Proposed by John Murtha, 'slow bleed' would do exactly what it sounds like: gradually take away the resources our men and women need to fight the terrorists in Iraq. It would limit reinforcements, and possibly even close the bases that offer support and shelter for our troops. The Democrats had hoped to keep the 'slow bleed' plan under the radar by adding it onto other bills, but now even the liberal press are reporting on the story.
A Washington Post editorial last Saturday described the Murtha 'slow bleed' plan as "crudely hamstringing the ability of military commanders to deploy troops" and went on to say this: "Mr. Murtha's cynicism is matched by an alarming ignorance about conditions in Iraq. He continues to insist that Iraq 'would be more stable with us out of there,' in spite of the consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies that early withdrawal would produce 'massive civilian casualties.' He says he wants to force the administration to 'bulldoze' the Abu Ghraib prison, even though it was emptied of prisoners and turned over to the Iraqi government last year. He wants to 'get our troops out of the Green Zone' because 'they are living in Saddam Hussein's palace'; could he be unaware that the zone's primary occupants are the Iraqi government and the U.S. Embassy? It would be nice to believe that Mr. Murtha does not r epresent the mainstream of the Democratic Party or the thinking of its leadership. Yet when asked about Mr. Murtha's remarks Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered her support."
Even the liberal columnist E.J. Dionne criticized the Murtha 'slow bleed' plan, saying that "the sense that the proposal has been crafted in part for reasons of political convenience and the intricate restrictions it would place on the military are precisely what could doom it."
Those are exactly the reasons 'slow bleed' should be doomed, and we need your help to do it:
Write a letter to your editor or call in to talk radio today condemning the Democrat 'slow bleed' strategy.
And then call your Congressman or Senator and tell them not to support a plan that would leave our brave men and women in harm's way without adequate resources to protect themselves.
The Murtha 'slow bleed' strategy is a dishonest and dangerous response to the challenges we face in Iraq. Together, we can and we must stop Congress from passing the Murtha plan.
22 February 2007
Proposed by John Murtha, 'slow bleed' would do exactly what it sounds like: gradually take away the resources our men and women need to fight the terrorists in Iraq. It would limit reinforcements, and possibly even close the bases that offer support and shelter for our troops. The Democrats had hoped to keep the 'slow bleed' plan under the radar by adding it onto other bills, but now even the liberal press are reporting on the story.
I am sick and tired. Sick and tired of how some in this country are turning their backs on our troops at a time when they need our support the most!
This is why I am taking action to speak up, and in particular, why I am helping to lead the “THESE COLORS DON’T RUN” national pro-troop/patriotic caravan being organized by Move America Forward.
This is my letter to you, the American people.
Semper Fidelis: These are not just mere words, they have a meaning greater than their literal definition in a dictionary. They mean “Always Faithful.”
Not only is this the motto of the United States Marines, but also of their families, and it has spilled over into the hearts and souls of all those who serve in every branch of our military and their families as well.
Always Faithful to God. Always Faithful to your brother (or sister) who serves along side you. Always Faithful to your Country… Always Faithful to your Family… Always Faithful to your Commander in Chief.
People ask me every day, “how do you get through the days with a son serving in Iraq?”
Well, the answer is an obvious one. Always Faithful to God, Always Faithful to the heroic men and women of the U.S. military who serve along side my son. Always Faithful to the Commander in Chief, Always Faithful to my Country.
However, it does not seem that our political leaders and media representatives have remained Always Faithful
I have traveled across this country and I have listened to the American people. I have heard the support that is expressed for our military and I know that the American people do support the war on terror. They just want communication. They just want to know what the goals and objectives are.
I understand that the American people wanted change in leadership in the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. I understand the American people want things to go better in Iraq so our troops can come home. However, none of this can be accomplished because of the partisan politics that are taking place, which is ultimately hurting our military. You can’t imagine how much it sickens me to see our troops used as little more than pawns in a chess game where some politicians care more about putting our President in “checkmate” than they do in winning the war our sons and daughters are bravely fighting.
I am tired of those defeat & retreat politicians who say they are patriotic, and then insult the Commander in Chief at a time when we have boots on the ground in war zones.
I am tired of the politicians who want us to wave the white flag of surrender, but who then tell me how much they “support our troops.” As a military mom I can tell you that no soldier, Marine, sailor, airmen or Guardsmen wants to risk his or her life in a military mission, only to have political leaders denouncing the validity and morality of the missions that these troops are serving in. That is NOT supporting our troops.
Can you imagine being over in Iraq or Afghanistan, facing Islamic terrorists hell-bent on killing you, and returning to your base to hear that the best plan to win this war is with a “phased redeployment” (liberal-speak for retreat) out of the combat zone to someplace like Okinawa?
I am tired of the anti-war politicians whining for months on T.V., in the New York Times, and in the House and Senate that we need more troops to win the war in Iraq, and then when the President plans to do just that, they say that this is the wrong plan, it won’t work, and we need a “new direction.” Yet they don’t offer any new direction or a better plan.
I am tired of the decisions of Sergeants and Privates made in the heat of battle being scrutinized by lawyers and political commentators who were not there. Those who snub their nose at the military, and who look down at the men and women who serve in the Armed Forces, will never really know the state of mind of the young Marines or soldiers who were there and what is asked of them in order to survive.
I am tired of certain media outlets like CNN claiming that they are showing “news,” with anti-American propaganda videotapes sent to them by terrorists that show Marines and Soldiers being shot at by snipers—but then refusing to show what happens when our military builds a new school, paves a road, hands out food and water to children, opens a water treatment plant, provides much needed medical supplies to children in an orphanage.
I am tired of the politicians who act as Monday morning armchair generals, second-guessing the war effort and our military men and women. If you cannot stand behind our military and support them, go stand in front of them. Far better you stand in front of them than their parents, because they have to follow the Rules of Engagement and we don’t!
I am tired of the thousands of people in the rear who claim that they are working hard to support the troops and their way of supporting them is to bring them home. When was the last time any of you who made this statement went out to the airport to greet our troops during their redeployments back home? When was the last time any of you who say you “oppose the war, but support the troops” ever helped out a grieving widow or mother? When was the last time any of you provided help at the facilities for the wounded? When was the last time any of you sent Christmas Cards, or a care package to our troops?
I am tired of politicians who are running for office suddenly showing up at the opening of rehab facilities for our wounded for their photo opportunities as if they had really been supporting our troops all along.
I am tired of Code Pink, Daily Kos, Al-Jazzera, CNN, Reuters, the Associated Press, ABC, NBC, CBS, the ACLU, and CAIR thinking that they somehow get to have a vote in how our troops on the ground blast, shoot and kill these terrorist who have no regard for human life and who would seek to subdue and destroy us every chance they get.
I am sick and tired of people like Cindy Sheehan who not only go around the United States bashing our military, our President, but goes around the world and hugs thugs like Hugo Chavez, as if he has been her best friend her entire life. Cindy Sheehan: “You Don’t Speak for Me” and it’s time for you to zip your lip, go back home to your family and stop playing the role as this generation’s “Tokyo Rose.”
I am sick and tired of the politicians and their whining about this war, because it is this constant whining that is emboldening the terrorists to continue to kill and injure our troops and kill innocent civilians in Iraq. Can’t you give up even for a little while, your pathetic desire to get time in front of the TV cameras by doing the politically correct thing of denouncing the war effort? Could you please shelve your personal and political ambition, take your unhelpful bickering behind close doors and put your self-glorification aside for the good of our troops and this nation?
I am tired of people like Meredith Vieria from NBC asking oxygen thieves like Senator Chuck Hagel questions like “Senator, at this point, do you think we are fighting and dying for nothing?” Meredith might not get it, but Marines and soldiers do know the difference between fighting and dying for something and fighting and dying for nothing.
I am tired of journalists like William Arkin who say: “So, we pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?”
Please tell me what a decent wage looks like for them Mr. Arkin? You need to meet Cindy Sheehan at the closest airport and fly back home with her and stop insulting the men and women of our military.
I am tired of people whining about how costly this war is when they hear of a casualty. You have no idea what we as families go through when we hear 12 Marines killed; 8 Soldiers killed. You cannot even imagine the pain and difficulty we experience with the instantaneous news in our face on a daily basis. We grieve for the loss of a hero, we grieve for their families and we feel tremendous guilt when we feel relieved that it was not us who received that knock at the door.
But we stand in solidarity with our troops overseas. We become even more committed to rallying support for them and their missions. So, could you please stop trying to undo that by voicing opposition to what our troops are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan? If you are so upset with the news of U.S. casualties in these areas, then do what you can to help our troops achieve VICTORY and SUCCESS so they can come home as soon as their missions are completed.
I am tired of Rules of Engagement being made by JAG lawyers and not Combat Commanders; and politicians who have never served in the military second-guessing everything after the fact. Our military is not playing Hopscotch over there. There is no 2nd place trophy either. I think that if the enemy knew some rough treatment was at hand for them, instead of prayer rugs, special diets and free Korans; this might help send a message to the terrorists that this nation means business.
I am tired of hearing people say to me I am glad it is your son and not mine. Well you know what me too, because I would not want your coward of a son serving next to mine because it might be him and his lack of back bone that would cost my son his life. So you just let your kid go to an anti-war rally on a college campus, or attend the next MoveOn.org organizational meeting and be a wimp, while mine defends this great nation with Honor, Courage, and Commitment.
I am tired of hearing that my son has to stand down when being shot at by terrorists from inside of a Mosque, or terrorists inside a home with women and children when they are used as human shields—like the first battle in Fallujah. No, that’s not the key to victory… instead let us turn loose our troops to do what they must to defeat, kill and annihilate enemy combatants so that this war can be over and our military men and women can finally come home.
We are in Iraq and Afghanistan to kill our enemies. It is that simple.
It is only possible to defeat an enemy who kills indiscriminately by utterly destroying him. He cannot be made to yield or surrender or sit down and talk nicely about the situation. This is not Barney “I Love You, You Love Me and we are one big happy family.” These terrorists will fight to the death by the thousands to kill the infidels who do not believe in their way of life and that means you and me and our Marines and Soldiers serving in Iraq.
As the President asked in his recent speech to the Nation: Please all of you put down your own selfish agendas. Take a good long look at what you are doing. Because I am telling you your actions, the mud slinging you all have going on against one another is hurting and hindering our military men and women and their families.
All of you politicians had access to the same intelligence the President had when you voted for this war. You all had a similar view of Saddam Hussein, and you all knew that Iraq was a state sponsor of Islamic terrorist groups. The fact is that we are in Iraq and Afghanistan, and our troops need our support to get the job done so they can come home, and all of you politicians need to stop acting like a bunch of whining 2 year-olds who are not getting your way. I am telling you if you cut the funding to our military and do not provide them with the manpower and equipment they need to get this job done, you are no better than the terrorists who shot at them and try to kill them.
I know the American People want change in Iraq, our military wants change and so do their families. The change we want is for everyone to stop undermining the war effort and support our troops so that they may achieve a complete military victory in Iraq and Afghanistan alike.
Please, as a Mother of a Marine serving his third tour of duty, on his behalf, on the behalf of his brothers serving along side him, our troops, and their families, lay down your anger towards one another and do what is right and in the best interests of our Military.
God Bless them until they come home, God Bless those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice, God Bless their families who are Always Faithful and God Bless this Country.
Please join us for the “THESE COLORS DON’T RUN” national caravan hosted by Move America Forward and the “Gathering of Eagles” event in Washington, D.C. on March 17th.
Deborah K. Johns
Very Proud Marine Mom of
SGT William Johns, USMC 3rd Tour of Duty in Iraq
Posted by concretebob at 9:48 AM
21 February 2007
20 February 2007
If you are active duty, reservist or national guard, please Sign this Appeal.
The wording of the Appeal for Redress is:
As an American currently serving my nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to fully support our mission in Iraq and halt any calls for retreat. I also respectfully urge my political leaders to actively oppose media efforts which embolden my enemy while demoralizing American support at home. The War in Iraq is a necessary and just effort to bring freedom to the Middle East and protect America from further attack.
Posted by concretebob at 6:43 PM
18 February 2007
You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: It never occurred to you to be offended by the phrase, "One nation, under God."
You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: You've never protested about seeing the 10 Commandments posted in public places.
You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: You still say "Christmas" instead of "Winter Festival."
You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: You bow your head when someone prays.
You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: You stand and place your hand over your heart when they play the National Anthem.
You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: You treat Viet Nam vets with great respect, and always have.
You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: You've never burned an American flag.
You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: You know what you believe and you aren't afraid to say so, no matter who is listening.
You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: You respect your elders and expect your kids to do the same.
You might be a TRUE AMERICAN if: You'd give your last dollar to a friend.
God Bless the U S A ! Amen
AND PLEASE DO NOT FORGET TO SING THE NATIONAL ANTHEM IN ENGLISH.
Posted by concretebob at 10:51 PM
17 February 2007
Written by infantrymarine, posted to me on FreeRepublic, and he asked that I widen the circle of readers.
In light of the current vote in congress for withholding reinforcements to our fighting men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the upcoming antiwar rally to be held at the Vietnam Veterans memorial Grounds, I sent this letter to the editor today.
Letter To The Editor:
Morale and perception of strength are as much weapons of war as are troops and military. Armaments, which some Democrats and their allied antiwar groups are attempting to remove from our arsenal.
The potential for recent 'immediate withdrawal' statements to create doubt in the minds of our military of the public's support and is very dangerous. Should that doubt take root it would be disastrous to them and the nation.
We ask our men and women in wartime to kill on our behalf.
We give them legitimacy, justification, and, most importantly, absolution to do so.
When we give them reason to doubt this justification and absolution, we destroy their morale. When we remove them, we replace them with blame. Blame is quickly replaced by shame, ultimately that shame metastasizes into guilt.
And, GUILT is the one thing that America should never again be allowed to inflict upon another generation of her veterans.
When we destroy the troops morale we dishonor their service and we destroy their honor.
And, we dishonor it, when honor [and personal faith] is, at times, all they have to sustain them through the horrors they must endure and inflict on our behalf.
Honor is essential to character. When you destroy honor, you destroy character.
Destroy that, and you destroy the individual.
Destroy the individual, and you destroy the nation.
Democrats and antiwar activists should think about that before using the mass media again in their attempt to score political points at the expense of the troops. The consequences of their actions are emboldening our adversaries, and in the process they are shooting the nation and themselves in the foot.
More importantly ... they are shooting the troops through the heart.
Posted by concretebob at 8:41 AM
15 February 2007
The link will open the pdf which has multi-colored charts.
H/T to Dragon Master over at Tanker Brothers
Who is Volunteering for Today's Military?
Myths versus Facts
Each year, about 180,000 young Americans enlist for active duty service in the Armed Forces. A number of myths have been perpetuated about those young people who volunteer to serve. The information herein is intended to dispel such myths.
Myth: Military recruits are less educated and of lower aptitude than American youth.
Fact: The opposite is true. Over 90 percent of military recruits have a high school diploma – a credential held by only about 75 percent of their peers. A traditional high school diploma is the best single predictor of “stick-to-it-iveness” and successful adjustment to the military. Recruits with a high school diploma have a 70-percent probability of completing a three-year term of enlistment, compared with a 50-percent likelihood for non-graduates.
Nearly two-thirds of today’s recruits are drawn from the top-half of America in math and verbal aptitudes – a strong determinant of training success and job performance.
Myth: The Military attracts disproportionately from poor or underprivileged youth.
Fact: Military recruits mirror the US population and are solidly middle class.
A recent report shows that more recruits come from middle income families, with far fewer drawn from poorer families (Figure 2). Youth from upper income families are represented at almost exactly their fair share.
Myth: A disproportionate number of military recruits come from urban areas.
Fact: Urban areas are the most underrepresented. Data show that urban areas are actually underrepresented among new recruits. Suburban and rural areas are overrepresented.
Myth: African Americans suffer a disproportionate number of casualties.
Fact: The opposite is true. Continuing the pattern from Desert Storm, African Americans remain under-represented among casualties in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Through November 5, 2005, African Americans represented about 17 percent of the force, yet accounted for 11 percent of deaths. On the other hand, whites accounted for 67 percent of the force, and suffered 74 percent of deaths. The corresponding numbers for Hispanics were 9 and 11 percent.
This pattern results from occupational choices young people make. For example, African American youth choose to serve in support occupations such as the health care field, which tend to feature valuable job training over bonuses or education incentives. These are the choices young volunteers make.
Myth: The military is not geographically representative of America.
Fact: Military recruits are closely proportionate to the general population.
The southern region of the US generates the most recruits, but also has the greatest density of youth population. The south produces 41% of all recruits (compared to 36% of the 18-24 year old population). The northeast generates 14% of new recruits (18% of the 18-24 year old population). The west and north central regions produce 21 and 24% of new recruits (accounting for 24% and 23%, respectively, of the 18-24 year old population).
Myth: The military takes no better than an average cut of American youth when it comes to medical or physical conditioning.
Fact: About half of today's youth are not medically or physically qualified against current, and necessary, enlistment standards.
Everyone joining the military is rigorously screened for a variety of medical and physical factors that bear on successful military performance – often under austere conditions. A number of common maladies among today's youth (asthma, orthopedic injuries, and obesity) are disqualifying. DoD sustains these standards to ensure that U.S. forces are able to meet the demands placed upon them by worldwide deployments in physically challenging circumstances. Nearly one half of American youth tend to be disqualified for health-related reasons, with obesity as the leading cause.
Posted by concretebob at 12:43 PM
14 February 2007
H/T to Chris P.
"It's a safety issue pure and simple. After assaulting through a target, we put a security round in everybody's head. Sorry al-Reuters, there's no paddy wagon rolling around Fallujah picking up "prisoners" and offering them a hot cup of Joe, falafel, and a blanket. There's no time to dick around on the target. You clear the space, dump the chumps, and moveon.org."
Are Corpsman expected to treat wounded terrorists? Negative. Hey libs, worried about the defense budget? Well, it would be waste, fraud, and abuse for a Corpsman to expend one man-minute or a battle dressing on a terrorist. Its much cheaper to just spend the $.02 on a 5.56mm FMJ.
By the way, in our view, terrorists who chop off civilian's heads are not prisoners, they are carcasses. Chopping off a civilian's head is another reason why these idiots are known as "unlawful combatants." It seems that most of the world's journalists have forgotten that fact.
Let me be very clear about this issue. I have looked around the web, and many people get this concept, but there are some stragglers.
Here is your situation: You just took fire from unlawful combatants (no uniform - breaking every Geneva Convention rule there is) shooting from a religious building attempting to use the sanctuary status of their position as protection. But you're in Fallujah now, and the Marine Corps has decided that they're not playing that game this time. That was Najaf. So you set the mosque on fire and you hose down the terrorists with small arms, launch some AT-4's (Rockets), some 40 MM grenades into the building and things quiet down. So you run over there, and find some tangos (bad guys) wounded and pretending to be dead. You are aware that suicide martyrdom is like really popular with these idiots, and they think taking some Marines with them would be really cool. So you can either risk your life and your fire team's lives by having them cover you while you bend down and search a guy that you think is pretending to be dead for some reason. Most of the time these are the guys with the grenade or vest made of explosives. Also, you don't know who or what is in the next room. You're already speaking English to the rest of your fire team or squad which lets the terrorist know you are there and you are his enemy. You are speaking loud because your hearing is poor from shooting people for several days. So you know that there are many other rooms to enter, and that if anyone is still alive in those rooms, they know that Americans are in the mosque. Meanwhile (3 seconds later), you still have this terrorist (that was just shooting at you from a mosque) playing possum. What do you do? You double tap his head, and you go to the next room, that's what!!!
What about the Geneva Convention and all that Law of Land Warfare stuff? What about it. Without even addressing the issues at hand, your first thought should be, "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6."
Bear in mind that this tactic of double tapping a fallen terrorist is a perpetual mind set that is reinforced by experience on a minute by minute basis. Secondly, you are fighting an unlawful combatant in a Sanctuary, which is a double No-No on his part. Third, tactically you are in no position to take "prisoners" because there are more rooms to search and clear, and the behavior of said terrorist indicates that he is up to no good. No good in Fallujah is a very large place and the low end of no good and the high end of no good are fundamentally the same .. Marines end up getting hurt or die. So there is no compelling reason for you to do anything but double tap this idiot and get on with the mission.
If you are a veteran, then everything I have just written is self evident. If you are not a veteran, then at least try to put yourself in the situation. Remember, in Fallujah there is no yesterday, there is no tomorrow, there is only now. Right NOW. Have you ever lived in NOW for a week? It is really, really not easy. If you have never lived in NOW for longer than it takes to finish the big roller coaster at Six Flags, then shut your hole about putting Marines in jail for "War Crimes"".
Posted by concretebob at 9:26 AM
09 February 2007
February 09, 2007
Rolling Thunder ® joins "Gathering of Eagles"
ROLLING THUNDER MOTORCYCLE RALLY
WASHINGTON, DC, INC.
CALL FOR SUPPORT
March 17, 2007 Anti-War Demonstration and
March to the Pentagon to Assemble at the
VIETNAM VETERANS MEMORIAL
ATTENTION ALL MEMBERS CRITICALLY IMPERATIVE: MEET AT THE WALL 1000 HOURS / 17 MARCH 2007
IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE PROTESTERS PLAN ON GOING RIGHT THROUGH THE IMMEDIATE AREA OF THE WALL / THREE MAN STATUE/ AND THE WOMEN'S MEMORIAL. IT IS OF UTMOST IMPORTANCE THAT WE PROTECT OUR PRECIOUS MEMORIALS, THE SANCTITY OF THE WALL AND DEFEND OUR TROOPS THAT ARE IN IRAQ AND FIGHTING EACH AND EVERY HOUR FOR OUR COUNTRY.
At the anti-war protest in Washington, D.C. 2 weeks ago there was ALOT of damage done at the Capitol steps. We cannot and will not allow this to happen at The Wall or to any of our memorials.
FOR MORE DETAILED INFORMATION CLICK HERE
By C.J. Raven
U.S. Veteran Dispatch
February 07, 2007
Leftist activists who march to the Pentagon next month will discover that their path won't be as clear as it has been in the past.
The group, led by Cindy Sheehan, Jane Fonda, Ed Asner and their ilk, plan to gather March 17 at the Vietnam Memorial Wall to begin a march to protest America's involvement in the Iraq war. The date marks the fourth anniversary of the war's beginning.
This time, however, protestors will see objectors if they spit on Iraqi veterans again, or throw paint on a war memorial. This time, they will encounter a buzz saw of Vietnam veterans and supporters who will gather to protect the Wall, and show their support for U.S. troops. The counter-protestors are calling themselves the Gathering of Eagles.
"… An eagle knows when a storm is approaching long before it breaks. The eagle will fly to some high spot and wait for the winds to come. When the storm hits, it sets its wings so that the wind will pick it up and lift it above the storm. While the storm rages below, the eagle is soaring above it."
An unknown author wrote that description, but it describes how the veterans see their mission. They are angry that the Wall is being used as a jumping off point for a political protest and they are gathering to protect it from another storm of anti-war activists.
"The anti-war/anti-America group cannot be allowed to use the Vietnam Memorial Wall as a back-drop to their anti-America venom and stain the hallowed ground that virtually cries out with blood at the thought of this proposed desecration ... it must not happen," said veteran Bud Gross. "… All Americans are invited to support our effort, which is intended as a defender of hallowed ground and intended as a non-violent competition between those that would sell out America and those of us who support freedom and keeping the fight with the enemy on distant shores."
The group defending the Wall will be wearing armbands to identify themselves. Those who are unable to stand with the defenders are being asked to wear armbands with small U.S. flags to show their own communities that they abhor the Fonda-Sheehan tactics.
"We'll be there to act as a countervailing force against the Cindy Sheehan-Jane Fonda march from the Vietnam Memorial to the Pentagon," retired Navy Capt. Larry Bailey said. "We will protect the Vietnam Memorial. If they try to deface it, there will be some violence, I guarantee you."
Bailey and thousands of his fellow Vietnam vets are worried that the anti-war protesters will damage the wall, just as they spray-painted the steps of the Capitol at their last march.
The wall is sacred to the men and women who fought in that war.
"It is our contact with our dead brothers -- those who lost their lives in the cause of their country," Bailey said.
And so it is that Washington will see a Gathering of Eagles - Americans determined to stand up against leftist propagandists who denigrate U.S. troops and the mission for which they sometimes sacrifice their lives.
Retired Col. Harry Riley organized the Gathering of Eagles. Organizers hope thousands will show up in Washington from as far away as Hawaii, and they won't only be Vietnam veterans. Families, friends and veterans of other wars, including Iraq, and soldiers still on active duty, will be there to defend the Wall.
"When we say a gathering of eagles, that signifies people who support the American way," Bailey said.
The leftist Web site MarchonPentagon.org describes the anti-war demonstrators this way: "The March on the Pentagon has already attracted more than 1,500 endorsers, including prominent individuals and national and grassroots organizations. Students on college campuses and in high schools will be attending in large numbers. There will be a large turnout from the Muslim and Arab American community, which is organizing throughout the country."
The movement is well-financed. Its sponsor list is lengthy and contains highly recognizable names, as well as those of Fonda and Sheehan:
· Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark (who offered his services to defend Saddam Hussein)
· Ultra-liberal Congresswoman Maxine Waters
· Former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney
· Ron Kovic, Vietnam veteran and author of "Born on the 4th of July"
· Mahdi Bray, executive director, Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation
· Waleed Bader, vice chair of the National Council of Arab Americans and former president of Arab Muslim American Federation
· Medea Benjamin, co-founder, CODEPINK and Global Exchange
· Free Palestine Alliance
· Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation
· Islamic Political Party of America
· FMLN (Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front)
· Islamic-National Congress
· Gay Liberation Network
· Muslim Student Association
· Jibril Hough, chairman, Islamic Political Party of America
Retired Air Force Col. Smitty Harris, a former Vietnam POW, doesn't believe Fonda's protests carry the weight they once did. Harris says Fonda's actions at the march last month were "anti-American," just as they were in the 1970s, and won't have much effect on public opinion.
"It was big news during the Vietnam era when they had these marches ... because people didn't have all the alternative ways of finding out what is true and what's not," he recently told Agape Press. "So I don't think it's going to have a big effect." In fact, he says, it could even be counterproductive.
Today, Harris points out, Americans have talk radio and media outlets like the Fox News Channel to hear the voices of those who do not agree with Jane Fonda's point of view.
For more information, visit the Gathering of Eagles message board.
Posted by concretebob at 7:32 PM
05 February 2007
This came via The Drudge Report:
Republicans blocked a full-fledged Senate debate over Iraq on Monday, but Democrats vowed they still would find a way to force President Bush to change course in a war that has claimed the lives of more than 3,000 U.S. troops.
"We must heed the results of the November elections and the wishes of the American people," said Majority Leader Harry Reid.
Reid, D-Nev., spoke moments before a vote that sidetracked a nonbinding measure expressing disagreement with Bush's plan to deploy an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq.
The vote was 49-47, or 11 short of the 60 needed to go ahead with debate, and left the fate of the measure uncertain.
(Senate Minority Leader)McConnell called for equal treatment for an alternative measure, backed by Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., saying Congress should neither cut nor eliminate funding for troops in the field. That measure takes no position on the war or the president's decision to deploy additional forces.
Democrats launched a withering attack on Bush's war policy in the run-up to the vote.
"The American people do not support escalation. Last November, voters made it clear they want a change of course, not more of the same," said Reid. "The president must hear from Congress, so he knows he stands in the wrong place, alone."
Gregg's alternative said Congress should not take "any action that will endanger United States military forces in the field, including the elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field, as such an action with respect to funding would undermine their safety or harm their effectiveness in pursuing their assigned missions."
The measure advanced by Democrats and Warner said the same thing, but it also says the Senate "disagrees with the 'plan' to augment our forces by 21,500 and urges the president instead to consider all options and alternatives."
Republicans and Democrats carried out their clash as 10 members of "Code Pink, "an anti-war group, were arrested and charged with disorderly conduct during a protest in front of Sen. John McCain's office in a building across the street from the Capitol. "They were absolutely compliant, peaceful," Sgt. Kimberly Schneider said of the protesters.
McCain, a likely Republican presidential candidate, opposes the measure expressing disagreement with the increase in troops.
Posted by concretebob at 7:42 PM
His credentials are impressive, especially so when considering the country is at war. The question is - can he be elected.
Last October, soon-to-be-former House Armed Services Committee Chairman, Congressman Duncan Hunter of California announced his candidacy for the 2008 presidential election. If elected, he would be the first baby-boomer, Vietnam veteran elected president.
Will his distinguished service in Vietnam matter?
Thus far Americans have elected two baby-boomer Presidents. One, Bill Clinton, evaded military service in Vietnam and engaged in anti-war protests. The other, George W. Bush, served in the Air National Guard. Both Clinton and Bush were opposed for election by military veterans - Bush by Al Gore and John Kerry (albeit Kerry later claimed that American soldiers committed war crimes). Clinton by George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole, both World War II veterans.
One of the most frequent criticisms by anti-war protesters of those who advocate the war in Iraq has been that they never served in combat. Liberals and Democrats, such as N.J. Senator Frank Lautenberg, have called President Bush and members of the administration "chickenhawks." This is a derisive term meaning a coward who sends others to war while he would not. These same critics also like to point out that neither of President Bush's daughters is in the military.
Forgetting for a moment the blatant hypocrisy of these critics (after all Lautenberg never called Clinton a chickenhawk when he sent troops into combat that resulted in casualties), one wonders if Hunter's credentials will silence people like Lautenberg.
Hunter favors the war in Iraq and unlike Clinton or Bush or Kerry or Gore or any of the other candidates for President except John McCain - not only is Hunter a decorated veteran of Vietnam who served with the 173rd Airborne Division and the 75th Army Rangers - his son is a veteran of Iraq.
So the Democratic Party smear campaign cannot use the chickenhawk ad hominem. They will try something else.
Hunter is already being labeled "far right."
Presumably by those who think Hugo Chavez is a moderate South American political leader. However, the best thing is for people to decide for themselves.
MPT: You are relatively unknown in the Republican Party and, for that matter, by the American public.
How do you intend to correct that?
Hunter: I have appeared on a lot of national news shows stating my positions on foreign policy especially Iraq and Afghanistan.
I am campaigning in the early primary states of New Hampshire, Iowa and I am running TV commercials in South Carolina.
MPT: You are in favor of the increasingly unpopular Iraq war. How would you proceed in Iraq?
Hunter: I have recommended to the President as early as October 2006 to take the 27 Iraqi battalions that we have trained, and assign them from the more docile provinces to Baghdad before we have a surge of more troops.
Currently, these Iraqi battalions were assigned to the nine most passive provinces where there is less than one attack per day. They were assigned there initially by the command before they knew where the most troublesome provinces were. They are still there and need to be reassigned to the most active provinces.
This will give these battalions the experience they need and it will validate them. It will also establish a link between the civilian government and the military which is needed before the military can adequately protect the Iraqi citizens.
MPT: President Bush has not done much to rally the morale of the American people about this controversial war. What would you do?
Hunter: I think the American people need to be continually reminded of the stakes in regard to Iran and the continuing vulnerability of all free societies to the threat these nations pose.
There has been a history of resistance by the left in this country to using the military for foreign policy purposes while negotiating and they have always been incorrect. During the 1980s, the liberal media condemned President Reagan for deploying Pershing missiles saying he would start World War III. The left organized demonstrations by hundreds of thousands of people.
Reagan deployed them and the result was the Soviet Union wanted to negotiate. The same thing happened in El Salvador where we helped build their military and eliminate the communist threat. Today El Salvador is a democratic nation.
It is important for the American people to know that this will not be easy. We need to develop democracy in this part of the world that was excluded from the Cold War.
I believe in lots of communication with the American people.
MPT: What are your beliefs about abortion?
Partial-birth abortion? Parental notification laws?
Hunter: I am strongly Pro-Life. A nation that spends millions trying to recognize life on other planets should be able to recognize life here on Earth. I voted against partial birth abortion and in favor of parental notification laws.
MPT: What changes would you propose to US trade policy and why?
Hunter: Currently, we are at a disadvantage. If we were to make our trade policy with China, for example, analogous to a football game then China would begin the game with a 74-point advantage.
Chinese businesses exporting to the US receive a 17 percent refund of their taxes. They essentially receive a subsidy of 17 percent. Then any imports from the US are a taxed with a 17 percent. So that is a 34-point advantage.
Then the Chinese devalue their currency 40 percent.
This makes their goods cheaper. That is another 40 points.
So before we even begin the game the Chinese have 34 points plus 40 points for a total of 74 points or a price advantage of 74 percent.
This devaluation of the currency was called illegal by Mr. Bernanhke, who at the time was part of the trade mission. This was before he became Federal Reserve Bank Chairman. Unfortunately, the administration redacted that term.
We can either provide the same subsidies and tariffs for our businesses or the Chinese can eliminate their subsidies and tariffs. Either way before we continue trade with China we have to make it equitable.
Do you realize that our production is much more efficient than China?
We have a steel company in South Carolina, Nucor that has a 20 to 1 labor efficiency advantage compare with China. Nucor can produce the same amount of steel using 800 workers that China can produce using 17,000.
If American companies could receive the trade benefits, the Chinese companies are getting there is no question we could sell more American products.
MPT: What steps would you take to reduce illegal immigration?
Hunter: I was responsible for building the border fence in San Diego and one of my assistance wrote the legislation that made it the law that a 700 mile fence across the Mexican border must be built.
If you control illegal immigration you not only solve illegal workers you solve a crime problem and a terrorism problem.
MPT: What are your feelings about capital punishment?
Gun ownership? School vouchers?
Hunter: I am in favor of all of these.
MPT: During a hearing about Iraq WMD's you asked Iraq Survey Group Director David Kaye if statements made by Democrats in Congress such as "there were no WMDs in Iraq" were accurate. He replied they were not. Yet you never publicized this. Why not?
Hunter: We did publicize it. I was on national television shows talking about the WMD's that were found in Iraq. That is why I asked Kaye if the statement by some Congressional Democrats that were no WMD's in Iraq was correct. He said that it was not correct.
MPT: You stated during an interview that you helped streamline the procurement process for armoring Humvees by working with unions and manufacturers to eliminate a lot of the rules that were impeding the process. Yet, you never publicized this when Secretary Rumsfeld was being excoriated about armoring Humvees.
Hunter: I did. We have done a lot of work with the unions and the companies to streamline the procurement process and eliminate this big bulky bureaucracy that causes delays.
MPT: Your tangential involvement with Brent Wilkes will probably be used to discredit you. What are you doing to ensure that does not happen?
Hunter: When you have a fund raiser you do not know what one who attends will do in the future. When we learned of what occurred we returned the donation.
MPT: Congressman Hunter, thanks for taking the time for this interview
Hunter: Thanks for asking me.
Michael P. Tremoglie is the author of A Sense Of Duty, available on Amazon.com ©The Evening Bulletin 2007
Posted by concretebob at 10:40 AM
02 February 2007
"When I was with Duncan last Thursday in Jacksonville he made a statement so different from the Jerks Kerry and Murtha. He said "I am one of you--- just a Nam Vet---- did what I had to do and I am not a big decorated guy."
All the other IDIOTS want to be a hero------ Duncan wants everyone to know HE IS ONE OF US. JUST ANOTHER NAM VET!
With Kerry and Murtha you have the arrogance. With Duncan you have a great guy who you can talk to and feel like you are talking to a BUDDY! This is why I will do everything I can to help Duncan. He has a proven Record in the House.
This is the brotherhood Kerry wished he had -------- Duncan HAS the Band of Brothers"
I know NNV..I respect his opinion and his judgement....
but I heard Ann Coulter likes Romney.....
NEWSMAX.COM is reporting that former Missouri Sen. Jim Talent, who narrowly lost his re-election bid last November, was named a top adviser to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
Talent will serve as domestic policy task force chairman for Romney's presidential exploratory committee, Romney announced Thursday. In his new post, Talent will oversee all domestic policy development for Romney's campaign.
Talent lost a close race to Democrat Claire McCaskill. He recently was named a distinguished fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington.
Romney will headline a banquet on Feb. 10 for the Missouri Republican Party at its annual Lincoln Days festivities in St. Louis.
Looking good so far....and this article from over at Townhall.com's blog space has some good news about Romney, plus some interesting links.
Posted by concretebob at 10:35 PM
01 February 2007
Senate Republicans yesterday said those in Congress who have turned against the war in Iraq are forsaking the troops on the ground and are ensuring defeat with a resolution condemning President Bush's plan to send in reinforcements.
"This resolution is a resolution of defeat and disgrace," said Sen. Jim DeMint, a South Carolina Republican who, as a member of the House, voted in 2002 for the war.
Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, was not serving in the Senate for the vote authorizing the war but has been an ardent defender of it. He said Congress is sending mixed messages to the troops, to voters and to the world with a "no confidence" vote that carries no force.
"We can't claim to support the troops and not support their mission," he said in a floor speech yesterday. "If we don't support the mission, we shouldn't be passing nonbinding resolutions. We should be doing everything in our power to stop it.
Instead, Mr. Cornyn said, "we should send them the message that, yes, we believe you can succeed and it's important to our national security that you do." He has been drawing up a resolution to do that.
Posted by concretebob at 7:18 PM