[Reposted — This is as true today as it was back when I originally posted this on another blog back in February of 2006.]
Please take the time to read this entire letter. I believe it is the best view of the current world situation I’ve read AND it is neither biased towards Conservatives or Liberals. Those who take the time to read it to the end, no matter what their political views, will come out with a better understanding of what our country has gone through and what it is going through today.
THE WORLD SITUATION: A LETTER TO MY SONS
This was written by a retired attorney, to his sons, May 19, 2004.
Dear Tom, Kevin, Kirby and Ted,
As your father, I believe I owe it to you to share some thoughts on the present world situation. We have over the years discussed a lot of important things, like going to college, jobs and so forth. But this really takes precedence over any of those discussions. I hope this might give you a longer term perspective that fewer and fewer of my generation are left to speak to.
To be sure you understand that this is not politically flavored, I will tell you that since Franklin D. Roosevelt, who led us through pre and WWII (1933 – 1945) up to and including our present President, I have without exception, supported our presidents on all matters of international conflict. This would include just naming a few in addition to President Roosevelt – WWII: President Truman – Korean War 1950; President Kennedy -Bay of Pigs (1961); President Kennedy – Vietnam (1961);  eight presidents (5 Republican & 4 Democrat) during the cold war (1945 – 1991); President Clinton’s strikes on Bosnia (1995) and on Iraq (1998).  So be sure you read this as completely non-political or otherwise you will miss the point.
Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII). The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.
First, let’s examine a few basics:
1. When did the threat to us start? Many will say September 11th, 2001. The answer as far as the United States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us:
Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;
New York World Trade Center 2001;
(Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide).
2. Why were we attacked? Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We can not fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no pro vocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.
3. Who were the attackers? In each case of attacks on US they were Muslims.
4. What is the Muslim population of the World? 25 percent
5. Isn’t the Muslim Religion peaceful? Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the 6 million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world – German, Christian or any others.
Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way – their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else. 
The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing — by their own pronouncements — killing all of us infidels. I don’t blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?
6. So who are we at war with? There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don’t clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.
So with that background, now to the two major questions:
1. Can we lose this war?
2. What does losing really mean?
If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions. We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question – ‘What does losing mean?’ It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get.
What losing really means is: We would no longer be the premier country in the world.
The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly to terrorist attack us until we were neutered and submissive to them.
We would of course have no future support from other nations for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see we are impotent and can not help them. They will pick off the other non Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn’t matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do, will be done. Spain is finished.
The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don’t win, they are finished too, in that they can’t resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast. See the attached article on the French.
If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us if they were threatened by the Muslims. If we can’t stop the Muslims, how could anyone else? The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war and therefore are completely committed to winning at any cost. We better know it, too, and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.
Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.
So, how can we lose the war? Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by imploding. That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort.
If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win.
Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don’t comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation. President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously?
This is war. For the duration we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.
And don’t worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then.
Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him? No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.
Some of us have gone so far out in our criticism of the war and/or our Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn’t because they are disloyal. It is because they just don’t recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening, it concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.
Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media, regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war by a small group of our military police. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein. And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type enemy fighters who recently were burning Americans and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq. And still more recently the same type enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of an American prisoner they held.
Compare this with some of our press and politicians who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the “humiliating” of some Muslim prisoners – not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but “humiliating” them. Can this be for real? The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense.
If this doesn’t show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can. To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned – totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife.
Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us for many years. Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels. That translates into all non-Muslims – not just in the United States, but throughout the world.
We are the last bastion of defense. We have been criticized for many years as being ‘arrogant’. That charge is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world. We can’t. If we don’t recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the World will survive if we are defeated.
And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the Press, equal rights for anyone – let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the World.
This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read. If we don’t win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn’t that sound eerily familiar?
Democracies don’t have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece. And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power. They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the “peaceful Muslims”?
I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I believe that after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about. Do whatever you can to preserve it.
Ah, but hey, there’s nothing to see here. No ‘holy war’ going on. No jihad going on here in America. Nah. As the State Department says, no more calling it jihad, since none of this has nothing to do with Islam. Nope. Just move along folks and continue to bury your heads in the sand as Islamic jihadis plot holy war from within America: 3 in Ohio guilty of plot against US troops in Iraq
CLEVELAND – Three Ohio men were convicted Friday of plotting to recruit and train terrorists to kill American soldiers in Iraq, a case put together with help from a former soldier who posed as a radical bent on violence.
Mohammad Amawi, 28, Marwan El-Hindi, 45, and Wassim Mazloum, 27, face maximum sentences of life in prison. Prosecutors said the men were learning to shoot guns and make explosives while raising money to fund their plans to wage a holy war against U.S. troops.
The federal jury in Toledo returned its verdict after three days of deliberations. U.S. District Judge James G. Carr did not set a sentencing date, said acting U.S. attorney Bill Edwards.
“Today’s verdicts should send a strong message to individuals who would use this country as a platform to plot attacks against U.S. military personnel in Iraq and elsewhere,” said Patrick Rowan, acting assistant attorney general for national security, in a written statement. “This case also underscores the need for continued vigilance in identifying and dismantling extremist plots that develop in America’s heartland.”
Messages seeking comment from defense attorneys were not immediately returned. At trial they claimed that the three defendants, who all lived in the Toledo area, were manipulated by the government’s star witness, Darren Griffin.
The undercover FBI informant and former Army Special Forces soldier recorded the men for about two years beginning in 2004 while they talked about training in explosives, guns, and sniper tactics. They often met in their homes and at a tiny storefront mosque where they prayed together.
Defense attorneys noted that Griffin was involved in all conversations the prosecution presented to the jury, and that there was no evidence of telephone conversations or e-mails dealing with the alleged plot among only the defendants.
Griffin won the trust of the men by posing as a former soldier who grew disenchanted with U.S. foreign policy who was now intent on violence against America. Prosecutors said even Griffin’s family had been under the impression that he had become a radical.
Griffin said most people at the mosque shunned him and that no one raised any threats until El-Hindi began talking about kidnapping Israeli soldiers. Amawi, Griffin said, asked him to help him train two recruits from Chicago for holy war.
According to one secret recording made by Griffin, Amawi said he was troubled by the loss of life in New York in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, but he quickly added: “Killing Americans in Iraq is OK.”
Griffin testified that he twice traveled to Jordan with Amawi and also taught Amawi and Mazloum how to shoot guns.
El-Hindi told Griffin, according to recordings heard in court, that he knew two cousins who were eager to receive “jihad training.” Griffin asked El-Hindi if he was recruiting for jihad. “Oh no, I just want to take these two,” El-Hindi answered, adding that he wanted to take care of them for their families.
The two Chicago-area cousins — Khaleel Ahmed of Chicago and Zubair A. Ahmed of suburban North Chicago — have pleaded not guilty to conspiring to kill American soldiers and face trial next year.
Amawi, El-Hindi and Mazloum were convicted of conspiring to kill or maim people outside the United States, including military personnel. Amawi and El-Hindi were convicted of distributing information regarding explosives to terrorists.
Defense attorneys said Griffin lied and manipulated the defendants by putting words in their mouths so that he could stay on the government payroll.
Attorneys for the men also questioned how the three men could have been involved in a conspiracy when they never practiced shooting guns together or watched training videos together.
Griffin testified that the three gathered in the same place just once during the two years he investigated them. He also said that he never saw e-mails from the men that talked about plotting to kill soldiers.
Amawi and El-Hindi are U.S. citizens, and Mazloum came to the U.S. legally from Lebanon. El-Hindi was born in Jordan, and Amawi was born in the U.S. but also has Jordanian citizenship.
They had blended easily into the city’s thriving Muslim community.
Mazloum was a college student who helped his brother run a used-car lot. Amawi once worked at a bakery. And El-Hindi was a married father of seven.
All had moved to the Toledo area only in recent years. Still, the arrests stunned the city’s Arab-American community, which has been rooted in the city for generations and produced actor Jamie Farr and entertainer Danny Thomas.
So, everyone, by now, has probably heard allllll about Scott McClellan, President Bush’s former Press Secretary, releasing a book which bashes President Bush. He is now the darling of the Left, the mass media and all the ignoramuses who think President Bush has mucked up the war effort in Iraq in one way or another (nevermind that it is the most successful war effort in history…).
However, you are probably not aware of another book released recently, which did not get the adoring, orgasmic coverage of the mass media: Douglas Feith’s War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism. For those of you who do not know who is Douglas Feith, he served as the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy from July 2001 until August 2005.
Now, whom do you think has more credible information when it comes to the details of the war effort: an incompetent Press Secretary who was fired (whose book was funded by Leftist, America-hater George Soros) or a respected former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. Well, unless you are suffering from BDS, you chose the latter.
The gentlemen at Power Line have been doing a great series of posts about this book, which, unlike the hit-job with nothing new to say by McClellan, has many revelations that should be of interest to anyone who has any true intellectual curiousity about the war effort. This would obviously not include anyone who rants about “Bush Lied! People Died!”, “No WMDs!”, “War for Oil!” and “Bush had no plan for post invasion!” Those are people who choose to form opinions based on their biased emotions instead of opening their minds and using their logic.
For the rest of us though, this is an amazing opportunity to get an idea of what went on at the highest levels of our goverment “at the dawm of the war on terrorism”.
So I hope you will all stop reading about the disgruntled putz McClellan and spend your time reading about this book by Douglas Feith. Hopefully these discussions at Power Line will also intrigue you enough to purchase the book and learn all the details provided by Mr. Feith. I know it is already on my Amazon Wish List.
Also, if pure interest in getting the facts about “the dawn of the war on terrorism” does not convince you to purchase the book, you should know that Mr. Feith is donating all proceeds from the book to charities which help military veterans and their families. (Probably another reason why the mass media and the Left have downplayed and slammed this book.)
We invited Mr. Feith to preview the book in his own words for our readers. He has graciously responded:
I’ve been doing many interviews about my book in recent days – and I’ve heard from many journalists and others that the book surprises them. It tells a story that contradicts key parts of almost all the major books about the Iraq war.
For example, it refutes the notion that President Bush came into office determined to go to war no matter what – that the administration refused or failed to consider the arguments against war. In fact, as my book reveals, the most serious analysis of the downsides and risks of war was produced in the Pentagon by Rumsfeld and his top advisers – not by Colin Powell, Rich Armitage, George Tenet or other officials who are reputed to have been the voices of caution.
My book contradicts the common allegation that Pentagon civilians did not plan for post-Saddam Iraq. It explains what is wrong with the charge that the State Department had a plan that Defense officials discarded. It explains what is wrong with the charge that Rumsfeld and his advisers were dupes of the Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi – and what is wrong with the assertion that we intended to “anoint Chalabi” as the leader of Iraq.
My book quotes extensively from previously classified documents – from numerous memos that were exchanged among Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, Tenet, General Myers, VP Cheney and the President. It recounts numerous meetings ? and it does so, not on the basis of after-the-fact interviews in which officials remember (or pretend to remember) years after the fact what occurred in those meetings, but on the basis of the notes I took while attending the meetings. In writing the book, I made the radical decision that words would be put in quotation marks only if they were actually spoken by the characters in my history at the very time and place described.
Among the main topics covered in the book are:
· The development of the strategy for the war on terrorism in the hours and days after 9/11 – a strategy that broke with US counter-terrorism policies of the previous decades – a strategy that aimed not simply to punish the perpetrators of 9/11, but (much more ambitiously) to prevent follow-on 9/11-scale attacks.
· For all the errors the administration has made and the terrible problems we have encountered in recent years, especially in Iraq, it is a notable achievement that we are six and half years past 9/11 and the United States has not been hit again as we were hit then. This owes something, I believe, to our strategy.
Another major topic covered in the book is the rationale for the Iraq war. I explain what the President and his top officials were concerned about – why Iraq was a problem made more urgent and more worrisome by 9/11 even though we did not believe that Saddam was responsible for the 9/11 attack itself.
The book reviews the issue of politicization of intelligence – and the accusations of manipulation of intelligence. It explains the actual controversy between my office and the CIA over the intelligence on the Iraq-al Qaida relationship. The actual controversy was not a clash in which Defense officials argued that there was an intimate Iraq-al Qaida relationship while CIA officials argued for a more sober assessment. Rather it was an argument about methodology and professionalism. It was about the criticism by Defense officials of the CIA’s politicization of its own intelligence.
And perhaps most newsworthy, the book explains for the first time anywhere the key postwar plan developed by the administration – the plan for political transition in post-Saddam Iraq. It was a plan developed in the Defense Department – and it aimed to prevent a prolonged US occupation of Iraq. It was a plan to put Iraqis in charge of their own government promptly after Saddam’s overthrow. It was a plan that built on our experience in Afghanistan, where the US overthrew the Taliban regime but did not establish a US occupation government. As I say in the book, it was a plan “which my office drafted, Powell and Armitage tried to delay, President Bush approved, Jay Garner began to implement, and L. Paul Bremer buried.”
Much of the latter part of the book deals with how this plan was undone and the harmful consequences that resulted.
While the book recounts controversies and debates, it does so in a way that I think is far more fascinating than the snide and shallow self-justification that is typical in memoirs of former officials. I refer in the book to the “I was surrounded by idiots school of memoir-writing.” I don’t like that school. I find it boring and bad history. While I was in the administration, I had many disagreements with other officials, but I generally thought that their arguments had important merits. When I disagreed, it was usually because I thought that an alternative strategy or policy had even more merit.
Throughout, I have tried to be critical of all the work I discuss in the book – that of other agencies, that of the Defense Department and that of my own office and myself. Washington Post reporters apparently assume that former officials’ memoirs are inevitably finger-pointing, blame-laying books. Some have asserted this about my book, but they did so without actually having read it. If they eventually do read it, they will find that they were wrong.
I’ve been pleased that writers who did read the book have written favorably about it ? for example: Bret Stephens in the Wall Street Journal, Lawrence Di Rita at NRO, and Frank Gaffney in the Washington Times.
I tried to make my book a useful, accurate account – as accurate as one man’s account can be. I care about accuracy. That is why I relied so heavily on the contemporaneous written record. That is why I provided footnotes and endnotes so extensively. The book is 530 pages long, with around 140 pages of notes and reproduced documents. And I want readers to pay attention to the notes – to read them. I’d be happy if they challenge me on my use and interpretation of the documents. I have created a website – War and Decision (5) ? where anyone can go and easily pull up the unclassified documents and articles and other material that I cite.
I was very pleased the other day when Professor Dan Byman joked at a talk I gave at Georgetown University that my website will strike fear in the hearts of professors across America. The idea of someone making it easy for people to check one’s footnotes ? a terrifying idea, he said, but he complimented it as the essence of scholarship.
I want to invite all of you to read my book and visit War and Decision to plunge into the actual record of the fateful decision of the Bush administration at the dawn of the war on terrorism.
It should be noted that in addition to the book’s contribution to history, the book is responsible for another contribution. Mr. Feith is donating all the proceeds from the book to charities that help veterans and their families.
First, here is a link to a great series at the military blog The Long War Journal about the political progress in Iraq that is not being reported by the mass media: Inside Iraqi Politics
“Inside Iraqi Politics” is a special series dedicated to examining political progress in Iraq, with a focus on issues that affect the country’s stability and the reconciliation between ethnic and religious sects. The product of more than a dozen interviews with American and Iraqi officials and months of research, the series presents a more comprehensive view of factors that slow progress beyond sectarian interest, including the rapid growth of the government, administrative inexperience, corruption, and the structure of the executive and legislative branches outlined in the Iraqi Constitution.
Part 1: Examining the Iraqi executive branch
The first installment overviews broad political goals and various influences on progress by the executive branch, including the design of the government under the Iraqi Constitution, Iraqi administrative experience, rapid growth, and corruption.
Part 2: A look at executive branch progress
The second installment examines the efforts by Iraq’s executive branch to improve services and achieve reconciliation, including an in-depth profile of the Iraqi Implementation and Follow-Up Committee for National Reconciliation and the Baghdad Services Committee, special bodies appointed by Prime Minister Maliki.
Part 3: Examining the Iraqi legislative branch
The third installment examines the structure and political composition of the Iraqi legislative branch, including a review of sectarian distribution and major political blocs within the Council of Representatives.
Part 4. A look at legislative progress: Reconciliation via wealth distribution
The fourth installment begins examination of legislative progress, specifically the status of key legislation that distributes the country’s wealth, including the 2008 budget and the oil law.
Part 5. A look at legislative progress: Sunnis’ and states’ rights
The fifth installment reviews further pieces of legislation considered important for stability and reconciliation: the Unified Retirement Law, de-Baathification reform, the General Amnesty Law, the referendum on Kirkuk, the Provincial Powers Act and the Provincial Elections Law.
Anti-Idiotarian Blogs covering the Iraq Testimony:
Michelle Malkin: Petraeus on the Hill; Dems can’t control Code Pinkos; Idiot Sen. Levin calls Petraeus “Admiral;” Update: Petraeus recommends 45-day pause on troop reductions in July; Update: Aggressive Levin heckles Petraeus, allows outside heckler to pile on; Update: Sen. Lieberman lashes back at “See no progress” Democrats; Update: Another McCain Shia/Sunni flub?; Update: Petraeus slides added
Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit: Petraeus Reports Great News From Iraq… Dems Stumble
Kevin Mooney at Newsbusters interview with Vets for Freedom’s Pete Hegseth: Vets for Freedom Hope to Impact Media and Political Class
Military Blogs covering the Iraq Testimony:
John Lilyea at This Ain’t Hell, But You Can See it From Here (Lots of pictures and FIVE YouTube video accounts of speeches and interviews): Vets for Freedom Rally for troops
Curt at Flopping Aces: Iraq Testimony On The Hill
Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive: National Heroes Tour- Vets on the Hill
Uncle Jimbo’s YouTube video coverage (8 minutes): National Heroes Tour- Vets on the Hill
Vets for Freedom brought 450+ of it’s Iraq and Afghanistam vets to DC to talk to their Congressional Reps and Senators. They are asking that our troops be allowed to win. John McCain and Lindsey Graham as well as about 10 other Congress people spoke as well as Dave Bellavia and Steve Russell.
Herschel Smith at The Captain’s Journal: Of Swine, Hyenas and Generals: The Petraeus Testimony
Deebow at Blackfive: My Dad Always Told me…
[ … ] For those that were in Civics class and not in Study Hall, you may remember that starting long about 1775, we declared our independence, fought a war, won it, and still had to form a government afterward. The fact that Nancy can pay zero attention to even our own history and can run her neck on and on about how the consecrated, hallowed ground in Iraq is unworthy of our sacrifice in the name of the freedom of others (something I thought the Dems were for) and not be dragged into the street and beaten is beyond me.
OK, minus the history lesson, the reason I am so pissed is because I was able to find Speaker Pelosi’s traitorous remarks without any real effort, but I had to work hard to find any good stories about General Petraeus and his testimony, or any story about Mike Monsoor today. Two men whose stories deserve to be seen and heard by as many Americans as possible.
Dadmanly: Vets on the Hill, Part I
Meanwhile, since they cannot debate the military issues on the facts and merits, the Left does what it always does and uses petty, immature personal attacks. No surprise: Now The Left Complains About The Number Of Medals Worn By Our Military Leaders
And of course anything to do with the military cannot be complete without an appearance from the Commie Pinko hags of CODE PINK.