If you would like to add a comment to any of the threads here on AADB, registration with blogspot.com is not required. Simply click on the ‘comments’ link at the bottom of an essay, and either enter a nickname under ‘choose an identity’ or post your comment anonymously. Serious comments are always welcome.

REQUIEM

Below are the two final essays to be posted on Allegiance and Duty Betrayed. The first one is written by a friend -- screen name 'Euro-American Scum' -- who, over the past four years, has been the most faithful essayist here. He has written about everything from his pilgrimage to Normandy in 2004 to take part in the 60th–year commemoration of the invasion, to his memories of his tour in Vietnam. His dedication to America’s founding principles ... and those who have sacrificed to preserve them over the past 200+ years ... is unequaled. Thank you, E-A-S. It has been a privilege to include your writing here, and it is a privilege to call you my friend.

The second essay is my own farewell. And with it I thank all of the many regular visitors, and those who may have only dropped in occasionally, for coming here. I hope you learned something. I hope a seed or two was planted. But, even if not, I thank you for stopping by ... 25 March, 2010

1/22/2007

The Extermination of Evil Requires
Confronting its Source


A few weeks ago, I wrote in an essay:

… if we make the commitment to do so [confront Islamic fascism], it should be a full-fledged commitment. We should re-deploy troops that are performing non-military duty around the world, or who are assigned in non-essential areas, and place those troops in strategic areas along the Iraq border so as to stop the constant infiltration of insurgents and agitators from Iran and Syria.

As we did in Vietnam, we are fighting this war with one hand tied behind our backs. In this case we are feverishly bailing the boat while stubbornly refusing to seal the leak. A large number of American troop and Iraqi citizen fatalities are the simple result of the fact that we continue to allow Iranian and Syrian instigators, and equipment, to flow, virtually unfettered, into the war zone.


I also included those paragraphs in a few e-mails written to conservative friends who share my concern about the fact that we are losing troops in Iraq, in part because we are not allowing them to do what needs to be done to defeat the insurgency.

Following the president’s recent speech on his ‘new Iraq policy’, I received letters from these conservative friends, a few of which indicated a renewed optimism as a result of the president’s plans to ‘confront’ Iran.

I don’t share their optimism. On the contrary, I am disgusted with the president’s symbolic new ‘toughness’.

Over the past few years, in his several addresses to the nation on the administration’s various ‘new’ efforts to solve America's other major crisis -- the virtually uninterrupted flow of illegal immigrants across our southern border -- this president has consistently promised tough new initiatives, none of which have ever proved to be more than lip service, designed to quiet that part of the citizenry that neglects to keep its eyes open in order to determine whether actions follow words.

They (actions) rarely do (follow words) with this president. At least not on issues of national urgency -- not unless one considers state-provided prescription drugs, or federally-dictated mediocre educational standards, solutions to matters of national urgency.

And now he is making the same kinds of hollow promises in regard to the toxic Iranian influence in Iraq: seemingly tough, but carefully crafted, words that insure that this war on Islamic fascism will continue to be fought half-heartedly until he leaves the White House. And God only knows what new human-on-human atrocities the far-from-half-hearted enemy will accomplish in the interim.

The president’s ‘new’ plan seems to be to instruct our troops to attack the Iranian-inspired and Iranian-supplied insurgents only inside the borders of Iraq -- but to do so in larger numbers. Our troops still will be forbidden from attacking the source of the bloodthirst.

The president is still insisting on bailing the boat while ignoring the leak. How can we order our troops to win a war when we steadfastly refuse to allow them to confront the enemy?

In World War II, we did not define as victory engaging the enemy on the front lines. Even cutting off the enemy's supply lines was not sufficient for the Allied war planners of the forties. They were courageous and visionary enough to define their visual field so as to include the enemy’s munitions factories and command centers. They knew that, without doing so, the war either (1) would eventually be lost, or (2) would last significantly longer than warranted.

Now, sixty years later, when the American public’s patience and attention span are but a fraction of what they were then, and when a significant portion of their ‘leadership’ is nearly as determined to insure American defeat as is the enemy, #2 above is not an option. So #1 becomes significantly more likely.

As further evidence that the president plans to continue to wage a ‘semi-war’ … following his recent speech, when his National Security Advisor was asked whether the president is considering a military confrontation with Iran, he responded that the ‘issues’ with Iran must be solved ‘diplomatically.’

Issues?

Were the killing fields of Cambodia an issue? How about the purposeful 'famine' in the Ukraine in the early thirties? Would Mr. Hadley consider those events 'issues' as well? Words that downplay human abominations and barbaric atrocities are indications of the intent of the speaker, and his handlers.

Those ‘issues’ to which this administration spokesman refers include Iran’s bloodthirsty determination to continue to kill American troops, to regularly blow up Iraqi civilians and infrastructure, and to insure that this war continues until the American government, and the American people, demand a complete withdrawal of American presence from the Middle East, the ultimate victory of brute barbaric force in Iraq, and the emboldening of jihadists the world over.

As if reiterating the administration’s dedication to handcuffing our troops, when being questioned by the House Armed Services Committee, Defense Secretary Gates stated that our troops are being ordered to focus on the pipeline that is supplying the insurgents in Iraq with Iranian explosives, and that new orders are ‘making it clear that those who are involved in activities that cost the lives of American soldiers are going to be subject to actions on the part of the United States inside Iraq.

In other (less duplicitous) words, more of our troops are being ordered to bail the boat more feverishly. But they still will be forbidden to seal the leak. The counterinsurgency strategy continues to be written with blinders on -- blinders that inspire increased cause for celebration in Tehran, where the defeatist psychology of the American congressional 'leadership', and the malleable mindset of the American public, are studied and manipulated far more artfully than they are by anyone within the walls of the White House.

A president of courage, foresight, and backbone, unwilling to allow a leftist-controlled congress and/or media to play a role in his decisions as Commander-in-Chief, would be preparing to instruct American troops to fortify every inch of the Iran/Iraq border, or to cross the border into Iran, with orders to destroy all IEDs, and the Iranian jihadists who are intent on using them. But this president is planning to send twenty thousand additional troops into Iraq, to be stationed primarily in and around Baghdad, and condemned to wear the same handcuffs as the troops who are there now.

It’s about time the president adopted the same degree of courage and resolve as is possessed by those he is sending into harm’s way. If he does not soon do so, not only will a portion of the newly-shed blood of courageous, duty-bound Americans cover his hands, but the incremental destruction of the Western world will be the result of his continued unwillingness to confront evil at its source.

~ joanie

72 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well argued. Thank you.

daveburkett said...

Good work, Joanie!

Krauthammer has a good critical column on the new Bush strategy called "A Plausible Plan B."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/18/AR2007011801509.html?sub=AR

robmaroni said...

In World War II, we did not define as victory engaging the enemy on the front lines. Even cutting off the enemy's supply lines was not sufficient for the Allied war planners of the forties. They were courageous and visionary enough to define their visual field so as to include the enemy’s munitions factories and command centers. They knew that, without doing so, the war either (1) would eventually be lost, or (2) would last significantly longer than warranted.

Now, sixty years later, when the American public’s patience and attention span are but a fraction of what they were then, and when a significant portion of their ‘leadership’ is nearly as determined to insure American defeat as is the enemy, #2 above is not an option. So #1 becomes significantly more likely.


It's probably just as well that you left that "other blog." If you posted this there, you'd be gone anyway. :>)

Well done, girl!

All_good_men said...

Even the "hated" Richard Nixon had the sense to bomb North Vietnam and the Ho Chi Min Trail in Laos and Cambodia. He knew that in order to win the war the supply lines and supplier needed to be stop.

As for "issues', were the ovens at Auschwitz an "issue"?

Anonymous said...

rob,

"That other blog" is the home of the clueless.

Sandra said...

Based on what is perfectly visible, the Iraq situation is the exact same scenario that has been acted out for years, with the help of the US State Department.

Look at Korea, where Macarthur was stopped from winning

Look at Vietnam, where the US was stopped from winning by the US State Department

Look at all the carnage by muslims during Frat Boy Clinton's 'presidency', with NOTHING done about it

Look at the State Department actions insuring that we don't win in Afganistan or Iraq.

The very same scenario has been enforced on Israel for years.

They are supposed 'fight' their enemies with one (both?) arm tied behind thheir back.

And every time they get their enemy on the run, they are made to hold back and let him escape.

This plan was made long ago---and the acting out of it in the real world is obvious.

Anonymous said...

If you don't write political commentary for a living you should.

Anonymous said...

Yeah let's get more of our soldiers killed by expanding the war that never should have started into another mideast country. You don't make matters worse by making more mistakes. You fix the one you made in the first place. Our soldiers should come home today before any more of them come home in body bags. Iraq will never be a democracy and the US has no right to force it to.

calbrindisi said...

It’s about time the president adopted the same degree of courage and resolve as is possessed by those he is sending into harm’s way. If he does not soon do so, not only will a portion of the newly-shed blood of courageous, duty-bound Americans cover his hands, but the incremental destruction of the Western world will be the result of his continued unwillingness to confront evil at its source.

Amen to that!

You outdid yourself on this one Joanie.

smithy said...

We better prepare for "Vietnam, The Sequel" because there's not a politician in sight who's gonna do what needs to be done.

johnsteever said...

From the Krauthammer article referenced above:

We need to find a redeployment strategy that maintains as much latent American strength as possible, but with minimal exposure. We say to Maliki: Let us down, and we dismantle the Green Zone, leave Baghdad and let you fend for yourself; we keep the airport and certain strategic bases in the area; we redeploy most of our forces to Kurdistan; we maintain a significant presence in Anbar province, where we are having success in our one-front war against al-Qaeda and the Baathists. Then we watch. You can have your Baghdad civil war without us. We will be around to pick up the pieces as best we can.

This is not a great option, but fallbacks never are. It does have the virtue of being better than all the others, if the surge fails. It has the additional virtue of increasing the chances that the surge will succeed.


Joanie, I think a combination of his and your ideas is the best solution.

Get out of Baghdad, make the Iraqis defend that city themselves, and concentrate on cutting off the supply lines from Iran and defending militarily strategic locations, and keep a major presence in Kurdistan and Anbar province.

trustbutverify said...

Rob, that "other blog" isn't a blog. It's "the premier online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web."

I thought that'd make you laugh! ;)

cw-patriot said...

Thanks for the kind words, all.

The Krauthammer piece is excellent, as always. Invariably, whenever I read what he writes, I wind up saying, 'Dang! I wish I had said that!' :)

~ joanie

balhasar said...

Well done.

Anonymous said...

Bush is half conservative in foreign policy and defense and a liberal to moderate in domestic policy. The Republican Party can do much better, and they'd better in '08 or it's over.

danthemangottschall said...

"Over the past few years, in his several addresses to the nation on the administration’s various ‘new’ efforts to solve America's other major crisis -- the virtually uninterrupted flow of illegal immigrants across our southern border -- this president has consistently promised tough new initiatives, none of which have ever proved to be more than lip service, designed to quiet that part of the citizenry that neglects to keep its eyes open in order to determine whether actions follow words."

Bush is letting us down on the 2 most dangerous threats we're facing. He's a bigger disappointment than his Dad was, and it's destroying the Republican party.

stonemason said...

This'll make you sick:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/4484923.html

Especially:

Such a campaign would be undermined by hurry-up tactics built around the American political calendar, or the use of U.S. military force in Iraq intended to serve as a show of force against Iran. Divisions within the Saudi royal family over how to handle Iran also must be handled with care, not bluster, by Washington. A new consensus with Europe on how to proceed must be sought as well.

ProudPodunknative said...

From http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N22191773.htm.

The Democratic chairman of the U.S. Senate intelligence committee said on Monday he is concerned President George W. Bush could act against Iran despite uncertainties about Tehran's intentions in the Middle East.

I wonder how much more of a "hint" about Iran's intentions Rockefeller needs?

squantos said...

Agree.... We enter into a war we should be war like and destroy infrastructure, leadership, communications, transportation and industry and leave it up the UN and the enemies supporters to fix with a hearts and minds program. We can not win when we drop food on Tuesday and ordnance on Friday with a society that sees such acts of kindness as weakness and conflagration within our own nation.

Either do it well or don't do it at all is my suggestion.....to put our military at the point of a spear only to have polidiots and presstitutes holding on to the back of it is insane.

Stay safe Joanie !

Diva Betsy Ross said...

Excellent article Joanie. Today for school my older son and I were studying Ponce de Leon. In talking about the historical importance of his life, we discovered that Ponce de Leon was part of the the military campaigns to drive the Muslims from Spain.

My 8 YO son says, hey Mom- they were having problems with some Muslims back in 1400 something- how about that!

:sigh: Yes, how about that.

Rummy made some excellent points along this vein, which I think the President has forgotten: We have not learned our history lessons very well.

cw-patriot said...

Thanks, Diva.

Your son is more observant than some American voters. :)

I agree with you that Rummy was on the right track in so many ways, often much moreso than his Commander-in-Chief.

cw-patriot said...

We enter into a war we should be war like and destroy infrastructure, leadership, communications, transportation and industry and leave it up the UN and the enemies supporters to fix with a hearts and minds program.

Bears repeating.

Al said...

Mountain man Old Bill Williams, who lived to a ripe old age despite spending his usually alone in the most dangerous areas of the US frontier, said he followed one rule :

"Never once, let an indian who attacks you, live."

Anonymous said...

The neo-cons have no desire to win this war. It is to their personal advantage to keep it going.

robmaroni said...

The neo-cons have no desire to win this war. It is to their personal advantage to keep it going.

Pure unadulterated rubbish!

smithy said...

The neocons are the newest convenient bogeymen of the liberals and the conservatives to blame all that's wrong with the country on. "Rubbish!" is right.

George Weir said...

Here's an article on the Republican opposition to the Bush plan that paints these particular Republicans in a bad light. But their point about American troops serving as policemen in Baghdad is well taken, and would be solved by implementing Krauthammer's "Plan B" mentioned above where we withdraw from the city, leave it to the Iraqis to defend, and we concentrate on stopping the flow of insurgents and weapons from Iran, and defend strategic military locations outside of Baghdad.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003536845_warner23.html

I don't agree with the Republicans in this article, but (only) their point about pouring more U.S. troops into Baghdad is well taken.

I agree with most of your article, Joanie. But it doesn't stand a prayer of happening with the U.S. State Department as it is and with a Democrat Congress standing as a loud roadblock.

cw-patriot said...

Thought I’d throw into the mix an excerpt from an e-mail I received from a conservative friend today. There isn’t a point made, or an opinion expressed, with which I can argue. Where we do appear to diverge is not in any statement of fact or opinion, but in that he apparently possesses infinitely more patience (a wonderful virtue with which I have little familiarity :) than I:

_____________________

I understand completely your frustration and the points in your argument, but I think the overall situation our country and especially our military are facing is very complex. First of all, Bush is no Reagan, especially when it comes to confronting his opponents, whether those elected or those in the servitude of the elected Left (the MSM, Hollywood, and academe). He has not done a good job communicating and combating his opponents, and now he finds himself in a very tight spot. He only has a year left of his administration before the election cycle starts and he finds himself in a de facto lame duck position. I think he is desperately afraid that Iraq will not be stabilized by the time he leaves office and that, if the Dems win the Presidency in 08, that they will undo everything we have achieved in the Middle East. If that happens, a great deal of the WoT will have been in vain.

There are two points to remember, as I'm sure you are aware. A President has to speak and act very diplomatically, even if his actions are very aggressive. Sending another carrier (or was it a battleship) to the M.E. was a very aggressive move. If we control the Port of Hormuz, we control Iran's economy. The last thing Bush wants to have to do is invade Iran. I think he has been hoping/planning that the democracy movement among the youth would topple the leadership, esp. after we went into Iraq. That hasn't happened yet, but it does appear they are about to change leadership. I think he's also counting on Israel taking care of Iran when the time is right, using the nuclear build-up as an excuse. I think Bush's message that we are going to start kicking down doors and the tacit implication that we may control Iran's exports was a message to potential replacements that we are serious about cutting off the flow of agents and supplies from Iran.

All this to say, Bush is between a rock and a hard place. And I share your feeling that he has no one to blame but himself. But the midterms were a huge slap in his face and now with a Dem majority, I think he greatly fears that they may cut off non-essential funding to the military and thus reduce it to a bare-bones outfit. If that happens, they essentially check his ability to do much of anything. I think this is why he sacrificed Rumsfeld and why he was so diplomatic and considering Baker's absurd report. I also think his speech was a bit of a slap back at the Dems. In essence he said, "All right. I blew it when it came to communicating what we're doing, and you won the media war and took power. But if you think I'm backing down on winning in Iraq, you're wrong. I'm stepping it up and we will win."

I suppose I view the fact that he is increasing the number of troops when the Dems won power essentially by bickering over when to cut-and-run as quite an aggressive move against the new majority.

So, while I agree with the main points of your argument, I also think that we are not able to invade Iran. America's enemies within would hound us to certain defeat. We have to cut them off, topple the leadership. And, as you say, we have to control the border. But let's face it, Bush doesn't know how to build a fence.


_____________________

daveburkett said...

I'd like to see Joanie's original article carefully integrated with the one just posted above and printed on the editorial page of every major newspaper in the country.

It wouldn't make any permanent change in war policy or public opinion but it'd be nice to see the truth in print for a change.

jim said...

We have to cut them off, topple the leadership. And, as you say, we have to control the border. But let's face it, Bush doesn't know how to build a fence.

LOL! Ain't it the truth!

Kathymlynczak said...

Congress and each successive administration pledge their political, financial, and military support for Israel. Yet while we call ourselves a strong ally of the Israeli people, we send billions in foreign aid every year to some Muslim states that many Israelis regard as enemies. From the Israeli point of view, many of the same Islamic nations we fund with our tax dollars want to destroy the Jewish state. Many average Israelis and American Jews see America as hypocritically hedging its bets...Ron Paul

All_good_men said...

Hope gets you nowhere in international politics and war. All the despots of the world understand nothing but power and force. Reagan could have hoped the Afghan Mujadaheen would defeat the Russians. But he did not. He supplied them arms. Reagan could have hoped the Contras would topple Somoza in Nicaragua. But he did not. He had his people find a way to get them weapons. Now is not the time for pusillanimity. A true leader will find a way to win the war in Iraq and, at the same time, make Iran, Syria, and the other terrorist states sorry they ever hear of the United States.

calbrindisi said...

I'll agree with you that your friend seems to have more patience than you but in this day and age patience can be deadly. We need to put away the old concerns about global allies and public opinion and go in and do what needs to be done.

The rest of the world is going to pot (Europe is one big socialist cesspool), and we can't give a damn what the rest of the world thinks. Our survival is on the line.

john galt said...

I think he has been hoping/planning that the democracy movement among the youth would topple the leadership, esp. after we went into Iraq. That hasn't happened yet, but it does appear they are about to change leadership. I think he's also counting on Israel taking care of Iran when the time is right, using the nuclear build-up as an excuse.

Those first two sentences are crazy. We can wait for that to happen till the cows come home, meanwhile the world is blown to smithereens.

The last sentence makes a lot of sense. If anyone is going to step in and do what needs to be done it will be Israel.

stonemason said...

Good Bill Williams quote, Al.

Here's another good one:

I'm not afraid to die like a man fighting, but I would not like to be killed like a dog unarmed.--- Billy the Kid, 1879.

robmaroni said...

Here's another one from the "bards" of the old west. :>)

There are many in this old world of ours who hold that things break about even for all of us. I have observed, for example, that we all get the same amount of ice. The rich get it in the summertime and the poor get it in the winter. --- Bat Masterson

stonemason said...

Good one, Rob.

Pieces of old west "wisdom":

Don't corner something meaner than you.

Don't sell your mule to buy a plow.

Timing has a lot to do with the outcome of a rain dance.

If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' somebody else's dog around.

John Cooper said...

An exeprt from the state of the union speech we should have heard last night:

The State of the Union is a Disaster by Jules Crittenden

~~~~~~~~

"The State of the Union is a disaster. I did my best, but I made mistakes, and my best wasn’t good enough.

We went to war without building up our army, and now, I am trying to make up for that.

But that is not the disaster.

The disaster is that you, Congress and the American people, do not care to fight. Faced with a fundamental challenge to our own security, to everything we believe in, to the world order to peace and security for which we and our parents fought so hard for so many years, you now want to pretend like none of these threats are real. You want to surrender to the evil I have been telling you about. An evil that, unchecked, can consume large parts of the world and threatens to usher in a dark age."

~~~~~~~~~~

Anonymous said...

Stonemason,

LOL! Thanks!

Kathymlynczak said...

John Cooper,

That excerpt is even shorter than the Gettysburg Address but packed with truth that is just as important.

Anonymous said...

smithy said...
The neocons are the newest convenient bogeymen of the liberals and the conservatives to blame all that's wrong with the country on. "Rubbish!" is right.


The term 'neocons" is a code word for the evil "Jews," so hated by the Jew-hating left and its news media, its academia, its pathetic politicans.

daveburkett said...

Anonymous, I agree that the term was coined by anti-Semites. It's taken on a whole new life of its own since then, and I agree with the "bogeyman" label now. It's become a catch-all label for anyone who disagrees with a certain closed-minded part of society.

Al said...

Washington Post left wing insect Tom Shales grovels for Ted Kennedy


“Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) was caught by cameras reading the speech, too, but he looks so venerable and distinguished by now that it's hard to get a bad picture of him.”


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/23/AR2007012301967

Maybe this insect can win another Pulitzer prize for this

3timesalady said...

When I quoted an article by Charles Krauthammer a few months ago to a poster on another site, he called Krauthammer a "bigoted neocon war monger."

There's a good example of the way the word "neocon" is thrown around. ;)

Al said...

stonemason,

Do you think the ACLU or Soros' phony "Human Rights" groups would approve of this?

"DO HE SALT THEM INJUN LIVERS?"

was the question asked about mountain man Liver-Eating Johnson by another mountain man.

Anonymous said...

Schools weigh inclusiveness, calendar without 'Christmas'

By Lindsay Melvin January 24, 2007

Shelby County Schools' newest board member, Fred Johnson, wants to change "Christmas Break" to "Winter Break" on the school calendar.
"I want to make it inclusive of every religious group," he said.

http://www.commercialappeal.com/mca/education/article/0,2673,MCA_22897_5300723,00.html

MarkStillwell said...

This is a good blog. I was directed here by my step-son who is a student at Lehigh University, so you ought to know that you have some college readers, even though I don't think he has written anything here.

Keep spreading the word!

daveburkett said...

Hey! We need a new column! {G}

John Cooper said...

Bush denies preparing attack against Iran

~~~~~~~~
George W. Bush on Friday sought to deny widespread rumours his administration was preparing some kind of military action against Iran. Mr Bush confirmed a report in Friday’s Washington Post that he had authorised US troops to shoot and kill Iranian operatives in Iraq, but denied this was a prelude to stronger action.

“We believe we can solve our problems with Iran diplomatically,” said the US president. “It makes sense that if somebody is trying to harm our troops, or stop us from achieving our goal, or killing innocent citizens in Iraq, that we will stop them.”

But the US president’s relatively emollient comments are unlikely to quell speculation about the reasons behind the recent escalation of White House rhetoric towards Iran. In his prime time address on the “new way forward in Iraq” two weeks ago, Mr Bush pledged to “interrupt the flow of support [for extremists in Iraq] from Iran and Syria...We will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”
~~~~~~~

One can only hope it's true, but after six years of failing to seal the Iraqi borders, I'm skeptical anything will come of this.

The American people want to kick some butt over there and win this thing. Unfortunately, our elected politicians are mostly a bunch of...well...politicians.

cw-patriot said...

Thank you, Mark Stillwell.

It's gratifying to hear that this small weblog is being read by college students.

Please encourage your step-son to participate. His opinions would be very welcome!

~ joanie

cw-patriot said...

One can only hope it's true, but after six years of failing to seal the Iraqi borders, I'm skeptical anything will come of this.

Yours is skepticism borne of intelligent observation. It’s hard to see how any thinking person (a dying breed in modern America) could believe otherwise.

‘We believe we can solve our problems with Iran diplomatically,’ said the US president.

A few recent quotes from the leader of the nation with whom the American president wishes to pursue diplomacy:

Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury.

As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map.

Iran is ready to transfer nuclear know-how to the Islamic countries due to their need.


A little over a year ago, in October 2005, addressing approximately four thousand Iranian students at the Interior Ministry conference hall in Tehran, during a conference entitled ‘A World Without Zionism’, Ahmadinejad repeatedly threatened the elimination of the United States as well as Israel. One of several belligerent examples of such:

I must say that you have chosen a very valuable title for your gathering [World Without Zionism]. Many are sowing the seeds of defeat and despair in this all-out war between the Islamic world and the Infidel Front, hoping to dishearten the Islamic world. Such people are using words like ‘it's not possible’. They say how could we have a world without America and Zionism? But you know well that this slogan and goal can be achieved and can definitely be realized.

Add to the above niceties the facts that ...

(1) Iran plans to start installing thousands of centrifuges in an underground facility (as a protection against both observation and attack) at Natanz next month, setting the stage for large-scale uranium enrichment.

(2) the probable majority of the instances of uses of barbaric IEDs in and around Baghdad over recent months, resulting in the deaths of thousands of American troops, Iraqi troops, and innocent civilians, were the direct result of the infiltration of Iranian terrorists/insurgents into Iraq, and it makes one wonder ...

Is our president hopelessly naïve? Or is the leader of the free world nothing more than a coward?

I would welcome a third option, but I don’t believe a reasonable one exists.

~ joanie

SharonGold said...

Well said, Joanie.

The situation with Iran inside Iraq and at Natanz is intolerable and very little is being done about it.

robmaroni said...

(1) Iran plans to start installing thousands of centrifuges in an underground facility (as a protection against both observation and attack) at Natanz next month, setting the stage for large-scale uranium enrichment.

(2) the probable majority of the instances of uses of barbaric IEDs in and around Baghdad over recent months, resulting in the deaths of thousands of American troops, Iraqi troops, and innocent civilians, were the direct result of the infiltration of Iranian terrorists/insurgents into Iraq.


Anybody who really believes that diplomacy is a tool here is delusional. Let's hope Bush really has an ace or two up his sleeve.

Anonymous said...

That is the Minuteman, sculpture by Daniel Chester French !

French also did the sculpture of Lincoln at the Lincoln Memorial.

siliconvalleyguy said...

Speaking of the Lincoln Memorial, I remember the March for Liberty back in ’99 where Joanie and Jeff Head gave rousing speeches on the steps of that great memorial; Joanie talked mainly about the real story of Waco and Jeff talked about the responsibilities that come with freedom. Another patriot named Tommygun gave a great speech too. And a lady from China came by and gave her own stirring talk about the tyranny where she came from and the freedom she has here. That was a memorable rally. Joanie, can you try to find the old posts from it on “that other site” and post them here?

daveburkett said...

Thanks for posting the Crittenden article, Cooper. The whole thing is worth reading. He nails it.

a california girl said...

We miss you Joanie. Hurry back! :-)

Al said...

Verdict Reversal for Ex-Border Patrol Agent

Jan 29, 2007
http://www.team4news.com/Global/story.asp?S=5998384&nav=0w0v


David Sipe is a once convicted criminal who can honestly say he "didn't do it."
"Relief. Relief. After 7 years, it's gone. It's over."
The ex-border patrol agent gets a 2001 guilty verdict overturned in his retrial for civil rights violations against a smuggler. The incident dates back to April of 2000 in Penitas.
"He was striking me in the side... he was very close to my weapon... and I had to do what I could to control the situation as fast as I could."
Fearing for his life, David subdues the smuggler by hitting him with his flashlight. It results in staples to the smugglers head. A border patrol investigation is launched and deems his actions inappropriate-- even illegal.

"I don't know how they're able to do that... but I don't think that's fair."
Neither did a jury who overturns his conviction from the first trial against him.
David says the government, which he faithfully worked under for nearly 4 years, turns its back on him while rolling out the red carpet, as he puts it, for the illegals turned witnesses.
"They got to stay here and work in our country."
The smuggler even gets a government settlement.
"80 thousand dollars... he now has his own ranch in Mexico.'

As for David-- he doesn't collect a thing. In fact, his life and family gets ripped apart.
"My house foreclosed on after having to file bankruptcy, my children having to live through this... of course my wife divorcing me."
Through it all, he says, justice is served. And while most about David is forever changed one thing returns and it's most important thing to him of all.
"I have my freedom back. I'm a man of honor again."
What lead to this morning's "not guilty" verdict reversal against the former border patrol agent? Turns out his attorney says the prosecution in the first trial supressed evidence and lied about benefits given to "Alien" witnesses.
Attorney Jack Wolfe explains.
"They with-held evidence about their witnesses who had prior convictions...they didn't tell us... they were supposed to tell us. In fact, they told us that they had no witnesses with convictions."

A new trial was granted and David Sipe's conviction was thrown out. As a result, Sipe is a free man and fighting to get his job back.

robmaroni said...

Modern American justice!

A lawbreaker is sitting pretty and the man who tried to do his job's life is destroyed.

Never mind that his wife divorced him and his children don't know him, what about the 7 years he spent behind bars? Who's going to give him 1/10 of his life back?

We live in a sick society where lawbreakers are rewarded and law enforcement is punished, and the worst thing is this story isn't even making headline news, but I heard a dozen times today about Barbaro being euthanized.

It's Rome all over again.

Anonymous said...

A recent poll asked the following: ‘Do you personally want the Iraq plan President Bush announced last week to succeed?’ And how did the American people answered: 63 percent said yes, 22 percent said no, 15 percent said they didn’t know. If I understand the numbers correctly, nearly 40 percent of those responding either don't know or are actively rooting for our defeat. In other words, nearly 40 percent of the American people 'support our troops' by wanting them to lose. It's hopeless.

Anonymous said...

One hundred per cent of the US news media want the US to fail.

Anonymous said...

Houston Gang Suspect Wanted in Decapitations

By MIKE GLENN
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

A suspected MS-13 gang member arrested Saturday on assault and immigration charges is wanted in Honduras for the decapitation slayings late last year of his former in-laws.

Albin Zelaya-Zelaya, 26, was charged in October for burglary of a habitation with intent to commit aggravated assault. He also was wanted by federal authorities for entering the country illegally, officials said.

Investigators learned Zelaya-Zelaya, also known as Flaco, slipped into the United States sometime after Christmas, the day when Eleazar and Suyapa Vasquez were murdered in their home in Honduras.

Also arrested Saturday were Zelaya-Zelaya's brother, Pablo Romero, 31; Miguel Estrada, 21; Johnny Fernandez, 27; Marlin Turcios, 20; and Marcos Caldron, 24. They were charged with evading arrest and and also face immigration charges, police said.

The men are suspects in a series of kidnappings of illegal immigrants in the Houston area, police said.

Romero also is wanted in the slaying of the Vasquez couple, police said.

According to Interpol, Zelaya-Zelaya is wanted for questioning about a December 2004 attack on a bus in San Pedro Sula, Honduras, that killed almost 40 people, Houston police said.

Anonymous said...

yeah MS13 just wonderful and living off US welfere while they Destroy

Darius

LouBarakos said...

We miss you Joanie. Hurry back! :-)

Ditto.

John Cooper said...

Tony Blankley's column commenting on the politics of Iraq emphasizes Washington's contribution to our current difficulties:

"Now is a good time for clear thinking and speaking. If we intend to succeed (and it is vital that we do), then we must persist. If the "surge" doesn't work, then more troops and different strategies should be employed."

"If we are going to throw in the towel, then we should bring the troops home promptly, lick our wounds and prepare for the inevitable Third Gulf War, which we will have to fight under far worse conditions than currently. Either of those options are at least honest (although the latter is dangerously foolish)."

"But the current mentality in Washington -- to pretend that there is a third way between victory and defeat -- is morally despicable. Washington politicians of both parties are trying to salve their consciences for the ignominy of accepting defeat by fooling either themselves or the public into believing they are doing otherwise."

"Perhaps they can fool their own flaccid minds, but history grades hard and true. And history may enter its ledger with shocking promptness."

(Anybody else unable to post using Firefox?)

Sandra said...

Toll Road firm alarms Texans with purchases

http://www.southbendtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070131/News01/701310370/-1/NEWS01

Toll Road firm alarms Texans with purchases
South Bend Tribune ^ | January 31, 2007 | Jeff Parrott

Macquarie to buy newspaper chain; critics fear it's to silence Trans-Texas Corridor opponents.

One of the foreign firms leasing the Indiana Toll Road is drawing suspicion from some Texans after announcing plans to acquire a chain of small newspapers there.
Australia-based Macquarie Media Group last week said it will pay $80 million for American Consolidated Media, which publishes 40 community newspapers and shopping publications serving nine communities in Texas and Oklahoma.

Macquarie's sister company, Macquarie Infrastructure Group, last year joined with the Spanish conglomerate Cintra to lease the Indiana Toll Road for the next 75 years. Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels championed the deal, heralding the $3.8 billion in instant revenue it brought the state, although 60 percent of Hoosiers opposed it, according to opinion polls.

Likewise, several grass-roots groups in Texas are battling that state's Republican governor, Rick Perry, and his plan to convert existing freeways to toll roads and build a new toll road, the Trans-Texas Corridor, that would stretch from the Mexican border to Oklahoma.

Cintra and Macquarie Infrastructure Group, which also jointly operate a toll road in Toronto, are expected to be among many groups bidding on about $250 billion in Texas road work and toll road administration over the next decade.

Through eminent domain, the Trans-Texas Corridor, largely paralleling the existing Interstate 35, would force people to sell off their land for the project. Small papers in rural communities along the route have aggressively reported on opposition to that plan, said Sal Costello, founder of the nonprofit political action committee, Texas Toll Party.

etc.

daveburkett said...

Cooper, I'm using Firefox and it works fine. What's the problem?

joanie said...

John, Blankley's column is wonderful -- every word true, and stinging.

This war is beginning to look more and more like Vietnam II with each passing day. And, as a result of the media, democrats', and RINO's nipping at his heals, the president isn't even aware that he will become more and more prone to compromise, for fear of being politically tarred and feathered for doing what needs to be done.

Meanwhile we lose more of our best and most courageous with each day of political 'treading water'.

Anonymous said...

Sandra, the plan to to turn America into Mexamerica continues, and nobody's going to stop it. Mexamerica won't last long either, because it isn't just Mexicans coming across the border.

calbrindisi said...

The Trans-Texas Corridor is one of the best kept secrets in the country, because if more people knew what it was about it would be shot down like a low flying duck.

Sandra said...

calbrindisi,

Please shot that duck.

Anonymous said...

Some members of the Win Without War coalition recently addressed by lefty "war hero" John Murtha.

American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) [Quaker organization]
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee
Center for International Policy (CIP)
Feminist Majority
Greenpeace
Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR)
MoveOn
NAACP
National Council of Churches
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
National Organization for Women (NOW)
Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR)
Psychologists for Social Responsibility
Rainbow/Push Coalition
Sierra Club
The Tikkun Community
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations
Unitarian Universalist Service Committee
United Church of Christ
United Methodist Church General Board of Church and Society
Veterans for Peace
Artists United to Win Without War
Musicians United to Win Without War