January 31, 2007
So, we pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?I can imagine some post-9/11 moment, when the American people say enough already with the wars against terrorism and those in the national security establishment feel these same frustrations. In my little parable, those in leadership positions shake their heads that the people don't get it, that they don't understand that the threat from terrorism, while difficult to defeat, demands commitment and sacrifice and is very real because it is so shadowy, that the very survival of the United States is at stake. Those Hoover's and Nixon's will use these kids in uniform as their soldiers. If I weren't the United States, I'd say the story end with a military coup where those in the know, and those with fire in their bellies, save the nation from the people.
But it is the United States and instead this NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary - oops sorry, volunteer - force that thinks it is doing the dirty work.
Gee -- it was the left-wing liberals who demanded that we end the draft at the end of the Vietnam War, on the basis that no American should be forced to serve int he military against their will. The result was an all-volunteer military that is undeniably the best trained, highest quality force in the history of America, if notht eh world as a whole. While faux-patriots on the Left have suggested that the best way of "spreading the sacrifice around" (read that "undercutting any US military action anywhere in the world"), there has been no serious proposal to that end.
So now we get this piece of garbage from a piece of garbage reporter.
Our troops are mercenaries. They are over-privileged. They don't think like the rest of us (read that "we smarter-than-the-masses liberals") do. And in a fit of paranoia -- the right-wing fascists of the GOP are plotting a military coup using these pampered storm-trooper mercenaries to end our liberties.
Not one more word, Mr. Arkin, about your support for the troops. Not one more word, Washington Post, about your support for the troops. And not one more word, any politician or media outlet who does not condemn the sort of rhetoric used by Arkin, about your support for the troops. Your contempt for the troops is obvious.
Oh, and by the way, Billy-boy -- you lied when you made this statement.
We just don't see very many "baby killer" epithets being thrown around these days, no one in uniform is being spit upon."
That sir is a lie. We hear it all the time from the anti-war Left -- including members of Congress -- in th form of comparisons to Nazis, statements of moral equivalency between the terrorists and the soldiers, and bullshit like your column. And as far as spitting on the troops, might I direct you to this report?
In Washington, counterprotesters also converged on the mall in smaller numbers, but the antiwar demonstration was largely peaceful.There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq. Mr. Sparling spoke at a smaller rally held earlier in the day at the United States Navy Memorial, and voiced his support for the administrationÂ’s policies in Iraq.
Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back.
This incident took place just a short distance from your comfy office where you work as a mercenary for the Washington Post, undercutting American and the troops.
More At Michelle Malkin, Captain's Quarters, Blackfive, Hugh Hewitt, Hot Air, Riehl World News, OpFor, Blue Crab Boulevard, Jammie Wearing Fool, Bill's Bites, Leaning Straight Up, NW Bloggers, Hennessey's Views, Alphabet City, Flopping Aces, TacJammer, Gun Toting Liberal
OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Right Pundits, Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, A Blog For All, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, Stuck On Stupid, Common Folk Using Common Sense, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Jo's Cafe, Maggie's Notebook | Conservative Blog, Faultline USA, third world county, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, stikNstein... has no mercy, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Posted by: Greg at
11:49 PM
| Comments (82)
| Add Comment
Post contains 846 words, total size 8 kb.
January 27, 2007
I guess the reason is, of course, that those who have waxed eloquent or raved vehement about the rights of captured terrorists only believe the US needs to abide by the Geneva Conventions -- the jihadi pigs who executed two prisoners in cold blood won't have a single voice raised against them by opponents of the war in Iraq. And they certainly won't be accused of crimes against humanity or violations of international law.
Those who insist so loudly on following Geneva Conventions rules regarding captured terrorists need to take a long, hard look at the latest atrocity in Iraq, news of which broke yesterday.Four U.S. soldiers, one of them a New Yorker, were captured - and promptly murdered - last Saturday in the Shiite holy city of Karbala, 50 miles from Baghdad, officials confirmed.
Two of the slain soldiers were found handcuffed together in the back of a vehicle.
Soldiers die in combat, of course.
But the murder of disarmed and helpless troops - killing POWs, in effect - is what's at issue here.
The killers traveled in vehicles used by U.S. government convoys, wore U.S. combat fatigues, had American weapons and spoke English. That got them past an army checkpoint and into a U.S. compound - where they opened fire with grenades and rifles.
Among those killed was Pfc. Shawn Falter, 25, of Homer in northern Westchester. Officials confirmed that he was killed last Saturday after being ambushed in Karbala, but didn't name the two victims of the atrocity.
The murder of helpless captives is a stark reminder of the barbaric nature of the enemy that American-led forces face in Iraq.
Indeed, it puts into perspective the complaints about U.S. "atrocities" committed against prisoners at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.
Frankly, complaints about degrading photos and alleged desecration of the Koran can't hold a candle to the savage abduction and execution-style murders of brave soldiers.
Those who have led the outcry over what they hysterically decry as U.S. "war crimes" in Iraq have a particular obligation to speak out against genuine atrocities of the kind committed by these terrorist insurgents.
Their failure to do so will only serve to confirm their actual motive: not to hold America to the highest moral standard, but to undermine the U.S. effort and ensure a Vietnam-style defeat in Iraq.
But then again, that this has been their desired outcome from the very beginning has long been evident to anyone who has listened to their rhetoric.
UPDATE: Bill Roggio raises this possibility.
The Iranians may be responsible the conducting the attack that resulted in the murder of five American soldiers in Karbala
Well, that would explain the why our troops need the authorization to kill Iranian operatives in Iraq.
Posted by: Greg at
11:55 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 496 words, total size 4 kb.
January 17, 2007
The Navy said Tuesday its next aircraft carrier will be named the USS Gerald R. Ford in honor of the late president, a tribute to his love of the Navy.Ford, who served in the Navy during World War II, died Dec. 26 at his home in Rancho Mirage, Calif., at 93. Former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had said the Navy was planning the honor during a eulogy at Ford's funeral.
"President Ford will always be an example to us of personal kindness, loyalty and coolness under pressure," said Vice President Dick Cheney, who served as Ford's chief of staff, during a Pentagon ceremony.
Susan Ford Bales said her father had mentioned the impending honor in a letter to a friend shortly before his death. He wrote, "In my life, I have received countless honors, but none was greater than the opportunity to wear the uniform of lieutenant commander of the United States Navy."
The former president wrote it was a "a source of indescribable pride and humility to know that an aircraft carrier bearing my name may be permanently associated with the valor and patriotism of the men and women of the United States Navy."
And this is an appropriate honor as well, for Lt. Gerald Ford was responsible for saving the carrier USS Monterey during a fire in 1944. That heroism alone makes this a fitting decision, even without considering all he subsequently did to serve this country.
Wikipedia has some information about ">USS Gerald R. Ford, which will be the lead ship of its class.
Posted by: Greg at
11:32 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 313 words, total size 2 kb.
(, January 16, 2007
So who pays the price? The American military and their families, and I just want to bring us back to that fact.
Well, Senator, why don’t you listen to the opinions of those who have children in Iraq, or whose sons have given the ultimate sacrifice in the service of their country? How about listening to one of your constituents, Debbie Argel Bastian, whose son Derek Argel was killed in Iraq?
When they talk of families of U.S. troops, it's as if they think only of Cindy Sheehan. "I have begged to go on the media and tell my story," Bastian told me. And, excusing her language: "Any time Cindy Sheehan burps or farts, she's on the news."If anyone is interested, Bastian supports the Bush troop surge.
Or how about this constituent, Senator?
Mary Riley of Napa, whose son Gregory Smedley served in Iraq, doesn't want Boxer speaking for her or her son. She told me, "Sen. Boxer's presumption to speak for the troops and their families is fundamentally dishonest. She's undermining the war effort -- which hurts and doesn't help the troops. That's how my son and I feel."
They’ve paid the price, and view it as worthwhile. How dare you second guess them?
But let’s be honest – Senator boxer and those opposed to the war are not REALLY interested in what the military and their families have to say about the war, whether or not they consider “the price†to be acceptable. They oppose the war – PERIOD. They will take Cindy Sheehan and the relatively small percentage of servicemen and women who share their opposition and cast them as representative of the whole, but that is just for show.
The reality is that the talk about “who pays the price†is all a smokescreen for their willingness to walk away from Iraq in disgrace and defeat. Now I’ll concede that doing so is a legitimate option if they can get the votes – and exactly what they desired and received in Vietnam.
But don’t sully the sacrifices of the troops and their families to get it.
Posted by: Greg at
12:08 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 402 words, total size 3 kb.
So who pays the price? The American military and their families, and I just want to bring us back to that fact.
Well, Senator, why donÂ’t you listen to the opinions of those who have children in Iraq, or whose sons have given the ultimate sacrifice in the service of their country? How about listening to one of your constituents, Debbie Argel Bastian, whose son Derek Argel was killed in Iraq?
When they talk of families of U.S. troops, it's as if they think only of Cindy Sheehan. "I have begged to go on the media and tell my story," Bastian told me. And, excusing her language: "Any time Cindy Sheehan burps or farts, she's on the news."If anyone is interested, Bastian supports the Bush troop surge.
Or how about this constituent, Senator?
Mary Riley of Napa, whose son Gregory Smedley served in Iraq, doesn't want Boxer speaking for her or her son. She told me, "Sen. Boxer's presumption to speak for the troops and their families is fundamentally dishonest. She's undermining the war effort -- which hurts and doesn't help the troops. That's how my son and I feel."
TheyÂ’ve paid the price, and view it as worthwhile. How dare you second guess them?
But let’s be honest – Senator boxer and those opposed to the war are not REALLY interested in what the military and their families have to say about the war, whether or not they consider “the price” to be acceptable. They oppose the war – PERIOD. They will take Cindy Sheehan and the relatively small percentage of servicemen and women who share their opposition and cast them as representative of the whole, but that is just for show.
The reality is that the talk about “who pays the price” is all a smokescreen for their willingness to walk away from Iraq in disgrace and defeat. Now I’ll concede that doing so is a legitimate option if they can get the votes – and exactly what they desired and received in Vietnam.
But donÂ’t sully the sacrifices of the troops and their families to get it.
Posted by: Greg at
12:08 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 410 words, total size 3 kb.
January 12, 2007
In April 2004, Cpl. Jason L. Dunham, an ordinary recruit from a small town in upstate New York, did something extraordinary: he threw himself on a grenade to shield two men in his unit as they battled insurgents on a road in Iraq.On Thursday, President Bush gave Corporal Dunham, who was 22 when he died, the Medal of Honor, the nationÂ’s highest military award, presenting it to his mother and father in a somber East Room ceremony attended by his relatives and friends.
In an interview on Tuesday, as she was preparing to make the six-hour trip to Washington for the ceremony, Corporal Dunham’s mother, Debra, said she wished her son could “receive it himself.” “But we will receive it for him, and he will be watching us do that,” she said.
Corporal Dunham, who was a rifle squad leader in the Marines, is the second soldier to receive the medal for service in the current war in Iraq. Prior to that, the 1993 conflict in Mogadishu, Somalia, was the last to produce Medal of Honor recipients; two Delta Army Force soldiers died protecting a downed helicopter pilot there in actions later depicted in the movie “Black Hawk Down.”
In presenting the award to the Dunhams, President Bush, who on Wednesday night told the nation he would send 20,000 additional troops to Iraq, cited Corporal Dunham’s uncommon valor and said that he “gave his own life so that the men under his command might live.”
No greater love has a man than to lay down his life for his friends.
And for moral and intellectual midgets like John Kerry and Charles Rangel, let's clarify something -- Jason Dunham was in Iraq because he chose to be, not because he was forced to be. Indeed, he had volunteered to extend his tour of duty by two months so he could stay with his unit, and ensure that each and every one of his buddies came home safe and sound. He gave his life to fulfill that goal.
And for those who think that President George W. Bush is lightly committing troops to combat and has no concern for their lives, think again. The president wept openly during this ceremony, as I suspect he does in private over each casualty report. I do not believe there is any American who is more keenly aware of what the casualty figures mean.
The citation that accompanies this award reads as follows.
The President of the United States in the name of The Congress takes pride in presenting the MEDAL OF HONOR posthumously to CORPORAL
JASON L. DUNHAM
UNITED STATES MARINE CORPSfor service as set forth in the following
CITATION:
For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while serving as a Rifle Squad Leader, 4th Platoon, Company K, Third
Battalion, Seventh Marines (Reinforced), Regimental Combat Team 7, First Marine
Division (Reinforced), on 14 April 2004. Corporal Dunham's squad was conducting a reconnaissance mission in the town of Karabilah, Iraq, when they heard rocket-propelled grenade and small arms fire erupt approximately two kilometers to the west.
Corporal Dunham led his Combined Anti-Armor Team towards the engagement to provide fire support to their Battalion Commander's convoy, which had been ambushed as it was traveling to Camp Husaybah. As Corporal Dunham and his Marines advanced, they quickly began to receive enemy fire. Corporal Dunham ordered his squad to dismount their vehicles and led one of his fire teams on foot several blocks south of the ambushed convoy. Discovering seven Iraqi vehicles in a column attempting to depart, Corporal Dunham and his team stopped the vehicles to search them for weapons. As they approached the vehicles, an insurgent leaped out and attacked Corporal Dunham. Corporal Dunham wrestled the insurgent to the ground and in the ensuing struggle saw the insurgent release a grenade. Corporal Dunham immediately alerted his fellow Marines to the threat. Aware of the imminent danger and without hesitation, Corporal Dunham covered the grenade with his helmet and body, bearing the brunt of the explosion and shielding his Marines from the blast. In an ultimate and selfless act of bravery in which he was mortally wounded, he saved the lives of at least two fellow Marines. By his undaunted courage, intrepid fighting spirit, and unwavering devotion to duty, Corporal Dunham gallantly gave his life for his country, thereby reflecting great credit upon himself and upholding the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and the United States Naval Service.
May God watch over each and every American in uniform, and show his tender mercies to each one killed or wounded in the service of our nation.
ADDENDUM: A memorial website honoring Cpl. Dunham can be found here.
Posted by: Greg at
05:59 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 815 words, total size 5 kb.
January 03, 2007
Ethiopia won in short order because it unapologetically used force against vicious people who understand only force. They killed the people they needed to kill without worrying overmuch about collateral damage, and not at all about world opinion. And though the Ethiopian soldiers are Christians, they were hailed as liberators in this overwhelmingly Muslim country.
What is more important – victory, or appeasing the unappeasable critics of military action?
Posted by: Greg at
11:18 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 106 words, total size 1 kb.
61 queries taking 0.2394 seconds, 248 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
