AmeriCAN-DO Attitude

Are you an AmeriCAN or an AmeriCAN'T?

Democrats are LYING About Madame Pelosi’s Trip to Syria

Someone is not telling the truth about what SotH Nancy Pelosi discussed with Syrian President Basher Assad. Originally, Democrat Tom Lantos, a member of the House committee on foreign affairs, as reported in the San Francisco Chronicle on April 2nd, 2007, stated the Democrats were going to Syria to conduct their own separate foreign policy from the Bush Administration (which, by the way, is illegal under the Logan Act):

“Lantos, referring to recent congressional votes dictating a timetable for the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq agreed that Democrats were pursuing an approach to counter the Bush administration. He said, ‘We have an alternative Democrat foreign policy. I view my job as beginning with restoring overseas credibility and respect for the United States.'”

However now SotH Nancy Pelosi is singing a different tune:

When we went to Syria, there was no division, no difference in the message that the president has been sending forth and the message that we delivered. Our message to President Assad was a very direct one, very consistent with the president’s message, very unified. We went — we left our differences at home. We spoke about where we were unified as a country.

Interesting. That’s not what Tom Lantos stated. He stated you went there to deliver the alternative Democrat foreign policy. Of course, you seem to agree with him seconds later when answering a question about Vice President Cheney’s remark on the Rush Limbaugh show stating that your actions in going to Syria was “bad behavior”:

The vice president — I think he accused me of bad behavior, sounding sort of father figure-ish and probably stay home. We don’t accept that — those instructions.But it was quite a remarkable thing. I think it’s an indication of the poverty of ideas, uh, of this administration to bring peace to the region.

Really? So the administration has a “poverty of ideas”, yet you went to Syria giving Mr. Assad a message which was “very consistent with the President’s message, very unified”? The same message which has a “poverty of ideas”?

SotH Pelosi, I demand to know the details and see a transcript of what you said and discussed with the enemy of the United States, an enemy which is helping to kill American soldiers in Iraq, an enemy which is under investigation for killing one of the political leaders of Lebanon and an enemy which supports the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezb’Allah.

SotH Pelosi should provide the exact details of her discussion with our enemy or be tried under the Logan Act for treason. Period.

Via Rush Limbaugh: Pelosi Rejects Bush Meeting, But Eager to Meet Ahmadinejad in Iran

BEGIN TRANSCRIPTRUSH: Here it is. It was Tuesday, April 3rd, ladies and gentlemen, and this is what I said on this program about Pelosi: “[A]nd if she had the guts, if she had the chance she’d go to Iran and meet with Ahmadinejad and do the same thing, and she may well do it before the 2008 election. I wouldn’t put it past her.” I told you people! I know these people like every square inch of my glorious, shrinking-quickly naked body. I saw this news last night, “Nancy Pelosi to Iran,” and I said, “I gotta remember,” and I only remembered it this morning.


Let’s go to the Pelosi and Dingy Harry sound bites. This is yesterday afternoon on Capitol Hill, a press conference, Dingy Harry speaking.

REID: The president is inviting us down to the White House with preconditions. That’s not the way things should operate — and he’s gotta listen to us, because we are speaking for the American people. He isn’t.

RUSH: And there you have it! They are “speaking for the American people,” and Bush isn’t. Bush has only been elected by the American people. Dingy Harry has not been, nor has Nancy Pelosi. But, see, this is all part of their gambit here to suggest that the November elections were about getting rid of Bush and getting rid of the war in Iraq and getting us out of the war on terror, and letting Democrats have free rein over what they want to do. Ben Feller, an AP writer, says: “When President Bush invited Democratic leaders for a sit-down on Iraq, it seemed to offer the opportunity for a breakthrough in their bitter differences over the war. For about five seconds. Then the White House spent the rest of Tuesday explaining what the meeting would not be. It is not a chance to compromise, the administration insists. Bush isn’t budging from what kind of war-spending bill he can accept.

“It is not a time for Bush to lecture lawmakers, the White House said, although he might reiterate why the Democrats’ proposals to set troop-withdrawal timelines are foolish and irresponsible. And whatever you do, don’t call it a negotiation.” That’s what the White House said. “Bush read the Republicans’ loss of Congress last year as a message that voters want both parties to work together. But his move on Tuesday was the latest sign that his tactics remain the same: We’ll cooperate just fine as long as you see it my way.” (laughing) It is amazing. Now, the White House may be playing it hardball this way and I hope they are, but the idea that the Democrats are not engaging in that kind of behavior on virtually everything in the House and in the Senate is literally laughable! But of course here we have a Drive-By Media story. This is not news analysis. This is an actual “story,” supposedly! Yeah, “Ben Feller covers the White House for the Associated Press.” So, anyway, Dingy Harry says they’re not going to go up there with any of these preconditions. It’s not the way things should operate. Pelosi rejected the invitation as well.

PELOSI: What the president invited us to do was come to his office so that we could accept, without any discussion, the bill that he wants. That’s not worthy of the concerns of the American people, and I join with Senator Reid in rejecting an invitation of that kind.

RUSH: All right, all good and well, but I’m still struck by the statements of Carl Levin this past Sunday on This Week with George Stephanopoulos. Well, we always fund the troops! No, we’re gonna fund the troops. No question about it. We always have. We always will! We will fund the troops. These guys are up there acting like there’s still a chance for their bill to pass. You talk about disunity or not being on the same page? It is clear here that Pelosi and Reid are not on the same page as Carl Levin. So, anyway, it’s more poker that is being played here, and ultimately the president is going to win this. Yesterday afternoon, same press conference. This is what Nancy Pelosi said about her trip to Syria.

PELOSI: When we went to Syria, there was no division, no difference in the message that the president has been sending forth and the message that we delivered. Our message to President Assad was a very direct one, very consistent with the president’s message, very unified. We went — we left our differences at home. We spoke about where we were unified as a country.

RUSH: Really? Really! How in the world do you suggest that when you say that the Israelis are ready to talk peace despite what’s going on with Hezbollah and Hamas? How do you say that when the prime minister of Israel, Mr. Olmert, has to come out and deny what you’ve said? Now, Gerd Schroeder today at American Thinker has a good question: “Where are the transcripts of this meeting between Pelosi and Assad? Pelosi yesterday claims she said nothing to contradict the foreign policy of the president, but she offered no details of that. And I for one would like to hear for myself, especially after hearing a member of the House committee on foreign affairs, Tom Lantos, claim last week that they have a Democrat foreign policy that’s different from the president’s and they’re setting about now to establish that. How can both the speaker and the chairman both be telling the truth?“If the Democrats in Congress have the right to demand the transcripts of Vice President Cheney’s Energy Working Group,” and if Henry Waxman can ask for e-mails from the RNC and all over the place, and Condoleezza Rice and so forth, “then surely we have a moral right to know what was said between the Speaker and President Assad, and judge for ourselves where the truth lies. It is interesting to note that there is no audio of the meeting that we see looped endlessly on TV. But it is clear,” Gerd Schroeder writes here, “through the body language of President Assad that he seems to be clearly lecturing Pelosi] about something, while she appears to be dimly smiling and nodding. What is the discussion about? Will we ever know?” But there aren’t any transcripts, and she’s offering no details. We’re just supposed to accept it at face value that she was over there on a message of unity, taking the president’s message to Bashar Assad, despite the fact that Tom Lantos said, “No, that’s not what we’re doing! We were over there advancing our own Democrat foreign policy.”


RUSH: Back to the audio sound bites. Nancy Pelosi, “Speaker of State,” and Tom Lantos, “Deputy Speaker of State,” are heading out all over the world here trying to establish their own foreign policy. Here is Nancy Pelosi responding to Dick Cheney on this program, calling her behavior in Syria “bad behavior.” An unidentified reporter said, “What about the discussion and the vice president’s criticism of you going to Syria?”

PELOSI: The vice president — I think he accused me of bad behavior, sounding sort of father figure-ish and probably stay home. We don’t accept that — those instructions.

LANTOS: Maybe in zee kitchen!

PELOSI: (Laughing.) But it was quite a remarkable thing. I think it’s an indication of the poverty of ideas, uh, of this administration to bring peace to the region.

RUSH: Wait a second! Wait just a second. (That was Tom Lantos, by the way, that chimed in there with “Maybe in the kitchen.”) What do you mean “poverty of ideas”? Go back to cut 12. There’s a “poverty of ideas of this administration to bring peace to the region,” but we just heard her say this…

PELOSI: When we went to Syria, there was no division, no difference in the message that the president has been sending forth and the message that we delivered. Our message to President Assad was a very direct one, very consistent with the president’s message, very unified. We went — we left our differences at home. We spoke about where we were unified as a country.

RUSH: Well, I’m confused, then. How can this be? If she’s going to say that she thinks Cheney’s comment about her behavior being bad was “an indication of the poverty of ideas of this administration to bring peace to the region,” she just got through saying that she left our differences at home. “We spoke about where we were unified as a country.” Poverty of ideas? So she was out expressing the poverty of ideas that she says don’t exist or is the fact of the case in this administration. Let’s not forget, this San Francisco Chronicle story is from April the 2nd. It was Monday. “Lantos, referring to recent congressional votes dictating a timetable for the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq agreed that Democrats were pursuing an approach to counter the Bush administration. He said, ‘We have an alternative Democrat foreign policy. I view my job as beginning with restoring overseas credibility and respect for the United States.'” Well, hell’s bells, somebody’s lying here! Somebody is lying a couple of times, because here’s Pelosi saying they went over there and they were unified and they left their differences aside and very consistent with the president’s message, and then Lantos says, “Oh, no, no! We’re setting up our own Democrat foreign policy. It’s an alternative Democrat foreign policy. That’s what they’re doing over there.” Then Pelosi says that Cheney’s criticism of her is “an indication of the poverty of ideas in this administration.” So somebody lies. There are two lies in this, which is not surprising. Now, here’s the bit about going to Iran. An unidentified reporter: “Do you see the possibility of maybe taking a trip to Iran?” Well, now, I wonder who put that idea in this reporter’s questioned mind?

LANTOS: I would be ready to get on a plane tomorrow morning, because however objectionable and, um…unfair and inaccurate many of Ahmadinejad’s statements are, it is important we have a dialogue with him.

RUSH: God!

LANTOS: So speaking for myself, I’m ready to go, and think the speaker, I think she might be.

RUSH: This is frightening. This is the entire culture of appeasement, knowing full-well — This is a Holocaust survivor, by the way, Tom Lantos — the anti-Semitism of Ahmadinajad. You know, all Ahmadinejad would have to do is go lie to these people. They’re going over there and they’re hoping to hear, “No, no, no, no! I didn’t say that! I didn’t mean that. We want peace with the West,” and then they’ll come back and say, “We want peace and they want peace,” and say, “We can have peace! Elect Democrats.” They will believe any lie told to them by a dictator and even after the dictator proves he’s been lying they will still trust the first lie, and say, “We worked with this man. We understand this guy! We reached him.” I know these people, folks, better than anybody out there does — and they are dangerous, and I’m not talking about Ahmadinejad, because we know what he is. The Democrats are dangerous in their naïveté, and this is nothing new. They have been this way for countless decades. Pelosi finally added this.

PELOSI: A person of Mr. Lantos’ stature and personal experience, is saying that I as a Holocaust survivor and even recognizing the outrageous statements of the president of Iran, I think it’s important to have dialogue. I think that speaks volumes about the importance of dialogue.

RUSH: Cliché after cliché after cliché. “Well, let’s have dialogue.” Are there any recent news stories, folks, where “dialogue” is solving the problem? (Laughing.) Is there one? Can you give me an example of any recent success by dialogue? Is there something big in the news lately where dialogue’s helping? It’s important. It’s the importance of dialogue, that’s it! We gotta be talking, because the theory is if we’re talking, nobody can do anything. Nobody will take any action, if we’re talking. Except if you’re doing the talking and you’re being duped! (sigh) They’re being set up. I know, “Why don’t a significant number of Americans see this?” We’re working on it, folks. They won’t go to the White House. They won’t go to the White House and talk. They will not appear on the Fox News Channel. They will not appear on the Fox News Channel and talk. They won’t have “dialogue” with Fox reporters. They will not have “dialogue” with the president, but they can’t wait to go meet with a murderous thug, Islamofascist, state sponsor of terrorists and terrorism, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad!

That’s your Democrats today — and, you know what? The vast majority of Democrats support them in this. They hate Bush, you gotta understand. Bush is the enemy! Bush is even being blamed now for the Imus flap. Yes! Our old buddy Jonathan Alter last night on MSNBC said it’s Bush’s problem! Bush has set the climate here! It’s Bush. Yeah, I kid you not. I’ve got the sound bite but I’m not going to play it because I’m tired of talking about that but I just wanted to pass it on. It’s Bush’s fault. They hate Bush. They hate Fox News. They hate all of us! They’ll be glad to go talk to Bashar Assad and they’ll talk to Ahmadinejad. They’ll talk to whoever. They will not appear on Fox and they will not go to the White House to speak to the president after he has sent them an invitation. Let me ask you this. If Ahmadinejad said, “Hey, Speaker of State Pelosi, come on over. Now, don’t expect me to change anything in my attitude. I’m not going to change my attitude about Israel. I’m not going to change my attitude about our nuke program, but I’d love to talk to you,” you think she’d should go? Hell, yes, and you know why? Because it would make good photo-ops. It would make great press, and of course the Drive-Bys swoon over these clichés and meaningless pap phrases like, “It’s good to keep dialogue open.”

Ah, that’s such wonderful diplospeak! So if Ahmadinejad issued the same invitation and told them at the same time, “We got the same preconditions. We’re not gonna alter what we believe here. You’re not going to come over here and tell us that we’re not going to have the same attitude about Israel, and you’re not gonna talk us out of our nuke program,” she’d still go, and Lantos would still go. I have a better place for Pelosi to go. The Speaker of State is threatening to go off to Iran on what she cleverly calls “a fact-finding trip,” but I’ve got a better idea for this woman. The most useful fact-finding trip that the Speaker of State could go on would be a fact-finding trip to the IRS, the Internal Revenue Service. Check out the facts over there. How much more tax revenue is flooding in thanks to the tax cuts that you want to change? In fact, they weren’t tax cuts at all. They are just rate reductions! Go over to the IRS! Since you will not go to my website to see the facts, go over to the IRS, Speaker of State Pelosi, and you ask ’em about the enhanced revenue that’s pouring in that nobody — quote, unquote, “nobody” — expected.” These were not tax cuts. These were tax rate reductions.


RUSH: I’m still sitting here blowing my mind over the contradictory, incoherent statements of Nancy Pelosi and Tom Lantos. I can’t let this go. Let’s review this again. Lantos says, “We are establishing an alternative, Democrat foreign policy. That’s why we went to Syria.” Pelosi says (paraphrased), “We stopped at the water’s edge. We did not take a different message. We presented a unity position to President Assad the same as the president’s.” Then when asked about the comment from Cheney that she engaged in “bad behavior,” she said, “Well, you know, that is just indication of the poverty of ideas this administration has when it comes to peace in the region.” Well, this is completely incoherent! A “poverty of ideas” that she said she agrees with and talked to Assad about while Lantos assured everybody the Democrats are doing their own “alternative foreign policy.” Now, here’s the question. If Nancy Pelosi is giving Bashar Assad the same message as the president, then why go at all? What’s the reason? Why do you have to go, if you’re just going to relay what the president has been saying?

But the hypocrisy and the confusion, ladies and gentlemen, are even deeper. They claim they have a constitutional right to influence foreign policy, and then they downplay whether they are, in fact, influencing foreign policy, except for Lantos, but Pelosi’s all over the board on this. “No, we took the president’s message. There’s a poverty of ideas about peace in the region here.” So the hypocrisy and the confusion and the incoherence, that’s something, but it’s even deeper because all the while they’re claiming they have a constitutional right to influence foreign policy, which they don’t. Now, what’s happening here, folks? Pelosi is a figure that many of us can look at and laugh at. She does appear to be buffoonish, but I’ll tell you this is devious and it is dangerous and it is typical of Democrats. They have done this before. They did it in the eighties. They did it in the Vietnam War. This is who they are, undermining the foreign policy of the United States when they are not constitutionally empowered to conduct affairs in this manner.

They went over there pure and simple… I’m going to tell you what this was. Pelosi and Lantos went over to Syria for one purpose, and that was to undermine United States foreign policy. That’s why they went, and that is what they did, and now they are responding to criticism by claiming they really went over there to celebrate all the religious holidays, to carry the president’s message and so forth. But she is lying about it, and Lantos let the cat out of the bag because he admitted that they were there establishing an alternative Democrat foreign policy, which means he admits that the Democrats are attempting to undermine established US foreign policy. Now, here’s what we need, folks. We need an investigation. We need a public hearing. I’m not a fool here. I know that there’s not one Republican who is going to call for this, but I don’t care. I’m just telling you this is what we need. We need an investigation, a public hearing, to determine exactly what these freelancing members of Congress did in the Middle East and what they said and to whom they said it.

We need some accountability here. We have it with state department officials when they go overseas. There is accountability. They have to go up to the Congress and testify as to what happened. Condoleezza Rice has to go up there periodically. The CIA director has to come up. Other administration officials have to go to Congress time and time again and report what’s going on and what they’re doing. It’s called “oversight.” They’re required in the state department to account for their missions. Does the Joe Wilson story ring any bells here? Now, when Pelosi and Lantos and the others in her traveling party conduct themselves in other-than-appropriate ways by undertaking diplomatic efforts like this, fact-finding or otherwise, whatever it is, we need to know what occurred. Where are the transcripts of her talk with Assad? Now, again, I’m under no illusions here. Democrats are not going to demand an inquiry and the media is not going to demand an inquiry, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t demand one, and it doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be one.

I sit here and I read every day where Henry Waxman is firing off letters demanding e-mails from some other Republican or Republican agency, and I sit here and smoke starts coming out of both of my ears. It’s time for these people to be put under the gun. You know, Democrats are angry all the time. They’re outraged all the time, and I think (I’m getting more and more comfortable here psychoanalyzing these people) anger on the Democrat side has become a virtue. I think anger is one of the links that has all these Democrats tied together, from the blogs to the elected officials, to voters. Their anger and their outrage — which, remember, last year at this time, I’m suggesting it’s what was going to doom them, because most people do not want to put up with it. They don’t want to hear doom and gloom and anger and rage. It’s not infectious. It’s not inspiring. I don’t know if I was wrong about that yet or not. The jury’s still out on the American public’s reaction to it in toto, because I think the Republicans did more to defeat themselves than the Democrats did to win last November.

Nevertheless, the fact is this rage and this anger that they exhibit, has become virtuous. It’s almost become a mating call from one Democrat to another — and that’s how they send out the signal that they’re on the same team, and it’s about how they’re propagating issues and ideas and so forth. It’s anger and it’s rage, and it’s become virtuous, and of course Republicans are not angry. They never act mad about anything! The Democrats are angry 24/7. Pick a name. Pick a Democrat. They’re always mad. Even Dingy Harry is mad all the time! Tom Daschle was mad. He was “concerned,” all the time. Pelosi’s mad all the time. Ted Kennedy’s mad all the time. The blogs? They go beyond mad. They are insane! A lot of nighttime cable network commentators are insane. They’re not just mad. They’re enraged, insane. They have lost their minds — and as such they’re attracting like-minded sickos, but that rage propels them. Henry Waxman’s mad, and Henry Waxman continues to try to do anything he can to destroy — and that’s politics. The Republicans on the other hand have no such rage. I’m not suggesting they get enraged. I’m just drawing differences here, although I think there’s plenty of stuff where if I were a Republican on Capitol Hill, I would be livid what Waxman is doing.

I’d stand up and I’d go before cameras and microphones and I would say so, but (sigh) you’ve gotta have guts to do that, and I guess it’s in short supply. Regardless, it’s time to put these people under the gun, the Pelosis, the Lantoses and so forth, because they’re getting away with not only incoherence, they’re undermining US foreign policy, and they’re not being made to account for it. They’re offering no facts, no details of their meetings. They’re papering it over with all of this cliché mumbo jumbo, all this New Age jive that people swoon over. “Awwwe, they’re talking! They’re having dialogue,” but their statements about what they were doing and what they did are incoherent and using famous Democrat strategy, philosophy. Why, those statements are so incoherent, what they’re doing is so incoherent, it makes no sense. That requires an investigation, because the seriousness of the charge is, of course, more relevant than the nature of the evidence — and in this case we got plenty of nature of evidence. We got people lying. Lantos, Pelosi, somebody! You roll the dice, it’ll come up all of them are because they’re lib Democrats.

April 11, 2007 , 11:59PM Posted by | American History, Democrats, Hamas, Hezballah, Iran, Islam, Logan Act, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Muslims, Nancy Pelosi, Syria, Terrorism, Tom Lantos | 1 Comment

Modern Men of Valor – Alpha Company Heroes

I found this story via Matt Burden at the military blog Blackfive: DC Marines to the Rescue

These are the kinds of stories that should be told everyday, across the world, let alone the nation, to show what kind of honorable, valorous and kindhearted men (and women) serve in the United States military, and specifically in the United States Marine Corps.

These two men, especially, represent the best our country, the United States of America, has to offer. It is because of men such as yourselves that I am proud to call myself an American. Bravo and Semper Fi.

Via Pam at Iraq War News: Marines to the Rescue!

By Cpl. Earnest J. Barnes, Marine Barracks 8th & I

MARINE BARRACKS WASHINGTON (March 28, 2007) — What if you were given the opportunity to help a complete stranger who had been seriously injured? Would you just walk away or would you take immediate action to help save the person?

Two infantrymen from Alpha Company were faced with situation when they saw a male in his mid-twenties who was about to be assaulted in the late evening of Feb. 24.

Lance Corporals Jared Bolhuis and David Trester were on their way to watch a movie in Washington, D.C.’s Chinatown. They had just departed the subway when they heard a disturbance at the top of the escalator. As the two Marines reached street level, they found the man surrounded by a group of 15 young skateboarders.

“There was a young guy, nicely dressed like he was going out. He was squared off with a skateboarder that looked like he was about 18 years-old. The skateboarder’s friends surrounded the two of them and everyone on the streets was watching this build up,” said Bolhuis, a Zeeland, Mich. Native. “Before I knew it, one of the older skateboarders came from behind and blindsided this guy with a punch right in the temple, knocking him out cold.”

As soon as the victim was hit, the leathernecks rushed to his aid. As the Marines with their high and tight hair cuts approached the victim, the gang of skateboarders quickly dispersed into the crowd.

“Right away, I applied my terrorism awareness training and tried to gain proper identification on as many of those who were involved,” Bolhuis added.

As the suspects were fleeing the scene, Bolhuis called for the police. Pedestrian after pedestrian passed by the victim, while some even trying to step over him. Resilient in their efforts to help the man, Bolhuis and Trester kept the crowd away from the victim to allow breathing room and to assess the extent of his injuries.

The man was laying stomach down, bleeding from the mouth. The Marines saw broken teeth on the ground and it appeared the victim may have suffered trauma to the neck after the fall.

Go read it all.

April 11, 2007 , 11:46AM Posted by | American History, Honor, Military, Terrorism, US Marines | Comments Off on Modern Men of Valor – Alpha Company Heroes

Imus is Not the Real Bad Guy

Thank you Jason Whitlock! You have expressed everything that has been going through my mind throughout this whole ridiculous “controversy” the last few days. We need more people such as you and Bill Cosby to step forward and lead the way for Blacks, instead of the hypocritical, bigoted race-baiters Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

Kudos to you, Mr. Whitlock: Imus Isn’t the Real Bad Guy

Instead of wasting time on irrelevant shock jock, black leaders need to be fighting a growing gangster culture.

Thank you, Don Imus. You’ve given us (black people) an excuse to avoid our real problem.

You’ve given Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson another opportunity to pretend that the old fight, which is now the safe and lucrative fight, is still the most important fight in our push for true economic and social equality.

You’ve given Vivian Stringer and Rutgers the chance to hold a nationally televised recruiting celebration expertly disguised as a news conference to respond to your poor attempt at humor.

Thank you, Don Imus. You extended Black History Month to April, and we can once again wallow in victimhood, protest like it’s 1965 and delude ourselves into believing that fixing your hatred is more necessary than eradicating our self-hatred.

The bigots win again.

While we’re fixated on a bad joke cracked by an irrelevant, bad shock jock, I’m sure at least one of the marvelous young women on the Rutgers basketball team is somewhere snapping her fingers to the beat of 50 Cent’s or Snoop Dogg’s or Young Jeezy’s latest ode glorifying nappy-headed pimps and hos.

I ain’t saying Jesse, Al and Vivian are gold-diggas, but they don’t have the heart to mount a legitimate campaign against the real black-folk killas.

It is us. At this time, we are our own worst enemies. We have allowed our youths to buy into a culture (hip hop) that has been perverted, corrupted and overtaken by prison culture. The music, attitude and behavior expressed in this culture is anti-black, anti-education, demeaning, self-destructive, pro-drug dealing and violent.

Rather than confront this heinous enemy from within, we sit back and wait for someone like Imus to have a slip of the tongue and make the mistake of repeating the things we say about ourselves.

It’s embarrassing. Dave Chappelle was offered $50 million to make racially insensitive jokes about black and white people on TV. He was hailed as a genius. Black comedians routinely crack jokes about white and black people, and we all laugh out loud.

I’m no Don Imus apologist. He and his tiny companion Mike Lupica blasted me after I fell out with ESPN. Imus is a hack.

But, in my view, he didn’t do anything outside the norm for shock jocks and comedians. He also offered an apology. That should’ve been the end of this whole affair. Instead, it’s only the beginning. It’s an opportunity for Stringer, Jackson and Sharpton to step on victim platforms and elevate themselves and their agenda$.

I watched the Rutgers news conference and was ashamed.

Martin Luther King Jr. spoke for eight minutes in 1963 at the March on Washington. At the time, black people could be lynched and denied fundamental rights with little thought. With the comments of a talk-show host most of her players had never heard of before last week serving as her excuse, Vivian Stringer rambled on for 30 minutes about the amazing season her team had.

Somehow, we’re supposed to believe that the comments of a man with virtually no connection to the sports world ruined Rutgers’ wonderful season. Had a broadcaster with credibility and a platform in the sports world uttered the words Imus did, I could understand a level of outrage.

But an hourlong press conference over a man who has already apologized, already been suspended and is already insignificant is just plain intellectually dishonest. This is opportunism. This is a distraction.

In the grand scheme, Don Imus is no threat to us in general and no threat to black women in particular. If his words are so powerful and so destructive and must be rebuked so forcefully, then what should we do about the idiot rappers on BET, MTV and every black-owned radio station in the country who use words much more powerful and much more destructive?

I don’t listen or watch Imus’ show regularly. Has he at any point glorified selling crack cocaine to black women? Has he celebrated black men shooting each other randomly? Has he suggested in any way that it’s cool to be a baby-daddy rather than a husband and a parent? Does he tell his listeners that they’re suckers for pursuing education and that they’re selling out their race if they do?

When Imus does any of that, call me and I’ll get upset. Until then, he is what he is — a washed-up shock jock who is very easy to ignore when you’re not looking to be made a victim.

No. We all know where the real battleground is. We know that the gangsta rappers and their followers in the athletic world have far bigger platforms to negatively define us than some old white man with a bad radio show. There’s no money and lots of danger in that battle, so Jesse and Al are going to sit it out.

To reach Jason Whitlock, call (816) 234-4869 or send e-mail to For previous columns, go to

© 2007 Kansas City Star and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.

April 11, 2007 , 11:26AM Posted by | Al Sharpton, Bill Cosby, Democrats, Jason Whitlock, Jesse Jackson, Liberalism, Media Bias, Racism | Comments Off on Imus is Not the Real Bad Guy

America’s Army is Broken?

The media and liberal blogs are doing their usual anti-military, anti-President Bush, anti-war effort spin on this story. But the fact is, this is not about politics or partisan ideology, this is about what is best for the military to win the war effort and fight it most effectively. When I want to find out what is best for the military, I do not go to the ignorant media journalists to ask their ignorant, biased opinions, I go to the MilBlogs to find out from those who know. Here are a few military members whose opinions, insight and analysis should matter more than the propaganda hit pieces put out by the media.

American Thinker – Response to America’s Broken Down Media

I wanted to forward my thoughts to Ray Robinson regarding his article “America’s Broken-Down Media”

I am honorably discharged, Army veteran. I served with the 3rd ID as an 11X Infantryman during two combat tours in Iraq including the invasion. The dishonesty that the left writes with really bothers me and serves to undermine everybody that has ever served in combat.

I hope the writer of the original Time article understands that he is denigrating and discounting the leadership provided by the NCO’s and Officers that a privileged to lead young soldiers into combat. I survived combat and earned my Sgt’s stripes by following the example of my leaders. Sometimes things happen that are beyond the control of anybody in the chain of command. In the case of PVT Zeimer the only person the left can blame is the President because “if he wasn’t there to begin with this wouldn’t have happened”.

Thanks for having folks like Mr. Robinson on point. It’s amazing what one little “blogger” can do to make an establishment of the American media bedrock such as Time look like a clownish rag straight of the DNC presses.

Brian Marshall

PS: Here’s snippet of a letter that I wrote to my father (a retired history and political science teacher of 32 years) regarding this.

Thought you might be interested in this perspective. There’s a story from Time magazine floating around that describes a soldier that was killed in Iraq after only a few days in the country and they point to is lack of training as a cause for his death. Aside from being absurd the story is also very misleading.

People who don’t know anything about the military and military job specialty training will be led to believe that this kid was put through some grinder and sent to the front lines. I had even less training than this soldier when I went over for the first time. The fact is that there wouldn’t be any privates in the military if every deploying soldier was required to through all of the training offered by the Army. By the time they go done with the training cycle they’d all be Specialist/E4’s!

There’s a reason why the Army has experienced NCO’s. Leadership!! As long as the soldier knows how to use his equipment and follow orders he’ll be fine with good leadership. From the sound of this story it doesn’t sound like there’s a whole lot that could have been done to prevent this. Even if a seasoned Special Forces soldier had been there the same bombs would have killed him. I witnessed what happened to a SF team when they rolled over a bomb on the same route I was on earlier that morning! My Company 1st Sgt. was killed in Iraq and he had 22 years in the Army! Training is critical to success but it can only go so far. wish every guy going over could get a year and a half of combat oriented training but that’s not possible. Check out the source story and a good followup that I found today.

Ray Robison – America’s Broken Down Media

According to Mark Thompson, writer for TIME magazine, America’s army is broken. While it can not be argued that the military can possibly maintain the same state of readiness in war time as it does in peace time, broken has a certain specific ring to it: incapable, demoralized and poorly trained.

Mr. Thompson begins the article, – featured on the Drudge Report – with the story of Private Matthew Zeimer. Brave PVT Zeimer died within hours of his arrival at a Forward Operating Base in Iraq. Thompson describes PVT Zeimer’s training before going on to make the case that the surge cut the young Private’s training short. In Mr. Thompson’s recounting of PVT Zeimer’s tale, he essentially was killed because he had insufficient training.

If Zeimer’s combat career was brief, so was his training. He enlisted last June at age 17, three weeks after graduating from Dawson County High School in eastern Montana. After finishing nine weeks of basic training and additional preparation in infantry tactics in Oklahoma, he arrived at Fort Stewart, Ga., in early December. But Zeimer had missed the intense four-week pre-Iraq training—a taste of what troops will face in combat—that his 1st Brigade comrades got at their home post in October. Instead, Zeimer and about 140 other members of the 4,000-strong brigade got a cut-rate, 10-day course on weapon use, first aid and Iraqi culture. That’s the same length as the course that teaches soldiers assigned to generals’ household staffs the finer points of table service.

Mr. Thompson finds confirmation from Congressman Murtha:

The truncated training — the rush to get underprepared troops to the war zone — “is absolutely unacceptable,” says Representative John Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat and opponent of the war who chairs the House Appropriations defense subcommittee. A decorated Marine veteran of Vietnam, Murtha is experiencing a sense of déjà vu. “The readiness of the Army’s ground forces is as bad as it was right after Vietnam,”

Sounds like a pretty solid case doesn’t it? But something just didn’t sit right with me. I immediately knew this wasn’t the full story. So I used a journalistic research tool, possibly unavailable to TIME, called Google.

You see, this article makes the brave young Matthew Zeimer sound like an infantry soldier. Infantry soldiers go to the Infantry Training Brigade for 14 weeks of intense training after completing basic training. How can it be he didn’t go? Is the army so bad off infantry soldiers don’t go to Advanced Infantry Training anymore?

In my research, I found this article Soldier’s last days at home memorable at the Billings Gazette. The article tells the story of the brave Private’s short military career as told by his family and friends.

Matthew had come home on leave Nov. 8, after more than five months of basic training

Five months of basic training? What this article means is that he did nine weeks of Basic Training, which every soldier does, and then went for three more months of Advanced Individual Training in which a soldier trains on their MOS (Military Occupational Skill). explains the process well:

Individuals who enlist under the 13X Infantry option attend Field Artillery OSUT (One Station Unit Training), which combines Army Basic Training and Field Artillery AIT (Advanced Individual Training), all in one course.

But most civilians just think of it all as basic training. The point being, this is three more months of a 24 hour a day resident course, tough as nails training that Mr. Thompson has neglected to mention. Three months is a significant amount of training.

And it doesn’t stop there. According to the Billings Gazette:

Staff Sgt. Thad Rule, with the U.S. Army Recruiting Office in Glendive, said Matt joined the Future Soldier Program at the start of his senior year of high school, shortly after he turned 17. He spent nearly 10 months learning some of the basics about the Army, preparing him for his training.

Rule said Matt “wanted to do a combat job” and couldn’t wait to join the Army. To speed things up, he opted to undergo artillery support training rather than going into the infantry, a move that got him into the Army a month earlier.

Not only did PVT Zeimer do three more months of training than Thompson lets on, he spent ten months of training before he even went in the army. While this certainly does not equate to training in an active duty setting, it is a training opportunity that most soldiers don’t get. In real terms, this brave young man was ahead of the training that a typical artillery junior enlisted soldier received when I was an artillery officer in the mid-90s under President Clinton.

Former Spook – It’s Still the Force Structure, Stupid

Interestingly, the Savannah Morning News account describes the missed training as a “dress rehearsal,” and not a formal training course, as Mr. Thompson implies. There is a difference. A formal training program is one that is organized, manned and equipped for a specific purpose, such as basic training or advanced infantry tactics. Completion of these courses are requisites for entering more advanced training, or serving in a combat unit. A “dress rehearsal” (like the one staged by the 3rd ID) is conducted in-house, using personnel, resources and equipment that are normally devoted for other purposes. This type of training is designed for a single purpose — in this case, getting ready for an Iraq deployment — and more importantly, completion of the dress rehearsal was apparently not a requirement for serving in combat. If it had been, the “untrained” personnel would have remained behind at Fort Stewart.

Greyhawk also uncovered this story from Army Times, profiling the soldier who died with Private Zeimer. Specialist Alan McPeek was just days away from completing a 14-month tour in Iraq when the attack occurred. He was teaching Zeimer how to respond to incoming fire when they were killed in action. The veteran training the rookie; it’s a scenario as old as warfare itself.

One final thought on this non-scandal: in the past, the U.S. has sent troops into battle with far less training and rehearsal than Private Zeimer received. During the Battle of the Bulge in World War II, the sudden German counter-attack decimated U.S. tank units (and crews), necessitating a stop-gap replacement program. As outlined in Belton Cooper’s book “Death Traps,” the Army’s solution was to take infantry replacements, just off the boat in Antwerp — and with no prior armor experience — train them on the M-4 Sherman, and send them into combat with only four hours of preparation.

Now that’s what I call an inadequate training program.

Greyhawk at MilBlogs – Training

James Joyner at Outside the Beltway – Untrained Soldier Killed in Iraq?

So, this E&P “EXCLUSIVE” is actually a two-month-old story from a local newspaper. More importantly, the idea that soldiers customarily get a month-long “rehearsal” before deployments and that failure to do so means they’re “untrained” displays a woeful understanding on the military.

Soldiers rotate in and out of units on a constant basis. New soldiers join the program already in progress and their leaders get them up to speed as soon as possible. Young Zeimer had “a few weeks” with his unit at Fort Stewart before deploying to Iraq, which is more than many get.

Units tend to be manned below their authorized strength, for a variety of reasons. When they get deployment orders, it is usual for them to quickly get new soldiers and equipment to get them up to warfighting form. During Desert Storm, several new junior enlisted soldiers and NCOs joined our unit while we were staging in Saudi Arabia, some a few days before the ground war got underway. In Vietnam, Korea, and World War II, green recruits constantly joined units in the midst of combat. That’s how the Army works.

Very little public information is available on Private Zeimer’s death, so we have no way of knowing whether additional training would have helped. Most of the time, though, blue-on-blue incidents are just the fog of war. Training, even the most realistic, is still “just training.” Once the shooting starts for real, young men’s adrenaline gets pumping, they get jumpy, and they make mistakes. Constant training, especially unit training, cuts down those mistakes. It doesn’t eliminate them.

And here are some comments left at Greyhawk’s MilBlogs site:

You can’t learn anything useful about Iraq while stateside, I don’t care what the Army or the media seems to think. You can only learn by doing, and doing over there. For the first three months no one knows what the hell they’re doing. But by month 6 you feel like you were born there. You can see it in the eyes of the hardened vets you’re replacing when you do your standard right-seat rides with them to get familiarized with the mission. Those guys are so nonchalant it’s scary, especially when you’re a combat cherry and nervous as hell. But it doesn’t take long to get that same look in your own eyes. But it does take time, and you can’t shortcut around it.

It’s a truism in all wars: F-ing new guys get dead because F-ing new guys are dumb. They just come that way straight out of the box. Your job as a leader is to “un-F” your new guys as quickly as possible.

But running around in the Georgian woods for a month is not going to help. It’s the same as JRTC in Louisiana. Waste o’ time.

Posted by Buck Sargent at 2102Z

Concur. Training is essential, but the first weeks in country are the real deal.

My last few days in Iraq, our relacements were there. We were inside the wire, but something went boom in the distance for no apparent reason (probably just EOD doing their thing), but the only reason I noticed it was because they responded. Every face in the room was staring at me, eyes wide, kind of waiting for my lead. At first I honestly didn’t know why everyone was looking at me (it was actaully a weird moment), but then I realized on a conscious level that an explosion had just occurred and they we’re expecting me to uhhh, do something.

“You’ll get used to that.” I said.

The guy there before me could tell a similar story.

Posted by Greyhawk at 2256Z

“You can see it in the eyes of the hardened vets you’re replacing when you do your standard right-seat rides with them to get familiarized with the mission.”

Shift-click this.

I expect to see the same next month.

Posted by Greyhawk at 2303Z

April 11, 2007 , 1:06AM Posted by | American History, Anti-War Groups, Democrats, Leftist Groups, Liberalism, Media Bias, Military, Military History, US Army | Comments Off on America’s Army is Broken?