Old Soldier

To all of my commenters and especially to my fellow bloggers who contribute immeasurably with their comments, I wish to apologize in falling behind in my endeavors to respond to your comments and to visit your blogs. When I started ‘Old Soldier’ I knew that one day I would probably start to fall behind, because of my work and building a new home. I have kept up as well as I could to this point. However, the homebuilding is beginning to consume more and more of my time since I am entering the phases where my physical labor is required.

When I say I am building a new home, I literally mean it. I am the general contractor, chief carpenter, electrician, etc. I subcontract only such elements as are cost effective (insulation, drywall, plumbing, masonry and roofing), otherwise, I hire labor to assist me as necessary.

I have been doing okay in trying to post at least five times weekly, and I hope to continue to do so. I do feel I have let you down in my return commenting… and there does not appear to be any change for the next year (perhaps less if all goes well on the house). So to all of you kind folks who come by and comment, and to my blogger friends, I do apologize for not reciprocating in the frequency I had intended.

May God bless each and every one of you folks.

From ‘MyWay’, comes “Dems Claim Momentum, GOP Mobilizes Base” written by Tom Raum.

WASHINGTON (AP) – Republicans on Sunday said a major voter turnout effort would help them stay in power after the Nov. 7 elections, while Democrats claimed momentum as they seek to tap into voter unhappiness over Iraq.

Both sides agreed that the war in Iraq was a leading, if not central, issue in the contests to decide control of the House and Senate.

“This election is becoming more and more a referendum on George Bush, his failed policies both overseas and at home with a rubber stamp Congress,” said Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, head of the Senate Democratic campaign committee.

His Republican counterpart, Sen. Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina, said Iraq and the broader fight against terrorism were important issues, but “President Bush’s name is not on the ballot.” Democrats, she said, were trying “to make it a national referendum.”

From the NYT comes “A Most Violent month, and Many Final Farewells” a photo essay written by Thomas Lueck and photographed by Doug Mills.

Burials at Arlington National Cemetery took on a grim regularity in October, when at least 103 American troops were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Iraq, the toll had reached 99 by Saturday, making October the deadliest month since January 2005.

Military officials attributed the high number of deaths to a spike in violence during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, which began in late September and ended last week. They also pointed to a three-month campaign to win control of Baghdad from death squads that led to increased attacks on American troops.

But such explanations were little comfort to a 6-year-old girl weeping at the grave of her father, a mother clutching the flag from her son’s coffin, or a widow walking slowly through the rain behind her husband’s honor guard.

Taken singularly the two stories seem innocuous in that they are about unrelated events or occurrences. One is about politics and the back and forth of the two clamoring parties; the other is associated with the war in Iraq (and Afghanistan) and the tragedy of death – 103 to be exact. The article about politics has no accompanying photographs, whereas the article about the war is a photo essay with thirteen accompanying photos.

In the Tom Raum ‘MyWay’ article we are informed that the Democrats are trying very hard to make this election cycle about the war in Iraq and are also trying to foster a dissatisfaction for the current situation among the voters. For months they have been trying to label the war as: wrong, a distracter to the real war on terror, mismanaged, lied into, and many more mantras that attempt to foster a distaste or dissatisfaction for the way things are going under “Republican leadership.”

Is it mere coincidence that the NYT would run a photo essay of flag draped coffins and crying family members and friends at various military funerals? Or is this photo essay released with a timing to support the Democrat’s message? It really wouldn’t matter if the death toll had only been 12 (that would still be 12 too many, but war is unkind), the photos would have the very same effect – tug on the heart strings of those who are squeamish about war and death. They certainly do reinforce the message being hammered home by the Democrats, doesn’t it?

Yet if the Democrats gain power this November, and they succeed in effecting a withdrawal from Iraq, they will case the deaths of all of those American heroes to become meaningless – just like they did for Vietnam. Does anyone beside me see a pattern here?

Regarding the number of our Soldiers kill this month, the increased deaths have been attributed to Ramadan (the Islamic holy month) and our offensive operations trying to eliminate some of the death squads. I will suggest the increased deaths in Iraq are also designed by our radical Jihadist Muslim enemies to aid the Democratic Party. They know the resolve of the Republican Party to prosecute this war to victory and their best chance to influence a draw (whereby they actually win – just like North Vietnam) is to cause the American people to lose their will to win. What better way to influence the American people than to increase the number of Soldiers killed right before an election whereby the Democrats could possibly regain a majority control?

Do not mistake my analysis to indicate I believe this to be duplicitous, because I do not believe our Democratic brethren would stoop so low as to coordinate events with the enemy (except perhaps Ted Kennedy). I do however believe an enemy smart enough to plan the synchronized attacks of 911 is also savvy enough to try to influence American politics through manipulation and propaganda. Anyone recall an election in Spain spinning at the last moment to the underdog (who favored withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq) after the train bombing event?

UPDATE 20061030: Matt a referred me to a ‘Washington Post’ article entitled “The Walls Tumbled By Time” written by Joel Garreau. It is a very interesting read about historic walls and their eventuality. Thank you, Matt a for sharing the link.

I want to be very clear in my position regarding the illegal immigration problem we face today.

First and foremost, the illegal aliens have broken our laws regarding immigration and failed to recognize our national sovereignty. For that reason I believe amnesty flies in the face of justice and should not be accepted as an outcome to this crisis.

Second, there is a foundational misperception among many Mexicans that parts of this nation still belong to Mexico. This we can do nothing about, but perhaps enough political pressure could force Mexico to educate their population as to the current border.

Third, I do not believe a fence is a worthwhile investment. It is estimated that the 700 mile fence will cost about $6 billion dollars, or about $.857 million per mile. A fence along the entire 2,000 mile border would cost approximately $17 billion. And that does not address our northern border. I believe the money would be better spent actively and legitimately enforcing our current laws.

Fourth, by removing the enticement (employment, social service programs, medical treatment access, and automatic citizenship for offspring) to illegally come into the US, I believe we could reverse the trend and force the vast majority of illegal aliens to return to Mexico. We should require positive proof of citizenship or legal alien status for employment, etc. We already have laws prohibiting the employment of illegals aliens and some states prohibit renting or selling apartments or homes to illegal aliens. We should include social programs and health care access to a list of services requiring proof of citizenship or legal alien status. I also think it is time to review automatic citizenship for offspring born in the USA. I favor applying for citizenship for offspring born to legal aliens and no citizenship granted to offspring born to illegal aliens.

Fifth, the unintended consequences far outweigh the idea that illegal aliens only work the jobs that no one else wants to do. There are skilled illegals that are causing wages to fall because they are willing to work for less pay. The financial burden added to education systems, healthcare emergency rooms, and welfare programs and now social security is not being adequately borne by the illegal aliens. There is a cost passed on to you and me. I find this totally unacceptable.

Finally, our borders could be better control with remote surveillance devices and systems (unmanned aerial vehicles, aerostats, sensors, etc.) provided they are back up with quick reaction forces empowered to enforce our laws. A ‘no apprehension’ policy does not serve border security one bit.

There is no doubt that something needs to be done, I just don’t believe the money would be wisely spent on fencing.

UPDATE 20061029: In the comment stream for this post, Steve, Seth and Gayle have related personal experiences that I beleive help to enlighten, at least partially, why Mexicans (in particular) believe they have a ‘right’ to be in the US without regard to our laws. Please be sure to read their comments if you haven’t already.

So reads the title of this article written by Eduardo Castillo for the Associated Press which I found via Drudge Report.

MEXICO CITY – Mexico’s president sharply criticized President Bush’s signing Thursday of a bill to build 700 miles of additional fencing on its southern border, calling the move an “embarrassment.”

Bush signed the bill, approved by the Senate last month, despite pleas from the Mexican government for a veto.

President Vicente Fox told reporters in the Caribbean resort city of Cancun that the fence would not stop millions of Mexicans from heading north in search of jobs.

“It is an embarrassment for the United States,” Fox said. “It is proof, that the United States does not see immigration as a subject that corresponds to both countries.”
…

An estimated 11 million Mexicans live in the United States, about half of them illegally.

This one is almost too easy, especially for a conservative like me; but every now and then it’s nice to have a sitting duck to shoot or low hanging fruit to pick.

The need to erect a fence should be considered an embarrassment; but to Mexico and Vicente Fox, not the United States and President Bush. If Fox were able to control his side of the border and the citizens of Mexico were willing to recognize the sovereignty of the United States, there would be no need for fencing. It should be an embarrassment to Fox that so many of his citizens would flee their native country in search of a better life. His comment, “the fence would not stop millions of Mexicans from heading north in search of jobs,” is an indictment upon himself and his government.

Fox stated, “It is proof, that the United States does not see immigration as a subject that corresponds to both countries.” Isn’t it strange that Fox’s Mexico would not accept for immigration people such as illegally enters the United States? Mexico is extremely selective about who is allowed to immigrate and then the nationalism regarding land ownership and voting is quite discriminatory against immigrants.

I think it is pretty crass of Fox to feign outrage at our reaction to his exporting 11 million of his citizens to the United States so his administration won’t have to answer for the sorry state of employment in Mexico.

The American people have spoken, Congress finally listened, and the President signed the bill into law. Now we need funding to build the fence; and that is our next grass roots movement.

Let me start by quoting, of all people, Senator Teddy Ethically-Challenged Kennedy. On my drive to work at 0445 (that’s 4:45 AM civilian time) I generally listen to the Jim Bohannon talk radio program. He airs a segment called “Face Off” where John McCain and Ted E-C Kennedy speak to a specific issue while maintaining a partisan position. There is no debate – each one gives their take in about 30 to 45 seconds. The topic this morning was reinforcing the coalition forces in Afghanistan with NATO troops to stabilize the situation. Ted E-C Kennedy’s leading statement was, “By invading Iraq, President Bush has made it a lot harder to win the real war on terror.” I snapped the radio off while uttering an expletive that I shall not repeat (I was alone in my truck and my thoughts).

Countless times liberal commenters and far too many Democratic politicians are stating the same thing – that our involvement in Iraq distracts us from the “real” war on terror. I wish someone would rationally argue that point for me, because I don’t understand the twisted mind that cannot connect the dots.

Our self-declared enemy is radical Jihadist Muslims. (In this writing I use “Jihadist” to mean “holy warrior” or “religious warrior” of Islam.) We were attacked on 911 by a cell of radical Jihadist Muslims identifying themselves as al-Qaida (which supposedly means “the law,” “the foundation” or “the base”). We were not attacked by Afghanis. We were not attacked by the Taliban. (Where have we heard that before?) However, the Taliban were harboring and abetting al-Qaida by providing safe heaven in Afghanistan. In response to 911 we invaded Afghanistan with the purpose to depose the Taliban and go after al-Qaida; all radical Jihadist Muslims.

Having identified Osama bin Laden as the leader of al-Qaida he was considered to be the primary perpetrator or mastermind behind the 911 attacks, so he became a defined target. In essence, he personified the enemy known as al-Qaida (radical Jihadist Muslims). I’m afraid too many people still believe if we kill Osama bin Laden we kill the enemy and the war is over. If the radical Jihadist Muslims succeeded in killing General Abizaid (the commander of US CENTCOM) do you suppose we would stop fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Iraq was invaded in March of 2003 to topple Saddam’s regime. Why? The dominant belief at the time was that Saddam was trying desperately to acquire the means to develop a nuclear weapon. It was well established that Saddam had possessed and used Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) against Iran and against the Iraqi Kurds. Iraq was perceived to be a threat to the US and the rest of the free world. International intelligence agencies believed Saddam was close to having that nuclear capability. Too, Saddam was in violation of about 13 UN resolutions with no UN action in sight. The US was able to secure UN Security Counsel agreement to use force if Saddam didn’t finally comply – which he didn’t. The President asked for and received Congressional approval to use military force against Saddam – almost unanimously. The Congressional decision to authorize the use of force was predicated upon the same intelligence information used by the President.

So much for history; we are now at a point where politically a separation is being fostered between Iraq and “The War On Terror.” A slight of hand is attempting to define Iraq as another Vietnam. Nothing could be father from the truth – the comparisons are strikingly dissimilar. But the slight of hand seems to be working – too many people are beginning to separate Iraq from “The War On Terror” because the original target, the original perpetrator was Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida, not Iraq.

Remember who I stated the enemy was? Radical Jihadists Muslims, right? Al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden, et al are “radical Jihadist Muslims.” They are our enemy, not just the one cell that bears the name al-Qaida. Because of our presence in Iraq, al-Qaida and many radical Jihadist Muslims have flocked to Iraq to evict the Great Satan and have instead come face to face with allah. What better outcome could we ask for than to be killing the enemy (remember, the radical Jihadist Muslims – not just al-Qaida) on foreign soil and at the same time provide for an Islamic nation to institute a democratic form of government. Many radical Jihadist Muslims have chosen Iraq to make a last stand against the US and we are succeeding in making it their “last stand.”

In the beginning of WWII we were sucker-punched in the Pacific and lost some very bloody battles trying to get our military footing back. In Europe Hitler handed us some pretty nasty defeats on the ground initially. It wasn’t until we defined victory as “unconditional surrender” that we cranked up our war machine to hand the Germans and Japanese there asses. Our determination to achieve victory was the driving force. Yes, we lost many American lives and we took many axis lives including civilians, but we never lost sight of the goal – victory through unconditional surrender. That victory came by amassing overwhelming force, and remaining united and determined to be victorious.

Today, we have the overwhelming force at our fingertips, but our unity is fractured and a draw is good enough. Proportional response and collateral damage has so constrained our way of conducting warfare that there is no way victory through unconditional surrender can ever be achieved. A war that could be over in a few years should we regain our unity in purpose will drag on for decades and at best yield only a draw. My grandchildren’s children will continue to fight an enemy that we refuse to engage decisively. What a sad indictment upon the peoples of America.

Are things going well in Iraq and Afghanistan? No, they are not. Some say planning is to blame. Some say the enemy is undefeatable. Some say we have no right to be in foreign lands with our troops. Some say we are to blame. Some say America is not worth dying for. Some say we were “lied into Iraq.” Some people don’t believe we have an enemy. Some just don’t believe.

Anywhere we fight and kill radical Jihadist Muslims we are prosecuting “The War On Terror,” whether it is in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Manhattan. This war is global and to deny that is to deny reality. We lost 2,996 American lives on 911, perpetrated by radical Jihadist Muslims who believe allah wants the US and the rest of the world brought under Sharia (Islamic law). Radical Jihadist Muslims, as they have stated, are our enemy. What will it take to unify our citizens to the purpose of victory through unconditional surrender?

So reads the title of this AP article written by Anne Plummer Flaherty. Once again, I came by this article via Matt Drudge.

From the article:

Anti-war groups are trying to rally active troops to speak out against the war in Iraq – a political tactic they hope will sway voters Nov. 7.

A small group of active-duty members opposed to the war created a Web site last month intended to collect thousands of signatures of other service members. People can submit their name, rank and duty station if they support statements denouncing the U.S. invasion.
…

Jonathan Hutto, a Navy seaman based in Norfolk, Va., who set up the Web site a month ago, said the group has collected 118 names and is trying to verify that they are legitimate service members.

There are 1.4 million troops on active duty, including members of the National Guard and Reserve.

Be sure to read the whole article.

I figured sooner or later this would happen. The ease by which a person can set up a web log entices people to speak out where others may listen (actually read). That is what drew me to Blogging; that and a superhuman push by one Gayle.

However, there seems to be a break in tradition occurring now. Active duty service people are not only blogging, but one has set up a site aimed at capturing active service members that oppose the War in Iraq.

I was always conflicted while active duty by the fact that my citizenship was somewhat restricted or constricted. I understood and accepted that my service in uniform demanded a bit higher morals and some constraint in speaking out politically. Of course we spoke among ourselves regarding political issues and candidates, but we refrained from speaking publicly about our likes and dislikes regarding candidates and incumbents.

I have no problem with active duty service people having blogs and commenting at various other blogs. I welcome their experiences and opinions and support their right to do so, provided they remain loyal to safeguarding sensitive and classified information.

I must admit that I do find this latest development a bit troubling in that it breaks from the traditions (regulatory in some instances) of the active force remaining mute in political matters. As one Congressman states, if a service member desires to become vocal regarding politics and policy, he/she should separate from the service first. We do not need, as the writer puts it, a Democratic Army and a Republican Army. We need a single disciplined U.S. Army capable of and willing to respond to the needs of the nation. (The same for all the services.)

Interestingly enough Hutto, the site owner, has managed to collect 0.008 percent of the active forces to support his endeavor. I don’t think many Representatives would respond to that kind of constituent representation.

As a traditionalist, I do not necessarily agree with active duty becoming outwardly involved in politics via the internet or otherwise. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds in the future.

UPDATE: 20061026 If I have the correct infomation (which is being verified) the complaint filed is: “Wrongful Use of Civil Process.” If I am able to acquire more information, I will post it.

I reference this article; “POW Lawsuit Could Force Kerry To Come Clean On Vietnam ‘War Crime’ Charges,” written by George “Bud” Day, Chairman, Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation. Please go read it all.

Thirty five years ago John Kerry slandered an entire generation of men who fought in Vietnam branding them as “war criminals.” Today, much of the same thing is being said about our young men and women in Iraq.

Now, a lawsuit filed in Philadelphia’s Court of Common Pleas will test the very foundation of Kerry’s anti-war persona for the first time. It isn’t dubious medals or Kerry’s disputed service record in Vietnam that is being called into question. This time Kerry may finally be forced to answer for the events that launched his public career, one that made him an anti-war hero for many American liberals and a turncoat for millions of Vietnam veterans.

The lawsuit (Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation, et al. v. Kenneth Campbell, et al.) challenges the basis, the factual accuracy of then-LtJG Kerry’s acrimonious testimony before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971. It was there Kerry’s public career was catapulted with his now ubiquitous portrayal of American soldiers as murderers, rapists and torturers “who ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam… [and] razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan.”

Kerry said then his accusations were based on the so-called “testimony” of “150 honorably discharged” Vietnam veterans who, like himself, claimed to have committed or witnessed “war crimes, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.”
…

For the anti-war, anti-American protestors, the American soldiers are the “terrorists,” and the enemies are the victims of a barbaric U.S. military which tortures and murders defenseless civilians.

That false premise, one of the most vicious and enduring smears spawned by Kerry 35 years ago, will also be put to the test once Kerry’s true “Band of Brothers” are put under oath in a Philadelphia courtroom.
…

I was among those whom Sherwood, a decorated Marine combat veteran himself, asked to participate in Stolen Honor. I was a POW for nearly six years, held in North Vietnam prison camps, including the notorious Hanoi Hilton, a place of unimaginable horrors — torture, beatings, starvation and mind-numbing isolation. When Kerry branded us “war criminals,” he handed our captors all the justification they needed to carry out their threats to execute us. Thanks to Kerry, Jane Fonda and their comrades in the anti-war movement, our captivity was prolonged by years. The communists in Hanoi and Moscow couldn’t have had a better press agent to spread their anti-American propaganda. (Remember this paragraph was written by the author whose credentials follow – editor.)
…

Col. George E. “Bud” Day, USAF (Ret.,) was a POW in North Vietnam for five years, seven months and 13 days. He served in three wars (WWII, Korea, and Vietnam) and earned the Medal of Honor. He is the Air Force’s most decorated living veteran. He is the Director and President of the Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation, Inc., an organization created to better educate and inform the public about the Vietnam War, its events, its history, and the men and women who sacrificed to serve their country.

This article may ring hollow with many because they do not share my experiences. If you haven’t already, please read my profile to understand my background. Being a Vietnam veteran who served my nation honorably in Vietnam (and elsewhere), I take exception to being painted with a broad brush that labels me and my brother Vietnam vets as “rapists, torturers, murders…, reminiscent of Genghis Khan.”

By my way of thinking, I-John-Kerry launched his political career by despicably defaming his brothers at arms. He sprang into the limelight by maliciously calling his fellow Vietnam veterans murders, torturers, rapists, etc. This is not a person I will ever hold in high regard; this is a person that I want to see broken to nothingness. His election and continued re-election by the people of Massachusetts flies in the face decency. This man built his political power on the spitefully maligned backs of brave and honorable soldiers. To this day he displays his total disregard for the military; and to this day I continue my disdain for I-John-Kerry. I-John-Kerry and Ted-Chappaquiddick-Kennedy are two people who suppress my Christian quality for forgiveness and bring my human side to the forefront crying out for justice and retribution.

I also find it very difficult to relate to or take seriously a person who ideologically aligns with, condones and defends the rhetoric of people like Kerry, Kennedy, Durbin, Murtha, and the like. I honestly feel that my service to my country is worth just a tad more than being labeled a baby killer, rapist, torturer, etc.

Jason of ‘Texas Rainmaker‘ is trying to make a difference by establishing ‘TexasRainmaker.GOP.com‘ to facilitate contributing to the GOP as well as becoming a Team Member for your local area. I do not have the time to dedicate to being a Team Member, but I was able to give a buck.

Go do the same and then pass the word along.

Don’t wake up on Nov 8th wishing you had done just a little bit more.

Two Sources, both out of California; San Diego and Los Angeles – go figure. My path to the sources is via ‘Drudge Report.’

From ‘News Channel 3’ comes the piece “House Defense chair asks Pentagon to remove embedded CNN reporters.”

From the ‘LA Times’ comes the piece “Lawmaker Outraged by Sniper Footage on CNN” written by Tony Perry.

From ‘News Channel 3:’

SAN DIEGO The chair of the House Armed Services Committee asked the pentagon today to remove C-N-N reporters embedded with U-S combat units.

The network televised portions of a video on Wednesday showing insurgent snipers targeting U-S military personnel.

C-N-N executives defended their decision to air the footage, saying its news value outweighed other concerns.

From the ‘LA Times:’

SAN DIEGO – CNN has become “the publicist for an enemy propaganda film” by broadcasting a video showing an insurgent sniper in Iraq apparently killing an American soldier, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee said here Friday.

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-El Cajon) called for the Pentagon to oust any CNN reporter embedded with U.S. troops in Iraq.

“I think Americans like to think we’re all in this together,” Hunter said. “The average American Marine or soldier has concluded after seeing that film that CNN is not on their side.“

“Whether or not you agree with us in this case, our goal, as always, is to present the unvarnished truth as best we can,” CNN producer David Doss wrote in a blog on the network’s website.
…

Doss said the decision to broadcast the video came after hours of “intense editorial debate.”

He said one compromise was made: The moment when the bullet hits the soldier’s head is blacked out. (How compassionate of them – editor) The soldier’s face and unit patches were not clear, so identifying him was impossible, CNN said.
…

Embedded reporters sign pledges not to show the faces of dead American troops until their families are notified, but nothing prohibits the use of pictures in which identities are not discernible. (And only common sense prohibits them from utilizing enemy filming – editor)

First of all, I applaud Representative Hunter for calling for the DOD to eject any and all embedded CNN reporters. The network has blatantly displayed a willingness to confer with the enemy and act as a useful idiot by airing terrorist insurgent recruitment/propaganda footage. Can you imagine a WWII news real (shown in theaters at the time) with footage filmed by direction of Joseph Goebbels of German snipers killing US Soldiers? Yet today, it is taken in stride and even rigorously defended as “freedom of the press.”

I can hear the supportive clamor now: CNN has a right to air such material; they have a duty to bring us the truth of what is going on in Iraq; the constitution provides for the freedom of the press; and on and on. I do not argue CNN’s ‘right’ to air such provocative and gut wrenching film. They have a ‘right’ to operate however they wish within the confines of the law. The public also has a ‘right’ to not tune into to CNN – and I can only hope that CNN’s viewer audience decreases yet again because of their blatant support for the insurgency in Iraq.

If CNN was truly interested in bringing the “unvarnished truth” to their viewers, why are they pre-digesting the “news” and presenting it with such a political slant? Why do they consistently report the bad without any counterbalancing good? Why do they not report the successes of our military in Iraq with any degree of fairness?

The answers to my preceding questions are complex and simple. The simple element is that the liberal agenda doesn’t include the US remaining a strong nation. The means of knocking the US down a peg or two is for us to “lose” again, like we did in Vietnam and Somalia. If we withdraw from Iraq, without a clearly defined victory, the US will be viewed less of a threat to world peace. This is the belief of the liberal can’t-we-all-just-get-along appeasement crowd. Ted Turner and his CNN management team are subscribers to such fantasy. The unfortunate aspect is Ted Turner has the financial resources to support his misguided fantasy and he appears aimed at trying to relive the Vietnam outcome. The difference, for those not old enough to remember, is that North Vietnam and the VC never attacked us on our own soil – something the American people have yet to forget.

It is only through strength and an unwavering determination to use that strength that the US will achieve peace. Can you imagine a liberal Superman? All that strength emasculated merely to appease those who might be offended regardless of the fact that the strength is used solely for good. I guess the S would have to be replaced with an a – no, not for ‘ass,’ but for ‘appeaser.’

CNN deserves the licks they will take for airing enemy propaganda in the face of so many Americans who have loved ones voluntarily serving in our uniformed forces in Iraq. CNN has just alienated themselves with the vast majority of the military and their loved ones; all in the interest of “unvarnished truth” and yet they failed to even hit their own mark by providing completely the “unvarnished truth.”

From ‘CNN airs footage of Iraq sniper attacks‘ by David Bauder, AP Television Writer.

NEW YORK – A CNN executive said Thursday the network’s effort to present the “unvarnished truth” about the Iraq war led it to televise portions of a video that shows insurgent snipers targeting U.S. military personnel.

The tape which came to the network unexpectedly through contact with an insurgent leader, was aired first Wednesday night on “Anderson Cooper 360” and repeated on Thursday.

In one instance, the tape shows a uniformed member of the U.S. military milling in a public area with Iraqis. A shot rings out. CNN fades the screen to black before the result – described as a victim falling forward – is visible.

It’s one of 10 separate sniper attacks on Americans documented on the tape, which CNN technicians concluded was authentic, said David Doss, executive producer of Cooper’s show, in a Web log entry describing the network’s decision what to show.

This torques me beyond measure. (That’s Army aviation polite speak for, ‘this really pisses me off.’) Had a CNN cameraman captured the image and aired it, that would be a slightly different story, but to air images recorded by insurgents – our sworn enemy – is beyond reason; but then the liberal MSM has made no bones about which side they are on.

The liberal MSM won’t publish photos or footage of the 911 attacks, because it offends and only fosters divisiveness. Damn right! There should be a very distinct division between America and her enemies. Every evening news watcher should unequivocally know who our enemy is and what he is up to; yet our MSM seems prone to obfuscate the delineation between our forces and the enemy. And they have the audacity to call it patriotism.

If CNN feels it is okay to run such film footage, why aren’t they airing footage of the results of our snipers, or our infantry taking out an unsuccessful insurgent ambush, or our military holding an injured Iraqi child so she could sleep, or our forces opening a school that has been closed for decades? Why isn’t CNN reminding America about Nick Berg and others beheaded by radical Islamic Jihadists ‘insurgents?’ CNN has an agenda and it isn’t honest journalism. I am absolutely fed up with this deliberate liberal undermining of America!

The following came to me via email. I have no way of knowing if it is authentic, so I have changed the signatory’s name. The gist of the letter remains the same and is actually quite compelling. Let’s not make life too rough for our newest lawbreakers citizens.

The Honorable Paul S. Sarbanes
309 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Sarbanes,

As a native Marylander and excellent customer of the Internal Revenue Service, I am writing to ask for your assistance. I have contacted the Department of Homeland Security in an effort to determine the process for becoming an illegal alien and they referred me to you.

My primary reason for wishing to change my status from U.S. Citizen to illegal alien stems from the bill which was recently passed by the Senate and for which you voted. If my understanding of this bill’s provisions is accurate, as an illegal alien who has been in the United States for five years, all I need to do to become a citizen is to pay a $2,000 fine and income taxes for three of the last five years. I know a good deal when I see one and am anxious to get the process started before everyone figures it out.

Simply put, those of us who have been here legally have had to pay taxes every year so I’m excited about the prospect of avoiding two years of taxes in return for paying a $2,000 fine. Is there any way that I can apply to be illegal retroactively? This would yield an excellent result for me and my family because we paid heavy taxes in 2004 and 2005.

Additionally, as an illegal alien I could begin using the local emergency room as my primary health care provider. Once I have stopped paying premiums for medical insurance, my accountant figures I could save almost $10,000 a year. Another benefit in gaining illegal status would be that my daughter would receive preferential treatment relative to her law school applications, as well as “in-state” tuition rates for many colleges throughout the United States for my son.

Lastly, I understand that illegal status would relieve me of the burden of renewing my driver’s license and making those burdensome car insurance premiums. This is very important to me given that I still have college age children driving my car.

If you would provide me with an outline of the process to become illegal (retroactively if possible) and copies of the necessary forms, I would be most appreciative. Thank you for your assistance.

Your loyal constituent,

John Q. Public