More Democrat Propoganda Masked As Iraq Veterans

Seriously Vote Vets has got to come clean about who they are, and what they do. They do NOT represent the military, or the majority of Iraq veterans. In fact, they are a Democratic party PAC with former Democrat presidential candidate Gen. Wesley Clark (retired) on the board of advisors.

During the November elections they launched a campaign against five Republican candidates saying they voted against the troops. This was, of course, a lie. The VFW was quick to endorse the candidates Vote Vets were attacking, and clarify the vote in question.

Then there is the question of Joshua Lansdale ... an anti-war hoaxer.

Vote Vets has also been linked to ACORN ... a group implicated in vote fraud the past several elections.

You'll notice in the vid that Joshua Lansdale reappears in this latest addition to the Vote Vets propaganda campaign after being removed from other videos because he was exposed as a fraud.

Here's the quote to look out for in the vid:

“If you support escalation, you don’t support the troops.”

I wonder what our military thinks about that quote? Maybe this provides an answer.

This Anti-Military Puke Needs A Lesson

This country is chalk full of maggots who hate the military. Of course these people rarely have stable jobs, education, or a pleasant smell about them. Have a look at what this f---tard had to say:

I’m happy to say that as a proud patriot, I don’t “support our troops.” At all. Ever. Not in the slightest. Not with a single cell in my body. Not, that is to say, in the accepted use of the term.

“Support our troops” has got to be the most cynical use of language since a serpent told Eve that an apple would be good for her digestion.

There is plenty more where that came from. Make sure you head on over and give him a piece of your mind. Also make sure you watch this video of what troops in Iraq think of people like this guy, and just to have some more fun at this puke's expense ... the great Lt Col White.

ITB Graduation Speech by LTC Randolph C. White Jr.
Courtesy of Mahone Productions


It's about 12 minutes long (all of it good), but if you just want the famous part ... go here. Enjoy!

Soldiers In Iraq Upset At Anti-War Crowd ... Again.

Blackfive has a letter from a sergeant in Afghanistan ripping on Democrats, the anti-war crowd, and his own command structure. It's a Blackfive exclusive ... so I won't repost the letter here. Just follow the link. Trust me ... you won't regret it.

Finally, ARMED Guardsman On The Border

It's really about time. When we started sending troops to our border a little while back ... I was enraged. Not because we were sending troops, but because they were not armed. Given that there are groups of former Mexican Spec Ops operating within the US, and have stated they would assassinate border agents, assist drug smugglers, and help illegals cross ... I figured it might be smart to arm our boys. Then we hear about a hit job attempt on our troops at the border.

I'm willing to bet this is in response to the attack on our border troops by gunmen in early January.

Update: People in Arizona are a little upset that the National Guard was overrun in the first place. Now they are making some noise of their own.

The Greatest War Never Reported

Every year there are several conflicts that garner little publicity in the media. Most of them are tribal wars with a large number of human rights violations, and of little importance to global affairs. Then there are well known conflicts that are not accurately reported ... such as Iraq and Afghanistan. In these conflicts ... the media tends to focus on one particular issue, and ignores everything else, while slanting their coverage to increase their market share. Then ... there's Somalia. Every year there are several conflicts that garner little publicity in the media. Most of them are tribal wars with a large number of human rights violations, and of little importance to global affairs. Then there are well known conflicts that are not accurately reported ... such as Iraq and Afghanistan. In these conflicts ... the media tends to focus on one particular issue, and ignores everything else, while slanting their coverage to increase their market share. Then ... there's Somalia.

Few Americans know it, but Somalia is one of the most important nations in American history. In the early 1990's Somalia was ravaged by violence and famine. Warlords sprung up everywhere fighting for control of the nation, and terrorizing innocent civilians in the process. Finally, the UN got off of its soapbox and launched Operation Restore Hope in 1993. Back then John Murtha (D-PA) voted to send U.S. military personel to Somalia in support of Operation Restore Hope. Mogadishu (Somalia's capital) would be the stage for a successful but bloody battle between the U.S.'s Task Force Ranger, and gunmen of Mohamed Farrah Aidid's forces. We would later find out that al Qaeda had a small hand in the battle as well. That's very important ... remember it.

After the Battle of Mogadishu Murtha would launch a media assault on our military personel in Somalia, and take full credit for convincing President Bill Clinton to pull out of that country. This is an extremely important event in American History. Of course, it won't go down that way in the history books even though it would lead to the greatest terrorist attack in American history. Our withdrawal from Somalia was the reason bin Laden would pursue his war with us. He called America a paper tiger, issued a fatawa in 1996 and again in 1998 declaring war on the United States, bombed embassys, bombed the USS Cole, and launched the attacks on September 11, 2001. All because of Somalia.

Essentially Somalia was the launch point of the current war on terror, and has never removed itself from being an important part of the current conflict. We did, however, move it to the background. As most Americans forgot about Somalia ... we started hearing little news blurps about the inner happenings of this country. Suddenly, the media had a way to attack President Bush by using Somalia. Who would have thought about that? The U.S. chose a side in Somalia's continuing strife, but that side was defeated by the Islamic Courts Union. This was reported as a failure of the Bush doctrine. The Islamic Courts Union's control of Somalia was very disturbing to those who have been paying attention ... they are affiliated with al Qaeda. Suddenly, Somalia could no longer be ignored. In an effort to prevent U.S. involvement in Somali affairs the Islamic Courts issued a statement that they were not affiliated with al Qaeda, and sought peace with the United States. Only the blind were fooled.

The U.S. was busy with other affairs, and so it was up to the international community to deal with the situation in Somalia. The UN, EU, and AU all sprung into action and did ... nothing. Meanwhile soccer was banned, Sharia law implemented, children were murdered for watching the World Cup, stonings, rape, etc. all flourished under the Islamic Courts. Then, they declared war on Ethiopia. The two nations engaged in a verbal lashing of each other as all attempts at diplomacy failed. Finally, one side had had enough.

The starving pot-bellied Ethiopians of old no longer exist. They are now well fed, pro American, christian, and have the most powerful army in east Africa ... oops. Our Ethiopean friends don't care about proportional attacks, or what the media says about them. They launched a ferocious assault upon the Islamic Courts in Somalia as if the hand of God himself was pimp slapping Sharia law down.

More Good News In Iraq Ignored By The Media

Surely you've heard that insurgents shot down one of our helicopters in Iraq this past Saturday. Unfortunately, 12 of this nation's finest lost their lives, and the tragedy doesn't stop there either. The real story has become that this crash came on the third bloodiest day in the war for U.S. troops. This fact has become the msm's weekend money maker, the Democrat's talking point, the pessimist's new low, and the terrorist's propaganda all rolled into one neatly formatted news bulletin. Meanwhile, the military is shaking its collective head at just how stupid we can all be. While having a new third bloodiest day for American troops might seem significant ... it isn't.

Let's take a look at some of the headlines following the crash courtesy of Blackfive.

The AP -- Saturday's toll was the third-highest of any single day since the war began in March 2003, eclipsed only by 37 U.S. deaths Jan. 26, 2005 and 28 on the third day of the U.S. invasion. U.S. authorities also announced two U.S. combat deaths from Friday.

The Washington Post -- 20 U.S. troops killed in Iraq - day is third worst since war began.

NY Times -- On one of the deadliest days for United States forces since the Iraq war began, an American Black Hawk helicopter crashed in a Sunni area north of Baghdad on Saturday, killing all 12 soldiers on board, the United States military said today.

LA Times -- At least 19 U.S. troops were killed in a helicopter crash and insurgent attacks across Iraq on Saturday in the deadliest day for the American military here in nearly two years.

So which two days have been even more bloody for U.S. troops? Well, one was in March of 2003 ... the same day Jessica Lynch was captured. The other was January 2005 when 37 Americans lost their lives ... 31 in a helicopter crash. To recap: 28 during the invasion in 2003, 37 in 2005 (31 from an accident), and now 19 in 2007. It would seem that every two years we have bad day in Iraq, and the majority of U.S. personnel lose their lives in a single helicopter crash.

Once again Blackfive notes: In reality today's news is another reminder that the toll in Iraq has been extraordinarally low. A helo crash makes "the bloodiest day since the last helo crash" - a future bus crash could break the record; a plane crash may someday result in "the bloodiest month (or even year) of the war".

Guess what was happening at the same time, but didn't receive a fraction of the coverage.

Reuters -- The U.S. military said on Monday 93 rebels were killed and 57 captured in a 10-day operation against al Qaeda-linked insurgents northeast of Baghdad. In an unusually detailed video news conference broadcast to journalists in Baghdad from Diyala province, Colonel David Sutherland said Iraqi troops had fought well in the operation and were improving their capabilities every day.

You can hop over to the Jawa Report to read the whole story.

This is nothing new to those of us who pay attention to what is happening. It's a shame we are few and far between. The average Joe will pick up the paper and find out that it was the third bloodiest day of the war, but will never know about a successful op in Baghdad.

Also over the weekend ... I found an interesting tidbit out of NBC. NBC Nightly News with

Brian Williams had NBC News correspondent Jane Arraf just back from Baghdad. Among the more noteworthy things she had to say was:

• Life in Iraq “isn't entirely what it seems” from the constant media focus on bombings.


• She acknowledged how journalists are “really good at getting across the relentless bombing and the violence, but it's really a lot harder for us to portray those spaces in between.


• "I mean, for us, we live in the city. It's as secure as it can be, but we wake up to the sound of car bombs. We feel the mortars sometimes. And in a horrible, inevitable way, it becomes sort of like the weather, and it's kind of the same for Iraqis. Unless they're in the middle of it, life looks amazingly normal."

Williams then asked: "We get asked all the time ... where's the good news we know is going on there?" Arraf responded by saying that there is good news such as boys and girls walking to school, but they can't do those stories because it would put their lives ... and the lives of those children at risk.

I know, many of you are ready to nail her to the wall. However, what she had to say about not reporting good news for the safety of Iraqi children is not far fetched. Her words were the echo of Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, chief spokesman for the U.S. military in Iraq. He spoke to Cybercast News Service last November, and spoke about the process for putting out good news. They determined the risk to Iraqi civilians by reporting on the good news stories because they new the insurgents would immediately attack that area to discount it. Sounds like something that could be used to ambush some bad guys to me. I guess the secrecy of this administration may be preventing some good news from getting to us. After all, the Pentagon didn't want us to know about the sarin and mustard attacks on our troops in 2004 either.

Truth is there has been a LOT of good news out of Iraq lately. We've killed one of Sadr's top aids, and captured another. We've captured top ranking Iranian officials and military officers aiding the insurgents, and captured the mastermind behind the kidnapping of Pfcs Menchacha and Tucker. Don't forget that Iraq's economy is booming as well, they are running the Houston marathon in Fallujah, Iraq, and the U.S. military is reporting a dramatic and unexpected increase in the number of police recruits in Anbar province. Non of this compares to the best news of all ... every year since 2004 the number of U.S. personnel killed or wounded in Iraq has declined.

What If I Were To Tell You We Are Safer Because Of Iraq?

We hear a great deal of numbers thrown at us with regards to the War on Terror. Some say that global terrorism has increased, terrorism is spreading, there are more terrorists, more attacks, the US is not safer, etc. You've heard it all before ... many phrases to say the same thing ... the War on Terror is bad. Has anyone ever told you how many attacks have been occurring? Have they put it in a historical perspective for you? After all, terrorism was spreading before 9/11.

Bin Laden issued two fatwas declaring war against the US in 1996 and 1998. I still don't quite know what Clinton did to anger OBL. Why did Clinton plan an invasion of Iraq, and hold military exercises to execute the plan? Why was I on-call for Iraq three times in the 90's if it was all a lie?

If terrorism is declining somewhere in the world ... does the War on Terror get credit just as it gets credit for increases in terrorist activities? No ... of course not. That would be entirely too fair, and we can't have that. Truth is ... there are so many variables, and numbers to throw around that a Mensa member would get confused at times.

I figured I might be able to help a little. There is a tremendous website that keeps track of all terrorist attacks in the world. The Terrorism Knowledge Base has a wonderful tool to help you sort out terrorist attacks by year, country, region, date, injuries, deaths, and group. Have some fun, and play with the analytical tool on the homepage. I decided to sit down and figure out if we really aren't safer since the invasion of Iraq. I took a look at the number of attacks prior to the invasion, and post invasion. Here's what I got.

As for Iraq ... the attacks per year are as follows:

2003 = 147

2004 = 849

2005 = 2344

2006 = 3753

Terrorist attacks remained between 98-435 throughout the world between 1968-1997. In 1998 bin Laden issued the Fatwa to kill all Americans, and attacks went from 182 in 1997 to 1285 in 1998 (under Clinton). After 1998 ... the attacks are as follows:

1999 = 1171

2000 = 1150

2001 = 1732

2002 = 2649

2003 = 1897 (notice the year we invade Iraq ... terrorism declines)

2004 = 2647 (notice the attacks increase during the election year)

2005 = 4962

2006 = Final 5985

The total number of terrorist attacks worldwide from 1998-2002 (before Iraq) is 7987 (1597 avg). The total number of terrorist attacks worldwide from 2003-2006 (after Iraq) is 15,490 (3872 avg).

To find out if global terrorism outside of Iraq has increased ... we must subtract the terrorist attacks in Iraq from the total.

The total number of terrorist attacks in Iraq since we've been there is 7093 (1773 avg) taken away from the total global attacks of 15,490, and you get 8397 (2099 avg) attacks outside of Iraq. That is an annual average increase of 502 attacks. So far it doesn't look good for the War on Terror.

Terrorist attacks were going up steadily before we invaded Iraq (they actually took a nose dive the year of the invasion).

What about Israel? How many attacks have happened in Israel since 2000?

2000 = 19

2001 = 85

2002 = 108

2003 = 74 (notice the year we invade Iraq ... terrorism declines)

2004 = 27

2005 = 75

2006 = 369 (huge increase)

We also have to factor in the West Bank/Gaza area.

2000 = 167

2001 = 328

2002 = 432

2003 = 164 (notice the year we invade Iraq ... terrorism declines)

2004 = 351

2005 = 478

2006 = 23

I wonder why terrorism with Israelis declined when we invaded Iraq ... interesting. Since we have been in Iraq ... terrorist attacks against Israelis total 1561 (390 avg).

Now you have to toss in Afghanistan as well. Since Iraq ... the attacks in Afghanistan total 842.

So how was terrorism outside of these hotbeds since the invasion? You know ... did terrorism spread outside of the War on Terror battlefields, and engulf the world?

If you add the attacks in Iraq, Afghanistan and dealing with Israel/Palestine ... you get 9496 total attacks. Subtract that from the global total and you get 5994 (1498 avg) attacks in the rest of the world. That is an annual average DECREASE in 99 attacks worldwide since the invasion. Whoa ... didn't expect that did you?

The reason I took those three areas out was that there was open warfare directly related to terrorism which would lead to an increase in terrorist activity. The questions have always been ... is terrorism spreading, is the world safer, are we safer? The world outside of the war on terror is slightly safer, or at worst, the same. Yes, I know that terrorism on the battlefield is on the rise, but that was never the question. We never asked if the war was more dangerous ... we asked if the world was. Just so you know ... until December 2006 the attacks in Iraq were on pace to decline from the previous year. December was a bad month in Iraq.

Here's the important part ... what about attacks in the US? After all, we are in Iraq to make America safe.

2000 = 9

2001 = 36

2002 = 16

2003 = 18

2004 = 7

2005 = 9

2006 = 1

There were 61 (20 avg) terrorist attacks in the US from 2000-2002. There were 35 (8.75 avg) terrorist attacks in the US since we invaded Iraq. That is an annual average decline of 11 attacks ... better than a 50% decrease in attacks.

Translation: While global terrorism outside of Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel has remained relatively stagnant with some slight improvement ... terrorist attacks in the US has sharply declined by over 50%. So there can be NO QUESTION ... the US IS SAFER SINCE THE INVASION!!!!!!

Simple Disclaimer

The posts below are columns that I've published with Mens News Daily prior to their datestamp. New material will be posted in the next couple of days.

Are We Committing More Crimes, Or Passing More Laws?

Last week I got my hands on a story that soon made its way all around the newswire. While I was busy covering some other big stories .. most of the national hosts picked up on it, and began their analysis. While some good ideas were thrown out there .. my take was far different from the norm, and it turns out many of my listeners agreed. Here's the story I'm talking about:

By KASIE HUNT
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) .. A record 7 million people - or one in every 32 American adults - were behind bars, on probation or on parole by the end of last year, according to the Justice Department. Of those, 2.2 million were in prison or jail, an increase of 2.7 percent over the previous year.

More than 4.1 million people were on probation and 784,208 were on parole at the end of 2005. Prison releases are increasing, but admissions are increasing more.

At first glance this paints a grim picture of this country. One in thirty-two Americans are on the bad end of the justice system .. why? Well, O'Reilly gave us his answer a couple of days after the story broke. He said there was ..no question.. that secular progressive values were responsible for blurring right from wrong. This was the main idea behind his book "Culture Warrior", and has really been a great platform for him. Bill..s SP arguements are brilliant, and for the most part correct. He argues that SP values are distorting right from wrong in America, and they are. While there are victims of SP values included in the one in thirty-two Americans .. that is NOT the main problem. Oh, and Bill, there is ..no question...

Given the rash of stupid laws proposed in this country .. including some soon-to-be-proposed laws here in Nevada .. I was skeptical of the reasons why an increasing number of Americans end up being punished by the justice system. I..m thinking our justice system is more of a business. Rather than a means to protect citizens. Afterall, there is a lot of money involved here.

Think about it. We elect politicians based on emotions, most of them are lawyers, and we elect district attorneys, sheriffs and judges on the same precident. Lawmakers and enforcers are reliant upon our emotions, and money to get into power. Let..s not forget the special interests they end up beholden to as well. In the end the lawmakers, judges, sheriffs, and district attorneys are nothing but politicians. Which means their goal is to exploit the voter..s emotions in order to win elections. Unfortunately, the voter is largely ignorant of these particular issues. We know we want peace, low taxes, and a good economy. Beyond that .. we give free reign to the elected.

To back all of this up .. I went to the Department of Justice..s website to crack some numbers. Guess what I found? We know the new report from the DOJ says that more Americans are being ..punished.. by our justice system than ever before .. which means more crimes are being committed right? Wrong! At least .. not major crime.

• Serious violent crime levels declined since 1993.
• Since 1994, violent crime rates have declined, reaching the lowest level ever in 2005.
• Homicide rates recently declined to levels last seen in the late 1960s.
• Rape rates have been stable in recent years.
• Robbery rates declined after 1994.
• Assault rates declined since 1994.

Ok, according to the Bureau of Justice major crime has been declining in nearly all categories since 1993. So how is it possible to have a steady increase in offenders? Maybe it..s juveniles picking up the slack for the rest of the population. However, according to the BOJ:

• The proportion of serious violent crimes committed by juveniles has generally declined since 1993.

The AP article clearly stated that it factored in adults only anyway. So we can..t use our traditional convenient scapegoat and say it..s because of the kids.

Drug offenses have only counted for 49% of the increase in prison populations, and only 34% of felony convictions are drug offenses. So it isn..t accurate to say the increase is due to drugs either. We also know it isn..t theft because theft reached its lowest level EVER in 2005. The only two categories in which there was an increase in crimes committed are drugs and public order. Everything else has declined.

Public order crimes are the things you do when you drink too much. They are also the things that kids got caught doing only to have to police take them home and tell their parents. Well, the police used to take you home and tell your parents (which was mortifying), and the police used to put you in the drunk tank for the night if you drank too much. Not anymore folks .. now you get charged with a crime. Something that takes far more effort, resources, and money. However, in the public eye this appears as being tough on crime.

The more convictions, arrests, and laws passed gives the impression of progress. This translates into votes for politicians. The immature things we all did in our youth to get grounded can now cost you your freedom. An example of this is a proposal to make graffiti a felony here in Nevada. Right now you have to do serious damage to draw that charge for spraying paint. The new law would make painting a window a felony. Mainly because the cost of a new window will be factored into the dollar amount of the charge .. not the cost of cleaning the window.

This all translates into money. Being tough on crime is not being fair on crime. We all know that the prison population in the U.S. is going through the roof. We all hear the news reports of the lack of room in our prisons, and being forced to set prisoners free. Yet we have dramatic declines in major crime accross the board while more and more citizens are being incarcerated.

Local governments spend more on criminal justice than their state and federal counterparts. This makes perfect sense because local governments are known to pass rinky-dink ordinances that would not garner large scale support outside of their districts. We..ve all read the stupid laws in history that say something to the effect of don..t wear blue pants on Wednesday after a full moon if you are wearing a had, and have a mustashe. The DOJ also reports that spending in all facets of criminal justice is increasing every year. Which doesn..t make any sense given that crime is on the decline.

I submit, due to the decline in major crime in this country, politicians were no longer able to campaign on being tougher on crime than their opponent. Therefore, they had to make up a new criminal threat. If we don..t have murder, burglary, and rape .. we have graffiti, public lewdness, and harassment. If this isn..t about money and power .. I don..t know what it..s about .. because it certainly isn..t about reducing crime.

The justice system makes a lot of money off of speeding tickets .. injuries and deaths be damned. This is an easy fix. All they have to do is require governors on all vehicles that limit the speed to 70mph, or less. However, this would mean losing millions of dollars, and so it isn..t done.

Every single American has committed a crime punishable by death in another country. We tell ourselves that their laws are irrational, and we are lucky to not have to worry about it. Unfortunately, we seem to be headed in that direction. We may not be facing the death penalty, but we are facing an ever increasing number of minor infractions becoming felonies. They may have succeeded in protecting us from violent crime, but they..ve made potential criminals of us all.

Casey Hendrickson

Al Qaeda Is Losing ... No Thanks To The MSM

I keep hearing the news, talk show hosts, pundits and full on anti-war fruits talking about how Iraq is a stalemate, or worse ... that we are losing. Of course, most of these people have never actually been to Iraq to witness the grind. Nor have they spoken at length with a significant number of military personel with the first-hand knowledge to properly dictate reality to them. I am all for a switch to a more aggressive strategy over there, but that is not the topic for this column.

So what exactly is a stalemate? The dictionary defines stalemate as: any position or situation in which no action can be taken or progress made; deadlock. Do any of us really think that there is NO progress at all whatsoever in Iraq. That's ridiculous, and everyone should know it. Afterall, the daily press stories, as negative as they are, still point to success. Even if these successes are relatively minor ... they still count. Call me what you will, but I believe that our soldiers playing soccer in the streets of Al- Anbar with Iraqi children IS progress. Especially since they couldn't do so a few months back.

Since there is progress in parts of Iraq, even if it's not as much as we'd like to see, clearly we don't have a stalemate. So are we losing then? Again I will turn to the trusted dictionary for the answer. The dictionary defines losing in many ways, but the most universal definition of losing is: to suffer defeat or fail to win, as in a contest, race, or game. Have we suffered a defeat? Not yet we haven't, and the idea that we have is so juvenile and pathetic ... anyone who makes that statement should be cast aside as the garbage they are. Is our military being defeated on the battlefield - no. Is the enemy succeeding in gaining more support from the Iraqi population than our side is - no. Are the enemy's policies in Iraq more successful than our own - no. Perhaps these questions are unfair ... so I'll ask another. Are the jihadists having more success than the coalition, as a whole, in Iraq? That question is more than fair, and may only be answered one way ... by telling the truth. Of course they aren't having more success than we are! Therefore, how can we be losing? Since there is progress for one side in the conflict ... there is NO stalemate, and since our side in the conflict is having more success than the other ... we aren't losing. The only other option is that we ARE winning. Yeah ... we're winning!

The jihadis are having success in one aspect of this war, however. They should be given full credit for all they've been able to accomplish, but they have had plenty of help. Defenselink.mil had an interesting article that was gallantly ignored by virtually everyone, but it wasn't really news ... it was only a Marine bashing the unbalanced reporting of the Main Stream Media.


September 26, 2006
Gerry J. Gilmore
American Forces Press Service

A Marine corporal quizzed top leaders at a recent Pentagon employees question-and-answer session about what the department can do to counter the reporting of negative news from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Negativity in the press is absolutely detrimental to the morale of our forces and our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, Cpl. John A. Stukins said to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at a Sept. 22 town hall meeting.

What are we doing to confront this problem and to better the morale of our forces over there -- not only over there, but here as well? asked Stukins, a 23-year-old administrative specialist from Lafayette, La., who works with the Marine Staff at the Pentagon.

In a later interview with American Forces Press Service, Stukins said he believes U.S. military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is the right thing to do.

Basically, (its) somebody speaking ill of your sacrifice, the corporal said, as well as compounding the suffering of friends, spouses and relatives of the deceased.

Stukins says hes a firm believer in freedom of speech as guaranteed in the U.S. Constitutions Bill of Rights. But, I also have the right to respect your right to be wrong, he said.

The U.S. military is doing a great job fighting terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan, Stukins said. But, he stressed, things would be better if people could see the good things that are going on over there and not hear all about the bad.


You can find the full article here.


Move along ... nothing to see here. This is nothing new, and is only the latest episode of Iraqi Freedom veterans, and other military personel, publicly stating their discontent with media coverage. Remember when Matt Lauer got owned by Capt. Sherman Powell? Lauer had asked Capt. Powell what he would say to people back home who doubted that morale was high in Iraq. Capt. Powell responded by saying: "Well sir, I'd tell you, if I got my news from the newspapers I'd be pretty depressed as well." Then there's Sgt. Seavey and Gen. Wagner countering the myth of low morale, and the audience of the morning shows demanding more positive news stories from Iraq.

We must remember that the elitists don't think that military personel's informed opinions count. Who could forget Richard Belzer's diatribe about our warriors: ..That's bull---t: ask them! They're not, they don't read twenty newspapers a day. They're under the threat of death every minute. They're not the best people to ask about the war because they're gonna die any second. You know, the soldiers are not scholars, they're not war experts... Just the other day, on my program, I was talking about how I always hear people say they support the troops, but not the war. I pointed out that I found this ironic since the troops support the war. How can you support the troops if you don't support the mission they support? Here is an excerpt from an email I recieved from a listener during that program: "Whether the troops support the mission is irrelevant. They are soldiers, they have given their lives to be ordered, it is up to us to see what laimbrains like you can't see." Guess Belzer wasn't alone in his belief that those who've never served know how to fight a war better than those trained to do so. I read the email on air, and took over an hour of calls from military personel, and their families, ripping on the email.

So what good news out of Iraq is not being reported lately? Some pretty significant developments are being ignored as you read this column ... such as:


October 4, 2006
Austin Bay
Strategypage.com

Several declassified al-Qaida documents -- one discovered after the June 2006 air strike that killed al-Qaida's Iraqi emir, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi -- strongly suggest al-Qaida's leaders fear they are losing the War on Terror.

On Sept. 18, Iraqi National Security Advisor Muwaffaq al-Rabi released a letter from al-Qaida commander "Atiyah" (a pseudonym) to Zarqawi. West Point's Counter Terrorism Center (ctc.usma.edu) has the letter archived online.

The letter features al-Qaida's usual religious panegyrics, but also contains strong evidence of fear, doubt and impending defeat. It seems five years of continual defeat (and that is what the record is) have shaken the 9-11 certitude of al-Qaida's senior fanatics.

"The path is long and difficult," Atiyah writes, "and the enemy isn't easy, for he is great and numerous, and he can take quite a bit of punishment, as well." Atiyah's assessment seems to be a major change in tune and tone. Previous al-Qaida documents touted the Clinton administration's withdrawal from Somalia as the template for American action.

Atiyah adds that al-Qaida's leaders "wish that they had a way to talk to you (Zarqawi) ... however, they too are occupied with vicious enemies here (presumably in Pakistan). They are also weak, and we ask God that He strengthen them and mend their fractures."

Atiyah tells Zarqawi to contact him via a specific Internet site because of "the disruption that exists and the loss of communications."

Releasing the letter thus reveals a potential source of new intelligence. Weigh that against what it says about the highly restricted lives of al-Qaida's leaders. Their jihadist cave life is dangerous, and their ability to command is severely curbed -- these men are besieged.

Al-Qaida's leaders also fear they are losing the war for hearts and minds. Atiyah senses a souring of "the hearts of the people toward us." Al-Qaida has long sanctioned the murder of Muslim opponents it labels "corrupt" and apostate. However, Atiyah indicates Zarqawi's terror in Iraq has backfired. Atiyah says killing the popular "corrupt" is "against all of the fundamentals of politics and leadership." He warns "against all acts that alienate."

But it may well be too late.

StrategyPage.com and similar websites noticed in mid-2005 that al-Qaida and insurgent mass murder in Iraq had begun to turn Arab Muslim opinion against the terrorists.


September 26, 2006
Lolita Baldor
Associated Press

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, facing growing criticism for the Iraq war at home, is finding leaders in the Balkan region eager to join the battle.

Albanian military officials declared their unequivocal support for America's battle against terrorism. And Montenegro's prime minister said his small country would like to participate in peacekeeping operations.

"Let me declare here, Mr. Secretary, that Albania's armed forces will stay on the side of the American armed forces in Iraq until the mission" is over, said Albanian Defense Minister Fatmir Mediu.

Albania currently has 120 troops in Iraq. "We want to be the real partner to the American armed forces," Mediu added.

Rumsfeld also presented Lt. Gen. Pellumb Qazimi, Albania's outgoing Chief of the General Staff with a Global War on Terrorism medallion, "in appreciation for his country's contribution and steadfast commitment to fighting the global war on terror."


Whether the anti-war crowd likes it or not ... we are adding to the coalition.

I'm not big on polls, but the media is. So why aren't they telling you about a poll of 1,150 Iraqis in Sept. by Program on International Policy Attitudes? That poll shows that 63% of those polled want the U.S. to stay in Iraq a year or longer. Perhaps because it backs up the notion that we aren't in a stalemate, and certainly not losing. This poll also keeps with the news we are getting out of Iraq that Iraqis fear the death squads ... not U.S. troops. We also know that the prisoners at Abu Ghraib want American troops back at the prison. There goes the anti-war fruit's argument that we are torturous monsters, eh? The Iraqi President doesn't seem to want U.S. troops to leave either. Here's what he had to say last month:


Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said that the US military presence in Iraq keeps neighbors from invading his country.

"The American presence has always prevented any kind of foreign invasion to Iraq," Talabani said.

"That's one of the main reasons why we think that we need an American presence, even symbolical, in the country to prevent our neighbors attacking us," he said at a forum at the Woodrow Wilson Center, a Washington think thank.


Let's not forget that most U.S. troops interviewed for the now famous 'Zogby Poll' said that Americans who want an immediate withdrawal from Iraq are unpatriotic (question 16). Of course, the media didn't tell you about that question. They also didn't tell you about questions 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 17, 21 or 24, but they sure lambasted you with question 15 ... didn't they? The Army has also had its best recruiting year since 1997 ... not bad considering the negative impression of the military given everyday in the press. So if the anti-war fruits and the terrorists are the only ones who want us out of Iraq, and they are the only ones saying we're in a stalemate or losing ... should we believe them?


October 1, 2006
Harold Hutchison
Strategypage.com

Coalition forces in Iraq have suddenly received the manpower equivalent of three light infantry divisions. They did not suffer any repercussions in domestic politics as a result, and now have a huge edge over al-Qaeda in al-Anbar province. How did this happen? Tribal leaders in the largely Sunni province on the Syrian border got together and signed an agreement to raise a tribal force of 30,000 fighters to take on foreign fighters and terrorists.

These leaders have thrown in with the central government in Baghdad. This is a decisive blow to al Qaeda, which has been desperately trying to fight off an Iraqi government that is getting stronger by the week. Not only are the 30,000 fighters going to provide more manpower, but these tribal fighters know the province much better than American troops .. or the foreign fighters fighting for al Qaeda. Also, this represents just over 80 percent of the tribes in al-Anbar province now backing the government.

This is just one sign that the tide is turning in favor of the coalition in Iraq. Many of the Sunni leaders have decided that the Shia-dominated Iraqi government is not going away any time soon, nor is the democratic process. As such, the tribal leaders have now decided that it is better to be on their good side rather than to be seen as uncooperative. Constant Arab casualties in al Qaeda attacks .. and al Qaeda's desire for a caliphate .. have not helped matters any, either.

On the other hand, by signing up with the government, these tribal leaders will hasten the construction of government services, and gain something else just as valuable .. the government's gratitude. In essence, the tribal leaders have slowly been won over by a combination of coalition perseverance and al Qaeda strategic ineptness.


If you don't trust Strategy Page ... maybe you trust the Washington Post.


Sunni tribal leaders who have vowed to drive al-Qaeda out of Iraq's most restive province met the Shi'ite premier on Wednesday, marking what Washington hopes will be a breakthrough alliance against militants.

al-Buzayi, a Sunni sheikh from Anbar province who has emerged in recent weeks as a leader of a tribal alliance against Osama bin Laden's followers, said he and about 15 other sheikhs had offered their cooperation to Prime Minister al-Maliki. It was the first time Maliki had met the sheikhs since they pledged to fight al-Qaeda in a meeting at Buzayi's compound in Ramadi, the provincial capital, two weeks ago.
Buzayi confirmed that U.S. and Iraqi forces had killed a senior al-Qaeda figure in Anbar on Tuesday. Khalid Mahal has been described as Qaeda's "emir" in the province although the organisation's precise leadership structure is murky. "He was a very important figure for al-Qaeda and getting rid of him was for the best," Buzayi told Reuters.

Iraqi journalists for Reuters in Ramadi say another figure named Zuhair, seen as a key Qaeda militant and known locally as "The Butcher of Anbar", was killed by tribal gunmen in a car as he walked in one of Ramadi's main commercial streets on Monday. The United States says its 30,000 troops in Anbar -- by far the deadliest province for U.S. forces in Iraq -- cannot defeat the insurgency on their own. Senior commanders say they have been delighted by recent developments in Ramadi.


Just so you know ... Al-Anbar is one of the most violent places in Iraq. The headline news stories about sectarian violence typically mention Al-Anbar. Has the MSM been broadcasting this glorious and monumental shift in the Sunni Triangle? Have the talk show hosts, pundits or even your friends told you about this? The answer is most likely - no. You must ask yourself why you haven't been told about a letter, written by al Qaeda, praying to God to heal their fractures from facing a vicious enemy, and expressing fears of defeat. You must also ask yourself why you haven't been told about 80% of the population of Al-Anbar joining our team. I was told we were losing ... guess not! These are all some pretty significant gains. If you believed we were in a stalemate before ... that stalemate has been broken, and the advantage just shifted to the coalition.

The media consistently fails to tell you about all the little great things in Iraq. There's rarely any mention of the school houses built, children playing with our soldiers, Iraqis wearing the clothes they want or expressing religious freedom for the first time. These stories are bumped from the nightly news, and buried in the middle of the paper ... if mentioned at all. The media also always avoids military criticism of their reporting. If you really want to know what the military thinks of the media, and the anti-war fruits, listen to what LTC Randolph C. White Jr. had to say to graduates at Fort Benning, Georgia.

We have the media ignoring major positive events for our forces, and we have politicians such as Bill Frist (R-TN) calling for talks with the Taliban less than two weeks after NATO reported that the Taliban were in retreat. It's time to stand up and tell them ... enough is enough.


Casey Hendrickson

The Myth Of Iran's Nukes

I don't know how ready you all are to hear this, but it must be said. Iran is not seeking nuclear weapons. At least that's what they say. Until now I've been pretty content in my knowledge that they were lying to the world. Afterall, all of the evidence is there.


--The IAEA has found enriched uranium in Iran that has been enriched beyond the point that is used for energy purposes.

--Iran has been steadfast in its claim that their nuclear program is simply for energy purposes, but they have refused to accept a light-water reactor in exchange for halting enrichment. If you aren't aware ... a heavy-water reactor makes it easier to manufacture nuclear weapons than a light-water reactor.

--Iran has ignored every deadline the UN has imposed, and has refused to allow monitoring.


--Hal G.P. Colebatch reported in July:

Bulgarian border guards seized a British truck carrying radioactive material ... to the Iranian military ... that could have been used to make a "dirty" nuclear bomb. After a scanner showed it had radiation levels 200 times normal, the truck was found to be carrying ten lead-lined boxes addressed to the Iranian Ministry of Defense.

The head of the Bulgarian Nuclear Regulatory Agency, Nikolai Todorov, said he was shocked that devices containing so much nuclear material could be sold so easily: "The devices are highly radioactive -- if you had another 90 of them you would be able to make an effective dirty bomb." That meant if nine similar loads got through.

"Americum-beryllium is an extremely effective element for the construction of a dirty bomb as it has a very long half-life....It is found mainly in spent reactor-fuel elements and it is not at all easy to get hold of. I find it hard to believe it is so easily available ..."


Perhaps this was an isolated case ... perhaps not. The article continues:


If this was a one-off incident, it would be a bad enough indictment of the present British Government. In fact it is only the latest of a series.

On August 31, 2005, a truck carrying 1,000 kg of zirconium silicate was stopped by Bulgarian authorities at the border with Turkey. The Bulgarians, detecting unusual radioactivity levels, discovered the truck was owned by a British firm, and alerted the British Embassy, which informed London on September 7. Although the trade in zirconium is meant to be tightly controlled, the truck had traveled through Britain, Germany and Romania without being stopped. The British authorities maintained there was nothing illegal about the shipment, and it was eventually allowed to proceed.

John Large, an independent nuclear consultant, said: "Zirconium is used for two purposes: for cladding nuclear fuel rods inside a reactor and as material for a nuclear weapon."

The bottom line was that a British firm had been allowed to sell highly-dangerous radioactive material to Iran without scrutiny by the British authorities, and then within a few months something very similar happened again, either in bizarre obeisance to some bureaucratic legalism, or because no one cared.

Previously, in May 1999, Bulgarian customs officers trained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection discovered highly-enriched Uranium U-235 concealed in an air-compressor in the trunk of a car at a border-crossing checkpoint. It was believed this was a sample to show prospective buyers.


Who would have thought that Bulgaria would be such an astute ally in keeping nuclear weapons from America's enemies? With all of this as evidence ... it sure seems conclusive that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons ... right? Wait until you read what I have next.


The following are excerpts from an interview with Mohammad Sa'idi, International Affairs Deputy in the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization, which aired on the Iranian News Channel (IRINN) on August 27, 2006.

Interviewer: You just said that in some cases, heavy water can even be used for drinking.

Mohammad Sa'idi: Yes.

Interviewer: Could you elaborate on this?

Mohammad Sa'idi: One of the products of heavy water is depleted deuterium. As you know, in an environment with depleted deuterium, the reception of cancer cells and of the AIDS viruses is disrupted. Since this reception is disrupted, the cells are gradually expelled from the body. Obviously, one glass of depleted deuterium will not expel or cure the cancer or eliminate the AIDS. We are talking about a certain period of time. In many countries that deal with these diseases, patients use this kind of water instead of regular water, and consume it daily in order to heal their diseases.

In other words, the issue of heavy water has to do with matters of life and death, in many cases. One of the reasons that led us to produce heavy water was to use it for agricultural... medical purposes, and especially for industrial purposes in our country.


(Insert record scratch noise here)


Did he just say what I think he said? That Iran wants a heavy-water reactor so they can drink deuterium water in an effort to cure cancer and AIDS? He also said that many countries use this method as a treatment for said diseases. I am dying to know which countries drink deuterium water to combat cancer and AIDS. Sa'idi mentioned agricultural uses for heavy-water ... tomacco anyone?


Mohammad Sa'idi: You may ask why we pursued a heavy-water research reactor, rather than a light-water reactor. This is a [legitimate] question, which deserves an answer. Since this involves simpler technology, the heavy-water research reactors have slightly simpler technology. Heavy water is currently produced at Khondab in Arak, so this technology is readily available to us. All we need to do is build the reactor. The fuel is available, and so is the moderator and the cooler, so the reactor can become productive very quickly.


So Iran wants to build a heavy-water reactor because the technology is already available to Iran. This is really great news for Iran ... because they want to cure cancer and AIDS anyway. It's a win win situation. I do have one question though. Iran is saying that they are developing a heavy-water reactor because this is the technology available to them ... right? Then why did they turn down the light-water reactors that the west has offered to give them more than once? Oh yeah ... to cure cancer and AIDS ... I forgot. This next part is very interesting.


Interviewer: When do you think we will reach 3,000 [centrifuges]?

Mohammad Sa'idi: According to the plan.

Interviewer: Thank you. I had other questions We have done all these activities, so why aren't we building a [nuclear] power plant?

Mohammad Sa'idi: Of course we are. One of the important issues that may arise in the future for our dear people is that in order to complete this technological process in the Islamic Republic of Iran, we have begun designing a power reactor for the production of electricity. When I say power, I mean production of electricity. This is a power reactor with a capacity of 360 mega-watt. We are working towards an Iranian-made reactor. Adjacent to the heavy-water reactor that we are building, and which is also Iranian-made, we are planning a light-water power reactor with a capacity of 360 mega-watt, which will serve as a basis for construction of [other] power reactors in the future.


Now Iran is saying that it is planning a light-water reactor ... even though Sa'idi just said that they didn't have the technology available to them? Is it just me, or did Sa'idi just pull out a big ol' can of hypocracy? Remember, heavy-water makes it easier to develop nuclear weapons. Why would you say that you are developing heavy-water because you don't have light-water technology, and then turn that technology down when it's offered? Why would you say you are "working toward" a light-water reactor ... when you just stated that you don't have the technological capability? Is it because you truly want to cure cancer and AIDS ... or because you are developing the bomb? The answer seems pretty clear to me ... then again:


TEHRAN, Sept. 6 (UPI):

Iran's Ministry of Health claimed to have made a medical breakthrough with a formula to control symptoms of AIDS.

The state-controlled IRNA news agency quoted an unidentified ministry employee as saying, "The research studies to find out a formula to cure AIDS was initiated during the tenure of two former health ministers and have led to useful results."

Former Minister of Health and Medical Education Dr. Mohammad Farhadi said the chemical and herbal treatment appeared effective on other immune disorders as well.

"The theory was to determine whether or not it is possible to boost the immunity system of the body. Some 60 projects were initiated to attain the result," Farhadi said in the IRNA report.

The announcement came a day before an international meeting to discuss U.N. sanctions against Iran for refusing to curtail the enrichment of uranium or allow its monitoring.


Casey Hendrickson