Ramadan Thus Far

Well, we're more than a week into Ramadan, and so far so good. Most of us expected more violence than what we've seen so far. No cause for celebration- just surprising is all. With less than two weeks until the US election, there is still lots of room for bad things to happen. It would be nice if it didn't. Here's a few points:

1) Since Ramadan started, violence has been up about 25%.

2) The south has been quiet. Remember when we had daily attacks on oil pipelines and convoys down there? Hardly any of that anymore. I think a big reason for this is Sistani's growing influence and his vocal support of the elections. The success in Najaf probably helped as well. There's some other stuff, but I'd have to kill you if I told you about it...

3) The north (especially Mosul) is not quiet. There's a noticable increase in violence up there in the past few weeks. It's fairly obvious that the insurgents are pouring out of Fallujah, Samarra, et al and heading north in the hopes of finding a more "suitable" environment. I think they are destined for dissapointment.

Why are they leaving the Sunni Triangle?

I see a couple reasons for this.

First the most obvious- we've been making Fallujah a not-so-great place for them to live. Nightly air raids and daily checkpoints around the city make it tough for them to get any work done. It's hard to execute a good plan when you're dead.

The second reason is not as obvious, but even more important- the people in the Sunni Triangle are sick of the violence. It took them a long time to figure it out, but they're finally starting to realize the truth. I can't blame them for taking so long. We have to understand how difficult it is for them to fully understand what is real and what isn't. Al Jazeera, the most watched channel in Iraq, reports everything with an anti-coalition slant- "US slaughters 12 innocent women and children" "Coalition martyrs 3 car bombers" "Israel believed responsible as 34 Iraqi children slaughtered by car bomber" "US to hand control of Iraq to Israel by end of 2005" You get the idea- most of it's too ridiculous to even comprehend. The insurgents reiterate and repeat these bogus stories and offer to protect the frightened civilians from the "evil American oil-thieves." We can't force the people to watch different channels. We can't even force Al Jazeera off the air (although that would help a lot). The only thing we can do is what we've always been doing- let our actions do the talking. Build up the infrastructure. Protect and serve. It may take some time, but eventually the people begin to notice that what they see on TV does not mesh with the reality being played out before them. It's finally happening in that region. What the insurgents are certain to find out is that the people up north have known the truth for quite some time. The insurgents will not be welcome up there. The good people of Mosul will sell them out much faster than the folks in Fallujah did. Uday and Qusay would back me up on this one, but they're too dead right now. The insurgents are starting to look more and more like dollar signs to the newly opportunistic violence-weary populace. This is not good news for the insurgency. Hopefully, a successful election will compound their problems. I agree with Mohammed from Baghdad:

We will triumph and our patience and belief in our cause are our weapons and the support we get from freedom lovers from all over the world encourages us to move on and fight with more faith in victory.The pessimism we’re being flooded by from the media began to lose its 'glitter' and a bunch of terrorists backed by a bunch of “abduction scholars” will not succeed to steal the dreams of a nation.

Read the rest at Iraq the Model (thank you Sara).

Why Did We Have To Do This?

I'm amazed by how often I hear this question- even today. It's clear that many people in this country still don't understand why we had to forcefully remove Saddam from power. Many people want to blame this on the politicians- especially Bush. I won't defend the politicians for "failing to get the word out," but I will offer an alternative blame scenario. What if it's not the politician's fault? What if it's the media's fault? What if the politicians presented a dozen reasons for the invasion- each reason a perfectly good justification in and of itself- but the only thing ever reported by the media is "there were no weapons of mass destruction." Is that Bush's fault? Is it the media's fault? What if the media is only pandering to the demands of the common people? Is it then our fault? How can we demand the truth when all we want to hear is controversy? The media chases ratings, and the numbers don't lie. I just think these are reasonable questions that are seldom asked and never answered. I bring it up because I just read some excerpts from an upcoming Rolling Stone interview with Eminem. Here's what Slim Shady had to say:

He’s (Bush) been painted to be this hero and he’s got our troops over there dying for no reason. I haven’t heard an explanation yet that I can understand. Explain to us why we have troops over there dying.

My question to Eminem would be simple- Why do you have to understand the explanation in order for it to be valid? It's bad enough that Kerry wants a "Global Test"- could you imagine the strain on our national defense capability if we had to vet our foreign policy decisions through an "Eminem Test?" I wonder if Eminem ever read a book about Saddam or the Middle East in general? I wonder if Eminem is smart enough to understand the following passage from this Charles Moore article from the Telegraph:

Bush has got the big idea. There is a global problem with Islamism. There is a problem of alliances between bad states and terror organisations that reach beyond state boundaries. There is an almost universal rottenness in the politics of the Arab world. There is an atrocious weakness or, as the UN oil-for-food scandal shows, worse than weakness, in many of the Western nations and international organisations that are supposed to help guarantee our security. And it is the duty of the most powerful nation on earth to do something about it.

There are thousands of articles like this one out there. There are hundreds of books as well. The mainstream media has no interest in presenting you with this kind of information. The mainstream media wants to give you whatever supports their bottom line- determined by focus groups and ratings. Get your information spoon-fed to you by the mainstream media and I promise you- you'll be as clueless as Eminem. You'll get "brain candy." You will be made to feel that you are on the cutting edge of current events- that you've been given a real-time feed of the truth as it stands right now. They'll tell you that you can't afford not to watch- you never know when that alert level might change to orange. But underneath it all, you'll only be seeing what the media thinks you want to see. If you want the real truth, you'll have to go find it on your own.

I would guess that Eminem is probably not smart enough to understand the global problem with Islamic governments or the dynamic challenges posed by Islamofascism. I would guess that he has no clue about the unbelievable implications of the current oil-for-food scandal. I'd like to ask him what he thinks about the US as the only superpower in the world today. What does it mean in a global sense? What are the socioeconomic and geopolitical implications? How does it affect our strategic alliances with European nations? Middle Eastern nations? I'd love to ask him these things. You know what I'd get? That's right- a blank stare. Eminem blames Bush for not being able to explain the reasons for war in a way that Eminem can understand. I blame Eminem, because he makes no effort to understand. He could prove me wrong about this by answering some of those questions I cooked up for him. Think anyone will ever ask him those questions? No- it'll never happen, because no sane journalist is dumb enough to believe he'd even understand the questions, much less give a coherent answer. Eminem doesn't want to understand this war- but he loves to mouth off about it. And there are a lot of people like Eminem out there.

The Duelfer Report

Christopher Hitchens offers the best assessment I've seen on the subject:

His conclusion is that, given an improvement in the economic and political climate, Saddam could and would have done one of two things: reconstitute the program or share it with others. Had it not been for 9/11, it is sobering to reflect, there would have been senior members of even this administration arguing that sanctions on Iraq should be eased. And, through the open scandal of the oil-for-food program, there were many states or clienteles within states who were happy to help Saddam enrich himself. Moreover, within the "box" that supposedly "contained" him were also living Kim Jong-il, A.Q. Khan, and Col. Qaddafi. We know from the Kay report that, as late as March of last year, Saddam's envoys were meeting North Korea's team in Damascus and trying to buy missiles off the shelf. It would never have stopped: this ceaseless ambition to acquire the means of genocide. If anything, we underestimated that aspect of it.

Too true. Read the rest.

The Hip Hop Debate

Right now, Bush is whipping Kerry in the Hip Hop Debate (57%-43% at last count). You must check out this site. Make sure you select Bush's "Money Walk" and Kerry's "Flip-Flop." Once you've selected all the moves, you'll be allowed to vote. Pure genius.

UPDATE:

Kerry Sucks

In case there was any doubt in your mind- I highly recommend KerrySucks.com.

The Fall of Castro

I struggled with this for a while. You've all seen the clip. Most of you probably laughed at least as hard as I did. I've never seen such a funny geopolitical debacle. He looked so amazingly silly as he tumbled. But then I had to remind myself- I was laughing hysterically at the site of a 78-year-old man falling down and breaking an arm and a leg. Can we do that? I'm really feeling weird about this one- but I can't stop watching it and laughing. Somebody please help...

Company Commander Gets the Boot

First off, let me say that her incompetence has nothing to do with the fact that she's a woman. Some of the best company commanders I ever served with were women. In fact, one of my best female buds in Iraq was a much better commander than her husband (sorry Bryan, but you know it's true).

The commander of the 343rd Quartermaster Company was just overwhelmed. She certainly had a tough job, and she was clearly not up to the task:

The outgoing commander is not suspected of misconduct and this move has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of anyone involved.

True- lack of leadership ability does not imply guilt or misconduct, but relief from company command is a career killer- especially when you get it on a national stage.

I'm Finally Ethical

Today, I felt the effects of Abu Ghraib firsthand. I sat through a way-too-long 1-hour ethics class- taught by an Army lawyer. Let me say that again. For 1 hour, a lawyer taught me about ethics.

I've been expecting this sort of knee-jerk reactionary measure since the scandal broke. It's not enough that a bunch of sex-crazed S&M enthusiasts from Backwoods, Maryland completely ruined our rep- now they've caused us to all to sacrifice one precious hour of our lives. Losers. At least the highest ranking guy received a nice long sentence.

I've noticed that nobody on the left wants to talk about how perfectly the Army handled this scandal. The powers that be were honest and up-front from the start. They rounded up the perps and prosecuted them swiftly. The story is simple- a crime was committed and the offenders were punished. That should have been the end of it.

The Army wanted to keep the pictures from being shown, because the brass knew that showing those pictures would only fan the flames of the insurgency (which they did). Of course, CBS had other plans. Screw the deployed soldiers- let's get ratings! CBS and every other news agency that showed those pics has blood on their hands- make no mistake about it.

No- all the talk is about why this happened. Who's responsible. People want so desperately to pin it on Rumsfeld and/or Bush.

Well, I could find out why it happened. If I had a film crew and about 6 months of spare time, I could make a documentary that would explain it all. But I wouldn't talk to Rumsfeld, Bush, or anyone that has anything to do with the military. I'd go straight to Cresaptown, Maryland. I'd go to the schools that these soldiers attended. I'd interview their teachers, their families, their friends, former boyfriends/girlfriends. I'd go to the places where they'd hang out together and bond after a hard day at the office. I'd talk to the local bar owners and police. I'd find out everything there was to know about each and every one of those miscreants. 6 months and a film crew- and I'd have all the answers. I guarantee it.

Secretary-General Clinton?

I'm not kidding- I saw this on Drudge:

Former U.S. President Bill Clinton has set his sights on becoming U.N. secretary-general. A Clinton insider and a senior U.N. source have told United Press International the 56-year-old former president would like to be named
leader of the world body when Kofi Annan's term ends early in 2006.

The thing that shocks me the most- I don't even know what to think about it! What if he gets it, and then Hillary becomes President in 2008? Could we then take over the world? What does Monica think about all this? Too many questions...

Franks Tells It Like It Is

I'm sure you've all heard John Kerry's oft-quoted lie about Bush's failures in Afghanistan (not an exact quote)- "Bush had bin Laden surrounded at Tora Bora. And what did he do? He failed to capture him because he outsourced the job to Afghan warlords who had no interest in seeing bin Laden brought to justice." That sounds familiar doesn't it? Of course, anyone with a brain knows that Bush was not in Afghanistan making tactical decisions on the ground. Those decisions were made by General Tommy Franks, and he apparently doesn't appreciate the factually-challenged criticism that Kerry's been throwing at him:

As commander of the allied forces in the Middle East, I was responsible for the operation at Tora Bora, and I can tell you that the senator's understanding of events doesn't square with reality.

That's because he's lying, General.

Read the entire article here (login: laexaminer, password: laexaminer).

LTG Michael Dunn Defends CIA

I like LTG Dunn. Back when he was MG Dunn, I used to fly him around Korea almost weekly. In fact, I flew him to a meeting on that fateful day when I ended up having lunch with Luciano Pavoratti at the DMZ. If you don't know that crazy story, be sure to ask me about it someday. But I digress. LTG Dunn presented me and my crew with a "commander's coin" every time we flew him somewhere. He's a solid guy and always interesting to talk to. I like that he went on the record to defend the intel community. They've been getting a real bad wrap ever since 9/11. It's really not fair when you think about it- they save our lives over and over again without any notice or appreciation. They've been doing it for decades and they're still doing it now. But the only time they come under the spotlight is when something goes wrong. LTG Dunn puts this in his own hearfelt perspective in a recent letter to the Wall Street Journal. Here's a clip:

...Some have likened the task of information gathering to putting together the pieces of a puzzle. In truth, it's more like piecing together shards of glass from a large, shattered picture window, a window that is mixed up with hundreds of other shattered windows and with other pieces of glass that don't belong to any window.

We should worry about the consequences of "failure to know." The intelligence community (IC) analyst of the future might be inclined to lower the threshold on what he provides to decision-makers so that they know everything he knows, and so he can say, "I told you" when facing the next 9/11 Commission. The decision makers of the future could be overwhelmed with so much "spam" that they have very little knowledge -- much like the bulk mail in our own personal e-mail accounts. Or worse yet, instead of IC judgments, they may choose to filter the data based on their own compass and in the absence of IC filters/summaries, they may make the judgments themselves. Or they may be inclined to ignore most of it. Or the IC may lapse into a language of qualifiers -- using such phrases such as: could, may, might, possibly, may possibly, and believe (vs. know). All of this takes us down paths much worse than we are on today.

Finally, we do a disservice to the professionals in the IC to continue to refer to not knowing something as a "failure." We will not, nor should we expect, to know everything, and I can absolutely guarantee there will be "failures" in the future. We should thank the IC for the many "finds" they have made, the many lives they have saved, and their sacrifice, many times in blood, for our nation. I, for one, am grateful for their service.

Me, too.

Great Letter from a Guard Guy

My lovely Aunt (a true American patriot if there ever was one) was kind enough to bring this great letter to my attention. This is a letter from Ray Reynolds, a medic in the Iowa Army National Guard, serving in Iraq:

As I head off to Baghdad for the final weeks of my stay in Iraq, I wanted to say thanks to all of you who did not believe the media. They have done a very poor job of covering everything that has happened. I am sorry that I have not been able to visit all of you during my two week leave back home. And just so you can rest at night knowing something is happening in Iraq that is noteworthy, I thought I would pass this on to you. This is the list of things that has happened in Iraq recently: (Please share it with your friends and compare it to the version that your paper is producing.)

*Over 400,000 kids have up-to-date immunizations.

*School attendance is up 80% from levels before the war.

*Over 1,500 schools have been renovated and rid of the weapons stored there so education can occur.

*The port of Uhm Qasar was renovated so grain can be off-loaded from ships faster.

*The country had its first 2 billion barrel export of oil in August.

*Over 4.5 million people have clean drinking water for the first time ever in Iraq.

*The country now receives 2 times the electrical power it did before the war.

*100% of the hospitals are open and fully staffed, compared to 35% before the war.

* Elections are taking place in every major city, and city councils are in place.

*Sewer and water lines are installed in every major city.

*Over 60,000 police are patrolling the streets.

*Over 100,000 Iraqi civil defense police are securing the country.

*Over 80,000 Iraqi soldiers are patrolling the streets side by side with US soldiers.

*Over 400,000 people have telephones for the first time ever.

*Students are taught field sanitation and hand washing techniques to prevent the spread of germs.

*An interim constitution has been signed.

*Girls are allowed to attend school.

*Textbooks that don't mention Saddam are in the schools for the first time in 30 years.

Don't believe for one second that these people do not want us there. I have met many, many people from Iraq that want us there, and in a bad way. They say they will never see the freedoms we talk about but they hope their children will. We are doing a good job in Iraq and I challenge anyone, anywhere to dispute me on these facts. If you are like me and very disgusted with how this period of rebuilding has been portrayed, email this to a friend and let them know there are good things happening.

Ray Reynolds, SFC Iowa Army
National Guard 234th Signal Battalion

Back to the Old

Finally, I'd like to thank everyone for their honest feedback about the "new" format. I heard your voices and they were loud. Thus, I am back to the old format and here I'll stay. I think you all were right- this one does look better.

A New Look

I changed my blog template. Let me know if I should keep it or change it again.

UPDATE: Just found out my site was down for awhile. Maybe my new infatuation with HTML has gone too far. I promise I'll settle on a format soon enough.

Disobedient Troops Revisited

On a comment from an earlier post, Bcus hit the nail on the head with respect to the belligerent platoon:

Even if the soldiers are bad eggs or marginal performers, it is still a big ding on the leadership, they should have seen this coming.

My sentiments exactly. The talking-head military analysts are usually too politically saturated for my taste, but I think COL David Hunt explained it brilliantly on the O'Reilly Factor last night. The initial indications that I've seen lead me to believe that there was an "us against the officers" mentality among the senior NCO's in the platoon. That should have been noticed and dealt with immediately by the Platoon Leader and especially the Company Commander. It should have never gone as far as it did, no matter how justified the soldier's complaints turn out to be. What really shocked me is that these soldiers refused the mission knowing that their sister platoon would have to assume the mission off cycle. That's an extreme case of "screwing your buddy" and it's just not how the Army operates. There are some serious personality conflicts going on here. These soldiers (especially the NCO's) will likely be punished, and I fully expect some officers to lose their careers over this.

100 Killed???

Looks like a mortar/rocket barrage hit a dead center in the middle of an ING formation today. My sources tell me that some media estimates of 100 killed are greatly exaggerated. For the shots to be so deadly accurate, I have to believe that it was an inside job- meaning that one of the ING soldiers from that post orchestrated or helped to orchestrate that attack. It was just too well-planned and well-coordinated.

Good News for Bill

Looks like someone's come out with some information that could help Bill O'Reilly. My prediction for this scandal: O'Reilly wins the litigation, his "squeaky clean image" takes a huge hit, and his ratings go through the roof.

The New "Mr. USO"

Last night I was treated to an energetic and amusing performance by a troupe of entertainers led by the one and only Wayne Newton. They did a show in the parking lot near my barracks building, so I couldn't avoid it even if I wanted to. Wayne really likes us. I think he's lobbying for the "Mr. USO" title once held by the immortal Bob Hope.

The funniest performer of the night was Rob Schneider (Saturday Night Live, Deuce Bigalow, The Animal). He told some really lewd and profanity-laced jokes, and most of them were really funny- especially when he made fun of our Commanding General, who was sitting in the front row. It was a big hit with the audience and the CG seemed to take it in stride...

The Truth About Iraq

Finally- the truth about Iraq! Here's a clip from their "myths and facts" page:

We've identified some of the major myths manufactured by the media, and we have tried to counter them with statistically valid public opinion research.

The truth is better than you think. Be proud America.

You must check out this site. Read it, know it, love it, bookmark it, and tell all your friends about it.

Disobedient Troops

I'm sure most of you have heard about the platoon that "just said no." I don't want to speculate about what happened up there- the truth is I really don't know. The media has already spun it into the next Abu Ghraib fiasco, so the damage has already been done. My early assessment is that there was a spectacular failure of leadership- probably the Company Commander, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Platoon Leader and possibly even the Battalion Commander find themselves on the blame line as well. I expect that some of the belligerent soldiers will get a nice reprimand and the problem will be fixed quickly. The short of it is- when leadership fails, the unit will fall apart. That's clearly what happened here, and it's too bad. This will be one of those cases when the failures of a few will smear the accomplishments of 140,000.

Fallujah

It's interesting to watch the various news agencies trying to figure out what we're doing in Fallujah. Are we attacking? Surrounding? Threatening? Is this the big showdown? Of course I know the answer, but I can't tell you. Sorry.

OH-58D's Down

I can't tell you much about the OH-58D crashes from last night either. Looks like it was a midair, but that's just speculation on my part. We're still getting the details on that one. I obviously feel a particular sting whenever we have flight-related mishaps. We mourn the loss of those two brave troops and we hope the injured recover quickly...

True Courage

As a counterbalance to the "rogue platoon" story, I recommend you check this out. It's the kind of medicine that will cure any doubts you may have about our military's willingness to get the job done.

What a Slimeball- an Edwards Outrage

Can John Edwards possibly sink any lower? Here's one of most telling articles I've yet read about the lawyer from Carolina. A small sample from Charles Krauthammer's masterpiece:

Politicians have long promised a chicken in every pot. It is part of the game. It is one thing to promise ethanol subsidies here, dairy price controls there. But to exploit the desperate hopes of desperate people with the promise of Christ-like cures is beyond the pale.

There is no apologizing for Edwards's remark. It is too revealing. There is absolutely nothing the man will not say to get elected.

The Swiftees are Back!

You must go check out their latest video- especially the second one- "Why?" See Bud Day (John McCain's roommate at the Hanoi Hilton) with his Medal of Honor around his neck and his passionate disdain for John Kerry on his sleeve- it'll give you goose bumps, I promise you.

I Got Links

I figured out a bit of HTML programming during this slow Sunday at the office. I think you'll find some cool stuff in my new "Links" column.

Stolen Honor- A Call to Action

I know what you're thinking- "2Slick doesn't post more than once a day!" Well, that's usually the case, but something just came to my attention. The Swiftees have announced a call to action campaign, and I wanted to help their efforts. They're fighting Kerry's push to silence Sinclair's upcoming broadcast of Stolen Honor. Kerry can't afford to have his true colors be shown to so many Americans this late in the game, so he's doing everything in his power to suppress Sinclair's right to broadcast this purely factual must-see film.

I emailed the second half of Wednesday's post to several Sinclair affiliates as well as their corporate headquarters. Forum member jdwill sent them a genuine masterpiece, and he was kind enough to let me share it with you:

I am a Vietnam era veteran. I have felt the stigma of being considered a fool, or worse when I came back to civilian life. I have watched as the movies and books of my time painted Vietnam veterans as less than honorable.

Now during this 2004 election campaign, we have endured Michael Moore's movie, Fahrenheit 911, and the 'critical' acclaim it received. We have had our children flock to it and come back filled with its lies. In this movie, OIF veterans are portrayed as were Vietnam veterans, as dupes to be pitied, not respected for doing what over 70% of the country approved of in the beginning.

I am not a war lover, but when we send these soldiers, our best, to fight and risk the ultimate sacrifice, we should support them and respect them. The logical extension of supporting our troops is to support their mission and to understand the tough choices they are often forced to make. How can you say to them "we support you but you are engaged in an immoral act"?

I have this month seen a documentary on cable, on the Sundance channel, called Unfinished Symphony that paints a sympathetic picture of John Kerry's anti-war activities and that of his group, the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Why can't a documentary that dissents from this be shown?

I have paid attention as large segments of the media tried to ignore, then squash, and then ignore again the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. It is not right for John Kerry to use his service in Vietnam time and time again to political advantage, yet brook no dissenting voice.

Free speech cannot be a one way street. If you show Stolen Honor, you will be doing the veterans of all wars, and indeed, the American people a great service.

Nice work, jdwill. If the rest of you feel as passionately about this as we do, I encourage you to go help the Swiftees!!!

Curing the Disease

I just read a great article on StrategyPage (thanks Instapundit), and when I read the following passage, I had to wonder if the author had been reading my blog:

Going into places like Fallujah and taking control is not as much of a problem. Keeping control is difficult, because the current government has a bad case of "the Iraqi disease." This affliction causes Iraqi politicians to believe their troops and police are more capable than they are. Although Saddam had this problem when facing foreign armies, he had a better sense of proportion when it came to terrorizing his own people. The current government is willing to just put civilians into police uniforms, give them a week or two of training and put them on the streets. American commanders are having a hard time pointing out the obvious; that this doesn't work. The cops and troops require more training, and the officers even more so. The Iraqis like to believe in magic, and have a hard time admitting that magic doesn't work. Saddam's followers don't believe in magic, they believe in terror, and terror does work.

I said that! Remember? The "Iraqi disease" goes far beyond wishful thinking and overconfidence. It's a myriad of problems that exist throughout the entire population. Conspiracy theories prevail, there's widespread distrust of virtually everyone, grudges last for centuries, there's a very low literacy rate, and their overall perception of reality is incredibly distorted. One can hardly blame them for having this disease, considering how the past several decades have treated them. I bring this up, because people in America simply don't understand what we're up against here. They can't understand why the world's most powerful military can't turn Iraq into a bastion of peace in 6 months or less. It just doesn't work like that. We freed Iraq from Saddam in a matter of weeks. It's going to take years for the Iraqi people to cure their own decades-old "disease." We'll help them with this, but we can't do it for them. The important thing is that it is happening now. Satellite TV's and Internet connections are now available, and reality is actively permeating the collective mentality. It'll take time, and the world will benefit in ways that most people still can't comprehend.

Fallujah

Things are looking good in Fallujah right now. Wow, that sounds like an oxymoron. Things are looking relatively good, I should say. Stay tuned...

Blogs of War

Great blog site, and I can't believe I haven't linked to it yet. It has more links than you'll ever be able to follow, but check it out when you get a chance- you won't be disappointed. It's amazing how much real information you can get from people who aren't concerned with turning a profit.

Correction

In a recent post, I claimed that Douglas Brinkley, Author of the John Kerry biofarce Tour of Duty, was calling for Kerry to sign the Form 180. While this appears to be at least partially true, I incorrectly deduced that the inept biographer doubted the validity of his source (Kerry). I tracked down the real story, and it appears that Brinkley just wanted to get reporters off his back! Here's an excerpt:

The Kerry campaign has refused to release Kerry's personal Vietnam archive, including his journals and letters, saying that the senator is contractually bound to grant Brinkley exclusive access to the material. But Brinkley said this week the papers are the property of the senator and in his full control.

"I don't mind if John Kerry shows anybody anything," he said. "If he wants to let anybody in, that's his business. Go bug John Kerry, and leave me alone." The exclusivity agreement, he said, simply requires "that anybody quoting any of the material needs to cite my book."

I bring this up, because I just saw him on Fox giving an interview. Brinkley lied his face off, and I couldn't believe my ears. I agree with Boston Globe columnist Alex Beam- "These days, Brinkley is acting a lot less like a historian and a lot more like a PR flack for John Kerry."

Here's what really fired me up- when asked about the Swiftees, Brinkley said (not an exact quote), "Well, you know- some of them have already been caught in a lie. Like Larry Thurlow- he said there was no enemy fire that day when Kerry got the Bronze Star. Well, it turns out Larry Thurlow got a Bronze Star for the same incident, and his citation said there was enemy fire, so clearly he was lying." And the Fox Newsies just sat there and nodded. Unbelievable. This is the kind of unforgivable dishonesty that lives and breathes in mainstream media. How in the world does he arrive at his assertion that Thurlow lied?

Thurlow got that award in the mail after the war- after he had served his time and he was busy restarting his life. He read the citation, shook his head because he knew it was false, tucked it away somewhere, and forgot about it. Why would he want to go out of his way to go set the record straight? What difference would it make? If he never planned to throw it at the White House, wear it, show it off, talk about it, or write about it- why bother even thinking about it? He did exactly what I would have done. He did what most vets would have done. Unlike John Kerry, he did not write his own citation. He just happened to get an award for someone's (I'd bet the farm it was Kerry's) bogus write-up. You can't impeach Mr. Thurlow's credibility with someone else's statement. Thurlow did nothing wrong. Read this WaPo article and you'll see that despite the Post's efforts to spin it- Thurlow never contradicted himself. So he didn't drive 500 miles to the nearest Navy base to contest the Bronze Star- does that make him a liar? Not even. If Brinkley produced one quote or even one shred of evidence that proves that Thurlow ever endorsed his award for the reasons given on the citation, then I'd say Thurlow's a liar. But Brinkley has no such evidence, because no such evidence exists. Brinkley called Thurlow, who is without a doubt a true American war hero, a liar on national TV. That's despicable. He should be ashamed.

Full Speed Ahead

Yesterday's post was a bit lengthy in case you didn't notice. It could have been 6 times longer, so be thankful! I'll keep this one short and sweet.

Ramadan is Coming

Just thought I'd give you a head's up. Those two attacks in the Green Zone this morning were a sign that the "Ramadan surge" may have begun. Sometime during the next 36 hours a Muslim will see the crescent moon, and the month-long religious holiday will begin. Last year, it got pretty bad. With the elections coming, I expect this year to be worse. One thing you might not know about this morning's attack- we think there was a third guy who chickened out. He was spotted running away with his back pack on.

Next Scandal Please!

In case you were wondering what the next scandal was going to be- you need look no further than Bill O'Reilly. If you have a strong stomach, you can read about his brand new sexual harassment battle at the Smoking Gun. I'm warning you- it's really bad. I'm a pretty tough guy, and I barely got through it. If this woman has audiotapes, it might be curtains for Bill. I like Bill, but I've noticed some things since I began watching his show about 6 months ago- Bill likes to compliment the ladies. He seems to go out of his way to elaborate on a woman's beauty, sometimes while she's sitting right there in front of him. I've noticed some uncomfortable moments on his show, and I have to say I'm not all that surprised by this lawsuit. I hate "political correctness," but I'll never condone publicly embarrassing someone like that- I think Bill came fairly close to crossing the line a few times. I'm not convicting him here- I'm just not going to jump to his defense. There is one wildcard in this story- this woman quit her job with O'Reilly and went to CNN for a brief time before returning to O'Reilly earlier this year. Remember that O'Reilly recently unseated Larry King as the new "King of Cable." Wouldn't it be interesting if CNN was somehow behind this...

If you think I'm crazy, go out and rent a movie called Weapons of Mass Distraction.

No More Debates

I'm glad they're over. I wasn't impressed with any of them. I think both guys succeeded in not "screwing up," which was their only goal from the start...

Swiftees and the Fortunate Son

Okay, this is going to hurt. This election cycle produced one of the ugliest "scandal versus scandal" battles in recent memory. Why on Earth are we bickering about stuff that happened 30+ years ago??? Clearly, people want to focus on today's pressing issues (and there are many of those). But then, why did Kerry's numbers drop like a rock when the Swiftees came to town? Why did the Democratic National Committee launch Operation Fortunate Son? Why did Dan Rather use forged documents as the basis for a 60 Minutes story on the day that Operation Fortunate Son was launched? So many questions, so little time. Would you think I was crazy if I said that John Kerry and the Democratic Party are to blame for ALL of this? Stay with me, here...

President Bush and the Texas Air National Guard

This one is easy. It's a non-story. There is nothing about Bush's Guard record that is worth reporting. The simple truth is that Bush joined the Guard, fulfilled his obligations, and was honorably discharged. End of story. Not even worth a blurb on CNN's bottom line ticker. Did he get preferential treatment? Probably. Does that mean he's a bad guy? Or a bad pilot? A bad President? I don't think so. I'd like to meet a Kennedy who never received any "preferential treatment." (If you're really interested in this, read on. Otherwise skip down to the Swiftees)

It's all in the numbers, really. As a Guardsman, he was required to rack up at least 50 points per year in order to meet the minimum standards for service. Bush earned 253 points in his first year, May 1968 to May 1969 (since he joined in May 1968, his service thereafter was measured on a May-to-May basis). Bush earned 340 points in 1969-1970. He earned 137 points in 1970-1971. And he earned 112 points in 1971-1972. In his first four years, Bush not only showed up, he showed up a lot.

That brings the story to May 1972 — the time that has been the focus of so many news reports — when Bush “deserted” (according to Michael Moore) or went “AWOL” (Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee). Bush asked for permission to go to Alabama to work on a Senate campaign. His superior officers said OK. Requests like that weren’t unusual according to retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971. “In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots,” Campenni says. “The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In ’72 or ’73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem.” So Bush stopped flying. From May 1972 to May 1973, he earned just 56 points — not much, but enough to meet his requirement.

Then, in 1973, as Bush made plans to leave the Guard and go to Harvard Business School, he again started showing up frequently. In June and July of 1973, he accumulated 56 points, enough to meet the minimum requirement for the 1973-1974 year. Then, at his request, he was given permission to go. Bush received an honorable discharge after serving five years, four months and five days of his original six-year commitment. By that time, however, he had accumulated enough points in each year to cover six years of service.

During his service, Bush received high marks as a pilot. A 1970 evaluation said Bush “clearly stands out as a top notch fighter interceptor pilot” and was “a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership.” A 1971 evaluation called Bush “an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot” who “continually flies intercept missions with the unit to increase his proficiency even further.” And a 1972 evaluation called Bush “an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer.” I know, I know- you're thinking- "Wow, how does 2Slick know all this stuff?" It's out there, folks. The truth is in the blogosphere. I found this gem of a rundown on the Drudge Retort of all places- posted by some guy named RickyD. Brit Hume of Fox News fame did an excellent piece that contained all these same facts. Dan Rather and Mary Mapes spent 5 years going after this story- I'm sure they'd love to tell us all about their research, but they're probably not allowed to talk about it since they're under investigation for fraud (re: forged memos). Terry McAuliffe launched Operation Fortunate Son the same day the story aired. Joe Lockhart spoke with Mary Mapes and her "source" on a few occasions. Let's blame the Democrats and CBS for this one.

The worst thing about all this? When's the last time you heard Bush say "Vote for me because I was a great Guard pilot!" You've never heard him say that- and so it should have never been an issue...

The Swiftees

The reason John Kerry's Vietnam service record is an issue is quite simple- Kerry made it an issue. He correctly assumed that the Democrats would favor him as "the candidate who could defeat Bush" if he ran on a "tough guy / combat vet" platform (a war hero candidate to lead us in the War on Terror) . He put out a book called Tour of Duty that drew immediate criticism and concern from many of the officers and sailors that served with him. They formed a group (now it's called the Swift Boat Veterans and POW's for Truth) and made 2 very simple demands:

1) Apologize for his outrageously false claims about war crimes in 1971 (war crimes were committed on a day-to-day basis with the full knowledge of superior officers and it was widespread and a matter of policy, etc...).

2) Sign the Form 180, so the world could see that he lied about much of the "heroism" that he boasted about in his book. Douglas Brinkley, author of Tour of Duty, has also called for Kerry to sign the Form 180- he now believes Kerry lied to him.

Senator Kerry has not met either of these demands.

There are plenty of "red flags" that we military folks recognized immediatly. The first and most obvious "flag"- 3 Purple Hearts in four months and not a scratch on him. This is hard to do. Try to find someone else who accomplished this feat. Trust me, you won't find anyone else.

All those medals! Want to know the best way to determine if someone was a real war hero? Well, if you're trying to determine, then chances are that person is a hero. Real heroes don't usually talk about their medals. Real heroes never use their medals for any type of personal gain. Real heroes NEVER use their medals to make a political statement. John Kerry did all of these things. John Kerry used his medals to protest a war (I threw them at the White House), and he used those same medals to bolster his status as a war hero Presidential candidate (read my book!). This is very suspicious activity. It makes anyone with a military background wonder, "How did he get those medals?"

The Swiftees succeeded in exposing Kerry's "Cambodia" lie. No need to go into that one. Senator Kerry lied on the Senate floor as he tried to affect national policy, and he doesn't even deny it.

The fact that Kerry did not earn his first Purple Heart is a slam dunk that could easily be proven if Kerry would only sign that Form 180. Trust me- he won't sign that form.

The Silver Star is just bizarre. I'm not saying he didn't earn it- but I'll be the first one to say that it sure seems fishy. Read about it here.

The Bronze Star controversy is more difficult and more complicated than the others. The media claims that the Swiftees' claims against Kerry in this case are "unsubstantiated" because "official Navy documents" support Kerry's version of events. While common citizens find this to be a reasonable assessment, we military folks laugh out loud at such an assertion. For example, I could type up a false report right now (without ever leaving my desk) that my boss would readily believe, send up the chain, and by next week I'd have a Purple Heart and Silver Star with plenty of "official Army documents" to support them. If one of my coworkers were to say, "Hey wait a minute! You didn't rescue six children from a car bomber!" I'd say, "Sure I did- I've got plenty of 'official documents' that prove it. Wanna touch my medals?" I'm not saying Kerry never left his desk- clearly he was out there on the boat that day. Eyewitness accounts vary, which is common when all hell breaks loose and gunshots echo all around. But the reality is that there is no way that it happened the way Kerry claims it happened. No damage to the boats. Not a single bullet wound on any of the sailors. If you doubt that Kerry wrote his own citation for that Bronze Star, I'd ask you to read this. I assure you- he gave himself that Bronze Star.

Enough about the medals. Here's why I think he's Unfit for Command:

John Kerry served more than most and should therefore be honored, right? WRONG! How about our "heroic soldiers" who abused the prisoners in Iraq and took photos for all the world to see? They served more than most people. Like Kerry, some of them performed an act of courage here and there. Should they be honored? To make a blanket statement along the lines of "anyone who served should be honored" is just plain ignorant. There are bad apples in every bunch, and the sad truth is that there is a small minority of soldiers in every American war that did more to hurt the cause than to help. John Kerry is one of those bad apples. "Why" you ask? Well, it has nothing to do with the fact that he lied to get medals.

As a leader/officer in wartime, one must ensure that soldiers know one thing above all else- that their leaders are looking out for them. The soldiers must believe that the ones in charge will devote every last breath, drop of blood, bead of sweat to ensure the soldiers' safety during the course of the mission. John Kerry did no such thing. He got 3 band-aid wounds, and promptly headed home. Remember- 3 purple hearts gave one the choice to leave- it was not obligatory. What kind of message did that send to his sailors and all the other enlisted sailors in his unit? I'll tell you what message it sent- "officers look out for themselves." Officers will get rattled and say "OK good luck guys! I'm outta here!!"

Apparently a handful (maybe 9 out of about 300?) of the sailors he served with have forgiven him. Understandable, given the fact that he delivered those troops a national cheering audience that was more than 30 years overdue (at the DNC). But I'll tell you who will NEVER forgive him for what he did- the officers who served with him. He complicated their efforts, he hurt their unit's morale, he put their lives in danger, and he quickly rubbed salt in their wounds by coming home and bashing the ones who were brave enough to stay behind and do their duty. He had an anti-war agenda before he even joined the Navy. He used his credibility as an officer to propagate outrageous theories that hurt the ones who were still held captive, and caused years of unfair bias and hard feelings toward thousands of brave and honorable vets after they returned home.

He did all of this in order to win political fame and favor in the Democratic Party. It was his ticket to the big time, and he cashed it without a second thought. Reprehensible in every sense of the word. Say what you want about whether or not he deserved his medals- I could care less. As a leader in the US Military, he was an insult to our profession. He would have served his country much better by never having gone to Vietnam.

Ollie North wrote him a letter that makes me think he and I are on the same page with all this.

The mainstream media, for the most part, completely shunned the Swiftees (now called the Swift Boat Veterans and POW's for Truth)- dismissing them as Republican operatives who were thoroughly debunked and discredited. Nevertheless, the Swiftees still managed to bring Kerry's campaign to a grinding halt in mid-August. The reason for this is simple- they are not Republicans- they are highly decorated and honorable men who have valid reasons for disliking John Kerry. The media has done everything in its power to deny this fact, but the American people are too smart for the liberal smokescreen.

John Kerry called the Swiftees into action. I'm glad they showed up.

Zarqawi in a Bind

Before I go- remember what I said recently about Zarqawi's hard luck? Well, it looks like the famous Instapundit finally caught up to me. Check it out- it's good stuff...

Enjoy the last debate tonight!

What Are They Saying?

Today I want to address some of the war-related rhetoric that's been blowing around both sides of the election. I'll try to be as fair as possible, and I want to do this because the media just isn't very good at reporting military affairs- especially as they relate to politics.

"We Can't Win the War on Terror" (Bush)

This was one of Bush's "word slips" that Kerry supporters welcomed with glee. Bush was trying to be honest, and that can sometimes be a politician's worst mistake. Because of today's hyperactive media spin machine, politicians have to be extra careful about how they form their words. Bush was trying to explain that we will never declare victory over the terrorists. There won't be a treaty signing and we'll never breathe a sigh of relief because we finally killed that last remaining terrorist on Earth. What we can do is get the situation under control, and eliminate terrorism as the significant global threat that it is today. I like to equate it with crime in America. We'll never declare victory over crime, because we know that crime will always exist in America. However, we don't feel threatened by crime every day because we have police, a working legal system, and a society that does not recognize crime as acceptable behavior. 150 years ago, this was not the case- especially in the "wild west" where people were running around shooting each other for whiskey, clothes, snoring too loud, etc. Brave people like Wyatt Earp went out there and eventually instilled law and order, but we still have people shooting each other even today. The Wyatt Earps of the west did not "win the war on crime" out there, but they certainly got the situation under control. That's what we're doing in the mideast right now, but it's a much bigger challenge because it's a global effort.

"Terrorism Needs to Become a Nuisance- Like Prostitution and Gambling" (Kerry)

The good Senator made exactly the same mistake that Bush made. It's funny to me, because both guys were trying to make the exact same point, but they used two very different attempts at explaining themselves- and both got skewered by the spin doctors from their opposing campaigns. The lesson here is "if you can't explain it- don't say it." It's a sad reality for politicians in modern America.

"I'll Speed Up the Training of Iraqi Security Forces" (Kerry)

Nice try, Senator. Here's a question you'll never hear Kerry answer- "Senator Kerry, how will you speed up their training?" He can't answer this question and here's why- there is no way to speed up their training if they are to be a viable force for their country. The most glaring error in this claim is the fact that speedy training is precisely the mistake we made last year. I remember this well- Iraqis volunteered to serve, we gave them some uniforms, ran them through a quick training cycle, and sent them into harm's way. Once on the street, these brave Iraqis were slapped around, beaten about the head and face, publicly flogged, and thoroughly humiliated. We said "Okay, that was a mistake" and called for LTG Petraeus to come to Baghdad to save the day. Last June, he started rebuilding the force from scratch. He emphasized training the leadership first and foremost. This was essential, because the key to their success is to have competent leaders with good soldiers and policemen who believe in their cause and genuinely want to build a better nation. This is why they brought in Petraeus- he's famous for rallying troops around a cause, and he's widely considered to be the most competent leader and strategist in today's Army. Petraeus is operating on an established timeline that won't be changed by anyone. Allawi has been calling for him to speed things up, but Petraeus doesn't even return his phone calls- he just won't deviate from his plan. Bush wouldn't even think about appeasing Allawi's wishful demands over Petraeus' proven judgment and neither would Kerry- especially when you consider that he'd be repeating our earlier mistake. Mistakes are forgivable in a war- repeating the same mistake is not. Kerry would be wise to back off this faulty pledge.

"Kerry Would Cut and Run" (Bush)

Not a chance, George. Yes, Kerry has shown a weak hand from time to time, but he wouldn't even think about pulling out of Iraq before the job is finished. He made a huge mistake a while back when he tried to imply that he'd get the troops out in 6 months or 2 years. Bush called him on it, and Kerry immediately backed off. Kerry was trying to imply that he would get the job done faster than Bush, but it came across as "I'll bring our guys home no matter what." As a would-be President, you can't even imply such a thing when you have a nation of 25 million people counting on you to succeed. If you want a better assessment of how Kerry would handle the war, I'd recommend Michael Totten's The Hawkish Case for John Kerry.

Tomorrow, I'll cover the Swiftees and Bush's Texas Air National Guard record...

Until then, I'd like to offer you a chance to pay tribute to Christopher Reeve. He's been a hero of mine since I was 6 years old, and I think he personified personal courage in every way. I will certainly tell my children about him...

Afghanistan Votes!!!

Well, it looks like it actually happened- the people of Afghanistan finally had their say. This was a monumental event, no matter how you spin it. You might have heard about the "ink scandal." Sure it sounds ridiculous, but I have two words for you- "hanging chads." Instead of ripping the Afghanis for being difficult and stubborn, we should tip our hats to them- it took them all of 3 years to figure out our political system and duplicate it to perfection. Amazing! But seriously folks, great job to all who made that possible...

You Can't Afford to Miss This One...

Check out this masterpiece from Senator Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga. This guy's good. Really good.

Army Won!

You might remember my bold prediction last Friday- that the Cadets would use the inspiration from Bob Dole's motivational speech and finally put an end to college football's longest losing streak. They did it! Army beat Cincinnati 48-29. Now we're really cookin'! Should I now predict that my winless Dolphins will end pro football's longest winning streak today with a victory over the unbeaten New England Patriots? Don't think so. I may be optimistic, but I'm not stupid...

The Metrosexual and the Cowboy

Looks like Fox stepped on it recently with an embarrassing gaffe by Fox News analyst Carl Cameron. He wrote a "fake" story that ridiculed John Kerry- it wasn't meant for public viewing, but it somehow wound up on Fox's website- oops! This is a big deal because Carl Cameron is covering the Kerry campaign for Fox. I like Carl and I agree with his sentiments, but in the interest of being "fair and balanced," I would recommend that fox pull him off of political coverage- at least until this election is over.

Speaking of news corruption, why in the world is Dan Rather still at the news desk???? And what about this memo from ABCNEWS Political Director Mark Halperin? You know what? Forget what I said before- Fox needs to do whatever they can to minimize the overwhelming liberal bias that plagues the rest of the MSM. Go get 'em, Carl!

I Give Bush the Nod

Maybe I'm biased, but I think the best moment from last night's debate was when Bush finally took a stand in the face of Kerry's cheapshot lies- "YOU tell Tony Blair we're going it alone!" Beautiful. So far, the pundits appear to agree on the "Bush regained momentum" spin, while early "snap polls" indicate a statistical draw. Good.

We have an Australian officer working in our headquarters and at yesterday's planning meeting he said, "It's always been my dream to work with the Americans, but I can't for the life of me imagine working with John Kerry. That man has no concept of how to build alliances." He drew enthusiastic applause, and I couldn't agree more with his statement. That same officer was in a celebratory mood today, because John Howard won a sweeping victory in the Australian election- despite Kerry's efforts to have him derailed. This is good news for Bush, and better news for Iraq.

Two of my favorite guys in the entertainment industry are Trey Parker and Matt Stone- the creators of South Park. I just read about a new movie they've been working on, and I can't wait to see it- it's called Team America, and I think it comes out this weekend. Don't take the kids, because these guys (aside from being fall-down-laughing hilarious) are irreverent, rude, and sometimes raunchy, but one thing really sets them apart from the rest of the entertainment industry- they are not shy about the fact that they "hate liberals." They're not kind to conservatives, but they despise liberals and I just think that's funny since they're such successful entertainers.

Alec Baldwin, Susan Sarandon, Sean Penn, and a permanently mustard-stained Michael Moore are just a few of the celebrities who are going to feel well and truly roasted when they see this film. Even seeing the heads without the film’s puppeteers bringing them to life, they are frighteningly accurate and bitingly funny.

Anything that slimes Michael Moore gets an automatic A+ from me. Sean Penn is so angry about this film, that he wrote a scathing open letter to these guys- check it out at the Drudge Report. All I can say is that if they ruffled Sean Penn's feathers, then they did something very right. Go see it and let me know how you liked it...

The NY Times is FAIR?!?!

You'll never catch me praising the journalistic prowess of the New York Times, but I was surprised to find this well-written article about "The Bush Plan" on their site. It may bother some of you, but this is one of those rare cases where their honesty is brutal- not unfair. I agree that Bremer and Sanchez weren't all that effective together- but that's okay, because now they're gone. I agree that early efforts at implementing the Iraqi Security Force was a "rush to failure"- but that's okay, because they brought in LTG Petraeus to fix things. Mistakes will be made. They are, in fact, expected. It's important that our leaders be honest about those mistakes (not dwell on them), and it's more important that they support the commanders on the ground as they learn from those mistakes and help them to get it right next time. This NY Times article shows that our current administration and ground force commanders have been doing exactly that.

If you read the article, you'll see that it spells out what went wrong, and then details how we've fixed it or are planning to fix it. I found no irrational implications that Bush or Rummy should resign. I found no charges of incompetence or mismanagement. The article supports what I've been saying all along- that this operation is going as good, if not better, as we should reasonably expect it to be going- especially given the fact this is our first attempt at transforming a brutal 30+ year-old totalitarian society into a peaceful democratic society in the mideast. We've had a plan from the start and as with all plans, everything changed with the first gunshot. We've adapted with the changes, and with the lessons we're learning- we'll be that much better at this from now on.

I wish more articles like this would get out there. One thing I've learned from this war is that Americans have come to expect the impossible from us. It's irrefutably true that we're the most formidable military force on this planet. That doesn't qualify us as miracle workers. We can't force people to change their attitudes or overcome their fears overnight. There's some things we just can't do. We assess the situation and deal with it as best we can. Sometimes it may cost a lot of money, the number of casualties may be tragic, and it may take more than 6 months or even 6 years. This is something Americans need to understand- especially now. I appreciate their confidence in us, but unrealistic expectations can be harmful to our mission.

Duelfer Report

I've been asked about my thoughts on the recently released Duelfer Report. Those who know me will recognize the results of this report- I've been predicting them for over a year now. I never believed that there were actual WMD's in Iraq. I always believed that Saddam wanted the world to believe that he did have them. He was obviously successful because the entire world believed he had them. My feeling was that he was trying to keep the Kurds and the Shi'a at bay. He's claiming it was Iran that spooked him. Doesn't matter. The fact is Saddam was playing a dangerous geopolitical "game," and it turns out that he was successfully corrupting the UN as part of his overall strategy (this was news to me, but it didn't surprise me). As far as I'm concerned, there are two different ways to handle him in this scenario- the pre-9/11 way and the post 9/11 way:

1) Pre-9/11: Pressure him, sanction him, yell at him, do whatever you can to scare him into submission. How long should the pressure be applied? I guess that was the big question. 5 years? 10 years? We did it with limited success for 12 years. During that time, millions of Iraqis suffered greatly, thousands were killed, and Saddam survived comfortably by building a real "coalition of the bribed and coerced" that would have made John Kerry jealous (France, Russia, etc.).

2) Post-9/11: Take him out- pure and simple. The time for fun and games is over. If you want to "feign" mass destruction capability, then we'll let you pretend all you want in the comforts of a 5x12 cell. It's a post-9/11 world, mideastern dictators. Get used to it.

Some might disagree with me, and I respect that. I'm just not going to be one to say, "Wait a minute- let's give it some time. Maybe he's just bluffing. Let's ask the countries that he's bribing to help us figure everything out and solve the problem." If it were a drug dealer we're talking about, then maybe. But a guy who boasts weapons of mass destruction? Not a chance. Not on my watch. I'm with Dubya.

Me Bob Dole

Great words from Bob Dole as he accepted the Thayer Award at my former "Rockbound Highland Home." I'm predicting that his speech will motivate the Cadets to win a football game this year. Maybe even this weekend!

FUNNY!!!

You MUST check out this site- Kerry Haters for Kerry. It's way too funny... (Hat Tip- Instapundit)

Even FUNNIER: The folks at Jib Jab have done it again. You dare not miss Good to Be in DC. My favorite part of the political season is the humor...

Three Words or Less

I'm often criticized for being a little bit (okay- a lot) verbose at times. I feel the criticism is justified, and I've been struggling to find a concise way to lay out our plan for a peaceful and stable Iraq. I think it's being called "The Bush Plan" these days, and it's being touted by both candidates. About a week ago, I referred you to this article by LTG Petraeus. The feedback I got from that article was that the General is more verbose than I. Fair enough. Now I have some good news- I found a guy who managed to sum it up in three words or less. His name is Austin Bay, and he's an Army Colonel who recently returned from a stint in Iraq. I heard his name come up more than a few times in my headquarters, and to say that he's a well respected officer would be an understatement. Read his article, and I promise you'll have a better understanding of what we're doing over there.

I voted today. Please make sure you all do the same. Especially if you live in a battleground state such as Florida, New Jersey, or NEVADA (hint hint).

And in the Things I would do if I were in the US right now department...Go out and rent Fahrenhype911. It's at your local video store, and it'll help you speak intelligently to anyone who subjected themselves to an ill-advised $8 brainwashing by Michael Moore.

I read an intelligence report today that would absolutely knock your socks off. It hasn't been thoroughly analyzed yet, but the source was determined to be highly reliable- meaning he's given correct information in the past. If this thing breaks, it will change the entire foreign policy debate in a way that few could have ever anticipated. Stay tuned...

Cheney Won

So according to Senator Edwards, Bush and Cheney aren't being straight with the American people about Iraq. Really? I'd like to see an example. If the Kerry camp managed to show me ONE QUOTE from Bush that even IMPLIES denial or dishonesty regarding the current situation, I'll cast my vote for Kerry. I've often heard Bush say that we're doing a great job over there (we are), that times are tough and they'll get tougher (true), that there is lots of work yet to be done (true), and that we can't lose sight of the fact that our efforts are creating real progress every day (absolutely true- I've witnessed that progress with my own eyes). I've never heard him say, "wow you should see it over there- nobody's dying, it's so peaceful, they're holding love-ins at the Baghdad National Park..." Apparently, Edwards would have us believe that if Bush says anything other than "troops are dying in increasing numbers, and therefore we are losing in Iraq," then he is lying.

As for me, I'd like Bush to tell the American people what the mainstream media isn't telling them- the REST of the story, if you will. Tell them WHY American and Iraqis Security Forces are dying over there. Tell them WHAT we are fighting for. Why do I want him to do this? This is the part that is going to shock some people- he is the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!!! He's NOT a political pundit! He's NOT some Senator trying to get a job at the White House. Kerry and Edwards want him to act like a desperate candidate- I want him to act like a Commander in Chief. Part of his job as the Commander in Chief is to provide leadership to us deployed soldiers and avoid giving aid and comfort to the enemy (as Edwards and Kerry do in their bid to get elected).

Last night, Edwards pushed a "these-facts-support-my-lie" assertion that we're losing in Iraq (lie) because more soldiers died in Iraq in September than August (69 vs. 50) and August than July (50 vs. 41). He needs you to ignore or remain oblivious to the fact that during that time 2 hotbeds of resistance have been pacified, THOUSANDS of insurgents were killed or captured, we've trained and deployed many thousands of new better-equipped and better-led Iraqi Security Forces, and most importantly- we've moved the Iraqi people steadily closer to the election. Nobody will argue that violence has escalated- the administration had HONESTLY predicted that ALL ALONG. How did they know the violence would escalate? The elections of course! You see, the terrorists and insurgents have been operating with an "illusion of legitimacy" since this conflict began. Each of the 4 separate insurgent factions can rightfully claim that THEY are the voice of the Iraqi people, because so far nobody's been able to definitively prove otherwise. However, when MILLIONS of Iraqi people cast their first vote, they will have officially spoken AS A PEOPLE for the first time in who knows how long- ever? This will squeeze the life out of the insurgency, and the terrorists know it. The long-anticipated escalating violence only proves it.

There are 2 groups of people who want you to believe that we are losing in Iraq: left-wing Democrats and terrorists. Terrorists try to convince you of our downward spiral by setting off lethal car bombs. Left-wingers (including Kerry and Edwards) try to convince you of our downward spiral by pointing at the news coverage of those car bombs. Kerry and Edwards apparently think that shaking the confidence of the American people and amplifying the voice of our enemies is a justifiable tactic in their hunt for the White House. I disagree.

If you want leaders who will base their assessment of Iraq on the profit-driven mainstream media (as Edwards CLEARLY did last night) and tell the soldiers that they're slowly losing the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time, then your vote needs to go to Kerry/Edwards.

If you want a guy who won't back down from the enemy or waiver in his support for the deployed soldiers in order to get elected or for any other reason, then I implore you to hang on to my current boss- he's doing a great job and so are we...

Does Halliburton Make Me Look Fat?

Tonight you will be treated to the long-awaited high-noon showdown. Cheney and Edwards will go at each other like Mary Kate and Ashley fighting over the last remaining seconds of their 15 minutes of fame. Sorry for the obscure pop-culture reference, but I just felt "hip" all of a sudden.

Edwards will accuse Cheney of being a "corporate greedo" who uses $100 bills for toilet paper.

Cheney will laugh at this accusation, because Edwards is one of the most successful class-action tort-mongers (re: mega millionaires) in the history of our flawless legal system.

The big topic of discussion for the evening? My sources say "Halliburton." I can't tell you too much about Halliburton, but I know that they did a helluva great job feeding me, protecting me, and logistically sustaining me while I was in Iraq, and they're doing a swell job for me right now in Kuwait as well. As a soldier, that's all I care about. Let's not forget that many of their brave employees died while supporting our nation's sons and daughters.

Like most of you, I've heard the charges: Dick Cheney used his "Halliburton connection" to orchestrate an unethical, ill-advised no-bid contract which gave Halliburton the nod to rebuild Iraq's oil facilities while feeding and sustaining our great soldiers. Depending on how far left you are, you might even believe that Cheney coordinated with bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks and/or "sexed-up" the entire world's Iraq intelligence in order to secure profits for the company that he no longer works for. Furthermore, Halliburton has more ongoing investigations than <insert witty/funny analogy- sorry, I'm fresh out>.

The truth as I know it is that Cheney's only involvement with Halliburton since leaving the company are the pre-agreed pay installments that he received over the last few years- which he gave to charity. That's it- not even so much as a phone call since he left the company.

Here's the part that gets me- if Halliburton's no-bid contract was so disgraceful, where is the evidence? All I need to see is one example of a company that would have been better suited for the task at hand. If Edwards says, "I can prove that the contract was unethical because Company A or Company B would have been a better deal for our soldiers and our government," then I'll start listening. It'll never happen. The fact is, Halliburton was the best company for the job and it was a wartime requirement, which means the needs of our soldiers come first. They attract more legal scrutiny than Martha Stewart on the floor of the NYSE (okay, so I had one more), because Dick Cheney used to be the boss. If you still have any questions about this, please go to factcheck.org or freespeech.com to get a better rundown. I'm good, but not as good as I think I am.

If Cheney does his job tonight, Edwards will walk away from the podium as the guy who's more concerned about fair business practices than the needs of our combat-deployed troops.

If Edwards gets his way, Cheney will walk away from the podium with a disgusted look on his face and a roll of $100 bills hanging out of his pants.

Let the games begin!!!

Bad Days for Zarqawi

Looks like Zarqawi is having a rough go of it these days. Apparently, he's losing a significant fraction of his work force to the nightly US attacks on Fallujah, his car bombers keep failing to show up for follow-on missions, and now it looks like Ba'athist insurgents in Fallujah have had enough of him! This is good news. Insurgents battling insurgents. Let's hope they kill each other off quickly while keeping civilian casualties to a minimum.

There's a great new series starting today in the Stars and Stripes. It's a personal story about some 1st ID soldiers.

I found my two favorite Iraqi blog sites- Healing Iraq and Iraq at a Glance. Many of you heard me talk about the professors, doctors, dentists, and scholars that I worked with in Iraq. Well, now I'm referring you to these two sites because the points of view expressed in them look awfully familiar to me. Read them, and you'll know the kind of feedback that I got from my Iraqi cohorts on a daily basis. On TV, you see street-urchin thugs dancing and chanting around burning vehicles and charred bodies. These blogs will show you how educated Iraqis think.

If you're not familiar with the Oil-for-Food Scandal, here's your chance to catch up. Glenn Reynolds, the famous Instapundit, has been tracking this story well. If you don't know what kind of corruption has been coming out of the UN, then you are not qualified to debate the war in Iraq.

Finally, I'm sure that by now you've all heard about the Lone Star Iconoclast's recent endorsement of John Kerry for Prez. This was big news, because Bush's hometown paper was endorsing the other guy. Well, the tables have turned. John Kerry got his political start in Lowell, Mass and now the Lowell Sun (much higher circulation than the Iconoclast) is vigorously endorsing President Bush. You gotta read this...

We in Massachusetts know John Kerry. He got his first taste of politics 32 years ago in the cities and towns of Greater Lowell.

In his 20 years in the U.S. Senate, Kerry, a Navy war hero, hasn't risen above the rank of seaman for his uninspiring legislative record. He's been inconsistent on major issues. First he's for the 1991 Persian Gulf War, then he opposes it. First he's for the war in Iraq, then he's against it. First he's for a strong U.S. defense, then he votes against military weapons programs. First he's for the U.S. Patriot Act, then he opposes it.

Kerry's solution to stop terrorism? He'd go to the U.N. and build a consensus. How naive. France's Jacques Chirac, Germany's Gerhard Schroeder, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and other Iraq oil-for-food scam artists don't want America to succeed. They want us brought down to their level. And more and more, Kerry sounds just like them. In a recent campaign speech, Kerry said America was in the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

No doubt John Kerry sincerely wants to serve his country, but we believe he's the wrong man, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

Can You Pass the Test?

It's a slow Sunday here in the "office," so I decided to take John Kerry's new Global Test, kindly posted by our friends at Transterrestrial. I guess I'm not fit to be a world leader, because I scored an absolutely appalling -3090. Take the test yourself, and let me know how you did. I don't want to help you by giving you any answers, but you'll do much better if you select the French version of the test.

Mostly good news coming out of Iraq lately. My numbers don't match the Fox News numbers EXACTLY, but it's pretty darn close. Note the praise for the new Iraqi Troopers. Great job by the Americans and Iraqi National Guardsmen up there...

There's an Army lawyer/milblogger with the 1st ID who calls himself Dagger JAG, and he posted something about milblogs that I thought was pretty interesting. It covers the "freedom of speech" vs. "operational security" challenge that we milbloggers face.

Our friends at littlegreenfootballs posted a picture of Senator Kerry that I'm sure some of you might want to see. This is a perfect picture for one of those "create your own caption" gags. One of the commenters at lgf had a good one- "Quick! Pull my finger!"

Big ups to Cousin Laura, Aunt Molly, and the rest of their gang for getting my Iraq footage to Eric the Filmmaker. Please continue sending him pictures as you find them, and feel free to CC me while you're at it. I'd love to see some of those old shots...

Finally, I'll caution you to not worry too much about the latest Newsweek poll that shows Kerry surging ahead. Find comfort in this excerpt from a recent Powerline.com entry:

"Reader Meg Kreikemeier points out that according to RealClearPolitics, Newsweek's most recent poll included 345 Republicans, 364 Democrats and 278 independents. This compares to Newsweek's published data for their most recent prior poll, which showed President Bush with a comfortable lead: 391 Republicans,300 Democrats and 270 independents. Yes, if you drop 46 Republicans and add 64 Democrats, you will get considerably better results for the Democratic nominee. This is a good reminder of why poll data always need to be taken with a grain of salt, especially until you see the underlying data."

Ah yes- the power of the blogosphere...

MISREPS and Propaganda

Jdwill did some great research and brought up a very important point in a comment on my last post. Go read it before you read the rest of this. The quotes that jdwill found scattered throughout those media outlets are what we call "misreps and propaganda." We track them closely and our public affairs officials do what they can to control them. However, the job is a difficult one. Most of the reporting is done by journalists who are holed up in a cushy hotel somewhere in the "green zone." They all have multiple "info gatherers" who work for them. These "info gatherers" are local nationals who run to the scenes of explosions and gunfire, and use satellite phones to call in the breaking news. While at the scene, they'll interview people and bring the scoop back to the reporters. Typically, one "info gatherer" will emerge with a soundbite of choice. It may or may not be an actual soundbite, but most journalists will use it because it's sure to drum up controversy and increase sales/profits. So the news you're getting is filtered through a local national (who may have easily been a Saddam loyalist or had an uncle killed by US forces during Desert Storm or OIF), and then again through a profit-seeking news reporter who MOST LIKELY writes with an anti-war and/or anti-American slant (I say "most likely" because most of them just do). Some news outlets are worse than others. Al Jazeera was deemed to be an actual combat asset for the insurgency and was therefore kicked out of Iraq. Believe me, it hasn't stopped them from reporting numerous accounts of US forces killing babies, women, and elderly. Misreps and propaganda.

The news you get from me comes straight from the SIGACTS pages of our secure website. There are some things I can divulge from these pages and some things I can't, but I've never seen anything that comes even close to the anti-American spin that makes it into those papers. Of those 100+ enemy killed, there were few (if any) events that resulted in more than 9 enemy deaths at a time. This makes it very easy for our forces on the ground to call in an accurate report. For instance, MANY events from that day's fighting looked something like this (not a real SIGACT):

2/14 CAV PATROL engaged NW of city hall building w/ SA/RPG Fire. Minor damage to M2. 1 x CF WIA / 6 x EKIA / 5 x AIF DET / 3 x NEU KIA /6 x NEU INJ

Translation: a patrol of Bradley Fighting Vehicles was making it's way to or from the city hall building when it was attacked by at least 11 bad guys with small arms (SA) and RPGs. 1 US soldier was hurt (Coalition Force Wounded in Action- CF WIA), one Bradley (M2) received minor damage, 6 of the attackers were killed (Enemy Killed in Action- EKIA), 5 of the attackers were captured (Anti Iraq Forces detained- AIF DET), 3 innocent bystanders (neutrals- NEU) were killed, and 6 bystanders were injured . Three things I would deduce from a report like this:

1) There were probably more than 11 attackers, but some or most of them fled (got away).

2) Most (if not all) of the detainees were injured and needed immediate medical assistance. Our guys do a great job of getting them to a hospital right away. Once at the hospital, the doctors will treat them while telling a nearby "information gatherer" that it's not "immediately clear" if these new patients are "insurgents." That's probably because insurgents look a lot like civilians. They don't wear uniforms, they carry no Geneva Convention forms of ID, and they make every effort to look as much like "regular people" as possible. Of course they feel no sense of responsibility when nearby civilians get hurt or killed.

3) The bystanders who were killed and injured were probably hit by a stray enemy RPG round or sporadic enemy gunfire. Of course there's a small chance that it was erroneous ammo from US forces, but that's usually not the case. Unfortunately, most of those tragic deaths are blamed on us in the local papers. In fact, it's darn near ALWAYS a result of insurgents using human shields or just firing about in every direction. It's the world's most cowardly way to fight- "I'm going to shoot you, but if you shoot me back, you're likely to hit this child as well. Or I just might blow my grenade while surrounded by a huge crowd of people, including my grandfather." Their media (often quoted by respected international media outlets) chooses to ignore this tactic, and instead places the blame squarely on our soldiers. Could you imagine if our forces used a similar tactic? If our soldiers went around fighting with a "baby in a harness" on their chests? The outrage would ring throughout the world. Yet, this is essentially what the insurgents are doing and they get a pass.

So that's the world we live in, and our guys in Iraq are doing everything they can to change it...

Miscalculate This

I hope you had a chance to read the LTG Petraeus article yesterday, because a key part of his plan kicked off in Samarra yesterday just before dawn. It was a big step towards making Iraq safer for the elections. Early news reports indicate 17 enemy killed with no coalition killed. My sources indicate they're right about the coalition forces, but I'm tracking well over 100 enemy killed in Samarra thus far. This is a staggering figure, because it's approaching the actual number of insurgents believed to be in Samarra. Either our estimates were off, or it's turning out to be one heckuva last stand over there. The people of Samarra have been asking us to "clean out" the insurgents since early September. We waited as the Iraqi government attempted diplomacy (hey- insurgents have needs too), and the talks fell apart on the 23rd. Now we're turning Samarra into a "go zone" which will be effectively patrolled and protected by Petraeus' new Iraqi Sooper Troopers. If this sounds familiar, it's because something very similar happened recently in Najaf. There was a little more diplomacy in the Najaf situation, because of the "Mosque sensitivity" issues, but the result was very telling- dozens of insurgents killed, few American casualties, and a successful transfer of authority to the new Iraqi Security Forces. Since that time, Najaf has been flooded with reconstruction money and the people have never been happier. The coalition approval rating in Najaf has nearly doubled since the end of that standoff. The people of Samarra said "I'll have what they're having" and so it goes. I hope you're starting to notice a pattern here, because it's not an accident.

Today I'd like to address the issue of President Bush's "miscalculation." First off, I think it was nice of him to take the heat for us, but the obvious truth is that George Bush miscalculated nothing. Here's a couple secrets I'd like to reveal:

1) George W. Bush didn't learn anything about strategic war planning as a lieutenant in the Texas ANG. He didn't learn about war planning while serving as the Governor of Texas either.

2) Bill Clinton didn't learn anything about war planning as a young student in search of a secret method for smoking pot without inhaling. He didn't learn about war planning while serving as the Governor of Arkansas either.

When we bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, Clinton called China and said "I'm sorry." Clinton had nothing to do with that bomb going astray, but as a leader, he took responsibility and did what we expect a leader to do. Bush did the same when he said that he "miscalculated" the transition from combat operations to stability operations in Iraq. The fact is, we had the most experienced military and diplomatic strategists in the world working on the strategy, and it just so happens that some of their assumptions were wrong. If you want to know the real story about the miscalculations, you won't get a more honest assessment than this one by LTG Wallace. LTG William Wallace was the V Corps Commander, and therefore, the Army Forces Commander in Iraq when the war kicked off. I arrived in Kuwait on February 28th '03 with the 101st Division Advance Party and I was surprised when LTG Wallace welcomed us off the plane. He shook our hands and said he wanted to personally welcome the 101st and thank us for coming. I'll never forget what he said to us that day:

"I know you've been hearing different things on the news, but I'm telling you it's not a matter of if this war's gonna happen, it's a matter of when it's gonna happen. It's gonna be tough, it's gonna take courage and sacrifice, and if we thought it was gonna be easy, we wouldn't have asked for the 101st."