Another Story About Our Heroic Troops The Mainstream Media Won’t Tell You: U.S. Soldiers Building Wheel Chairs For Iraqis

U.S. soldiers serving in Iraq have distributed more than 1,000 free wheelchairs to disabled Iraqis since July 2005, according to a non-profit group that donates the chairs.

Jonathan Abramson, a spokesman for the California-based Free Wheelchair Mission, said his group has worked with the U.S. military and the governments of Iraq and Kuwait to make the chairs available to needy disabled people.

The specially-designed chairs are made from modified plastic patio chairs, mountain bike wheels, and steel frames. Each chair costs less than $45 for parts and shipping.

According to the group's website, the design makes the wheelchairs durable and the mountain bike wheels enable the operators of the chairs to navigate rough terrain where a traditional wheelchair would give them trouble.

Pfc. Erik Meyers, who helped assemble a wheelchair for a young girl in the town of Baladiat, Iraq, on Feb. 8, said in a Defense Department press release that it was "an awesome experience."

"The family expressed gratitude for the new wheelchair and said they look forward to seeing more of Troop B (3rd Battalion, 67th Armor Regiment) in the future," Meyers said.

Soldiers and other volunteers use their free time to participate in the program. Soldiers assemble the chairs and distribute them to Iraqis of all ages who have debilitating diseases like cerebral palsy and injuries that limit mobility.

Since its founding in 1999, the Free Wheelchair Mission has distributed more than 92,000 wheelchairs to more than 45 countries, according to the group's website. The group's founder, Don Schoendorfer, is one of 11 nominees for the Reader's Digest 2005 Hero of the Year award. The winner will be announced March 9.

By Nathan Burchfiel
CNSNews.com Correspondent
February 23, 2006

(CNSNews.com) -

Port Deal Fuels Democrats

After Jimmy Carter gave away the Panama Canal, my father, Ronald Reagan, grabbed hold of the issue and never let go. He rode that horse all the way into the White House.

President Bush needs to think about that because if he fails to back down and at least give the opponents of the Dubai ports deal a chance to be heard, the Democrats are going to mount this gift horse and ride it into the White House too.

The way the Bush people have handled this matter from the very beginning is simply appalling. And on the heels of the vice president's inept handling of the Harry Whittington accidental shooting - which gave impetus to charges that the administration plays its cards too close to its chest - the Dubai deal gives even more validity to the charges.

Because it was done behind closed doors, with nary a word to the leadership on Capitol Hill, it comes out looking like a bumbled attempt to put one over on the American people.

The deal would allow Dubai Ports World (DPW) of the United Arab Emirates to run ports in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New Orleans and Miami. Last week the Dubai government-owned DPW bought the London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which had been managing the six ports.


It may well be that the arrangement has great merit and could prove beneficial to the United States, but as a political matter it is an unmitigated disaster – and one which could cost the GOP dearly in both the 2006 and 2008 elections.

Here we have an issue – national security - that is uppermost in the minds of the American people, largely because the president has hammered away at it and used it brilliantly to portray the Democrats as weak-kneed in the war on terror and on matters involving national security.

In one fell swoop the president throws it away, and even worse allows the Democrats to appear stronger in defending the American people than he and the Republicans have been.

It's worse than stupid – it's suicidal.

The great majority of Republican leaders on the Hill recognize this. They find themselves surrounded by such anti-war Democrats as the appalling Sen. Charles Schumer suddenly waving the flag and asserting his shock over the president's apparent willingness to risk the nation's security by allowing Dubai, with its alleged ties to al-Qaida, to run some of the nation's biggest and most important seaports.


South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham recognized the deal as a political disaster, calling it "tone-deaf politically at this point in our history" and added that "we certainly should investigate it. I'm not so sure it's the wisest political move we could have made.

"Most Americans are scratching their head wondering why this company, from this region, now. I don't think now is the time to outsource major port security to a foreign-based company."

The Democrats may be crazy, but they are not stupid. They recognize that the president has handed them the reins and boosted them into the saddle of the Dubai horse, and they know that at the very least they can use it to ditch an issue that has plagued them.

They now look stronger on the national security issue than the president and his party.

New York's Rep. Peter T. King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, told The Associated Press that the takeover terms are insufficient to guard against terrorist infiltration.

"I'm aware of the conditions, and they relate entirely to how the company carries out its procedures, but it doesn't go to who they hire, or how they hire people," he said.

"They're better than nothing, but to me they don't address the underlying conditions, which is how are they going to guard against things like infiltration by al-Qaida or someone else? How are they going to guard against corruption?"

The president has until March 2 to step in and either kill this deal or hold it in abeyance until Congress has a chance to check it out. He better get moving.



©2006 Michael Reagan.

Michael Reagan
Thursday, Feb. 23, 2006

Clinton and Schumer are profiling Muslims

It really is true that lies have short legs. One way or another, liberals always end up contradicting themselves, tacitly acknowledging that their pronouncements are more political artifice than statesmanlike artistry, more incitive than insightful.

What brings this to mind is the controversial plan allowing the Dubai-based company DP World to assume managerial responsibilities at six major US seaports. In the piece I just wrote in opposition to the Arab takeover, I quoted Senator Chuck Schumer, who has become a strange bedfellow in his leading of the charge to scuttle the arrangement. Having a nose capable of detecting political opportunity every bit as well as it could sniff out marriageable men of potential, Hillary Clinton has cast her lot with Schumer. Now, as I have indicated, I support them in this, but the incongruity of their stance hasn't escaped my notice. No, they have done violence to principles their ilk has most sanctimoniously claimed embody true virtue, and I won't miss this chance to hoist them on their own petards.

Hear ye, hear ye! Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer are profiling Muslims. This conclusion is inescapable. After all, on what basis do they object to this plan? "Er . . . it's, it's, it's that it is a foreign company," stammer the apologists. Nay, the liberals were silent when the British company from which DP World is taking the reins oversaw the ports, and it strains credulity to claim the New York senators would have been so taken aback had the baton been handed off to a Swiss entity. Face it, they have been caught with their political-correctness down.

But this is a rare occasion when their antennae are up (Schumer anyway, as I suspect Lady Macbeth is driven by expediency). The fact of the matter is some liberals are finally demonstrating a grasp of the proper application and value of profiling. After all, implicit in their judgment is the following: virtually all the terrorists who bedevil us are Muslim, therefore, we have to assume that a Muslim company would be more likely to harbor terrorists or their sympathizers than a non-Muslim company. Note that "more likely" doesn't mean it's definite. It doesn't have to be, as most things in life are assessed based on probability. In some sports and games this is called playing the percentages.

And this is precisely the science that underpins good profiling (a.k.a. racial-profiling, which is a misnomer). The principle in question is: if a group is over-represented in a certain category of crime, it will receive scrutiny commensurate with that representation when matters concerning that crime category are involved. In other words, we will assess the probability that a given entity has criminal intent or poses a danger and act accordingly. This is the principle that justifies suspicion of DP World. It is a just principle. And Clinton and Schumer are embracing it.

How, though, do they reconcile this position with the consistent liberal opposition to the placing of greater scrutiny on Muslims at airports? Furthermore, how can they now have any credibility when criticizing others for applying this principle to other minority groups? Is this the fruits of an epiphany? Is it a spiritual and political rebirth? Am I to count you, Senators Clinton and Schumer, as my allies in the fight to finally use profiling in a way more symmetrical with good criminology than bad ideology? Ah, I wax rhetorical.

But it's a curious and delicious departure from leftist orthodoxy. Such liberals had always been monolithic and steadfast in their opposition to the profiling of any politically privileged "underprivileged" group, while uttering nary a word about the profiling of politically underprivileged "privileged" groups. It was: the profiling of whites, yes; the profiling of blacks, no. The profiling of men, yes; the profiling of Muslim men, no. But these liberals have allowed common-sense to intrude into their ideology. These demagogic chess masters have finally made the wrong move. They have exposed their king, and he has no clothes.

Needless to say, this foray into reason will prove to be nothing more than a flight of reality. Clinton and Schumer will continue to object to the equitable and proper use of profiling and cast its proponents as bigots. That's how they maintain their ill-gotten power. How will they justify it? They won't.

Liberals aren't thinkers, they're "feelers." Thus, they are not governed by absolutes but by expediency and what feels right at the moment. Profiling Muslims within the context of the port situation feels right, whereas doing so at airports doesn't. It's that simple. For this reason, a given liberal "principle," for lack of a better word (it's not quite accurate to call an ever-changing emotional preference a "principle"), is only pulled from the magician's hat when it can be placed in the service of a liberal agenda. It's the closest thing to a religious experience the Clintons and Schumers of the world will have. Their "principles" undergo a continual cycle of death and resurrection, the latter phase being animated by the desire to breathe life into deadly fallacies in need of buttressing.

What we can do is remember the day when Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer walked where liberals fear to tread. When arguing in favor of good, equitable, across-the-board profiling, we must cite that time when two of the most powerful liberals in the country said, unknowingly and in so many words, "Yeah, you traditionalists were right about that profiling stuff all along." Now, if only the senators' enlightenment were not so fleeting, for it's a beautiful thing. I think it's what alcoholics call . . . a moment of clarity.


Selwyn Duke
February 22, 2006

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Selwyn Duke lives in Westchester County, New York. He is a tennis professional, internet entrepreneur, and writer whose works have appeared on various sites on the Internet, including Intellectual Conservative and Mensnet. Selwyn has traveled extensively in his life, visiting exotic locales such as India, Morocco, and Algeria, and quite a number of other countries while playing the international tennis circuit and going abroad for other purposes. A large number of his works can be found at his site: www.SelwynDuke.com.

More Liberal Hypocrisy on the War on Terror

Since EVS’ founding in 2004 we have supported profiling as a vital anti-terror rule. EVS Principle # 9 states: “EVS reluctantly supports profiling as a means of thwarting terror attacks and saving innocent life. The War on Terror presents unique challenges that require solutions that are unpleasant but necessary to preserve our security, way of life, and ultimately our freedom. We must combat terror using all practical law enforcement tools available, to include profiling. The overwhelming majority of our terrorist enemies share similar ethnic, racial, linguistic and geographic characteristics. These common traits can be utilized to more efficiently and effectively identify and apprehend terrorists. Law enforcement, intelligence agencies, and the military must be allowed to harness this information to infiltrate networks, thwart attacks, and destroy terrorist capabilities.”

Today, EVS fan Michelle Malkin points out that all those self-righteous liberals who have been critical of profiling like Hillary Clinton are now supporting profiling by opposing the United Arab Emirates (UAE) port deal.

EVS opposes the UAE’s takeover of U.S. port operations and opposes all foreign corporations operating U.S. ports.

Read Malkin’s biting article about liberal hypocrisy below:

---------------------------------------------

For the past several years, I've been condemned as an "extremist" for advocating nationality profiling unapologetically applying stricter scrutiny to terror-sponsoring and terror-sympathizing countries in our entrance, immigration and security policies.
Now, mirabile dictu, some of the same Democrats who have routinely lambasted such profiling are rushing to the floors of Congress and in front of TV cameras espousing these very same policies. The impetus: the White House's boneheaded insistence on ramming through a $7 billion deal giving United Arab Emirates-owned Dubai Ports World control over significant operations at six major American ports in New York, New Jersey, New Orleans, Baltimore, Philadelphia and Miami.

Make no mistake. I stand with critics on both sides of the aisle who want to stop the secretive deal transferring operations of our ports to the UAE -- a Middle Eastern government with a spotty record of fighting terrorist plots and terrorist financing. The issue is not whether day-to-day, on-the-ground conditions at the ports would change. The issues are whether we should grant the demonstrably unreliable UAE access to sensitive information and management plans about our key U.S. ports, which are plenty insecure enough without adding new risks, and whether the decision process was thorough and free from conflicts of interest.

From every angle -- political, safety and sovereignty-wise -- Dubai Ports World's business transaction (made possible by an unprecedented $3.5 billion Islamic financing instrument called a "sukuk" that upholds sharia law) looks bad and smells worse.

But there is a teachable moment here that shouldn't be missed. The tone-deafness of the White House is bad. The craven political opportunism of the Democrats is worse.

Listen to Sen. Evan Bayh, Indiana Democrat: "I think we've got to look into this company. I think we've got to ensure ourselves that the American people's national-security interests are going to be protected. And frankly, I think the threshold ought to be a little higher for a foreign firm."

And Sen. Barbara Boxer, California Democrat: "It is ridiculous to say you're taking secret steps to make sure that it's OK for a nation that had ties to 9/11, (to) take over part of our port operations in many of our largest ports. This has to stop."

And Sen. Hillary Clinton, New York Democrat: "Our port security is too important to place in the hands of foreign governments. I will be working with [New Jersey] Senator [Robert] Menendez to introduce legislation that will prohibit the sale of ports to foreign governments."

And Sen. Charles Schumer, New York Democrat, who said the Dubai company's involvement "is enough to raise a flag -- at least to do a thorough review, at minimum."

I wish these politicians luck in their quest to block the UAE transfer, shed light on the process led by the shadowy Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, and join with congressional Republicans to put American security interests first. But as they attempt to do their best Pat Buchanan impressions, let's not forget:

It was Democrats who tried to block Bush administration efforts to impose common-sense citizenship requirements on airport security workers in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.

It was Democrats who attacked the Bush Justice Department after the September 11 attacks for fingerprinting young male temporary visa holders traveling from terror-sponsoring and terror-friendly nations; temporarily detaining asylum seekers from high-risk countries for background screening; and sending undercover agents to investigate mosques suspected of supporting terrorism.

It was Democrats who secretly attempted to remove funding for the National Security Exit-Entry Registration System -- the Justice Department program that helped nab at least 330 known foreign criminals, 15 illegal-alien felons and three known terrorists who attempted to enter the country.

And just one week ago, it was failed Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore who was in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, attacking the Bush administration's profiling and immigration enforcement against illegal aliens from terror-friendly countries as "terrible abuses."

Perhaps the UAE will be hiring Gore to condemn the "abusive" practices now being championed by his fire-breathing extremist Democrat colleagues?

After all, they are all red flag-raising, threshold-hiking, thorough review-espousing, foreign ownership-banning profilers now.

Copyright 2006 Creators Syndicate

February 22, 2006
They Are All Profilers Now
By Michelle Malkin

Muslim Terrorist In Ohio Arrested.

Indictments were unsealed against three men in Ohio who were plotting to kill American and coalition troops in Iraq. These arrests are an almost to good to be true example of how the war in Iraq is forcing the terrorists to fight us over there so we don’t have to fight them here.

Here is a news report of the arrests from by NewsNet5 and the Associated Press

CLEVELAND -- Three men, including two Ohioans, were arrested this weekend for allegedly planning a terror attack overseas, NewsChannel5 reported.

Two of the men were arrested in Ohio, and the third was picked up overseas and is being brought back to Cleveland. They are accused of planning terror attacks overseas.

Mohammad Zaki Amawi, Marwan Othman el-Hindi and Wassim Mazloum lived in Toledo in the past year, officials said.

The indictment unsealed Tuesday in Cleveland said the attacks were aimed at killing American troops and coalition forces.

It also said the men recruited others to train for a violent holy war against the United States and its allies in Iraq. The group allegedly traveled together to a shooting range to practice firing guns and studied how to make explosives.

The indictment also alleges that one man, Amawi, twice threatened to kill or inflict bodily harm against President George W. Bush while speaking with others. The plot began in November 2004, prosecutors said.

Amawi is a citizen of Jordan and the U.S. The two others indicted were Othman El-Hindi, a U.S. citizen born in Jordan; and Mazloum, who came to the U.S. from Lebanon in 2000.
Mazloum operated a car business in Toledo with his brother.

All three men are set to appear in federal court in Toledo and Cleveland this afternoon.
A news conference is planned in Cleveland from the U.S. attorney for the Northern Distict of Ohio.

NewsChannel5 and newsnet5.com will have updates on this story as information becomes available.
Copyright 2006 by NewsNet5. The Associated Press contributed to this report. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Hillary's Numbers Continue To Dive

The poll numbers for a possible 2008 presidential run continue to dive for Hillary Rodham Clinton. 2006 has greeted the one-time anointed Democratic presidential nominee with some abysmal poll numbers.
The latest comes from a President's Day survey conducted for Hearst Newspapers.

Hillary Rodham Clinton's numbers are down across the board:

-- 44 percent of survey respondents now say that Clinton "should not run" for president in 2008 -- up from 37 percent who felt that way last year.

--The percentage of registered voters who say Clinton "should run" slipped from 53 percent to 51 percent over the past year.

Combine this poll with Hillary's earlier Gallup poll where 51 percent of Americans say they definitely would not vote for Clinton if she runs for president and an abysmal 16 percent say they are firmly behind her expected run and the bad news for Clinton and her supporters just keeps coming.


The poll did note a rising star, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Some 48 percent of survey participants said Rice "should run" for president at the conclusion of President Bush's two terms -- an increase of 6 percentage points over a similar survey a year ago.

The poll also concentrates on the ridiculous question of whether America is "ready" for a woman president. The survey found that 79 percent of participants were willing to vote for a woman as president and 64 percent said the nation was "ready" for one.

For most voters, it will be the strengths of the candidate, not the gender. Right now, Hillary Clinton is a weak candidate.

Is Jimmy Carter On The Hamas Payroll?

Well what else could explain his latest finger-wagging at America and Israel?

It is not surprising that Jimmy Carter has penned a Washington Post Op-Ed demanding that the US and Israel give Hamas a chance. Yet no matter how many times Jimmy Carter steps forward to defend terrorists and enemies of this country it still manages to cause a visceral reaction of disgust, anger and shame at this disgraceful excuse for an American, let alone an ex-President.

For years Carter has basically abused what is normally a respected status as an ex-President by becoming the mouthpiece for dictatorships spanning the globe and enemies of America. What's worse, he always seems to make America or its allies the bad guy in every situation, and complaining that if we only understood the plight of these maniacs we could alllive in harmony.

Before we get to his latest apologia for terrorist monsters, let's look at just a smattering of the man's actions since leaving office. He's managed to do the following:

- In 1984, visited the home of then Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin. According to Dobryning Carter was concerned about Reagan's defense build-up and explained that Moscow would be better off with someone else in the White House. If Reagan won, he warned, "There would not be a single agreement on arms control, especially on nuclear arms, as long as Reagan remained in power."

- In 1991, wrote a letter to the UN asking them to stop President Bush 41 from removing Saddam from Kuwait

- Stymied the attempt of President Clinton to stop North Korea from getting nuclear weapons, saying of Kim Jong Il: " I found him to be vigorous, intelligent, surprisingly well-informed about the technical issues and in charge of the decisions about this country." As for the North Koreans, Carter said the "people were very friendly and open." The capital, Pyongyang, is a "bustling city," where customers "pack the department stores," which looked like "Wal-Mart in Americus, Georgia."

-Told Haitian dictator Lt. Gen. Raoul Cedras he was "ashamed of what my country has done to your country."

- Vouched for Fidel Castro's statement that Cuba did not have the capability to produce biological weapons.

- Backed Hugo Chavez's claim that the Venezuelan elections were fair in the face of numerous reports to the contrary by respected election monitors and polling companies

Keep in mind also that while President, Jimmy lectured Americans about an "irrational fear of communism, as well said that Yugoslavia's Marshall Tito was "a man who believed in human rights", called him "a great and courageous leader" who had led his people and protected their freedom."

With that background, let's turn to the issue at hand - Jimmy Carter's plea of acceptance for a terrorist organization.

Today's Op-Ed is so full of distortions, outrageous statements and ignorance it's hard to know where to start. Let's try from the beginning.

(Former PM) Mahmood Abbas also has the power to select and remove the prime minister, to issue decrees with the force of law when parliament is not in session, and to declare a state of emergency. As commander in chief, he also retains ultimate influence over the National Security Force and Palestinian intelligence.

What Carter fails to realize is that when he was PM Abbas didn't have control of these organizations, so why in hell would he think Abbas, who is now out of power, would have more power. Well, I guess it's easy to rationalize anything when you are an apologist for terrorists.

Carter continues and explains the genius of the Palestinian system:
After the first session of the new legislature, which was Saturday, the members will elect a speaker, two deputies and a secretary. These legislative officials are not permitted to hold any position in the executive branch, so top Hamas leaders may choose to concentrate their influence in the parliament and propose moderates or technocrats for prime minister and cabinet posts.

Don't you just love that one? Hamas, "may" choose to propose "moderates" for some posts. What is their definition of "moderate"? Someone who only wants to blow up 100 Jews and infidels at a time rather than 1,000? And how typical is it of Jimmy Carter to place his trust in a bunch of terrorists with a long history of killing to get their way?

But Carter's trust doesn't end there:
Abbas has announced that he will not choose a prime minister who does not recognize Israel or adhere to the basic principles of the "road map." This could result in a stalemated process, but my conversations with representatives of both sides indicate that they wish to avoid such an imbroglio. The spokesman for Hamas claimed, "We want a peaceful unity government." If this is a truthful statement, it needs to be given a chance.

What in the hell has Hamas ever done that would cause any sane person to "give them a chance". Funny how Carter takes the assurances of Hamas leaders who when sworn in said that negotiations with Israel "do not figure in to their plans.

Carter also warns the US and Israel to not do anything that would cause the Hamas government to fail.
Any tacit or formal collusion between the two powers to disrupt the process by punishing the Palestinian people could be counterproductive and have devastating consequences.
More devastating than giving tacit and overt approval to a government whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel and is already aligned with Iran's madman President and other enemies of freedom like Hugo Chavez and Bashir Assad?

Carter is angry that funds to these terrorists will be cut off and proposes a solution.
Abbas informed me after the election that the Palestinian Authority was $900 million in debt and that he would be unable to meet payrolls during February. Knowing that Hamas would inherit a bankrupt government, U.S. officials have announced that all funding for the new government will be withheld, including what is needed to pay salaries for schoolteachers, nurses, social workers, police and maintenance personnel. So far they have not agreed to bypass the Hamas-led government and let humanitarian funds be channeled to Palestinians through United Nations agencies responsible for refugees, health and other human services.

This of course is the same UN that gave us the Oil For Food scandal, and has been running refugee camps in the area for over 50 years which have become havens for terrorists. Only Jimmy Carter could look at the UN's history of scandal, corruption, ineffectiveness and anti-Semitism and think that's the answer to anything but more of the same.

But, Carter says, we must have some sympathy for the poor Palestinians.
This common commitment to eviscerate the government of elected Hamas officials by punishing private citizens may accomplish this narrow purpose, but the likely results will be to alienate the already oppressed and innocent Palestinians, to incite violence, and to increase the domestic influence and international esteem of Hamas. It will certainly not be an inducement to Hamas or other militants to moderate their policies.
No offense, but the Palestinians have made their bed, elected these terrorists with their eyes wide open and knowing the repercussions of their actions. Elections have consequences, and it's not as if many of these people have taken the Gandhi route over the past 6 decades. Why Carter ignorantly hopes that Palestinians will "moderate" their cause given that their radical views won the election is beyond me. I wonder what color the sky is in Jimmy Carter's world.

But what follows is perhaps the single most idiotic piece of garbage I've heard, perhaps ever.
A negotiated agreement is the only path to a permanent two-state solution, providing peace for Israel and justice for the Palestinians. In fact, if Israel is willing to include the Palestinians in the process, Abbas can still play this unique negotiating role as the unchallenged leader of the PLO (not the government that includes Hamas).

It was under this umbrella and not the Palestinian Authority that Arafat negotiated with Israeli leaders to conclude the Oslo peace agreement. Abbas has sought peace talks with Israel since his election a year ago, and there is nothing to prevent direct talks with him, even if Hamas does not soon take the ultimately inevitable steps of renouncing violence and recognizing Israel's right to exist.

It would not violate any political principles to at least give the Palestinians their own money; let humanitarian assistance continue through U.N. and private agencies; encourage Russia, Egypt and other nations to exert maximum influence on Hamas to moderate its negative policies; and support President Abbas in his efforts to ease tension, avoid violence and explore steps toward a lasting peace.
Read that again. He thinks that Israel can have talks with Abbas even if Hamas won't talk. Keep in mind that Abbas has bargaining power or leverage.

And why in God's name does Carter think that Hamas will "inevitably" renounce violence and accept Israel's right to exist. Perhaps Carter is clairvoyant because, as stated above, they refused today to even talk to Israel.

What's even more telling is how he describes Hamas' stated policy of driving Israel off the map and ridding the whole area of Jews. He calls it a "negative" policy. These people convince mothers and fathers to allow their sons and daughters to strap explosives to themselves to blow up innocent men, women, and children and all the outrage this embarrassing excuse for a man can offer is to call in it a "negative policy".

This coming from a man who is more afraid of giant rabbits than genocidal maniacs.

We're often told that Carter is not a "dumb" person. I agree with that. It's impossible for him to be so stupid as to think that Hamas is ever going to change, so you have to wonder why he's lending his name and alleged prestige (all of which is outside this country, because Americans have rightfully rejected him as a hapless, cowardly self-absorbed egomaniac) to these murderous thugs who wish the destruction of our way of life.

It's really too bad that President Bush doesn't call Carter on the carpet publicly for the harm he has caused and continues to cause to this country. That's OK, we'll do it for him.

And let's keep one final thing in mind, this is the person that the Democrat party featured prominently at their convention, even allowing Michael Moore to share to VIP box with him.

When will someone in the Democrat party have a "Sister Souljah moment" and call out Carter for what he is - a friend to America's enemies? Could it be because the base of the Democrat party today shares the same beliefs as Carter? How sad is it that a Democrat wanting to be President can't stand up to the lunacy of Jimmy Carter for fear of alienating the party faithful? I think that in and of itself explains why the American people don't trust Democrats on national security.

http://www.anklebitingpundits.com/index.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=113
From Ankle Biting Pundits 2/20/06

Appeasement 101

It is easy to damn the 1930s appeasers of Hitler, given what the Nazis ultimately did when unleashed. But history demands not merely recognizing the truth post facto, but also trying to reconstruct the rationale of something that now in hindsight seems inexplicable.

Appeasement in the 1930s was popular with the European public for a variety of reasons. All of them are instructive in our hesitation about stopping a nuclear Iran, or about defending the right of Western newspapers to print what they wish--or about fighting radical Islamism in general.

First, Europe had nearly been destroyed during the Great War, a mere 20 years prior. No responsible postwar leader wished to risk a second continental bloodbath.

Unfortunately, Hitler understood that all too well. In a game of diplomatic chicken, he figured many responsible democratic statesmen had more to lose than he did, as the weaker and once-beaten enemy.

British intellectuals, like European Union idealists today, wrote books and treatises on the obsolescence of war. Winston Churchill was a voice in the wilderness--and demonized as a warmonger and worse.

The 50-year Cold War is over and Europe is at last free of burdensome military expenditure and the threat of global annihilation. Like Osama bin Laden, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad senses a certain weariness in much of the West as it counts on perpetual peace.

He assumes that most sober Westerners will do almost anything to avoid military confrontation to stop a potential threat--even though, unlike Hitler, Ahmadinejad not only promises to liquidate the Jews but reveals his method in advance by seeking nuclear weapons.

Some naive conservatives in prewar Europe thought the German and Italian fascists would prove a valuable bulwark against communism, and so could be politically finessed. So, too, it has been at times with Islamic fascism. Arming the mujahedeen in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia was once seen as an inspired way of thwarting Soviet communist imperialism.

At the time of the Ayatollah Khomeini's homicidal fatwa against Salman Rushdie, religious conservative commentators from Patrick Buchanan to New York's Cardinal John O'Connor attacked Rushdie, rather than defend the Western right of free expression. In the 1930s, the doctrine of appeasement fobbed off responsibility for confronting fascism onto the League of Nations. France and England were quiet about the 1936 Italian invasion of Ethiopia and the German militarization of the Rhineland. They counted on multilateral action of the League, which issued plenty of edicts but marshaled few troops.

Likewise, the moral high ground today supposedly was to refer both the Iraqi and Iranian problems to the UN. But considering the oil-for-food scandals and Saddam Hussein's constant violations of UN resolutions, it is unlikely that the Iranian theocracy has much fear that the UN Security Council will thwart its uranium enrichment.

As fascism spread, France worked on fortifying its German border with the Maginot Line, Oxford undergraduates voted to refuse "in any circumstances to fight for king and country," and British newspapers decried the Treaty of Versailles for unduly punishing Germany. This was all long before the "no blood for oil" slogan and Al Gore in Saudi Arabia apologizing for the supposed American maltreatment of Arabs.

But deja vu pertains not just to us but our enemies as well. Like the Nazi romance of an exalted ancient Volk, the Islamists hearken back to a mythical purity, free of decadence brought on by Western liberalism.

Similarly, they feed off victimization--not just recent defeats, but centuries-old bitterness at the rise of the West. Their version of the stab-in-the-back Versailles Treaty is always the creation of Israel.

Just as Hitler concocted incidents such as the burning of the Reichstag to create outrage, Islamist leaders incite frenzy in their followers over a supposed flushed Koran at Guantanamo and inflammatory cartoons.

Anti-Semitism, of course, is the mother's milk of fascism. It is always, they say, a small group of Jews--whether shadowy Cabinet advisers and international bankers of the 1930s or the manipulative neoconservatives and Israeli leadership of the present--who alone stir up the trouble.

The point of the comparison is not to suggest that history simply repeats itself, but to learn why intelligent people delude themselves into embracing naive policies. After the removal of the Taliban and Hussein, the furious reply of the radical Islamist world was to censor Western newspapers, along with Iran's accelerated efforts to get the bomb.

In response, either the West will continue to stand up now to these reoccurring post-Sept. 11, 2001, threats, or it will see the bullies' demands only increase as its own resistance weakens. Like the appeasement of the 1930s, opting for the easier choice will only guarantee a more costly one later on.

----------

Victor Davis Hanson, a senior fellow and historian at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University: Tribune Media Services
Published February 17, 2006

E-mail: author@victorhanson.com

Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune

Yet Another Reason Why Fighting Terrorism Is A Military Matter and Not a Legal One

SANAA, Yemen -- Interpol issued a global security alert yesterday over the escape of at least 13 convicted Al Qaeda militants who tunneled out of a jail in Yemen, calling them a ''clear and present danger to all countries."

Another escapee was Fawaz al-Rabe'ie, sentenced to death as leader of the group convicted of bombing the French oil tanker Limburg off the Yemeni coast in 2002, killing one crewman.

A security source in Yemen said the tunnel from which the men escaped was thought to be about 460 feet long, twice as long as originally reported, and led to a mosque.

The source said authorities discovered the escape on Friday, but it was believed the prisoners had fled Thursday night and were aided by more than one accomplice on the outside because the tunnel was thought to have been dug from the mosque.

The tunnel entry was in the women's area of the mosque, less frequented than the male section because women mainly pray at home.

The 13 militants were among 23 inmates who broke out of jail in the capital, Sanaa, in a major embarrassment for Yemeni authorities, who have cracked down on militants in the ancestral land of Osama bin Laden and positioned themselves as an ally of the United States in the war on terrorism.

A Yemeni state-run website (www.almotamar.net) said 17 of those who escaped were convicted of crimes linked to Al Qaeda, while the other six were awaiting trial for similar charges.

Interpol circulated a warning to its 184 member states yesterday over the missing prisoners and urged them to take extra precautions at their borders.

But two days after the escape was discovered, Interpol had not issued individual wanted notices for the fugitives because it said Yemeni authorities had not yet provided all the required information.

A government official in Sanaa said: ''The Interior Ministry sent an official letter to Interpol with the names of the fugitives, their photographs, and fingerprints. It asked them to circulate the list worldwide, fearing they might escape Yemen."

But an Interpol official said not all the conditions had been met for the issue of the so-called red notices.

An Interpol statement said, ''Red notices can only be issued by Interpol at the request of member countries and only if they are supported by underlying national arrest warrants."

Interpol's secretary general, Ronald Noble, asked Yemen to provide the required information immediately.

''Unless Interpol red notices are issued urgently for these fugitives and unless the world community commits itself to tracking them down, they will be able to travel internationally, to elude detection, and to engage in future terrorist activity," Noble said.

Senator Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat and member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told CNN: ''I feel very uneasy about this development. . . . We have so-called allies in the world that are saying they want to help us, and yet how do 23 people escape? It raises some terribly difficult questions.

''It really makes our job harder," she added. ''Now intelligence has to work on something they didn't think they had to work on."

23 militants' jailbreak in Yemen prompts global alert
Planner of USS Cole attack among fugitives
By Mohamed Ghobari, Reuters | February 6, 2006

Hell Has No Fury Like a VP Scorned

And so the saga of Al Gore continues. Gore seems to have tired of giving his regularly scheduled harangue of the Bush administration to domestic audiences, because this week he took his podium-pounding show on the road. On Sunday at a major international economic forum in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, Gore decried the treatment of Arabs in the United States after September 11, telling the crowd that many had been “indiscriminately rounded up” and “held in conditions that were just unforgivable." Gore criticized America’s current visa policy as “thoughtless” and “a mistake” and then apologized for the “terrible abuses” Arabs have suffered in America since 9/11.

This is a new twist on a recurring theme. We’ve gotten used to some – usually the Hollywood set – berating the United States from the enlightened confines of Western Europe. We’ve seen low ranking elected liberals like Jim McDermott of Washington and David Bonior of Michigan show up on enemy soil in Iraq to denounce the United States. And we’ve also watched members of the Democratic leadership at home compare the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay to Nazi concentration camps and Soviet Gulags.

But Gore’s remarks set a new standard. Al Gore is the former Vice President of the United States and one of the most recognizable American political figures in the world. His accusation of the “indiscriminate” abuse of Arabs in the United States is disgracefully irresponsible not only because it is a grotesque misrepresentation of fact but because it was delivered in the country that is the epicenter of extremist Wahabbism, and the home of Osama bin Laden as well as 15 of the 19 hijackers responsible for killing more than 3,000 innocent Americans four and half years ago.

As with most things in politics and diplomacy, context is everything. Gore didn’t need to fly half way around the world to apologize to Muslims living, working and going to school in America after 9/11. And if Gore believed America’s treatment of Muslims after September 11 to be so shameful, why hadn’t he made it the centerpiece of one of the numerous, widely covered speeches he’s given in the last few years?

But the bigger mystery is this: did Gore really think his comments were beneficial to the United States of America? Was he putting the interests of his country first? Did he believe making an exaggerated claim of U.S. abuse of Muslims and then apologizing for it on Middle Eastern soil would somehow help build goodwill for the United States in the Islamic world?

To the contrary, the damage done by Gore’s willingness to stand in the heart of the Islamic world and confirm the most deeply held fears and prejudices of Muslims against the United States by grossly exaggerating the treatment of Arabs after 9/11 far outweighs any goodwill he may have generated with an apology.

There has to be another calculation involved: namely, that Gore was trying to build goodwill for himself (both in the Muslim world and with crucial constituencies at home) by claiming rampant abuse of Muslims in America and then offering a personal apology. Simply put, Gore took the opportunity to make himself look good by making his country look bad.

And what about the substance of what Gore said on America’s current visa policy? Last month he ripped the Bush administration over a program designed to eavesdrop on conversations between suspected terrorists overseas and persons in the United States. Now Gore bemoans the tighter restrictions placed on visitors traveling to the United States from countries that have a higher likelihood of producing terrorists.

Gore is against eavesdropping on potential terrorist communications and he’s against tighter screens for visitors originating from Islamic countries. So exactly what would America’s national security policy look like under a Gore administration? For the sake of the country, that’s one mystery best left unsolved.

Tom Bevan is the co-founder and Executive Editor of RealClearPolitics.

February 15, 2006
Al Gore: International Man of Mystery
By Tom Bevan
© 2000-2006 www.RealClearPolitics.com
All Rights Reserved

IWO JIMA's LESSONS FOR TODAY

Sixty years ago today, more than 110,000 Americans and 880 ships began their assault on a small volcanic island in the Pacific, in the climactic battle of the last year of World War II. For the next 36 days Iwo Jima would become the most populous 7 1/2 square miles on the planet, as U.S. Marines and Japanese soldiers fought a battle that would test American resolve even more than D-Day or the Battle of the Bulge had, and that still symbolizes a free society's willingness to make the sacrifice necessary to prevail over evil--a sacrifice as relevant today as it was 60 years ago.

The attack on Iwo Jima capped a two-year island-hopping campaign that was as controversial with politicians and the press as any Rumsfeld strategy. Each amphibious assault had been bloodier than the last: at Tarawa, where 3,000 ill-prepared Marines fell taking an island of just three square miles; at Saipan, where Army troops performed so poorly two of their generals had to be fired; and Peleliu, where it took 10 weeks of fighting in 115-degree heat to root out the last Japanese defenders, at the cost of 6,000 soldiers and Marines.

Iwo Jima would be the first island of the Japanese homeland to be attacked. The Japanese had put in miles of tunnels and bunkers, with 361 artillery pieces, 65 heavy mortars, 33 large naval guns, and 21,000 defenders determined to fight to the death. Their motto was, "kill 10 of the enemy before dying." American commanders expected 40% casualties on the first assault. "We have taken such losses before," remarked the Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Holland M. Smith, "and if we have to, we can do it again."




Even before the attack, the Navy's bombardment of Iwo Jima cost more ships and men than it lost on D-Day, without making a significant dent in the Japanese defenses. Then, beginning at 9 a.m. on the 19th, Marines loaded down with 70 to 100 pounds of equipment each hit the beach, and immediately sank into the thick volcanic ash. They found themselves on a barren moonscape stripped of any cover or vegetation, where Japanese artillery could pound them with unrelenting fury. Scores of wounded Marines helplessly waiting to be evacuated off the beach were killed "with the greatest possible violence," as veteran war reporter Robert Sherrod put it. Shells tore bodies in half and scattered arms and legs in all directions, while so much underground steam rose from the churned up soil the survivors broke up C-ration crates to sit on in order to keep from being scalded. Some 2,300 Marines were killed or wounded in the first 18 hours. It was, Sherrod said, "a nightmare in hell."

And overlooking it all, rising 556 feet above the carnage, stood Mount Suribachi, where the Japanese could direct their fire along the entire beach. Taking Suribachi became the key to victory. It took four days of bloody fighting to reach the summit, and when Marines did, they planted an American flag. When it was replaced with a larger one, photographer Joe Rosenthal recorded the scene--the most famous photograph of World War II and the most enduring symbol of a modern democracy at war.

Yet, in the end, a symbol of what? Certainly not victory. The capture of Suribachi only marked the beginning of the battle for Iwo Jima, which dragged on for another month and cost nearly 26,000 men--all for an island whose future as a major air base never materialized. Forty men were in the platoon which raised the flag on Suribachi. Only four would survive the battle unhurt. Their company, E Company, Second Battalion, 28th Regiment, Fifth Marine Division, would suffer 75% casualties. Of the seven officers who led it into battle, only one was left when it was over.

But the Marines pushed on. Over the next agonizing weeks, they took the rest of the island yard by yard, bunker by bunker, cave by cave. They fought through places with names like "Bloody Gorge" and "The Meat Grinder." They learned to take no prisoners in fighting a skilled and fanatical enemy who gave no quarter and expected none. Twenty out of every 21 Japanese defenders would die where they stood. One in three Marines on Iwo Jima would either be killed or wounded, including 19 of 24 battalion commanders. Twenty-seven Marines and naval medical corpsmen would win Medals of Honor--more than in any other battle in history--and 13 of them posthumously. As Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Command, said, "Among the Americans who served on Iwo Island, uncommon valor was a common virtue."

Yet even this valor and sacrifice is not the full story of what Iwo Jima means, or what Rosenthal's immortal photograph truly symbolizes. The lesson of Iwo Jima is in fact an ancient one, going back to Machiavelli: that sometimes free societies must be as tough and unrelenting as their enemies. Totalitarians test their opponents by generating extreme conditions of brutality and violence; in those conditions--in the streets and beheadings of Fallujah or on the beach and in the bunkers of Iwo Jima--they believe weak democratic nerves will crack. This in turn demonstrates their moral superiority: that by giving up their own decency and humanity they have become stronger than those who have not.

Free societies can afford only one response. There were no complicated legal issues or questions of "moral equivalence" on Iwo Jima: It was kill or be killed. That remains the nature of war even for democratic societies. The real question is, who outlasts whom. In 1945 on Iwo Jima, it was the Americans, as the monument at Arlington Cemetery, based on Rosenthal's photograph, proudly attests. In the jungles of Vietnam and Cambodia in the 1970s, it was the totalitarians--with terrible consequences.

Today, some in this country think the totalitarians may still win in Iraq and elsewhere. A few even hope so. Only one thing is certain: As long as Americans cherish the memory of those who served at Iwo Jima, and grasp the crucial lesson they offer all free societies, the totalitarians will never win.

BY ARTHUR HERMAN, Mr. Herman, a historian, is the author, most recently, of "To Rule the Waves: How the British Navy Shaped the Modern World" (HarperCollins, 2004).

Spencer’s Speech, TV Commercial Exposes Hillary's Vulnerability On National Security

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's likely Republican Senate race challenger charged Monday that the New York Democrat's criticism of the Bush administration "aids and abets our enemies" in the battle against terrorism.

John Spencer's comments to reporters came after a fiery speech to the state Conservative Party leadership in which, during a defense of the Patriot Act, he also attacked the administration of former President Bill Clinton.

"I wish we had it before 9-11," said the former mayor of Yonkers. "And, I wish we had an administration in Washington that wasn't an appeasing, liberal, whining administration in the 90's that allowed the terrorists to build up the way they built up."

There was no immediate comment from the former first lady.

Polls show Spencer trailing far behind Clinton in her bid for a second Senate term, and she has a huge fundraising advantage as well. She is a potential 2008 Democratic presidential candidate.

Asked after his speech about his criticism of Clinton _ who voted to authorize sending troops to Iraq but who has been highly critical of President Bush's conduct of the war _ Spencer said she "puts politics first in our war on terror and our troops second."

Spencer said that while there was a way to properly criticize the conduct of a war _ he cited Republican Sen. John McCain _ "You shouldn't do it with such divisive and blame-America-first methodology, and that's what she does, which aids and abets our enemies."

Lumping Clinton with Sens. John Kerry and Edward Kennedy, Spencer added, "They seem to salivate at what they hope would be bad news for the Bush administration, and that's divisive for our nation."

Meanwhile, the Spencer campaign unveiled a video advertisement that is running on its Web site. The ad attacks Clinton for her criticism of the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program.

"I'm running for Senate because I won't play politics with our security," Spencer says in the ad.

The campaign Web site _ http://www.spencerforsenate.com _ encourages viewers to contribute so Spencer can afford to run such spots on regular TV.

As of the end of December, Clinton's campaign had $17 million in the bank while Spencer had just $243,000.

"We're going against the International Bank of Clinton," Spencer told the Conservative Party leadership.

Spencer and his lesser-known rival for the GOP Senate nomination, tax attorney William Brenner, appeared before the Conservative Party leaders where they gave short speeches and took some written questions from the audience. No Republican has won statewide office in New York without Conservative Party support since 1974.

On one issue, Spencer agreed with Clinton and most other New York politicians _ that more anti-terrorism money should be coming to the state.

"I don't think terrorists are going to go after the potato farm in Idaho," Spencer told the Conservative Party leadership.

Spencer said it was "lunacy" to think Clinton could not be beaten and that he would do so with "persistence and tenacity."

"We must remove this woman," he told the Conservatives.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Feb 13 2:28 PM US/Eastern
Email this story

By MARC HUMBERT
AP Political Writer


ALBANY, N.Y.

The War You Didn't See

A controversial National Guard unit's heroics got lost in the hype and scandal.

LAST MONTH I returned from Iraq, swapping my desert camouflage for a suit and tie to resume my desk job at a Century City firm. For the first time in 18 months I was separated from my battalion, the 1st of the 184th Infantry Regiment, which was among the first California Army National Guard units to be sent into combat since the Korean War.

From the first weeks of our mobilization in August 2004, we were in the spotlight. We were the battalion "mired in scandal." We were, according to the disgruntled, poor in training and morale. Once in Iraq, we were the battalion that suffered casualties seemingly faster than anyone could count: 17 killed in action and nearly 100 wounded in 12 months. We were the battalion whose commander, Col. William W. Wood, became the highest-ranking soldier to die in action. Our previous commander was relieved of duty after a scandal involving the abuse of Iraqi prisoners. Even as we rolled out each day to confront terrorists, we were known at home primarily for things that had nothing to do with the job we did or how we did it.

ADVERTISEMENT

Over the course of 18 months, the 600 soldiers of the 184th experienced almost every high and low a band of brothers could, from great distinction to shocking heartbreak. But what never made it into print were the things that will mark our hearts until well after we become the old-timers down at the VFW.

We served with honor. We served with valor. We earned distinction.

Google us to find the litany of supposed woe. But if you want to know the real story of our battalion, go find Sgt. Thomas Kruger and ask him about April 5, 2005.

On that bright spring morning, with his legs shattered, Kruger dragged himself across 100 feet of debris and shrapnel to reach Cpl. Glenn Watkins, who had been mortally wounded moments earlier by the same ghastly roadside bomb.

You might also ask anyone from our ranks about Staff Sgt. Steve Nunez. Broken and bloodied by an IED, he was ordered home to recuperate after refusing to go voluntarily. He rejoined us to carry the fight forward, refusing the chance to stay home.

There were no front-page headlines for Kruger, Nunez or even Sgt. 1st Class Tom Stone, who covered a wounded subordinate's body with his own to protect that soldier from a secondary attack that could have come at any moment.

Stone, a Los Angeles Police Department officer, and Kruger, a paramedic on movie sets, were awarded Bronze Stars for their valor. Nunez, a Riverside metalworker, received our awe and admiration, and I hope yours too.

Equally deserving of recognition were Sgt. 1st Class Chris Chebatah and 1st Lt. Ky Cheng. One terrible September night, an armored personnel carrier in their patrol was destroyed by a tremendous blast and flipped, pinning a soldier. Even while taking enemy fire and directing the care for casualties around them, they rigged a chain to pull the 10-ton vehicle off him. The effort was successful but ultimately futile.

So far, 14 of our soldiers have been decorated for valor and another 48 have earned the Bronze Star for service. But that cannot be found in print.

Our unit — supposedly just a band of weekend warriors from the National Guard — was selected by the Army's renowned 3rd Infantry Division to take on its primary challenge: taking control of a sector of south Baghdad that was home to leading Baathists and Al Qaeda fanatics. In that capacity, we conducted more than 7,000 combat patrols totaling nearly half a million man-hours. We captured more insurgents in one month than did whole brigades. We stand nominated (with the rest of our brigade) for a Valorous Unit Award.

But instead, people who didn't know the first thing about us trumpeted the misdeeds of a handful of young men who scoffed at the concepts of honor and duty that our commander invoked.

At dawn on the June day that that story broke, we awakened to the deep reverberation of a complex attack — five car bombs and at least three subsequent ambushes designed to hit those who responded — in an adjacent sector. The 3rd Battalion, 7th Infantry Regiment was in a hot fight. Our Alpha Company — a part of our battalion, based in Fullerton — rallied to 3-7's aid. The company fought through ambushes to find, kill and capture terrorists. For a few hours, the men of Killer Company, as we call Alpha, were heroes.

But that night, amid rumor and whisper, the Alpha soldiers were taken off patrol and isolated. Within days we knew the ugly story. Months earlier, it seems, shortly after we arrived in Iraq, a few of Alpha's young NCOs had abused a group of Iraqi detainees.

It was immature, nasty, stupid stuff — using stun guns on the genitals of men allegedly caught trying to attack a power plant. The men they tortured were later released, as are so many of the suspected terrorists caught in country. In the investigation that followed, nine others were accused of lesser misdeeds — taking photographs of themselves with detainees and the like — in which no physical harm came to anyone.

The Army PR machine touted the news, almost proudly, much like "Access Hollywood" touts B-list celebrity gossip: "Baghdad Troops to Face Court-Martial for Detainee Abuse." Before long, word leaked out that they were ours. What was not said was that it was one of the soldiers in our own battalion who had found the video of the abuse and turned it in to our commander.

Lots of folks had lots of theories about why the Army made such a big deal of it. Mine is that the Army wanted to get out in front of "another Abu Ghraib," and a group of "nasty Guard" soldiers made good poster children. It was sound PR, but lousy teamwork.

Whatever the case, in the end, only three went to prison for their role in the abuse, all for short terms. The others received minor administrative punishments, and our commander — a schoolteacher, poet and a man of noble values — was sent elsewhere. The facts did not live up to the hype, but the hype was what we, and you, were left with.

While our Delta Company patrolled a stretch of Baghdad road where five of our soldiers were eventually killed, people who had never set foot in Iraq were quoted about our performance. People who rarely left the safety of an operations base damaged our reputations. We never flinched in a fight, but we were smeared nonetheless.

What none of us could explain was why no reporter actually met a single 184th soldier in Iraq until November. Even that only came after the tragic death of our new commander, Col. Wood, an amazing active-duty officer who held us together and made us strong again. Whether it was some form of politics or simply the realities of journalism in war, I do not know. The hype was all that mattered.

During my tour, I was blessed — or perhaps cursed — with a "utility infielder" role, serving in a variety of positions that gave me a diverse look at the lives of soldiers and Iraqis alike.

I patrolled the streets of Baghdad's elite Karrada neighborhood and its insurgent-rich Doura sector, shaking people's hands and learning their problems. I lived and worked alongside American contractors upgrading a key power plant. I trained Iraqi police, saw their enthusiasm and came to understand their different approach to things. I worked as a junior officer on our battalion staff, witnessing how the decisions governing the street fight were shaped. I was shot at and attacked with IEDs.

I saw the successes. I struggled with the failures. But most important, I saw people who once had nothing now bursting with hope and thanks.

While I was in Iraq, I read Walter Isaacson's remarkable biography, "Benjamin Franklin: An American Life." I was reminded of the passion and determination of our founding fathers, and of the long years they experienced between independence and the founding of the government we enjoy today. Franklin and company recognized the importance of having a fully informed American constituency involved in making the decisions of government.

When it comes to Iraq, in my experience, that constituency is poorly served.

ROBERT C.J. PARRY, a first lieutenant in the California Army National Guard's 1-184 Infantry, is a senior account manager for a Century City public relations firm. Contact him at rparry@ppmgcorp.com.

The Unreported History in Baghdad

Unreported History in Baghdad
By Lieutenant Colonel John M. Kanaley

The silence was deafening and the seats were empty. The western press was nowhere to be found. The location was Baghdad and the event was a February 10th, 2006 press conference announcing the final verification of December's election results. Although the final allocation of parliamentary seats did not change from last month's tentative reports, the conference was nonetheless significant for American and Iraqi history. What was equally significant was the absence of members of the western press.

If the pre-release of the topics to be discussed included reports of widespread voter fraud, complaints by detained terrorists of maltreatment, or a sudden clamoring for the return of the deadly former dictator, certainly, the major news networks and the print media would have found time to attend. Of course, their reports would have consisted of their own perceived failure of western style elections in a part of the world that they deem to be unprepared for democracy. Since they were unable to report a "disastrous" event of this war, apparently, their budgets did not allow for attendance in Baghdad.

The true significance of this announcement is the underlying theme which the anti-war crowd refuses to recognize: the war has been successful and there is verifiable progress within the country of Iraq. Not only did we defeat a murderous despot, we have gained an ally in the war against terrorism. Just three short years ago, these same people were being terrorized by a vicious regime whose primary responsibility was supposed to be to protect its own citizens. After being victims of this brutal state, free Iraqis are now fighting their former oppressors who consist of remnants of the Ba'ath Party and the foreign terrorists who have taken it upon themselves to determine what is best for the Iraqi people.

What is feeding the success of the Iraqis is that they are fighting for a legitimately elected government which they now have a genuine part in. No longer are they forced to support the narcissistic and sadistic ways of a tyrant. Instead, Iraqis learned at this press conference that their efforts to defeat terrorism through the ballot box have been legitimized by local and international organizations. Now, the business of forming the government begins.

It is said that success has many fathers, while failure is an orphan. In the pessimistic world of the western press and the anti-war left, they continually turn their backs on momentous accomplishments while simultaneously failing to acknowledge this turning point in the defense of freedom. The press never hesitates to report on the so-called surges of attacks in Iraq. Logically speaking, if there is a surge at any given point, then there must have been a previous decrease in attacks as well, yet, that is never reported.

True, there are peaks and valleys in the number of attacks. What is not reported when these supposed surges take place is the failure of most of the attacks. The bombings and shootings have not adversely affected operations, they have not disrupted our logistics, nor have they resulted in the enemy gaining one inch of territory. More importantly, they have not hindered the desire of the Iraqis to continue on with everyday life, despite the attempts of the terrorists to target innocent civilians. Yet, the intensity and constant reporting of every negative occurrence in Baghdad would lead one to believe that we have walked into the shadow of death from which there is no return.

An example of the failure to report on the importance of this success was demonstrated at the conclusion of the press conference. Several hours later, the only related news on CNN International were reports of two bombings in Iraq and the all important notice from Cindi Sheehan that she will not run for the Senate and send Diane Feinstein into retirement.

At a time when American troops deserve a good headline in the major newspapers or a positive top-of-the-hour news flash on the network stations, the press and the left instead continue to focus on more mundane topics of discussion. This is the beginning of the most pivotal year in this war, and once again, the mainstream media finds itself on the wrong side of history.

John M. Kanaley is a Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Army. He serves in Baghdad, Iraq.

© 2000-2006 RealClearPolitics.com All Rights Reserved

CIA Director: Loose Lips Sink Spies

CIA Director: Loose Lips Sink Spies

AT the Central Intelligence Agency, we are more than holding our own in the global war on terrorism, but we are at risk of losing a key battle: the battle to protect our classified information.

Judge Laurence Silberman, a chairman of President Bush's commission on weapons of mass destruction, said he was "stunned" by the damage done to our critical intelligence assets by leaked information. The commission reported last March that in monetary terms, unauthorized disclosures have cost America hundreds of millions of dollars; in security terms, of course, the cost has been much higher. Part of the problem is that the term "whistleblower" has been misappropriated. The sharp distinction between a whistleblower and someone who breaks the law by willfully compromising classified information has been muddied.

As a member of Congress in 1998, I sponsored the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act to ensure that current or former employees could petition Congress, after raising concerns within their respective agency, consistent with the need to protect classified information.

Exercising one's rights under this act is an appropriate and responsible way to bring questionable practices to the attention of those in Congress charged with oversight of intelligence agencies. And it works. Government employees have used statutory procedures — including internal channels at their agencies — on countless occasions to correct abuses without risk of retribution and while protecting information critical to our national defense.

On the other hand, those who choose to bypass the law and go straight to the press are not noble, honorable or patriotic. Nor are they whistleblowers. Instead they are committing a criminal act that potentially places American lives at risk. It is unconscionable to compromise national security information and then seek protection as a whistleblower to forestall punishment.

Today America is confronting an enemy intent on brutal murder. Without the capacity to gain intelligence on terrorist organizations through clandestine sources and methods, we and our allies are left vulnerable to the horrors of homicidal fanaticism.

The C.I.A. has put many terrorists out of action since 9/11. In our pursuit of the enemy, we accept the unique responsibility we bear as officers of a clandestine service serving an open, constitutional society. But we also know that unauthorized disclosure of classified intelligence inhibits our ability to carry out our mission and protect the nation.

Revelations of intelligence successes or failures, whether accurate or not, can aid Al Qaeda and its global affiliates in many ways. A leak is invaluable to them, even if it only, say, prematurely confirms whether one of their associates is dead or alive. They can gain much more: these disclosures can tip the terrorists to new technologies we use, our operational tactics, and the identities of brave men and women who risk their lives to assist us.

Such leaks also cause our intelligence partners around the globe to question our professionalism and credibility. Too many of my counterparts from other countries have told me, "You Americans can't keep a secret." And because of the number of recent news reports discussing our relationships with other intelligence services, some of these critical partners have even informed the C.I.A. that they are reconsidering their participation in some of our most important antiterrorism ventures. They fear that exposure of their cooperation could subject their citizens to terrorist retaliation.

Last month, a news article in this newspaper described a "secret meeting" to discuss "highly classified" techniques to detect efforts by other countries to build nuclear weapons. This information was attributed to unnamed intelligence officials who "spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the effort's secrecy." Whether accurate or not, this is a direct acknowledgment that these unnamed officials apparently know the importance of secrecy.

Recently, I noticed renewed debate in the news media over press reports in 1998 that Osama bin Laden's satellite phone was being tracked by United States intelligence officials. In the recent debate, it was taken for granted that the original reports did not hurt our national security efforts, and any suggestions that they did cause damage were dismissed as urban myth. But the reality is that the revelation of the phone tracking was, without question, one of the most egregious examples of an unauthorized criminal disclosure of classified national defense information in recent years. It served no public interest. Ultimately, the bin Laden phone went silent.

I take seriously my agency's responsibility to protect our national security. Unauthorized disclosures undermine our efforts and abuse the trust of the people we are sworn to protect. Since becoming director, I have filed criminal reports with the Department of Justice because of such compromises. That department is committed to working with us to investigate these cases aggressively. In addition, I have instituted measures within the agency to further safeguard the integrity of classified data.
Our enemies cannot match the creativity, expertise, technical genius and tradecraft that the C.I.A. brings to bear in this war. Criminal disclosures of national security information, however, can erase much of that advantage. The terrorists gain an edge when they keep their secrets and we don't keep ours.

Porter Goss is the director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

43 Percent of Women Oppose Hillary

The latest Rasmussen Poll reveals that only 27 percent of Americans would vote for Sen. Hillary Clinton as president. A sizable number -- 43 percent -- said they would not vote for the junior senator from New York.
According to pollsters, Sen. Clinton's numbers appear to be in decline with her support down by 11 percent since the previous Rasmussen survey.

Last week, a Gallup poll showed only 16 percent of voters said they would vote for Clinton, while 51 percent said they would not vote for her.

In addition, 60 percent of men polled said they would not vote for Hillary for Commander-in-Chief. In a surprise to the pollsters, 43 percent of women said they would not vote for Hillary Clinton.

Today, Sen. Clinton blasted President Bush for not finding "the tallest man in Afghanistan," Osama bin Ladin.

On his talk radio show this evening, legal scholar Mark Levin said, "She's one to talk -- she couldn't find the Rose Law Firm records that were in her own bedroom for three years ," a reference to Clinton's trouble as First Lady complying with a subpoena for her law firm billing records. Clinton claimed she didn't know where they were, but the records were eventually discovered in her White House bedroom.

The Rasmussen poll also revealed that 45 percent believe Clinton is a Liberal, with 33 percent calling her a Moderate, evidence that her attempts to appear moderate are not effective.

As far as favorable numbers, Clinton has a 38 percent favorable view, while 47 percent view her unfavorably.

Levin said, "Everytime she opens her mouth she loses poll numbers."
by Jim Kouri --

Feds Can Wire Tap Wayne Gretzky but not Osama Bin Laden?

Feds Can Wire Tap Wayne Gretzky but not Osama Bin Laden?

If an unelected FBI agent and an unelected Federal Judge together have the authority to wire tap Wayne Gretzky and his bookie to determine if the Great One is betting on professional sports, shouldn’t the elected President of the United States and his Attorney General duly appointed with the approval of the Senate, be able to wire tap Osama bin Laden?

The Administration even goes a step further and that informs key members of the Congress of wiretaps on terrorist suspects who call the United States from overseas.

Notice also that the shamelessly political Dems have realized that the American people support wire tapping terrorists and in the past month the Dems have shifted from calls for impeachment to saying that they just wanted to be consulted and if asked would pass legislation authorizing the wire taps.

With the unprecedented threat on domestic security posed by al qaeda and its allies, it was disgusting to see the Senate waist the time of our top law enforcement official, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, with nine hours of self –serving political questions earlier in the week.

We are at war. The Senate needs to start acting like it.

More Hillary Hypocrisy

Hillary’s Osama Hypocrisy

Evidently Hillary Clinton forgot that she lived in glass house when she threw this stone in a speech to auto workers yesterday: “You cannot explain to me why we have not captured or killed the tallest man in Afghanistan"

The former-First Lady’s comments are absurd when you consider that her own husband admits that he had an opportunity to capture bin Laden in 1996. President Clinton said in a post-9/11 mea culpa a speech, “At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.”

It is also interesting that Hillary mentions Afghanistan because the Clintons sat by while Osama bin Laden relocated al qaeda’s entire base of operations to include the training camps that trained 9/11 Hijackers from Sudan to Afghanistan.



Hillary’s Plantation Hypocrisy

In 2002 the Democrats had the opportunity to nominate a black gubernatorial candidate in Hillary’s alleged home state of New York. Andrew Cuomo ran in the Democrat Primary against State Comptroller Carl McCall, an African American. Instead of supporting McCall’s bid to become the first black governor, the Clinton’s threw their considerable weight behind party establishment insider and son of the former Governor, Andrew Cuomo.

At the time Andrew Cuomo was married to the Robert F. Kennedy’s daughter Kerry. Thus, we had the three royal families of the Democrat party (the Cuomo’s, Clintons, and Kennedy’s) lead by the “first black president” and his wife ganging up to thwart McCall’s bid to become the first African American governor of New York.

Ann Coulter on the Religion of Peace