American Turk rides in the woods

Watch my buddy Murat ride his bike on a tough trail through the woods ! Murat is a fellow blogger I have come to respect a lot . There is a link to American Turk in the right sidebar , go visit him .

Murat's video

Why isn't this in the news?

UPDATE !! And an apology .
I did not verify the facts about this statue before posting about it . According to Snopes ( www.snopes.com ) , Kalat did make the statue , but not out of gratitude , but was commissioned by the US Army to craft it . Some of the other facts are correct . I feel the point is still valid that the media neglects good stories about the war due to their opposition to it , and thus skew the perception of readers and listeners toward opposition to the war .



This statue currently stands outside the Iraqi palace,
now home to the 4th Infantry division.
It will eventually be shipped home
and put in the memorial museum in Fort Hood, TX

The statue was created by an Iraqi artist named Kalat,
who for years was forced by Saddam Hussein to make the many hundreds of bronze busts of Saddam that dotted Baghdad.

Kalat was so grateful for the Americans liberation of his country;
he melted 3 of the heads of the fallen Saddam
and made the statue as a memorial to the American soldiers
and their fallen warriors.
Kalat worked on this memorial night and day for several months.

To the left of the kneeling soldier is a small Iraqi girl giving the soldier comfort as he mourns the loss of his comrade in arms.

Do you know why we don't hear about this in the news?
Because it is heart warming and praise worthy.
The media avoids it because it does not have the shock effect.

But we can do something about it.
We can show it to everyone we know and talk about it .

Drudge - BARBARA DOES HUGO

Drudge , Drudge , I hope not !!
Recent headline on Drudge was possibly intentional , but I hope not . Maybe the writer doesn't know the current slang meaning of X does Y , as in has sex with .
The news item is about Barbara Walters and her interview with Hugo Chavez . Chavez tries to explain why he called Bush "Devil" , and "Donkey" , and was quite rude to Condi Rice in his description of her as illiterate and sexually frustrated .

Chavez also rants about Bush attempting to oust him and attempting his assassination .
Chavez also makes a wild claim -

Chavez refuses to endorse an American presidential candidate for 2008, saying that his support would be a burden for the candidate. He does, however, express great confidence that if he could run for president in the United States, he would have no trouble winning and that he could win over any right wing candidate within six months.

Chavez is continually showing us how out of touch he is . If he weren't a major supplier of oil to the US , he wouldn't get away with his antics . I suppose he will want to come to the UN to join his buddy Ahmedinejad if and when the Iranian leader gats enough visas for his multitude of "support" people he wants to bring along .

Source -
ABC News

NOT a happy camper !!

Iran's leader is unhappy about the draft resolution in the UN that will be voted on soon . I don't put much faith in the effectiveness of UN resolutions , but this one is stronger than recent ones .
Here is Ahmadinejad's comment -

If all of you gather and also invite your ancestors from hell, you will not be able to stop the Iranian nation (from developing nuclear technology ).

The resolution blocks international transactions by Bank Sepah, Iran's fifth-largest bank, and freezes the bank's assets abroad.
Calls on all governments and financial institutions not to make commitments "of grants, financial assistance or concessional loans" to the Iranian government.
Bans Iran from supplying, selling or transferring "any arms or related material" to other countries.
Freezes the foreign assets of 13 additional organizations and 15 more Iranian officials, including the commander of the Quds force, an elite military group the Bush administration has charged with providing sophisticated explosives to Iraqi Shiite militias.
Urges U.N. members to restrict travel by the 15 Iranian officials. Nations would be required to notify a Security Council committee if those officials enter their countries.
These actions , if implemented , and if followed by other nations , may be some deterrent to Iran's progress toward nuclear arms , leaving the door open for them to develop nuclear energy as they claim is their only goal .
It is my opinion that the resolution will only slow them down for a while ,and they will be a threat until Ahmedinejad is ousted and more reasonable leaders emerge .

Source - USAtoday

Dems backing down some more

Nancy Pelosi and her supporters are now backing down on the plan to stop Bush from acting against Iran by cutting funding . They were possibly convinced by conservative Democrats and others that such action would have a great impact on Israel .
From Yahoo News

Top House Democrats retreated Monday from an attempt to limit President Bush's authority for taking military action against Iran as the leadership concentrated on a looming confrontation with the White House over the Iraq war.

Officials said Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other members of the leadership had decided to strip from a major military spending bill a requirement for Bush to gain approval from Congress before moving against Iran.

Democrats are now working toward a test vote in the House Appropriations Committee on Thursday on the overall bill, which would require the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by Sept. 1, 2008, if not earlier. The measure also provides nearly $100 billion to pay for fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

UPDATE 3-16-2007 The Senate vote Pelosi was counting on to force Bush to get out of Iraq failed to pass by a clearly partisan split vote . The Senate voted 50-48 against a resolution requiring all but essential support troops to leave Iraq by March 2008.
This is a victory for Republicans, who had relied on parliamentary maneuvers for weeks to delay an extensive debate on Iraq. They changed course in recent days, allowing Mr. Reid's proposal to advance and demonstrating that Democrats were unable to muster enough support in Congress to push through sweeping changes in Iraq policy, despite the party's victory in the November election.

More on Iraqi military transition

Here is Brigadier General Dana Pittard , the head of the Iraq Assistance Group on the progress of the transition of Iraq's army into leadership roles in the war .

Brig. Gen. Dana Pittard highlighted the role of transition teams in Iraq and their progress at the Combined Press Information Center in the International Zone, Baghdad.

Embedded transition teams work side by side with Iraqi Army and Police. The primary goal of these teams is to increase the capabilities of the Iraqi Security Forces and build their self- reliance, said Pittard.

Performance of the teams is important to success.

“I am very impressed with the performance of the Iraqi Army. There was a time when

Coalition forces had to urge Iraqi Forces to fight that is not the case anymore. They are not only capable of fighting, they want to fight for a sovereign Iraq,” said Pittard.

These teams are embedded with Iraqi Security Forces ranging from battalion to division-sized forces. There are currently 500 transition teams working with Iraqi Security Forces.

The embedded teams vary in size, but a typical team consists of 11 members. The number of teams may not increase, but the actual size of the teams may change, said Pittard.

Eight of the 10 divisions in the Iraqi Army are now under Iraqi control and all divisions are showing evidence of self- reliance, said Pittard.

Six of the divisions are under the Iraqi Ground Forces and two are under the Baghdad Security Command.

While they are under Iraqi control, they still receive some American support, according to Pittard.

Source -
cent.com

Due to the dedication of the embedded transition teams over the last two years the Iraqi Security Forces have seen a dramatic increase in performance.

Good news from Iraq

The media tells us how badly things are going in Iraq daily . Here is some good news they have not told us . I read cent.com articles regularly , they are posted on the Central Command website almost daily and are written by soldier/reporters in the field . Check out cent.com when you want some news not filtered by the US media .

For example -

Iraqi forces control much of northern Iraq

Monday, 12 March 2007
By Fred W. Baker III
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON — Three of the four Iraqi army divisions in the north are now under the control of the Iraqi Ground Forces Command, and U.S. troops are turning over more counterinsurgency operations to those units, the top U.S. commander in the region said.

This will allow U.S. forces to refocus its combat operations and to continue working with local governments on economic issues, said Army Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, commander of Multinational Division North.

U.S. troops are now serving more in an “advise-and-assist role,” Mixon said. U.S. combat operations are more focused on specific targets, such as individuals and groups who finance, make and use improvised explosive devices.

Mixon reported that Iraqi units in the region are manned at about 85 percent. They do, however, have significant equipment shortages, he said.

The final division should fall in under Iraqi command and control by this summer. To help train the Iraqi troops, Mixon has added nearly 400 U.S. soldiers to his military transition teams. To help train the Iraq police, 33 transition teams were added.

I have not read any good news lately in the papers , but things are happening over there , and sort of on schedule . It must be understood that Iraq is building an army and trying to do so in the face of terrorist and extremist opposition hourly . If we back out now , these efforts will be negated in weeks if not days .

Mixon reported that Iraqi units in the region are manned at about 85 percent. They do, however, have significant equipment shortages, he said.

The final division should fall in under Iraqi command and control by this summer. To help train the Iraqi troops, Mixon has added nearly 400 U.S. soldiers to his military transition teams. To help train the Iraq police, 33 transition teams were added.

Work is still needed, however, with the border security forces and with the strategic infrastructure battalions, those that secure critical oil refining and delivery infrastructure.

Mixon put dedicated training teams with the strategic infrastructure battalions but had to “weed out some of the bad eggs” in those battalions who were working with insurgents or stealing oil.

“They still need to make improvements in their overall manning, their equipping and their general professionalism, and we continue to work that each day,” Mixon said.

Mixon noted that the oil refining and delivery infrastructure was in poor condition before the war, so considerable investment is needed to fix those problems.

The general said he is encouraged by progress made in the northern provinces of Nineveh, Kirkuk and Salahuddin, but that sectarian violence still plagues Diyala province. He has moved more forces into Diyala province and increased offensive operations to throw the insurgents “off balance” and prevent them from reinforcing operations in Baghdad, he said. In the past two months, coalition forces have seen a 30 percent increase in offensive actions and attacks and have killed more than 175 enemy forces in Diyala, Mixon said.

“We see the Sunni insurgency trying to desperately gain control of Diyala, because it helps in their effort to control Baghdad and to prevent the government of Iraq from succeeding,” Mixon said. “Over time, I am confident that the Iraqi army and the Iraqi police will overcome these security threats in cities like Baqubah, Balad Ruz and Muqdadiyah, and throughout Diyala province.”

Upside down ?

This is from an Argentine Presidential election , but I altered it by putting America in place of Argentina . Read it as you see it , but for the true message read it from bottom to top !

This is the truth
If we turn things upside down
We can’t be the best country in the world
I would be lying to you if I said that
America will have a safe country ahead
Our economy will be strong
That our children will be healthy, and get an education and have jobs
Before anything you must know
Our country does not deserve such things
And I am convinced of this because I know the American people
Corruption and hypocrisy is in our nature
I refuse to believe under any circumstances that
We could be a great country in the coming years
Thanks to the peoples vote
This country is sinking to new depths but
There are even more surprises to come
America has only one destiny
And whether we like it or not
This is what is real

I think some of our leaders need to get the message . They are so busy trying to put their heads where the sun don't shine , they see things upside down !

How Texan are you ?

You Are 96% Texas

Well, butter my butt and call me a biscuit. This ain't your first rodeo!

How Texas Are You?

DISCOVERY backing off "Lost Tomb" ?

Looks like Discovery Channel is not as proud of the documentary they aired about a supposed tomb of Jesus . The airing gained an average of 4.1 million viewers - more than any of their previous documentaries - they refused to put out a press release crowing about it , as is customary . They even aired a panel discussion just after the initial airing to discuss the fallacies involved in the discovery of the "lost" tomb . Ted Koppel moderated the discussion . They then pulled a repeat showing suddenly .
Perhaps Discovery Channel realized the specious claims of the Titanic director , James Cameron .

Discovery Channel's controversial James Cameron-produced documentary "The
Lost Tomb of Jesus" drew the largest audience for the network in more than a
year on Sunday night, but the network has taken several recent steps to downplay
the project.

"This is not one where you necessarily beat the drum, from a business
perspective," said David Leavy, executive VP of corporate communications at
Discovery. "It's not necessarily about making money, or making ratings, or
shouting from the highest office building. Sometimes having some maturity and
perspective is more important than getting picked up in all the ratings
highlights."

Curious to me that they say it is not about money , but are truly basking in the limelight , even bad publicity is publicity , and the show WILL air agin , I can be certain .

Source-http://www.tvweek.com/news.cms?newsId=11681

Direct from Drudge

This doesn't need any comment from me . If you can't see the hypocrisy , you are drunk on Gore's Kool-aid .

POWER: GORE MANSION USES 20X AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD; CONSUMPTION INCREASE AFTER 'TRUTH'Mon Feb 26 2007 17:16:14 ET The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through free market policy solutions, issued a press release late Monday:Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy. Gore’s mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES). In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average. Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359. Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006. Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year. “As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk to walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006. For Further Information, Contact: Nicole Williams, (615) 383-6431 editor@tennesseepolicy.org

And Newsmax reports that Bush's home in Crawford , Tx. is more eco-friendly than Gore's .

"It's interesting that Bush seems to actually practice conservation, while Gore seems to want to buy his way out of his obligations," said Lewis, referring to the purchase of offsets for carbon emissions attributed to the high power use in Gore's 20-room mansion.

An April 2001 article in USA Today described the president's 4,000-square-foot single-story limestone house in Crawford as an "eco-friendly haven."

"Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into purifying tanks underground - one tank for water from showers and bathroom sinks, which is so-called 'gray water,' and one tank for 'black water' from the kitchen sink and toilets," it said. "The purified water is funneled to the cistern with the rainwater."

In addition, "the Bushes installed a geothermal heating and cooling system, which uses about 25 percent of the electricity that traditional heating and air-conditioning systems consume."

As Cybercast News Service reported earlier, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research (TCPR) charged on Monday that Gore's mansion in Nashville "consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year."

"As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use," said TCPR President Drew Johnson.

"It's interesting that Bush seems to actually practice conservation, while Gore seems to want to buy his way out of his obligations," said Lewis, referring to the purchase of offsets for carbon emissions attributed to the high power use in Gore's 20-room mansion.

An April 2001 article in USA Today described the president's 4,000-square-foot single-story limestone house in Crawford as an "eco-friendly haven."

"Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into purifying tanks underground - one tank for water from showers and bathroom sinks, which is so-called 'gray water,' and one tank for 'black water' from the kitchen sink and toilets," it said. "The purified water is funneled to the cistern with the rainwater."

In addition, "the Bushes installed a geothermal heating and cooling system, which uses about 25 percent of the electricity that traditional heating and air-conditioning systems consume."

As Cybercast News Service reported earlier, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research (TCPR) charged on Monday that Gore's mansion in Nashville "consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year."

"As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use," said TCPR President Drew Johnson.

End runs by Democrats

The Democrats are now wanting to float a re-do of the original authorization for the war in Iraq . Since debate on the non-binding resolution against Bush's "Surge" was stymied , they will now try anything . Kennedy wants the war resolution changed , and Murtha intends to withhold funding in as many ways as possible .
The Democrats know they can't do these things but will try an end run on Republicans who support the President by bringing up bills and resolutions they can't pass , just to get Republicans looking bad for the 08 voters . In other words , they still have no other plan than to bash Bush .

In http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1593819,00.html this article in Time ,
Michael Duffy relates the strategy as "...a new measure that sets new limits on the American mission in Iraq. The details of Reid's resolution are fuzzy because the Democratic leadership only just glommed onto this idea last week and the language of the resolution is still being worked out. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin said on Sunday that the new measure would set a deadline next year for withdrawal of some US forces — he did not say how many. It would most likely restrict US troops to training, support and counter-terror roles, though that too has to be worked out. Reid is expected to unveil the resolution on Tuesday. "

He also quotes "An aide to a more conservative Senator, who doesn't like what's going on in Iraq but is not willing to oppose the President, was more pointed. "They are all trying to figure out a way to embarrass the President and rally the netroots," he said. "It won't get very far."

"The idea to revisit the original war authorization was first proposed by Sen. Edward Kennedy in January and has been bouncing around the Senate chamber for a few weeks, talked up at various points by different Democratic senators. It was ignored chiefly because it had virtually no chance of winning any Republican votes — and that fact hasn't changed. "

"Republicans blocked debate on the non-binding resolution, and Democrats overplayed their hand in the House, meanwhile, when Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania threatened to withhold funds for any combat unit destined for Iraq which was undermanned or under-equipped in some way — an indirect Iraq no confidence vote. Republicans seized on this too-clever-by-half gambit, charging the majority with bleeding the troops and shrewdly challenging Democrats to simply cut off all funds if they didn't like the war. That worked. Murtha hasn't been heard from since, though his aides say he may say something in public this week about his next steps. "

In my view , this shows that they have NO plan for the war beyond denigrating Bush . Even when calling for withdrawals on a timeline , they are not clear , and some of their timelines closely match what the administration has proposed if Iran's own forces meet expectations as they finish the training we are providing them now .

How can this be ?

I am told by liberals that the economy is in the dump due to Bush , and tax cuts . How can the deficit be getting smaller ? According to an article in The Christian Scientist Monitor , the US deficit is shrinking towards half of its 1970 levels when analyzed as a percentage of gross domestic product .
Here are some snippets from the article -http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0221/p01s03-usec.html

Despite the ongoing costs of US military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan,
the outlook for the federal budget has grown substantially brighter.
Tax
revenues are rising much faster than spending, according to Treasury Department
numbers released last week. The recent trend is strong enough that, were it to
continue, the budget could move into surplus in barely a year, one economist
calculates.
In the MonitorThursday, 02/22/07



Already,
the federal deficit is shrinking toward about half the size that it has averaged
since 1970, when analyzed as a percentage of gross domestic product.
The
shift reflects a strong economy, with higher incomes and corporate profits
generating a bigger flow of tax revenue. In turn, the Treasury's progress could
help the economy by buoying investor confidence in the nation's fiscal position.

Poor Nancy Pelosi !!

So the Speaker of the House has no qualms about withholding funding and stopping the "surge" , but is upset because Cheney spoke his mind about it . She wants an apology from the President !

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,253604,00.html

WASHINGTON — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday phoned President Bush to air her complaints over Vice President Dick Cheney's comments that the Congressional Democrats' plan for Iraq would "validate the Al Qaeda strategy."
Pelosi, who said she could not reach the president, said Cheney's comments wrongly questioned critics' patriotism and ignored Bush's call for openness on Iraq strategy.
"You cannot say as the president of the United States, 'I welcome disagreement in a time of war,' and then have the vice president of the United States go out of the country and mischaracterize a position of the speaker of the House and in a manner that says that person in that position of authority is acting against the national security of our country," the speaker said.

Pelosi, at a news conference in San Francisco, said Cheney's criticism of Democrats was "beneath the dignity of the debate we're engaged in and a disservice to our men and women in uniform, whom we all support."
"And you know what I'm going to do? I'm going to call the president and tell him I disapprove of what the vice president said," Pelosi said. "It has no place in our debate." Bush had previously urged her to call him when a member of his administration stepped over the line by questioning Democrats' patriotism, she said.

Here are Cheney's comments -

"I think if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we will do is validate the Al Qaeda strategy," the vice president told ABC News. "The Al Qaeda strategy is to break the will of the American people ... try to persuade us to throw in the towel and come home, and then they win because we quit."

UPDATE 3-16-2007 The Senate vote Pelosi was counting on to force Bush to get out of Iraq failed to pass by a clearly partisan split vote . The Senate voted 50-48 against a resolution requiring all but essential support troops to leave Iraq by March 2008.
This is a victory for Republicans, who had relied on parliamentary maneuvers for weeks to delay an extensive debate on Iraq. They changed course in recent days, allowing Mr. Reid's proposal to advance and demonstrating that Democrats were unable to muster enough support in Congress to push through sweeping changes in Iraq policy, despite the party's victory in the November election.

Don't trust Kim Jong Il !!!!

We should NOT trust N. Korea to stand by any provisions of the current Six-party Talks ! They are not trustworthy in any way as proven by their recent actions , which I think were just build-ups to the concessions that might be made soon if the talks continue as they have lately .
http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?ID=17237 <--Read this from ISN -International Relations and Security Network .

"Six-Party Talks: A bitter pill to swallow
The possible deal between the
US and North Korea, discussed last month in Berlin by Assistant Secretary of
State Christopher Hill and his North Korean counterpart, Vice Foreign Minister
Kim Gye-gwan, is expected to be ratified at Six-Party Talks later this week in
Beijing. If the North freezes but does not dismantle its nuclear program, the
threat of another nuclear crisis will persist; to achieve lasting success, all
parties to the talks must insist on the irreversible denuclearization of the
Korean Peninsula.

In the first phase of the deal, North Korea allegedly will cease operations of its five-megawatt reactor and allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to monitor Yongbyon in return for a partial release of North Korean funds from Banco Delta Asia (that have been frozen for over a year), removal from the US terrorism list, and a renewed supply of at least 500,000 tons of oil. This would halt North Korea's ability to produce more plutonium and expand its nuclear weapons arsenal. In return, the North's primary "rewards" would be partial relief from international economic isolation and gains in stature that derive from de facto being the world's eighth nuclear weapons state.
A second phase would address North Korea's existing nuclear stockpiles in the context of added economic benefits, steps by the US and Japan toward normalization, and the establishment of a permanent peace on the Korean Peninsula.
The Bush administration's success requires what most critics believe is impossible: the rollback of North Korea's nuclear weapons program. The current deal in its initial stage would not achieve that objective. Instead, the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula would require additional actions by North Korea, but financial pressure on the North would be considerably eased, leaving the administration to rely on questionable North Korean assurances that it is committed to the Korean Peninsula's denuclearization.
In many respects, this new deal appears to conform with the North Korean "freeze-for-reward" proposal tabled at the third round of Six-Party Talks in June 2004. This proposal envisaged a limited freeze of North Korea's nuclear program in return for energy supplies and the lifting of US economic sanctions on the DPRK. A statement by the DPRK foreign ministry spokesman advocated a "freeze" as the first step toward dismantlement and characterized the size of the "reward" as the factor that would determine the ultimate timing of North Korea's nuclear dismantlement. "

You see that N. Korea has expanded the situation by claiming nuclear achievements to the point that the world cannot afford to ignore them . This makes it easier for them to ask for and to get relief from the money freeze imposed on them , and put a dent in the isolation they have brought upon themselves in the last few years . None of this will help keep the Korean peninsula nuclear free , since few beleive they will honor any new agreements since they have honored few of them in the past .

North Korea has gotten a taste of power and has learned from Iran how to make certain parts of the UN wet their pants in a rush to cater to them .

Our Flag - Long may it wave !

" A thoughtful mind , when it sees a nation's flag , sees not the flag only , but the nation itself ; and whatever may be its symbols , its insignia , he reads chiefly in the flag the government , the principles , the truths , and the history which belongs to the nation that sets it forth . "
Henry Ward Beecher

This is a sentiment to hold deep in our hearts , not only toward our own flag , but to all flags of nations of the world .
It is too bad that we are engaged in a war with a nationless enemy . Perhaps this is one reason that we have Americans that do not support our war on terror . Perhaps if the enemy had a nation and a flag , these non-supporters could find reason to identify with our struggle and support America and her allies .
If Beecher is correct , the flag of our enemy would reflect the depths of enmity the radical Islamist hold for us , and the enormity of their often stated goal of destroying us along with all of western society and culture .

Bashing the troops and getting away with it

I am pasting this entry directly from http://www.strategypage.com/default.asp

"In light of the blog based blowback over his original post, Washington Post
writer Bill Arkin fired off two responses. Arkin's replies seemed to fall more
into the "I'm sorry if you were offended", and actually heaped more insults on
the troops. As if he did not get his butt kicked enough after referring to the
all-volunteer force as mercenaries, Arkin seemed to be asking for more. However,
Arkin's response also seems to indicate that the media is more willing to fight
a war against the war on terror rather than to call out opponents of the war on
apparent hypocrisy.
It seems that the media and the anti-war movement
understands some implications that the internet and 24-hour news coverage have
for the troops, but seems unwilling to keep that in mind. It is not 1942, when
the Chicago Tribune's revelation of American codebreaking at Midway managed to
escape the attention of the Axis. Today, when the New York Times blows
intelligence programs, the Washington Post's columnists labels the troops
mercenaries, Newsweek releases a report that is inaccurate, or when an anti-war
politician compares American troops to the Khmer Rouge, it spreads across the
world at the speed of light.
Naturally, such ill-considered decisions
by these media outlets and politicians draw fire. This then leads to
polarization. The offended troops see this as elite media members not
understanding what is going on. The media, of course, digs in its heels,
charging the military with wanting to censor the news, never considering that
there is a responsibility to carefully consider the words one uses in that
debate, particularly given the fact that those comments will spread around the
world. The troops usually are caught in the middle, taking incoming fire from
the media, while those who support their mission return fire. Too often, those
troops caught in the middle of the debate, often see their opinions lost in the
din.
It is a stretch for anyone to believe that the military wants to
preclude debate about the war on terror. Freedom of speech and freedom of the
press are part of what they are defending – and indeed, are trying to make
possible in Iraq and Afghanistan, among other places. That said, the troops do
have a right to request that the American people conduct the debate in a manner
that does not put the troops in greater danger. "– Harold C. Hutchison
(haroldc.hutchison@gmail.com)

This shows how the media continues to bash the troops and thus the war , even when call out on their biased reporting .

The war will be lost from within the US , not on the battlefield if this is continued without consequences for the perpetrators of the seditious conduct of parts of the media .

Inflatable Doll

So a guy goes into an adult store and asks for an inflatable doll .
The clerk asks him ,
"Male or female ?"
Male he answers .
"Black or white" asks the clerk .
White he answers .
"Christian or Muslim ?" asks the clerk .

"How does religion fit in this ?" asks the guy .


" The Muslim one blows herself up !"

State of the Union

Photo by Katie Falkenberg Washington Times

George Bush on the state of the union January 23 , 2007 :

This is a decent and honorable country-and resiliant , too . We have
been
through a lot together. We've met challenges and faced dangers , and we
know
that more lie ahead . Yet we can go forward with confidence- because
the State
of our union is strong ...our cause in the world is right...and
tonight that
cause goes on .

God Bless

Such was the ending of the President's State of the Union speech last night , in which he outlined a few things he would like Congress to do as we enter this time of Democrat control of Congress . He is hopeful they will work together in a bi-partisan way that simply doesn't exist today .

He has presided over the growth of our economy , the creation of millions of new jobs , low unemployment , low inflation , and rising wages , but his opponents will surely downplay those achievements by telling us they are at the expense of the average workers in the country .

They tell us that rising corporate profits do not benefit us at all , only the money-grubbing corporations and their CEOs .

The President wants to continue to work on balancing the budget without raising taxes , partly by imposing spending discipline in Congress ( by the way , his regime has not done quite that yet ) , and restraining the spending appetite of the Federal government , cutting earmarks ( another thing his folks did not do ) , and reforming the budget process .

None of this will wash with the Democrats , of course . They are "progressive" to a fault and will fight him all the way . Some changes will occur , but if the Liberals have their way , all changes will be to their specifications , not worked out in a bi-partisan fashion .

Most of the rest of the speech was nothing new , even the comments on Medicare , Medicaid , and Social Security .

Bush's comments on the war on terror and the Iraq war were just reiterations of what we have been hearing plenty of lately , nothing new there .

In my view the speech was not great , nor was it revealing . More revealing was the Democrat "response" by Senator Jim Webb of Virginia , which as has been in many years past produced beforehand , and designed to be in opposition to anything offered in the President's speech . Webb even said :

It would not be possible in this short amount of time to actually rebut
the President's message , nor would it be useful .

Silence Global Warming Critics

So , if you can't prove your theory , just silence the critics !
Hard to believe , but the Weather Channel people think TV weathermen should not be certified if they don't agree with Global Warming . No open minded people allowed .
Read this
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528 from a blog on the U S Senate Commitee on Environment and Public Works website .

Posted by Marc Morano 202-224-5762 marc_morano@epw.senate.gov (8:50pm ET)

The Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist is advocating that
broadcast
meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if
they express
skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global
warming. This latest
call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which
skeptics were compared
to "Holocaust Deniers" and Nuremberg-style war crimes
trials were advocated by
several climate alarmists.

The
Weather Channel’s (TWC) Heidi
Cullen, who hosts the weekly global warming
program "The Climate Code," is
advocating that the American Meteorological
Society (AMS) revoke their "Seal of
Approval" for any television weatherman
who expresses skepticism that human
activity is creating a climate
catastrophe.

"If a meteorologist
can't speak to the
fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS
shouldn't give
them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that
global warming
can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns," Cullen wrote in her
December 21
weblog on the Weather Channel Website.
Cullen’s call for decertification of TV weatherman who do not agree with
her global warming assessment follows a year (2006) in which the media,
Hollywood and environmentalists tried their hardest to demonize scientific
skeptics of manmade global warming. Scott Pelley, CBS News 60 Minutes
correspondent, compared skeptics of global warming to "Holocaust deniers" and
former Vice President turned foreign lobbyist Al Gore has repeatedly referred to
skeptics as "global warming deniers."

Yes , if deniers of Global Warming are so wrong , they MUST be silenced !