You Have To See This

This picture brought tears to my eyes. It's not just our freedom that matters. Everyone deserves to be free.

H/T Tigerhawk

Bush Was Right

Liberals were wrong. History will be kind to George W. Bush.

Guantanamo Military Tribunals: Bush Reviving al Qaeda According To Tim Rutten

Here we go. The trials for those accused of plotting 9/11 and other terrorist acts began last week. They are military tribunals and the rat scum who committed the crimes are doing the things one would suspect a terrorist to do--like claim mental illness, decline counsel in hopes that the trial will be null and void, and generally acting persecuted. For all their plots and planning, turns out these jerks rather like life and want to prolong this process. If they can garner sympathy and can make themselves look like a martyr, they'll do it.

Enter liberals. I love this headline "Just as Al Qaeda is falling apart, Bush's terrorist tribunals are reviving it." It goes with the equally inane editorial by Tim Rutten of the LA Times. Consider this:

It's a sad but salutary thing to recall that number and that terrible day. The consolations of legal justice never can be complete, but they're all we as a society have to offer the injured and the grieving. That's why, when it comes to the handling of these cases, the Bush administration's willful overreaching, contempt for fundamental American values and defiance of basic American notions of due process have set the stage for travesty and further tragedy.

Presidents Washington, Lincoln, and Roosevelt used military tribunals. Did they demonstrate "contempt for fundamental American values?"

The tragedy that the press currently endures is not having complete, unfettered access to the courtroom. Another tragedy: the press isn't being allowed to hear every word of testimony to achieve precisely the ends Rutten claims to want to avoid--inflaming the " fanatic-infested backwaters across the Islamic world." You see, the government knows that the press doesn't mind inflaming the idiots in these backwaters. So, to prevent that happening, they will blank out words and phrases used by the terrorists that would be used to stoke and inflame those who would definitely hear it from guys like Rutten.

Here are some of the ways the press has done it's part to help "calm" those backwaters:

Editing the President's comments about Iraq and "civil war"--May 19

Remember the flushing the Koran story that was totally bogus?

How about the rush to judgment and broadcasting the Haditha marines story? Real story here.

That's just three stories I can think of off the top of my head. Any lie, distortion or piece of sensitive information spouted by one of these bastards would be presented as absolute fact by the likes of Rutten, turning the trial into a big propaganda enterprise for al Qaeda, just what Rutten claims Bush is doing.

This trial will end one of two ways--life in prison or execution. I hope for the latter. Like the hanging of Saddam Hussein, the enemy understands nothing except complete and total domination. What Rutten ignores is the mind of the enemy where everything is "en Shallah" or "God willing". Should these guys end up at the end of a noose, it must be God's will. It will be further demoralizing and humiliating. They will have died helplessly, ignominiously and worthlessly revealing the al Qaeda way for the dead end it is.

As an aside, Rutten ignores the massive resources, also known as tax dollars, that would go into housing these guys in American prisons and pushing them through the American legal system. Americans do not want that. As an American citizen, I don't really care what those in the backwaters think, feel or believe about our legal system and military choices. I rather like the notion that terrorists would worry about being snagged as an enemy. Americans might be nice as prison guards, but American justice needs to be viewed as strong. Part of the reason these yahoos think they have a chance against the "Great Satan" is they think we're weak.

If America is weak, what does that make the terrorist being sent to meet Allah by the American? Super double weak. The message will be uncomfortable for would-be terrorists to receive. Good.

Democrats Admit To Lying About Iraq

It's kinda shocking since Democrats don't usually lie.

Britain's Civil Liberties

How would you feel about the contents of every website visited, cell phone call and email sent being tracked by the government? This would concern me, obviously:

The Home Office will create a database to store the details of every phone call made, every email sent and every web page visited by British citizens in the previous year under plans currently under discussion, it has emerged.

The Government wants to create the system to fight terrorism and crime. The police and security services believe it will make it easier to access important data as communications become more complex.

Somewhere between being frisked at the airport and water boarding, there has to be a balance.

H/T My little brother

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

Afghan Hijacker Works In Airport Lives On Welfare

It's a nice gig, if you can get it:

Hijack a plane. Threaten and assault passengers. Get let out of jail. Get a job working in an airport and live, rent and tax free, on welfare.

That’s quite a career path.

"Bush Lied; People Died"....It's Catchy, Bullshit, But Catchy

Stupid slogans bug me. "Bush lied; People Died" crawled all over me like a thousand roaches. It's cliché. It's unimaginative. And it's just so simpleton simplistic and emotionally stunted. It's like we're in first grade, "I am rubber, you are glue, what you say bounces off me and sticks on you."

Anyway, there are some non-lying reasons we went to Iraq and more will surface:

Today we’re only beginning to learn about what went on behind the scenes in regard to Iraq. One important new source is the recently published War and Decision by Douglas Feith, the No. 3 civilian at the Pentagon from 2001 to 2005. Feith quotes extensively from unpublished documents and contemporary memorandums, just as in the late 1940s Robert Sherwood did in Roosevelt and Hopkins and Winston Churchill did in his World War II histories. The picture Feith paints is at considerable variance from the narratives with which we’ve become familiar.

I just don't want to hear B...L; P....D (I can't even write it out) again.

Marines Are Stooopid

A friend and staunch Obama supporter argued extensively with me yesterday about the "criminal" Bush. One of his chief arguments was that the military enlistees were a bunch of rubes who "didn't sign on" for Iraq. They didn't believe that a "misguided" war was part of the bargain. It seems to me that a soldier should have the idea that he or she might do the work of soldiering and that often involves war.

So, are the new Marine recruits stupid? The Marines hit 142% of their recruiting target. Why? Tigerhawk has some theories:

I wonder three things. First, we are in the middle of a presidential election in which even the anti-war candidates repeatedly claim to "support our wonderful troops". Perhaps that is rubbing off -- I mean, if you have heard nothing but praise for our military from politicians of all stripes for years on end, maybe you might actually absorb the idea that military service is a meaningful and respectable way of life. Second, perhaps new recruits have become a bit desensitized to the risk of combat. After all, we have been at war a long time against a tough enemy in a very difficult part of the world, and notwithstanding predictions to the contrary the numbers of killed and permanently injured remain relatively low as a percentage of the total exposed to the risk. Perhaps new recruits today are more willing to confront the personal risk than during -- say -- 2005, when recruitment swooned under the press of the war. Finally, I wonder whether the apparent success of the new strategy under David Petraeus is also helping recruitment. It is obviously more appealing to join the military if you can believe that its leadership knows what it is doing.

I also think people are seeing the veterans come back. What an impressive group of people! They walk tall. They seem sensible. I have yet to meet one vet who is crazy in the head or otherwise unstable (the Vietnam mis-perception). They seem strong and centered and mature in a world where young people act aimless, self-centered and immature. It's nice to see the veterans. They are impressive and not at all the caricature the Left would portray them as.

Maybe, people are accumulating enough evidence to judge for themselves and the media has less impact than it did.

General Betray Us, NOT!--UPDATED

Well, I haven't posted on General (or is that Admiral, snort) Petraeus' testimony. Not because it's not important, mind you, but because the outcome was foreordained. He would sound imminently reasonable, intelligent, and commanding and the Senators would sound unreasonable, stupid and vapid.

Predictably, the lefties hated the testimony. Ted Kennedy being the most inane, as usual. They are just in denial, plain and simple.

Some complex thoughts on the subject of Iraq here. More thoughts on that corpulent troll Muqtada al-Sadr. I've wanted him dead for so dang long. He needs to be expunged from Iraq's memory.

UPDATE: By the way, Iraq and Afghanistan has created heroes, brave men and women who have sacrificed for their comrades and saved lives by choice, knowing that they'd forfeit their own to do so. Mike Monsoor is one such soldier . Please read all about him.

Gratitude For Our Troops Sign Language Style--UPDATED

Gateway Pundit shares a way to show gratitude to our troops and it involves something near and now, dear, to my heart: sign language. I'm delighted that this amazing language is being used in such a great way:



Saying Thank you to the troops is easy. Gateway Pundit feels that this week will be especially challenging for our troops this week because of General Petreaus' testimony before Congress. It will be an opportunity for Congress Critters to express themselves. That's always dangerous. So the thank you sign will mean a lot to them:

The "Thank You" sign...

The sign we are using is intended to communicate "thank you from the bottom of my heart. "

To make the sign simply place your hand on your heart as though you're saying the Pledge of Allegiance. Then pull your hand down and out, bending at the elbow (not the wrist), stopping for a moment at about the belly button with your hand flat, palm up, angled toward the person you're thanking.

According to Norman Heimgartner, Ed.D., author of “Behavioral Traits of Deaf children” and former Professor of Education at the University of Puget Sound, this sign originated in France in the late 1700’s, and was published in “Theorie des Signes”, a dictionary of signs by the Abbe Sicard. The sign was brought to the United States in 1816 by the Reverend Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet, founder of Gallaudet University, who later modified it to start at the chin rather than at the heart. That sign is now the standard sign for “thank you” in American Sign Language.

And, if you have a minute HERE is an easy way to express your gratitude to the troops in Iraq.

Freedom's Watch has more on the expected testimony this week by General Petraeus.

UPDATE: Great, just great! It turns out that this video has caused a stink in the Deaf Community. Well, the way to say thank you in ASL is to do the same hand and arm motion but come to come from the chin. This is an easy enough change and thing to do. Please watch the video, still, the intent is good, but substitute the proper sign when you see it done the wrong way. ASL is not English as hand signals. It is its own language, with it's own usage demands and own history. I knew that the sign was wrong in the video, but wrongly assumed the modification was specifically for the troops.

No, we don't want to tell the troops that "we give in". We want to tell them thank you. When I see a soldier, I just say thanks, but I'm not known for keeping my yapper shut, either.

Iraq Five Years Later

Yesterday was the five year anniversary of our troops being in Iraq. Here's what's going on:

People are stilling sending their loved ones off and making sacrifices.

Libya is now linked to supporting terror in Iraq. Nuke 'em, I say. Let's just get this clear: the Iraqis are taking the brunt of their Islamic brother's hate. By keeping the fight over there, Muslims are being toasted by Muslims. These people are very brave and would like peace just like everyone else.

Michael Yon's blog has a new look (hey, Michael, it looks good) and if you want the dirt on what's going on, you need Michael Yon.

Want to know the machinations of Iraq's politics? Learn more here. As an aside, I chortle at the Dem's high standards for Iraq when Congress is such a flipping mess. Clean up your own house, boys and girls, and then you can lob pot shots at a new and struggling government.

Austin Bay writes about Al Qaeda's declining influence. At this point, it seems like going to the sources of funding is key and blasting other terrorist states contributing to Iraq's instability would be good too. Everyone needs to shape up so Iraq has a chance.

Giving an honest opinion in a totalitarian regime is dangerous. Recovering from a victim mentality is difficult. Michael Totten explains the strange opinion polls coming out of Iraq.

As it turns out, Saddam did fund terrorism. Wow, shocking.

Personally, I think Bin Laden is dead and met Allah some time ago. But there is news that he's going to be giving one of his pep talks soon. Meh. Okay. I think it's funny how irrelevant he is dead or alive. If he isn't toes up yet, it's got to piss him off.

Is Iraq our ally? Uncle Jimbo says yes. I say yes, too, but I never felt like the Iraqis were the enemy. Saddam Hussein and his merry band of deviants were our enemy. The Iraqi people were victims of this brutal tyrant. It's going to take a while for their minds and hearts to change, but there's nothing like a taste of freedom to make a good friend.

Greyhawk notes that 3%, yes you read that correctly, 3% of the media coverage is dedicated to the war in Iraq. Wow, could it be because it would make the President look good? Would it make America look good? Would it be inspiring? And the MSM wants us to believe they're unbiased. Please.

Matt Sanchez remembers the start of the war and where we've come.

Learn about the geniuses of counterinsurgency: General David Petraeus and Raymond Odiemo. There are heroes and generals and some are one and the same. History will be kind to these men.

Tim Blair Wins Funniest Blog Post For Monday: Allah Don't Do Irony

He reports:

Around 150 Muslims voted with the leader of the radical Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir that taking part in the political process is a waste of time.

I'm still giggling. And these are the times that even in our stupidity, I figure, we gots to win this war.

Iraq:Anbar Awakening

Remember Anbar Province? No? Well, it's the place that all sorts of bad things were happening. Michael Totten is over there reporting. Here's just a tidbit:

I cannot tell you how many times I heard someone say “Mom, it's fine here,” when talking to family members back home on the phone. “Don't believe everything you see on TV.”

For those intent on viewing soldiers as murderous cretins, there's this:

“I love fighting,” he said. “Well, not fighting exactly, at least not for its own sake. I mean, I love forcing an oppressor to stop abusing a defenseless person. I love telling him this isn't your day. I can't imagine anything more satisfying than that.”

Finally, considering the sacrifice of Iraqis:

I had heard this before. Maybe the majority of Americans who work closely with Iraqis feel something like this. Despite the corruption. Despite the incompetence. Despite the fact that some of them act like a bunch of third graders. The Iraqis really are brave, even if it doesn't look that way sometimes from far away or even up close. They are fighting for their survival in ways most Americans can barely imagine. Their enemy is possibly the most ferocious group of indigenous killers in the entire history of Mesopotamia.

Read the whole thing. This is the real news you're not getting if you're watching it on TV.

On Waterboarding

Does anyone really question whether waterboarding is torture? Read this and see what you think and then come back.

This really doesn't address the question, does it? Waterboarding doesn't leave a physical mark, it won't kill a person, and it works effectively. It is coercive. The person feels like he will die and will spill the beans, if he has any, quickly. To me, it's torture.

The question, though is this: Is torture worth it to prevent further catastrophe? If you caught an operative who knew the placement of a dirty bomb set to go off in a city, would you waterboard him? I would. Without guilt. I'd have some anxiety though.

It becomes a question of how accurate your information is about the dude you're about to torture. Torture in the hands of the sadistic and paranoid is one person's pain for another person's pleasure. That is wrong. And everyone advocating for no torture (which means only America or the Western countries don't torture, because we know Al Qaeda tortures and waterboarding is the least of their techniques) envisions some sinister government operative pulling out his briefcase of horror, chuckling in delight. This is a worrisome picture, indeed.

An act of torture to prevent the deaths of soldiers or citizens is not immoral. To do nothing, to let people die in the name of a principle is to put the principle--torture is wrong--above life itself. The life a scumbag terrorist is not valued over the lives of scores or hundreds or thousands of free people.

That's the uncomfortable truth under all the babbling about whether torture is wrong or not. Of course it's wrong. Mass murder is wrong, too. Those against the use of torture in all cases seem to be willing to detach themselves from the consequences of their actions. Nope, they're not responsible for the murder, when the murderer is sitting there with the information and they could stop it.

In a free country, we're all responsible. I think citizens have come to that uncomfortable place. You don't hear people lamenting a terrorist getting waterboarded to prevent death. Ok, maybe some at the fringes lament it, but most people are pragmatic. We're at war with an enemy who has no regard for life. So, he can forfeit his, if necessary, to preserve the lives of those who value it. Or, he can just bear the psychological scars inherent in being waterboarded. Add the trauma to the rest of his demented psyche.

Who Are We Fighting Again?

The worst sort of haters:

Last month al-Qa’eda bombed a UN building in Algiers because, like de Mello, it was symbolic of the decent world which the Islamists want to destroy. Eleven UN officials were killed at once. And so it goes on.

The murder of Bhutto, the murder of UN officials, the countless murders of innocent Iraqis, the murder of Lebanese who fight for their democracy, the murder of commuters in Madrid and London are all part of the same war against people and life. They are all part of the same deadly global ideology of hatred and despair. These assaults will not end if we retreat — from Afghanistan, from Iraq or anywhere else. Weakness will cause the terrorists to redouble their efforts.

We fight for life and happiness against death and despair.

Why Do We Care?

Why do we care about the Middle East? When people ask me that question, it still shocks me. Do they really not get it? Maybe with the murder of Benazar Bhutto of Pakistan, we need a reminder why it is in America's, in the world's best interest, to care about this sandy, forsaken landscape half-way around the world.

It has been my belief since the beginning that George W. Bush entered Iraq secondarily because of Saddam Hussein's WMD flirtations. Yes everyone, including the lily livered Democrats and squishy Republicans, believed Saddam was a bad guy desiring to do bad things with bad substances. He had done bad things. It wasn't a stretch that he'd do more bad things. But that didn't seem to me to be the most compelling reason for Iraq. To me, and I feel that George Bush must have seen this too, Iraq is first and foremost a strategic launching pad. For all Saddam's bluster, he was weak. No one could imagine how weak until the Yanks marched through Iraq. It happened so quickly, everyone was stunned. But the fall and subsequent search for scant WMDs mattered less than being planted as a bulwark against crazy in the Middle East.

Iraq borders Iran, Syria, Jordan, Turkey, a couple Stans and a lovely thing called the Persian Gulf. Trouble brews in every place on the list. And trouble there means trouble everywhere. Russia trembles with hypermasculine impotence. Any way to cause trouble to the alpha males of the world will be and are being embraced. Putin squeezes Europe already. Georgia sits like a plum in a vice. Iran would happily be the conduit for Putin's displeasure. More on all this here.

Meanwhile, Afghanistan and Pakistan boil with extremism. Here's what's happening now:

"We've really got a new situation here in western Pakistan," said Army Col.
Thomas Lynch III, who has served in Afghanistan and with Central Command, the
U.S. military headquarters for Pakistan and the Middle East. He said the
assassination marks a "critical new phase" in jihadist operations in Pakistan
and predicted the coming months would bring concentrated attacks on other
prominent Pakistanis.

"The Taliban ... are indeed a growing element of the
domestic political stew" in Pakistan, said John Blackton, who served as a U.S.
official in Afghanistan in the 1970s and again 20 years later. He noted that
Pakistani military intelligence created the Taliban in Afghanistan.

"Pakistan must take drastic action against the Taliban in its midst or we will face the
prospect of a nuclear weapon falling into the hands of al-Qaida — a threat far
more dangerous and real than Hussein's arsenal ever was," he said, referring to
the deposed Saddam Hussein.

Nuclear warheads in the hands of Jihadists in a country where 40% approve of Osama. America may not be able to do anything from Afghanistan to stop willful annihilation, but I hazard to say it could do less without a mid-east presence.

And Pakistan is a crazy little country compared to China with her supersized ambitions. Imagine the panic should China not get the fuel needed to keep its economic engine humming. Forget for a moment American's cries of despair at being deprived of cheap consumer products, the bigger problem would be an unstable country armed to the teeth.

Don't forget Israel, either. Like Tawain, Israel is a freedom-loving democracy, and America is about democracy building, remember? As shaky as that idea may be as a long-term solution to extremist middle east regime problems, there is one democracy that thrives over there. Should that country be abandoned?

Oh yeah, there's this other little thing called oil. I never have understood what's so upsetting about trading a little blood for a lot of oil. If China, Japan, Europe and America come to a screeching halt economically, the next step would be, inevitably, war. And there would be a whole lot more blood spilled. The whole world is entertwined in ways that could have never been imagined during the World War II era. The internet reflects a world interconnected.

Our fate rests in the Middle East as much as any other country's. The Jihadists hate freedom. They hate life. They believe they have a holy mission. If Pakistan crumbles, if Iran arms, if Afghanistan turns back to the Taliban, if China becomes aggressive, if Russia presses, if, if, if, the free people of the world have big problems.

America is in the Middle East because, well, isn't it obvious?

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

I Love Gitmo!

Gitmo prisoners want back in and human rights organizations say America isn't doing enough to look after prisoners after they're release. Gina Cobb's amusing response:

The "solution" pushed by Human Rights Watch is not to admit that perhaps Gitmo isn't so bad after all -- at least compared to Tunisia and many other nations -- but instead to again raise the bar by demanding that the U.S. guarantee the safety of the enemy combatants even after their release.

But wouldn't that be rather . . . imperialist? Just how far should the U.S. go in sticking its nose into the internal affairs of Tunisia or Saudi Arabia -- hmmmm?

And why on earth should enemy combatants be given immunity from crimes committed in their home countries, anyway? This is not Wheel of Fortune. The prizes upon release from Guantanamo do not include lifetime immunity from prosecution anywhere on planet Earth.

If Tunisia has a human rights problem, then maybe it's time to stop the endless whining about Gitmo and instead to acknowledge the excellent job the United States has done in its detention of enemy combatants. When jihadists are begging to be let back into Guantanamo, that tells you all you really need to know.

President In Iraq

Connecting the bottom-up organization with the top-down organization is the goal going forward in Iraq. (Allah says that's impossible. Video of Bush, here.) That means that the local militias need to be connected to the Iraqi security forces. Once these threads are made, the fabric of Iraqi society strengthens significantly.

It is fashionable to be pessimistic. I think I might the only one in my family who still has hope. But I do have hope for these people. There is always a chance for a new kind of peace.

Gateway Pundit has the round-up. He also writes about the British Press spinning of the Brits leaving Basra.

As an aside:
The press corps are a big bunch of pansy-asses. I read the Pool Report. Give me a break. Here's some of the snark:

POTUS leaned slightly forward, both hands on a makeshift table, as the Marine with a pointer in hand, gave an overview. About 20 troops in fatigues framed POTUS during the briefing, making for better pictures, no doubt.

Are they capable of giving the facts without editorializing? That was a rhetorical question. And now from the Man Up Department:

From there, we left and were back to the file –or what passes for it. Internet connections are slow, and private accounts are tough to access. POTUS is now off to his meeting with Petraeus and Crocker, and co. Next is Maliki, after which they are to make a joint statement. Then it is a session with tribal leaders, remarks to the troops and back to the plane.

I wonder if the tone would have been better if they had access to caviar and T-1 lines.

Oh, and in Iraq right now, it's hot. Really, really hot. And the press doesn't like that either.

American Left Aren't The Only Ones Anticipating New Leadership

Dr. Sanity points to this very interesting article. It's worth reading the whole thing. Here's a tidbit, OK, more like a meal:

Like al-Qaeda in Iraq, and the many other adversaries America and the West must continue to face, the Russians are looking forward to the time after George Bush leaves office. It is assumed that the American electorate has by now tired of playing policeman to the world, and that the next president will be a liberal Democrat, eager to make unilateral concessions, slash military budgets to fund social programs, and cut-and-run from foreign battlefields.

America is demonized as the "cowboy," going it alone; and Western politicians, especially on the left, score easy points by smugly playing to their domestic anti-American galleries. The lethal enemies of the West cannot help but notice this dynamic, and from car bombings in Iraq, to the rhetoric of Russian and Chinese military commanders, they exploit it to drive further wedges between the U.S. and her allies.

We are caught in a trap. The very success of the Bush strategy, in preventing another major terror strike on the U.S., in confronting and arresting the progress of Islamist terrorism in the Middle East and elsewhere, and also in consolidating the post-Cold War European gains of NATO and the European Union, contributes to an illusion of security in a world that has seldom been such a dangerous place. People forget what alliances require.

Forget allies, the American Left seems to forget what their own security requires. It's so much fun to bash Bush, but will any of them grow up in the face of real security concerns should they take the mantel? Or is every world leader from Castro to Assad to Putin to Ahmadinejad betting correctly?

And this one factor may well be why we'll have a Republican again as President in 2008.

South Korean Hostages To Be Released, Women Suffered Rape

Gateway Pundit reports that the women were raped. Have you heard about this in the MSM? Yeah, neither have I. It's being reported by the free press, aka a Blogger, in Afghanistan, though:

The local and international news agencies did not reveal the news for some reason But only one local media revealed the news in Kabul. The report witnessed by Mr. Pathan the governor and he added that Pakistani Taliban did the assault.