Open Post

And here's one for a starter.

Perceptions

This story may be worth a chuckle - but it's just one illustration of the huge disconnect between the US military and the American press. That sort of rigid, misinformed belief in stereotypes is just one symptom of a larger disease - other manifestations include outright hostility and contempt.

Glenn Reynolds on press negativity about Iraq. Follow the various links and you'll encounter Knight Ridder's Baghdad bureau chief, Hannah Allam:

"Mr. Yost could have come with me today as I visited one of my own military buddies, who like most officers doesn't leave the protected Green Zone compound except by helicopter or massive convoy. The Army official picked me up in his air-conditioned Explorer, took me to Burger King for lunch and showed me photos of the family he misses so terribly. The official is a great guy, and like so many other soldiers, it's not politics that blind him from seeing the real Iraq.

"The compound's maze of tall blast wall and miles of concertina wire obscure the view, too.

That's an interesting argument - the military officers in the Green Zone have no idea what's going on in Iraq. One would think that with all the balanced press coverage they wouldn't need to venture out from their protective walls to learn about the crushing defeat of the US military there.

USA Today, for instance, presents an exhaustive, page-one examination of the 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment - a group that the author indicates is all but defeated by the Iraqi insurgency.

Their "...patriotic fervor now seems spent". They are "angry to be back" in Iraq. "Evidence of victory is scant" "they just want to go home" "Their loved ones suffer with them." Their patrols are "dark and nightmarish" (and are actually compared to a Disneyland ride in the story). As with all such "news reports" from Iraq, there are no direct quotes from any Marine supporting the overall tone of the piece - in fact there are no positive notes whatsoever. We must take the author's word for it: these Marines have been beaten. Badly. They are just barely keeping a tenuous grip on their own humanity. The Marines may have a different perspective - but it doesn't appear here.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post, echoing Allam, takes a look at the stinking, festering hell-hole that is Baghdad, and compares it with the view from the military officers in the Green Zone:

On the city's streets, the daily reality involves death, random violence and routine deprivations for people who are beyond anger. But a different view has been presented in the Green Zone, the concrete-barricaded headquarters for U.S. troops, diplomats and contractors, and the interim Iraqi government. There, the situation is described as progressing toward a gradual handover from U.S. forces to Iraqi control.

Here's a quick look back at some other recent Mudville posts on the emerging themes in curernt press coverage of the military.

The mercenary military is increasingly distant from American society.

Military people are demanding that Americans suffer more. Military people in Iraq are increasingly turning to drugs and alcohol.

For contrast, insurgents are described as skilled, sophisticated, violent, precise, and resilient in coverage by the American media.

Closing where we began, here's Michael Fumento:

Yost was right; media coverage on the war is terribly slanted ? such that it may threaten our ability to win.

Of course, that's just his opinion.

(Background on the Yost brouhaha here. Must-read if you aren't familiar with the story.)

The Reality Of Being 'Over There' without a Clue

Can you count on reporters to provide the unvarnished truth about Iraq? Are they familiar with the troops that are so often the subject of their reports? Or do they subscribe to some pre-conceived, deeply ingrained prejudice about the situation? I think this offers insight.

The Los Angeles Times polled it's staffers who have covered the U.S. military in Iraq for their opinions of the TV show "Over There". In response to the question "Do the characters seem real?" Five out of six said "yes".

We rounded up MilBlog response to the program here. The main complaint from those reviews was that the characters are simple-minded cliches - caricatures of real people. "Dope-smoking Black Guy" "Screaming Sarge" "Stupid Loo-tenant" "College Boy" "Ignorant Patriotic Texan" etc etc.

I suppose, as with every aspect of the war on terror, the reporters and the actual participants have different points of view. Draw your own conclusions.

Eyes on America

Max Boot, in the LA Times:

We interrupt the latest reports about terrorist atrocities with a news bulletin: Support for suicide bombings and Islamic extremism, along with hatred of the Great Satan, is actually waning in the Muslim world.

If that comes as a surprise, it's because of the old adage that good news is no news. While the increase of anti-Americanism around the world and especially in Muslim countries has been exhaustively covered since 2001, not enough attention has been paid to an important survey released in the last month that found global opinion shifting in a more positive direction.

<...>

The percentage of people holding a favorable impression of the United States increased in Indonesia (+23 points), Lebanon (+15), Pakistan (+2) and Jordan (+16). It also went up in such non-Muslim nations as France, Germany, Russia and India.

Via The Corner. Cliff May's headline can't be beat - "Why Don't They Hate Us?"

Related post here.

Open Post

And something new from Russ Vaughn:

Handmaidens of Terror?

Michelle Malkin notes, I believe with some error,
The politically correct are handmaidens of terror.
But handmaiden may be a too-mild appellation
For the worms at the core of the threat to our nation,
Who are far more concerned with our socialist purity,
Than commonsense measures for our nation?s security.
They?ll insist we don?t need anti-terrorist powers,
Till terror bombs blow down their own ivory towers.

More than mere handmaids in true servile sense,
They?re concubines of correctness in Jihadist tents,
Plying socialist sweetmeats to death-dealing masters,
Naively abetting more future disasters.
Respect our dark brothers say these houris beguiling,
No need for your paranoid, racist profiling.
Forget swarthy males from the East caused our losses,
We must share their pain, understand their root causes.

These handmaids ignore their own reasoning powers,
Like no grannies flew planes into those twin towers;
Or why we?re not shown after a terror event,
Any mug shots of men of Caucasian descent.
They insist we ignore facts as plain as their faces,
Like Islamo-fascists tend to be certain races.
No, Michelle, dear, I fear that handmaiden?s in error,
Simply too mild a term for these true whores for terror.

Russ Vaughn
(Inspired by Michelle Malkin?s column here)

Looking for Love

Anne Applebaum searches the globe for Pro-Americanism:

Anecdotally, it isn?t hard to come up with examples of famous pro?Americans, even on the generally anti?American continents of Europe and Latin America. There are political reformers such as Vaclav Havel, who has spoken of how the U.S. Declaration of Independence inspired his own country?s founding fathers. There are economic reformers such as Jos預i񥲡, the man who created the Chilean pension system, who admire American economic liberty. There are thinkers, such as the Iraqi intellectual Kanan Makiya, who openly identify the United States with the spread of political freedom. At a recent event in his honor in Washington, Makiya publicly thanked the Americans who had helped his country defeat Saddam Hussein. (He received applause, which was made notably warmer by the palpable sense of relief: At least someone over there likes us.) All of these are people with very clear, liberal, democratic philosophies, people who either identify part of their ideology as somehow ?American,? or who are grateful for American support at some point in their countries? history.

<...>

Looking at age patterns in other generally anti?American countries can be equally revealing. In Canada, Britain, Italy, and Australia, for example, all countries with generally high or very high anti?American sentiments, people older than 60 have relatively much more positive feelings about the United States than their children and grandchildren. When people older than 60 are surveyed, 63.5 percent of Britons, 59.6 percent of Italians, 50.2 percent of Australians, and 46.8 percent of Canadians feel that the United States is a ?mainly positive? influence on the world. For those between the ages of 15 and 29, the numbers are far lower: 31.9 percent (Britain), 37.4 percent (Italy), 27 percent (Australia), and 19.9 percent (Canada). Again, that isn?t surprising: All of these countries had positive experiences of American cooperation during or after the Second World War. The British of that generation have direct memories, or share their parents? memories, of Winston Churchill?s meetings with Franklin Roosevelt; the Canadians and Australians fought alongside American G.I.s; and many Italians remember that those same G.I.s evicted the Nazis from their country, too.

Read the whole thing (free registration required).

Update: Related story here.

The Grenade Launcher

Remember the hand grenade incident?

Here's an update:

A man arrested after a fatal shootout with police has admitted throwing a grenade at a rally in May where U.S. President George W. Bush was making a speech, a Georgian official said last Wednesday.

Powerline has more.

Leonard Clark

Joe Chenelly reports:

An Arizona National Guardsman who had been openly critical of the war in Iraq on his Web log has been punished for violating operational security and for 11 counts of disobeying orders, according to Multinational Coalition Force-Iraq.

Spc. Leonard A. Clark was busted down one rank to private first class, fined $820 per month for two months and sentenced to 45 days restriction and 45 days of extra duty.

I wonder if we've heard the last of this story?

Hessians: A Response

Via email, a note from a former student of Stanford history professor David Kennedy (background here):

Full disclosure: David Kennedy was a professor of mine my freshman year, and I enjoyed his History of Democracy class very much. Anyways, I think you may have the wrong idea about the Mercenary Army idea. You see, Kennedy asked me to join that army.

Kennedy was the chosen faculty speaker the day before graduation at Stanford this year, and he gave a very good speech, part of which contained everything in that Op-Ed. He may have reworked a few of the paragraphs, but the language looks very familiar. Live, though, there was much more. He challenged us, the graduating seniors, to see to it that the costs of American military action were not borne by only a tiny minority by choosing to serve, among other things. It's lost in the translation to the Op-Ed, but when the speech was given Kennedy more or less told us that we should join the army. He was more forceful about the distinctions between the army and Hessians too, going out of his way to praise men and women in uniform.

I wrote about the speech at the time, and you can still find my reaction at my blog

I encourage readers to follow that link. I'll likely post additional commentary on this topic later. For those interested I also recommend this response to Kennedy's NY Times oped from a Minnesota National Guard member who's currently serving in Iraq.

Update/correction: Originally mis-identified the author of the second link - corrected!

Open Post

Vietnam

From Kit Jarrell and Heidi Thiess:

Over the next few installments of this story, you will hear of people like Gary Linderer, Kenn Miller, Frank Souza, and Rey Martinez. You may already know them; in fact, you may own some of their books. Other men in this story - Riley Cox, Tony Tercero, John Reid, and others - may not be as familiar to you, but by the end of it, you will know them all. These men were brought together by the war in Vietnam; their brotherhood forged in blood, sweat, and combat. They have awards, memories, and familiar names etched on a wall as reminders of their time ?in country?, as part of F Company, 58th Long Range Patrol. For some of them, the scars are obvious. For some, they are more hidden; silent and lurking - but for all of them, they are permanent. Such is the nature of war.

<...>

On 19 November 1968, two twelve-man ?heavy? reconnaissance teams were inserted five kilometers apart into the Ruong Ruong Valley south of Camp Eagle, their base of operations near the city of Hue.1 The Ruong Ruong was out in the middle of nowhere; deep in the mountains. The entire map they worked in was a ?free-fire zone?, meaning anything that moved was a target according to the U.S. Army. Their mission was to locate the base camp of the North Vietnamese Army?s (NVA) 5th Regiment, which was known to be in the area, and to possibly confirm and identify the presence of a second regiment. Above all, their objective was to not get caught by enemy troops. Get in, find the enemy and get out. As members of one of the Army?s 101st Airborne Long Range Patrol companies, that was their job: Silent, yet deadly.

The story starts there, and ends with accusations of atrocities in 2004. Must read.

Open Post

The Long Arm

A blast from the past:

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry said yesterday that he will treat the war on terror "primarily" as law-enforcement action even as he pledged to remain committed to Iraq and to personally plead for international help in policing and rebuilding that nation.

Law enforcement update:

"First, that we have the resolve in this country to deal with the subject of terrorism and people who engage in it should be prepared to sacrifice a major portion of their life in confinement.

...Says Judge John Coughenour, sentencing millennium bomber Ahmed Ressam to serve a maximum of 16 1/2 more years in jail for smuggling explosives into the US in order to blow up the Los Angeles airport.

To be fair, anyone attempting to commit mass murder in the USA will also get a very stern lecture from the judge - something they can reflect upon at length during their two decades of incarceration - less time off for good behavior.

But to be even more fair, that stern lecture will be balanced with language condemning the US tactics used against terrorists.

Read the whole thing.

Hessians on the Rampage

Blackfive looks at another example of the New York Times' developing meme: the military is increasingly distant from mainstream American society. Says Stanford history professor and mainstream American David M Kennedy:

Leaving questions of equity aside, it cannot be wise for a democracy to let such an important function grow so far removed from popular participation and accountability.

He's right, in a limited way. The American Left is far, far out of touch with the American military. Since the abolition of the draft Leftists don't serve.

And when an American Leftist says "mainstream American" they mean themselves - exclusively. They are ignorant of the other, much larger segment of society that does not subscribe to their rigid dogma. (This also is helpful in understanding their confusion over the elected government of the nation.)

Of course, the broader topic of Kennedy's rant is this:

The United States now has a mercenary army. To be sure, our soldiers are hired from within the citizenry, unlike the hated Hessians whom George III recruited to fight against the American Revolutionaries. But like those Hessians, today's volunteers sign up for some mighty dangerous work largely for wages and benefits - a compensation package that may not always be commensurate with the dangers in store, as current recruiting problems testify.

Not Nazis, mind you, but that other hated German military force - Hessians. Kennedy also bemoans the "good old days" when Democrats were dragged kicking and screaming by force into the nations military service

Some will find it offensive to call today's armed forces a "mercenary army," but our troops are emphatically not the kind of citizen-soldiers that we fielded two generations ago - drawn from all ranks of society without respect to background or privilege or education, and mobilized on such a scale that civilian society's deep and durable consent to the resort to arms was absolutely necessary.

To which Blackfive responds:

This NY Times op-ed is really another indicator of academia's distance from main-stream American society. Stanford History professor David M. Kennedy writes about our mercenary army. He is as clueless as he is pompous.

Read the rest over there - it's uses too strong lanquage for me to quote any more at Mudville. ;)

He has Kennedy's email address too, in case any of you Hessians wants to send a shoutout from the mainstream.

Update: A response from a former student of Professor Kennedy, and another from a California Guardsman just back from Iraq here.

Every Day Hero

Second Purple Heart For Twice Wounded Marine

Photo by: Lance Cpl. Scott M. Biscuiti

MARINE CORPS AIR STATION FUTENMA, OKINAWA, Japan (July 22, 2005) -- A humvee carrying four Marines rolls along a quiet dusty road near Al Anbar province, Iraq. The vehicle nears a suspicious pothole in the road and maneuvers around it. An explosion from a double-stacked mine hidden in the pothole thrusts the front end of the vehicle in the air and sends shrapnel flying. The humvee crashes down violently.

All the Marines in the vehicle received the Purple Heart Medal for wounds received. However, for Lance Cpl. Anthony J. St. Dennis, it was his second in less than two months.

?When I joined I figured I would be going (to Iraq), but I never thought I would be a combat veteran or receive a Purple Heart,? said St. Dennis, a stinger missile gunner with1st Stinger Battery, 1st Marine Air Wing.

St. Dennis, a Detroit native, joined the Marine Corps on his 17th birthday but did not choose a specific military occupational specialty.

After completing recruit training at Parris Island S.C., Sept. 3, 2003, he learned he would be a stinger missile gunner with 1st Stinger Battery.

Soon after arriving at the unit in April 2004, St. Dennis learned he would be deploying to Iraq.

?On April 1, he said he was going to Iraq,? said Kathleen B. St. Dennis, Lance Cpl. St. Dennis? mother. ?I asked if it was an April fools joke. He said no.?

During St. Dennis? time in Iraq, he suffered wounds on two separate occasions within a two-month period. Once from an insurgent?s bullet and another from the blast of a mine.

?I didn?t realize I got shot until I got back to base and looked at my arm and saw my blouse soaked in blood,? St. Dennis said about his first wound received in Iraq.

He was a 240G medium machine gunner in the lead vehicle of an explosive ordnance disposal escort team sent to destroy a suspected improvised explosive device. The driver of the vehicle attempted to evade a pothole concealing a double-stacked anti-tank mine, but the pressure of the tire on the ground was enough to set it off, according to St. Dennis.

?I was hit with shrapnel in my right shoulder. It ruptured my left eardrum, and I sustained a concussion,? St. Dennis said.

Every Marine present at the explosion shared the same first thought, and it was not about their own injuries, St. Dennis said.

?The number one thing on my mind was the other Marines,? St. Dennis said. ?The Marines I was there with took care of me, helping me heal up and get me back in the fight.?

Five months after his second wound, St. Dennis learned he would be leaving Iraq and heading home.

?I didn?t know if I?d ever see him, or if he would come back wounded or dead,? said his mother. ?When he left Iraq and went into Kuwait, he said ?Mom, you don?t have to worry anymore.? When he said that, a weight was lifted. I could sleep at night after that.?

Regardless of St. Dennis? location, he maintains a positive attitude about life, according to Lance Cpl. Joseph S. Dwyer, a friend from his unit who served with him in Iraq and received the Purple Heart Medal for wounds received from the mine explosion.

?He?s a jokester,? said Dwyer, a Douglasville, Ga., native. ?He?s the guy who no matter if the situation is good or bad, he makes everyone laugh to ease the tension.?

Though St. Dennis jokes a lot during his off time, he puts the title of Marine before all else, according to Dwyer.

?When it comes to the Marine Corps he is very serious,? Dwyer said. ?If a Marine needs something, he will be the one to take care of it. He puts other Marines before himself.?
This selflessness is a trait instilled by his family and he continues to exhibit it in all aspects of his life, his mother said.

?He paid for his aunt and me to come here with his hard-earned combat pay,? she said proudly. ?It was an honor to meet all his fellow Marines. He is an only child, but now I see how many brothers he really has.?

HT: Patriot Voices

911 Memorial Update

Family Member Group Press Release
July 27th, 2005
The September 11 Family Group Coalition has released the following statement:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 27, 2005
Contact: Anthony Gardner 973-216-2623 (MEDIA INQUIRIES ONLY)

New York, N.Y., July 27, 2005 - Fifteen September 11 organizations representing the majority of the families of victims lost in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 today announced the launch of two new initiatives that will help America ?Take Back the Memorial? at Ground Zero.

?Campaign America? is the way that concerned communities across the country can show their support to ?Take Back the Memorial.? Concerned citizens are encouraged to download the Campaign America Resolution located at www.takebackthememorial.org and present it to their local city or town councils for consideration. Municipalities which have passed the resolution, will be listed on the Campaign America Honor Roll located at www.takebackthememorial.org. The passing of the Campaign America Resolution by communities across America will send a powerful message that this is America?s 9/11 Memorial, and American communities will not stand for the International Freedom Center and Drawing Center being located on the World Trade Center site.

The ?Offline Petition Drive? is an extension of the widely successful online petition by www.takebackthememorial.org. Currently the online petition has garnered over 36,000 signatures including nearly 1900 family relatives of September 11 victims. The offline petition will reach supporters without easy access to the internet. We encourage supporters to printout the Petition kit and instructions (available at www.takebackthememorial.org) and gather the signatures of friends, neighbors, and co-workers.

36523 people including 1897 9/11 family members have signed the petition.

SPREAD THE WORD AND HELP GATHER SIGNATURES!
DOWNLOAD THE NEW PETITION KIT

Every Day Hero

Marine Continues Fight After Recovery From Wound Photo by: Cpl. Tom Sloan

CAMP HURRICANE POINT, AR RAMADI, Iraq -- Lance Cpl. Joseph J. Tellez, a rifleman with 4th Platoon, Company A, 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, shows off the 7.62 mm round that an enemy sniper shot him with June 7. The 21-year-old from Ceres, Calif., was conducting security and stability operations in the Al Anbar capital in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom when the sniper shot him. The round hit Tellez a few inches below his left shoulder, passed through his body and exited an inch below his left nipple. The 2002 Ceres High School graduate returned to full duty a month later to fight terror on the urban battlefield.

"I was shot," Tellez said, adding, "and he shot me in the back."
The round hit Teller hard, but it didn't bring the 6-foot, 230-pound warrior down.

"I felt a sharp pain, but I stayed on my feet," he said. "I quickly checked myself over and saw that blood and all kinds of muscle and fatty tissue dripping on my trousers like a water faucet. I remained calm, though, and my breathing was normal."

After his quick self-assessment, Tellez countered the sniper's attack as he ran for cover.

"I flipped him off," he said, smiling at the fact that he shot the sniper the bird and not with rounds from his M-16 A4. "I didn't know where he was so I couldn't shoot at him. I didn't want him to have the satisfaction of killing a Marine."
Tellez is a three-time veteran of OIF, and this is the first time he's been wounded. His battle scar is currently a quarter-sized, inch-deep, dried-out bullet hole in his chest. He even has the 7.62 mm round that made it.

?I was wearing my medical kit on my Flak Jacket, and the round stuck into it,? he said. ?I?m going to drill a hole in the round and make a necklace out of it.?

Getting shot came as no surprise to Tellez.

?I knew there was a risk of getting killed in the infantry,? he said. ?I?m real patriotic, though, and joined the Marines so I could fight terrorism and protect my family.?

HT: Patriot Voices

Freedom From Religion?

Apparently the people of San Diego didn't read it that way...

Open Post

Blurry

A postscript to yesterday's story on the New York Time's fabrication of demands made on Americans by US troops. Times Watch responds to the same story, and notes the obvious holes in the cheese - how exactly would it benefit the GIs if Americans were to bow to their alleged demands?

What those would accomplish for the troops Shanker keeps silent about. Despite the assumption made in that paragraph, none of the military members Shanker quotes actually demand such World War II-era measures as gas rationing (a theme strengthened in the story with archived photos of old propaganda posters).

Good to see at least a few people noted that other crucial point too - the Times could offer no actual quotes supporting their claims. The Times is inventing a fictional version of the war in Iraq, fabricating the voices of US soldiers.

*****

Speaking of fictional accounts of the war in Iraq, looks like one's coming soon to a TV near you. The LA Times reports:

"Over There," Steven Bochco's new American-troops-in-Iraq series, uneasily walks a difficult line ? just like its characters.

Premiering tonight on FX, "Over There" is the network's second series, after "Rescue Me," to have sprung, in a general way, from the events of 9/11.

Set in contemporary Iraq among the members of a small, variously employed combat unit, and to a lesser extent among the people they left behind, it shares with the earlier, FDNY-set series elements of unusual stress and heavy gear. Co-created by "NYPD Blue" mastermind Steven Bochco (who was approached by FX to develop the series) with Chris Gerolmo, it's technically accomplished, convincingly played and reliably diverting, and it raises a lot of questions ? not so much as to what we're doing or not doing in Iraq, but about what it means to watch a television fiction set there.

Got that Hollywood does Iraq sick feeling in your stomach yet? How about this:

Bochco, for one, is not kidding himself about higher purpose: "Our agenda ... is simply, and fundamentally, to create a very compelling entertainment," he says in the video press kit FX sent out with the series' first three episodes. Gerolmo is more expansive: "War is a natural subject of television. It's got all the drama of 'Law & Order' and it's got all the action of '24' and, for better or worse, it's got all the gore of 'CSI.' Why not write about war? ... We can give you a powerful, visceral gut-wrenching experience that the news can't give you."

Gerolmo has a point about the growing failure of the news to communicate any sense of the reality of Iraq.

That can mean one of two things, of course. Lefties in America believe that the news doesn't tell how truly awful Iraq is, while troops in Iraq know that the media overemphasizes the bad news from there. Which view does this program present? The first clue that it might actually be a good show comes from the fact that the LA Times reviewer pans it outright:

"Over There" seems relatively well-intentioned and -researched, but it falls victim to movie convention and, worse, to a lack of curiosity about its own characters and setting... But for the most part it feels fuzzy, its lack of detail and complexity only somewhat disguised by a plurality of big events.

Given this thumbs-down review from the LA Times it sounds like this is definitely a show worth watching. Ironically this "fictional" version of the war in Iraq could easily succeed in telling the real story - in a way the New York Times refuses to.

Wonder if any of the story lines will sound familiar to MilBloggers and readers?

The reviewer also adds that the characters are stereotypes, the soldier's wives are too pretty, the soldiers are portrayed as heroes, and at the heart of all the problems he has with it, this: "There is no blurring of right side and wrong."

That, in the minds of journalists, is the potential cardinal sin of Iraq war reporting - if "there is no blurring of right side and wrong." Apparently that must be blurred - for the sake of what, we don't know. Credibility, perhaps?

*****

Odd - there's no blurring of right and wrong in this piece from the Miami Herald:

As Iraqi insurgents become more skilled at hiding deadly roadside bombs, the Pentagon is scrambling to find new ways to protect American troops.

Iraqi insurgents are "skilled" - and Americans are "scrambling". Any questions?

Here's another glowing review of the war on terror from the NY Times:

Despite months of assurances that their forces were on the wane, the guerrillas and terrorists battling the American-backed enterprise here appear to be growing more violent, more resilient and more sophisticated than ever.

<...>

And the insurgents are choosing their targets with greater precision, and executing and dramatizing their attacks with more sophistication than they have in the past.

Sophisticated... violent... precise... resilient...

The NY Times coverage of "insurgents" in Iraq sounds increasingly like a gaggle of star-struck junior high school girls describing the greasy haired kid with the souped-up moped they think is their dream date. Both types of authors are victims of the blurring of right and wrong.

There's always hope that the middle school girls might outgrow their obsession.

Here's an example from the linked story of exactly what turns the Time's boys on:

Last Sunday, in the Shiite town of Musayyib, about 40 miles south of Baghdad, a suicide bomber dashed beneath a truck full of liquefied gas and blew himself up, igniting a giant fireball that killed more than 70 people and wounded at least 156.

Hey - if that's sophisticated by New York definition then I guess I'm proud to be from flyover country.

*****

Here's more precise, sophisticated terrorist behavior, described by MilBlogger Rusten Currie:

My roommate, LT Irish, has been nearly killed for a third time today. The Durkas are tossing TNT at us now. A stick bounced off of LT Irish?s HMMWV, he told me that the first thing he thought as it bounced less than a foot from him, the only thing between him and it was thick armoured glass. He said he wondered why they were tossing road flares at him in daylight. Using them for signaling in broad daylight didn?t make sense. Then he realized what it was.

Read the whole thing. The post is really about the blurring of right and wrong. The real blurring of right and wrong - not the sort the LA Times TV critics demand:

LT Irish, saw the man who tried to murder him fleeing into a vehicle, he ordered the gunner to fire at the man and the vehicle. The kid in the turret, not much older than 24 froze. Momentarily paralyzed with the horrific realization that he was about to murder another human being.

That sort of unsophisticated response rarely occurs in the enemy camp.

That sort of story could make good television. The sort that gives LA Times reporters fits.

*****

We pause for this brief, important message from Daniel Pipes:

What do Islamist terrorists want? The answer should be obvious, but it is not.

A generation ago, terrorists did make clear their wishes. Upon hijacking three airliners in September 1970, for example, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine demanded, with success, the release of Arab terrorists imprisoned in Britain, Switzerland, and West Germany. Upon attacking the B'nai B'rith headquarters and two other Washington, D.C. buildings in 1977, a Hanafi Muslim group demanded the canceling of a feature movie, Mohammad, Messenger of God," $750 (as reimbursement for a fine), the turning over of the five men who had massacred the Hanafi leader's family, plus the killer of Malcolm X.

<...>

Most anti-Western terrorist attacks these days are perpetrated without demands being enunciated. Bombs go off, planes get hijacked and crashed into buildings, hotels collapse. The dead are counted. Detectives trace back the perpetrators' identities. Shadowy websites make post-hoc unauthenticated claims.

But the reasons for the violence go unexplained. Analysts, including myself, are left speculating about motives.

<...>

In nearly all cases, the jihadi terrorists have a patently self-evident ambition: to establish a world dominated by Muslims, Islam, and Islamic law, the Shari'a. Or, again to cite the Daily Telegraph, their "real project is the extension of the Islamic territory across the globe, and the establishment of a worldwide ?caliphate' founded on Shari'a law."

<...>

What the terrorists want is abundantly clear. It requires monumental denial not to acknowledge it, but we Westerners have risen to the challenge.

*****

CENTCOM 's web site has a new feature - a newsletter compiling stories of the accomplishments of CENTCOM troops in their AOR in the war on terror. Don't expect this to be widely read by the teeny-boppers the New York Times calls reporters.

Because they're fair and balanced, CENTCOM now also offers a compilation of news releases from the terrorists too. Here's one of the latest:

"Statement issued by the Shari' ah Court

The court' s decision on the Algerian envoys

In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

Praise be to God, who says: "In the Law of Equality there is (saving of) Life to you, o ye men of understanding." [part of a Koranic verse]. May God ' s peace and blessings be upon he who obeyed the Sunnah and [the Holy] Book [Prophet Muhammad], upon his household and good companions, and also upon those who follow them charitably until doomsday.

Due to the apostasy of the contemporary despotic governments that gave their legislation and constitutions precedence over God ' s shari ' ah and injunctions, that ruled Muslims evoking instruments other than the Islamic shari ' ah, that did not make do with this, but also fought those who called for obeying the auspicious shari ' ah, killed honest mujahidin and God-fearing scholars, and supported Jews, Christians, and infidels in the course of their war against Islam and Muslims; the ambassadors of these governments and their representatives wherever they are have become legitimate targets for the mujahidin ' s swords. God says: "Then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them." [Part of a Koranic verse]

The prophet, may God ' s peace and blessings be upon him, says: "Kill whoever changes his religion." This hadith is related by Al-Bukhari.

Based on the above, the Shari ' ah Court of the Al-Qa ' ida Organization in the Land of the Two Rivers has decided to carry out God ' s ruling on the diplomatic envoys of the apostate Algerian Government, who are Chief of Mission Ali Belaroussi and diplomatic attache Azzedine Belkadi by killing them.

Coincidentally, that kidnapping of the Algerian envoys was another example cited by the NY Times in supporting their "increasingly sophisticated insurgents" claim. As with their claims about what American troops are saying, it's revealing to contrast the terrorist press releases with the coverage they get in the American media.

Another example of terrorists in their own words:

The Secret Organization Group.

The Al Qaeda organization in Europe .

In the name of Allah most merciful, most gracious, and may God bless the Prophet Mohammed. The Islamic world should celebrate it is time to revenge the British Zionist Christian government. This is in response to the British participation in the slaughter being carried out in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The heroic holy warriors carried out a blessed attack in London and now Britain is burning from fear, terror and anxiety through its northern, southern, eastern and western corners. We warned the British government and the British people repeatedly - time and time again - and here we are. We have kept our promise and carried out this blessed military attack. This comes after great efforts and the long preparations by the heroic holy warriors to guarantee the success of the attack. We are in the process of continuing our warnings to the Danish and Italian governments and all the Crusader governments that they will receive the same punishment if they do not withdrawal their troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

*****

Arthur Chrenkoff once again reports an under-reported story. This time it's not good news:

Ateeque Sharifi, 24, who was living in Hounslow, West London, fled Kabul three years ago to seek refuge in Britain. He was the only male member of his family to escape death at the hands of the Taleban...

Eight months after arriving in Britain, Mr Sharifi enrolled in West Thames College and began mastering the English language, working in his spare time at a take-away pizza restaurant. Most of his wages were sent to Afghanistan to his younger sister who still lives there.

...He died in the explosion set off by bomber Jermaine Lindsay as their Piccadilly Line train approached the station at Russell Square.

Skilled... sophisticated... violent... precise... resilient...

"There is no blurring of right side and wrong."

Indeed.

*****

Update: Two Algerian diplomats who were kidnapped in broad daylight less than a week ago have been killed after receiving a death sentence from what was described as a religious court, a group led by the Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi said in an Internet posting on Wednesday.

*****

Hat tip to Mrs G for several stories above pulled from the Dawn Patrol.

TCS

Glenn Reynolds interviews Michael Yon.

Staff Work

Michelle Malkin has the apology letter from Pa Lt Governor Knoll's office here.

And a follow up post here. Do the Pittsburgh TV stations send cameras to all GI funerals, or only if the Lt Governor requests it?

Hmmmm....

An old joke:

Two Psychiatrists pass in the street.

"Hello" says one.

"Hmmm..." thinks the other "I wonder why he said that?"

This has nothing to do with Psychiatry, I just wonder why he said that.

Open Post

Auf die Truppen scheiߥn

Seems to me whenever I read something in the paper actually written by a soldier it looks like this:

On June 16, 2004, I willingly said goodbye to my wife and parents in a parking lot at Fort Drum, N.Y., not knowing if I would ever see them again. I don't expect any kinds of praise for this or special thanks because that is my job, and I knowingly volunteered for it. I never would have done that if I did not believe that I was defending this great country of ours and all those in it.

That's from Lt David Lucas, just back from Iraq, and writing in his hometown paper. He also notes this (and it's the most commonly expressed complaint I've ever heard from GIs back from Iraq):

I know that the war my men and I fought is a totally different war than the one I see being reported by almost the entire media.

In a nutshell, I think most GIs back from Iraq would say they served willingly and gladly, but would appreciate it if they didn't have to fight one enemy in Iraq and another in the States. It's not surprising that some in the media might make efforts to deny that problem.

Or worse, fabricate their own version of what soldier's want. According to the New York Times, soldiers in Iraq and around the world are demanding that Americans begin making more sacrifices for the war:

WASHINGTON, July 23 - The Bush administration's rallying call that America is a nation at war is increasingly ringing hollow to men and women in uniform, who argue in frustration that America is not a nation at war, but a nation with only its military at war.

From bases in Iraq and across the United States to the Pentagon and the military's war colleges, officers and enlisted personnel quietly raise a question for political leaders: if America is truly on a war footing, why is so little sacrifice asked of the nation at large?

There is no serious talk of a draft to share the burden of fighting across the broad citizenry, and neither Republicans nor Democrats are pressing for a tax increase to force Americans to cover the $5 billion a month in costs from Iraq, Afghanistan and new counterterrorism missions.

There are not even concerted efforts like the savings-bond drives or gasoline rationing that helped to unite the country behind its fighting forces in wars past.

"Nobody in America is asked to sacrifice, except us," said one officer just back from a yearlong tour in Iraq, voicing a frustration now drawing the attention of academic specialists in military sociology.

What a coincidence - the soldiers' alleged demands for higher taxes and conscription to fill military ranks are solid planks in the Democratic Party's platform.

Here are all the actual quotes from soldiers in the story:

"Nobody in America is asked to sacrifice, except us," said one officer just back from a yearlong tour in Iraq...

and

"For most Americans," said an officer with a year's experience in Iraq, "their role in the war on terror is limited to the slight inconvenience of arriving at the airport a few hours early."

If I were a cynic, I'd propose that "one officer just back from a yearlong tour in Iraq" and "an officer with a year's experience in Iraq" were the same person. But I'm not cynical (/cynicism) so I'll simply note that neither quote supports the story's claims. Every military person I know is quite proud of the fact that due to their service Americans are not suffering - as both "one officer" and "an officer" noted. I've never heard a US soldier demand that Americans suffer more.

Let me emphasize that, because it's crucial: I've never heard a US soldier demand that Americans suffer more.

Here's the third and last quote in the piece from a soldier:

While officers and enlisted personnel say they enjoy symbolic signs of support, and the high ratings the military now enjoys in public opinion polls, "that's just not enough," said a one-star officer who served in Iraq. "There has to be more," he added.

I'm sure that "one-star officer who served in Iraq" is a different person than "an officer" and "one officer", both of whom also had served in Iraq, but once again I see a factual statement that in no way supports the author's claims.

Of course, given that this is a New York Times article, we can't know for sure whether the story was written by the person who's name is on it or by an editor who simply added numerous sentences, clauses, or paragraphs to suit his own purposes.

*****

That's what they recently did to Phil Carter, after all. Rather brazenly editing in phrases to his oped that had nothing whatsoever to do with his piece.

I'll let them explain, without changing any of the words:

The Op-Ed page in some copies of Wednesday's newspaper carried an incorrect version of the below article about military recruitment. The article also briefly appeared on NYTimes.com before it was removed. The writer, an Army reserve officer, did not say, "Imagine my surprise the other day when I received orders to report to Fort Campbell, Ky., next Sunday," nor did he characterize his recent call-up to active duty as the precursor to a "surprise tour of Iraq." That language was added by an editor and was to have been removed before the article was published. Because of a production error, it was not. The Times regrets the error.

They explained it further afterwards:

"Within 10 minutes" after receiving the changes, he recalled, "I said, 'No way.' Those were not words I would have said. It left the impression that I was conscripted." His call-up was "not a surprise," he told me, because he had actually "volunteered" for mobilization. (It's not clear when the editors first learned that he had volunteered for active duty.)

<...>

This sort of give-and-take is standard practice on the Op-Ed pages. "We try to clarify and improve copy," said Mr. Shipley. "We do this for the benefit of our contributors, many of whom are not professional writers.

That time I added emphasis - making the last line bold. It's curious, that not writers bit - considering that Phil has a great, well written blog, has been published in Slate (more than just that one link), and also at least once previously in the New York Times. So since "not a writer" doesn't apply they must have had some other reason for changing his words.

We can only guess what that might be.

*****

We've noted drug and alcohol stories here before. In the US population as a whole:

An estimated 17.6 million American adults (8.5 percent) meet standard diagnostic criteria for an alcohol use disorder and approximately 4.2 million (2 percent) meet criteria for a drug use disorder. Overall, about one-tenth (9.4 percent) of American adults, or 19.4 million persons, meet clinical criteria for a substance use disorder -- either an alcohol or drug use disorder or both -- according to results from the 2001-2002 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC) reported in the current Archives of General Psychiatry [Volume 61, August 2004: 807-816].

Note that the figures are estimates of numbers of people with use disorder, not one time, casual users. We'd expect that number to be higher.

But among soldiers in Iraq, the numbers seem to be significantly lower, as the London Daily Telegraph reports:

According to US army figures, out of the 4,000 men of the 256th Brigade Combat Team, 53 faced alcohol-related charges and 48 were charged with drug offences.

The types of drugs aren't noted. Nor are the number of overlapping cases among the 48 drug and 53 alcohol cases. But the low figures aren't surprising, given that alcohol is banned and most drugs are too. One wonders how many drug related issues involve sharing prescriptions, always a problem, and likely the leading cause of drug busts in Iraq. But if the author is aware of the answer he chooses not to provide it. Still one thing seems certain - drug and alcohol problems aren't rampant among troops in Iraq.

Here's the Telegraph's headline:

Stressed US Troops In Iraq 'Turning To Drugs'

Two years into the occupation of Iraq the menace of drug abuse appears to be afflicting American troops.

By the way, probably the easiest way for US troops to obtain alcohol would be from their British or Australian allies, who aren't subject to the order banning it.

*****

Want to do something to support the troops? Maybe you can meet the magic vegetable oil bus when it comes to your town.

Jane Fonda is ready to exercise her political beliefs once again.

The actress announced her plans to embark on a cross-country roadtrip to protest the war in Iraq during an event to promote her autobiography, Jane Fonda: My Life So Far.

"I can't go into any detail except to say that it's going to be pretty exciting," Fonda told an audience Saturday in Santa Fe, New Mexico.

<...>

This time around, Fonda will be traveling aboard a vegetable oil-powered bus, accompanied by her daughter and the families of Iraq war veterans.

Maybe those are the veterans who think Americans should suffer more.

Speaking of veterans - check your local Vietnam Veterans organization for bus arrival times in your area. They'll know.

Update: The NY Times can't quote a single soldier to support their contention - but none the less claim that US troops are demanding more sacrifice from civilians. Want to see how many people believe what they read in the NY Times without question? Click here. Enjoy.

Try the comments at Eschaton too.

Update 2: Times Watch responds to the same story, and notes the obvious holes in the cheese.

What those would accomplish for the troops Shanker keeps silent about. Despite the assumption made in that paragraph, none of the military members Shanker quotes actually demand such World War II-era measures as gas rationing (a theme strengthened in the story with archived photos of old propaganda posters).

Yon's Latest

Mike Yon writes:

Greetings!

We happened to come in from a combat patrol just in time to see the final countdown for the Space Shuttle Discovery. Was great to see the Shuttle go back to space!

Interesting developments in Mosul. Have nabbed some serious terrorists in last few days. I woke up to the sound of a large IED explosion that shook the walls, and the day started from there. IEDs are a daily occurrence here. But apparently as reprisal for capturing the bad guys, there were some attacks on several of the police stations today, but the cops held their ground. Was no chance of getting overrun like the old days. A couple police were wounded but nothing too serious. We brought them more ammunition, and there was even an American General out there with us. (Good way to lose a General, but at least he can see what's going on.)

There is a definite shift in the soldiers here at Deuce Four. They talk more and more about their families and children and getting home; the return draws nearer. I plan to come home with Deuce Four before returning to Iraq.

But for now, we continue here in Mosul while the astronauts circle the earth!

Please visit the latest dispatch entitled "Empty Jars".

Michael

Greyhawk says: never miss Yon's latest! Always a great read.

Warrior to Warrior

Vietnam veteran and author John Harriman returns to Mudville with the latest installment of his series Warrior to Warrior, letters from a Vietnam veteran to our soldiers in Iraq.

Why take so much pride in shame?

Dear Warrior in Iraq . . .
Gen. William C. Westmoreland died last week. Which brings us the chance to rehash the history of the Vietnam War. And I figure there's no better rehashing format than a brief quiz. Here goes.

Who was Gen. Westmoreland anyhow?
A. The general who started the Vietnam War.
B. The general who ended the Vietnam War.
C. The general who lost the Vietnam War.
D. All of the above.
E. None of the above.
F. Depends on whom you ask.

Okay, that was a trick question, I admit it. Anytime you use the words, "Vietnam War" and "history" in the same breath you'll just have to go with F. It depends.

Vietnam, you see, is a remarkable exception to all the rules of history. Since ancient times, philosophers have remarked that the history of war is written by the victors. An expression that refers the ability of the winning nation to justify both the war and the victory, to define the nature of war crimes of the losers and to punish the named criminals.

The exception to this rule being Vietnam. For the history of our experience in Vietnam was written in the press and by antiwar protesters who took their sanctuary--and their history degrees--on American college campuses.

The writers of Vietnam history then, have declared that America lost the war and that Gen. Westmoreland was the general who commanded American troops in that loss. Then they wrote the history that proves it. That history is so tattooed on the collective American mind that an American presidential candidate in 2004 could blurt, largely without being challenged, that he made forays into Cambodia at Christmas 1968 when he served in "Nixon's war."

The popular history has Vietnam as Nixon's war, and no amount of fact can change a collective mind as stubborn as the mind is on this point. Nixon himself is responsible. He was a dark and awkward man who promised in his campaign for president to end the war in Vietnam. I remember this campaign because I was in Vietnam and voted by absentee ballot for Nixon's opponent.

Yes, I'm embarrassed to say I voted for Hubert Humphrey, President Johnson's vice president, who said he would win the war. Nixon won the presidency and pounded on the enemy to bring him to the bargaining table. Nixon's aim was to get a peace with honor. You could argue the honor part, but five years after he won the presidency, in 1973, America withdrew its last combat soldiers from South Vietnam, where no significant fighting had gone on for a two years or so. We withdrew those troops on our own, without military pressure.

So what? you ask. Well, a couple points worth mentioning. It wasn't Nixon's war, technically, until January 1969, when he was inaugurated. The candidate was wrong on that point.

And, as to losing in Vietnam, you'd have to ask the French about that. They marched out of Vietnam as losers. After the battle of Dien Bien Phu, in which thousands of their troops were surrounded and pummeled by artillery and human wave attacks for weeks. The French surrendered 10,000 men in May of 1954 and gave up a colonial empire.

In an eerily similar battle at Khe San, Vo Nguyen Giap, the Vietnamese general who defeated the French, tried the same tactics of surround and pummel against the Marines. The Vietnamese lost that battle, at a huge cost in lives to both sides. Later, during the Tet offensive, another huge gamble and the last significant offensive action by the Vietnamese, was another loss for the enemy. But the writers of history said the cost was too dear. They said the enemy was too stubborn. They said we couldn't win.

Antiwar protesters demanded peace. Nixon promised peace. They demanded withdrawal. Nixon gave them withdrawal. As I say, you can argue the honor in it, if you like, but we left without the Communist military escort that showed the French the way home.

Then, two years later, the North Vietnamese attacked the South, a country no longer defended by American soldiers. South Vietnam crumbled.

The writers of history began writing that America lost the war. Then having declared the loss, the losers began writing the history of Vietnam in shame and automatic phrases like "Nixon's war" and "Vietnam, America's first lost war."

Last week the death of Westmoreland brought out the phrases again. I couldn't help but notice the perverse sense of pride in calling it to our attention: America's first lost war. That superior air of: We knew that was a bad war; we were against it all along; and we were right, huh? That note of: It could happen again. In Iraq. Bush's war.

I can't honestly say that we won in Vietnam; all I can do is insist that we did not lose. We left on our own terms.

I can't predict whether we'll win in Iraq; all I can do is ask the people who say they support the troops to stop taking so much pride in shame, to stop cheering for the other side. Is that too much to ask?

Till next week . . .

God bless you and Godspeed.

____________

John is a veteran of two combat tours in Vietnam and a member of the American Legion. These columns are excerpts from an upcoming book. His current book, Delta Force #1 : Operation Michael's Sword is a fictional account of the 9/11 attacks and the early days of Operation Enduring Freedom.

Open Post

Religious Warfare

Chrenkoff:

Three Indonesian housewives face up to five years in prison for allegedly trying to lure Muslim children into Christianity at a Sunday School "Happy Week"...

The three women faced threats from a yelling mob of 150 fundamentalists during a court appearance in West Java last week. It is claimed that the women were teaching lessons in reading and writing to mixed classes of Christian and Muslim children, taking them on trips to parks and swimming pools, and rewarding them with treats such as pencils for memorising Christian prayers and Bible verses. Many of the alleged offences took place at a special Happy Week earlier this year, although the lessons began in 2003.

<...>

About 10,000 Christians were killed in Indonesia between 1998 and 2003 and about 1,000 churches were burnt down by Muslim mobs, according to campaigners. Although religious conflict has eased in recent years campaigners say that about 100 churches have been closed down in the past five years in West Java.

Don't worry about that sort of thing ever happening in America, where freedom from religion is a constitutional right. Here's the latest progress on stopping the fundies:

The Washington Post

The Anti-Defamation League has asked the U.S. Naval Academy to stop holding prayers before midshipmen eat lunch, saying the practice is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.

The request was made in a June 17 letter from Abraham H. Foxman, the league's national director, to the academy's superintendent, Vice Adm. Rodney P. Rempt.

In the letter, Foxman says the constitutional separation of church and state is violated "when 4,000 midshipmen of many different faiths are brought together for compulsory prayer."

As precedent, the letter cites a recent ruling by a federal appeals court that organized mealtime prayers at the Virginia Military Institute were unconstitutional.

Chicago

A federal judge in Chicago says the Pentagon can't fund the National Boy Scout Jamboree after this year.

U-S District Court Judge Blanche Manning recently signed an injunction that bars the Defense Department from financially supporting future jamborees, which draw thousands of Boy Scouts from across the nation every four years.

More:

The June 22 order by U.S. District Judge Blanche Manning stems from a 1999 lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois that claimed the Defense Department's sponsorship of the Scouts violates the First Amendment because the group requires its members to swear an oath of duty to God.

The Department of Justice, which represents the Defense Department in legal matters, said Thursday the government was still considering its options and had not yet decided whether to appeal, said Justice Department spokesman Charles Miller.

The order doesn't cover this year's National Scout Jamboree, which gets under way July 25 and is expected to draw more than 40,000 people to the Army's Fort A.P. Hill in Virginia. The next jamboree, typically held every four years, won't be held until 2010 to coincide with the Scout's 100th anniversary.

More:

Mr. Bork said the ACLU's actions show the watchdog group's lack of a "moral compass."

"This highlights more than anything else how rabid the ACLU is about the Scouts. They can't seem to let go of the Boy Scouts for anything. It's really unfortunate. They want to attack the Boy Scouts of America and the Pentagon for supporting the Boy Scouts, and they want to support kids running around naked in the woods."

Mr. Bork was referring to an ACLU lawsuit filed earlier this year in support of a proposed children's nudist camp in Virginia. A federal judge ruled in July that teens and children could not attend the camp without a parent or guardian.

"Their moral compass is turned around 180 degrees. I don't get it," Mr. Bork said.

Previous entries:

Banning Scouts from military installations:
Scout's Honor
Recognize these Medals?
The Latest

Banning Prayer from military academies:
Air Force Report Generates Widespread Confusion
Air Force Academy Update
From the Academy
God and Country
Chapel Doors Revisited
Locking the Chapel Doors
Are there Atheists in Cockpits?

Take Back the Memorial

Via e-mail:

Greyhawk:

Today, at 12:30 PM a press release will go out stating three things:

We are asking the American people to withhold donations towards the World Trade Center until the IFC and the Drawing Center are eliminated from the memorial plans, until the story of 9/11? those who were lost, those who died to save them, and the courage of the American people ? is made the centerpiece of the memorial. (www.911familiesforamerica.org)

We are asking the American people to SPREAD THE WORD AND HELP GATHER SIGNATURES! A downloadable petition kit is available and it contains everything they need (petition, a flier, and instructions). http://takebackthememorial.org/?page_id=99

We are announcing Campaign America where Americans would present the resolution to their local government and ask them to pass the resolution supporting the effort. http://takebackthememorial.org/?p=111

The links are up. We will not quit.

Thanks for your support in this effort.

-- Tim Sumner

Apologies Promised

An update from Pennsylvania:

Written apologies will be sent to a fallen Marine's relatives angered by Lt. Gov. Catherine Baker Knoll's uninvited appearance at the soldier's funeral and her criticism of the war in Iraq, Gov. Ed Rendell said Sunday.

Rendell said he will send a personal letter to the family of the late Marine Staff Sgt. Joseph Goodrich, of Westwood, and will ask Knoll to do the same. Goodrich, 32, a police officer and infantry unit leader, died July 10 in a mortar attack in Hit, Iraq.

Rendell said he hadn't spoken with Knoll about the incident, but was disturbed by the family's charge that she made a political statement against the war.

"It's not the business of state government to support the war, but our state supports the men and women who are fighting this war," Rendell said during an appearance in Mt. Washington.

That's a nice turn-around from last Fall, when the Philadelphia Inquirer reported on the Governor's struggle to ensure that absentee ballots from soldiers in Iraq would not be counted if they came in after the deadline. But as far as apologies, kudos to the Governor for his first step. The story notes that Gov. Rendell added that he believed Knoll had given her business card to the family so they could contact her if they were victimized by the State:

Rendell said he thinks Knoll, 74, of McKees Rocks, meant no harm by attending the memorial service last Tuesday. He believes Knoll gave her business card to a family member so that Goodrich's family would have a contact within state government if they later needed help securing benefits.

The story doesn't offer details as to why the Lt Governor anticipated problems in that area. Is this a common problem in Pennsylvania? Perhaps the Governor's office should look into that.

Hat tip: Ripclawe and Michelle Malkin, who says:

This is not enough. Where the hell is Knoll to apologize publicly to the family and explain her noxious behavior? The Post-Gazette notes that this may not have been the first time she showed up unwelcome at a memorial service.

Perhaps those benefit problems are widespread?

Open Post

The Man

Do not Click

...this if you're in the Air Force.

Support the Troops

Lt David Lucas, just back from Iraq, writes an oped in the local paper.

"Let's support our troops. Bring them home." Please don't ever say those words again. Nothing is so disheartening to our troops who are in harm's way than to hear our own citizens say things like that.

Unfortunately, I think that's exactly why they say it.

Read it all.

Many Funerals

News from Pennsylvania:

The family of a Marine who was killed in Iraq is furious with Lt. Gov. Catherine Baker Knoll for showing up uninvited at his funeral this week, handing out her business card and then saying "our government" is against the war.

Rhonda Goodrich of Indiana, Pa., said yesterday that a funeral was held Tuesday at a church in Carnegie for her brother-in-law, Staff Sgt. Joseph Goodrich, 32.

She said he "died bravely and courageously in Iraq on July 10, serving his country."

In a phone interview, Goodrich said the funeral service was packed with people "who wanted to tell his family how Joe had impacted their lives."

Then, suddenly, "one uninvited guest made an appearance, Catherine Baker Knoll."

She sat down next to a Goodrich family member and, during the distribution of communion, said, "Who are you?" Then she handed the family member one of her business cards, which Goodrich said she still has.

"Knoll felt this was an appropriate time to campaign and impose her will on us," Goodrich said. "I am amazed and disgusted Knoll finds a Marine funeral a prime place to campaign."

<...>

"Our family deserves an apology," Rhonda Goodrich said. "Here you have a soldier who was killed -- dying for his country -- in a church full of grieving family members and she shows up uninvited. It made a mockery of Joey's death."

What really upset the family, Goodrich said, is that Knoll said, 'I want you to know our government is against this war,' " Goodrich said.

Goodrich's father is also a Marine, having served in the Pacific during WWII. Looks like the Lt Governor made the wrong choice when scanning the obituaries for campaign stops.

*****

Poor Catherine! She may have been (like so many others) taken in by Michael Moore, one of the first to attempt to use funerals of Iraq war vets for his own gain:

The family of U.S. Air Force Maj. Gregory Stone was shocked to learn that video footage of the major's Arlington National Cemetery burial was included by Michael Moore in his movie "Fahrenheit 9/11."

Maj. Stone was killed in March 2003 by a grenade that officials said was thrown into his tent by Sgt. Hasan K. Akbar, who is on trial for murder.

<...>

The mother of the major labeled Mr. Moore a "maggot that eats off the dead."

But Moore's myth - the portrayal of the fallen in the War on Terror as victims - lives on. It's disappointing but not surprising that the Lt. Governor of Pennsylvania - along with so many others - believes it.

*****

Let's play a game. The source of information for this game is the Southern Poverty Law Center. The game is called Who Am I?

Who am I?

As a lawyer in the 1970's I won a handful of civil-rights related lawsuits, though but my legal career ended in 1979 when I was permanently disbarred for filing suit against a court reporter for being late delivering a document. My State's Supreme Court said I had "little regard for the ethics of [my] profession." (I once sued Sears for $50-million when their local store was several days late delivering a television set.)

In 1986 and 1987 I received three awards for my civil rights cases, including one bestowed by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

In 1988 I supported Al Gore's presidential campaign, hosting his visit to my hometown.

In 1990 I ran for governor of Kansas in the Democratic primaries, but lost with 11,634 votes, 6.7% of the total.

In 1991 I began the "Great Gage Park Decency Drive," an attempt to purge a park in my hometown of the homosexuals that were using it as a meeting place.

In 1992 I ran for the U.S. Senate, and gained 30.8% of the ballots cast in the Democratic primary, perhaps due in part to my anti-homosexual efforts. During the campaign I referred to my opponent as a "bull dike".

Who am I? I'm Fred Phelps, and since those days I've become notorious for my "God Hates Fags" campaign. I'm often mistakenly referred to as a right-wing conservative Christian, but the reality is I hate Jerry Falwell too.

And more recently I too have started protesting the funerals of those military members killed in the war on terror..

The Kansas preacher who tried to erect an anti-gay monument in a Boise city park says he's coming to Idaho this week to picket the funeral of a fallen soldier.

Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, says God killed Idaho National Guard Corporal Carrie French with an improvised explosive device. Phelps says God is retaliating against America for a bombing of his church six years ago.

<...>

Phelps says there is no reason he is targeting French specifically. He says his church will protest any public funeral of soldiers killed in Iraq.

*****

The Wikipedia bio of Phelps:

In January of 1993, Fred Phelps, his wife Marge, Fred Phelps Jr., and Betty Phelps-Schurle were invited to (and attended) the inaugural ball in Washington D.C..

In the ensuing four years, Phelps (and consequently Westboro) turned against Gore for his and Clinton's decided pro-and-neutral stances on homosexuality. Gore nevertheless invited Fred Phelps, Marge, Fred Jr., and Betty back for the 1997 inauguration; they responded by bringing the entirety of Westboro to the White House and picketing on the front lawn during the ball, (report on Phelps' ball picket) with signs proclaiming that Gore, Clinton, and both mens' families were going to hell not necessarily for their stances on homosexuality, but because they had "betrayed" Westboro.

In 1998, Westboro picketed the funeral of Gore's father, screaming vulgarities at Gore and telling him "your dad's in Hell."

Rev. Phelps has run in numerous Democratic primary elections for governor of the state of Kansas in 1992, 1994, and the last time in 1998, when he came in last with 15,000 votes out of a total of over 103,000 votes cast, or 15%.

*****

While Mike Moore got an exalted place at their 2004 convention, it's good to see that the majority of his fellow Democrats now apparently consider Phelps persona non grata for his anti-gay activities. You gotta draw the line somewhere, after all.

What do these three have in common? *****

As a side note, no one on the Left should be surprised when others don't think it's funny that their first attack on Supreme Court nominee John Roberts involves questioning his sexual orientation. Yes, you're only joking, heh. Chuckle. We get it. That whole "gay" thing is no big deal to the