MRAPS and John (They killed civilians in cold blood) Murtha

The new MineResistantAmbushProtected (MRAP) vehicle (The Buffalo), looks like a good idea. The Marines seem to like the ones already in-country. You can see one by clicking on the MNF-West (II-MEU) link in the sidebar, and clicking on the Anbar Report.

Along comes John Murtha, that brilliant military tactician, defender of the principles of innocent until proven guilty, supporter of Marines and soldiers everywhere, and tells the entire world that building and shipping these life-saving vehicles to Iraq would be a waste and take too long.

But he still supports the troops. As long as they are in Okinawa.
I'd hate to see what he wouldn't do if he didn't like soldiers and Marines.

FoxNews has the story here.

Evil Is Definable

Anyone still entertaining doubts as to the degree of pure evil we are dealing with should look no farther than London's nightclub district.

Not only did the fanatics build and plant two fuel/air devices, they inculded the added bonus of galvanized roofing nails to spice things up.

There is no doubt that one device was targeted at young people; it's the second one that defines the level of evil.

The other device was designed to take out the first responders who were going to be faced with the most extreme injuries imaginable. After shaking off the initial shock of the devastation, professional EMT's would go to work, helping the first ones they came to, catching young club goers walking around in a daze, faces bleeding, burned, following the screams...

it will be then that the second device is detonated. The first responders, no doubt using oxygen on some of the victims, would be caught off-guard, flaming nails punching holes in emergency vehicles, propane bottles exploding, gasoline adding to the inferno, and then the O2 bottles exploding, accelerating the fireball and spreading shrapnel.

Here's s bit of irony; I would venture to estimate that 90% of the young people who would have been directly affected had that fuel/air device been detonated, would be the ones who side with the "Give Peace A Chance" crowd. They would be the first to decry the War on Terror as a right wing plot, and probably 50% of those believe 9/11 was an inside job.

The Fairness (NOT) Doctrine

When the Soviet Union was at its pinnacle, one might think that the greatest fear among its leaders was the nuclear capabilities of the United States. But this was not the case. While the Soviets recognized the formidable war-making abilities of the Americans as an obstacle to be overcome, they feared, and thus diligently hunted and eliminated the presence of something much more threatening to their existence... the printing press.

For the biggest danger to their continued facade of power and success lay in the possibility that some little person, needing neither the horrific power of an atom bomb nor the massive resources to develop and deliver it, could nonetheless shine the light of truth on them and thereby prove to be their undoing.

Empires of oppression and intimidation, built upon real threats and empty promises, simply cannot endure the scrutiny of an informed public.

Thus, the only means by which they can hope to preserve their hold on power is to maintain a monopoly of information. And while their effort at maintaining this monopoly is formidable and imposing, that very fact indicates its ultimate fragility. Hence, the paranoia of the Soviets, lest the people became informed by any source other than the state "news" agency known as "Tass."
For most of the latter half of the twentieth century, American leftists fared better than their counterparts inside the Kremlin. A veritable monopoly of information evolved through the growth and expansion of the "big three" networks, CBS, NBC, and ABC. Over time, the networks developed a decidedly liberal bias, dominating the perspective through which they and their audiences viewed the world.

Quite apart from any governmental oversight, the networks were constitutionally guaranteed unrestrained freedom to present the "news" as they saw fit, which eventually meant a leftist interpretation to virtually every event they covered. Sadly, this remains unchanged to the present.

Had technology and society remained completely stagnant, their stranglehold on the dissemination of information would have been absolute. But of course that was not the case.
Primarily during the past decade and a half, a veritable communications explosion has permitted engaged Americans access to numerous alternative information sources other than the archaic and predictable mouthpieces on the nightly news and in the major newspapers. Of course the key players from the old media were not happy about the competition.

Moreover, during that same time, Washington liberals were rudely awakened to the fact that the American people could not be gathered and herded like sheep into their socialist "utopia." Beginning with Hillary's "healthcare" scheme in the early 1990s, D.C. insiders were suddenly faced with the stark prospect of accountability to the public, and they did not like it.

By then, Rush Limbaugh had established an alternative-media empire utilizing talk-radio, which had been largely left unguarded by the left since it was considered comparatively antiquated among those with access to the TV networks.

Shortly after the demise of "Hillary Care," murmurs of reviving the "Fairness Doctrine," a past means of stifling free speech on the radio, were being voiced inside the Beltway.

Such an obvious effort to put this "genie" back into its bottle, once liberals realized the threat he and his kind posed, were quickly identified and reported to Limbaugh's enormous audience who reacted loudly and fiercely. The mere mention of the "Fairness Doctrine" caused an immediate firestorm of calls and letters to Capitol Hill, whereupon its advocates scattered. Since that time, they have done little more than grumble and whine.

But, last week's vote against amnesty for the illegals, and the bizarre path it cut across political lines, made those on the left believe that they might have a chance to reinstitute the "Fairness Doctrine" with the help of now-receptive Republicans.

Liberals sought to "channel" the anger among the elites from both parties, generated by the strident public opposition to the amnesty bill, in hopes that such unsolicited public meddling with their political agenda could be permanently shut down.

Ultimately, this very manner of response to the situation tells much about what the liberals know they need in order to resume their unquestioned dominance of the American political process.

Conversely, the nature of their comments, intended to take advantage of the tensions between D.C. and the Heartland over the amnesty bill, demonstrate a despicable willingness to forcibly suppress political discourse that does not abet their interests.

Once again, liberals are spouting their disinformation that the obvious dominance of conservatives on the radio somehow prevents citizens from access to the truth. And once again, such propaganda must be countered with the truth.

Liberals dominate, almost to the point of exclusivity, every other form of broadcast and print media. It is not the absence of liberal viewpoints on radio, but the presence of truth, either on the radio or anywhere for that matter, which the liberal agenda cannot tolerate.

Overwhelming dominance of the information market simply is not good enough for the left. For their propaganda campaign to succeed, its proponents must possess nothing less than total control of information being force-fed to the public.

Senator Diane Feinstein (D.-CA) asserted that the fairness doctrine would return America to "much more serious and correct reporting to the people." Similarly, Senator John Kerry (D.-MA) claimed that it would fix the "imbalance in the public eye." Kerry further went on to endorse something he called the "Equal time doctrine."

Needless to say, Feinstein and Kerry were not alone. Their alarming comments merely represented the undercurrents among the Washington elite who want their political empire returned to its unaccountable glory. Far from maintaining a level playing field, the real goal of those who advocate the "Fairness Doctrine" is to completely suppress any point of view that might vary from their orthodoxy.

Never mentioned when invoking innocuous terms like "correctness," "balance," or "fairness" in reporting is the inescapable conclusion that, for such standards to be defined and upheld, some hideous force must be empowered to ensure compliance. On the day "Big Brother" oversees and controls political discourse on the airwaves or anywhere else, free speech has ended.
----------
Christopher G. Adamo is a freelance writer and staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He lives in southeastern Wyoming. He has been active in local and state politics for many years. His contact information and archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com

Another Favorite Site

Some great video, good source of information for Marine Corps efforts in Iraq.

Fred to School

The former Tennessee senator could set himself apart from the other Republicans running for president on education.

By Carrie Lukas

Conservatives enamored with Senator Fred Thompson are desperate for evidence that he really is Ronald Reagan’s heir. After six years of disappointments, conservatives want to hear more than just a recitation of support for low taxes, less regulations, and federalism. We’ve heard that line before. Thompson needs to show that he knows the difference between limited government conservatism and Bush’s brand of big-government Republicanism, which seeks to use the government beast for conservative aims instead of tame it.

The upcoming debate on Capitol Hill over the future of the No Child Left Behind law presents Sen. Thompson — and other GOP candidates — with such an opportunity. President Bush continues to tout No Child Left Behind as one of his signature domestic initiatives. But conservatives are increasingly skeptical. As the Washington Post recently reported, a number of former Bush administration officials and loyalist have broken with the White House and are opposing extending No Child Left Behind.

/snip

Sen. Thompson, who also voted for the legislation in 2001, hasn’t been pressed on his current position regarding No Child Left Behind, but he has been the strongest champion of federalism among the field. In an April commentary on National Review Online, Thompson wrote: “Republicans have struggled in recent years, because they have strayed from basic principles. Federalism is one of those principles. It is something we all give lip service to and then proceed to ignore when it serves our purposes.”

Thompson can distinguish himself from the rest of the pack by describing how he would put this principle to work in federal education policy and reforming No Child Left Behind. It might not capture the attention of the mainstream media like a statement on Iraq, the Middle East, or a controversial social issue. But by demonstrating a true commitment to limited government, Sen. Thompson can give his would-be conservative supporters much needed reassurance.—

Carrie Lukas is the vice president for policy at the Independent Women’s Forum and the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism.

Methinks they doth protest too loudly

"George Bush has commuted the sentence of Scooter Libby and wiped away two and a half years of prison time with the stroke of his pen. President Bush is willfully ignoring Libby’s felony conviction, ignoring the jury’s guilty verdict, and ignoring the rule of law. Our nation deserves better.
"Tell George Bush: ‘I’m appalled by your actions. No man is above the law.’”
Schumer adds, "We need to show Bush his actions just aren’t acceptable.”
"We expect more from our president,” laments the senator. "We expect honor and integrity, we expect moral leadership. We expect our president and his staff to be held to a higher standard.”
Schumer concludes, "It’s at times like these that I realize just how important a strong Democratic Senate is to our nation. Democrats are fighting the Republican’s abuse of power but we can’t do it without your help.”

You mean like the honor, integrity and moral leadership displayed by your butt monkey buddy billy clinton?
Is that the honor and integrity you're referring to, Chuckie Boy?

You mean the abuse of power demonstrated by the clintoon clowns when they fired the travel staff, looked through confidential FBI files, and burned 86 men, women and children to death in Waco, Texas? That kind of abuse of power, Chuckles?

You're a raging hypocrite, an enabler of the worst sort, and the sooner you are sent back to New York, the safer this Nation will be.

DISCLAIMER:The above is the express opinion of a God-fearin, USA-lovin', gun-totin', camo-wearin, NASCAR watchin', country music listenin', pick-up truck drivin', heterosexual, monagamous, redeneck, former-Marine male.
No one says you have to agree.

Anonymous Comments

ALL anonymous comments will be rejected out of hand.
If you ain't got the cajones to id yourself, your opinions ain't worth squat.

Scoring the War

Scoring The War
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Monday, June 25, 2007 4:20 PM PT

War And The Media:
Day after day, Americans are treated to a never-ending, mind-numbing parade of statistics about the number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. But what about the terrorists?

One way the media distort Americans' view of the ongoing war against terrorists is by focusing on just one side in the conflict: ours. Whether it's the daily body count or alleged abuses at Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo, the public could be forgiven for thinking the U.S. is not only losing the war, but behaving badly in doing so.

But neither is true.
This year, for instance, the U.S. has killed roughly 650 terrorists a month, according to published reports and Defense Department estimates. That compares with about 37 U.S. combat deaths per month, through May.

The ratio, thus, is about 18 terrorists killed in combat for every allied soldier killed. And that doesn't include the current offensive in Diayala Province, Operation Arrowhead Ripper, which dispatched 159 enemy combatants in just the first five days.

Since the war began, we've lost about 70 troops a month. This compares with 526 a month in Vietnam, more than 900 a month in Korea and 6,639 a month during World War II.
In other words, by any meaningful metric employed, the U.S. is winning this war. But it will never be reported that way.

This is nothing new. Go back to Vietnam. Remember the "five o'clock follies," when the press routinely ridiculed Pentagon casualty reports? The Vietnam syndrome continues to this day.
Only now it's the media misreporting the numbers. Just weeks into the war in 2003, we started hearing the now-oft-repeated canard that Iraq was worse off with the U.S. than with Saddam. This is so plainly wrong that it must be called what it is: a lie.

And yet, it's repeated to this day. Here again, the numbers tell the tale. In his 24 years as Iraq's Stalinist supreme leader, Saddam Hussein killed at least 2 million people. That averages out to about 6,944 a month for the better part of three decades.

Most responsible estimates show that, at most, 60,000 or so civilians have been killed since the war started, about 1,200 a month.

Moreover, no one doubts that Saddam was responsible for all 2 million of his deaths. In the case of the U.S., most of the civilian deaths come from al-Qaida and other terrorists, not U.S. troops.
We got to thinking about this as a result of Operation Arrowhead Ripper, which began a week ago. It involves some 10,000 U.S. troops trying to rid Diyala Province of al-Qaida terrorists. It's one of the biggest, if not the biggest, operations since the war began.

And yet, when we looked for news of how this huge effort in the war on terror was going, the focus was all on American fatalities.

Since Vietnam, the media have approached each military conflict with the same template: "U.S. Wrong, Foe Right." And they've reported accordingly. That's why wanton murderers of women and children are generously called "fighters" by our own media, while errors by our own troops are tarred as war crimes.

So, in a sense, we are losing a war — the war for Americans' hearts and minds, fought daily on America's TV screens and front pages. But in the real war, our troops are fighting bravely and well — and it's about time someone started keeping score.

USMC "Esprit de Corps"

Ask a Marine what's so special about the Marines and the answer would be"Esprit de Corps", an unhelpful French phrase that means exactly what itlooks like - the spirit of the Corps, but what is that spirit, and where does it come from?
The Marine Corps is the only branch of the U.S. Armed Forces that recruits people specifically to fight.
The Army emphasizes personal development (an Army of One), the Navy promises fun (let the journey begin), the Air Force offers security (its a great way of life).
Missing from all the advertisements is the hard fact that a soldier'slot is to suffer and perhaps to die for his people, and take lives at the risk of his/her own.
Even the thematic music of the services reflects this evasion.
The Army's Caisson Song describes a pleasant country outing.
Over hill and dale, lacking only a picnic basket.
Anchors Aweigh, the Navy's celebration of the joys of sailing, could have been penned by Jimmy Buffet.
The Air Force song is a lyric poem of blue skies and engine thrust.
All is joyful, invigorating, and safe.

There are no land mines in the dales nor snipers behind the hills, no submarines or cruise missiles threaten the ocean jaunt, no bandits are lurking in the wild blue yonder.

The Marines Hymn, by contrast, is all-combat. We fight our Country's battles, First to fight for right and freedom, we have fought in every clime and place where we could take a gun, in many a strife we have fought for life and never lost our nerve.
The choice is made clear. You may join the Army to go to adventure training, or join the Navy to go to Bangkok, or join the Air Force to go to computer school. You join the Marine Corps to go to War!
But the mere act of signing the enlistment contract confers no status in the Corps.
The Army recruit is told from his first minute in uniform that "you're in the Army now", soldier. The Navy and Air Force enlistees are sailors or airmen as soon as they get off bus at the training center.
The new arrival at Marine Corps boot camp is called a recruit, or worse, but never a MARINE. Not yet, maybe never. He or she must earn the right to claim the title of UNITED STATES MARINE, and failure returns you to civilian life without hesitation or ceremony.
Recruit Platoon 2210 at San Diego, California trained from October through December of 1968. In Viet Nam the Marines were taking two hundred casualties a week, and the major rainy season operation Meade River, had not even begun. Yet Drill Instructors had no qualms about winnowing out almost a quarter of their 112 recruits, graduating eighty-one. Note that this was post - enlistment attrition; every one of those who were dropped had been passed by the recruiters as fit for service. But they failed the test of Boot Camp, and not necessarily for physical reasons; at least two were outstanding high school athletes for whom the calisthenics and running were child's play.
The cause of their failure was not in the biceps nor the legs, but in the spirit. They had lacked the will to endure the mental and emotional strain, so they would not be Marines. Heavy commitments and high casualties not withstanding, the Corps reserves the right to pick and choose.
History classes in boot camp? Stop a soldier on the street and ask him to name a battle of World War One. Pick a sailor at random to describe the epic fight of the Bon Homme Richard. Everyone has heard of McGuireAir Force Base. So ask any airman who Major Thomes McGuire was, and why he is so commemorated.
I am not carping, and there is no sneer in this criticism. All of the services have glorious traditions, but no one teaches the young soldier, sailor or airman what his uniform means and why he should be proud of it. But ask a Marine about World War One, and you will hear of the wheat field at Belleau Wood and the courage of the Fourth Marine Brigade, fifth and sixth regiments.
Faced with an enemy of superior numbers entrenched in tangled forest undergrowth, the Marines received an order to attack that even the charitable cannot call ill - advised. It was insane. Artillery support was absent and air support had not yet been invented, so the Brigade charged German machine guns with only bayonets, grenades, and indomitable fighting spirit.

A bandy-legged little barrel of a gunnery-sergeant, Daniel J. Daly, rallied his company with a shout, "Come on you sons a bitches, do you want to live forever"?

He took out three machine guns himself, and they would give him the Medal of Honor except for a technicality: he already had two of them.

French liaison officers, hardened though they were by four years of trench bound slaughter, were shocked as the Marines charged across theopen wheat field under a blazing sun directly into the teeth of enemy fire. Their action was anachronistic on the twentieth-century battlefield; so much so that they might as well have been swinging cutlasses. But the enemy was only human; they could not stand up to this. So the Marines took Belleau Wood. The Germans called them "Dogs from the Devil."

Every Marine knows this story and dozens more. We are taught them in boot camp as a regular part of the curriculum. Every Marine will always be taught them!
You can learn to don a gas mask anytime, even on the plane in route to the war zone, but before you can wear the Eagle Globe & Anchor and claim the title you must know about the Marines who made that emblem and title meaningful. So long as you can march and shoot and revere the legacy of the Corps, you can take your place in line. And that line is as unified in spirit as in purpose.
A soldier wears branch of service insignia on his collar, metal shoulder pins and cloth sleeve patches to identify his unit. Sailors wear a rating badge that identifies what they do for the Navy; Marines wear only the Eagle, Globe, and Anchor, together with personal ribbons and their CHERISHED marksmanship badges.
There is nothing on aMarine's uniform to indicate what he or she does, nor what unit the Marine belongs to. You cannot tell by looking at a Marine whether you are seeing a truck driver, a computer programmer, or a machine gunner.
The Corps explains this as a security measure to conceal the identity and location of units, but the Marines' penchant for publicity makes that the least likely of explanations.
No, the Marine is amorphous, even anonymous, by conscious design.
Every Marine is a rifleman first and foremost, a Marine first, last and always! You may serve a four-year enlistment or even a twenty plus year career without seeing action, but if the word is given you'll charge across that Wheatfield! Whether a Marine has been schooled in automated supply, automotive mechanics, or aviation electronics, is immaterial. Those things are secondary - the Corps does them because it must.
The modern battlefield requires the technical appliances, and since the enemy has them, so do we, but no Marine boasts mastery of them. Our pride is in our marksmanship, our discipline, and our membership in a fraternity of courage and sacrifice.

" For the honor of the fallen, for the glory of the dead", Edar Guest wrote of Belleau Wood," the living line of courage kept the faith and moved ahead."

They are all gone now, those Marines who made a French farmer's little Wheatfield into one of the most enduring of Marine Corps legends. Many of them did not survive the day, and eight long decades have claimed the rest. But their actions are immortal. The Corps remembers them andhonors what they did, and so they live forever.
Dan Daly's shouted challenge takes on its true meaning - if you lie in the trenches you may survive for now, but someday you will die and no one will care. If you charge the guns you may die in the next two minutes, but you will be one of the immortals.
All Marines die; some in the red flash of battle, some in the white cold of the nursing home. In the vigor of youth or the infirmity of age, all will eventually die. But the Marine Corps lives on. Every Marine whoever lived is living still - in the Marines who claim the title today. It is that sense of belonging to something that will outlive your own mortality, which gives people a light to live by and a flame to mark their passing.

Passed on to a Marine from another Marine!

Iraqi civilian deaths down 36 percent

News you won't hear from the "enemedia".

BAGHDAD - Iraqi civilian deaths dropped to their lowest level since the start of the Baghdad security operation, government figures showed Sunday, suggesting signs of progress in tamping down violence in the capital.

But American casualties are running high as U.S. forces step up pressure on Sunni and Shiite extremists in and around Baghdad.

At least 1,227 Iraqi civilians were killed in June along with 190 policemen and 31 soldiers, an officer at the Iraqi Interior Ministry's operations room said. The officer spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the figures.
That represented a 36 percent drop from the ministry's May figures — 1,949 civilian deaths along with 127 policemen and 47 soldiers. June's figures were the lowest monthly tally this year.

In January, President Bush ordered nearly 30,000 soldiers, Marines and airmen to Iraq in a major push to stabilize the capital so that Iraq's leaders can hammer out power-sharing agreements for a lasting peace.

The Baghdad security operation was launched in mid-February, although the last of the American reinforcements arrived in Iraq only last month.
The accuracy of civilian death figures in Iraq has been in doubt since the start of the conflict and may reflect only a portion of the casualties nationwide.

Still, the figures suggest a downward trend, which may be due to U.S. military pressure on insurgents in Baghdad and the surrounding areas.

The commander of U.S. forces in Baghdad, Maj. Gen. Joseph F. Fil, Jr., told reporters on Friday that American and Iraqi security forces now control nearly half of the 474 neighborhoods in Baghdad — up from 19 percent in April.

At least 50 Iraqis were killed or found dead Sunday in politically motivated violence, according to police reports compiled by The Associated Press. That figure was well below the daily death tolls recorded last winter.

A U.S. military spokesman said the decrease was encouraging but that it was too early to attribute it to the crackdown. "The synchronized effort only began two weeks ago. It's too early to declare a trend," said Lt. Col. Christopher Garver.

But Iraqi officials hailed the decline as a sign that the security crackdown was working.

"This is one of the results of the implementation of the security plan and the deployment of extra Iraqi and U.S. forces," Brig. Gen. Qassim al-Moussawi said. "Such figures show that the security operations are going in the right direction and they are working as planned."

While Iraqi civilian casualties are down, U.S. military losses are still running high. June ended the deadliest quarter for U.S. troops in Iraq since the war began in March 2003 — 330 deaths.

That surpasses the 316 soldiers killed during November 2004 to January 2005.
U.S. officials say American losses are rising because the U.S. military is taking the fight to the extremists, seeking to push Sunni and Shiite militants from strongholds in and around the capital where they have operated for years.

On June 15, U.S. troops launched two large offensives, one in Diyala province northeast of Baghdad, the other in regions south of the capital. The goal is to deny insurgents sanctuaries from where they can smuggle car bombs and other deadly explosives into the capital.
Commanders in Diyala have claimed successes in dislodging insurgents, but they acknowledge three-quarters of the senior militant leaders escaped.

An Islamist Web site posted a video late Sunday of what it said was a field commander of the al-Qaida-linked Islamic State of Iraq in Diyala.

The masked man, sitting on the floor of a room with a Kalashnikov rifle by his side, said Diyala had become "a volcano under the feet of the crusaders," meaning the Americans, and that "martyr brigades" of suicide attackers were awaiting orders to strike.

On Sunday, the country's largest Sunni Arab political group, the Iraqi Islamic Party, said more than 350 people have been killed in western Baqouba, capital of Diyala province, since the offensive began there last month.

The statement, which said that some 150 homes have been destroyed, called "the Iraqi government and occupation forces to stop this massacre and differentiate between gunmen and innocent civilians."

U.S. officials have been pressing the Iraqis to meet several goals to promote national reconciliation, including enacting laws to share the country's oil wealth, open up the political system to Sunni Arabs and install new local governments.

On Sunday, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki pledged that provincial elections will be held before the end of the year. The last provincial elections were held on Jan. 30, 2005, and were largely boycotted by the Sunni minority, resulting in a Shiite sweep even in areas with substantial Sunni populations.

In other developments, a suicide bomber Sunday detonated a dump truck packed with explosives on a major bridge across the Euphrates River north of Ramadi, injuring two people and damaging a large section of the bridge, the U.S. Marines said.

Another suicide bomber detonated an explosives-packed truck at a checkpoint at the entrance of the city of Fallujah, west of Baghdad, killing five policemen, an Iraqi officer in Fallujah said. U.S. officials said one policeman was killed and four injured.

In eastern Baghdad, a roadside bomb exploded near policemen, killing two. After the blast, gunmen sped by in a car, spraying machine gun fire, wounding three policemen and three civilians in the capital's Zayouna neighborhood, a police officer said. Both officers spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to media.

Elsewhere in the capital, gunmen in a vehicle opened fire on a minibus carrying Shiite day laborers in the mixed district of Saydiyah, killing one passenger and wounding four, police said.
Also Sunday, the bullet-riddled body of a senior police commander was discovered in Basra, Iraq's second-largest city about 560 kilometers (340 miles) southeast of Baghdad, police said.
Col. Nasser Hamoud, who was in charge of the city's prisons, had been kidnapped along with three of his guards the day before, another officer said on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal. The guards were released a few hours later, he said.

Hamoud's hands and legs were bound, and his body showed signs of torture, the officer said.
He was a member of the Shiite Fadhila party, which controls Basra's provincial government.