Texas Conservative

Peg Kaplan over at What If? has nailed it again, in this commentary regarding the NY Times bias and (lack of ?) corrections policy ...

Some things in life are very difficult: bidding adieu to your child as she leaves for college, acknowledging that age may be taking its toll, removing medication from a child-proof bottle. And some things are so taxing, they literally cannot be done.

In that category we find the New York Times and its ability to acknowledge error. If a conservative is involved . . . .

... Yes, some things in life are simply too tough. Ane the New York Times presenting any semblance of unbiased reporting and equity is one of those things.

Please go read the whole thing.

---

Today's Boston Globe has a good story regarding questions about the awarding of Kerry's Purple Heart medals; "Kerry faces questions over Purple Heart" ...

A review by the Globe of Kerry's war record in preparation for a forthcoming book, "John F. Kerry: The Complete Biography," found that the young Navy officer acted heroically under fire, in one case saving the life of an Army lieutenant. But the examination also found that Kerry's commanding officer at the time questioned Kerry's first Purple Heart, which he earned for a wound received just two weeks after arriving in Vietnam.

"He had a little scratch on his forearm, and he was holding a piece of shrapnel," recalled Kerry's commanding officer, Lieutenant Commander Grant Hibbard. "People in the office were saying, `I don't think we got any fire,' and there is a guy holding a little piece of shrapnel in his palm." Hibbard said he couldn't be certain whether Kerry actually came under fire on Dec. 2, 1968, the date in questionand that is why he said he asked Kerry questions about the matter.

But Kerry persisted and, to his own "chagrin," Hibbard said, he dropped the matter. "I do remember some questions, some correspondence about it," Hibbard said. "I finally said, `OK, if that's what happened . . . do whatever you want.' After that, I don't know what happened. Obviously, he got it, I don't know how."

Kerry declined to talk to the Globe about the issue during the preparation of the Kerry biography. But his press secretary, Michael Meehan, noted that the Navy concluded that Kerry deserved the Purple Heart.

(Hat Tip to the Powerline site)

---

Today's New York Post editorial describes a current scandal that has not been mentioned in the mainstream press ...

The national 9/11 commission has been hijacked by political shills -- men and women eager to subordinate truth to partisan advantage; who hold a transitory victory on Election Day more dear than American victory in the war on terror.

Tawdry ambition has eclipsed sacred duty; all Americans are diminished, but none more than the families of the 9/11 victims -- who expect better from the commission, and certainly deserve it.

Unless it is the thousands of young Americans now under arms in Iraq and elsewhere; their bravery and devotion to duty is inspirational. How shameful that the commission attack dogs hold their sacrifices so cheaply.

And John F. Kerry, who presumes to the presidency, acquiesces. What a disgrace.

Yesterday, Democratic shills Richard Ben-Veniste and Bob Kerrey hectored Attorney General John Ashcroft. They implied he was a coward for travelling on government aircraft at a time of heightened pre-9/11 security - if not, in fact, a scoundrel in possession of advance notice of the attack.

Last week, it was National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice in the Democrats' dock; she was a fool, a filibusterer, a liar.

"Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that [President Bush was] warned against possible attacks in this country?" demanded Ben-Veniste.

Funny thing about that warning. Ben-Veniste was speaking of the now-famous Aug. 6, 2001, presidential daily briefing paper - suggesting that it proved the White House had failed to comprehend al Qaeda's threat to America.

Yesterday, it came out that someone had indeed gotten it right.

George W. Bush, who had directed that the briefing paper be prepared.

In a 13-page report titled "Threats and Responses in 2001," the commission staff paints a picture of alarm bells going off throughout Washington in the months before 9/11 about an imminent "spectacular" terror attack by Osama bin Laden.

But the intelligence reports all talked about attacks occurring against targets overseas.

And the fevered reports, in the summer of 2001, of possible threats "seemed to be focused on Saudi Arabia, Israel, Bahrain, Kuwait, Yemen and possibly Rome, but the danger could be anywhere . . . "

So the CIA prepared the Aug. 6 memo, "summarizing its understanding of the danger."

In sum: The briefing paper was written specifically for the president in direct response to an order from the president!

Obviously, the CIA's "understanding of the danger" was deficient.

But it clearly was not "a fact" that Bush was "warned against possible attacks in this country."

It is clear, now, that the entire briefing-memo "scandal" was sewn from whole cloth. But will there be an apology from Ben-Veniste, Kerrey & Co.?

Not a chance.

Why not.

Because, to the Democrats, the enemy is not just al Qaeda.

It is also the George W. Bush White House.

So they cross the bounds of acceptable political discourse, twisting the truth and bending the facts to produce a product that will advance their political ambitions.

To hell with the 9/11 families.

And to hell with eight young Americans reported killed in action in Iraq just yesterday; to the 65 who died over the past week - and to the hundreds who have laid down their lives for peace and freedom since 9/11.

All to defeat Bush.

John Kerry could shut it down in a heartbeat, simply by saying: "Stop it!"

Kerry needs to do just that. He must state the obvious: that 9/11 was the work of Islamist fanatics, and that the danger will not have passed until those who make war on America are either killed or in captivity.

It is simply disgraceful that he hasn't already done so.

(Hat Tip to the Powerline site)

---

A really good piece over at the Junkyard blog discusses a recent terrorist "world conference" and the recent hostage taking in Iraq.

It may be that the terrorists infesting Iraq are trying to turn George W. Bush into Jimmy Carter.

From Feb 1-10 of this year, Iran hosted a terrorist world conference in Tehran. Called "Ten Days of Dawn," the jamboree had one purpose, which was to hammer out a new strategy for confronting the "Great Satan," meaning the US. February 1st was the 25th anniversary of the return from exile of Ayatollah Khomeini, the mad mullah who founded the Islamic Republic in Iran.

Following that terrorist jamboree, the Madrid bombings occurred, and those bombings succeeded in robbing the "Great Satan" of one of its allies, Spain. Since that time, terrorists have begun to threaten, or renew threats, against major European powers.

And now in Iraq we're confronting a Khomeini mini-me in Muqtada al-Sadr. He's openly supportive of Hezbollah, which has long been Iran's terrorist A-Team in its ongoing war with Israel. Al-Sadr has traveled to Iran several times in the past few months, and is rumored to be on Iran's payroll right now, and in turn Iran is rumored to be spending as much as $70 million a month on ongoing anti-American operations in Iraq.

It's no secret that a democratic Iraq is the Iranian mullacracy's worst nightmare. In fact, that's one of the reasons we're trying to install a democratic Iraq--to break regimes such as Iran's.

Please go read the whole thing.

---

From today's NY Times the following letter to the editor ...

Despite your protestation that "it's not necessary to argue about the vast differences between the Mideast and Southeast Asia," you draw a comparison between Iraq and Vietnam ("The Story Line in Iraq," editorial, April 11). To me, your response smacks of leveling criticism at the first sign of trouble.

Our history includes examples of critics who were quick to urge abandoning conflict in the face of stiff military opposition. Such reactions are understandable, because war is horrible. But if we had followed the advice of those critics, our lives might be terribly different.

Our quick ouster of Saddam Hussein created an unrealistic expectation of a bloodless battle. If only we could be so fortunate. But we cannot lose sight of our ultimate goal: confronting decisively those who so fiercely oppose us.

No one wants a protracted fight, but history has taught us that determined adversaries are not defeated without a struggle.

FREDRIC KATZ
Chappaqua, N.Y., April 12, 2004

---

From the Anti-John Kerry site ...

---

Sgt. Hook, currently deployed in Afghanistan, makes the comment that our deployed troops are somewhat insulated from all of the political mudslinging occurring stateside. He mentions that he gets his news and perspective from bloggers and reports on his latest read ...

Greyhawk strikes a nerve with this post. I mentioned in an earlier entry that we are somewhat sheltered from the regular news here, specifically, political campaigning and negative mud slinging doesn't seem to get the abundant coverage over here that it does back home.

There's an unpleasant shift occurring in this country, it was evidenced by Kos' comments and more and more often by the tone of a few increasingly high profile pundits. "We support the troops but..." and the "but" part is becomming more outrageous every day. The "support the troops" part, meanwhile, is increasingly blurred.

Distrubing indeed, and not just because I'm over here making sure Americans are free to voice such opinions, but I can't believe so many have forgotten the events of September 11th, 2001. I don't understand why when brave men and women answer the call to arms to defend our constitution and our way of life, they're the first to be criticized or have their support erode because war is distatesful.

Well, you're damn right war is distatesful that's why it takes a Pearl Harbor or 9/11 to draw us into one. If you think for a minute the Soldiers want to be over here, putting it all on the line away from their loved ones, you are sadly mistaken. But, no Soldier that I know, not a one, would rather the alternative.

---

I was satisfied with the President's performance during the prepared statement. The somber delivery emphasized the importance of the material, and the conviction of the President. I was less satisfied with the actual press conference ... it seemed to me that the President was nervous and halting.

Of course, as some have said, that quality emphasizes the differences between a man who is closer to the "common man" than the stereotypical politician.

On the other hand I think that the press corps were despicable ... it was obvious to anyone watching that the stilted, carefully phrased questions were aimed at getting some kind of response from the President that could be spun.

I am not alone in this as Donald Sensing reports here ...

How many reporters have now risen to try to get Bush to admit he made a mistake somewhere, somehow? I've lost count.

And Jeff Jarvis noted this as well ...

It is as if Bush listened to Jay Rosen and ignored the press in the room and addressed the people directly. He spoke for 20 minutes regarding Iraq with more eloquence and force than usual, about our obligation and our determination. He will send more troops. We cannot think of defeat.
And it's as if the press is listening to Rosen, too, and plays its bozo role perfect, asking the first question about Iraq and Vietnam and a "quagmire."
Now I hate to bring everything back to bloggers; it's so damned blogcentric, so blogotistical, so blognoxious.
But....
If I were the Pres' press secretary, I'd invite a few bloggers to the Pres conference and make sure the Pres called on them. These people, as citizens, would represent the citizens and their questions better than the detached, obvious, quagmiring reporters in the room. The press would hate it. But how could they complain, really, about citizens coming to the White House to question power? Isn't that what reporters are supposed to do? Not challenge power. Not disdain power. Question power.

: Just amazing that the reporters keep harping on wanting Bush to say that he made a "mistake" or "failed" or should "apologize."
Jeesh, do they think this is Oprah and they're all Dr. Phil?

UPDATE: John Hawkins over at Right Wing News is also irritated that the press kept digging for some kind of "apology" ...

One other thing that irritated me about the press conference tonight was the idea that Bush should apologize for 9/11. What a load of horse puck! Maybe I just don't remember it, but I don't recall any demands for Clinton to apologize for the first WTC attack, for the Oklahoma City bombing, for the Khobar Towers bombings, for our African embassy bombings, for turning down Sudan's offer to hand over Bin Laden in 1996, for the US Cole bombing, etc, etc, etc...

... What about the police? If someone robs your apartment or house, do you ask the cop who comes to take the report to apologize because you got robbed? No, you place where it belongs, on the criminal responsible. And as far as 9/11 goes, aren't the members of Al-Qaeda the ones who should be apologizing? They're the ones who planned the attacks and carried them out ...

Please go read the whole thing.

---

An excellent article from the Captain's quarters site regarding the confrontation with al-Sadr ...

Shi'ite clerics have forced the issue of the nature of the future Iraqi government to the forefront, an issue that had been expected to arise at some point prior to the handover of sovereignty to the Iraqis no matter when it was scheduled. Shi'ite clerics such as al-Sadr, and even moderates like al-Sistani, believe that any government must be Islamic at its core, similar to Iran, where imams rule over a severely limited parliament. Iran not only provides the inspiration for this concept, it's also providing the funding for the clerics involved, according to Fox News analyst Alireza Jafarzadeh ...

... Now the clerics have issued a warning that the Coalition must not fight in Najaf, a statement that the Coalition must and will completely disregard. To allow al-Sadr or any other cleric of any stripe declare cities as off-limits is to cede sovereignty to the mullahs. The Coalition must make clear to those who would impose an Iranian-style theocracy onto Iraq that anywhere combatants hide is considered a war zone and fair game for military action. If they're shooting from mosques, then the mosques must come under attack. They're testing our will to win in Iraq by hostaging and threatening religious warfare. To back off now would be to demonstrate our lack of resolve in establishing a free Iraq.

Please go read the whole thing.

We must push on to complete the transition to a free, secular democracy in Iraq. One NOT patterned after the Iranian model of "democracy", or all of our efforts have been for naught.

---

In today's NY Times, columnist David Brooks pointedly writes about the positional waffling of the 9-11 commission members ...

Twenty years ago, Secretary of State George Shultz went to the Park Avenue Synagogue in New York to give a speech about terrorism. Fighting a war on terrorism, he emphasized, means coping with uncertainty.

Terrorists operate outside the normal rules, Shultz observed. Because an attack is so hard to anticipate, he said, "our responses should go beyond passive defense to consider means of active prevention, pre-emption and retaliation. Our goal must be to prevent and deter future terrorist acts."

We can't wait for the sort of conclusive evidence that would stand up in a court of law. "We cannot allow ourselves to become the Hamlet of nations, worrying endlessly over whether and how to respond." We have to take the battle to the terrorists so we can at least control the time and place of the confrontation.

And we have to plan these counteroffensives aware of how little we know for sure.

Facing such great uncertainties, Shultz continued, the president has to take extra care to prepare the electorate: "The public must understand before the fact that some will seek to cast any pre-emptive or retaliatory action by us in the worst light and will attempt to make our military and our policy makers — rather than the terrorists — appear to be the culprits. The public must understand before the fact that occasions will come when their government must act before each and every fact is known."

The Shultz speech opened a rift within the Reagan administration. Shultz's argument was that uncertainty forces us to be aggressive. Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, on the other hand, argued that uncertainty should make us cautious. As one Weinberger aide told The Times, "The Pentagon is more aware of the downside of military operations and therefore is cautious about undertaking operations where the results are as unpredictable as in pre-emptive strikes against terrorists."

Shultz and Weinberger were clear and mature. Both understood there is no perfect answer to terror and both understood the downsides of their respective positions.

Two decades and a national tragedy later, it is hard to find anybody that consistent.

If you follow the 9/11 commission, you find yourself in a crowd of Shultzians. The critics savage the Clinton and Bush administrations for not moving aggressively enough against terror. Al Qaeda facilities should have been dismantled before 9/11, the critics say.

Then you look at the debate over Iraq and suddenly you see the same second-guessers posing as Weinbergerians. The U.S. should have been more cautious. We should have had concrete evidence about W.M.D.'s before invading Iraq.

Step back and you see millions of people who will pick up any stick they can to beat the administration. They're perfectly aware of the cruel uncertainties that confront policy makers, but, opportunistically, they ignore them.

Please go read the whole thing.

---

From today's Fort Worth Star-Telegram (Startle-gram ?), this letter to the editor ...

I was shocked to see the irresponsible, alarmist headline on Saturday's front page.

This headline was on a New York Times story that the Star-Telegram chose to use as its top story. I suppose it shouldn't have been a surprise, coming from that longtime left-leaning rag, but it's important to understand that these sensationalist tactics do nothing but further divide our once-united nation.

What was revealed upon reading the story was what most people with common sense already have surmised: Hindsight is 20/20, and no one had data on specific targets, times or methods.

I once again plead with the Star-Telegram for more responsible journalism.

David Hamre — Fort Worth

---

Peg over at What If? has hit another home run with this article regarding the recent "alleged misconduct" of Justice Scalia. It seems that some of the Justice's Marshall's had confiscated and erased some tapes made by journalists of Scalia's speech. The marshall's explained that the Justice had a "no recorded speeches" policy.

The media castigated Scalia for censorship, when Scalia was unaware of the actions of his marshall's.

Peg's commentary is refreshing. Go read the whole thing !

---

From Peg Kaplan over at What If? this little humorous gem ...

Two guys were in Boston playing basketball together, when a pitbull attacked one of the players. The second, due to quick thinking, grabbed a sturdy piece of wood, wedged it under the dog's collar, and with great effort, broke the dogs neck. It so happened that a reporter had watched the entire event, so she rushed over to get a statement.

Taking her laptop out, she wrote the headline, "Celtics Fan Heroically Saves Friend From Rabid Dog." The hero of the day, looking over the reporter's shoulder, complained, "Hey, I'm not a Celtics fan!" The reporter apologized, and wrote instead, "John Kerry Fan Saves Friend From Rabid Dog." The man shakes his head, again correcting her, "No, no -- I'm not a fan of Kerry either."

The reporter looked confused. "I figure that being in Boston, people would be either Celtics or Kerry fans. What do you like?" The man replied, "Well, I'm a Houston Rockets fan, and I like George W. Bush." The reporter stared at the man for a few seconds, sat down, and wrote one last headline, "Crazed, Mentally Ill Man Sadistically Kills Defenseless Dog."

Another fine example of "media bias" !

By the way if you are not reading Peg's blog daily, you're missing out !

---

Mitch Berg over at the Shot in the Dark site lays out a fascinating scenario describing what might be a conspiracy between Syria and Iran to undercut the coalition efforts in Iraq.

Remember back when President Bush's approval rating was in the sixties and seventies, and Iraq had fallen, and Iran and Syria were being very quiet?

Notice how things start to get dicey now that the President would seem to be in a close fight with the vapid empty suit Kerry?

Think it's a coincidence?

Can you read this piece from the Belmont Club and still think so?

The piece regards the apparent kidnapping last week of two membergs of Germany's elite counterterror police unit, Grenzschutzgruppe (GSG) 9, which is operating out of Jordan to protect German interests and citizens in Iraq:

Spiegel is reporting that 2 GSG-9 personnel are missing after an ambush on a convoy between Baghdad and Amman last Wednesday. GSG-9 is the elite German counterterrorism force. The delayed release of this information means implies that a thorough search for these guys has yielded nothing, they are presumed lost and no point in keeping it hidden any longer. It has all the hallmarks of a professional counter-intelligence operation. The GSG-9 men, like the Blackwater contractors, would have been consummate professionals. Mounting surveillance on men of this caliber is nothing regular "insurgents" could do. This it implies the use of static and moving posts with first class communications to track the men. Nobody can do that but the intelligence department of a State or an extremely dangerous terrorist organization like Hizbullah. That party wants to know what we know and thinks this is the best way to do it.

Emphases were added.

Now, read this, excerpted from a subsequent posting:

When the Blackwater contractors were murdered in Fallujah, an operation some speculated was organized by Syrian Special Operations, US commanders probably saw it for the signal that it was. They had arranged media coverage of the outrage for a reason. It was followed by Shi'ite attacks on coalition bases, one attack per ally and a wave of kidnappings. Then Moqtada al-Sadr conveniently seized one of the holiest sites in Shi'ite Islam, the Golden Mosque and proclaimed he was going to die there. Two New York Times staffers were kidnapped and conveniently held in the Golden Mosque, an incident described in Belmont Club's The Time Traveller. There, they were allowed to glimpse preparations for the final stand. The script written for CENTCOM to follow was probably this (what follows is speculation). Small Marine units would rush into Fallujah to recover the Blackwater corpses and trapped themselves. The Marines would mount a desperate rescue which would create heavy civilian damage. In the meanwhile, Sadr would attack the coalition partner's bases and flee to the Golden Mosque, where his presence would be confirmed by newsmen who just happend to be to imprisoned there and later released to tell the tale. CENTCOM would destroy the mosque from which he had 'just left' or perhaps only occupied by a double. Catastrophe would follow on catastrophe, necessitating the postponement of the June 30 transfer of power.

Let's put the pieces together:

• When Iran and Syria were faced with a nation that was overwhelmingly behind the president, they became very polite - or at least stifled their more egregious external, anti-western terror activities.

• Now that these dictatorships see that the US' resolve seems to be dissipating - the vapid empty suit Kerry is winning in some polls! - they start to play the only card they have; attacks to play to the world media.

• They use their proxies in the Shi'ite population to try to create a Mogadishu on steroids - attacks on every coalition partner, kidnappings, and the scattergun attacks against the US, in hopes that it will have the same results as the attack in Somalia.

The Bush Administration is unlikely to be so manipulated - but as we saw in Spain last month, not everyone's in the same boat. For that matter, if his nation is seized with psychosis and elects John Kerry, anything is possible.

The stakes in this election are the highest of any since 1980.

More and more information is becoming available that seems to indicate that the resistance we face in Iraq is being spurred to new heights by hostile Arab neighbors. The US and Coalition forces should not fail to react if this information turns out to be true !

---

Ralph Peters, from the NY Post, has more on the Tehran connection to the insurgency in Iraq in today's column entitled Drop the Hammer Now ...

ON Saturday, Iranian agents ambushed an American convoy on the road between Mosul and Akre in Iraq. The attack did not go as planned: Our troops responded sharply, killing two Iranians, wounding a third and capturing two more.

They were carrying their identity documents.

And you haven't heard a word about it. The administration doesn't want to admit how much American blood Teheran has on its hands.

To be absolutely scrupulous, this report comes from a single, if impeccable, regional source. I hope other journalists in Baghdad and Washington will press to verify the incident. The American people have a right to know.

As this column reported last week, the extent of Iranian involvement in the recent revolt goes very deep. The facts that follow have been confirmed by at least two sources exclusive to The Post.

Moqtada al-Sadr is Iran's man in Shi'a Iraq. Several months ago, he slipped across the border to meet with Hezbollah terror chiefs that Teheran had invited from Lebanon. The factions struck a deal to cooperate against the Coalition in Iraq.

Hundreds of Iranian agents and fighters have been confirmed to be in Iran. The actual number is probably in the thousands. They've swelled the ranks of Sadr's "Mahdi Army" and stiffened its backbone ...

... Sadr worked with the Iranians to help them broadly infiltrate the country with Teheran's Revolutionary Guards and intelligence operatives. His Shi'a faction also built bridges to the Sunni insurgents in the cities of central Iraq. Hezbollah took care of the coordination with international terrorists.

The administration knows much - probably all - of this. And more ...

As I've stated before, if any of this can be corroborated, we need to come down on the Iranians, hard !

---

Robert Alt, a correspondent on the ground in Baghdad, files this report regarding media misreporting of events in Iraq, both by the Arabic networks and "others" ...

Yesterday Coalition spokesman Dan Senor said "[w]e’ve noticed a trend with Al Jazeera and Al Arabia misreporting the facts on the ground." But today the words were much harsher. Mr. Senor, referring to those same networks, stated that "I wouldn’t even call it one side of the story. It is no side of the story." In case this left anything to the imagination, he offered that "several of the news agencies do not engage in truth in reporting."

But the harshest words were offered by new Iraqi National Security Advisor Dr. Mowaffak Al Rubaie, who asked "Where is the objective press?" He complained that too many of the satellite channels supported Saddam even after his removal, and have distorted the news. As an example of what he called the many lies propagated by the media, he offered a story about his decision to resign from the Iraqi Governing Council. The networks reported that his decision to resign was motivated by the recent violence. In fact, it was public knowledge that he was required to resign from the IGC in order to take his new position as National Security Advisor. "Don’t they understand Separation of Powers? . . . This is a new Iraq. This is not Saddam Hussein’s Iraq."

Dr. Rubaie offered a words of caution for the networks: "I am warning these channels . . . they challenge the patience of the Iraqi people." When asked what steps would be taken, he was equally plain: "If Al Jazeera and Al Arabia continue reporting the way they are reporting--inciting violence and sectarian rifts--I have no doubt they will be closed in this country." This raised questions in the room about freedom of press. Dr. Rubaie responded that "we have drawn a very clear line. Inciting violence . . . is not allowed." He noted that CNN would not be allowed to incite violence in London, and that he would not allow networks to do likewise here.

Dr. Rubaie also sought to clarify a few issues which he believed had been distorted. He suggested that "[s]ome of the channels and the western media cannot understand what is going on in Fallujah." In particular, he stated that "[n]o one should have in their mind that this is a battle between the Coalition and the Iraqi people." Rather, he described the action as one between international terrorists and the Iraq people.

It will be interesting to see what happens with these networks. I can tell you from first hand experience that Al Jazeera at the very least has tight connections with terrorists--tight enough that they are told about terrorist attacks before they happen so that they can have cameras on the scene. The general media coverage from Fallujah has also been quite poisonous, with outlets suggesting that the attack is a general punishment of Fallujah for the killing of the contractors--which punishment is described as meted out to women and children. Of course, something more than mitigating the bad reporting is necessary. To echo Dr. Rubaie’s question in a slightly different way, where is the equivalent of Fox News Iraq?

---

From today's Fort Worth Star-Telegram, this letter to the editor ...

I shudder to think that Thursday's hearing by the 9-11 Commission must be cause for celebration among terrorist groups across the globe. (See Friday news story "Rice defends Bush's actions.")

Not only do they get lessons in how our national security operates -- live on national television -- but they must delight in how determined we are to find someone to blame for the events of Sept. 11, 2001. Our nation's brightest minds are not focused on how to prevent future attacks.

We focus not on learning from our mistakes but instead on which party is at fault. Sure, it's an election year. But I worry that, amid these political arguments, another plan of attack could be under way -- an attack for which we're not prepared.

We're much too preoccupied with squabbling.

Kathy Graves — Azle

---

Joseph Galloway writes today about a letter from another war, published in a book by Ernie Pyle, the most famous war correspondent of WWII. The story begins with the death in combat of Capt. Henry T. Waskow, 25, of Belton — the commanding officer of Company B, 143rd Infantry, 36th Division, who was killed in action on Mount Sammucro in Italy on Dec. 14, 1943, during operations to take San Pietro.

Waskow died much as young Americans have died in Iraq and Afghanistan in recent months.

Pyle told how they brought the young captain's body down off the mountain in the night on the back of a mule and laid him on the ground beside a stone wall. Then his men came, one by one, to say goodbye.

"The first man squatted down, and he reached down and took the captain's hand and he sat there for a full five minutes holding the dead hand in his own and looking intently into the dead face. … Finally he put the hand down. He reached over and gently straightened the points of the captain's shirt collar and then he sort of rearranged the tattered edges of the uniform around the wound, and then he got up and walked away down the road in the moonlight, all alone."

Like many soldiers, Waskow carried in his pocket a final letter to his family, his last testament, his final gift to America.

We can learn something about being at war from that letter. It's a bit flowery and sentimental. After all, this is a young man saying goodbye to those he loved, from beyond the grave:

"If you get to read this, I will have died in defense of my country and all that it stands for -- the most honorable and distinguished death a man can die. It was not because I was willing to die for my country. … I wanted to live for it …

"To live for one's country is to my mind to live a life of service. To, in a small way, help a fellow man occasionally along the way and generally to be useful and serve. It also means to me to rise up in all our wrath and with overwhelming power to crush any oppressor of human rights. That is our job, all of us, as I write this, and I pray God we are wholly successful.

"Yes, I would have liked to have lived -- to live and share the many blessings and good fortunes that my grandparents bestowed upon me. A fellow never had a better family than mine, but since God has willed otherwise do not grieve too much dear ones. … I was not afraid to die. … I prayed that I and others could do our share to keep you safe until we returned.

"I made my choice, dear ones. I volunteered in the armed forces because I felt it my duty to do so. I thought that I might be able and might do just a little bit to help this great country of ours in its hours of need -- the country that means more to me than life itself. If I have done that, then I can rest in peace, for I will have done my share to make this world a better place in which to live.

"Try to live a life of service."

Galloway finishes the article by stating ...

We're a nation at war, and every day we read about the deaths of young Americans like Henry T. Waskow. We're at war, but it hardly interrupts our lives. No one demands sacrifice of us.

In Henry Waskow's America, there were scrap metal drives and war bond drives and Victory Gardens, and food and fuel rationing. There was a draft that took 15 million American men into uniform and sent them into harm's way. Women took their places on the factory floors. Everyone had a part to play.

In the strange wars we're fighting today, only one thing seems certain: Until everyone begins paying attention to the wars, and to the threat that global terrorism poses to our way of life, and until all of us begin making some small contributions, we cannot hope for victory.

We sit in our air-conditioned living rooms, watching biased media reports from the current war, defining our opinions on the experiences of others. We do not make the scarifices that our parents and grandparents made for the war, yet we don't hesitate to exercise the freedoms that those sacrifices helped to purchase. I see reports of the far left demonstrating in San Francisco over the weekend, pushing their Socialist and Marxist doctrines and dogmas. And it burns inside me that the sacrifices made by earlier generations, and those ongoing sacrifices made every day in Iraq by the current generation, are defiled by the actions of a few, who after their "gatherings" return to a life enabled by the sacrifices of those they revile.

---

As I have mentioned before, my father is a retired Air Force fighter pilot, and a veteran of Vietnam. As part of a military family, I still receive e-mails from my folks that have been forwarded by others, either in the military or retired.

The following set of questions for Senator Kerry were sent by my folks. I have no clue who the original author is, but the questions, and the associated "comments", all appear to be relevant to the current candidacy of Senator Kerry ...

Some questions for Senator Kerry from Veterans of all our wars, questions the mainstream media will NOT ask! The author speaks for the VAST majority of Vietnam Vets but these questions have been ignored by the mainstream media.

Most Vietnam and Cold War Veterans, are willing to forgive and forget our wars and the past. In fact, since former LCDR John McCain has forgiven the Vietnamese communists, the rest of us surely have no right to carry around anger about the Vietnam War and how it ended. But you, Senator Kerry, keep bringing up and saying in every speech that you make, "I am a Vietnam War Veteran" and "I won the Silver Star" so the rest of us must ask you a few questions. As fellow Vietnam War veterans, we would be willing to give you the benefit of the doubt if you will please answer the following questions for us, your former fellow comrades in arms. And maybe the rest of America would be interested in your answers too.

• Will you, like President Bush, release your service and medical records? Or do you want to hide the fact that you were only scratched and got 3 purple hearts to cut your combat zone tour to only 4 months? If you prefer not to answer the question, just lift up your shirt sleeve and show us a scar or two. What? No scars at all, but 3 Purple Hearts permitted you (and you demanded) to cut short your tour of combat duty by 2/3rds? Regulations require that to be awarded the Purple Heart you must be treated by a Medical Officer, but is it true your "wounds" were so slight (if any) that you never saw a Medical Officer. One of your shipmates says that one of your wounds was "self inflicted."

• You say in every speech that you are a "Vietnam War Veteran" and President Bush only served in the National Guard, and implying that the President is a draft dodger. But isn't it true that you are a FAILED draft dodger, having asked your draft board for a one year deferment so you could visit Paris, and when they refused you, you joined the Navy. And while in the Navy didn't you take swift boat duty because you thought you would see little or no action. However, AFTER you were assigned, Admiral Zumwalt put those units into more direct combat roles.

• Did you receive your Silver Star for chasing and killing a Vietnamese who was already wounded (or already killed) by another swift boat crewman? Did you get your Silver Star based on the Action Report that you yourself wrote, and upon the "action" that you alone witnessed? If you get a Silver Star for killing an enemy, wouldn't every soldier, sailor and marine who killed an enemy soldier also be entitled to wear the Silver Star? If, you did kill a wounded and helpless Vietnamese, isn't that murder and not combat? Isn't what you did the same act that Lt. Calley committed, faced a court martial for, and was convicted? Your gunner's mate says that you were a coward and ran from the enemy. Another says that you've abandoned your shipmates for all these year until you needed them to dress up your campaign some 35 years after the war.

• Didn't you throw your Silver Star back at the US Government in protest for our fight against worldwide communism. You said that those were your medals...then you said they were someone else's medals...then you said that you threw your RIBBONS but NOT your medals, and now we see your self awarded "Silver Star" proudly displayed on your office wall. Is the Silver Star on display one that you bought at the ship's store, or did you lie to us about throwing your medals away? Isn't your self awarded Silver Star for putting a bullet into a fleeing wounded (or already dead) enemy, and your three Purple Hearts for self admitted scratches that took you out of action for ONE DAY, and thereby an insult to every veteran that truly earned their medals?

• While a US Navy commissioned officer, did you not commit a court-martial offense by repeatedly disobeying orders and putting your unarmored swift boat and its crew in danger by beaching it in a combat situations, and then kill unarmed civilians and children, and also kill wounded and helpless enemy combatants? What did Admiral Zumwalt mean when he said "I don't know if I should give Lt. Kerry a medal or a court martial for all the civilians he's killed. I want to put a straight jacket on Lt. Kerry." If you were our Commander in Chief, what would happen if you lost control but had no one to put you into a "straight jacket?"

• After your active duty in the Navy did you fulfill your Navy Reserve obligations, or did you ignore those obligations and devote all your time to participation in anti-American demonstrations which emboldened our enemy and helped them to eventually win the war? Because you encouraged our enemy when American fighting men were still in the field, can you give us the number of how many American soldiers, sailors and Marines you are responsible for killing? Why does LTC Oliver North say, "John Kerry has blood of American soldiers on his hands."

• When you returned from Vietnam, you labeled all other Vietnam Veterans as war criminals. You made these claims under oath. Were you lying then, or are you lying now? You attended your first pro Viet Cong rally and marched under the communist flag on October 15, 1969 when you were still on active duty in the US Navy. Would you call that treason? Were you wearing your US Navy dogtags, carrying a US Navy ID card and still obligated by the oath you took to "support and defend the United States" as you encouraged our enemy to continue to kill our soldiers, marines and sailors on the battle fields of southeast Asia?

• You associated yourself with Hanoi Jane Fonda, an avowed Communist who supported North Vietnam. Hanoi Jane stated that our prisoners were LYING when they claimed to have been tortured by the Vietnamese. Do you believe former LCDR John MCCain to be a liar? Have you ever condemned Jane Fonda and asked her not to support your campaign? In his 1985 memoir about the war, Gen.Vo Nguyen Giap wrote that "if it weren't for organizations like Kerry's Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Hanoi would have surrendered to the U.S." The Department of Justice was set to charge Jane Fonda with treason, but the President stopped that action so the country could heal after our Vietnamese allies were slaughtered. Was the Justice Department set to charge you with treason as well? What did Hanoi Jane mean when she called you "a hero?" Did she mean you were an American hero for killing Vietnamese civilians? Or, did she mean that you are a Viet Cong or Communist Vietnam "hero" for helping them win the war?

• You wrote a book entitled "The New Soldier" and the cover MOCKS the Iwo Jima memorial with scruffy men "raising" an upside-down United States flag. Senator Kerry, 7,000 Marines DIED at Iwo Jima including three of those in that famous photo that you mock. Would you care to apologize to the 7,000 families of those Marines? During the Vietnam War why did you encourage American soldiers and sailors to desert in your book "The New Soldier", and in your speeches. As our Commander in Chief, would desertion during wartime be "ok" with you?

• You have stated that going into the National Guard was like running off to Canada. Many Air Guardsmen were deployed to the War Zone of Indochina and many did not come back, do you consider them to be "draft dodgers"? Didn't you try to avoid Vietnam service by asking for a one year vacation from your local draft board so that you could go to Paris in the hopes the war would be over by the time you returned to your county which was at war? Lt. Bush flew a F102. Many of the men who flew F102s were killed in them. Would you care to explain how risking your life to fly a fighter plane is cowardly? Can you explain this to their widows and their children? The F102 was tasked with meeting and shooting down Soviet bombers coming to the USA by flying over Canada to destroy US cities. Please explain the cowardice in Lt. Bush's military service? Maybe in your mind engaging a potential Soviet enemy "over Canada" is the same as "fleeing to Canada?" Also, wasn't Lt. Bush risking his life in the early 1970's when you were at the very same time "protesting" the war, encouraging our enemies, and calling our sailors, soldiers and veterans "war criminals"?

• You have stated in your speeches that you would turn the decision on deployment of US troops over to the United Nations, and you have OPPOSED the death penalty, even for terrorists who murder Americans. How do you propose to win the war on terrorism given these stated positions? You state that you voted for the war but now say that you were only voting for the "process" of the UN putting pressure on Iraq. Please show us in the bill the word "process". Also, can you explain why 99 other US Senators could not find the word "process" in the bill that they voted on? Finally, please explain how, if we are to believe anything you say now or have ever said, that you are a member of our "band of brothers" when you have called us war criminals, given aid and comfort to our enemies while still in the US Navy, and betrayed all the soldiers, sailors and marines who have served, and are still serving, their country honorably?

The Veterans of America respectfully await your answers. And so do our fellow citizens.

(For much more information regarding Kerry's participation in the VVAW, including allegations that Kerry was part of a plot to have senior US political figures assassinated, please visit the Winter Soldier site.)

---

More on the recent insurgency in Iraq, and the media coverage from Steven DenBeste ...

The term "fog of war" refers to the fact that it's never possible for anyone to truly know what's going on. That was true even when battles were relatively small and a commanding general could see the entire battlefield with his own eyes, and it's only gotten worse ...

... Supporters of the war have long complained of blatant bias in how many of the major news reporting agencies choose what to report and how they will report it. Sometimes they slip up and let us see information which exposes their distortion, and sometimes they don't. So that means we have to be careful in reading and responding to what they say, in the short term.

However, in the long term, that kind of thing can't be sustained. Blatant distortion of the news has a long and distinguished history, especially in nations where there is no freedom of the press...

... We've seen something of that same kind of thing in the news reporting from Iraq. Whenever there's bad news, we get headlines; when there's good news, it lands on the back pages. Last summer we got told there was huge discontent among Iraqis because unemployment was so high. But the "unemployment" story vanished from the radar screen – because it got corrected.

Of course, the general process over the last year hasn't been smooth; there have been advances and setbacks. Each time things got worse we got told; when they got better that wasn't news...

... If you peer through the fog and deliberate obfuscation, and put all the pieces together, it turns out that what really happened in Falluja was that the Marine commander halted offensive operations there for 24 hours, in part to let certain panicked members of the Governing Council try to talk sense into the militants, in part to let a third battalion of Marines come up in support, but mostly in order to let a lot of civilians leave the city. The offer that got delivered to the insurgents was a surrender demand: All insurgents, and especially all foreign jihadis, would have to peacefully yield themselves to the Marines and go into custody.

Based on this, it doesn't seem likely that the insurgents will surrender. My expectation is that the Marines will go back on the offensive soon and will complete the process of crushing the insurgency there.

America wasn't begging for mercy from the insurgents; it was offering them mercy. They were given a chance to surrender. If they don't take it, the Marines will kill most of them and take the rest prisoner...

... The reason we were attacked in September of 2001 was because bin Laden believed we'd fold and surrender. He more or less expected America to respond the way the Spanish did after 3/11. Our enemies now understand that it won't be that easy, but they still hold out hope that eventually we'll lose our nerve...

... We are often told we must study the lessons of history, and especially we are admonished by those opposing this war to study the lessons of Viet Nam. There are many aspects of that conflict which can teach us important lessons, and much about how it was fought and how it was managed politically to criticize. It is perhaps even arguable that we should not have fought there at all. But irrespective of any of those lessons, there is a very clear lesson to be learned from the Tet Offensive (which was only reinforced by the 1991 Gulf War): civilians can give away politically what soldiers have won on the battlefield.

The five fundamental elements of all war are objectives, strategy, tactics, logistics and morale, and it is possible to win on any of those levels. In this war, our enemies know they have no chance at all of defeating us strategically, tactically or logistically. All attempts to divert us from our objectives have failed. They perceive our greatest vulnerability to be morale, though not the morale of our troops.

They perceive our greatest vulnerability to be morale on the "home front". Even if they can't defeat us militarily, they can win if they convince us as a nation to surrender. If we come to believe we've been defeated, then we are defeated no matter how well or badly things are actually going.

That's how our enemies hope to win this war. But they can only gain such a victory if we citizens permit it. We are now and have always been their primary target. Each and every one of us is fighting this war inside their skulls, and that is where we have the greatest risk of losing.

Please go read the whole thing.

---

Someone besides webloggers finally writes about the connection between Al-Sadr and other non-Iraqi terrorist groups in this article from the New York Post ...

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and the Lebanese terror group Hezbollah are secretly providing outlawed Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr with money, training and logistical support for his violent campaign against U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq, The Post has learned.

U.S. and Israeli intelligence officials said last night there is evidence that Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, the security services loyal to Iran’s hard-line religious leader Ayatollah al Khameini, have funneled as much as $80 million into Shiite charities established by al-Sadr’s influential family that have been diverted to fund his fanatic al-Mahdi militia.

Intelligence sources also said operatives from the Lebanese Hezbollah, a Shiite terror group created by Iran, have trained 800 to 1,200 al-Mahdi fighters in guerrilla warfare and terrorist techniques at three camps in Iran near the Iraq border.

Al-Sadr’s group is also believed to have been recently provided with 800 satellite phones and new radio broadcasting equipment by diplomats at the Iranian Embassy in Baghdad, sources told The Post.

If this information can be corroborated, the coalition should come down hard on Iran !

UPDATE: Michael Totten has a summary collection of allegations against Iran as a source of the current turmoil in Iraq, and makes the comment ...

I really don't know how credible this stuff is. But I will say this.

If true, this is a declaration of war by Iran. If Iran is going to send men into Iraq to kill our soldiers and subvert the nascent democracy we are within our rights to respond with force inside their territory.

That is not to say it would be wise for us to do so at this time. Maybe we should and maybe we shouldn't. At this moment, today, I would suggest we wait and see if we can get Iran to back down through diplomacy. But if this fighting in Iraq escalates and Iran refuses to let up, we may not have another viable option. We'll be at war with Iran either way. And if they are willing to cross the border and we are not, they will have the upper hand. That cannot stand. We didn't go all the way to Iraq to let Iran turn it into their fundamentalist sock puppet.

And Nick at Begging to Differ adds the following ...

I despise conspiracy theories and rumor-mongering, but given Iran's non-compliance with the IAEA inspections process, it does seem to behoove the Mullahs to ensure that the United States has minimal influence in the neighborhood for fear that they will become the next Iraq.

We should not extend our campaign into Iran without clear and irrefutable evidence of Iranian involvement. A brand new war with Iran would cement the image of the United States as conquerors across the Middle East, and would doubtless result in greater unrest in Iraq as moderate Iraqis lose faith in the peaceful intent of the coalition.

---