Mr. Reid moved to remove the amendment from consideration, and his motion was approved by a vote of 93 to 6. Senate Democrats promised to return next week with additional amendments on an exit strategy for American troops.

Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, portrayed the vote to table the amendment as a declaration of support for the fledgling Iraqi government. "This sends a good message that the United States government opposes, overwhelmingly, a cut-and-run strategy."

Nothing Democrats hate more than being forced to show their true colors. Anyone listening to the floor debate has to be struck with the difference between the parties. The "Cut and Run" Democrats spend a great deal of time whining about their plight in being forced to take a stand. The rest of the time they spend lying about our involvement in Iraq and denying any relationship between the global war on terror and the war in Iraq. Talk about having your head in the sand. They have no answer to the statements from the terrorists themselves conflating the two. Their arguments are laced with highly charged emotional language but very few facts. The Republicans, on the other hand, only have to relate the facts.

It has been clearly documented that al Qaeda had a long standing relationship with the Hussein government prior to our invasion. It is clear from the terrorists own words that their campaign of terror is failing. The Iraqi war far from being an aimless disaster, is an astounding success. The events of the past week only serve to punctuate how successful this campaign has been. The documents recovered during the raids of this week, if they turn out to be legitimate (and they will) reveal an insurgency on the ropes. They reveal that al Zarqawi was having difficulty obtaining funding, weapons, and recruits. They reveal the desperation he was feeling and his doubts of the success of his campaign. Here is the full text of Zarqawi's Safe-house letter

In spite of the above revelations, the Democrats continue to portray the battle for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people as a failure. The people don't want us there and would prefer to have Saddam back, yet these same people continue to stand up and voluteer to be for the police force and military,in the face of continued attacks and mounting casualties.

Further proof that they live in a world where myth passes for reality and opinion replaces fact.

Full Story: Democrats in Panic Mode

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Lies Remain the Currency of the Democrats

House Holds First Extended Debate on Iraq War

By William Branigin and Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 15, 2006; 5:44 PM

The House of Representatives today held its first extended debate on the war in Iraq, as Republicans pushed a resolution that ties the conflict to the "global war on terrorism" and rejects setting a date for U.S. withdrawal, while Democrats denounced what they described as the majority's political gamesmanship.

The debate came as the U.S. military death toll in Iraq reached 2,500, a grim milestone that served as a reminder of the steadily mounting American losses in a war that President Bush said was effectively over more than three years ago after U.S. forces swiftly toppled Saddam Hussein. Most of the deaths have come since Bush declared May 1, 2003, on the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln: "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."

With nearly 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq battling a persistent insurgency and many Americans disillusioned with the war, House Republicans introduced a resolution "declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror," and they practically dared Democrats to vote against it.

Rejecting characterizations of the March 2003 invasion of Iraq as a "war of choice" launched by Bush, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) said in a floor speech today: "It is not enough for this House to say, 'We support our troops.' To the men and women in the field, in harm's way, that statement rings hollow if we don't also say we support their mission."

The House minority leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), accused Republicans of "trying to politicize the war in Iraq" and called the conflict "a grotesque mistake." She said it was "shameful" that GOP leaders were trying to make political capital out of the war.

Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) said the Republican resolution seeks to "blend together the Iraqi war and the war against terrorism," adding, "They are two separate and distinct wars."

House Resolution 861 says that Hussein and his "criminal Baathist regime" supported terrorists and "constituted a threat against global peace and security." Since his removal, it says, "the terrorists have declared Iraq to be the central front in their war against all who oppose their ideology."

The nonbinding resolution "honors the sacrifices" of U.S. and allied forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and "declares that it is not in the national security interest of the United States to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment" of U.S. troops from Iraq.

Why is it always a crisis for Democrats when they are forced to vote their convictions? We continually hear the Democrats attack the War in Iraq as a mistake, the President as an incompetent liar, the War on Terror as being lost, and that the War in Iraq as completely unrelated to the War on Terror. Either they are liars or they are stupid or, as I suspect, both. I listened to as much of the debate as I could stomach and I lies and deliberate mistatements of the facts repeatedly spewing forth in a volcano of hatred from the Democrats. Democrats may actually care about the troops and about the welfare of Americans, I don' know, but they certainly don't show it in their efforts to undermine our government's policies.

If their arguments are so profound why then do they have to lie to lend them credence? If their cause is so just, why then must they attempt to deceive the American public to sway them to their causes? Why can't the allow their arguments to stand or fall strictly on their merits?

The answer is simple, because they aren't. Their arguments are neither profound nor of merit. Their cause is not just. Lies are the only means they have to seduce the public and regain power, their only goal.

Just like the first vote on the Murtha option last year, this debate will end with the resolution passing; probably with a good portion of Democrats voting for it. Why? Because Democrats know that their policies, when exposed to the cold light of day, are losers.

Full Story: Deceptive Democrats Ducking and Diving

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Another Fish or Cut Bait Vote for Democrat Senators

Senate Rejects Plan for Iraq Withdrawal

By DAVID STOUT and JOHN HOLUSHA
Published: June 15, 2006

WASHINGTON, June 15 — The Senate overwhelmingly rejected a call this afternoon for withdrawal of most American combat troops from Iraq by the end of the year as debates in both houses of Congress mixed high emotion with calculated maneuvering.In the House, an emotional debate on a Republican-sponsored resolution that backs the administration's war effort began at midday today and continued into the evening. A vote is expected on Friday.

Today's 93-to-6 Senate vote came after a maneuver by Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the second-ranking Republican, who introduced a measure that he said was taken from a proposal by Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, calling for President Bush to agree with the new Iraqi government on a timetable to withdraw most troops by Dec. 31.

Mr. Kerry has not yet offered his own measure because, he said, language is still being worked out. He and other Democrats accused Republicans of gamesmanship by engineering a surprise vote today, according to The Associated Press, and said they would push for an authentic debate next week. The vote was to table a proposal that only those forces essential to completing the mission of "standing up" the Iraqi security forces remain in the country in 2007, and it reflected a deep reluctance in both parties to commit to a firm withdrawal schedule.

The six "no" votes were cast by Senators Kerry and Edward M. Kennedy, also of Massachusetts; Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin, Barbara Boxer of California, Tom Harkin of Iowa and Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, all Democrats.

How brave our Democrat friends. When push comes to shove, you can always count on Democrats to run for cover. Today the Democrats bolted from Senator Kerry like a covey of quail...Where's Vice President "Boom Boom" Cheney when you really need him?

Once more the Democrats are revealed for the crass politicians and opportunists they are. Oh sure they whine and moan about the war in Iraq, piling on the President when it looks like it will be to their advantage, but in the end they lack the courage of their convictions. They know that any vote in support of a time-limited pull out of our troops would be vulnerable to the Republican charges of cut and run. So when given a chance to vote for it, they run from it. Heh, heh, don't you just love it?

Full Story: Spineless Democrats on the Senate Floor

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Another Lie From the Reporters at the Post

Iraq Amnesty Plan May Cover Attacks On U.S. Military
Leader Also Backs Talks With Resistance

By Ellen Knickmeyer and Jonathan Finer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, June 15, 2006; Page A01

BAGHDAD, June 14 -- Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on Wednesday proposed a limited amnesty to help end the Sunni Arab insurgency as part of a national reconciliation plan that Maliki said would be released within days. The plan is likely to include pardons for those who had attacked only U.S. troops, a top adviser said.

Maliki's declaration of openness to talks with some members of Sunni armed factions, and the prospect of pardons, are concessions that previous, interim governments had avoided. The statements marked the first time a leader from Iraq's governing Shiite religious parties has publicly embraced national reconciliation, welcomed dialogue with armed groups and proposed a limited amnesty.

Reconciliation could include an amnesty for those "who weren't involved in the shedding of Iraqi blood," Maliki told reporters at a Baghdad news conference. "Also, it includes talks with the armed men who opposed the political process and now want to turn back to political activity."

Maliki stressed that he had not yet met with the Sunni resistance and added, "We will talk to those whose hands are not stained with blood, and we hope they would rethink their strategy." He vowed that they "will not be able to interrupt the political process, either by wanting to bring back the old regime, or imposing an ugly, ethnic new regime upon Iraq."

As Maliki spoke, Iraqi soldiers and police led the first day of a security crackdown in Baghdad. A force of more than 30,000 uniformed Iraqi security personnel, backed by more than 30,000 U.S.-led foreign troops, enforced the first day of a dusk-to-dawn curfew and stepped up checkpoints throughout the capital. Iraq's Interior Ministry said Tuesday that no additional troops were brought in for the operation.

Funny, that's not what the Iraqi government says. They have made it clear that the reconciliation plan does not contemplate giving amnesty to terrorists who have attacked and killed either "Iraqi or Coalition forces."

However, had it been true, do you believe that has never happened before? To listen to the "outraged" Democrats in the Senate, one would think so.

I ask you, how many Japanese, Germans and Italians fired weapons at Allied troops during World War II received amnesty? The end of combat always includes amnesty for those on the opposing side, unless their acts were so egregious as to be classified as war crimes (presumably acts of terror fall into this category). In fact it is virtually unheard of for a nation victorious in war not to give amnesty to those who fought on the losing side.

Full Story: Bad Reporting = Washington Post

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Emily Messner Convicting Our Troops Without a Trial

How Many More?

The Debate
Eimly Messner

As I ponder the reports that the military covered up an intentional attack on civilians by U.S. forces (and somewhat similar allegations out of Afghanistan) I keep coming back to the same question.

How many more?

How many more times will find ourselves scrambling to justify the unjustifiable? How many more times will we let fear blur the line between right and wrong, humane and inhumane?

How many of our own basic principles, like justice and fair play, will we toss aside? How many more times will our leaders express outrage (or simply profess to be "troubled") while quietly burying any possibility of meaningful action to punish wrongdoing or correct the flaws that allowed the offense in the first place?

Emily, thank-you for a perfect example of the Left's version of innocent until proven guilty. Ignore the contradicting information coming from the lawyer of the accused Marines, they don't deserve a fair hearing. We don't care about justice for our troops. A simple accusation is reason enough to convict. How fair you are. How supportive of our troops you are. How patriotic you are. You must be omniscient to be so knowledgeable of the truth without any evidence being presented. How Liberal you are.

How many more anti-American, anti-troop, guilty until proven innocent articles must we endure?

What a sad excuse for a human you are.

Full Story: Messner's Contempt for Our Troops

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

An Unexpedtedly Positive Response from the Post

A Boost From Mr. Bush
Iraq's new democratic government deserves a chance to succeed.

Washington Post
Editorial
Wednesday, June 14, 2006; Page A22

PRESIDENT BUSH delivered an important demonstration of American support for Iraq's new democratic government in his visit to Baghdad yesterday. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki represents the best and maybe last hope that a national government can stem sectarian bloodshed, defeat Islamic terrorist organizations and die-hard defenders of Saddam Hussein, and make economic recovery possible. He has formed a unity cabinet, appointed a well-qualified defense minister and spelled out the right agenda, including an imminent campaign to pacify Baghdad with tens of thousands of Iraq's newly trained troops. But Mr. Maliki desperately needs international help to turn the tide of violence and chaos. Mr. Bush's appearance, and his assurance that America "will keep its word," should reassure Iraqis who have feared that the United States would precipitously withdraw rather than defend the country's first truly democratic government.

U.S. support, of course, cannot be unqualified, and it certainly cannot ensure success: Mr. Bush rightly told Mr. Maliki that "the future of your country is in your hands." The president spoke of the decisions the Iraqi cabinet must make, which include how to neutralize the militias maintained by several of the coalition's parties and whether and how to revise the constitution so as to share oil revenue fairly and prevent Iraq's breakup into sectarian ministates. If those decisions are wrong, or don't get made in the coming months, there will be little the Bush administration can do to rescue the country or the U.S. mission.

Excuse me, did the world just flip on its axis? Since when is the Post given to realistic and reasoned analyses of the actions of this President? Well, after so much criticism from me, credit where credit is due. The Post has it absolutely right. The motives for the President's trip was to lend support and aid to the fledgeling Al Maliki government in Iraq.

Even blind pigs find an acorn once and a while. WaPo, welcome to reality.

Full Story: Washington Post Actually Gets One Right

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Bush In Bagdad: The Hits Just Keep On Coming

Bush Meets With Iraqi PM in Surprise Trip

By TERENCE HUNT
The Associated Press
Tuesday, June 13, 2006; 9:31 AM

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- President Bush, seeking to bolster support for Iraq's burgeoning goverment and U.S. war policy at home, made a surprise visit to Iraq on Tuesday to meet newly named Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and discuss the next steps in the troubled 3-year-old war.

It was a dramatic move by Bush, traveling to violence-rattled Baghdad less than a week after the death of terror chief Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in a bombing attack. The president was expected to be in Baghdad a little more than five hours.

Bush met with al-Maliki in heavily fortified green zone at a palace once used by Saddam Hussein. It now serves temporarily as the U.S. Embassy.

"Good to see you," exclaimed al-Maliki, who didn't know Bush was in Baghdad until five minutes before they met.

"Thanks for having me," Bush responded. They smiled broadly and gave each other a two-handed handshake in the high-domed marble room.

The trip was known only to a handful of aides and a small number of reporters sworn to secrecy because of obvious security threats for Bush and members of his entourage.

The prime minister had been invited to the embassy on the pretense of taking part in a video conference with Bush, supposedly at Camp David, the presidential retreat in Maryland's Catoctin Mountins. The videoconference was to go on as scheduled, but with Bush appearing alongside al-Maliki.

Another major coup for President Bush. This has got to be eating the Democrat's up. Prime Minister al-Maliki looked like a kid in a candy shop when President Bush showed up and shook his hand.

The President is paying al-Maliki a huge compliment and the trip adds to the legitimacy of his government. President Bush is thoroughly committed to staying the course in Iraq, and this trip merely confirms that commitment. Compare this to the cut-and-run policy of the Democrat party. John Murtha's denigration of our troops and his and John Kerry-Heinz's call for an immediate withdrawal stand in stark contrast to the President's commitment.

Democrats should be ashamed of themselves for their cowardess and inability to understand how a war should be fought.

Bravo Mr. President!!!

Full Story: More Ulcers for the Democrats

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Oh My, The Looney Left Ain't Gonna Like This...Can You Say Conspiracy?

Karl Rove Won't Be Charged in CIA Leak Case

By Fred Barbash and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, June 13, 2006; 7:27 AM

Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has told White House aide Karl Rove that he does not expect to seek charges against him in connnection with the CIA leak case, Rove's lawyer said today.

In a statement this morning, Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney, said that Fitzgerald "has formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges" against Rove.

"In deference to the pending case, we will not make any further public statements about the subject matter of the investigation," Luskin said in the statement. "We believe that the Special Counsel's decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr. Rove's conduct."

Oh my, I can just see the paranoids spewing their venom on the pages of democraticunderground.com and dailyKos.com. Bless their little hearts, they were so anticipating the indictment of Karl Rove with the eagerness of a well chummed shark.

I can see the sputtering rage in their faces. Outraged that "once more a Bushie has escaped 'justice'." "Justice" for them, of course, means any negative result for a member of the Bush Administration. They already "KNOW!" that everyone in President Bush's administration is evil and guilty of all manner of heinous criminal acts, they just can't seem to get anyone in justice to agree with their delusions.

I LOVE IT!!! Hee, Hee!

Full Story: No Rove Indictment

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

The New York Times' Editorial Staff: Complete and Pathological Dissociation From Reality

The Deaths at Gitmo

New York Times
Editorial

June 12, 2006

The news that three inmates at Guantánamo Bay hanged themselves should not have surprised anyone who has paid the slightest attention to the twisted history of the camp that President Bush built for selected prisoners from Afghanistan and antiterrorist operations. It was the inevitable result of creating a netherworld of despair beyond the laws of civilized nations, where men were to be held without any hope of decent treatment, impartial justice or, in so many cases, even eventual release.

It is a place where secret tribunals sat in judgment of men whose identities they barely knew and who were not permitted to see the evidence against them. Inmates were abused, humiliated, tormented and sometimes tortured. Some surely are very dangerous men, committed to a life of terrorism and deserving of harsh