Rain in the Sahara

Last Wednesday the House passed a nonbinding resolution labelling as genocide the killing of 1 million Armenians by Turkey during WWI. On Sunday House Speaker Nancy Pelosi vowed to push forward on the resolution despite bitter protest from Turkey. Now I agree that those murders were in fact genocide. I also believe that they were the last gasp of jihad that Islam could muster before it was subdued by the European powers. I don't believe for one minute, though, that Pelosi wants this resolution because she cares about honoring the Armenian dead or making a statement about the nobility of America (Look! America is condemning genocide. America is good!).

Nancy Pelosi wants the Armenian resolution because she wants to upset our relationship with Turkey. Why? Because Turkey is our staunch ally in the Iraq War, allowing supplies from fuel to water to reach our troops from its soil. If Turkey ends its military relationship with us over this resolution, as it has threatened to do, we'd have to reroute those supplies in ways that could be prohibitively expensive. And if you can't supply an army, it can't fight. Now you're getting the picture.

This whole resolution business is about ensuring defeat in the Iraq War and doing it in a way that normally only our enemies would try: by cutting off supplies to our troops. This makes me sick. In her effort to please her fanatically anti-Bush base, Pelosi is willing to sacrifice our boys. And then she tries to make her dirty work look clean by wrapping it up in specious concern for the memory of slaughtered Armenians. If I were Armenian I'd be outraged at such exploitation of the Armenian nation's greatest tragedy.

If Pelosi, or any other American, wants to oppose the Iraq War they certainly have the right to do so. But they should be patriotic about it and not try to cut our troops' legs out from under them. And they should have the decency not to use another people's tragedy to cover their pro-defeat shenanigans. But expecting patriotism and decency from Pelosi who, after all, hails from San Francisco, is like expecting rain in the Sahara. It ain't happenin'.

Pray for Chuckie

I just found out that the youngest son of one of my dearest friends is heading for Iraq. His name is Chuckie. Where ever you stand on the war, please pray for Chuckie. Ask God to keep him safe and to give his family the strength to cope if He allows the worst to happen. Thanks so much friends. Be brave, little warrior. We're with you!

Don't Close Your Blinds

This was e-mailed to me by a friend. I'm sharing it with my readers because it gets to the heart of why we are at war in Iraq. Read and learn.


WAKE UP AMERICA!

Don't Close Your Blinds

The other day, my nine-year-old son wanted to know why we were at war. My husband looked at our son and then looked at me. My husband and I were both in teh Army during the Gulf War and we would be honored to serve and defend our Country again today. I knew that my husband would give him a good explanation.

My husband thought for a few minutes and then told my son to go stand in our front living room window. He said, "son, stand there and tell me what you see."

"I see trees and care and our neighbor's houses," he replied.

"OK. Now I want you to pretend that our house and yard is the United States of America and you're President Bush." Our son giggled and said, "OK."

"Now, son, I want you to look out the window and pretend that every house and yard on this block is a different country," my husband said. "OK Dad, I'm pretending."

"Now I want you to stand there and look out the window and pretend you see Saddam come out ot his house with his wife. He has her by the hair and is hitting her. You see her bleeding and crying. He hits her in the face, throws her on theground, then starts kicking her to death. Their children run out and are afraid to stop him; they are screaming and crying. They are watching this but do nothing because they're kids and they're afraid of their father. You see all of this. Son, what do you do?"

"Dad?"

"What do you do, son?"

"I'd call the police, Dad."

"OK. Pretend that the police are the United Nations. They take your call. They listen to what you know and saw but they refuse to help. What do you do then, son?"

"Dad.....but the police are supposed to help!" My son starts to whine.

"They don't want to, son, because they say that it's not their place or your place to get involved and that you should stay out of it," my husband says.

"But Dad....he killed her!" my son exclaims.

"I know he did, but the police tell you to stay out of it. Now I want you to look out that window and pretend you see our neighbor who you're pretending is Saddam turn around and do the same thing to his children."

"And Daddy...did he kill them, too?"

"Yes, son, he did. What do you do?"

"Well, if the police don't want to help, I will go and ask my next door neighbor to help me stop him," our son says.

"Son, our next door neighbor sees what is happening and refuses to get involved as well. He refuses to open the door and help you stop him," my husband says.

"But Dad, I NEED help!!! I can't stop him by myself!!"

"WHAT DO YOU DO, SON?"

Our son starts to cry.

"OK, no one wants to help you. The man across the street saw you ask for help and saw that no one would help you stop him. He stands taller and puffs out his chest. Guess what he does next, son?"

"What, Daddy?"

"He walks across the street to the old lady's house and breaks down her door and drags her out, steals all of her stuff and sets her house on fire and then...he kills her. He turns around and sees you standing in tehwindow and laughs at you. WHAT DO YOU DO NOW, SON?"

"Daddy...."

"WHAT DO YOU DO?"

Our son is crying. He looks down and whispers, "I'd close the blinds, Daddy."

My husband looks at our son with tears in his eyes and asks him, "Why?"

"Because Daddy...the police are supposed to help people who need them and they won't help. You always say that neaighbors are supposed to HELP neighbors, but they won't help either. They won't help me stop him. I'm afraid. I can't do it by myself, Daddy. I can't look out my window and just watch him do all these terrible things and do nothing so...I'm just going to close the blinds so I can't see what he's doing and I'm going to pretend that it's not happening."

That's when I started to cry.

My husband looks at our nine-year-old son standing in the window, looking pitiful and ashamed at his answers to his Daddy's questions and he says, "Son."

"Yes, Daddy."

"Open the blinds because that man is at your front door. WHAT DO YOU DO?"

My son looks at his father, anger and defiance in his eye. He balls up his tiny fists andlooks his father square in eyes and without hesitation says, "I DEFEND MY FAMILY, DAD!! I'M NOT GONNA LET HIM HURT MOMMY OR MY SISTER, DAD!! I'M GONNA FIGHT HIM, DAD!! I'M GONNA FIGHT HIM!!!!"

I see a tear roll down my husband's cheek. He grabs our son and, hugging him tightly to his chest, says, "I'ts too late to fight him, son. He's too strong and he's alread at YOUR front door. You should have stopped him BEFORE he killed his wife, his children, and the old lady across the street. You have to do what's right, son, before it's too late, even if you have to do it alone," my husband whispers. "Son, the scenario I just gave you is why we are at war with Iraq. When good men stand by and let evil happen, THAT is the greatest atrocity in the world. YOU MUST NEVER BE AFRAID TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT EVEN IF YOU HAVE TO DO IT ALONE!"


BE PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!! BE PROUD OF OUR TROOPS!! SUPPORT THEM!! SUPPORT AMERIC SO THAT IN THE FUTURE OUR CHILDREN WILL NEVER HAVE TO CLOSE THEIR BLINDS!!


This should be printed in every newspaper and posted in every school in America. Of course, that won't happen so let's fly this over the Internet for the whole word to understand why we fight for freedom!

If your blinds are closed do nothing with this e-mail. If they are open I do not need to tell you what to do.

GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!

GUILTY!!!!!!!!

Yesterday former tyrant of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, was found guilty of crimes against humanity and given the death penalty. HALLELUYAH!

All over Iraq people shot guns into the air and danced in the streets to celebrate Saddam getting what he so richly deserved. I know this verdict won't mean that utopia will break out in Iraq but I am hoping that it will be a dash of reality to all the Bush haters of the world.

Even before America invaded Iraq, President Bush was the object of irrational hatred from the international Left. After the Iraq invasion the hatred got even hotter. "Peace activists" here and abroad smeared, and continue to smear, Bush as a terrorist and "the world's greatest tyrant". Clearly these people are totally detached from reality. I'm hoping Saddam's verdict will make them take a cold, hard look at what a real tyrant is and does, and then admit that they're accusations against President Bush are horribly false, the ramblings of distorted, Orwellian minds.

In George W. Bush's America, no one has been imprisoned for attacking the president. Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, Harry Belafonte, Ward Churchill, and Jay Bennish, just to name a few anti-Bush critics, are alive, well, free, and even getting rich(er) and/or famous off of their hatred of the president. Can anyone say the same thing about the critics of Saddam? When did Saddam allow Iraqis to go abroad, call him the world's greatest tyrant, then return to Iraq with absolutely no fear of being harrassed, imprisoned, and/or tortured by the government? When did Saddam allow one of his citizens to buy some property close to one of his palaces and use it has a base to protest against him? Never, and never.

Tyrants don't allow freedom of speech. Tyrants don't allow freedom of association. Tyrants don't allow any second guessing of their policies by any of their citizens. Americans have freedom of speech. Americans have freedom of association. Americans second guess the policies of their government all the time. Yet, according to Harry Belafonte, Bush is the world's greatest tyrant. As I said above, the Bush haters are totally irrational. Hopefully Saddam's verdict will reaquaint them with the real world.

"They're Not Supporting the Troops"

In the wake of the brutal murders of our brave warriors Thomas Lowell Tucker and Kristian Menchaca, I'm reprinting a letter from warrior Anthony Ippoliti that first appeared in his hometown newspaper The Ridgefield Press. Mr. Ippoliti was giving an answer to all those "peace" activists who claim they're supporting the troops even as they disdain the war. Mr. Ippoliti tells them just how wrongheaded they are. Read and learn.


"They're Not Supporting the Troops"
by Anthony Ippoliti

I am fortunate enough to receive The Ridgefield Press every few weeks and enjoy keeping abreast of local issues currently pressing in our small town. I am a U.S. Marine Infantryman currently serving in Fallujah, Iraq, and my mother usually includes The Press in the many care packages she send me.

Since we have very limited access to telephones, The Ridgefield Press is the primare means by which I receive local news. Almost every week, I open The Press and find an article or letter to the editors denouncing the coalition effort in Iraq. Invariably, the individuals behind these anti-war letters and rallies mask their political agenda by asserting that they "support the troops but not the war". People like Vince Giordano, Paul Sutherland, and Anne Stubbs are pictured in the April 13 edition of The Press carrying a yellow-ribboned coffin and signs that say "Bring Them Home Now." They read off the names of the dead and claim to "show support for our troops" while urging lawmakers to "bring them home." They believe that the U.S.-led coalition should never have entered Iraq and that the current effort is a never-ending quagmire that has made no progress. They believe that things are progressively getting worse and think that our forces should just pick up and leave. They do all this under the pretense that they are supporting the troops. However, what they are really doing is using our lives and the issue of our safety and well-being as a means to achieve a political end.

My primary concern is the assertion that these individuals support the troops in Iraq but not our mission. It boggles my mind that this logic is actually utilized on a large scale. Supporting the troops but not the war is like saying that you support filmmakers but not making films. One cannot claim to support an individual in a given profession but not support what the said profession entails. This is essentially a slap in the face to those in the service.

How protesting the job we are doing in Iraq while demanding our withdrawal constitutes supporting us is beyond me. Futhermore, I'm particularly interested in how these people support us, specifically. I have never once received a letter from an individual who claims to "support the troops, not the war." Not a single Marine I know has received anything that could be considered remotely supportive from any of these people or the groups they represent. We have received phone cards, hygiene supplies, food, etc., from members of state and local government, radio stations, schools, private individual and organizations, but never once from any group claiming to "support the troops, but not the war."

I ask again: How can these groups claim to support our troops while telling us that what we are participating in is wrong? How can they support us if they are essentially saying that our blood and sacrifices have all been given in vain? How can they support us if they say that our comrades and brothers who have been wounded or killed in action have done so for a hopeless and morally questionable cause?

I reply to the questions I pose with a simple answer: They can't. As a matter of fact, I assert with a considerable degree of confidence that their effort make our already difficlult job even more difficult. I'll go so far as to say that their rallies and protests cost more and more servicemen their lives and limbs every day. I support my assertion with evidence gathered first hand. I see the Iraqi people every day. The protesters do not. I speak with the Iraqi people every day. The protesters do not. I don't sit behind a desk and do paperwork or resupply efforts in the military. I an am Infantry Marine and I walk the sewage-filled streets of this city every day. In Falllujah, the people watch Al Jazeera. However, they also watch CNN. A lot of them fear that the United States will soon cut and run. The people of Iraq see when our country is divided. When they see rallies to "Bring The Troops Home," they see that as a sign that we will end our efforts prematurely. Furthermore, they know that the insurgents will not end their efforts early. That leads them to the conclusion that when we leave, the insurgents will still be there--if we don't finish the job. Much that they see on American television leads them to believe that we intend to abandon our efforts before the new Iraqi government is capable of defending itself and its citizens.

The actions of these aforementioned organizations and the heavy media coverage their rallies often generate serves as a fuel for the insurgency. Insurgents believe they can drive us out through the idea of "death by a thousand cuts." The longer they persist in their efforts, the more the America public becomes disenchanted with the coalition effort. The insurgency sees this as a result. These criminals will continue to kill Iraqi civilians, Iraqi Police, Iraqi Army and coalition forces so long as they see that their efforts are alienating the American public from its military.

And for those of you that aren't up to speed with the situation in Iraq, the insurgents attack and kill established public services (such as Iraqi police and Iraqi army) more often than they attack coalition forces. As a matter of fact, an explosive-laden insurgent blew himself up last week outside the Iraqi police station that is attached to our compound. The insurgents aren't fighting simply to drive America out of Iraq. They are fighting to destroy any semblance of the Iraqi goverment so that they can impose their will on its people. Publicly protesting our efforts in Iraq fuels the insurgency. Doing it under the pretext of "supporting our troops" is disgraceful.

Let me now emphasize that I respect an American citizen's right to voice his or her opinion in a public forum. Such a right is granted in the U.S. Constitution. However, voicing one's opinion in such an irresponsible way is something I do not support. Additionally, using deployed service members as a mask to serve your purely political purpose is downright shameful. If your desire is to protest the war, then protest the war, but don't use me or any reference to our troops as a tool to bolster your purpose.

I'll summarize by saying this: Organizations such as The Ridgefield Coalition to Stop the War do not support our troops. No matter what they say or what is printed on the signs they carry, hey effectviely do the opposite of supporting us. They downright hurt us. Such organizations damage the morale of the men and women in the armed forces and progressively cause them to believe less and less in the mission at hand. The conditions here are difficult as it is. Opening a month-old edition of The Ridgefield {ress and reading an article about an anti-war demonstration that uses our troop in an effort to maks it's true cause doesn't help. Please don't feign support while effectively telling us that we are fighting for an unworthy cause. I think I speak for an ovewhelming majority of our troops when I ask organizations like The Ridgefield Coalition to Stop the War to discontinue using Marines, soldiers, airmen and sailors as a means to serve a political end. You are neither supporting us nor honoring us. You are doing the exact opposite.


Couldn't have said it better myself, soldier. Semper Fi!

Michael Berg Sucks

On the day when every American should've been rejoicing over the killing of terrorist Abu Musad al-Zarqawi, Michael Berg could only express sadness at the demise of his son Nicholas Berg's killer.

If you remember, Nicholas Berg was beheaded by al-Zarqawi in 2003, but if you're to believe the incredible statements by the elder Berg, al-Zarqawi probably wasn't Nicholas' killer.

In an interview on Fox News, Michael Berg, a professed pacifist, openly doubted that al-Zarqawi killed his son, dimissing both the videotape showing al-Zarqawi beheading Nicholas and claims of al-Zarqawi's guilt from the "lying FBI". Instead, Berg insisted that George Bush was responsible for his son's death because Bush started the Iraq war. According to Berg's thinking, if Bush hadn't invaded Iraq al-Zarqawi never would've been in the country. Never mind that al-Zarqawi was in Iraq before the war began.

Michael Berg hates America. He might try to hide his hatred behind a mask of pacifism, but the animus he harbors for the US oozed out of every word he spoke on Fox News. No one who loves his country could engage in and believe the kind of reality reversal that Berg so painfully practices and believes. His desperate need to see America as the bad guy, in total disregard of the evil committed by her enemies, can come only from hate.

I cut Michael Berg no slack because he lost a child in the Iraq war. Many people have lost children in this war but they haven't gone over to the enemy's side. And they don't preach a "pacifism" that opposes only America's wars, not war itself. Michael Berg's status as a grieving father earns him no pass on the outrageous things he said about al-Zarqawi, Bush, and this war. He is routing for America's defeat and that makes him a traitor, plain and simple. And if you don't see that, you're as treacherous as he is.

Where I Stand

It will come as no surprise to even first time readers of this blog that I'm for victory in Iraq. I have a "poster" on this blog saying just that. However, I wasn't gung ho for going to war in Iraq before it actually happened, so I feel I should clarify my position on this volatile issue.

When President Bush first mentioned going to war with Iraq I didn't think it was a good idea. I didn't think Bush had made the case that Iraq was a unique threat to America. I know, I'm sounding like Susan Sarandon, but let me explain. I didn't doubt that Iraq had WMD's. I simply believed that it wouldn't matter if we destroyed every WMD in Iraq because there were too many other sources for terrorists to get WMD's if they really wanted them. Islamic Pakistan, for instance, has nukes. Surely, if we destroyed Saddam's WMD's Osama could go there for material to make a dirty bomb. Russia has had loose control over its nukes since the collapse of the Soviet Union. And lets not forget North Korea, which would sell anything to anyone to prop itsself up. So, if the war in Iraq was meant to keep America safe from WMD-wielding terrorists, it was a failed war from the start because WMD's are everywhere.

I also had reservations about the war because I remember what happened at the end of the Gulf War, when the first President Bush let Saddam massacre the Kurds and Shiites after calling on them to revolt against him. I feared that that memory would blunt at least some of the expected enthusiasm for America as liberator. After all, how could people who were betrayed--yes, betrayed--by America years earlier be expected to embrace American troops now? So, I had a couple of serious doubts about the war, but once we were committed I was gung ho for victory which sets me apart from people like Susan Sarandon, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Howard Dean, etc., who are routing for defeat.

Now that we're in the fight I understand that we must win. I understand that overthrowing Saddam's horrific regime was a noble act, even if it wasn't the stated reason for going to war. I understand that the insurgents aren't freedom fighters, as Saddamite Cindy stupidly called them, but bad guys who will put Iraq back under tyranny if they win. I understand that Abu Ghraib was a mole hill, not a mountain. I understand that Americans are free to question or oppose the war, but I also understand that people who call the insurgents freedom fighters and Bush the world's greatest terrorist are anti-American/Bush, not anti-war.

We all now know that Iraq didn't have WMD's, but I'm willing to give President Bush the benefit of the doubt that he sincerely believed they existed, based on the intelligence given to him. And remember, other leaders such as Tony Blair and Russia's Putin, also believed that Saddam had WMD's. I don't think Bush lied.

I wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq if I were Bush. Instead, I would've put an indefinite moratorium on Muslim immigration to America. Until the war on terror was won, no Muslim would enter this country. I then would've put troops on the Mexican border to stop terrorists and others from entering America illegally. Next, I would've had a meeting with all the auto makers who build and/or sell cars in America, and I would've told them that within a year a) all cars sold in America must get 50 mpg and b) they must invent an easy-to-install device for existing cars that would increase their mpg by at least 10%. Next, I would've worked with Congress, governors, and mayors to hammer out a tax incentive/cut for Americans who solarize their homes. Next, I would've massively increased government funding for r&d on alternative energy and the infrastructure for delivering it to the public. The purpose of all this would be to impoverish our enemies and free us to deal with them without worrying about oil supplies. And that would be just the beginning!

My "instead of" scenario outlined above would win me no points from the politically correct crowd, but the purpose of a president is to protect the American people, not kowtow to political correctness. Bush has done what he thought was necessary to protect us. Maybe he was wrong, but it is outrageous to accuse him of deliberately lying us into a war just to make oil profits. The people who do that are only revealing the irrational, ideology-driven, hatred of Bush that's the real driving force behind their "pacifism". They are on the side of the insurgents; I am on the side of America. That's where I stand. How about you?