I'm shocked and appalled -- other than a few Code Pinkos and the like protesting outside of a VA hospital, I can't imagine anything this disgusting happening in the United States.

Injured soldiers who lost their limbs fighting for their country have been driven from a swimming pool training session by jeering members of the public.

The men, injured during tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, were taking part in a rehabilitation session at a leisure centre, when two women demanded they be removed from the pool. They claimed that the soldiers "hadn't paid" and might scare the children.

* * *

The unpleasant scenes broke out at Leatherhead Leisure Centre in Surrey when the wounded veterans, who are at Headley Court Military Hospital, had to use the 25-metre public pool because the hydro-pool at the defence rehabilitation centre is not big enough for swimming.

The servicemen were about to begin their weekly swimming therapy in closed-off lanes when they were verbally abused by the swimmers.

One woman in her 30s was said to be infuriated by the lane closures saying the soldiers did not deserve to be there when she had paid.

It was also reported that others complained that limbless servicemen were scaring children at the centre.

The atmosphere was said to be so tense that the soldiers' instructors removed them.

Charles Murrin, 79, a Navy veteran who saw the incident, said: "The woman said the men do not deserve to be in there and that she pays to come in the pool and they don't. I spoke to the instructor in the changing room afterwards and he was livid."

Someone should have told these evil bitches that the missing limbs were clear evidence that these disabled soldiers had paid more than she ever would. Indeed, the cretins who engaged in such behavior should have been the ones ejected from the pool, not the wounded heroes.

I agree with the position taken by the former head of the British military.

The incident has sparked widespread condemnation. Adml Lord Boyce, a former head of the Armed Forces, said last night the women should be "named and shamed".

"These people are beneath contempt and everything should be done to get their names and publish them in the press," he said. "It is contemptible that people who have given up their limbs for their country should be so abused when they are trying to get fit again."

Of course, a certain British poet diagnosed this contemptible attitude over a century ago.

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"

But it's "Saviour of 'is country," when the guns begin to shoot;

An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;

But Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!

For shame!

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin picks up the story.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, Is It Just Me?, Rosemary's Thoughts, 123beta, Right Truth, Stix Blog, Stuck On Stupid, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Phastidio.net, Chuck Adkins, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, Faultline USA, Woman Honor Thyself, The Uncooperative Radio Show!, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CORSARI D'ITALIA, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 06:13 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 556 words, total size 6 kb.

And as such it is unacceptable to anyone with a brain -- and to anyone who wants complete withdrawal abject surrender, too.

The Democrats' flagship proposal on Iraq is aimed at bringing most troops home. Yet if enacted, the law would still allow for tens of thousands of U.S. troops to stay deployed for years to come.

This reality — readily acknowledged by Democrats who say it's still their best shot at curbing the nearly five-year war — has drawn the ire of anti-war groups and bolstered President Bush's prediction that the United States will most likely wind up maintaining a hefty long-term presence in Iraq, much like in South Korea.

For those who want troops out, "you've got more holes in here than Swiss cheese," said Tom Andrews, national director of the war protest group Win Without War and a former congressman from Maine.

The Democratic proposal would order troops to begin leaving Iraq within 30 days, a requirement Bush is already on track to meet as he begins reversing this year's 30,000 troop buildup. The proposal also sets a goal of ending combat by Dec. 15, 2008.

After that, troops remaining in Iraq would be restricted to three missions: counterterrorism, training Iraqi security forces and protecting U.S. assets, including diplomats.

Now why is this proposal a bad one? Because it ties the hands of the President -- whether that president is named Bush, Clinton, Romney, Obama, Giuliani, or Kucinich -- when it comes to assessing the national interest and deploying troops for the appropriate mission in the region.

And the problem is that the definition of what would be allowed is quite nebulous -- meaning that what is permitted is quite subjective.

Maj. Gen. Michael Barbero, deputy chief of staff for operations in Iraq, declined to estimate how many troops might be needed under the Democrats' plan but said it would be hard to accomplish any of those missions without a significant force.

"It's a combination of all of our resources and capabilities to be able to execute these missions the way that we are," Barbero said in a recent phone interview from Baghdad.

For example, Barbero said that "several thousand" troops are assigned to specialized anti-terrorism units focused on capturing high profile terrorist targets. But they often rely on the logistics, security and intelligence provided by conventional troops, he said.

"When a brigade is operating in a village, meeting with locals, asking questions, collecting human intelligence on these very same (terrorist) organizations, that intelligence comes back and is merged and fed into this counterterrorism unit," Barbero said. "So are they doing counterterrorism operations?

"It's all linked and simultaneous," he added. "You can't separate it cleanly like that."

In other words, it is not at all clear what is allowed and what is forbidden under the provisions of this politically-motivated proposal. And there are very realistic scenarios in which the missions that are permitted cannot be carried out because of the lack of supporting troops who make that mission possible.

The bill's restrictions are also unnecessary, given that the current plans for the mission in Iraq are already quite similar to what the legislation envisions. That makes it pointless and dangerous at the same time.

And let's be clear about one thing -- this bill is not about national security or military necessity. It is about politics. And that the Democrats are playing politics with the military is shameful -- and sadly, not unexpected.

More At Don Surber

Posted by: Greg at 02:51 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 600 words, total size 4 kb.

Because when all is said and done, the Pentagon is prepared to spend its money on national security and winning in Iraq and Afghanistan, even as the Democrats seek to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory for their partisan political benefit.

The military plans to furlough civilian employees and cut all Army and Marine Corps bases to bare-bones operations early next year because of a funding impasse with Congress, according to a memo provided to Politico.

Democratic leaders accused the Bush administration of using scare tactics, and said they will not be strong-armed into giving the White House a blank check on the war.

In the memo, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates instructs the secretaries and of the Army and Navy to “start appropriate planning to reduce operations at all Army bases by mid-February of next year and all USMC bases by mid-March of next year.”

The plan would leave “bases … all but shut down, only able to provide the most basic safety and security measures for those who reside there,” Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said at a briefing Tuesday afternoon.

“The most immediate impact will be felt next month, just before Christmas, in fact, when we'll begin notifying roughly 200,000 civilians and contractors that we can no longer afford their services; and that, absent additional funding, they will be furloughed, or temporarily laid off, within a matter of weeks,” Morrell said.

“It is imperative that lawmakers reconsider this matter as soon as possible and send the president supplemental funding legislation, free from objectionable policy provisions, in order to insure that we can continue to support our troops and their families, as well as protect our nation's security.”

Gates said he wants enough planning done by mid-December so the department “can begin appropriate notification of government civilian employees to be furloughed consistent with labor agreements.”

Amusingly enough, Senate Majority Leader Minority Follower Harry Reid dares to suggest that it is the President who is playing politics with the military. His every effort over the last year has been aimed at ensuring that the war in Iraq is lost so that the Democrats have a campaign issue to run on in 2008 -- and despite the undeniable successes in Iraq he continues to claim that America has lost there.

Of course, the Democrats keep demanding a timetable for retreat and surrender. I guess that ensuring that the troops get the funding they need to win the war is too much to ask of those who view an American victory as a blow to their partisan interests. When will they stop adhering to our enemies, and giving them aid and comfort?

Posted by: Greg at 01:29 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 462 words, total size 3 kb.

The sort of people who do crap like this -- killing little children and the soldiers giving them toys.

A suicide bomber detonated his explosives as American soldiers were handing out toys to children northeast of Baghdad on Sunday, killing at least three children and three of the troopers, U.S. and Iraqi authorities said.

Seven children were wounded in the attack in Baqouba, where U.S. soldiers wrested control from al-Qaida in Iraq last summer.

The attack, along with a series of other blasts in the capital and to the north, underlined the uncertainty of security in Iraq even as the American military said overall violence is down 55 percent since a troop buildup began this year.

Police said the attack occurred as U.S. soldiers were handing out toys, sports equipment and other treats in a playground near Baqouba, 35 miles northeast of Baghdad.

Few details were available, but the U.S. military said it was a "suicide vest attack" and that three American soldiers were killed.

Some on the Left want to claim that the Islamofascists are the latter day equivalent of our founding fathers. Events like this put the lie to that claim. After all, how many children did George Washington order killed at random?

Posted by: Greg at 04:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 217 words, total size 1 kb.

You see, they don't get to live like a refugee.

The Supreme Court of Canada on Thursday refused to hear an appeal by two U.S. military deserters who sought refuge in the country to avoid deployment to Iraq, a conflict they argued is “immoral and illegal.”

The announcement ends a bid by American soldiers Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey, the plaintiffs in the case, to win refugee status and opens the way for them to be deported to the United States, where they could face court martial for going AWOL and missing troop movements. It also could lead to deportation of dozens of other American soldiers who have filed formal applications for refugee status.

“Theoretically they (are) facing immediate removal,” said Jeffry House, a Toronto lawyer who represents most of the U.S. refugee applicants, including Hinzman and Hughey. The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case, “vastly advances the government’s agenda to remove them,” he said.

The rejection also closes off that legal avenue for other U.S. military personnel who have gone to Canada and remained illegally. House estimates there are at least 300 AWOL U.S. soldiers living in Canada.

Let's hope that the Canadian government takes immediate action to send these dishonorable cowards back to America. Once here, a court martial awaits them. And then, on to some nice accommodations, courtesy of the Department of Defense.

More At Malkin, Gunpowder Chronicle

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Stop the ACLU, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, 123beta, Right Truth, Stix Blog, The Populist, The Pet Haven Blog, Grizzly Groundswell, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Big Dog's Weblog, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, Nuke's, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Right Voices, Gone Hollywood, and Church and State, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 11:10 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 329 words, total size 5 kb.

It was not too many decades ago that young men in trouble with the law were given an option by a judge -- jail or the military. Many of them joined the military, got their acts together, and became upstanding citizens.

As the military became an all-volunteer force, standards became higher. Minor offenses that might have gotten a guy to join the military became disqualifying factor. And some things became disqualifiers that really had nothing to do with fitness to serve at all. Example? Tattoos, even if they weren't gang-related -- even as tattoos became more socially acceptable in American society.

Which leads us to this story.

Faced with higher recruiting goals, the Pentagon is quietly looking for ways to make it easier for people with minor criminal records to join the military, The Associated Press has learned.

The review, in its early stages, comes as the number of Army recruits needing waivers for bad behavior — such as trying drugs, stealing, carrying weapons on school grounds and fighting — rose from 15 percent in 2006 to 18 percent this year. And it reflects the services' growing use of criminal, health and other waivers to build their ranks.

Overall, about three in every 10 recruits must get a waiver, according to Pentagon statistics obtained by AP, and about two-thirds of those approved in recent years have been for criminal behavior. Some recruits must get more than one waiver to cover things ranging from any criminal record, to health problems such as asthma or flat feet, to low aptitude scores — and even for some tattoos.

The goal of the review is to make cumbersome waiver requirements consistent across the services — the Army, Marine Corps, Navy and Air Force — and reduce the number of petty crimes that now trigger the process. Still, some Army officers worry that disciplinary problems will grow as more soldiers with records, past drug use and behavior problems are brought in.

I've seen how these processes go. One of my students wanted to be a Marine, but had to get a waiver for a tattoo on his shoulder memorializing his cousin, who had been killed in a random shooting. Another was arrested at 13 for breaking into a neighbor's house to recover a stolen bicycle -- he ended up with a year's probation and went on to become an honor student. And I won't even begin to get into the cases of kids who tried marijuana once at a party and had to go through the process. I'm willing to bet that most of these waivers are for good kids who have messed up -- and who will make exemplary citizens after the experiences of military service. They are the kids who I work with to try to ensure that they don't screw up again -- the ones you want to see get a second chance.

That is why I will find the reaction of liberals like Oliver Willis on this topic informative. Liberals love to tell us that kids shouldn't be thrown away for youthful mistakes. Why, then, does Willis (and other liberals) feel it necessary to degrade them when they seek to serve their country? Could it be that they loathe the military, and the country, so deeply that they are prepared to tear down folks trying to better themselves? Is it merely rank hypocrisy from the left -- the kind we are all so used to? You bet it is.

Posted by: Greg at 11:33 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 584 words, total size 4 kb.

NEW POSTS BELOW THIS ONE

Project Valour-IT, in memory of SFC William V. Ziegenfuss, helps provide voice-controlled and adaptive laptop computers to wounded Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines recovering from hand wounds and other severe injuries at major military medical centers. Operating laptops by speaking into a microphone or using other adaptive technologies, our wounded heroes are able to send and receive messages from friends and loved ones, surf the 'Net, and communicate with buddies still in the field. The experience of MAJ Charles “Chuck” Ziegenfuss, a partner in the project who suffered serious hand wounds while serving in Iraq, illustrates how important these laptops can be to a wounded service member's recovery.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Perri Nelson's Website, third world county, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, DragonLady's World, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, The Bullwinkle Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Adeline and Hazel, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 05:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 165 words, total size 3 kb.

After all, good news is no news for the MSM.

During a five-day stretch between October 19 and 23, there were no deaths among coalition forces. Although three US servicemen died from “non-hostile causes”, this was the longest period without combat deaths for almost four years. And, between October 27 and 29, there were more days without coalition deaths.

Such statistics do not take account of deaths among the Iraqi security forces or civilians. But Iraqis, too, have had days when no one in their ranks has died. On October 13, for instance, neither the coalition nor the Iraqi military suffered any deaths. But one Iraqi policeman was killed, along with four reported civilian deaths in Baghdad.

Two days later, there were no deaths among the coalition but six among the Iraqi security forces.

October 19 was a death-free day for both coalition and Iraqi security forces, but 12 civilians were killed.

The civilian death toll was lower on October 23 - when four were killed - but they were joined in the mortuaries by two Iraqi policemen.

On October 30, the Iraq Interior Ministry reported that there were no civilian deaths in Baghdad but three US troops and four Iraqi policemen were killed.

It is beyond dispute, though, that the tide of violence in Iraq has been stemmed.

But since the MSM meme has been that the war is lost, and since the Democrat meme has been that the war is lost (but I repeat myself), the actual news that the war is not lost and is going much better has been lost. Maybe the problem is that the side supported by the media and the Democrats continues to suffer serious losses at the hands of US and Iraqi forces -- they continue to kill scores of terrorists.

H/T Malkin

Posted by: Greg at 11:34 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 315 words, total size 2 kb.