Thursday, December 30, 2004
Monday, December 27, 2004
In Iraq for 365: Two Iraqis
In Iraq for 365: Two Iraqis
Two Iraqis
Both of them were blown from their seats by the blast, which they described as, “very powerful, lots of noise and heat.” The two Iraqi soldiers were both dazed. One of them could only hear a loud ringing sound in his ears. The other couldn’t believe his eyes: Every where he looked people were gasping for air or bleeding profusely. Before the two Iraqis lay a helpless American soldier, who staggered across the smoke-filled mess hall at first only to fall on the ground. They couldn’t understand a word coming out of the American’s mouth. They only saw the blood spewing from his leg.
These two men, both in their 20s, saw carnage caused by the very people they took an oath to defend Iraq against. These two men were proud Iraqis who were trained by U.S. Army Special Forces. These two men had seen enough people die at the hands of terrorists, and on December 21, 2004, they would do everything in their power to save every person they could.
The human body has several vital points. A sharp piece of metal to the jugular and a person is gone within seconds. A shot to the temple, a person will never even know what hit him. A slug to the heart or spleen and the person’s collection of memories will flash before his or her eyes in an instant. A hit to the femoral artery leaves a person minutes, maybe hours, but their final moments will be agonizing.
The suicide bomb sprayed bb-like fragments throughout the Marez dining facility. One piece of shrapnel sliced through the femoral artery of a U.S. soldier and his only chance for survival was in the hands of these two Iraqis.
Recalling the medical classes they’d received from the special forces, the Iraqis reacted calmly, fastening a belt above the wound, creating a tourniquet, which stopped the gushing stream of red. They moved the soldier to a MEDVAC vehicle via two-man litter carry. After they hoisted the soldier in the truck, the two Iraqis – one an officer, the other an NCO – ran back to the facility and began treating the other wounded without regard for their safety.
When the dust settled and the mess tent had been evacuated, everybody who could talk was questioned about their health. When the medics came to the two Iraqis, the ING soldiers only wanted to know how everybody else was. When asked why did they do it, they simply stated, “this was our duty; we are a team, and we take care of each other.” Even the Americans.
This country needs more people like these two Iraqi soldiers. If more shared their passion and determination, the terrorist’s fear tactics of beheadings, public killings and kidnappings would not work. If more believed in their vision of Iraq, there would be no fighting; there would only be encouragement for their fellow man and peace. If more people understood their sacrifices and followed their lead, this country would not be as dependent upon others. But they can’t single handily change their country, so they decisively lead by example without trepidation.
Rather than running, they stood strong and saved a man’s life. Because of them, somebody’s son is still breathing. Right now, the U.S. Army is trying to give these two Iraqis prestigious awards. But all the Iraqis want to do is check on the soldier they saved. “I just want to make sure he is OK.”
By now, the American, who is still in the hospital recovering, knows the story of the two Iraqis. And I’m sure he looks forward to the day he can look his Iraqi brother-at-arms in the eye and say, "Thanks for saving my life."
Two Iraqis
Both of them were blown from their seats by the blast, which they described as, “very powerful, lots of noise and heat.” The two Iraqi soldiers were both dazed. One of them could only hear a loud ringing sound in his ears. The other couldn’t believe his eyes: Every where he looked people were gasping for air or bleeding profusely. Before the two Iraqis lay a helpless American soldier, who staggered across the smoke-filled mess hall at first only to fall on the ground. They couldn’t understand a word coming out of the American’s mouth. They only saw the blood spewing from his leg.
These two men, both in their 20s, saw carnage caused by the very people they took an oath to defend Iraq against. These two men were proud Iraqis who were trained by U.S. Army Special Forces. These two men had seen enough people die at the hands of terrorists, and on December 21, 2004, they would do everything in their power to save every person they could.
The human body has several vital points. A sharp piece of metal to the jugular and a person is gone within seconds. A shot to the temple, a person will never even know what hit him. A slug to the heart or spleen and the person’s collection of memories will flash before his or her eyes in an instant. A hit to the femoral artery leaves a person minutes, maybe hours, but their final moments will be agonizing.
The suicide bomb sprayed bb-like fragments throughout the Marez dining facility. One piece of shrapnel sliced through the femoral artery of a U.S. soldier and his only chance for survival was in the hands of these two Iraqis.
Recalling the medical classes they’d received from the special forces, the Iraqis reacted calmly, fastening a belt above the wound, creating a tourniquet, which stopped the gushing stream of red. They moved the soldier to a MEDVAC vehicle via two-man litter carry. After they hoisted the soldier in the truck, the two Iraqis – one an officer, the other an NCO – ran back to the facility and began treating the other wounded without regard for their safety.
When the dust settled and the mess tent had been evacuated, everybody who could talk was questioned about their health. When the medics came to the two Iraqis, the ING soldiers only wanted to know how everybody else was. When asked why did they do it, they simply stated, “this was our duty; we are a team, and we take care of each other.” Even the Americans.
This country needs more people like these two Iraqi soldiers. If more shared their passion and determination, the terrorist’s fear tactics of beheadings, public killings and kidnappings would not work. If more believed in their vision of Iraq, there would be no fighting; there would only be encouragement for their fellow man and peace. If more people understood their sacrifices and followed their lead, this country would not be as dependent upon others. But they can’t single handily change their country, so they decisively lead by example without trepidation.
Rather than running, they stood strong and saved a man’s life. Because of them, somebody’s son is still breathing. Right now, the U.S. Army is trying to give these two Iraqis prestigious awards. But all the Iraqis want to do is check on the soldier they saved. “I just want to make sure he is OK.”
By now, the American, who is still in the hospital recovering, knows the story of the two Iraqis. And I’m sure he looks forward to the day he can look his Iraqi brother-at-arms in the eye and say, "Thanks for saving my life."
Power Line: They stopped thinking about tomorrow
Power Line: They stopped thinking about tomorrow: "They JUST DON'T GET IT!
Michael Barone looks back on the 2004 election and is 'struck by how many of the constituencies supporting Democratic candidates oppose, rather than seek, change -- how they are motivated not by ideas about how to change the future, but by something like nostalgia for the past.' The Democratic party, he argues, is defined by 1930 era views on social security, 60s views on the state of race relations and the use of military force, and 70s views on feminism. Cosmetically at least, this state of affairs constitutes a reversal of roles from 1996 when the Democrats claimed they couldn't 'stop thinking about tomorrow,' while Bob Dole promised to be 'a bridge to the past.'
Ironically, John Kerry, the icon of 1971, outpolled President Bush among young voters. The Democrats take heart from this, and reasonably so, although one wonders how much of a role Kerry's scare talk about reinstating the draft played. In any case, it is doubtful that the Democrats can sustain any edge they might have with younger voters unless they adopt a less backward looking approach to the issues. "
Michael Barone looks back on the 2004 election and is 'struck by how many of the constituencies supporting Democratic candidates oppose, rather than seek, change -- how they are motivated not by ideas about how to change the future, but by something like nostalgia for the past.' The Democratic party, he argues, is defined by 1930 era views on social security, 60s views on the state of race relations and the use of military force, and 70s views on feminism. Cosmetically at least, this state of affairs constitutes a reversal of roles from 1996 when the Democrats claimed they couldn't 'stop thinking about tomorrow,' while Bob Dole promised to be 'a bridge to the past.'
Ironically, John Kerry, the icon of 1971, outpolled President Bush among young voters. The Democrats take heart from this, and reasonably so, although one wonders how much of a role Kerry's scare talk about reinstating the draft played. In any case, it is doubtful that the Democrats can sustain any edge they might have with younger voters unless they adopt a less backward looking approach to the issues. "
OpinionJournal - John Fund on the Trail
OpinionJournal - John Fund on the Trail: "From America With Love
Ukraine's new first lady knows what freedom really means.
Monday, December 27, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST
In the most peaceful revolution since South Africa ended its apartheid regime by electing Nelson Mandela president in 1994, Ukraine has just elected opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko president of the former Soviet satellite republic. The victory comes for the pro-Western leader after a dirty campaign that saw him poisoned and only after hundreds of thousands of demonstrators filled the streets to protest voter-fraud. 'We peacefully, beautifully, elegantly and without any drops of blood changed Ukraine,' Mr. Yushchenko told cheering supporters.
What many Westerners do not realize, however, is when Mr. Yushchenko takes the seat of power, at his side will be a tough minded, savvy American-raised businesswoman. His wife, Kateryna Chumachenko Yushchenko, is the daughter of Ukrainian immigrants who grew up steeped in the traditions of her ancestral homeland.
Mrs. Yushchenko was raised in suburban Chicago as the daughter of an electrician and seamstress. During World War II, her parents were forced to immigrate to Germany and work as slave labor. They came to the U.S. in 1956 at the invitation of a Ukrainian Orthodox church. She grew up speaking Ukrainian at home, learning the national dances and attending a Ukrainian school and Orthodox church. 'My parents felt they had to keep alive the culture and traditions they thought were being suppressed by the Soviet Union,' she told me.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s she worked in the human rights office of the U.S. State Department. She also worked for the first President Bush in the Treasury Department. But her dream was always to help Ukraine become independent. So after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 she moved to Kiev. Her business degree from the University of Chicago helped her land a job with KPMG, the U.S. international auditing company, and she prospered training the country's economists in Western practices. She met Viktor Yushchenko when he was part of a delegation of central bankers she brought to Chicago. 'He understood free markets, had a firm faith in God and knew what the right path for the country should be,' she told me. The two married in 1998, and they now have three children.
"
Ukraine's new first lady knows what freedom really means.
Monday, December 27, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST
In the most peaceful revolution since South Africa ended its apartheid regime by electing Nelson Mandela president in 1994, Ukraine has just elected opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko president of the former Soviet satellite republic. The victory comes for the pro-Western leader after a dirty campaign that saw him poisoned and only after hundreds of thousands of demonstrators filled the streets to protest voter-fraud. 'We peacefully, beautifully, elegantly and without any drops of blood changed Ukraine,' Mr. Yushchenko told cheering supporters.
What many Westerners do not realize, however, is when Mr. Yushchenko takes the seat of power, at his side will be a tough minded, savvy American-raised businesswoman. His wife, Kateryna Chumachenko Yushchenko, is the daughter of Ukrainian immigrants who grew up steeped in the traditions of her ancestral homeland.
Mrs. Yushchenko was raised in suburban Chicago as the daughter of an electrician and seamstress. During World War II, her parents were forced to immigrate to Germany and work as slave labor. They came to the U.S. in 1956 at the invitation of a Ukrainian Orthodox church. She grew up speaking Ukrainian at home, learning the national dances and attending a Ukrainian school and Orthodox church. 'My parents felt they had to keep alive the culture and traditions they thought were being suppressed by the Soviet Union,' she told me.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s she worked in the human rights office of the U.S. State Department. She also worked for the first President Bush in the Treasury Department. But her dream was always to help Ukraine become independent. So after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 she moved to Kiev. Her business degree from the University of Chicago helped her land a job with KPMG, the U.S. international auditing company, and she prospered training the country's economists in Western practices. She met Viktor Yushchenko when he was part of a delegation of central bankers she brought to Chicago. 'He understood free markets, had a firm faith in God and knew what the right path for the country should be,' she told me. The two married in 1998, and they now have three children.
"
Saturday, December 25, 2004
Right Wing Spic: I'm totally gay.
Right Wing Spic: I'm totally gay.: "adj. Showing or characterized by cheerfulness and lighthearted excitement; merry.
I am 100%, completely over-the-top gay right now. Why? Here are the reasons:
* John Kerry will not be moving into the White House in January.
* I live in the greatest nation on the face of the planet, in spite of the efforts of a liberal minority bent on making America 'just like Europe'.
* As aggressive and powerful as the ACLU seems to be, God is in control, and will ultimately prevail.
* The cost of my sins, death, was paid for in full by Jesus Christ.
* I have a beautiful family.
* Although Americans have suffered over 1,000 deaths in Iraq, that number pales in comparison to those lost in previous conflicts. In just one WWII battle, the Battle of the Bulge, 19,000 American lives were lost - in just one battle. Almost 800 lives were lost during the rehersal for the D-Day invasion. 29,000 dead soldiers were recovered from the beach after the actual invasion. Iraq is difficult right now, but it could be much, much worse. And we will prevail.
* Michael Moore's relevance has deteriorated to the point where he is now forced to produce sequels. His post-election behavior is indicative of an injured animal that's just waiting to expire. He has become such 'yesterdays news' that we may soon see him appearing at local night clubs with Pat Travers and Grand Funk Railroad.
* I have a cabinet full of semi-auto 'assault weapons', dozens of clips, and a load of ammo. And it sure feels good!
* The liberal Hollywood elitists are starting to realize that Americans as a whole really do not like them.
* Those nit-witted has-been musicians who toured to raise money for the failed Kerry campaign are back where they belong - in obscurity.
Yes, I'm just about as gay as it gets right now. I'm flaming gay. Don't get too close.... 'cause I'm on fire!"
I am 100%, completely over-the-top gay right now. Why? Here are the reasons:
* John Kerry will not be moving into the White House in January.
* I live in the greatest nation on the face of the planet, in spite of the efforts of a liberal minority bent on making America 'just like Europe'.
* As aggressive and powerful as the ACLU seems to be, God is in control, and will ultimately prevail.
* The cost of my sins, death, was paid for in full by Jesus Christ.
* I have a beautiful family.
* Although Americans have suffered over 1,000 deaths in Iraq, that number pales in comparison to those lost in previous conflicts. In just one WWII battle, the Battle of the Bulge, 19,000 American lives were lost - in just one battle. Almost 800 lives were lost during the rehersal for the D-Day invasion. 29,000 dead soldiers were recovered from the beach after the actual invasion. Iraq is difficult right now, but it could be much, much worse. And we will prevail.
* Michael Moore's relevance has deteriorated to the point where he is now forced to produce sequels. His post-election behavior is indicative of an injured animal that's just waiting to expire. He has become such 'yesterdays news' that we may soon see him appearing at local night clubs with Pat Travers and Grand Funk Railroad.
* I have a cabinet full of semi-auto 'assault weapons', dozens of clips, and a load of ammo. And it sure feels good!
* The liberal Hollywood elitists are starting to realize that Americans as a whole really do not like them.
* Those nit-witted has-been musicians who toured to raise money for the failed Kerry campaign are back where they belong - in obscurity.
Yes, I'm just about as gay as it gets right now. I'm flaming gay. Don't get too close.... 'cause I'm on fire!"
Power Line: A soldier endorses Rumsfeld
Power Line: A soldier endorses RumsfeldIt's Christmas Eve, though it didn't feel like it. There are some good decorations in the hospital, but we had no Christmas music in the OR today, and no snow on the ground. No nativity scenes or festive cheer in this part of the world. Then, after a routine for here but hardly routine day in the OR, my day was made. I'm referring to the interaction I witnessed and helped facilitate between a young injured soldier and a high ranking official. Here is how it happened:
I was reading foxnews.com at around noon when I told the anesthesiologist that "the Donald" was in town on a surprise visit. No, not Donald Trump, but Donald Rumsfeld. He laughed cynically and said no way would he come here. Well, at around 1600 I was in the OR and I was told that Rumsfeld was downstairs, and we could go down there if we wanted to. I was not in a position to leave, obviously.
Well, the timing worked out well, because I was taking my patient to the recovery room when we wheeled the stretcher through a mob of dignitaries, to include 3 and 4 star generals. I knew the Secretary was nearby, and it turns out he was in the ICU. The patient drew enough attention because of his bruised, banged up face that the 4 star came over to get his story from the surgeon. I was doing some charting by the bedside when Mr. Rumsfeld came over and heard the kid's story from the 4-star. Rumsfeld looked concerned and kind of kept his distance from the gruesome site. He said something like "bless his heart", as if talking around him.
That is when I, without any thought, piped in with "Sir, you can talk to him, he's awake." He told the soldier, named Rob, how proud he was of his service. The soldier was in a bit of disbelief, because he couldn't see with one eye patched and the other swollen shut. He said he wanted to talk to Rumsfeld. That's when I said "He's standing right to your left, Rob, that's his voice you hear. You can talk to him." The kid was nervous at that point, but sputtered out how honored he was to talk to him. Mr. Rumsfeld replied, "No, it's an honor for me to talk to you."
Then remarkably, the young soldier, who had just lost his left hand and right eye from an explosion, came to the defense of the Secretary of Defense, stating "Mr. Rumsfeld, I want you to know, that you are doing a fantastic job. I know that you are taking a lot of heat for the problems with getting armor for vehicles. I want you to know that things are vastly improved. Our vehicles are great, and I have never searched through junk piles for scrap metal."
At this point, Rumsfeld looked choked up, and I had a lump in my throat and and watery eyes. It was moving. What makes a man who has been so close to death, and maimed for life, come to the defense of the Army's highest ranking official? Loyalty, I dare say. Did Rob think Mr. Rumsfeld was having a self-esteem problem? In his greatest hour of need, his thoughts went to the emotional needs of another. I found it quite amazing, and moving. The Secretary took out a coin and gave it to a bystander for him, as if he didn't know he could touch him. Finally, the soldier said, "Man, Donald Rumsfeld, I wish I could shake his hand."
Even at that, I felt Mr. Rumsfeld needed some prompting, so I picked up the kid's arm and looked at the Secretary, and he reached out and took the kid's hand. After the entourage left, I took the coin and placed it in the soldiers hand, for him to feel and hold. I said, "that's not one you'll get every day." He was happy. I told the person caring for him to make certain that coin went with him to his room. I was assured that he would. I told Rob it was an honor to care for him, and then went on to do my next case. I'd like to see him tomorrow, but I heard he is flying out tonight.
I was reading foxnews.com at around noon when I told the anesthesiologist that "the Donald" was in town on a surprise visit. No, not Donald Trump, but Donald Rumsfeld. He laughed cynically and said no way would he come here. Well, at around 1600 I was in the OR and I was told that Rumsfeld was downstairs, and we could go down there if we wanted to. I was not in a position to leave, obviously.
Well, the timing worked out well, because I was taking my patient to the recovery room when we wheeled the stretcher through a mob of dignitaries, to include 3 and 4 star generals. I knew the Secretary was nearby, and it turns out he was in the ICU. The patient drew enough attention because of his bruised, banged up face that the 4 star came over to get his story from the surgeon. I was doing some charting by the bedside when Mr. Rumsfeld came over and heard the kid's story from the 4-star. Rumsfeld looked concerned and kind of kept his distance from the gruesome site. He said something like "bless his heart", as if talking around him.
That is when I, without any thought, piped in with "Sir, you can talk to him, he's awake." He told the soldier, named Rob, how proud he was of his service. The soldier was in a bit of disbelief, because he couldn't see with one eye patched and the other swollen shut. He said he wanted to talk to Rumsfeld. That's when I said "He's standing right to your left, Rob, that's his voice you hear. You can talk to him." The kid was nervous at that point, but sputtered out how honored he was to talk to him. Mr. Rumsfeld replied, "No, it's an honor for me to talk to you."
Then remarkably, the young soldier, who had just lost his left hand and right eye from an explosion, came to the defense of the Secretary of Defense, stating "Mr. Rumsfeld, I want you to know, that you are doing a fantastic job. I know that you are taking a lot of heat for the problems with getting armor for vehicles. I want you to know that things are vastly improved. Our vehicles are great, and I have never searched through junk piles for scrap metal."
At this point, Rumsfeld looked choked up, and I had a lump in my throat and and watery eyes. It was moving. What makes a man who has been so close to death, and maimed for life, come to the defense of the Army's highest ranking official? Loyalty, I dare say. Did Rob think Mr. Rumsfeld was having a self-esteem problem? In his greatest hour of need, his thoughts went to the emotional needs of another. I found it quite amazing, and moving. The Secretary took out a coin and gave it to a bystander for him, as if he didn't know he could touch him. Finally, the soldier said, "Man, Donald Rumsfeld, I wish I could shake his hand."
Even at that, I felt Mr. Rumsfeld needed some prompting, so I picked up the kid's arm and looked at the Secretary, and he reached out and took the kid's hand. After the entourage left, I took the coin and placed it in the soldiers hand, for him to feel and hold. I said, "that's not one you'll get every day." He was happy. I told the person caring for him to make certain that coin went with him to his room. I was assured that he would. I told Rob it was an honor to care for him, and then went on to do my next case. I'd like to see him tomorrow, but I heard he is flying out tonight.
Thursday, December 23, 2004
Ugly Reporting Wrongs Rumsfeld
Itzaz� Around Here!
Wednesday, December 22, 2004
Ugly Reporting Wrongs Rumsfeld
by Allan H. Ryskind
Posted Dec 17, 2004
It may not have been conscious sabotage of the defense secretary, but it's hard to believe otherwise.Nowhere was the media's irresponsibility on the Iraq conflict more acutely demonstrated than in the barrage of ugly news reports on Donald Rumsfeld's exchange in Kuwait with Spc. Thomas Wilson, an exchange that is still reverberating across the country.
Those who pay close attention to the news are almost certainly familiar with the reported encounter. Spc. Wilson, an airplane mechanic with the Tennessee Army National Guard, asked the secretary an important question: ". . . A lot of us are getting ready to move north relatively soon. Our vehicles are not armored. We're digging pieces of rusted scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass that's already been shot up . . . to put on our vehicles to take into combat. We do not have proper armament [sic] vehicles to carry with us north."
Out of Context
Virtually all the newspaper, magazine, radio, and TV accounts wildly misrepresented what happened next. As the Washington Post's Thomas Ricks "reported"--and his piece was wholly representative of the media in general--"Rumsfeld replied: 'As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time."
Rumsfeld, as the media would have it, was blowing off the deepest concerns of our men and women about to be placed in a deadly situation.
This observer--along with a number of other pro-Bush, but not necessarily pro-war or pro-Rumsfeld conservatives I talked with--was also initially outraged upon first hearing the exchange endlessly repeated on radio and TV, and then reading the account in cold print. How could the secretary have been so callous? Why hadn't he told these soldiers what the Defense Department was doing to improve matters?
Any parent with a kid at risk in Iraq would have been fully justified in demanding Rumsfeld's head for such cold-blooded remarks. Rumsfeld, according to the media's portrayal, was telling the troops to "suck it up" and casualties be damned. No wonder his reported remarks caused such a furor.
But the official transcript of the Kuwaiti townhall meeting with the troops, as last week's HUMAN EVENTS reported, reveals an entirely different story.
The first words out of Rumsfeld's mouth in response to Wilson were not what the media either said or implied or disclosed in film clips. They were, instead, words of encouragement. Rumsfeld dwelt at length on how much progress the military was making in solving the problem that began materializing a year ago August when the enemy started using explosives to blow up thin-skinned Army vehicles normally used in the rear of the combat zone. Nor was the secretary caught off guard by the question, as the media has suggested. Here, in fact, is how Rumsfeld immediately responded--all 94 words worth--to Spc. Wilson's now famous query:
"I talked to the general coming out here about the pace at which the vehicles are being armored. They have been brought from all over the world, wherever they're not needed, to a place here where they are needed. I'm told that they are being--the Army is--I think it's something like 400 a month are being done. And it's essentially a matter of physics. It isn't a matter of money. It isn't a matter on the part of the Army of desire. It's a matter of production and capability of doing it." Then Rumsfeld launched into an explanation of why there weren't as many armored vehicles as the conflict now warranted. "As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time. Since the Iraq conflict began, the Army has been pressing ahead to produce the armor necessary at a rate they believe--it's a greatly expanded rate from what existed previously--but a rate that they believe is the rate that is all that can be accomplished at this moment," said Rumsfeld.
"I can assure you," he continued, "that General Schoolmaker and the leadership in the Army and certainly General Whitcomb are sensitive to the fact that not every vehicle has the degree of armor that would be desirable for it to have, but they're working at a good clip. . . . [T]he goal we have is to have as many of those vehicles as is humanly possible with the appropriate level of armor available for the troops. And that is what the Army has been working on."
Does this sound like the media's grotesque portrait of Rumsfeld?
Those friends of mine who had been furious with the defense secretary for his apparent indifference to the soldiers' life and death concerns were stunned as to how they had been misled when I read them the transcript. They were not upset that the question had been prompted by an embedded reporter, Edward Lee Pitts of the Chattanooga Times-Free Press, for the query, judging from the positive reaction of some of the troops, was clearly a legitimate one.But they were hot under the collar--and still are--at having been hoodwinked by the Washington Post, the New York Times, and radio and TV networks as to Rumsfeld's response.
The Post, in fact, repeated the distortion two days in a row--December 9 and 10--when it had to know better. Even NBC's Tim Russert--the toughest, but fairest news moderator in TV--showed the distorted film clip of Rumsfeld's answer four day's after his town hall meeting.
The issues of Time and Newsweek that hit the newsstands this past week were still misreporting the Rumsfeld-Wilson exchange. Time: "It was Rumsfeld's response though, that instantly ignited a firestorm. 'You go to war with the Army you have,' Rumsfeld told Wilson, 'not the Army you might want . . .'"
Newsweek: "Rumsfeld's initial response [to Wilson's question] was testy: 'You go to war with the Army you have,' he barked." On December 15, Weekly Standard Editor William Kristol--nearly a week after the print media had twisted Rumsfeld's reply--unleashed a jeremiad against the Defense secretary, using the essentially false quote as his launching pad.
Doesn't anyone look at original transcripts anymore?
Rumsfeld talked to about 2,300 soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and civilian laborers at Camp Buehring in northern Kuwait. Contrary to media suggestions, the troops were warm and receptive. The gathering frequently cheered and applauded the defense secretary, as he praised the troops and informed them how important their mission was. They cheered and applauded his remarks in response to their questions, gave him standing ovations and crowded around him for 45 minutes shaking his hand and snapping his picture after he had briefed them. His appearance was also broken up with good-natured laughter. These soldiers were clearly not acting bitterly or ready to mutiny. Those who read the complete transcript of Rumsfeld's appearance as well as the briefing for reporters by Lt. Gen. R. Steven Whitcomb will have a far different understanding of what occurred than if they choose to rely on the news accounts.
Gen. Whitcomb, commander of the Third Army and Coalition Forces Land Component Command, has major responsibility for ground operations in Iraq. He explained to reporters the day after Rumsfeld's meeting with the troops that the U.S. was in the process of mass-producing armored Humvees, from 30 per month last August to "over 400 per month" currently. He described how the military, in 10 sites in both Kuwait and Iraq, has been systematically adding armor "to existing unarmored vehicles" and using other measures to make the vehicles safer. Of some 30,000 "wheeled vehicles" in the area, Whitcomb allowed, fewer than 8,000 are not armored currently, but many of those are not being deployed in dangerous areas and there is an effort to fix them as well.
None of this is essentially disputed.
Fog of JournalismWhitcomb then boasted: "I can tell you that the last full brigade that deployed into Iraq about six weeks ago, the 256th Infantry, almost a thousand wheeled vehicles . . . had some level of armor protection on it. . . . Our goal in what we're working towards is that no wheeled vehicle that leaves Kuwait going into Iraq is driven by a soldier that does not have some level of armor protection on it."
Why aren't they armored in the first place? In former wars, these vehicles were normally deployed in the rear areas. The Humvee, as Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf notes, "was never considered an armored vehicle to begin with," but the insurgents have unleashed a new tactic that the Pentagon has clearly been grappling with in a serious way.
Americans know the Iraqi situation is dicey. The military is conflicted as to how many troops are needed and whether the situation is worsening or, as some believe, is essentially contained in the Sunni triangle. Our knowledge of what's happening is certainly clouded by the fog of war.
But what about the fog of journalism? How can Americans--especially decision-making Americans in Congress and elsewhere--comprehend what's happening when the journalistic community relentlessly spreads what amounts to a wretched lie about what our government is doing?
Mr. Ryskind, HUMAN EVENTS Editor at large, is writing a book on Communism in Hollywood.
Wednesday, December 22, 2004
Ugly Reporting Wrongs Rumsfeld
by Allan H. Ryskind
Posted Dec 17, 2004
It may not have been conscious sabotage of the defense secretary, but it's hard to believe otherwise.Nowhere was the media's irresponsibility on the Iraq conflict more acutely demonstrated than in the barrage of ugly news reports on Donald Rumsfeld's exchange in Kuwait with Spc. Thomas Wilson, an exchange that is still reverberating across the country.
Those who pay close attention to the news are almost certainly familiar with the reported encounter. Spc. Wilson, an airplane mechanic with the Tennessee Army National Guard, asked the secretary an important question: ". . . A lot of us are getting ready to move north relatively soon. Our vehicles are not armored. We're digging pieces of rusted scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass that's already been shot up . . . to put on our vehicles to take into combat. We do not have proper armament [sic] vehicles to carry with us north."
Out of Context
Virtually all the newspaper, magazine, radio, and TV accounts wildly misrepresented what happened next. As the Washington Post's Thomas Ricks "reported"--and his piece was wholly representative of the media in general--"Rumsfeld replied: 'As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time."
Rumsfeld, as the media would have it, was blowing off the deepest concerns of our men and women about to be placed in a deadly situation.
This observer--along with a number of other pro-Bush, but not necessarily pro-war or pro-Rumsfeld conservatives I talked with--was also initially outraged upon first hearing the exchange endlessly repeated on radio and TV, and then reading the account in cold print. How could the secretary have been so callous? Why hadn't he told these soldiers what the Defense Department was doing to improve matters?
Any parent with a kid at risk in Iraq would have been fully justified in demanding Rumsfeld's head for such cold-blooded remarks. Rumsfeld, according to the media's portrayal, was telling the troops to "suck it up" and casualties be damned. No wonder his reported remarks caused such a furor.
But the official transcript of the Kuwaiti townhall meeting with the troops, as last week's HUMAN EVENTS reported, reveals an entirely different story.
The first words out of Rumsfeld's mouth in response to Wilson were not what the media either said or implied or disclosed in film clips. They were, instead, words of encouragement. Rumsfeld dwelt at length on how much progress the military was making in solving the problem that began materializing a year ago August when the enemy started using explosives to blow up thin-skinned Army vehicles normally used in the rear of the combat zone. Nor was the secretary caught off guard by the question, as the media has suggested. Here, in fact, is how Rumsfeld immediately responded--all 94 words worth--to Spc. Wilson's now famous query:
"I talked to the general coming out here about the pace at which the vehicles are being armored. They have been brought from all over the world, wherever they're not needed, to a place here where they are needed. I'm told that they are being--the Army is--I think it's something like 400 a month are being done. And it's essentially a matter of physics. It isn't a matter of money. It isn't a matter on the part of the Army of desire. It's a matter of production and capability of doing it." Then Rumsfeld launched into an explanation of why there weren't as many armored vehicles as the conflict now warranted. "As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time. Since the Iraq conflict began, the Army has been pressing ahead to produce the armor necessary at a rate they believe--it's a greatly expanded rate from what existed previously--but a rate that they believe is the rate that is all that can be accomplished at this moment," said Rumsfeld.
"I can assure you," he continued, "that General Schoolmaker and the leadership in the Army and certainly General Whitcomb are sensitive to the fact that not every vehicle has the degree of armor that would be desirable for it to have, but they're working at a good clip. . . . [T]he goal we have is to have as many of those vehicles as is humanly possible with the appropriate level of armor available for the troops. And that is what the Army has been working on."
Does this sound like the media's grotesque portrait of Rumsfeld?
Those friends of mine who had been furious with the defense secretary for his apparent indifference to the soldiers' life and death concerns were stunned as to how they had been misled when I read them the transcript. They were not upset that the question had been prompted by an embedded reporter, Edward Lee Pitts of the Chattanooga Times-Free Press, for the query, judging from the positive reaction of some of the troops, was clearly a legitimate one.But they were hot under the collar--and still are--at having been hoodwinked by the Washington Post, the New York Times, and radio and TV networks as to Rumsfeld's response.
The Post, in fact, repeated the distortion two days in a row--December 9 and 10--when it had to know better. Even NBC's Tim Russert--the toughest, but fairest news moderator in TV--showed the distorted film clip of Rumsfeld's answer four day's after his town hall meeting.
The issues of Time and Newsweek that hit the newsstands this past week were still misreporting the Rumsfeld-Wilson exchange. Time: "It was Rumsfeld's response though, that instantly ignited a firestorm. 'You go to war with the Army you have,' Rumsfeld told Wilson, 'not the Army you might want . . .'"
Newsweek: "Rumsfeld's initial response [to Wilson's question] was testy: 'You go to war with the Army you have,' he barked." On December 15, Weekly Standard Editor William Kristol--nearly a week after the print media had twisted Rumsfeld's reply--unleashed a jeremiad against the Defense secretary, using the essentially false quote as his launching pad.
Doesn't anyone look at original transcripts anymore?
Rumsfeld talked to about 2,300 soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and civilian laborers at Camp Buehring in northern Kuwait. Contrary to media suggestions, the troops were warm and receptive. The gathering frequently cheered and applauded the defense secretary, as he praised the troops and informed them how important their mission was. They cheered and applauded his remarks in response to their questions, gave him standing ovations and crowded around him for 45 minutes shaking his hand and snapping his picture after he had briefed them. His appearance was also broken up with good-natured laughter. These soldiers were clearly not acting bitterly or ready to mutiny. Those who read the complete transcript of Rumsfeld's appearance as well as the briefing for reporters by Lt. Gen. R. Steven Whitcomb will have a far different understanding of what occurred than if they choose to rely on the news accounts.
Gen. Whitcomb, commander of the Third Army and Coalition Forces Land Component Command, has major responsibility for ground operations in Iraq. He explained to reporters the day after Rumsfeld's meeting with the troops that the U.S. was in the process of mass-producing armored Humvees, from 30 per month last August to "over 400 per month" currently. He described how the military, in 10 sites in both Kuwait and Iraq, has been systematically adding armor "to existing unarmored vehicles" and using other measures to make the vehicles safer. Of some 30,000 "wheeled vehicles" in the area, Whitcomb allowed, fewer than 8,000 are not armored currently, but many of those are not being deployed in dangerous areas and there is an effort to fix them as well.
None of this is essentially disputed.
Fog of JournalismWhitcomb then boasted: "I can tell you that the last full brigade that deployed into Iraq about six weeks ago, the 256th Infantry, almost a thousand wheeled vehicles . . . had some level of armor protection on it. . . . Our goal in what we're working towards is that no wheeled vehicle that leaves Kuwait going into Iraq is driven by a soldier that does not have some level of armor protection on it."
Why aren't they armored in the first place? In former wars, these vehicles were normally deployed in the rear areas. The Humvee, as Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf notes, "was never considered an armored vehicle to begin with," but the insurgents have unleashed a new tactic that the Pentagon has clearly been grappling with in a serious way.
Americans know the Iraqi situation is dicey. The military is conflicted as to how many troops are needed and whether the situation is worsening or, as some believe, is essentially contained in the Sunni triangle. Our knowledge of what's happening is certainly clouded by the fog of war.
But what about the fog of journalism? How can Americans--especially decision-making Americans in Congress and elsewhere--comprehend what's happening when the journalistic community relentlessly spreads what amounts to a wretched lie about what our government is doing?
Mr. Ryskind, HUMAN EVENTS Editor at large, is writing a book on Communism in Hollywood.
Wednesday, December 22, 2004
BeldarBlog: Ma-ia-hii
BeldarBlog: Ma-ia-hii: "Ma-ia-hii
Things you find on the internet can make you want to sing and dance. My dog now thinks I'm nuts, and so would anyone else watching me at the moment.
Hat-tip and good-natured curses to John Derbyshire (who in turn blamed Jonah Goldberg, but then provided a link for for the lyrics) on NRO's The Corner."
Humor
Things you find on the internet can make you want to sing and dance. My dog now thinks I'm nuts, and so would anyone else watching me at the moment.
Hat-tip and good-natured curses to John Derbyshire (who in turn blamed Jonah Goldberg, but then provided a link for for the lyrics) on NRO's The Corner."
Humor
Mullings An American Cyber Column By Rich Galen
Mullings An American Cyber Column By Rich Galen: "# This past weekend we celebrated the 60th anniversary marking the start of the Battle of the Bulge.
# Imagine if that six-week battle, which resulted in two hundred thousand - TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND - men dead and wounded on both sides, were being covered the way Iraq is being covered today.
# There would be a public outcry demanding the instantaneous and simultaneous resignations of George Marshall, Dwight Eisenhower and Omar Bradley.
# Military 'analysts' would be all over the cable nets demanding to know 'How did the American military command miss the fact that the Germans had moved more than two full Armies into the Ardennes?'
# Franklin Delano Roosevelt's political opponents - and many of his friends - would be demanding that he change the military leadership which had been faithful to FDR, which was now in danger of losing the war, and which refused to change tactics in the face of a resurgent enemy.
# How the path of history would have altered course if those three men had been forced off the field of battle.
# Thus is the danger of measuring war a battle at a time, and measuring a battle a day at a time.
# The President has set the course. Don Rumsfeld will continue direct the forces necessary to achieve it.
# Kerikterizing Rumsfeld will be a wasted effort and a distraction from the task at hand."
# Imagine if that six-week battle, which resulted in two hundred thousand - TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND - men dead and wounded on both sides, were being covered the way Iraq is being covered today.
# There would be a public outcry demanding the instantaneous and simultaneous resignations of George Marshall, Dwight Eisenhower and Omar Bradley.
# Military 'analysts' would be all over the cable nets demanding to know 'How did the American military command miss the fact that the Germans had moved more than two full Armies into the Ardennes?'
# Franklin Delano Roosevelt's political opponents - and many of his friends - would be demanding that he change the military leadership which had been faithful to FDR, which was now in danger of losing the war, and which refused to change tactics in the face of a resurgent enemy.
# How the path of history would have altered course if those three men had been forced off the field of battle.
# Thus is the danger of measuring war a battle at a time, and measuring a battle a day at a time.
# The President has set the course. Don Rumsfeld will continue direct the forces necessary to achieve it.
# Kerikterizing Rumsfeld will be a wasted effort and a distraction from the task at hand."
Power Line: The Margin of Victory in Washington Sate Governor's Race
Power Line: The Margin of Victory
This will amaze you. It looks like the Democrats are going to steal this one. I lifted this info off the internet, but if you want to go to the source, go to powerline and follow the links._Joe
____________________________________________
A few days ago we linked to Stefan Sharkansky's blog Sound Politics, which is covering the recount in the Washington governor's race. Reader Mike Barton pointed out that Sharkansky has been investigating, with rather astonishing results:
Crunching the data in the King [Ukraine] County voter registration file, I came across precinct SEA 37-1823, or simply Precinct 1823, located in downtown Seattle between Elliot Bay and I-5 near the James St. exit.
Precinct 1823 has 763 registered "Active" voters. 527 of them list as their residence address 500 4th Ave -- the King County Administration Building. 241 of these voters specifically note their apartment number as #553, which is the room number of the ... King [Ukraine] County Records and Elections office.
Over 300 of these alleged "voters" give 500 4th Ave. (with or without the Elections office room number) as both their residence and mailing addresses. Several of the other Elections Office residents give overseas mailing addresses, such as Anuj Rathi of Mumbai, India, Rayko Suzuki of Tokyo, Japan, and Pascal Engi of Bern, Switzerland.
Another 48 of the Precinct 1823 "voters" give as their residence address 511 3rd Ave, which appears to be some sort of private mailbox service.
And then there are the two Messrs. Harder -- Mike Harder of 509 3rd Ave. Apt. 507, who registered to vote on April 28, 2004 and Michael D. Harder of 509 3rd Ave. Apt. 507, who registered to vote on July 20, 2004. Both Messrs. Harder are flagged as permanent absentee voters.
465 (61%) of the Precinct 1823 voters registered during 2004 and nearly all of them "live" at 500 4th Ave. By contrast, only 13% of all of King County voters registered in 2004.
3 members of the List of 573 Magical Mystery Voters are from Precinct 1823, 2 of whom "live" at the Elections Office.
In the machine recount, Precinct 1823 gave 203 votes to Gregoire[Democrat] and 87 votes to Rossi[Republican], for a net Gregoire lead of 116 votes. The only way for Christine Gregoire to win the governor's race is to carry Precinct 1823 in a landslide.
UPDATE: Elections Superintendent Bill Huennekens explained that the residents of the Elections office are "homeless individuals", and that there is a special section of the administrative code which allows for that. He sees nothing unusual in the fact that some of these so-called homeless individuals also give mailing addresses elsewhere. I asked him what the county did to verify the identities of individuals who list the elections office as their residence and he said that they can't be treated any differently from anybody else. I take that to mean, that anybody on the planet who wants to vote (or vote again) can simply claim to be a resident of the King County Elections office.
Count every vote!
UPDATE: The Washington Supreme Court has ruled in the Democrats' favor on the 573 ballots that were mysteriously found in a warehouse some weeks after the election.
Count every vote!
This will amaze you. It looks like the Democrats are going to steal this one. I lifted this info off the internet, but if you want to go to the source, go to powerline and follow the links._Joe
____________________________________________
A few days ago we linked to Stefan Sharkansky's blog Sound Politics, which is covering the recount in the Washington governor's race. Reader Mike Barton pointed out that Sharkansky has been investigating, with rather astonishing results:
Crunching the data in the King [Ukraine] County voter registration file, I came across precinct SEA 37-1823, or simply Precinct 1823, located in downtown Seattle between Elliot Bay and I-5 near the James St. exit.
Precinct 1823 has 763 registered "Active" voters. 527 of them list as their residence address 500 4th Ave -- the King County Administration Building. 241 of these voters specifically note their apartment number as #553, which is the room number of the ... King [Ukraine] County Records and Elections office.
Over 300 of these alleged "voters" give 500 4th Ave. (with or without the Elections office room number) as both their residence and mailing addresses. Several of the other Elections Office residents give overseas mailing addresses, such as Anuj Rathi of Mumbai, India, Rayko Suzuki of Tokyo, Japan, and Pascal Engi of Bern, Switzerland.
Another 48 of the Precinct 1823 "voters" give as their residence address 511 3rd Ave, which appears to be some sort of private mailbox service.
And then there are the two Messrs. Harder -- Mike Harder of 509 3rd Ave. Apt. 507, who registered to vote on April 28, 2004 and Michael D. Harder of 509 3rd Ave. Apt. 507, who registered to vote on July 20, 2004. Both Messrs. Harder are flagged as permanent absentee voters.
465 (61%) of the Precinct 1823 voters registered during 2004 and nearly all of them "live" at 500 4th Ave. By contrast, only 13% of all of King County voters registered in 2004.
3 members of the List of 573 Magical Mystery Voters are from Precinct 1823, 2 of whom "live" at the Elections Office.
In the machine recount, Precinct 1823 gave 203 votes to Gregoire[Democrat] and 87 votes to Rossi[Republican], for a net Gregoire lead of 116 votes. The only way for Christine Gregoire to win the governor's race is to carry Precinct 1823 in a landslide.
UPDATE: Elections Superintendent Bill Huennekens explained that the residents of the Elections office are "homeless individuals", and that there is a special section of the administrative code which allows for that. He sees nothing unusual in the fact that some of these so-called homeless individuals also give mailing addresses elsewhere. I asked him what the county did to verify the identities of individuals who list the elections office as their residence and he said that they can't be treated any differently from anybody else. I take that to mean, that anybody on the planet who wants to vote (or vote again) can simply claim to be a resident of the King County Elections office.
Count every vote!
UPDATE: The Washington Supreme Court has ruled in the Democrats' favor on the 573 ballots that were mysteriously found in a warehouse some weeks after the election.
Count every vote!
Tuesday, December 21, 2004
BLACKFIVE: Want to Send a Marine A Letter?
BLACKFIVE: Want to Send a Marine A Letter?I went to a brief for a new system HQMC has instituted for sending mail to Marines and Sailors attached to Marine Units in Iraq today. The system is for Marines/Sailors, their families and friends who want to send fast correspondence. It is called MotoMail. The site address is: www.motomail.us. The system works as follows:
1. Sender logs onto www.motomail.us to create the letter.
2. The letter is sent to the MotoMail server.
3. The designated USMC post office downloads the letter to a special machine which prints, folds, and seals the
letter.
4. The letter is delivered through unit mail call.
5. Unlike e-mail, it allows a Marine/Sailor to keep a physical reminder of their loved ones with them at all times
and can be read and re-read.
Motomail is a unique Marine Corps system. Delivery transit time is usually within 24 hours. It is free. Senders are required only to know unit addresses, not location. The MotoMail Printer, Folder, and Sealer ensures complete privacy and that contents remain confidential (I had a demonstration and it really does!).
Senders can track letters from submission, download and when it is printed. You cannot send pictures or graphics in your letter (jpegs/gif files).
For people who don't know Marines personally in theatre, but would like to send a note, there is a tab for Support the Troops where people can send messages. These messages are reviewed by the Marine Corp prior to being posted. No individual information can be submitted (troop locations, etc). After they are reviewed, they will be printed out in the mail room and posted in the Chow Halls and Post Offices for everyone to see. Individual emails are NOT posted unless the sender writes their email address in their note.
Currently there are 4 locations that can receive Motomail. Once it is printed, it is distributed accordingly to the various camps.
1. Sender logs onto www.motomail.us to create the letter.
2. The letter is sent to the MotoMail server.
3. The designated USMC post office downloads the letter to a special machine which prints, folds, and seals the
letter.
4. The letter is delivered through unit mail call.
5. Unlike e-mail, it allows a Marine/Sailor to keep a physical reminder of their loved ones with them at all times
and can be read and re-read.
Motomail is a unique Marine Corps system. Delivery transit time is usually within 24 hours. It is free. Senders are required only to know unit addresses, not location. The MotoMail Printer, Folder, and Sealer ensures complete privacy and that contents remain confidential (I had a demonstration and it really does!).
Senders can track letters from submission, download and when it is printed. You cannot send pictures or graphics in your letter (jpegs/gif files).
For people who don't know Marines personally in theatre, but would like to send a note, there is a tab for Support the Troops where people can send messages. These messages are reviewed by the Marine Corp prior to being posted. No individual information can be submitted (troop locations, etc). After they are reviewed, they will be printed out in the mail room and posted in the Chow Halls and Post Offices for everyone to see. Individual emails are NOT posted unless the sender writes their email address in their note.
Currently there are 4 locations that can receive Motomail. Once it is printed, it is distributed accordingly to the various camps.
CBS News | JonBenet: DNA Rules Out Parents | December 20, 2004�09:16:52
CBS News | JonBenet: DNA Rules Out Parents | December 20, 2004�09:16:52: . . . "One of those suspects came to light in a most dramatic way. It was early in 1997, when Alex Hunter, then Boulder district attorney, made a startling announcement: 'I want to say something to the person or persons that took this baby from us. The list of suspects narrows. Soon, there will be no one on the list but you.' ' ' ' '
Those words were written by the FBI as part of a strategy to put the killer and any accomplices under pressure. That strategy may have worked. But just two days later, the Boulder Sheriff's Department discovered a man by the name of Michael Helgoth, dead in his home, an apparent suicide. "
Those words were written by the FBI as part of a strategy to put the killer and any accomplices under pressure. That strategy may have worked. But just two days later, the Boulder Sheriff's Department discovered a man by the name of Michael Helgoth, dead in his home, an apparent suicide. "
Power Line: A Marine's Father Speaks
Here's what the father of a Marine thinks about the latest Rumsfeld criticizm.
Power Line: A Marine's Father Speaks: "December 21, 2004
A Marine's Father Speaks
People sometimes tell us in emails that we don't know much about military matters. That's true. But we have readers who do. This morning, the father of a Marine who is a special operations team leader wrote to offer his thoughts on the 'autopen' controversy:
If [our son] had been killed, we would have been first informed by a visit - in dress blues - from a condolence team typically consisting of two Marines and one Navy Chaplain. We know many families who've received that knock on the door. No letter is required. No words are required. A simple peek thru the view hole in the door and the sight of dress blue blouses, white covers and white gloves tells you all you ever need to know. A letter of condolence from the SecDef is, honestly, not even worth opening. Families are much more interested in hearing from the men who served with their son and from their families. We share the constant knowledge and fear that it could be our door bell being rung. Sec. Rumsfeld doesn't know our son. He's a Lance Corporal. He directs a machine gun team. He is a vital link in the line that protects our way of life. He doesn't fight for his country, he doesn't fight for the SecDef, he doesn't even fight for his mom and dad. He fights for the guys on either side of him and for his team. He fights to secure his objective of the moment, which he may or may not understand or agree with. Sec Rumsfeld doesn't need to take time from his day to sign a form letter of condolence and he certainly doesn't need to take time to figure out what the LCpl was doing when he was killed or what kind of a man he was. His job is to make sure the LCpl didn't die in vain and that only as few LCpl's as possible will have to die to end this war in a successful manner.
Don't get me wrong, we would appreciate the condolence letter from the SecDef, as well as one from the White House and from our Senator and Representative, from the Mayor and Governor. But none would bring back our son. And they are all form letters, signatures be damned. A letter from his 1stSgt, from the men we know in his unit would be a treasure and a comfort.
I don't know what happens in other branches, or even other units. But in 2/4, I know the 1stSgt's personally contact the surviving family with letters, emails and phone calls of condolence.
By the way, we know families of fallen Marines who've been flown to sites where President Bush was speaking. He met with them privately after his event, never any press coverage, and the families have said that - after being given an agenda for their time with the President and being told that he's on a very tight schedule - Mr. Bush talked to every family member as long as they wanted to talk, never hurried anyone, cried with family, hugged everyone and they all felt like he had nothing else to do for the rest of the day but bring comfort to them. For that, George W. Bush has my eternal respect and gratitude. And there was NEVER one word of publicity surrounding any of these meetings with families. (I have pictures to dissuade doubters.)
Bottom line, we support Sec Rumsfeld. The people who are making a big deal about this have their heads up their collective a****. They need to have a serious priority check on what people in positions of responsibility should be doing with their time. They should also chat with some military families if they could figure out how to contact them.
Posted by Hindrocket"
Power Line: A Marine's Father Speaks: "December 21, 2004
A Marine's Father Speaks
People sometimes tell us in emails that we don't know much about military matters. That's true. But we have readers who do. This morning, the father of a Marine who is a special operations team leader wrote to offer his thoughts on the 'autopen' controversy:
If [our son] had been killed, we would have been first informed by a visit - in dress blues - from a condolence team typically consisting of two Marines and one Navy Chaplain. We know many families who've received that knock on the door. No letter is required. No words are required. A simple peek thru the view hole in the door and the sight of dress blue blouses, white covers and white gloves tells you all you ever need to know. A letter of condolence from the SecDef is, honestly, not even worth opening. Families are much more interested in hearing from the men who served with their son and from their families. We share the constant knowledge and fear that it could be our door bell being rung. Sec. Rumsfeld doesn't know our son. He's a Lance Corporal. He directs a machine gun team. He is a vital link in the line that protects our way of life. He doesn't fight for his country, he doesn't fight for the SecDef, he doesn't even fight for his mom and dad. He fights for the guys on either side of him and for his team. He fights to secure his objective of the moment, which he may or may not understand or agree with. Sec Rumsfeld doesn't need to take time from his day to sign a form letter of condolence and he certainly doesn't need to take time to figure out what the LCpl was doing when he was killed or what kind of a man he was. His job is to make sure the LCpl didn't die in vain and that only as few LCpl's as possible will have to die to end this war in a successful manner.
Don't get me wrong, we would appreciate the condolence letter from the SecDef, as well as one from the White House and from our Senator and Representative, from the Mayor and Governor. But none would bring back our son. And they are all form letters, signatures be damned. A letter from his 1stSgt, from the men we know in his unit would be a treasure and a comfort.
I don't know what happens in other branches, or even other units. But in 2/4, I know the 1stSgt's personally contact the surviving family with letters, emails and phone calls of condolence.
By the way, we know families of fallen Marines who've been flown to sites where President Bush was speaking. He met with them privately after his event, never any press coverage, and the families have said that - after being given an agenda for their time with the President and being told that he's on a very tight schedule - Mr. Bush talked to every family member as long as they wanted to talk, never hurried anyone, cried with family, hugged everyone and they all felt like he had nothing else to do for the rest of the day but bring comfort to them. For that, George W. Bush has my eternal respect and gratitude. And there was NEVER one word of publicity surrounding any of these meetings with families. (I have pictures to dissuade doubters.)
Bottom line, we support Sec Rumsfeld. The people who are making a big deal about this have their heads up their collective a****. They need to have a serious priority check on what people in positions of responsibility should be doing with their time. They should also chat with some military families if they could figure out how to contact them.
Posted by Hindrocket"
Sunday, December 19, 2004
MY WAR: In The Service Of The Queen
MY WAR: In The Service Of The Queen Great analysis by a soldier.
Belmont Club
Belmont Club
Currently, humanity is fueled by 1000 1 gigawatt coal-fired power plants, 400 1 gigawatt oil-fired plants, 250 gas-fired plants, 350 nuclear power stations, 500 gigawatts of hydropower, 750 million fossil fueled vehicles, 130 exajoules for heating and cooling, 50 exajoules from the burning of traditional biomass.
Doing the math, in order to double the world's energy supplies over the next 50 years, the world will need to build, among other things, the equivalent of 2750 new 1 gigawatt natural gas-fired power stations, 1000 new coal-fired 1 gigawatt power plants with carbon capture, 1.5 million windmills deployed over a bit less than 300,000 square miles, 2150 new nuclear plants, 1500 new 1 gigawatt hydropower stations, not to mention new solar and biofuel technologies.
Recall that (Tony) Blair and others are calling for emission reductions of 60% by 2050.
YOU CAN'T GET THERE FROM HERE!!!!!
Currently, humanity is fueled by 1000 1 gigawatt coal-fired power plants, 400 1 gigawatt oil-fired plants, 250 gas-fired plants, 350 nuclear power stations, 500 gigawatts of hydropower, 750 million fossil fueled vehicles, 130 exajoules for heating and cooling, 50 exajoules from the burning of traditional biomass.
Doing the math, in order to double the world's energy supplies over the next 50 years, the world will need to build, among other things, the equivalent of 2750 new 1 gigawatt natural gas-fired power stations, 1000 new coal-fired 1 gigawatt power plants with carbon capture, 1.5 million windmills deployed over a bit less than 300,000 square miles, 2150 new nuclear plants, 1500 new 1 gigawatt hydropower stations, not to mention new solar and biofuel technologies.
Recall that (Tony) Blair and others are calling for emission reductions of 60% by 2050.
YOU CAN'T GET THERE FROM HERE!!!!!
BLACKFIVE: The Heart of America
BLACKFIVE: The Heart of America: "December 16, 2004
The Heart of America
Via Seamus, this email is a thank you from a Marine Gunnery Sergeant in Iraq. It was sent two days ago:
Just wanted to write to you and tell you another story about an experience we had over here.
As you know, I asked for toys for the Iraqi children over here and several people (Americans that support us) sent them over by the box. On each patrol we take through the city, we take as many toys as will fit in our pockets and hand them out as we can. The kids take the toys and run to show them off as if they were worth a million bucks. We are as friendly as we can be to everyone we see, but especially so with the kids. Most of them don't have any idea what is going on and are completely innocent in all of this.
On one such patrol, our lead security vehicle stopped in the middle of the street. This is not normal and is very unsafe, so the following vehicles began to inquire over the radio. The lead vehicle reported a little girl sitting in the road and said she just would not budge. The command vehicle told the lead to simply go around her and to be kind as they did. The street was wide enough to allow this maneuver and so they waved to her as they drove around.
As the vehicles went around her, I soon saw her sitting there and in her arms she was clutching a little bear that we had handed her a few patrols back. Feeling an immediate connection to the girl, I radioed that we were going to stop. The rest of the convoy paused and I got out the make sure she was OK. The little girl looked scared and concerned, but there was a warmth in her eyes toward me. As I knelt down to talk to her, she moved over and pointed to a mine in the road.
Immediately a cordon was set as the Marine convoy assumed a defensive posture around the site. The mine was destroyed in place.
It was the heart of an American that sent that toy. It was the heart of an American that gave that toy to that little girl. It was the heart of an American that protected that convoy from that mine. Sure, she was a little Iraqi girl and she had no knowledge of purple mountain's majesty or fruited plains. It was a heart of acceptance, of tolerance, of peace and grace, even through the inconveniences of conflict that saved that convoy from hitting that mine. Those attributes are what keep Americans hearts beating. She may have no affiliation at all with the United States, but she knows what it is to be brave and if we can continue to support her and her new government, she will know what it is to be free. Isn't that what Americans are, the free and the brave?
If you sent over a toy or a Marine (US Service member) you took part in this. You are a reason that Iraq has to believe in a better future. Thank you so much for supporting us and for supporting our cause over here.
Semper Fi,
Mark
GySgt / USMC
The Heart of America
Via Seamus, this email is a thank you from a Marine Gunnery Sergeant in Iraq. It was sent two days ago:
Just wanted to write to you and tell you another story about an experience we had over here.
As you know, I asked for toys for the Iraqi children over here and several people (Americans that support us) sent them over by the box. On each patrol we take through the city, we take as many toys as will fit in our pockets and hand them out as we can. The kids take the toys and run to show them off as if they were worth a million bucks. We are as friendly as we can be to everyone we see, but especially so with the kids. Most of them don't have any idea what is going on and are completely innocent in all of this.
On one such patrol, our lead security vehicle stopped in the middle of the street. This is not normal and is very unsafe, so the following vehicles began to inquire over the radio. The lead vehicle reported a little girl sitting in the road and said she just would not budge. The command vehicle told the lead to simply go around her and to be kind as they did. The street was wide enough to allow this maneuver and so they waved to her as they drove around.
As the vehicles went around her, I soon saw her sitting there and in her arms she was clutching a little bear that we had handed her a few patrols back. Feeling an immediate connection to the girl, I radioed that we were going to stop. The rest of the convoy paused and I got out the make sure she was OK. The little girl looked scared and concerned, but there was a warmth in her eyes toward me. As I knelt down to talk to her, she moved over and pointed to a mine in the road.
Immediately a cordon was set as the Marine convoy assumed a defensive posture around the site. The mine was destroyed in place.
It was the heart of an American that sent that toy. It was the heart of an American that gave that toy to that little girl. It was the heart of an American that protected that convoy from that mine. Sure, she was a little Iraqi girl and she had no knowledge of purple mountain's majesty or fruited plains. It was a heart of acceptance, of tolerance, of peace and grace, even through the inconveniences of conflict that saved that convoy from hitting that mine. Those attributes are what keep Americans hearts beating. She may have no affiliation at all with the United States, but she knows what it is to be brave and if we can continue to support her and her new government, she will know what it is to be free. Isn't that what Americans are, the free and the brave?
If you sent over a toy or a Marine (US Service member) you took part in this. You are a reason that Iraq has to believe in a better future. Thank you so much for supporting us and for supporting our cause over here.
Semper Fi,
Mark
GySgt / USMC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
