Burma or Myanmar: That's not the question

By Stanford Matthews Blog @ MoreWhat.com In late August of this year the Myanmar (Burma) military government released a list of names of activists they wanted to apprehend. About the same time the US and UN voiced objections to the treatment of detained activists and the Myanmar government's treatment of protesters in general. The UN had asked for the activists to be released based on reports of torture and a hunger strike. During the same week the government closed the gathering that was intended to produce the country's constitution to be voted on by the public. The 40 year rule by the military government appears to be flexing their muscle by quieting public dissent and abandoning any attempts at reforms even if they are only symbolic in nature. The country has toyed with the idea of a constitution for 14 years. The US State Department expressed the requisite displeasure with Myanmar's constitutional efforts characterizing them as a sham. The same day a rights group was demanding aid for a jailed activist whose was described as suffering a broken leg during arrest. The following day President Bush criticized Myanmar for their treatment of 'peaceful' protesters calling it 'inexcusable.' At this point in this narrative you may have the impression the protesters or activists plight was serious and international efforts to resolve the problems were not. You would be correct. And it continues. During the first week of September 2007 monks in Myanmar continued their protest. This was met with a continued crackdown by the Myanmar government which was naturally followed by more verbal protests from various sources around the globe. Near the end of the week the Myanmar government released a wounded protester, sentenced six others to prison terms up to 28 years while the protests continued. The impressive response from the international community was for the US and Indonesia to urge China and India to pressure Myanmar to straighten things out. The following week, mid-September, the United Nations issues a declaration on Indigenous Rights while the UN Human Rights chief, imagine this, expresses concern over human rights violations in the Congo, Iran and Burma. This former UN war crimes prosecutor is characterized as 'expressing dismay' of the Myanmar reactions to protesters as well as problems in other countries. The 47 member panel is going to review records of violations. Do any practical, timely and effective solutions ever come out of the United Nations? On their own, UN member countries display a disturbing habit of inaction, including the US. Perhaps an obligation of membership in the UN should require all countries to act in concert to halt outrageous events like those in Myanmar. Even with understandable obstacles to such action, if all member countries acted as one, a single member country would likely concede to adequate international pressure and at least cease further escalation until satisfactory solutions could be arranged. It is certainly worth a try and would be an improvement over lame expressions of disappointment. Of course after the lame expressions of disappointment were delivered by the UN in mid-September, the Myanmar government was reported to urge the protesters to cease their activities against the 'junta' while the protesters asked for international intervention for their plight. By this time six weeks had expired since the Myanmar government had released the names of activists they wanted to collect. By the third week of September the monks in Myanmar had stepped up protests and encouraged the public to join them in opposing the military. One report indicated 10,000 monks were involved in the marches in Rangoon. The government warned of retaliation and initiated curfews as the US increased sanctions against Myanmar. By now most people are aware of the violence that followed in Myanmar in the past week. The exiled citizens providing reports and assistance with the flow of information in and out of Myanmar may have been temporarily inconvenienced by the government shutdown of internet access. Wireless communications may have allowed information to continue unimpeded. The most dramatic tragedy of the week was the slain reporter which was caught on video and freely displayed. In light of the escalation of violence more needed attention is drawn to the conflict. Not necessarily by coincidence, a UN representative has traveled to Myanmar to speak with both sides. How encouraging. Whether you acknowledge the name Burma or Myanmar, that's not the question. How the international community handles their mission though the United Nations is. The source for this post was numerous reports from Voice of America who toether with the BBC was criticized by the Burma/Myanmar 'junta' government as propagandists. Reason enough to use them as a source.

Liberals and Conservatives in the News

By Stanford Matthews Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Positive news is always welcome. It has been in short supply lately. Some attribute the predominance of negative news to a liberal leaning MSM. But there are plenty of left leaning sources who claim the press is right wing while the right leaning sources claim it's left wing. Which means the audience must rely on their own judgment in checking news.

A group of headlines viewed today are encouraging. An additional report on how Sarkozy is reinventing French politics reversing the trends from former leaders and a similar trend in the US Congress on views toward conditions in Iraq and Iran comes from the following reference. It is almost like people are beginning to understand what is at stake.

France Flips While Congress Shifts By Charles Krauthammer September 28, 2007

On the largest possible stage -- the U.N. General Assembly -- President Nicolas Sarkozy put Iran on notice. His predecessor, Jacques Chirac, had said that France could live with an Iranian nuclear bomb. Sarkozy said that France cannot.

A few months ago, the question was: Will the Democratic Congress force a withdrawal from Iraq? Today the question in Congress is: What can be done to achieve success in Iraq -- most specifically, by countering Iran, which is intent on seeing us fail?

Another report had a title asking if we were friends again with France. That might be getting ahead of ourselves. After years of opposition from France in international politics and not knowing what will come of the Sarkozy period in France, a little restraint might be in order before the hugging begins.

On another front, no pun intended, SOD Gates has reeled in some victories after replacing the controversial former SOD Donald Rumsfeld. Perhaps the one characteristic of Rumsfeld's cool appearing determination and quick remarks to shield himself from the press that forecast his fall from grace was the refusal to alter his agenda based on changing situations. It is as if current SOD Gates lost no time working other strategies in search of success. Not due to Gates alone, the public may finally be reevaluating positions on critical issues that will result in victory in Iraq as well as success in related matters.

Bob Gates’s Victory

To little notice, the Defense secretary has gotten his way on Iraq, and possibly on Iran. Now, Gates is about to appoint a former top Clinton official to prove he means business.

By Michael Hirsh Newsweek

Sept. 27, 2007 - Defense Secretary Robert Gates is, quite by choice, the anti-Rumsfeld—a man so low-key and consensus-oriented that it’s hard to find his fingerprints on any particular policy. But no one can win internal battles the way Gates has been doing in Washington lately without leaving a few traces.

While some may view the next story as negative, anytime Ted Kennedy confirms he has overstayed his welcome in a world screaming for sensible politics is a good news day. Certainly Kennedy is not alone in adding nonsense amendments to active legislation but he must be a master at this useless self-serving practice. It is part of what makes Congress the recipient of the lowest approval rating since the earth cooled. This is not to say the amendment is invalid on its own although it is because it duplicates laws already on the books. If being convicted of a crime is not enough for liberals that they require extra vengeance if it offends their vindictive sensibilities, adding this amendment only serves to expose what is wrong with the left. Thank you Ted Kennedy for again drawing attention to the fact your self-righteous nature may inflict another inequity on the victims you so proudly misrepresent.

Kennedy’s defense priorities By Byron York September 28, 2007 While most senators were concentrating on defense issues during the defense reauthorization debate, Kennedy was busy trying to turn the fight over the authorization bill into a fight over something entirely different: a hate-crimes bill.

More proof of insanity among the leftmost of us. Whether it is or not an indictment of the left for falling over themselves to rub elbows with an errand boy from a land, by their own words, bent on the destruction of Israel and eliminating infidels, accepting a dinner invitation from one who supports insurgents in Iraq is beyond understanding. The only good news about this is people like Hugh Hewitt do not stay silent when those who hold themselves in high regard encourage international terrorists. Would you have dinner with someone who threatens to kill you?

There Is No Spoon Long Enough: Dining With Mahmoud By Hugh Hewitt Thursday, September 27, 2007

On Tuesday a group of Manhattan's elite accepted an invitation to dine with Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadienajd. Time Magazine's Richard Stengel recounts the vening here, and gives us a glimpse of the guest list which included NBC's Brian Williams and CNN's Christiane Amanpour.

What I cannot understand is how any American can accept an invitation to dine on Iran's tab even as that regime ships weapons and advisors into Iraq to kill more of the nation's finest. It is beyond moral confusion --it is moral collapse.

The article above and two others referenced below in a depressing fashion make the good news of the week list as they offer a record of those suggesting their superior understanding dictates not only surrender in Iraq but at every opportunity offered by those bent on their destruction. What's the word; sheep, lemmings, just plain foolish?

Worldview | My dinner with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad He really believes what he says, and knows less about the U.S. than he thinks.

By Trudy Rubin Inquirer Columnist

The invitation for Tuesday dinner with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came from the Iranian Mission to the United Nations. The scene was the darkly brocaded Barclay Room of New York's Intercontinental Hotel.

The Iranians must be texting each other with LMAO at the stupidity of some who are called Americans. Not only were they duped to appease a terrorist but they did it in New York City. There's some irony.

PEGGY NOONAN Hear, Hear Americans should not fear talking--and listening--to those whose views we loathe. Friday, September 28, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

You don't want to judge Christ by Christians, someone once said. He is perfect, they are not.

In a similar way you don't want to judge capitalism by capitalists, or the legitimacy of democracy by the Democrats, or the vitality of our republic by the Republicans. You have to take the thing pure and in itself, while allowing for the flaws and waywardness of its practitioners.

Very good Peggy Noonan, now how about the part where the devil's in the details. If you want to 'talk' with Iran you don't do it with Nancy Pelosi wandering all over the Middle East or a cozy sit down with President Bush. Which would indicate by default that you don't accept invitations to a quaint dinner which indicates you are honoring someone who wants to kill you. A nice opinion piece from WSJ that fits the good news of the day by displaying one more person who just doesn't get it. You want to talk so bad but apparently you haven't been listening. Three stories representing a record of some of America's most naive citizens who cannot speed their own destruction fast enough. All with the blessing of the United Nations.

Phony Soldiers & Rush Limbaugh

Cross posted from Wake up America I waited to post about this because I wanted to be able to see the whole transcript instead of the cherry picked portions the left used to get their readers all up in arms. The transcript can be found at The Rush Limbaugh website:

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT RUSH: Mike in Chicago, welcome to the EIB Network. Hello. CALLER: Hi, Rush, how you doing today? RUSH: Fine, sir, thank you. CALLER: Good. Why is it that you always just accuse the Democrats of being against the war and that there's actually no Republicans that can possibly be against the war? RUSH: Well, who are these Republicans? I can think of Chuck Hagel, and I can think of Gordon Smith, two Republican senators, but they don't want to lose the war like the Democrats do. I can't think of who the Republicans are in the anti-war movement. CALLER: I'm not talking about the senators. I'm talking about the general public. You accuse the public and all the Democrats of being, you know, wanting to lose -- RUSH: Oh, come on, here we go again. I utter the truth, and you can't handle it so you gotta call here and change the subject. How come I'm not also hitting Republicans? I don't know a single Republican or conservative, Mike, who wants to pull out of Iraq in defeat. The Democrats have made the last four years about that specifically. CALLER: Well, I am a Republican, and I listened to you for a long time, and you're right on a lot of things, but I do believe that we should pull out of Iraq. I don't think it's winnable. I'm not a Democrat, but sometimes you gotta cut the losses. I mean, sometimes you really got to admit you're wrong. RUSH: Well, yeah, you do. I'm not wrong on this. The worst thing that can happen is losing this, getting out of there, waving the white flag. CALLER: I'm not saying that, I'm not saying anything like that. RUSH: Of course you are. CALLER: No, I'm not! RUSH: The truth is the truth, Mike. CALLER: We did what we were supposed to do, okay, we got rid of Saddam Hussein; we got rid of a lot of the terrorists. Let them run their country now. Let's get out of there and let's be done with it. We won it. RUSH: I'm never going to be able to retire. It's not going to work. You are depressing me. CALLER: Well, sometimes, like you said, the truth hurts, Rush. Sometimes it hurts. RUSH: I have explained this so many times. I can't believe that you actually listen to this program a lot, because you've heard me say what I'm going to say to you. War is never "plottable" on a piece of paper or on a map. It never goes exactly as anybody thinks it's going to go because nobody can predict the future, for one thing. CALLER: That's true. RUSH: Thank you. So what's happening now is that the very enemy that blew us up on 9/11 is facing us in Iraq. We can't cave in defeat and run out of there and say, "Hey guess what, we won, we got Saddam." We are going to be setting ourselves up for future disasters. We will never be able to have any other nation trust us as an ally when we have to go in there again. If we pull out of there before we take care of this, Mike, we're just going to have to do it sometime later at greater cost. CALLER: Are we ever going to take care of it, though? How long do you think we're going to have to be there to take care of it? RUSH: Mike, you can't possibly be a Republican. CALLER: I am. RUSH: You can't be Republican. CALLER: Oh, I am definitely Republican. RUSH: You sound just like a Democrat. CALLER: No, but seriously, Rush, how long do we have to stay there? RUSH: As long as it takes. CALLER: How long? RUSH: As long as it takes. It is very serious. This is the United States of America at war with Islamofascists. Just like your job, you do everything you have to do, whatever it takes to get it done, if you take it seriously. CALLER: So then you say we need to stay there forever? RUSH: No, Bill -- (Laughing) or Mike. I'm sorry. I'm confusing you with the guy from Texas. CALLER: I used to be military, okay, and I am a Republican. RUSH: Yeah. CALLER: And I do listen to you, but -- RUSH: Right, I know. And I, by the way, used to walk on the moon. CALLER: How long do we have to stay there? RUSH: You're not listening to what I say. You can't possibly be a Republican. I'm answering every question; it's not what you want to hear, and so it's not even penetrating your little wall of armor you've got built up. I said we stay to get the job done, as long as it takes. I didn't say forever. Nothing takes forever. That's not possible, Bill. Mike. Whatever. Nobody lives forever, no situation lasts forever, everything ends. We determine how do we want it to end, in our favor or in our defeat? With people like you in charge, who want to put a timeline on everything -- do you ever get anything done in your life? Or do you say, "Well, I wanted to have this done by now, and it's not, so screw it"? You don't live your life that way. Well, hell, you might, I don't know. But the limitations that you want to impose here are senseless, and they, frankly, portray no evidence that you are a Republican. Another Mike. This one in Olympia, Washington. Welcome to the EIB Network. Hello. CALLER: Hi, Rush. Thanks for taking my call. RUSH: You bet. CALLER: I have a retort to Mike in Chicago, because I am serving in the American military, in the Army. I've been serving for 14 years, very proudly. RUSH: Thank you, sir. CALLER: I'm one of the few that joined the Army to serve my country, I'm proud to say, not for the money or anything like that. What I would like to retort to is that, what these people don't understand, is if we pull out of Iraq right now, which is not possible because of all the stuff that's over there, it would take us at least a year to pull everything back out of Iraq, then Iraq itself would collapse and we'd have to go right back over there within a year or so. RUSH: There's a lot more than that that they don't understand. The next guy that calls here I'm going to ask them, "What is the imperative of pulling out? What's in it for the United States to pull out?" I don't think they have an answer for that other than, "When's he going to bring the troops home? Keep the troops safe," whatever. CALLER: Yeah. RUSH: It's not possible intellectually to follow these people. CALLER: No, it's not. And what's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media. RUSH: The phony soldiers. CALLER: Phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldier and they're proud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice and they're willing to sacrifice for the country. RUSH: They joined to be in Iraq. CALLER: A lot of people. RUSH: You know where you're going these days, the last four years, if you sign up. The odds are you're going there or Afghanistan, or somewhere. CALLER: Exactly, sir. My other comment, my original comment, was a retort to Jill about the fact we didn't find any weapons of mass destruction. Actually, we have found weapons of mass destruction in chemical agents that terrorists have been using against us for a while now. I've done two tours in Iraq, I just got back in June, and there are many instances of insurgents not knowing what they're using in their IEDs. They're using mustard artillery rounds, VX artillery rounds in their IEDs. Because they didn't know what they were using, they didn't do it right, and so it didn't really hurt anybody. But those munitions are over there. It's a huge desert. If they bury it somewhere, we're never going to find it. RUSH: Well, that's a moot point for me right now. CALLER: Right. RUSH: The weapons of mass destruction. We gotta get beyond that. We're there. We all know they were there, and Mahmoud even admitted it in one of his speeches here talking about Saddam using the poison mustard gas or whatever it is on his own people. But that's moot. What's more important is all this is taking place now in the midst of the surge working, and all of these anti-war Democrats are getting even more hell-bent on pulling out of there, which means that success on the part of you and your colleagues over there is a great threat to them. It's frustrating and maddening, and why they must be kept in the minority. I want to thank you, Mike, for calling. I appreciate it very much. Here is a Morning Update that we did recently, talking about fake soldiers. This is a story of who the left props up as heroes. They have their celebrities and one of them was Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth. Now, he was a "corporal." I say in quotes. Twenty-three years old. What made Jesse Macbeth a hero to the anti-war crowd wasn't his Purple Heart; it wasn't his being affiliated with post-traumatic stress disorder from tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. No. What made Jesse Macbeth, Army Ranger, a hero to the left was his courage, in their view, off the battlefield, without regard to consequences. He told the world the abuses he had witnessed in Iraq, American soldiers killing unarmed civilians, hundreds of men, women, even children. In one gruesome account, translated into Arabic and spread widely across the Internet, Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth describes the horrors this way: "We would burn their bodies. We would hang their bodies from the rafters in the mosque." Now, recently, Jesse Macbeth, poster boy for the anti-war left, had his day in court. And you know what? He was sentenced to five months in jail and three years probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim and his Army discharge record. He was in the Army. Jesse Macbeth was in the Army, folks, briefly. Forty-four days before he washed out of boot camp. Jesse Macbeth isn't an Army Ranger, never was. He isn't a corporal, never was. He never won the Purple Heart, and he was never in combat to witness the horrors he claimed to have seen. You probably haven't even heard about this. And, if you have, you haven't heard much about it. This doesn't fit the narrative and the template in the Drive-By Media and the Democrat Party as to who is a genuine war hero. Don't look for any retractions, by the way. Not from the anti-war left, the anti-military Drive-By Media, or the Arabic websites that spread Jesse Macbeth's lies about our troops, because the truth for the left is fiction that serves their purpose. They have to lie about such atrocities because they can't find any that fit the template of the way they see the US military. In other words, for the American anti-war left, the greatest inconvenience they face is the truth. END TRANSCRIPT

Makes a little more sense with the reference to Jesse Macbeth which we recently showed that he was, indeed, a "phony soldier" and that was the portion that the left, and the Democratic politicians, conveniently left out of their little narratives yesterday. (Although had the context not been provided, I was ready to rip Rush a new one and I still think he could have made it a little clearer that he was referring to the Macbeth's of the anti-war lefts world) No one claims that there are not soldiers against our actions in Iraq but their numbers do not compare to the active military speaking up in support of the mission, their numbers do not compare to the numbers of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans that are in support of the mission and their numbers do not come close to comparing to the veterans that support the troops and their mission. When the anti-war left can start producing those kinds of numbers, then perhaps they will be given more credibility to their arguments. VETERANS; The American Legion: The American Legion was chartered by Congress in 1919 as a patriotic, mutual-help, war-time veterans organization. A community-service organization which now numbers nearly 3 million members -- men and women -- in nearly 15,000 American Legion Posts worldwide. These Posts are organized into 55 Departments -- one each for the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, France, Mexico, and the Philippines. The American Legion's national headquarters is in Indianapolis,Indiana, with additional offices in Washington, DC. In addition to thousands of volunteers serving in leadership and program implementation capacities in local communities to the Legion's standing national commissions and committees, the national organization has a regular full-time staff of about 300 employees. They represent three million veterans and here are a couple of their statements. RENO, NV, August 31, 2007, American Legion Reaffirms Support for War on Terror.

Nearly 6,000 delegates unanimously re-affirmed The American Legion’s support for the war on terrorism during the organization’s 89th National Convention in Reno, Nevada. “We must continue to stand by the president and advocate for adequate funding for our troops that is not contingent on a set date for troop withdrawal,” said National Commander Paul A. Morin. “Our support of Resolution 169 is unwavering.” Resolution 169 was first passed at The American Legion’s 87th National Convention in Honolulu and re-affirmed last year in Salt Lake City. It resolves that The American Legion urges all Americans and freedom-loving people stand united in their support of the global war on terrorism and united in their support of the troops. It further resolves that national commander of The American Legion disseminate accurate information to ensure the united support of the American people. The American Legion, which by its own constitution is nonpartisan, urges that the people support both the president who sent the troops to war and Congress, which authorized the action. Several speakers at The American Legion National Convention pointed out that the current strategy in Iraq appears to be working. “Tired of the indiscriminate violence and turned off by al-Qaeda’s Taliban-like ideology, many sheiks, tribes and local citizens are rejecting al-Qaeda,” said Gen. David Petraeus, who addressed the convention from a videotape produced in Iraq. He added that troops have been aided enormously by “the increasing assistance of everyday Iraqis.”

WASHINGTON, D.C., September 11, 2007, Legion: Support Surge, Troops, Petraeus.

The National Commander of the nation’s largest veterans organization today called for “much resolve and patience” by Congress and the American people on the war in Iraq after Multi-National Force Iraq Commander Gen. David Petraeus’s testimony before Congress. National Commander Marty Conatser voiced The American Legion's continued support for the "surge" in Iraq and the improving security environment. "Gen. Petraeus forcefully and effectively reported measurable gains to the joint session of the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committees and his honest and professional assessment reinforced what I had seen in Iraq in the last month," Conatser said. "General Petraeus's assessment that the military objectives are in large measure being met plus his reasonable proposal for a troop draw down prove the wisdom of the “surge” strategy,” Conatser explained. He also applauded Gen. Petraeus's view that failure to follow through would be a ‘"rush to failure."’ “I visited Iraq in August and met with troops and Gen. Petraeus,” Conatser said. “There is no doubt in my mind, a premature troop withdrawal from Iraq would be disastrous for the Iraqis and the United States.” Conatser said the troops he spoke with there said they’ve seen significant change and real improvements in the security environment, echoing what Gen. Petraeus told Congress today. “The Senate confirmed Gen. Petraeus to change direction in Iraq,” Conatser added. “He’s doing that but change does not happen overnight and his “surge” strategy just became fully implemented in mid-June when the requested reinforcements finally arrived. “In the broader context, this report to the Congress today demonstrates progress in the global war on terrorism,” the national commander said. “We agree with the Multi-Nation Force Iraq Commander that this will be a long struggle but we support our nation's forces and their leadership for the long haul.” Two weeks ago, The American Legion unanimously re-affirmed The American Legion’s unwavering support for the war on terrorism during the organization’s 89th National Convention in Reno, Nevada. Resolution 169 also points out that the United States was “suddenly and without provocation, attacked by terrorists on September 11, 2001.” It adds, “The global war on terrorism is a just war, aimed at protecting the very foundations of freedom and freedom-loving people everywhere.” Conatser, a retired sergeant major with the Illinois National Guard, fully supports Resolution 169. “I am proud that The American Legion passed Resolution 169, which reminds people that supporting the troops also means supporting their mission. Iraq is part of the Global War on Terrorism. I always believed that but after seeing it firsthand, I am more convinced than ever,” he said. “Everything I saw in Iraq last month points to the fact that the “surge” is working.” The National Commander also addressed recent personal attacks on Iraq’s top military commander. “For anyone or group to portray Gen. Petraeus as a traitor is outrageous and downright despicable,” Conatser said. “The military leader I met with is an honest, dedicated patriot who is succeeding given the very difficult mission before him. He should be commended not condemned for his 35 years of selfless service to our nation.” With a membership of 2.7-million wartime veterans, The American Legion was founded in 1919 on the four pillars of a strong national security, veterans affairs, Americanism, and patriotic youth programs. Legionnaires work for the betterment of their communities through more than 14,000 posts across the nation.

Add to that the Gathering of Eagles and Rolling Thunder. Challenge to the anti-war left: Produce any organization that represents 3 million veterans as we have just produced. IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN VETERANS; Vets For Freedom:

Vets for Freedom is a nonpartisan organization established by combat veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our mission is to educate the American public about the importance of achieving success in these conflicts by applying our first-hand knowledge to issues of American strategy and tactics—namely "the surge" in Iraq. We support policymakers from both sides of the aisle who have stood behind our great generation of American warriors on the battlefield, and who have put long-term national security before short-term partisan political gain. Vets for Freedom is the leading voice representing troops and veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Vets for Freedom represent more than 7,000 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan. Here are there news articles and press releases. Challenge to the anti-war left: Produce any organization that represents over 7,000 IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN veterans. Veterans that have fought in either Iraq or Afghanistan. ACTIVE MILITARY; Appeal for Courage:

Appeal for Courage is a non-partisan, grass-roots effort to communicate to Congress the troops' desire to remain in Iraq until our mission is complete. We feel calls to retreat embolden our enemy and hurt our support within the American public and Iraqi people. We accept no funding from any source, and do not speak for any group or organization other than those military members who have signed the Appeal.

3285 Active Military Members have signed this appeal.

As an American currently serving my nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to fully support our mission in Iraq and halt any calls for retreat. I also respectfully urge my political leaders to actively oppose media efforts which embolden my enemy while demoralizing American support at home. The War in Iraq is a necessary and just effort to bring freedom to the Middle East and protect America from further attack.

Challenge to the anti-war left: Produce 3285 Active Military Members speaking up publicly against the mission. The far left liberal anti-war, anti-military will jump on one, two or ten, military members that has fought in Iraq and some of them, such as Jesse Macbeth are, indeed, as Rush stated, phony soldiers... others are soldiers that have served and simply disagree with our actions in Iraq and the ones that DID serve deserve the respect of being listened to, but, they receive no more credibility than the thousands that are speaking up in favor of our missions, in Iraq or elsewhere. When you have 10 or 20 or even a hundred that are telling you one thing and you compare that to thousands that are telling you something else, you must use common sense. Why would anybody give more credence to hundreds than they would thousands? It makes no sense at all and yet that is what the anti-war left does on a daily basis. What the left has done with Rush Limbaugh's comments is exactly what they have done with their use of the soldiers they trumpet the words of. The deliberately hide the "context". More from Hot Air, Right Wing News, Take Our Country Back and Captain's Quarters. .

Outrage Over an Iranian Errand Boy

By Stanford Matthews Blog @ MoreWhat.com If there ever was topic for discussing freedom of speech or what is accepted as a proper response between opposing forces on this planet, the Iranian President's attendance at Columbia University certainly fits. Polarizing opinions, outrage, indifference and a broad mixture of undefined responses fill the media this day. So what is one to make of all this? An opinion column by Arthur Herman at the New York Post no doubt falls on the outrage side of the debate.

SQUALID MISTAKE ACADEMIA'S UGLY BLINDNESS By ARTHUR HERMAN September 25, 2007 -- COLUMBIA University Presi dent Lee Bollinger yester day made some cutting criticisms while introducing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - but that doesn't make the school's decision to offer a platform to the head of a violent terrorist state any less abject, squalid or shameless.

Who knows what Columbia University's real motives were for inviting Iran's President to speak. At least a couple of reports indicate the expressed reason was to allow differing points of view. It seems when the person speaking in public is extremely notorious for holding beliefs or values others find deplorable or equally disturbing, the standards or principles guiding the public view are withdrawn. That is to say people allow other people to speak or express themselves as long as that person does not exceed certain limits. My first question would be why were those who are so enraged by this event not equally vocal in objecting to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and her trip that included Syria and at least some discussion with heads of state there? The next reference from various sources is a contrast to Herman's opinion column at the NT Post. Carefully reviewing sound bites from the Iranian President and comparing them to related events in Iran, the author reminds the reader of the amateur attempt by this week's headline grabbing foreign visitor to misinform the audience. But maybe the Iranian is getting exactly what he wants. What would be a larger problem with his visit is not what people appear to be angry about but if his plan is successful in his own mind. Perhaps all this angst and attention is exactly what he wanted. A person would have to be extremely ignorant to believe he could come here and not receive the reaction he did from the outrageous statements he expressed.

Live From New York, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Unreality Show By Dana Milbank Tuesday, September 25, 2007; Page A02 "For hundreds of years, we've lived in friendship and brotherhood with the people of Iraq," Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told the National Press Club yesterday. That's true -- as long as you don't count the little unpleasantness of the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, when a million people died, some by poison gas. And you'd also have to overlook 500 years of fighting during the Ottoman Empire.

Certainly everyone is entitled to their opinion and The Wall Street Journal is no exception. This being the third reference for this post is a reminder that as stated earlier the mixture of opinions is quite varied although most have an obvious negative reaction to that guy from Iran that everyone loves to hate. Without previous knowledge of the article and its information below, the same thought had probably crossed many minds after hearing explanations from Columbia for their choice of speaker this week. Would you have acted the same if the potential speaker would have been Adolf Hitler? A better question might be asked about how the rest of the world responded to Hitler before he was completely in a position to do the things he did? The Iranian President or anyone else can be allowed to speak. Words are not the problem here. How the rest of the world responds to the actions of the Iranian President and people like him is the problem. As has been said many times, those who refuse to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

Columbia's Conceit Exactly what would it have accomplished to "engage in a debate" with Hitler? BY BRET STEPHENS Tuesday, September 25, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT On Saturday John Coatsworth, acting dean of Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs, made the remark that "if Hitler were in the United States and . . . if he were willing to engage in a debate and a discussion to be challenged by Columbia students and faculty, we would certainly invite him." This was by way of defending the university's decision to host a speech yesterday by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Enough with the news around the planet about this situation with Iran. No one should be overly concerned about what transpired at Columbia University this week or the UN, etc. How the world leaders will handle their responsibilities as leaders and getting a grip on war and terrorism as well as the other critical matters facing us is the real concern. The visit by and actions of the Iranian President during his visit pales in comparison to other risks.

Ahmadinejad Echoes the Democratic Left

Cross-posted from Faultline USA

 On Sept. 20, 2007, 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley interviewed Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Tehran, Iran. Sounding like he was speaking from the Daily Kos and Netroots playbook, Ahmadinejad was sending a clear signal to his allies on the Democratic left – especially to Rosie and her ilk.

And his message was also a pat on the heads of his pet Dhimmis now running for President on the Democratic ticket. Why was he constantly smiling? He knows that he’s already got these presidential hopefuls trained and on a tight leash.

If they can’t even stand up to MoveOn.org, he knows he’s already got them cowered. For him it's a "Piece o cake"! Doesn’t he sound just like Rosie???

The American people still don't know who was behind the bombing of the Twin Towers. Many books in the U.S. have been written about the incident., and there are questions circling in your society. Once you go back, go to the streets, ask the local people who was behind this, what were the reason for that? 

And, again, I fail to see why you continually say “the American people.“ I have the latest surveys. Eighty percent of the American citizens say that the American government knew about the attack beforehand.” 

Pelly asked questions about Ahmadinejad’s desire to visit to the World Trade Center, Iran’s nuclear program, about his view of Bush, and his view of Israel among other things.

 Excerpts from the 60 Minutes interview with MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD. You can read the entire transcript here.

 Please note that the entire interview with Ahmadinejad was not broadcast on 60 Minutes. I’ve selected excerpts that demonstrate Ahmadinejad’s pandering to the Democratic left.

 AHMADINEJAD: . . . you are representing a media and you're a reporter. The American nation is made up of 300 million people. There are different points of view over there. I would like to think that the points of view of the American people is very close to the points of view of the Iranian people. The American people are very much against and opposed what certain American officials are saying and their points of view. And they're also, the way that the people have voted in the American elections is very telling. And we are criticizing such behavior on the part of the American government. We believe that if anyone just allows himself to accuse others, there will be no possibility for peace and friendship. 


PELLEY: What do you mean the American election is telling? What did you take from it?


 AHMADINEJAD: What I'm saying is that the American people very clearly have shown that they do not endorse what certain American officials are saying and doing. I remind you of the rallies in Washington a couple of days ago. What were they saying and shouting? Perhaps 70, 80 percent of the American people are against their troops, their sons and daughters being in Iraq and war. And as I said, they're very much against war. And for that matter, the American people are peace-loving people. You shouldn't think that what the American officials are doing and their behavior reflects completely the mood of the American people. And American officials must not make the American people a victim of their wants and wishes. And we make a distinction between the American people and American officials. And the American people are opposed to occupation, the use of force, and also terrorism, the killing of the people of other nations. And this is what we are saying. This is what we believe in. With that in mind, we feel very close to the American people. And I'm sure that this is reciprocal. A couple of days ago, an American scientist, a scholar, wrote to me saying that he has a great love for Iran. And once he passes, he wants to be buried in this country. The two nations are very close to one another. . . . [snip] 


PELLEY: What trait do you admire in President Bush? 


AHMADINEJAD: Again, I have a very frank tone. I think that President Bush needs to correct his ways.  


PELLEY: What do you admire about him? 


 AHMADEINEJAD: He should respect the American people. 


PELLEY: Is there anything? Any trait? 


 AHMADINEJAD: As an American citizen, tell me what trait do you admire? 


 PELLEY: Well, Mr. Bush is, without question, a very religious man, for example, as you are. I wonder if there's anything that you've seen in President Bush that you admire. 


 AHMADEINEJAD: Well, is Mr. Bush a religious man? 


PELLEY: Very much so. As you are. 


 AHMADEINEJAD: What religion, please tell me, tells you as a follower of that religion to occupy another country and kill its people? Please tell me. Does Christianity tell its followers to do that? Judaism, for that matter? Islam, for that matter? What prophet tells you to send 160,000 troops to another country, kill men, women, and children? You just can't wear your religion on your sleeve or just go to church. You should be truthfully religious. Religion tells us all that you should respect the property, the life of different people. Respect human rights. Love your fellow man. And once you hear that a person has been killed, you should be saddened. You shouldn't sit in a room, a dark room, and hatch plots. And because of your plots, many thousands of people are killed. Having said that, we respect the American people. And because of our respect for the American people, we respectfully talk with President Bush. We have a respectful tone. But having said that, I don't think that that is a good definition of religion. Religion is love for your fellow man, brotherhood, telling the truth. . . [snip] 




PELLEY: President Bush has pledged that you will not be allowed to possess a nuclear weapon and will use military force if necessary. 


 AHMADEINEJAD: I think Mr. Bush, if he wants his party to win the next election, there are cheaper ways and ways to go about this. I can very well give him a few ideas so that the people vote for him. He should respect the American people. They should not bug the telephone conversations of their citizens. They should not kill the sons and daughters of the American nation. They should not squander the taxpayers' money and give them to weapons companies. And also help the people, the victims of Katrina. People will vote for them if they do these things. But if they insist on what they are saying right now, this will not help them. Again, nobody can hurt the Iranian people. And history tells us that the people who have been less than kind to the Iranian people, they have lost out. What I'm saying, I am being very sincere here. I'm a Muslim. I cannot tell a lie. I am supposed to tell the truth. What I'm saying is that President Bush's conduct in Iraq is wrong. And his wrong conduct is behind his party losing the previous elections. This is very clear. The American people are very much dismayed with the behavior and the conduct of the present administration. They are not dismayed with Iran. In fact, the two nations are very close to one another. An example of that would be the letter sent to me by an American scholar a few days ago. 


 PELLEY: You mentioned telling the truth as a Muslim, and as you know so much better than I do, Verse 42 of the second sura: "The truth shall not be obscured by falsehood, and those who know the truth must tell it." But when I ask you a question as direct as "Will you pledge not to test a nuclear weapon?" you you dance all around the question. You never say "yes." You never say "no." 


 PELLEY: You mentioned telling the truth as a Muslim, and as you know so much better than I do, Verse 42 of the second sura: "The truth shall not be obscured by falsehood, and those who know the truth must tell it." But when I ask you a question as direct as "Will you pledge not to test a nuclear weapon?" you you dance all around the question. You never say "yes." You never say "no." 

(Note: Abdullah Al Araby, writing in Islam Review, explains that “unlike most religions, within Islam there are certain provisions under which lying is not simply tolerated, but actually encouraged … When dealing with Muslims, one must keep in mind that Muslims can communicate something with apparent sincerity, when in reality they may have just the opposite agenda in their hearts. Bluntly stated, Islam permits Muslims to lie anytime that they perceive that their own well-being, or that of Islam, is threatened.”)

 The above quote came from The Free Thinker. Sometimes Athiests are useful. Back to the interview . . .

  AHMADEINEJAD: Well, thank you for that. You are like a CIA investigator. And you are . . . 


PELLEY: I am just a reporter. I am a simple, average American reporter. 


 AHMADEINEJAD: This is not a Baghdad prison. Please, this is not a secret prison in Europe. This is not Abu Ghraib. This is Iran. I'm the president of this country. Well, I think that I've gone beyond what you've asked me, above and beyond. And I think that if you speak to your job as a reporter, what I have said so far, again, goes above and beyond what you ask me. 


 PELLEY: One last thing. So important for the American people to understand. When your airplane approaches Manhattan this week, you will look out the window and you will see that the World Trade Center is gone. Many Americans, Mr. President, to be frank, believe that you look out that window and you say to yourself, "Good. Somebody got 'em." They believe our countries are enemies. 


AHMADEINEJAD: Well, you shouldn't speak on behalf of the American people. I can speak on behalf of the Iranian people, but you cannot speak on behalf of the American people. Why do you insist on doing that? Why do you not allow the American people to speak for themselves? Why? Let them speak for themselves. The people gathered around the White House a couple of days ago. They spoke whatever was in their hearts and minds. Are they not American citizens? Hundreds of thousands of people have rallied against the war. Are they not citizens? Our government at the time expressed its condemnation. We issued an official communiqué condemning that incident. How can you, in your mind, accuse and condemn others? Well, if an Iranian person for that matter had done the same thing, it would have been shameful, and it would not have been fair. So, again, this is not fair. Maybe this is your point of view or also perhaps your editor's point of view. And you are saying that the American people are saying these things. The American people still don't know who was behind the bombing of the Twin Towers. Many books in the U.S. have been written about the incident., and there are questions circling in your society. Once you go back, go to the streets, ask the local people who was behind this, what were the reason for that? And, again, I fail to see why you continually say “the American people.“ I have the latest surveys. Eighty percent of the American citizens say that the American government knew about the attack beforehand. They had information. . . 

If you want to know why Ahamadinejad wants the Democrats to win the next national election, please read The Enemy at Home by Dinesh D’Souza. Here’s a quote:

 “In reality, the left already has a foreign policy and a strategy and it is called working in tandem with bin Laden to defeat Bush. As we have seen, the left and the Islamic radicals operate like the two sides of a scissors, each prong working separately , but toward the same end . . .the same goal of defeating Bush in Iraq, and they need each other to accomplish this goal. . .” 

 Thanks to Little Green Footballs for listing the information on these planned protests Protests Against Ahmadinejad on Monday Congressman Duncan Hunter issued a statement Sunday morning from Mackinac Island directed to Columbia University. 

"To host the leader of Iran when he supports terrorists that are moving deadly roadside bombs across the Iraqi border to be used against American troops is a slap in the face for the entire 165,000 men and women in Iraq and to those that have served before them," said Hunter. "If President Lee Bollinger follows through with this hosting of the leader of Iran, I will move in Congress to cut off every single type of Federal Funding to Columbia University. If the left-wing leaders of academia will not support our troops, they, in the very least, should not support our adversaries. 

This event, following the slanderous action of MoveOn.org, depicting General Petraeus as "General Betray Us," in the New York Times represents the emergence of the extreme left-wing in American politics." Concluding, "I think it is time for the Democrat party to denounce this fringe element in their party," said Hunter. 

More Criticism MoveOn So Richly Deserves

By Stanford Matthews Blog @ MoreWhat.com What would you expect from a group without the sense to understand the 'larger issue' they now claim as the excuse for actions denounced by anyone with a backbone? That's right. More discussion of MoveOn since they so richly deserve every criticism directed at them. Was this said before? There are certain lines you don't cross. And here is how MoveOn responds to their wake up call to do the right thing.

Yesterday, an organization so small its 17 employees don't even have a central office, found itself under attack by not only President Bush, who said the ad was "disgusting," but also by the Democratic-controlled Senate, which passed a resolution 72 to 25 expressing its own outrage. Many Democrats blamed the group for giving moderate Republicans a ready excuse for staying with Bush and for giving Bush and his supporters a way to divert attention away from the war. In an e-mail to its members last night, the group acknowledged that the content of the ad might have angered its allies but argued that a larger issue is at stake. "Maybe you liked our General Petraeus ad. Maybe you thought the language went too far," they wrote. "But make no mistake: this is much bigger than one ad."

This is the single largest example of the far left fringe base of the Democratic party that is being appeased and accommodated by the likes of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Richardson, Dodd and many other Democrats who refused to acknowledge their over the top use of an ad in a national publication and the baseless attack on General Petraeus. A man with more honor and character than MoveOn could ever hope to achieve. But then, honorable achievements is obviously not something of which MoveOn would be interested. Condemning MoveOn is the closest Congress has come to effortless bipartisan effectiveness since the performance ratings fell in the basement. Perhaps the Democratic party majority could seize the opportunity to acknowledge victory in Iraq is in this country's best interest. Showing there is apolitical incentive to do the right thing might become contagious. Then the two parties could actually get something worthwhile completed and watch their numbers go up. Continuing to cozy up to MoveOn is not a recipe for success.

No Campaign Solution for Health Care

By Stanford Matthews Blog @ MoreWhat.com Besides the title, the first sentence draws attention and interest in this AP report presented below. One can probably find plenty of examples of issues in this country being improperly handled. But health care is equally bizarre or absurd in the way it is mishandled coupled with the subtle but real consequences for this nation in the long term if we don't soon approach it intelligently. In Health Care Debate, U-Word Is Back By NANCY BENAC Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON Sep 16, 2007 (AP) It's been 14 years since first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton's health care reform plan sank like a stone ... Hillary Rodham Clinton's past failure with health care should not be her reason for addressing it again. If anyone including Hillary Rodham Clinton had a viable, broad solution capable of winning support from both parties, special interest and the general public that would be great. But this report and other common knowledge most people possess about these matters would indicate neither she nor anyone else will be bringing such a solution forward. Democratic candidates argue it is the government's job to make sure everyone has health insurance they cannot lose. 'Make sure' means an unlimited supply of taxpayer money to pay for whatever politicians think will make them look good. By the time the truth of the failure is published in the press, the usual anonymous suspects will be guilty as charged. Like a quote from a recent PBS program, 'everyone is guilty so no one's to blame.' Republicans are pushing more limited incentives and subsidies to help people obtain affordable coverage. Which will result in the same problem for different reasons than the Dems plan. Both political parties are missing the point on this issue. They both rely on government appropriations as the vehicle. This is an issue where we are all guilty but everyone is to blame. It is understandable that anyone who is satisfied with their current health care situation would be reluctant to change. But even those who are happy are at risk. The system cannot be supported by taxpayer funds forever and the costs will not decrease if we continue the way it is. Both sides are trying to steer clear of anything resembling the 1993 plan. A professor at Emory University named Kenneth Thorpe was involved with Clinton on her 1993 health care fiasco and has worked with her and the other Dems as well on their health care plans this time. So all the Democratic party candidates are offering a repackaged 1993 idea that failed. That is why the Harry and Louise ad depicted the fretting couple worried about the government running health care. No wonder, it has worked so well so far. The special interest money machine has molded the government program into a rubber stamp for pay as we say coverage. Why else would a 'patient' pay nothing for a motorized chair or Viagra or getting their stomach stapled? Both social security and Medicare are paying for all manner of things and people never originally intended to be on it. And some are surprised the golden goose is running out of money...... our money. Clinton was described as 'adamant' that "we're going to get it done this time." Hillary Rodham Clinton should choose her words more carefully. Who in their right mind would agree that politicians have gotten anything 'done' in the true sense of the word? Just look at a few examples of legislation in general. If you read the text of most bills you will find phrases like 'to modify', 'change' or in some way alter existing legislation. A bill is introduced and before it ever passes or fails it is swamped with amendments, lost in committee, languishing in some isolated outpost in Washington or being revised. Little gets 'done' in Washington. So please, Hillary Rodham Clinton, stop with the rhetorical nonsense, like suspension of disbelief. Which could have been used here to describe your statements. The reason health care won't get 'done' is that the issue already has been reduced in the politicians' mindset to insurance coverage. The funny thing is Hillary Rodham Clinton was sliced and diced by the same insurance lobby that she has cozied up to since then. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. So what type of reform do you think Hillary Rodham Clinton will get for you? With the other Dems drinking the same tainted Kool Aid offered by the same authors this time around, their plans will be substantially the same thing. And the GOP's sentiment is simply Hillary Lite. Citizens who are currently satisfied even if that only means they have insurance but it is not adequate will not rock the boat for fear of things getting worse. Those who need or desperately need health care solutions will not be addressed or will decline to complain for all the good it will do. The politicians are either avoiding the mess or in the pockets of lobbyists and things have a better chance of getting worse for all consumers. And we'll all keep drinking, smoking and eating ourselves into oblivion while avoiding sufficient activity as we couch potato and yell at the news we don't watch. There are those who will not exit the drug induced stupor or coma long enough to care or the infinite number of other high risk behaviors that helped get us here in the first place. Patients will keep asking for popular meds that feed Big Pharma's coffers. Doctors will keep prescribing them and too often not listen to what their patients are saying. Nurses will continue to claim doctors don't save your life, nurses do and they might be right. But too many people will die in hospitals or other facilities for reasons defying logic. And TV news magazines will continue to warn us about the peril while their evening news broadcast partners are cluttered with ads for those popular drugs from Big Pharma with side effects appearing worse than the ailment they are intended to medicate. The health care problem in this country is that no one, really, no one wants to address health care. At least not in any way that would truly solve it. Everyone offering a plan is expecting someone else to carry the load. In other words, go ahead and fix it as long as it does not inconvenience me or require any discipline or sacrifice on my part.

School Terror Threat- "Jihad Boom"

Cross posted from Wake up America



Nine schools were sent these threatening postcards.

Investigators released the postcards with the threatening drawings on them Monday in hopes of generating leads in the case. Officials said that the postcards are made up of various and traditional themes, and each one has a distinctive hand-drawn cartoon on it. Several of the threats arrived on postcards featuring Walt Disney World. Detectives said the threat-maker crossed his or her No. 7s and attached a suffix to the address. Six of the nine postcards spell the word “Jihad” correctly, while the others are incorrect.

The U.S. Postal Service said that the postcards were all mailed to the schools from the Ocala-Gainesville mailing district before the sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. A $10,000 reward has been issued to anyone who provides information which leads to the arrest and conviction of the person or persons responsible for using the postal service to mail the threatening postcards to schools.

—————————————

Update: Our friends at Global Incident Map have pointed out that although the postcards were sent out prior to the 9/11 anniversary, on each postcard TWO DATES “9-11 ? 10-10” appear in the upper corner.

Threatening innocent civilians with a terrorist attack is sickening enough but to threaten completely innocent children is the most cowardly act yet.

Terrorism:

n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Make no mistake, this is an act of terrorism and anyone that denies that is ignorant or willfully blind.

Other postcards that were sent:

(Click image to enlarge)

(Click image to enlarge)

(Click image to enlarge)

(Click image to enlarge)

(Click image to enlarge)

All mailed from Gainesville, Florida. All sent to Florida schools. All have "9-11? 10-10" in the left hand upper corner.

We have spoken before about threats to our children, we pointed you to an American Thinker article on April1, 2007.

More recently we showed how at least 17 school buses have been stolen from a variety of student transportation concerns, including private companies, charter schools and businesses, in Texas.

Why do we believe that threats to our schools are serious and worth focusing on?

In that same article we showed you how in 2004,the U.S. military has found information in Iraq pertaining to U.S. schools, and in September 2004 the FBI notified school districts in six states that photographs, diagrams, and emergency plans had been found in the possession of unidentified individuals.

Furthermore we also showed that videos obtained and shot in Afghanistan showed "rehearsals" of shooting school children and taking hostages.

In 2003, Worldnet.daily as well as multiple other news organizations brought us news of videos obtained and shot in Afghanistan of rehearsals of shooting school children and taking hostages.

Videos depicting a mock al-Qaida siege of schools and golf course assassinations are now being reported by other news agencies, confirming an exclusive report by WorldNetDaily last year.

The New York Post says the al-Qaida tapes include the rehearsed shooting of schoolchildren and the taking of hostages.

The training exercise reportedly took place under the guidance of al-Qaida operations chief Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks who is now in U.S. custody.

The location was an abandoned school in Mir Bach Kot, Afghanistan, north of Kabul, a hotbed of al-Qaida activity before the U.S. and allied forces ousted the Taliban.

Former Green Beret Keith "Jack" Idema discovered the tapes in an abandoned house while serving as an adviser to the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance.

He says the video shows bullet-ridden blackboards and cut-out targets in classrooms, apparently representing students and teachers.

"Knowing al-Qaida trained to take out a presidential motorcade or an office building is scary, but nothing is more frightening than their training to take over a school," Idema told the Post. "In a classroom in a camp near Jalalabad, we found little desks with bullet holes in them and the backs of the chairs each had seven or eight bullet holes in them. They were definitely aiming to hit critical mass."

Portions of the tapes viewed by the newspaper showed a hostage-taking exercise and three scenarios where masked men, armed with AK-47s, pistols and hand grenades, storm a school-like brick building. In one assault, two gunmen rappel from the roof onto a ledge and wait for the go-ahead via two-way radio.

The Post recounts the school assault in detail:

"Two of the kidnappers are sitting in the cafeteria," a narrator says in Arabic.

At the command "move!" a janitor sweeping a hallway inside drops his broom and pulls out a gun. Others burst into rooms, fire automatic weapons and bark English commands at a group of children and adults, apparently locals and other camp residents co-opted for the exercise.

"Sit," a hooded terrorist yells to the children, who shriek in horror. "Don't move, don't move," he says. The children are made to kneel and place their hands on the walls while adults stand with hands raised and are frisked.

The armed thugs then herd their captives down the hallways as they shout in English, "Go in here!" and "Don't move!" Some hostages are then ordered to the roof.

"I don't want to go," one sham victim pleads in Arabic.

"Go before I kill you," a rifle-toting thug barks back.

The camera then zooms in on a terrorist, who stomps on a child.

On the rooftop, a lookout announces the arrival of police. A terrorist then drags a "hostage" to the ledge for display.

The Post says other training exercises include an attack at a mock golf outing, as men dressed as caddies drop their bags, pull out guns and open fire.

Doctor Bulldog & Ronin linked that piece of mine and in his comment section, one of his commenters said:

i was on a trip home from kansas city, mo on hwy 71 just around dequee ak, and there where 6 school busses all in a row in front of us all the school busses had the counties covered over with black spray paint. the busses would stay in pairs of three with a gap in between so noone could pass them. finally when the road came to a 2 way we passed them all and none of the drivers were american ! i was pretty spooked ! i’m not sure if they where terrorists but its really strange that there where 6 busses with no children and the counties spray painted away ! we called and gave info to the fbi i really hope that nothing bad happens and that it was nothing ! but these days you have to worry about strange things !

Now there is no way of verifying this persons comment, but, if true, they did the correct thing, they noticed, the contacted the FBI and they left it for the authorities to follow up on.

There might very well have been an innocent explanation, buses no longer used and sold, but that is not the point here, the point is, the difference between a successful attack and a foiled terror plot might very well be some concerned citizen noticing something suspicious and reporting it.

I see many people wave away terror threats like these postcards, but we know and have seen evidence that terrorists do have plans to use our children to attack us and to completely ignore such threats is worse than overreacting.

Every threat must be taken seriously.

We need not let fear dictate our actions or cower, but we do need to be alert, report suspicious activity and protect our children as well as ourselves.

Simple common sense.


Local 6.com:

Detectives said the threat-maker crossed his or her No. 7s and attached a suffix to the address. Six of the nine postcards spell the word "Jihad" correctly, while the others are incorrect.

Whether this threat is from a terrorist or meant as some sick joke, it is a terrorist threat and those responsible need to be caught and prosecuted as a terrorist.

.

GOE, Move America Forward and Vets For Freedom

(Click image to enlarge)
Starting with Gathering of Eagles, they will be meeting up with Move America Forward as they end the caravan across our country and all will be converging on the Hill.

Take a good look at those preparing to counter the Veterans and the Move America Forward supports... remember before you look that in the last 12 days, 27 stops, not one, NOT ONE, Move America Forward rally member has been arested or felt the need to break the law.

Yet this counter protest is asking their supporters to sign up and stating outright:

I am ready to commit to participating in this civil disobedience action which may risk arrest.

Can the contrast be anymore stark? Who are the peace activists?

Then on the 17th and 18th, Vets for Freedom, veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars will also be marching on the hill to support our troops and thier mission.

Drop by, give these folks you words of support!!!!!

My interview with Pete Hegseth, executive Director of Vets for Freedom can be found here.

My interview with Melanie Morgan, chairman of Move America Forward can be found here.

[Update] Via email, Bob from Gathering of Eagles sends this:

As much as I would like to be part of the "main force" I have decided to hang with the Nam Knights at the Wall. They and the GoE do not want to leave it open while the main force harasses the freaks.

On Saturday, September 15, the Nam Knights of America Motorcycle Club, a U.S. military veteran and law enforcement MC, will provide security at the Vietnam Memorial and the Vietnam Nurses Memorial in Washington, D.C. as part of the larger counter demonstration to that of ANSWER. (www.freestate-nk.org) or (www.namknights.org)

If you are interested in learning more about us, I invite you to come to visit us on Saturday. The bulk of the activity, as you know, will take place between the White House and the Capitol building at the other end of the Mall, but we and the Gather of Eagles organization, feel that we need to cover this flank.

The Vietnam Memorial will be protected, they won't deface it as they have been defacing and destroying others lately.

God bless these guys for protecting the memorials.

.

Hillary Rodham Clinton's Skeletons

By Stanford Matthews Blog @ MoreWhat.com When candidates emerge without adequate name recognition their campaigns focus a larger percentage of resources on overcoming that disadvantage than their better known rivals. The history of lesser known candidates as well as their leadership abilities may also present a challenge to political newcomers. But those who have been in the public sphere long enough to be well known may suffer from other difficulties. Performance deficiencies may have developed or character flaws surface that raise doubts about the candidate's fitness for office. In the latter circumstance, overcoming questions of fitness for office may find the candidate resembling a cat in a sandbox. Can't cover it up fast enough. So why would a well known candidate facing mounting news reports of campaign irregularities bring out more skeletons from the past? As if the Norman Hsu and Paw family campaign contributions as well as a court case over Peter Paul and the Hollywood gala fund raiser were not enough over the last weeks, Hillary Rodham Clinton has apparently enlisted the assistance of former Clinton Administration Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. And has done so during the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and one year after release of the ABC docudrama 'The Path to 9/11' aired and is in another scandal of sorts over DVD distribution and release.

Madeleine Albright to campaign for Clinton Tuesday, September 11, 2007 Former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright will make a stop in Iowa City Thursday on behalf of Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton. The discussion is part of the six-city "Restoring America's Leadership Tour" through Iowa on behalf of the presidential campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York.

Madeleine Albright featured prominently in the ABC docudrama 'The Path to 9/11' and expressed her displeasure with the portrayal. Both favorable and unfavorable critiques and remarks about the docudrama appeared to align with political bias as in party affiliation. That is not surprising. But some recent developments about the docudrama and a stalled DVD release as well as commentary by the author of 'The Path to 9/11' in the Wall Street Journal are. Check it out for yourself with the link to the excerpt below.

A Real 9/11 Cover-Up By CYRUS NOWRASTEH September 11, 2007; Page A18 A year ago today, ABC ran the docudrama I wrote, "The Path to 9/11," at the peak of a firestorm of political protest designed to discredit and shut down the miniseries before it aired. Left-leaning pundits, politicos and bloggers waxed hysterical about its supposed inaccuracies and anti-Clinton bias, though the vast majority of them had not seen it. They were determined that no one else should see it, either. But they failed, and the miniseries garnered nearly 28 million viewers and seven Emmy nominations. One year later, however, there is another attempt to shut down "The Path to 9/11" -- this time the DVD version. Despite what these would-be censors and the conspiracy theorists of the blogosphere fervently believed a year ago, the miniseries was never about Bill Clinton, the political left or right, but about our common enemy then and now: Islamist terrorism. It dramatizes a clearly linked chain of historical events, beginning with the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, continuing through the multiple attacks on American embassies and interests abroad, and culminating in the horrific attacks on American soil six years ago.

You may also find the references below interesting and they provide some examples of the discussions provoked by the docudrama one year ago after its airing.

ABC 9-11 Television Movie Draws Criticisms over Accuracy, Politics Following ABC's airing of a docudrama about 9-11, critics argue over the fact and fiction in television docudramas. Communication and media experts discuss the docudrama phenomenon in America.

9/11 TV Film Sparks Clinton Administration Outrage Friday , September 08, 2006 ABC's upcoming miniseries "The Path to 9/11" is generating a firestorm among members of the Clinton administration, who claim the two-part, made-for-TV film is filled with factual errors and lies. Three members of the administration — former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, former National Security Adviser Samuel R. Berger and Clinton aide Bruce Lindsey, who now heads the Clinton Foundation — have sent letters to Walt Disney Company, parent of ABC, demanding that it re-edit or pull the five-hour film, scheduled for air Sunday and Monday nights without commercial interruption.

Democrats "try" to discredit General Petraeus

Cross posted from Wake up America General Petraeus, a military leader that has dedicated his life to serving his country, will be delivering a report to Congress and testifying before the U.S. House Armed Services Committee, Monday and perhaps Tuesday. General Petraeus was confirmed, unanimously 81-0, (that link is to the roll call vote) and given the job of heading up a new counterinsurgency strategy in iraq back in February and he received his full compliment of troops a approximately two months ago. Since then, he and our troops have seen tremendous military success in places like Anbar Province which was once an al-Qaeda stronghold and just last summer was given up as lost, is now flourishing and life is returning to normal after our troops, led by General Pestraeus and the local population rose up and drove al-Qaeda elements out. In the Generals own words from an interview given to The Australian: **Dramatic reduction of sectarian killings. **Drop in the number of roadside bombings. **Killing or capturing of al-Qaeda fighters, causing the terrorist group to lose influence with local Sunnis. **75 per cent reduction in religious and ethnic killings since last year. **Doubling in the seizure of insurgents' weapons caches between January and August. **US forces are pursuers instead of defenders. **Religious-related deaths would be down to a quarter of what they were last December by the end of August. He also acknowledges the challenges that still face us in Iraq, but his words are also accompanied by the reports from Democratic leaders that have returned from Iraq, In August and have reported the same thing, that progress has been amazing and violence is down and that the surge is working. Keith Ellison and Jerry McNerney are two of those politicians, but the most amazing turn araound has been from Brian Baird, a war critic that voted against every action in Iraq since the beginning of the war. Brian Baird returned from Iraq stating that "The Troops have earned more time" and has also stated "It could well cost me the next election,"That's alright.".

"The easiest thing in the world would have been to go over there...and just say, using partisan rhetoric, 'Get out now,'" he said. As the evening wore on, Baird repeatedly insisted that Iraq would descend into worse chaos if the U.S. withdrew precipitously, with Iran gaining greater influence. "I think the probability is 95 percent if we withdraw prematurely, in our hearts we will live to regret it," he said. Baird said industries are starting to reopen and things are starting to get better. "We're putting people back to work and that is good news," he said. "I am truly impressed by Brian's willingness to stand here and take it gracefully," said Joy Overstreet, a Vancouver writer, as the meeting passed the two-hour mark. But she said she would consider voting out the congressmen next year if there is a "viable alternative." "It could well cost me the next election," Baird said at the end of the meeting. "That's alright." There were, however, some hints that Baird's new stance also had attracted some people. Bill Turlay, a Vancouver Republican and Navy veteran, said he hadn't voted for Baird before. But he said he was impressed by Baird's new stance on Iraq and said, "I'm going to seriously consider him next year."

For his honesty he has been targeted by MoveOn.org, attacking him because instead of lying, he came back and told the truth, changing an opinion that he has held for 6 years because of the progress he had seen in Iraq when he went there.

Last March, Rep. Baird voted with the Democrats to force Bush to bring troops home. Now he says he'll oppose timelines to bring our troops home from the unwinnable civil war in Iraq. We've got a new ad challenging Rep. Baird on his new support for the Iraq War.

Now we see that Democratic politicians, invested in defeat and failure are trying to discredit General Petraeus because he did the unthinkable in their eyes, he started to demand and get progress in Iraq and he started succeeding where the Democratic politicians only wanted him to fail. Now, remember what I wrote above:

General Petraeus was confirmed, unanimously 81-0, (that link is to the roll call vote) and given the job of heading up a new counterinsurgency strategy in iraq back in February and he received his full compliment of troops a approximately two months ago.

Also remember and look for yourself, that Harry "Baghdad" Reid was one of those 81 unanimous votes in favor of sending General Petreus to lead the new strategy which included the surge in Iraq. In April, before the full number of troops to be involved in the surge had arrived, Harry Reid made the statement that the surge was accomplishing nothing and Iraq was lost.

The war in Iraq "is lost" and a US troop surge is failing to bring peace to the country, the leader of the Democratic majority in the US Congress, Harry Reid, said Thursday. "I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week," Reid told journalists.

Then after the full compliment of troops did arrive and the new strategies were being implemented and started seeing progress, as admitted by multiple Democratic politicians that went to Iraq and saw this for themselves, Baghdad Reid tried to move the goalposts from his earlier gaffe of the "surge is accomplishing nothing" to the "political progress isn't happening". Well, then al-Maliki started working behind the scenes, went and courted the Sunnis and the Sunnis ended their boycott and rejoined the parliament. Once again, Reid has opened his big mouth too soon and showed that he was out of touch with conditions on the ground in Iraq. NOW, the new "gameplan" is to discredit General Petraeus as we have seen by more recent comments from, you got it...HARRY REID again.

Democratic leaders are not waiting to hear the general's testimony Monday before the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committee. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in his party's weekly radio address today that he expects the Petraeus report to be nothing more than the Bush administration's selective take on the surge.

Nancy Pelosi also joined in on the "lets give up my credibility" game by quoting newspaper sources to counter the reports from the commander on the ground in Iraq. She will quote from papers and ignore the experts? This echoes the statements from the Democratic politicians invested in defeat and are unable to reconcile the progress being made in Iraq with their political agenda of declaring defeat. Lets take a look at credibility here. Reid said the surge was accomplishing noting (follow the links above) before the surge even has all the troops on the ground. Reid claimed no political progress was being made as al-Maliki was making him into a liar by making tremendous leaps on the political front. Pelosi quotes newspaper and ignore the conditions on the ground as reported by those actually there. Reid and Pelosi's credibility on Iraq is at zero, so lets take a look at General Petraeus and his record. General David H. Petraeus assumed command of the Multi-National Force-Iraq on February 10th, 2007, following his assignment as the Commanding General, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center and Fort Leavenworth. Prior to assuming command at Ft. Leavenworth, he was the first commander of the Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq, which he led from June 2004 to September 2005, and the NATO Training Mission- Iraq, which he commanded from October 2004 to September 2005. That deployment to Iraq followed his command of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), during which he led the “Screaming Eagles” in combat throughout the first year of Operation Iraqi Freedom. His command of the 101st followed a year deployed on Operation Joint Forge in Bosnia, where he was the Assistant Chief of Staff for Operations of the NATO Stabilization Force and the Deputy Commander of the US Joint Interagency Counter-Terrorism Task Force-Bosnia. Prior to his tour in Bosnia, he spent two years at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, serving first as the Assistant Division Commander for Operations of the 82nd Airborne Division and then as the Chief of Staff of XVIII Airborne Corps. General Petraeus was commissioned in the Infantry upon graduation from the United States Military Academy in 1974. He has held leadership positions in airborne, mechanized, and air assault infantry units in Europe and the United States, including command of a battalion in the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) and a brigade in the 82nd Airborne Division. In addition, he has held a number of staff assignments: Aide to the Chief of Staff of the Army; battalion, brigade, and division operations officer; Military Assistant to the Supreme Allied Commander - Europe; Chief of Operations of the United Nations Force in Haiti; and Executive Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. General Petraeus was the General George C. Marshall Award winner as the top graduate of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College Class of 1983. He subsequently earned MPA and Ph.D. degrees in international relations from Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, and later served as an Assistant Professor of International Relations at the US Military Academy. He also completed a fellowship at Georgetown University. Awards and decorations earned by General Petraeus include the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, two awards of the Distinguished Service Medal, two awards of the Defense Superior Service Medal, four awards of the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star Medal for valor, the State Department Superior Honor Award, the NATO Meritorious Service Medal, and the Gold Award of the Iraqi Order of the Date Palm. He is a Master Parachutist and is Air Assault and Ranger qualified. He has also earned the Combat Action Badge and French, British, and German Jump Wings. In 2005 he was recognized by the U.S. News and World Report as one of America’s 25 Best Leaders. Lets compare. What MPA and Ph.d's has Reid earned? hmmmmmm? What awards has Reid earned? Which of these two men have proven, in word and action, that they are on the side of America and will risk life and limb for their country? Reid? NOPE. Pelosi? NOPE. Petraeus? YES. When speaking of credibility, General Petraeus has more credibility, more honor, more valor and more courage than Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi could hope to achieve in their lifetimes and by trying to discredit General Petraeus for no other reason that the good general is seeing progress where Reid and Pelosi were praying for failure, shows yet another character flaw in Reid and Pelosi. Even more amazing is that leaders from other countries can recognize General Petraeus and our troops progress and success, when the Democratic members of our own Congress and Senate cannot: Dr. Brendan Nelson, the Australian Defense Minister had this to say:

Dr Nelson, who went to Afghanistan and Iraq this week and is now in Washington, said General Petraeus had presented a detailed presentation on security inside the country. "We finished our meeting with a very clear picture of his thinking of the assessment of the security situation, not just in Baghdad but also in the south and the work being done by us and the British," he said. "No one should underestimate the importance to what is happening in Iraq of our contribution and the significance of it to the Americans and the Iraqis themselves. "We will wait until we see the President's response to the report and we will shape our forward planning around that response. "I think it is fair to say that we will continue to look for increased opportunities for training." The Defence Minister said Australian forces were highly regarded as trainers and whenever he asked the Iraqis to nominate what they wanted they "always said training". "Our support for continuing support and involvement in Iraq is a minority position but we have a moral responsibility to these people to see this job through," Dr Nelson said.

By trying to discredit General Petraeus because the General dared to accomplish what many did not believe could be accomplished, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi has managed to further discredit our own Democratic politicians in Washington, namely themselves, at the same time, attacking their own politicians that dared return from Iraq with news or progress. Ambassador Ryan Crocker will join Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, in recommending that no significant changes be made to Bush's war strategy in order to avoid jeopardizing the limited progress achieved from the troop surge. The statements and testimony will also be released to the public so that the discredited Democrats cannot "spin" and distort the live testimony that General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker will give as well as interviews with the media. The American people will get to hear the two of them instead of the lies that Reid and Pelosi will try to tell about the testimony. [Update] [End Update] On a stopover in Hawaii yesterday on his way back from Australia, Bush said, "There's no question there's still hard work to do. But my resolve is as strong as it has ever been." The surge and the progress will continue. General Petraeus has stated that if the progress continues as he has been seeing it, we will be able to draw down some of the troops to before surge levels and Congress and the Senate would do well to start backing the good General because they are at the lowest approval ratings in the history of Gallup polling those numbers, but they can and WILL drop farther down if they continue to bet and actively work to undermine General Petraeus and our troops in a time of war. .