CrispAds Blog Ads

Vacation Packages
Travel Flight Tickets
Insurance Liability Coverage
Finance Credit Bonds
Credit Debt Consolidation
Dartmouth College History
Stones Concert Dates
Sales Marketing Jobs
Health Education Job
Colorado Mortgage Broker
Search Now:

    Coming Soon

      Hit me with an email

Thursday, September 30, 2004

The Debate

I would have to say that on points, Kerry should be declared the winner of the debate. That said, I don't think that anybody did any harm to anyone else in the eyes of the "undecided voter". Let's talk about UVs for a second. I am obviously a political junkie that is very well informed on the campaign issues on a daily basis. People who are half as informed and motivated to understand the issues as I am cannot be undecided. I refuse to believe that there are actually people that consciously seek out an understanding of the candidates and their policy positions who did not decide who they liked before today. Therefore, by definition, these UVs are people that are only mildly interested in the campaign, the issues, and the electoral process. These morons are just as likely to watch the Yankee game or Seinfeld re-runs as watch the debate. I could barely stand to watch the thing after the first 20 minutes. It was a boring repetition back and forth between the two candidates with each of them saying the same canned lines over and over and over again. I sat through the first 70 minutes only because I felt obligated to do so and after that I put my daughter to bed. I'll wager that most of the UVs switched the channel in the first 30 minutes and never looked back.

In those first 30 minutes the President got his message out there effectively and drew the distinctions between his leadership and Kerry's shifting positions on the war and the implications that has on our troops, allies, the Iraqis, and the enemy. If you cannot understand or accept that fact, you are not going to vote for the President. The President was under attack the entire time and he definitely lost his cool in some of the split screen shots. I know people will try to compare this to Algore in 2000, but I don't think it was the same. Algore was being the know-it-all kid in class waving his arm in the air whispering, "pick me, pick me." The President was being savagely and unfairly attacked, and he was expressing a natural reaction to that. The topic of the debate, as it turned out, was to the President's disadvantage because it was essentially a 90 minute monday morning quarterbacking of his fight against Iraq and the terrorists. Most of the criticism was nitpicky and petty, but there was so much of it that it had a cumulative effect.

What now? I doubt the polls will react to the debate, although the libs will spin things as much as possible to have an effect. In the next debate, the President needs to regain the warmth and sense of humor that he naturally has and to stifle his reactions to attacks. Kerry had a great strategy for this, which was to look down and write while the President spoke. The President should try that next time.

Try not to get down watching the MSM for the next couple of days, they are itching to write the "Comeback Kid" story on Kerry no matter what. You will see this story in every MSM outlet, but keep talking to your friends and co-workers about how the President has kept us safe, how he respects the troops, how he is a strong and convicted leader, and that he is a humble man of faith.

Did I mention the Swift Vets have a new ad? Enjoy.


I have been in contact with some very heavy hitters on this issue, and I even spoke to a SEAL Team legend, Larry Bailey on the phone today. H/T Jen Anyway, I'm going to leave this issue at the top of the page for the rest of today. Duane at Forest for the Trees got instalanched as the volcano blogger and he put up a post to direct some of the traffic my way. Thanks. Will resume duties post debate with more of the biting commentary that my regulars (God bless you) have become accustomed to.

Froggy OUT

Wednesday, September 29, 2004

SEAL legal defense fund

I am in the preliminary stages of setting up a legal defense fund for the 7 SEALs from SEAL Team SEVEN that have been charged with aggravated assault during the capture of terrorists in Iraq. But I need some help.

1. I don't know the mechanism for setting something like this up. (a legal entity, bank account, etc.)

2. I don't know much about html code and how to make it very simple for people to donate by pay pal or credit card.

I am very confident that I can get Hugh Hewitt to link it up and address it on the radio once all the pieces are in place, and I know that my visitors would be supportive of the effort. Hat tip to Jen for the idea. Please see the following posts to familiarize yourself with the situation.




Either the Kerry campaign is staging the most elaborate pre debate rope-a-dope in the history of Presidential politics or the wheels have well and truly come off the wagon barreling down the hill and heading for a cliff. Algore has released a communique from the mental institution where he resides in an abandoned mine in the hills of Tennessee. This is a truly ominous development for Kerry. Algore has given some advice to Kerry on how to effectively debate the President. Is anyone on the planet LESS qualified to offer advice on this subject? This is coming from the guy who gave a speech on global warming in New York on one of the coldest days on record in the city. You can rest assured the moment that Algore comes out of his hole to lend his support to something, that thing will be powerfully and publicly repudiated within days of the announcement. Algore is so chronically out of step that during his campaign he seemed to recognize this weird confluence of his support for an issue and its utter failure to resonate. A large part of his apparent awkwardness can be attributed to his attempts to do the opposite of what he thought was right in a futile effort to reverse the polarity of his tragically flawed moral compass.

Kerry's interview on GMA this morning turned out to be another total abortion as his positions on Iraq continue to be so convoluted and illogical that even a Kerry supporter like Diane Sawyer was left totally perplexed. Kerry is so bad that even in a friendly interview situation like that he was forced to admonish Sawyer for twisting his words. Everybody who believes that Kerry windsurfs with carpenters in front of his island mansion raise your hand. Now slap yourself. There's nothing wrong with windsurfing, but this incessant blather about being a regular guy is absurd on its face. Billionaire kept men are not regular. He says that he is going to be himself during the debate. He'd better not! Being a condescending, northeastern, blue blood, liberal is not going to appeal to swing voters.

Tuesday, September 28, 2004

Chris Matthews is a crybaby

Hardly news to anyone who watches, which means hardly anyone, anyway. He had Bill Maher on tonite to commiserate about the dreadful situation with their candidate. They still won't give it up though, ever the optimist, Chris is hanging his hopes on some weird internal poll results. He said that 90% of respondents want to see Bush do something different in the next term, and spun that to postulate that "somebody could take advantage of that sentiment" or some hopeless drivel. Pathetic. I don't want to gloat or stop fighting, but I have to tell you watching Special Report with Brit Hume has become 60 minutes of bliss every night. The President looks confident with O'Reilly, and so much better than the Russert interview in the Spring. His natural self confidence and conviction will shine through in the debate, and Kerry's pompous, condescending droll will do the same. Issues are irrelevant at this point, and personality traits that help America to buck up during hard times are invaluable. Kerry's Ooompa Looompa spray on tan job is just another reason to mock this metrosexual loser. His candidacy has become a long SNL sketch of Chevy Chase doing Gerald Ford. He comes off as such a phony, hapless ass that you just can't help but dislike him. He's like the rich high school kid in all the John Hughes 80s movies that you spend the whole film hating in anticipation of his final comeuppance in the end.

Monday, September 27, 2004

Why Iraq?

Kudos to Phil for rogering up. I almost don't want to respond to you though because it feels like throwing pearls before swine (sorry for calling you swine, its a bible thing). People with your viewpoint are essentially unreachable to people with my viewpoint, but here it goes.

1) The conflict: As I said before, we have had this problem since 1979 in its current incarnation. Remember all the Delta Force movies with Chuck Norris in the 1980s? Those guys were islamic terrorists he was beating up. We are engaged in the middle east because our economy depends on oil. That is no secret and it is not likely to change any time soon. They hate us because they live in a primitive, racist, sexist, misogynist culture, and we don't. They hate us because their religious leaders have successfully promoted the idea that in lieu of converting infidels they should be killed particularly when infidel interests and culture intersect with their own. There you have it. We need to have oil, they need to remain primitive and barbaric. Yes, Phil this is a simplified version of a very nuanced situation, but us neanderthals don't do nuance too well, nor are we overly concerned about what is essentially water under the bridge. The battle has been joined.

2) Iraq: We sold Saddam weapons to fight Iran, blah, blah, blah. Maybe we did, maybe we didn't. Who cares? The enemy of my enemy is my friend. He threatened our economy in 1991 so we put together some like minded nations and ran him out. He had already used WMD against Iran at that point, and we did find big time stockpiles and manufacturing facilities then. He signed some treaties, violated every single one, shot at our pilots every day, committed a genocide against the Shia, gassed the Kurds, openly collaborated with terrorists including Al Qaeda, promoted palestinian suicide bombing, brutally oppressed dissent, torture, executions, assassination attempt on US pres, assisted bin Laden with WMD R&D in Sudan, created an environmental disaster in the Gulf, there is much more and all that before 9/11. Saddam by all accounts is a sworn enemy of the US with goals analagous to Al Qaeda, and his actions suggested that he had continued his WMD programs (kicking out inspectors 1998, refusing to allow them back in 2002, and generally suspicious dictator behavior). Saddam retained his WMD production capability which has been demonstrated by ISG. Chances are, the WMD stockpiles are either buried in the desert or sitting in Syria or Lebanon or both.

3) 9/11: Changed the world in a few short hours, changed the rules of the game, changed the entire idea of deterrence as a viable option to defend against a "new" threat. MAD no longer can be trusted, pre-emption remains the only sure way to prevent follow on missions against the homeland. I do believe that Iraq was involved with 9/11 in some capacity and there is plenty of circumstantial evidence to support that, but no smoking gun. By the way, I don't need a smoking gun anymore, and neither should you. I liken our situation to your first day in jail; you are either going to become somebody's bitch or somebody is going to be your bitch. I'm not prepared to be a bitch, and neither is the American public. We have a good thing going here and we want to keep it. I have traveled all over the planet, and I can tell you that nowhere is it like here and we need to be thankful for that. The psychology in the third world is just like a prison. The weak are exploited and the strong flourish, only in the US is there equality.

4) Bush's decision: Just like the Man says, "Trust a madman or protect the American people?" There was hardly a credible intelligence source on the planet that said Iraq had no WMD, because they did. How could Bush sit on all of that reporting and Saddam's actions in light of the monstrous threat to our homeland? I couldn't do it. Nobody in his position could ignore that threat. You cannot deter people that WANT to die during their attack on you, you have to destroy them and take away their weapons. Bush's freedom plan for the middle east is extremely ambitious, no doubt about it. But it is the cultural conflict and the economic need that must be reconciled. If he is right and the scent of freedom is attractive enough, then a long overdue islamic reformation could be in the offing. If he is wrong, at least we are protecting our interests in the region and giving the barbaric hoardes somewhere else to go than the US. We need to remain engaged with our enemies in combat somewhere. Afghanistan is elusive, Iraq is a more conventional venue for us to kill them. We are definitely going to be spending years slaughtering these people, maybe even decades. If they refuse to change their primitive culture, then they will never stop trying to change ours. Somebody's culture is going down, let it be theirs I say.

5) Allies: We have great allies in Iraq. The French/German/UN connection does not want the US to succeed. They want our position in the world or something similar. All the perks with none of the responsibilities. They profitted mightily from Saddam, and we should never have expected their support. The Chinese definitely want us to be taken down as they see themselves as the economic/military heir to the US. The Russians are only now discovering how badly the the Soviets ran their nation into the ground and are struggling against pride and reality to find their role. They also have a nasty terror problem.

6) Options: Turn Iraq over to the UN/EU?-not going to happen everybody knows this. Leave Iraq and let the chips fall?-we owe them more than that at the very least. Also, it would be a massive defeat in the GWOT that we might never recover from. The only real option is to keep on keepin' on. We must defeat the terrorists there. The Iranians are watching, the North Koreans are watching, Al Qaeda is watching. All three of these threats become much greater once our defeat in Iraq occurs. This is not Vietnam, we can't just slink back home and hide behind our nukes. Our nukes can't protect us anymore. We have to finish the job and do so with authority. We need to expand our harem of bitches or we'll be somebody's bitch before too long. Speaking of bitches, we hauled in Libya (including a nuclear program nobody knew about). Others will follow or meet the same fate if we hang tough in Iraq. Will we need a draft? Maybe. If we thought that drafting people for WWII and Korea was OK, it ought to be OK for the GWOT. I hope that it doesn't come to that, but you never say never. How much do you want to spend? How much is your life worth to you? I don't care what it costs. We spent a higher % of GDP on defense in the 80s.

Well there you have it, Phil. You are probably having a seizure right now after actually reading this, but don't worry, it will pass, try not to bite your tongue though. We'll keep defending you from the barbarians whether you like it or not. So curl up with some Noam Chomsky and a soy, half whip, extra hot, grande latte and go back to your happy place. Froggy OUT

.... your buddies DID die for nothing!

At 17:07, Anonymous said...
But.... your buddies DID die for nothing! Sad to say, but true.
Bush and company have pulled the US into the worst foreign policy disaster of modern times, certainly since the Phillipine war. (What, can't find that one in your history books?) The only thing scarier than the mess we're in now is just how much worse things could get (and appear to be getting.)
And in doing so, Bush has handed Al Queda the best gift they could ask for.... thousands of new recruits who hate the US and see us as an occupying force bent on invading and suppressing Islam
Real smart, that prez of ours!

First of all, making a comment like that anonymously is a gutless move. That said, the most disturbing thing about your comment is the apparent glee with which you made it. How does that work? Your hatred must be so powerful that it has jaded you to the seriousness of the issue. You obviously are not a veteran or have any meaningful association with any veterans. Your condescending disdain makes my point about Kerry.

At a minimum, the jury is still out on the issue of the worst foreign policy disaster in modern times. I disagree that it is, and I think that tough measures must be taken in light of the threat. I also believe that evidence shows that we have had thousands of islamofascist enemies for decades, but we didn't pay enough attention to them. I think that the event that has really multiplied our enemies was 9/11 itself. Before that day, most of the potential fanatics on the the sidelines saw the US as too big to challenge, but after seeing what 19 motivated guys could do, they changed their minds. The success of terror and the appeasement of it are the biggest motivators of islamist recruiting.

Iraq is serving a purpose similar to Afghanistan in the 1980s for the Soviets. It has become a gathering place for every brainwashed islamist to fight the big jihad. This is good news. A regional conflict of this type makes it convenient for these guys to try to take out their pent up frustrations out on "Satan" in their own neighborhood so they don't feel compelled to come to ours. Unlike the Soviets, our military is not only up to the task, but it has something important to fight for...our homeland.

At the end of the day, we ARE fighting terrorism in Iraq and we have not been attacked for more than 3 years. The only way the US can be defeated is politically in the battle for public opinion. If Kerry is elected the terrorists will see that as not only a victory and vindication of their efforts, but also a mechanism to motivate their supporters to continue the struggle and increase the pressure on our homeland. If Bush is re-elected, the hard core elements will remain motivated but the pool of willing idiots will not. The idiots will rightly conclude that Bush armed with a mandate and no threat of early retirement will show no mercy and demonstrate to the fanatics what it means to confront the Wrath of the US.

On Killing the Killers

Hamas is clearly on the run, now and it stands to reason that if a nation makes a commitment to fight terror wherever it resides that success is sure to follow.  I love how the assorted band of killers is now crying foul that the Israelis are taking care of business.  But, when these terrorist leaders successfully brainwash some uneducated Palestinian into vaporizing himself next to a family on a bus in Jerusalem, its all good.  Some of the lefty columnists in the US are saying that John Kerry is “finding his voice” on the Iraq issue, well I guess the Mossad is finding their voice on the “defending their homeland from thousands of sworn enemies” issue.  That’s nice.  Its funny how when you kill terrorist leaders, raze their hideouts, and wall them off, terrorist incidents in your country decrease.  Do you think that there are lessons to be learned here?


But you can’t wall everyone out, and Iran’s latest announcement of their new missile and Israel’s new bombs shows that options 1 and 2 need further implementation.  The creation of a new Joint Special Operations Taskforce (JSOTF) to target Zarqawi is a welcome if not belated start.  Iran is clearly calculating that the US political situation prevents it from reacting forcefully to their nuclear provocations.  Israel has once again put the Middle East on notice that they are willing to reach out and touch someone.  Re-electing the President would perform the same task.  George Bush with no further election challenges is Iran’s worst nightmare.


It is likely that the very act of reaffirming our national confidence in our CINC would send a powerful message to our enemies around the globe.  The nutjob in N. Korea has put all talks on hold until he sees who he’ll be talking to next year.  He knows that there is a difference.  The mullahs would be more likely to open up to IAEA inspections with President Bush’s finger on the trigger.  The Iraqi people are waiting to see if they will have any support in Washington before they stick their necks out for the final push to January elections. 


And most of all, US troops will be largely dispirited if they were to lose the President’s leadership.  Unlike federal employees who vote Democrat for the pay raises and labor cover, US service members will vote for their mission and not a ticket home.   Voting for Kerry would be tantamount to saying to our troops, “Your buddies died for nothing, and you morons are wasting your time.”


Friday, September 24, 2004

Tell our troops to F#@! Off

For all of you out there that would like to ensure that our troops will feel abandoned and betrayed just like their fathers were in Vietnam, please by all means, elect John Kerry. The man who said the U.S. Army is no better than that of Ghegis Khan, the man who bolted out of Vietnam on an administrative technicality, the man that stabbed POWs in the back by admitting to war crimes that were never committed, the man that voted for this war, voted against the funding, said it was the wrong war, wrong time, blah, blah, blah, the man that whines about the arrogance of Bush's diplomacy while calling the prime minister of Iraq (who risks his life every day!) a liar, elect this piece of sh!t and the troops will know that you hate them.

SEALs under assault

According to this AP article 3 more SEALs have been charged with abusing prisoners in Iraq. The after action reports, according to the press report, indicate that during the apprehension of the prisoner a struggle had ensued. As I posted earlier, the Teams prosecution rate (the percentage of real terrorists apprehended out of the total prisoners taken) far exceeds any other unit in the theater. There are many reasons for this, not least of which is a level of tactical proficiency that allows for a higher percentage of targets to be detained as opposed to being shot. Entering a target with the intention to take prisoners as opposed to merely conducting an assault is much harder. Anyone can direct munitions onto a suspected terrorist hideout or toss a grenade in a room before entering. The problem is that with these blunt approaches, you miss out on potential intelligence, and you risk killing or hurting noncombatants.

I do not see the benefit of scapegoating SEALs to protect army national guard officers that failed to properly lead their troops in the operation of a military detention center. Make no mistake, that is exactly what is going on here. These officers are running for cover, and digging up every instance of a prisoner that arrived injured from his capture. Instead of leading in the first place, these officers are retroactively covering their asses by offering up members of a high profile unit for sacrifice. Believe me, it would have been so much easier to simply put a bullet in the brain of each of these "abused" prisoners instead of risking their lives to apprehend them. Had the SEALs done that, there would be no charges here to file, nor would their be any intelligence gained from the many high value targets that SEALs have seized.

To further elaborate on another previous post, the latest retention figure that I heard during my visit to the SEAL compound on Wednesday was not encouraging. If you count the number of SEALs gained by graduating new students and lost by retirement and nonre-enlistment the Teams achieved a net gain of exactly ONE SEAL last year! These guys ARE the "tip of the spear" in the GWOT, and the President has mandated the creation of TWO additional SEAL Teams while forbidding any lowering of training and selection standards. If we allow a bunch of incompetent national guard pukes to effectively force the prosecution and heaven forbid the conviction of Navy SEALs for doing their jobs, this nation's fight against terror is going to suffer. Telling SEALs that are participating in the MOST dangerous counter-terrorist operations our nation conducts on a daily basis, that they will be prosecuted for every decision they make in the heat of battle is a terrible message. We will see a further exodus of experienced operators if this is allowed to occur.

Understand that the SEAL Teams are a VOLUNTEER organization. These brave men DO NOT have to put themselves at risk, and if we provide such strong disincentives as prosecution for "abuse" and low pay, they won't be there in the coming years. I'm not saying that SEALs should be authorized to pull out fingernails and blow off kneecaps. But, if our society is going to decide that a terrorist taking a boot in the mouth or a rifle butt to the head is too much for our tender sensibilities, then folks we are not going to be able to defeat an enemy that chops off heads and stabs children.

Thursday, September 23, 2004

Visiting with friends

I spent yesterday in San Diego trying to get some admin tasks accomplished in advance of mobilizing, and I had the opportunity to see some good friends that had remained in the Teams after I had left. Some had just gotten back from Bagdad, and some were rotating in soon. It has been tough to keep in touch with these guys over the last 3 years for obvious reasons, and hardly any active duty guys were at the Reunion this summer. I can't repeat what these guys have been up to, but let me say that nobody showed the slightest sign of doubt about the mission and the success of what the platoons are doing over there on a daily basis. The atmosphere was very confident and with the guys that had recently returned, quite nonchalant. The Teams are taking care of business in Iraq, and it seemed that these guys felt that they were doing the Lord's work. The quiet professionalism and the purposeful assurance that emanated from the conversations was very inspiring to me.

I told my comrades about my blog and they reacted cautiously as you would expect, and I assured them that I don't write anything that would make their jobs more difficult. I discussed some campaign politics with a couple of new guys that were in their early 20s, and their intuitive insights into the left and their objectives for America were quite astute. One of the young guys told me about how he listens to talk radio in San Diego, and how on the liberal shows there is no discussion of the issues with opponents. He noticed that the conservative shows, by and large, provide a dialogue and a defense of their beliefs and engage opponents readily. Politics was not a priority in the Teams of the 1990s, except that we all hated draft-dodging Clinton. War doth focus the mind on politics it seems, and the level of revulsion for John Kerry and is ilk is palpable in the platoon hut. The only meaningful complaints that I heard about Iraq policy amounted to inter-service rivalry issues. Delta Force it seems, tends to throw its considerable weight around when it comes to apprehending the high value targets. The SEAL Teams have been the red headed step child of the SOF community since SOCCOM was created. But it is a very talented, adaptable, and lethal step child as well. Results count, and the Teams are getting results despite interference by the Army, and in time, hopefully the political power balance in SOF will shift even more to account for this.

What I am saying is "Don't believe the hype" that's coming from the left. The situation is difficult but it is in good hands.

Tuesday, September 21, 2004

Kerry and the Democrats are responsible for Iraq security problems

Starting in the Vietnam era, John Kerry and likeminded liberals have done all they could to make fighting and winning wars as difficult as possible for the US. At every turn, they have worked cooperatively to constrain the US Military and the Commander in Chief from acting decisively in armed combat against our enemies. Working now openly in concert with their supporters in the media, Kerry/Dems have made addressing the security issues in Iraq politically difficult as possible. Make no mistake, the entire world and every US enemy in it understands that the only way the US can be defeated militarily is by political means at home. The NVA with Kerry's direct assistance, used this tactic to achieve the political effect of snatching our defeat from the jaws of our victory.

The Dem/media coop have effectively used 9/11 widows, Abu Ghraib, Halliburton, US casualties, and other niggling little issues to nip at the administration's heels, and to create a straw man standard for success. This effective fire has kept the President from dropping the hammer on the insurgency and smashing it into oblivion. The military is fighting against terrorists whose main goal in life (or death) is the total annihilation of the United States. The military should not have to fight these battles with one armed tied behind its back for fear of war crimes allegations when collateral damage does occur.

The President knows this very well and for him to be able to achieve victory in Iraq, he must win this election. I do believe that there will be a big offensive after the election no matter who wins. The only way for the US to be victorious and to take the steps that must be taken to achieve victory is to re-elect the President. His re-election will effectively nullify the Dem/media attack apparatus and allow him to take care of business.

I believe that the American people intuitively realize this, and it is this realization that accounts for Kerry's falling poll numbers. These sentiments are commonly known, but political correctness and media bias prevent the widespread dissemination of this message to the nation. We need to be aware of why we fight and how the GWOT can be eventually won, without regard for the leftists in the media and their agenda of obstruction and obfuscation. These islamofascists are playing hardball with the free peoples of the world. Its time that we cleared the dugout, bats in hand, and pummel these psychotic killers mercilessly.

Monday, September 20, 2004

Just like old times

I know that it's been said, but it bears repeating that John Kerry cannot be trusted to defend America. I remember seeing him on "Meet the Press" with Russert earlier in the year. Russert played a clip of his Senate testimony where Kerry accused American forces of conducting systematic atrocities on the people of Vietnam with the full knowledge of officers at all levels of command. When asked to comment he did not take back a word of his testimony, but stated that he had unwisely used inflammatory language, and that he should have basically toned down the rhetoric in his remarks. He said that he has learned to be more temperate in his remarks over his career in the Senate. I believe him.

John Kerry's campaign is essentially rehashing the message of his 1971 Senate testimony in a more temperate and less inflammatory way. Kerry clearly despises the military, and he showed that not only by his actions in VVAW, but also in his abandonement of his comrades on the battlefield in Vietnam. No one else left Coastal Division 11 early except on a medivac flight or in a coffin. Kerry disdains American power, and has stated candidly in the past that the CIA should be disbanded and that US troops should only be deployed at the behest of the United Nations. He voted his conscience by attempting to gut the CIA budget in the early 1990's after the first WTC attack. His only consistent position on Iraq is to subjugate US authority to a UN mandate which the UN does not even have ability to agree on. Kerry argued for unilateral withdrawal from Vietnam, argued for unilateral nuclear disarmament, argued against aiding the Contras in Nicaragua, etc. He even criticized President Reagan for saving hundreds of American medical students in Grenada. He does not have the courage to face our sworn enemies, enemies that have killed thousands of Americans on our own soil, and a thousand more on the battlefield. His language is certainly more nuanced than that of his youth, but make no mistake he means to cut and run and hope the boogeyman goes back under the bed. The boogeyman will not disappear on his own, we need to drag him out from under the bed, and bash his head in with a baseball bat.

Froggy is going back on active duty soon. I have been out for almost 5 years, I have a young child and a lovely wife, and I will gladly be voting for a man that will see to it that I don't see them for at least a year. I believe in taking care of business, facing problems and triumphing over adversity, not running away.

Sunday, September 19, 2004

Pat Tillman Leads the Way

Rangers Lead the Way as the motto goes, and so it seems that Pat Tillman lived up to that motto in his life and also in his death.

I read a piece in National Review a couple years ago in the back part with all of the book reviews and movie reviews (sometimes). I can't recall the author or even the topic of the article, but in it the writer mentioned that there are no films made about the present day in America that glorify a dignified, sacrificial, or humble character. Think about that. Period films do glorify historical figures and there great and noble deeds. Science fiction or futuristic films often have themes that glorify service with honor, and of course military and sports films are notable for the heroic deeds of their characters. But there are very few films that take place in present day America, about normal people, that under any circumstances do the right thing because it is right. What does this have to do with Pat Tillman?

It is the basis for the anachronism that Pat Tillman was and is. His sacrifice is so disproportionate to the media perceptions of society at large, that he almost seems to be a fictional character. To turn your back on money in order to serve your nation at a time of war seems to be an almost absurd decision in America. And yet he did it. Pat Tillman demonstrated extraordinary leadership by his example to the American people. His sacrifice was equally as profound as the hundreds of other servicemembers that have given their lives in the GWOT, but his example stands out. He didn't just join the Army, he became a Ranger.

We used to joke that Rangers and Marines were bullet sponges, back in the days before 9/11. We don't joke about these guys anymore. Rangers and SEALs fought together on Robert's Ridge in Afghanistan to recover the body of my friend Neil Roberts which cost 4 Ranger's lives and resulted in the first Navy Cross awarded to a SEAL since Panama in 1989. We all know about Mogadishu, and the brave Rangers and Delta guys who fought for their lives. Pat Tillman certainly saw "Blackhawk Down" and signed up for Ranger school anyway. I noticed that Pat was eulogized by a Chief Petty Officer SEAL in San Jose after his death in Afghanistan. He won a Silver Star that day, and from what I heard he saved some SEAL's bacon while charging uphill into enemy fire before he was struck by a "friendly" round.

Let's remember Pat Tillman as a man that felt an obligation to his country, and had the courage and the will to follow his calling all the way. Why should we be surprised? Rangers Lead the Way! Hooyah Pat!

Saturday, September 18, 2004

LA Times: Bush attempts suicide, plot foiled by right wing blogger

My wife, daughter and I walked down to the park this morning, and I had to bring a copy of the LA Times that I did not order and my wife has tried to cancel 3 times! Anyway, on the front page is a story titled "In the Rush for a Scoop, CBS Found Trouble Fast". For a moment I thought, wow, the LA Times is actually going to hold CBS accountable for its smear campaign. WRONG. They actually blamed the White House Communications guy, Dan Bartlett, for the document forgeries. That's right, its the President's fault that a mentally unstable former guardsman from Texas concocted phony documents smearing the President, handed them to the Kerry Campaign, through Senator Max Cleland who passed them on to an eager Mary Mapes/Dan Rather in an effort to bring down his own Presidency.

That's not all. This story attacks the guy who first noticed the phony documents on the CBS website because he's a Republican. That Harry W. MacDougald is a Republican has absolutely NO relevance with regard to his exposure of CBS' fraud. The documents are FAKE! Who cares who first noticed it or where he posted it? The blogosphere and talk radio ran this story down like a wounded animal and shot it in the head!

The unmitigated gall of the LA Times to assign blame to the White House and attack the guy who blew the whistle on this scam is astounding. You would think that the big media types would be minding their Ps and Qs so as not to get any CBS cooties on themselves, apparently not. In an environment of hyperawareness of media bias, these transgressions will not go unnoticed.

Friday, September 17, 2004

Iran is going ballistic!

The 800 lbs gorilla in the national security debate that no one wants to talk about is a nuclear armed Iran. This earlier post linked to some very belligerent statements made by the Defense Minister of Iran last month. I can understand why neither candidate wants to bring this up. Bush has his hands full keeping a lid on Iraq, and Edwards' appeasing announcement didn't go over too well with the security conscious electorate. I think that the days of UN Sanctions accomplishing anything in the real world have well and truly passed. Michael Costello lays the scenario out in his outstanding piece in the Australian.

Costello correctly notes that countries that were under the scrutiny of the IAEA have rarely been deterred or prevented from developing and offensive nuclear program. North Korea is a graduate of the IAEA's crucible of "intrusive inspections". These regimes simply don't care anymore about UN edicts as a direct result of the decades of impotence, corruption, and gutless posturing that exemplifies the organization's chequered history. These regimes correctly assume that the US is not in a position to deter unilaterally and that Europe has evolved into a giant welfare state content to bask in the protection of American troops. He also notes that the failure of the UN to address 2 large scale African genocides in 10 years as proof positive that they conduct their nuclear programs in a consequence free environment.

Except in Iran's case, there is pesky little old Israel who has self-preservation and steely courage as a national motto. The Israelis have no choice but to take out Iran's nuclear facilities before it is too late. This confrontation is measured in months now instead of years, and you can be sure that Israel won't be shirking its duty to protect the Jewish state. This is where the rubber meets the road in terms of settling things for keeps in the middle east. This may very well turn out to be a burden that the US must bear at the end of the day. As much as I'd like to be back to back with the Israelis and wipe out the islamofascist hoardes once and for all, I don't know if its doable. We might want to do the job for them, because allowing them to do their own housecleaning here invites the holy war to end all holy wars and we would be utterly alone with Israel fighting for our lives. Better for the US to take out the WMD sites and hammer their forces from the air and settle our old scores and Israel's all at once. We got 'em hemmed in on all sides already.

By the way, who do you want at the helm well this bill comes due?


This idiot (registration required) is NOT a Navy SEAL.

A government contractor from Riverside flew from Dubai to John F. Kennedy International Airport with explosive munitions from Afghanistan in his luggage but was stopped from boarding a flight to Los Angeles when officers found the devices during a routine security screening, authorities said Wednesday.

Shaun Louis Marshall, 26, an emergency medical technician with a company contracted to eradicate poppy fields in Afghanistan, had a Soviet-made detonating fuse, a Soviet-made cartridge, and military bullets and cartridges, court records indicate.

Vicky Brothers, Marshall's mother, said Wednesday that her son has been in the military since he has been out of school. He was a Navy SEAL, and has been in the Army and Army reserves, she said.

"My son is a good kid. I raised him all his life. I know he's not a terrorist," Brothers said by phone from her home in Bardstown, Ky.

Looks like she raised him to be a liar and a fool.

I got this from AuthentiSEAL earlier today.

Matthew,Great to hear from a Teammate.Thanks for checking with us - we greatly appreciate your interest in upholding the honor of the US Navy SEAL Teams, and your search for the TRUTH. If the name you provided was spelled accurately, we do NOT have a listing for anyone named "Marshall, Shaun Louis" in our entire database of slightly more than 10,000 names. Please be aware that I also checked for possible spelling variations and alternate pronunciations but found none that matched.

Just so you know, typically a SEAL is not going to bring home souvenir ordnance on a commercial flight. There are other ways. The thing I don't understand is how this pinhead was able to make his own mother believe he was in the Teams. I mean my parents went to my graduation. He probably told her that his graduation was "TOP SECRET". What a tool.

Thursday, September 16, 2004

Just breath slowly into the bag, sir. That's it, relax

These people are becoming unglued!

"I am REALLY losing my patience with the doom and gloom posts here. I am going to ask the Administrators for an "Only positive Kerry" rule here. That is, absolutley NO posts that put the Kerry campaign in a bad light, no news of bad polls and no posts that even mention anything critical. Sorry, but I've heard it all now, and have no need to hear it anymore.

Only positive Kerry spoken here."

I was checking out Frank J and he had linked up Moonbats at the Democratic Underground in a state of apoplexy over the Gallup poll showing the President up 14. I can empathize with their predicament, but to just tune out reality and put the Kibosh on the First Amendment as it were is a bit much. These are the people that BELIEVE John Kerry will get the French and Germans to send troops to Iraq. "Only positive Kerry spoken here?" Is that some new liberal yoga encantation?

I am at a loss here. How do you look in the mirror and convince yourself that you have not lost it when you post something like that? Actually, its probably quite easy. You just ask the "Administrator" (is that liberal for GOD?) for an "I'm not living in a fantasy island episode" rule here. Done. Feel better. Ahhhhh

And then there is this poor bastard who sees George Bush as the Prom King to his band geek. He thinks that its Bush's derisive laugh which humiliates Kerry that will win Bush the election. Actually, he also has a decent analysis of Kerry's $87B vote as well.

I was in Menlo Park, CA yesterday on business which is a big time limo liberal community between San Francisco and San Jose. I sat in a park in the downtown shopping area drinking coke and people watching for about a half and hour. Listening to them talk to each other and air kiss, you get the feeling that one of the great crisis' of their lives might be nothing more than a door ding on the jaguar. These people are so incorrigibly shallow that it makes you wonder what would actually happen to them if faced with the reality of an ongoing domestic terrorism threat ala Israel.

They should be licking the President's boots for putting foot to ass with the terrorists allowing them to continue in a state of perpetual self delusion.

Strategy unfolding

It is becoming apparent that Rather's strategy is one of the noble sacrifice. I am beginning to believe that he is essentially falling on his sword in a valiant effort to rid the world of what he believes is a dangerous and catastrophic man... George Bush. Despite the widespread disaccredititation of the documents supporting Rather's charges, he persists in perpetuating the "core truth" within them. If you look at the blogosphere, and news outlets their are no other stories on the air. Rather has managed to force the national conversation onto the issues he has raised, and despite the obvious fallacy of the charges, they remain in the forefront of the debate. Complicit liberal media outlets are more than happy to have this cover. They are now able to lead every broadcast with, "Charges of George Bush's failure to ......blah, blah, blah." and still maintain the moral superiority of saving journalistic ethics by exposing fraud and bias at ANOTHER media entity. But the functional outcome is that all of the stories that are positive about Bush's poll numbers, Kerry's indecision, debate on issues, leadership, etc. is off the national table for a week. This is giving Kerry a chance to regroup, change the subject, and regain a competitive edge in the campaign.

Is this blatant bias and forgery attempt to discredit the President and alter an election worthy of congressional scrutiny? Of course. But the result would be to continue to parade the charges and occlude the real campaign to Bush's detriment. This is the only rational explanation for Rather and CBS to continue to draw things out like this. They have accepted (somehow) the fact that their credibility is irreparably harmed, and decided that their vindication now lies in the successful unseating of the President. Even that seems to be a stretch, I know, but what other explanation is there?

I must say, that I am no media consultant, and I don't know what it would take to get this story off the front page and relegated to the status of media bias, mudslinging, dirty tricks, etc. and move on. I see this as a "boy who cried wolf" situation of sorts. We need to try to ignore the charges as fraudulent and biased, and shun the messenger, rather than incessantly gossipping about it. Rush did the first two hours on Rather, which is way more than it deserves. Forget congressional hearings too. That is tailormade for Democrat grandstanding and gratuitous Bush bashing. Declare Rather and CBS biased frauds, and move on to the next issue. OUT

Wednesday, September 15, 2004

Passive Aggressive

I realize that this is an unusual topic, and I am merely using my blog as a form of catharsis. Let me say that I would love for others will similar experiences to take the time to post on this subject.

I work for my family business which consists of my father, myself, the property manager, and the secretary. The PM is insane! She is perhaps the most rude and obnoxious person I have ever worked with. She does this thing where she asks you a question in a rapid fire tone, and then without waiting even a moment for an answer she starts saying, "Huh? Huh? Huh?" Its as if she doesn't want the answer to be actually considered, but rather to just go stream of conciousness with it and blurt out the first thing that comes to mind. The other lovely habit that she has is while I am having a conversation with my father about something (business, personal, whatever) she will interject my dialogue with inane questions like, "Why? What do you want to do that for?" etc. These questions come at a point in the conversation where I may not have even begun to make my main point, and most people realize that the answers will come if only they could wait. I expect that the person I am actually addressing might want to ask me a question or two, but this is happening when I am talking to my father. Did I mention that we don't particularly like each other? OK. My favorite thing she does is to talk to my father about me while I am present, but pretending that I am not there! I love that! She doesn't want to directly address me, so she simply tells my dad what is bothering her about me with her back to me while I'm in the room. For instance, she'll start going over my "questionable" expenses with my dad (who has no idea what they are), and then he will ask me, "Matt, what is this?" I'll tell him whats what and he says OK. Is this necessary?

To be fair, my presence at the company at this point is of little importance other than the daily training I do with my dad on the job. She is a long time employee, and would be sorely missed (by my dad) in the short term, although I think that her slack could be picked up after a month or two. The thing that I can't understand is that by her own admission, she wants to continue to work for the company (and must for family reasons) after my dad is gone. I can tell you that the very first thing I will do upon my ascension is to give her a severence check, and tell her to not let the door hit her on the ass on the way out. I mean does someone who nickel and dimes me for lunches and business related computer software on my expense account now while she drives around a Cadillac company car expect me to retain her when I am in charge? It doesn't make sense from a practical standpoint. She knows that the antics she pulls are not going to help her down the road. I mean, I don't ask to be worshipped, just treated with common manners and business etiquette. I do all I can to avoid conflict with this person because I know my dad relies on her and trusts her. I don't want to make things hard on him so I tend to avoid her when possible, but she just can't leave well enough alone.

In the Teams this situation has a very simple resolution, go out behind the conex box and "work things out". In Customs, I guess you would file an EEO complaint alleging a hostile work environment, get a lawyer, and sue. I am at a loss for an answer though. We have already had several company "blow outs" including today, but it doesn't solve anything.

OK, I feel better now. I would love to hear your stories of frustration and anger dealing with passive aggressive people. Hit me with a comment. OUT

Tuesday, September 14, 2004

Rather Defiant Aren't We?

I just watched the CBS Evening News for the first time in years. I think I've had my fill. I was interested to see exactly how Rather would frame the issue of his total failure of objectivity with the juicy spectacle of the President's address to the National Guard convention.

Let me start with the "Fallen Heroes" segment that immediately preceeded the update on the President's Guard service. They featured a young soldier in the segment that showed pictures of the soldier as a 12 year old boy and then as a man. Then with contempt dripping from each word, Rather said something like, "...he wanted to go to college after his stint in the Army, but he was gunned down while buying a soda at Bagdad University." I finished the sentence in my mind, "because George Bush sent him there to die." Of course he didn't actually say this, but it sure felt like that was his meaning.

After the break, the reporter covering the Guard Convention wasted no time pointing out that the President had not taken the opportunity to mention that he was lavished with special treatment, willfully disobeyed the orders of superiors, and failed to meet his obligations while serving in the Guard. Instead, the President merely said that he was proud to have served, and went on to praise current Guardsmen serving in the GWOT. Then the report focused on the First Lady who in an interview on radio stated that she believed the memos to be forgeries. John Roberts added, "However, Laura Bush offered no evidence to back up her claim...." I love that. That is like answering the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" When, "Yes I stopped, or no, I still beat her," are the only answers being sought. I mean calling the the First Lady a liar. Wow.

That would be a fair statement if the White House alone was just saying with no corroborating evidence that the documents were fraudulent. In fact, what exactly is the White House or the Bush Campaign obligated to say at this point? The President has an Honorable Discharge with his name on it and no record of judicial or non-judicial punishment in his service record. Is he, in the face of sweeping and legitimate objections by multiple main stream news organizations to the documentation CBS has staked its charges on, under any obligation to respond until questions about the source and legitimacy of the documents has even been investigated?

Is any candidate for any office expected to speak frankly about any of his shortcomings or mistakes he made in life without having been asked directly? For example, does anyone expect John Kerry to actually say that he sought an additional student deferrment to study in Paris after Yale? Does anyone expect that he should say that he joined the Navy in order to avoid combat? Of course not. Should the President tell the National Guard Convention that he joined the Guard because he wanted to avoid combat, and that his family connections allowed him to do so? Does it even matter at this point?

Rather is certainly not backing down, but rather standing firm in the gathering storm in the hope that his roots are deep enough to keep him from being ripped out of the ground. But Dan, there's a mighty wind a comin', and no tellin' if you'll still be standing in its wake.

Monday, September 13, 2004

Fake Frogs

In the interest of public service, I would like to cover the issue of fraudulent frogmen, and how they might be exposed and shamed. The authentication process is rather simple, by going to this site you can view the "Wall of Shame" which lists hundreds of phony frogs with many pictures and stories of the lengths to which some of these idiots went to make false claims. If the suspected fake SEAL is not on the wall, you can fill out a simple form and the guys at AuthentiSEAL will check the database for you, email you a response, and post posers on the Wall in a day! I was authenticated soon after I started this blog.

In fact, I saw a story in World Net Daily today about some clown that an AP reporter found who was willing to criticize the President as a "playboy" also claimed to have been "a Navy SEAL in Vietnam for 5 years". Regular readers of this blog (if there are any) will remember this post that I did upon my return from the West Coast UDT/SEAL Reunion in August. At the end, I described a conversation with a man that had done 7 deployments to Vietnam all told. SEAL deployments then and now are 6 months long, and this guy had spent a total of 42 months in Vietnam. In order to have spent 5 years in Vietnam as a SEAL, a person would have made 10! deployments, that's right, 10! I would have heard of this guy, especially a guy having done 10 deployments and retired with 30 years in the Navy. I would definitely have come across this man or heard of him. According to Navy records, SEAL platoons began to deploy to Vietnam in 1965 and ended in November of 1972. So as you can see a 5 year tour would have meant barely leaving the country. This particular idiots name is Ahmad Majied and claims that his name is not on the books because he changed it after leaving the Navy and becoming a Muslim. And he won't tell anyone what is real name is. How conveeeeeeeenient.

This is the guy an AP flack picks to criticize the President's Vietnam military service? Classic. The irony is so thick, I could spread it on toast and...wait, I think I must be hungry, sorry. Anyway, this type of assinine "reporting" wouldn't make it onto a movie script, it is so ridiculous, but its true! Discrediting these partisan hacks is about as easy as blowing your nose. I wonder how long it will take for them to realize that the rules have changed. SEALs will not tolerate the memories of fallen comrades to be disgraced by lying frauds, and neither will the American people allow reality to be created by the 4th Estate. The 4th Estate looks more and more like a double wide trailer in the path of a Hurricane.

Sunday, September 12, 2004

Amy Barnes

I don't know how many people caught this, but Amy Barnes appeared on Rita Cosby's show today by phone on FNC. I assume that FNC called her this time and that there is a high level of certainty that it was in fact the daughter of former Lying Governor Ben Barnes. She was interviewed at length by the luscious Rita and confirmed earlier reports of her call to a radio talk show guest hosted by the lovely Monica Crowley. She said in both interviews that her father had categorically denied to her his involvement in obtaining a slot for President Bush in the TANG. She also stated that her father felt that his interview on 60 minutes would be helpful in the promotion of an upcoming book. I have linked in the title of this post to a biography on Barnes done by Texas Monthly Talks which is a TV show on PBS in Texas. In the bio, it states that Barnes was Speaker of the Texas House, U.S. rep to NATO in 1967 and U.S. rep to the U.N. in Geneva in 1968 (the year Bush joined TANG). It also mentions that he was elected Lt Gov in 1969 and served until 1973.

Even if the U.N. Geneva gig was only part time and he remained a state rep (the bio does not indicate this) during 1968. He at least was a candidate for statewide office during the time that Bush joined TANG. How is it that the U.N. Geneva guy or a candidate for Lt Gov has any connection to who gets in the TANG or not? He definitely did not get Bush in during his actual term as Lt Gov because Bush was already there by the time he took office.

I'm really not trying to slueth this out because if his own daughter is willing to come on national tv and call her dad a liar, that's good enough for me. But it goes to the sloppy and cavalier nature of this attack and attacks on the President in general. They are so demonstrably false that it begs the question...what do you take us for? This trend of poorly executed and researched smear jobs says to me that a) these people must feel utterly confident in their belief that big media will carry their water that they don't bother to put together a coherent attack or b) Where does the Kerry campaign end and the media begin? and c) If they are incapable of preparing a cogent and effective attack against a President that barely pays attention to them, they are certainly not competent enough to put together an effective attack on the enemies of the United States.


Kerry was finally asked the key question by Karen Tumulty from Time. How?

KERRY But I'll tell you this: I will pursue a far more aggressive, proactive statesmanship role to bring countries to our side in an effort in which they have an interest. Ninety percent of the casualties and costs are being borne by Americans. That's inexcusable.
I believe very deeply that it takes a new President, a new credibility, a fresh start, to change the whole equation in Iraq. I will get countries involved in ways that the President doesn't have them involved today, and I will get our troops home.
How? Diplomats say that it is not in our allies' political interest
George Bush has made it not in their interest today. There are all sorts of options with respect to Shi'ites, Sunnis and Kurds in the region that this Administration is not exploring. They have failed in their diplomacy utterly. In fact, they have made it easy for countries to say no, because of their arrogance, because of the way the President chose to go to war. TIME
As President, who would be the first person you would phone?
I'm not going to say one, two, three. I will tell you that I have 20 years of experience on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I have personal relationships with leaders around the world. I will not cede our security to any other country. I won't cede our security to any institution, but I know how to reach out to countries and leaders and build bipartisan-support structures necessary to strengthen the country.
You can't be more specific?
I know exactly what I'm going to do, but I'm not the President today. I've already laid out the international conference, the shared responsibilities between European and Arab countries, the more rapid training of Iraqi police and military. I think it's almost pathetic the rate at which we have done that. They [the Bush Administration]are hardly behaving like we're truly a country at war. It's pathetic that they left ammunition dumps and nuclear facilities unprotected.

Where do I begin. How about what nuclear facilities? But I digress. This guy sounds off like he has a plan to make Iraq all peaches and cream, but he won't even hint as to what it is. He always says that he would have so many "tools" to work with to accomplish his lofty diplomatic agenda. What tools? A massive mind control machine to change public and official opinion in Old Europe? Even though he is a kept billionaire, I don't think he's yet developed such technology, because if he had he wouldn't be tanking in the polls. So what's in John's magic toolbox? Appeals to NATO, UN and the EU? Been there, done that. I know, how about the military, that's a kind of tool. Wait, we're using that one too. Intelligence? We're doing our best with what the likes of Kerry & Co. left us from the cold war days. Engaging arab leaders in the region? Check. Law Enforcement? Patriot Act. Financial? Uh huh. I may have skipped a couple, but these are the majors.

So what tool does Kerry have? Oh, now I know. Kerry believes that he is the tool that can fix the world's problems in a jiffy. He may be on to something.

Saturday, September 11, 2004


Had a good trip to Denver. Looks like we're going to invest in some commercial property in the Cherry Creek area. Reminds me of La Jolla in San Diego. If anyone has any comments on the retail situation there good or bad I'd love to hear it. We had a great dinner at the Chop House in Lo Do with my brother in arms Julio and his wonderful family.

I dropped my dad off at his place and drove home. On my way through town, I came to a light with two girls about 17-20, kind of plain looking on the corner holding up an American Flag and some "Never Forget" signs. They were very animated and trying to get the drivers fired up. It worked for me. I honked and waved and blew them kisses. But as I sat at the light waiting, I looked around to gauge other motorist's reactions. It was 1900 on a Saturday night and there were cars with teenagers next to me and they seemed to be gauking at the girls as if to indicate "dorks". I didn't hear too much honking or waving, but God bless those girls because they didn't care. They just kept on keepin' on. Some of the retrospectives were interesting on TV (didn't have Fox News at the Hotel this morning) but somewhat tepid. Picked up a copy of the NY Times at the airport (like reading the enemy's mail) to find an uninspiring front page of some kids on a couch. Cover story was about the children of the deceased from WTC which is an interesting story, but it wasn't the right thing to put as the lead.

Lots of Ivan stuff in the media, which is legitimate, but it seems like nobody wants to talk about 9/11. People are forgetting. I am not so concerned about the media laying off, because we know that its political for them, but when they lay off the general population lays off too. That was the vibe I caught today. BTW the security at the airport wasn't especially tight. There were'nt too many travelers either so that must be somewhat of a reflection.

It seems to me that this day should be not celebrated as such, but not mourned either. It feels like a holiday, but I'd like to see some sort of defiant display as a nation. We should use this opportunity to remember what job #1 is in this country and make this day a quasi veteran's day. Again, not celebrating, but cheering for our country, showing these pinheads that there is no forgettin' as Clint Eastwood would say. I usually don't have too much trouble committing my thoughts to paper, but somehow words can't describe how I feel about today or what I think we should do on successive 9/11s.

Thursday, September 09, 2004

Going to Denver

Flying to Denver tomorrow, back Saturday night. Flying on 9/11/04. It feels like Friday the 13th or something. See you Saturday. OUT

John Forbes Kucinich?

"What I want to do, what I'm determined to do, and it's in my health-care plan, is refocus America on something that can reduce the cost of health care significantly for all Americans, which is wellness and prevention," Kerry said. So far, so good. But then, "And I intend to have not just a Department of Health and Human Services, but a Department of Wellness."

Well, well, Wellness Department? I thought the Dems nominated Kerry not Kucinich. The Wellness Department perfectly compliments the Department of Peace as far as I'm concerned. What kind of moonbat idea is this? Will there be an Undersecretary for Rolfing?

I saw Susan Estrich on Special Report the other day "explaining" that there is no shakeup or panic at the campaign. She described a guy named John Sasso whose new job is to "ride the plane" with Kerry. Which means that he is supposed to micromanage every word the candidate says in order to keep him "on message." Somehow I think Mr. Sasso missed the flight to Cincinnati. What is this guy going to do now? The only possible solution to keep this guy under control is to put him in the Master Blaster suit from Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome. You know, the one with the brilliant midget riding on the shoulders of the giant idiot. That way Sasso can directly feed information into Kerry's brain in real time. I don't know how well this will go over on the stump, and it doesn't seem likely that they'll both fit on the plane in such a configuration.

I'd like to see a Department of Fun though. I don't think we're having enough fun in this country right now, and its probably George Bush's fault somehow. I know the perfect guy to be Secretary of Fun........

Wednesday, September 08, 2004

Mekong v. National Guard

To me, a Naval Reservist, the National Guard controversy is foolish and contrived. Obviously, a guy who was in combat beats a weekend warrior everytime, right? It depends. By his own admission Bush wasn't a big time war hero in Vietnam. He flew jets in Texas, transferred to Alabama, and got out six months early to go to Harvard. As for his "desertion", believe me, there have been many weekends in my own unit even after 9/11 when we left early and phone mustered because there wasn't anything to do. The military can be like that. Hurry up and wait. Bush wasn't in the "bush" fighting the "gooks" with his "band of brothers". He checked the blocks, did what he had to and left when something better came along. Not a record of outstanding and exemplary service, but outstanding and exemplary military service is rare anyway.

Kerry was in the "bush" fighting the "gooks" with his "band of brothers". Just like Marines, soldiers, sailors, and airmen are today in Iraq and Afghanistan. I regularly read or hear stories of wounded servicemen that say in reply to the question, "What now?', I just want to go back to my unit. Guys with eyes missing, limbs blown off, catastrophic burns, and various other wounds. Now those guys REALLY belong to a band of brothers. Not some miniseries title ripoff "band of brothers", the real thing. How else to explain wanting to rejoin your unit and doing so with multiple purple hearts (from enemy action) when you could go home to a hero's welcome. They do it because their service is the most important thing that these men have done in their lives and they know that it is something they will always regard as the pinnacle of their existence. And for good reason. And I'm not just talking about defending America against the terrorists, I'm talking about hosing down a truckload of scumbags with the .50 cal so your buddies don't take an RPG round. I'm talking about pulling your best friend from a burning hummer, or buttstroking some idiot upside the head so you don't have to shoot him so you can find out where a weapons cache is.

I can assure you that despite the murky and dubious purpose behind the Vietnam war, it was like every war before or since. Guys fought for their friends and their friends fought for them. Kerry never gave a damn about anyone in Coastal Div 11 because if he ever did, he wouldn't have weaseled his way out his duty after 4 months. There is no comraderie like that which is borne out of shared suffering, believe me I know. It takes quite a cold and calculating bastard to be able to resist the natural impulse to cling to the people around you that are sharing a common and frightening experience. Such a level of narcissism is certainly not common, and perhaps it was the narcissism of this strange man that drove him to slander his "brothers" so brazenly.

I can forgive a slacker, but I don't cut slack to a Blue Falcon like John Kerry.

Kerry's Conundrum

I suppose he had to say something about the 1000th death in Iraq, and at least he showed some respect for the military for once:

"Today marks a tragic milestone in the war in Iraq; more than 1,000 of America's sons and daughters have now given their lives on behalf of their country, on behalf of freedom, the war on terror," Kerry said as he arrived in Cincinnati on a campaign stop.
But I couldn't help but notice that THESE servicemembers died "on behalf of freedom, and the war on terror."? Excuse me? Since when does John Kerry believe that the Iraq war had anything to do with freedom, let alone the war on terror?

Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry on Monday called the invasion of Iraq "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time" and said his goal was to withdraw U.S. troops in a first White House term.
Whatever, John. I think that America has seen this movie before, and I know I didn't like the ending. I guess last time it went in the other direction though.

They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

Followed by:

"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he today that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother."
Henry V

"And in this journey, I am accompanied by an extraordinary band of brothers. . . . Our band of brothers doesn't march because of who we are as veterans, but because of what we learned as soldiers."
John Kerry's acceptance speech at the Democratic convention, July 29, 2004

And so we have come full circle, well Kerry has anyway.

Tuesday, September 07, 2004


I almost hope that Kerry trys to play the 1000 dead in Iraq card. I say almost because I am certain that a) the President will spank that down with authority and b) It would utterly discredit and disqualify this condescending ass from the office he desperately seeks.

I don't think that he will actually do it, though. He has to know that trivializing such a statistic and using it as a bludgeon while troops are daily risking life and limb would be so cynical and shameful as to be beneath contempt. We all know that the ravenous wolves of the leftist media will not be able to control themselves. To them its no different than a poor jobs number, or a Dow Jones loss. A big round number that fills a column, and represents some macabre milestone. They'll probably break out the graphs showing month by month casualty breakdowns. You know the ones with the soldier clip art each representing 10 deaths or something and ending with a half soldier for odd numbers. Then they'll pretend to give a damn about whoever was lucky 1000, and do some profile on the guy meanwhile taking out of context his family's grief as an anti-Bush statement. The lefty blogs will call him a dumbass like they did to Pat Tillman, and mock him and his committment to America to scorn just like Kerry did in '71.

Come to think of it, maybe Kerry will drop this one out on the stump, he's got nothing to lose now. I wonder how the Koolaid drinkers will react to that one. Do they cheer the death of 1000 patriots or do they boo their sacrifices?

Monday, September 06, 2004

W for Wrong?

Quick one. Are you kidding me? Kerry is making a wordplay on the President's middle initial (W is for Wrong). What is this, sixth grade? Talk about running out of ideas. Wow, that Kerry Quick Reaction Force really jumped in with both feet! How many former Clintonistas did it take to pull that out of the nether regions? What's next? Cheney is a Dick? Colin Polyp Powell? Condoskeeza Rice? Keep it up Carville, 2 more weeks like this and Laura can start picking out invitations for the Inauguration early.

Saturday, September 04, 2004

SEALs & Abu Ghraib

It has been reported that four SEALs have been charged in connection with the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse investigation. Well, I am not going to comment on the specifics of this case, but I will pose to you some of my insights into the general situation.

1) There is no doubt that the scape goating process within the military is operating at full speed. As usual, officers are trying to spread the responsibility as widely as possible in a futile effort to avoid career ending accountability. The enlisted operators who are the backbone of all ground military units are being and will continue to be implicated in order to minimize damage to officers.

2) As you might expect the SEALs and the CIA have been working very closely in the GWOT and particularly in Iraq. That cooperation has been very fruitful. The prosecution rate for individuals captured by the SEALs is 80%, while the rate for the rest of the Marine and Army infantry units conducting similiar operations is 15%. 4 out of 5 SEAL detainees are actual terrorists while not even 1 in 5 of the people caught up in big Army raids are legit targets. The implication is that the SEALs are ALWAYS hitting houses that are occupied with the most hard-core anti-coalition operatives. By extention, the SEALs are regularly facing extremely dangerous and well armed/trained terrorists.

3) As a former federal Criminal Investigator, I can tell you that one of the key elements that must be proved in a courtroom is intent (not motive like on Law & Order). A criminal intent is integral to demonstrating guilt of most any crime, and without it, circumstances present at the time can serve as mitigating factors. These mitigating factors are important indicators of why an action that seems criminal on its face, is not.

Leftists and America haters have already drawn paralells between Abu Ghraib and the type of atrocities that John Kerry lied about in his 1971 Senate testimony. Kerry essentially alleged that there was no reason for the Vietnam atrocities except for the inherent cruelty and evil of the American soldier. If his allegations had been truthful, then he would have a pretty strong argument supporting that contention. Let me say this, the pictures of humiliation and bizarre sexual positioning of prisoners at Abu Ghraib performed by National Guard members appears to have no other legitmate genesis beside cruelty.

But I would argue that whatever happened to a detainee between his capture and incarceration likely served a legitimate purpose. A very common scenario is that during a life and death struggle between a SEAL and a terrorist somebody is going to get hurt. I have been told by friends in the community and by Admiral McGuire at the reunion that the SEAL operations in Iraq have been so effective that very few terrorists have actually been killed by the Teams. Most of the time, the platoon is in and out of the target so quickly that shots did not need to be fired. Just like in Vietnam, the SEALs have used very fresh intel gathered from captured enemy combatants to go out even hours later to grab another, higher level target. This is obviously the most effective and safest way to do business if you're a SEAL in Iraq. By grabbing a terrorist and parlaying the intel gained at the target into another hit, and parlaying that...and so on and so on is the best way to eliminate terrorism.

Guess what? People are going to get hurt...on both sides. This is not tiddleywinks we're playing, this is War! Sometimes in combat things happen. Knowing what I know (and what you now know) I don't believe that there is any intent here outside of saving lives. That is the whole purpose of the GWOT!

I leave it to you to decide if you think I'm spinning or laying it out. One thing that I do know is that sitting on your couch, watching CNN in your air conditoned house safe and sound in the good old US of A is not a place from which anyone should be making judgements on the Navy SEAL's conduct of Counter Terrorist operations in Iraq. If NCIS has a case, let them make it.

Friday, September 03, 2004

Creepy Dems

This is difficult to say if only that his father was such a inspiring and important President, but Ron Reagan is creepy. I now watch some of the MSNBC programs in the same way that an investigator on a kiddie porn case watches the videos some freak NAMBLA member made. It is an experience that is disgusting and disturbing, but must be done in the interest of justice. Ron's facial expressions and body language are straight out of Queer Eye episodes. You can see him squirming with glee as he attacks President Bush or is encouraging a guest to do so. Obviously, he is totally partisan and has no business acting as a host/moderator, but the guy doesn't just toss softballs to liberal guests to knock out of the park, he steps up to the plate himself. All the while taking it personally when he is called on some of his more infantile and inane observations.

Then there is Hillary Clinton. I have serious sympathy for President Clinton sitting in a hospital bed staring down the barrel of a quadruple by-pass. I would be terrified at the prospect, and I know that my wife would be upset and concerned (and not expected to make any public announcements either). But to come onto Chris Matthews' "Spitball" and drop the "at least he has a good health plan" bomb is outrageous! And to make matters worse, Matthews says before the commercial how "classy" she was. Do these people talk to anyone outside a Manhattan cocktail party? They act like they are living in some weird lefty "Lord of the Flys" island or something.

Kudos to Ann Althouse on Kerry's "I will not have my committment to defend this country questioned by someone who, blah, blah, blah". Yes, dumbass, you will have it questioned, it has been questioned, and it will continue to be questioned, because you have brought these issues into doubt with your equivocation as of late and your gutless cut and run strategies of the past. You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting. The fact that this guy cannot accept that his life in politics is the subject of discussion is bizarre.

What did he expect this campaign was going to be about? That is such an intriguing question because there are so many creepy answers for it. For one, he must have thought that the 4 months in Vietnam was enough. He must have been able to play the hero card consequence free for so long that it started to look like Aces. This really goes to the sense of entitlement that this guy must feel, "I'm a billionaire, senator, war hero you don't question me, you gaze upon me in wonder." Secondly, he must think that the old media is so in the tank for him (not to mention foreign leaders) that he was content to channel auto workers on the stump until November when they would issue him his crown.

Doubling Special Ops?

John Kerry, in a speech to the American Legion on wednesday amongst other hollow promises said that he would double the size of special operations forces (SOF). This probably sounds like a great idea. I mean after all, is there any doubt that the SOF community has been doing much of the heavy lifting in the Global War On Terror (GWOT)? This is especially true in Afghanistan, where the "SOF Olympics" occurred in the winter of 2001 and spring of 2002. SOF forces from across the globe operating in support of Joint Special Operations Taskforce (JSOTF) K-Bar in Southern Afghanistan administered a hearty a$$ whuppin' to the Taliban and Al Qaida forces amongst 10k foot snow covered peaks starting in early October 2001. Bearing in mind those notable successes and many, many others that have not and never will be published, why shouldn't we double up on these very effective guys?

SOF Enduring Truth #3: SOF cannot be mass-produced. There is no easy formula for creating special operations personnel. Experience-a key element of special operations capability-can only be produced over time.

I can tell you that the Naval Special Warfare Center which runs Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL training (BUD/S) has been for years doing everything it can, short of lowering standards, to increase the number of graduates from this most difficult course. BUD/S has a state of the art sports medicine facility fully staffed with professional physical therapists and every therapeutic apparatus known to man. They have changed the foot wear worn during runs, increased the use of safety equipment, and even closely monitored the moment to moment physical condition of the students during hazardous or taxing evolutions (most everything). No matter what they have done or tried, the graduation rate at BUD/S remains at around 30% of those that start the program. 70% failure rate, consistently over 40 years! I don't know, but I suspect that the Q-Course (SF), and Indoc (PJ/STS) is stuck at a similar percentage of graduation (higher than BUD/S of course!)

During the annual UDT/SEAL reunion a couple weeks ago, the Commander, Naval Special Warfare Command, Admiral McGuire addressed this issue to the assembly. He remarked to us about a conversation he had recently had with President Bush where the President asked him how he was going to man up 2 additional SEAL Teams. Adm. McGuire told the President he didn't really know, but that he would get the job done (good military answer. I've used that one before!) President Bush told the Admiral that under no circumstances will training and selection of the best men be sacrificed to reach that goal. This demonstrates the President's detailed insights into how the military works and what will get results.

There is no way to double SOF; by attempting to rapidly increase SOF manning levels, the overall quality of the communities would suffer. The reduced quality would lead to lower retention of the experienced, pre-doubling operators and lead to widespread institutional distrust. BUD/S is difficult not only as a mechanism to weed out the weak and uncommitted, but it also serves as the foundation for all SEALs. Cracking that foundation will destroy all that is built upon it. Make no mistake, there is no other way to increase graduation rates.

The one thing that must be doubled when it comes to SOF is proficiency/hazardous duty/parachuting/diving/IDC pay for operators. These guys are serving in Iraq with their former Teammates who are now civilian contractors making $1000 a day and working 6 months a year. Meanwhile, they are away from their families for 12 out of EVERY 18 months and making $50k a year. This is a HUGE retention problem on the horizon and if the SOF leadership and the President do not address it, there will be no SOF left.

Thursday, September 02, 2004

On Rebuking

AGAINST! AGAINST! AGAINST! There you have it folks. That is the Kerry campaign, Senate record, and Vietnam record in a nutshell. Jim VandeHei in a desperate attempt to uplift the staggering Kerry campaign wrote this gem in his Washington Post column today:

the Democratic nominee offered one of his sharpest and most detailed
of how he would have handled the conflict and its aftermath
differently. "When it comes to Iraq, it's not that I would have done one
thing differently, I would have done almost everything differently," (Emphasis mine)

That is so very pathetic and so very revealing of a man who believes in nothing except his inherent superiority to all others. I heard a pastor tell a story of a man who said he had a "rebuking ministry". He would go around to different churches and bible studies for the purpose of nitpicking the lessons taught and rebuking the teacher. Needless to say, rebuking is not a gift of the Spirit because it is a ministry that has no ability to bear fruit. Jesus liked to say that, "You shall know them by their fruit."

As for his 20 year Senate career, Zell Miller pointed out that not only was Kerry against nearly every military weapons program he saw, he achieved nothing of consequence as a legislator during that time. Say what you will about Ted Kennedy's policies, he has gotten quite abit of his leftist agenda passed and can proudly tout many legislative achievements. Ever heard of a Kerry-Rudman bill, or Kerry Act, or McCain-Kerry campaign finance bill? They don't exist. This guy has been sitting back riding the coattails of his liberal collegues and criticizing his conservative opponents. He's done nothing worthy of mention in a 20 year career. Only a government employee could possibly assemble a record of failure like that and seek to be promoted, I know, I've seen it done! Where's the fruit?

As for his Vietnam activism which propelled him into office, Kerry promoted himself by backstabbing his "Band of Brothers" and rebuking the U.S. policy in Vietnam with a pack of lies about atrocities and cavalierly dismissing the fate of South Vietnam upon U.S. withdrawal. Here's a little taste of the 1971 Senate testimony:

KERRY. But I think, having done what we have done to that country, we have an obligation to offer sanctuary to the perhaps 2,000, 3,000 people who might face, and obviously they would, we understand that, might face political assassination or something else. But my feeling is that those 3,000 who may have to leave that country --
Senator AIKEN. I think your 3,000 estimate might be a little low because we had to help 800,000 find sanctuary from North Vietnam aFter the French lost at Dienbienphu.

A little low is right! Millions of S. Vietnamese were murdered, raped, and sent to "re-education" camps, not to mention the loss of at least 2 million Cambodians under the regime of Pol Pot. The naivetie is so staggering as to be unbelievable. He could not have believed that for one minute or at least he didn't care; he had made his splash with the "cutting off of heads" monologue already and was answering questions with no regard to the consequences. "I got mine," he must have thought. He did get his and so did the POWs in Hanoi, the vets coming home from war, and the people of Southeast Asia, they got something alright.

It's cliche' at this point to invoke the sentiment that a candidate has to be for something and not just against everything. But that why we have cliche's, they're generally true. One thing everybody knows John Kerry is for is himself.

Wednesday, September 01, 2004

Think the Unthinkable

The Chechen takeover of the Russian school sheds light on the soft underbelly of American society. Forester has some interesting insights on the subject that are worth elaboration. My visceral reaction to this situation was a jolt of sheer panic and white-hot anger. Trying to put myself in that situation as a parent or hostage is an awful realization. One that American citizens may very well face in the future.

After years of witnessing the daily carnage on the streets of Jerusalem, many Americans have become hardened to the unspeakable human tragedy that comes with every homicide bomb. Of course there are times when the evil face of terror is so vivid and awful that we cannot help but to bathe in the horror. But while 9/11 can be seen as a unique event and the Sbarro pizza bombing/re-enactment an act on foreign land, this school attack could happen here, today.

There is absolutely no defense against this sort of attack, and the fear and terror that it would generate cannot be quantified. I honestly don't know what effect such an attack might have on U.S. public opinion or who it would help or hurt in the election. But it would have an effect, a deciding effect to be sure. No one could "benefit" from this type of abominable action, but many would suffer from it.

For me, an attack of that nature would require taking the gloves off, for good. I'm talking about extreme measures domestically and internationally.

Can any of the relativists on the streets of New York today not see the difference between civilization and a culture of satanic evil. Every man is capable of evil, but this type of assault is truly reminiscent of an evil on par with the Holocaust, and the ravages of the countryside demonstrated by the likes of Ghengis Khan.