Fresh Tasty Ideas

Apparently, John Kerry was shunned by our soldiers on his latest visit to Iraq. For some reason they didn’t appreciate his comments about being stuck in Iraq because they were stupid.

A picture is worth a thousand words. Here’s what the soldier who took the photo wrote:

This is a true story…..Check out this photo from our mess hall at the US Embassy yesterday
morning. Sen. Kerry found himself all alone while he was over here. He
cancelled his press conference because no one came, he worked out alone
in the gym w/o any soldiers even going up to say hi or ask for an
autograph (I was one of those who was in the gym at the same time), and
he found himself eating breakfast with only a couple of folks who are
obviously not troops.

What is amazing is Bill O’Reilly came to visit with us and the troops at
the CSH the same day and the line for autographs extended through the
palace and people waited for two hours to shake his hand. You decide who
is more respected and loved by us servicemen and women!

And this guy was almost the president?

Kerry, Iraq, military, soldier, Bush

Wow, major props to the Iranian government today. It looks like the US and the rest of the world should think twice about striking Iran to disable its nuclear program. Why? The answer is right here:

That, my friends, is the pride of the Iranian Air Force. It’s called the Thunderbolt, or “Saequeh” in Persian. And yes, they built it all by themselves. Ok, that’s almost true; they retrofitted it all by themselves — the plane was actually built by Americans over 25 years ago (silly details, really). It seems Iran hasn’t been gifted anymore airplanes after that whole Islamic Revolution thingy some two decades plus ago. As a result, the Iranian government really knows how to squeeze an extra few thousand kilometers out of their two-generations old fighter technology. Bravo on the paint job boys, it’s looking spiffy!

I wonder how this F-5 clunker from a quarter century ago with newly-installed Iranian seat belts would fare against some top-of-the-line US technology, like this guy:

Of course, the Iranian government could always paint a couple cool racing stripes down the side of those old pre-1980 F-5’s, then we’d really be in trouble.

military, Iran, F-5, F-22, America

At what point in a war does your enemy brush aside all its principles and offer concessions? When he is weak and fears complete annihilation, he will attempt last-ditch negotiations, seeing no other alternative except death.

That could be what we’re seeing in Iraq, with eleven Sunni terrorist organizations offering to stop attacks on US soldiers if in turn the US agrees to withdraw (or “redeploy” as Democrats like to say) its military within a period of two years. This comes after siezed material from al-Zarqawi’s safehouse illustrates the increasingly difficult scenario facing terrorists bent on destroying the Iraq government and US forces occupying the country.

It would be foolish to cease operations in Iraq now, when the signs are beginning to point to a weakening insurgency. This is probably not their “last throes” but it is definitely a good sign.

terrorism, Iraq, Sunni

The New York Times has repeatedly revealed secret information about programs that the government uses to track and capture terrorists. One such program involves the oversight of international financial transactions amongst suspected al-Queda terrorists. The New York Times published all the details about this program, effectively eliminating its secret status. The New York Times intentionally ran the story, despite the fact that Tony Snow had specifically asked them not to, and also despite the fact that the program was perfectly legal, and key members of the Senate had been briefed about it.

This deliberate jab at the Bush administration is inexcusable, not only because it places politics above genuine reporting (something the NYT is altogether unfamiliar with), but because they have purposefully weakened our nation’s ability to defend itself from terrorist attacks. Conservative media outlets — sadly, none on the left are expressing their indignation — are livid that the NYT is sytematically destroying secret and legal government programs:

While the legality of printing secrets may be debatable, it’s clear there’s a crisis among media elites that have allowed hatred of the president and his party to taint their reporting. In the process, they’ve destroyed whatever claims to objectivity and fairness they might have once had. Far worse, they’ve given aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war — and that is simply inexcusable.

Indeed, where do the allegiances of the editors at the New York Times lie? Do they really hate Bush more than suicide bombing Islamic terrorists? Whose side are they on?

And in response, what does NYT do? They publish more classified information:

WASHINGTON, June 24 — The top American commander in Iraq has drafted a plan that projects sharp reductions in the United States military presence there by the end of 2007, with the first cuts coming this September, American officials say.

According to a classified briefing at the Pentagon this week by the commander, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the number of American combat brigades in Iraq is projected to decrease to 5 or 6 from the current level of 14 by December 2007.

This was a classified briefing. If it was a secret before, it isn’t anymore, thanks to the NY Times. Even if they had been given clearance to report such details, shouldn’t the staff at the NYT exercise a bit of common sense judgement? Is it a good idea or a bad idea to report the specific intinerary of US troops in Iraq, which units will be in place and which will be deployed elsewhere, etc? What ever happend to “loose lips sink ships?” This type of behaviour on the part of the NY Times really makes me question if they support our country at all. Why else would they endanger us and our troops by publishing sensitive military and government information after being warned not to. The editors who approved the stories ought to be thrown in jail for treason.

Update: Here’s another great editorial on how the NYT has betrayed America.

New York Times, liberal bias, Iraq, terrorism, politics

America has had troops in Iraq for over three years now, and our forces have been in Afghanistan for nearly five years. During that time, American citizens have been very interested in the operations and progress of those countries. It is for that reason perhaps that we tend to pay less attention to other violent flare-ups around the world. Here are some situations that we should be keeping an eye on:

1. Darfur: Arabic Islamic Janjaweed militamen have been killing Christians and non-Arabs in Darfur, and violence now threatens to spill over into neighboring Chad. The United Nations has refused to officially classify the situation as a genocide, which would then require intervention.
2. Somalia: The Islamic militias captured the capital Mogadishu from secular, U.S. backed warlords in May. While the number of casualties remains insignifcant when compared to a situation such as Darfur, the capture of Somalia’s capital is a demonstration of the growing might of Islamic militias in Somalia. It will probably be only a matter of time before these militias return to the offensive in the interest of expansion. In the meantime, the citizens of Somalia will be subjected to the brutal and unyielding rule of Islamic law, or Sharia.
3. Southern Thailand: Almost without any media coverage, 1300 people have died in southern Thailand since January 2004 due to terrorist attacks. The unrest is to blame on Muslim fundamentalists who have perpetrated 72 bomb attacks just this past weekend.

There are plenty of other hotspots, such as Sri Lanka, but they appear to be localized and inspired primarily by regional interests and not a religion. How long is the rest of the world going to sit idly by and watch our global neighborhood by ransacked by Islamists? Is the problem not widespread enough to warrant action? When will the evidence warrant action in Darfur, Mogadishu, and Thailand? And why are there Muslims worldwide who happen to “misinterpret” Islam in exactly the same way — as a call to violence against unbelievers?

terrorism, Islam, Darfur, Somalia, Mogadishu, Thailand, military, religion

On June 9, on a beach in the northern part of the Gaza strip, eight Palestinian civilians were killed in an explosion. Palestinian cameramen were on the scene immediately, filming the grief-stricken cries of one Huda Ghaliya, as she mourned the loss of her father. Palestinian Authority TV then combines this footage of the crying girl with unrelated stock footage of an Israeli battleship in a video that implies an Israeli massacre. Immediately — and somewhat confusingly given later developments — the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) issued an apology and promised an investigation into what Mahmoud Abbas decried as a “bloody tragedy.” Hamas, the dominant party within the Palestinian government, calls off their truce with Israeli after the “Gaza beach massacre.”

As if by design, Huda Ghaliya becomes an overnight celebrity in Palestine. Mahmoud Abbas offers to adopt her (even though Huda’s mother did not die) and Gaza’s American School has given Huda a full scholarship. Countless human interest stories are run in which Huda is portrayed as “an icon of the Palestinian struggle against Israeli might.” Newspapers and other media outlets rush to interview Huda and present her tragic loss at the hands of the IDF to the world. Liberal bloggers and left-wing organizations quickly condemn the “Israeli terrorist state” and the atrocities it has committed against the Palestinian people.

Doubts begin to surface almost immediately regarding Palestine’s account of the incident. Conservative bloggers were skeptical from the beginning, noting that Palestine has a long history of staging tragic reenactments for release to the international media (for more information, watch the Pallywood video). Palestine also had the motive for staging an atrocity — the government is going bankrupt in a hurry. A widely covered Israeli massacre might be just what the doctor ordered to get those international aid checks rolling in again.

On June 13, four days after the incident, the Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz states that Israel did not accidentally shell the Gaza beach. The evidence gathered since the incident easily punches holes in the official Palestnian explanation. To begin with, the PA TV video does not show a crater, which would be expected if an artillery shell hit a beach. The shrapnel extracted from two of the victims is inconsistent with the type of metal used in Israeli artillery shells. Israel had been shelling an area within Palestine where it was believed terrorists were launching rockets across the border into Israel that day. However, no shells were fired between 4:47 p.m. and 5:10 p.m., when the Gaza beach incident took place. And during the whole investigation, the IDF complained about a lack of cooperation from the Palestinian government.

It appears now that a Hamas landmine actually killed the eight Palestinians and wounded 20 others. Rather than accepting blame for the massacre (or is it a massacre anymore, now that Israel is not at fault?) and comforting the victims, the Hamas-led Palestinian government chose to exploit their deaths. The footage of Huda crying at the sight of her dead father was staged, and distributed to gullible media outlets. Just like a puppet master, the PA TV had American and international media outlets dancing to the tune of oppression and massacre at the hands of the big, bad Israelis. But now that this shameful fraud has been exposed, will the international community chastise Palestine for these deplorable actions? Will the bloggers who damned Israel for their brutally oppressive regime recant and apologize for wrongly accusing them of the murders? Or will this simply be forgotten?

Israel, Palestine, shell, Gaza, IDF, Hamas, Mahmoud Abbas, Ghaliya, propaganda, liberal bias, liberals, conservatives, news, politics

The case of whether US Marines massacred Iraqi civilians in Haditha is already decided among some liberals. The Nation magazine writes:

Enough details have emerged from survivors and military personnel to conclude that in the town of Haditha last November, members of the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment perpetrated a massacre.

The official inquiry into the alleged massacre has not finished, yet The Nation concludes that our troops are guilty until proven innocent. Is this how the left supports our troops, by damning them without proof?

The Nation’s stance is an example of a general attitude towards the Haditha incident among a portion of the left. They already believe our troops are guilty, and what’s more, you get the feeling that they enjoy the shame and embarassment it brings to the US Marines. That’s just wrong, and it’s not patriotic either. I hope American remember their words should our troops be exonerated.

There are valid reasons to be hopeful that our troops are innocent. From what I have read, there are only two soldiers who have spoken about the incident, and neither were present when the alleged massacre took place. In an article just released Friday, a Presbyterian minister who was embedded with his son’s company spoke out:

“I would think that if it was as bad as everybody is making it out to be, I’d have heard something about it when I was there,” said the Rev. Ben Mathes, 53, whose son, 1st Lt. Adam Mathes, is Kilo company’s executive officer.

“It was freezing cold and everybody gathered around this kind of metal fireplace where we chopped up wooden pallets and burnt them and we’d sit there and talk about home and family and the deepest things with these kids,” he said in an interview on Thursday. “Not once did anything come up that something horrible had happened.”

“You would think that if something horrible had happened they would just disappear or just have nothing to do with these folks,” Mathes said. “They came out on the streets and brought us bread and tea and invited us into their homes. The businessmen would have them come into their shops.”

I am hoping that the allegations are untrue. However, if they turn out to be true, I fully support justice being served to the guilty Marines. But the story is far from clear, and those who already have condemned our troops only serve to show their true colors.

Update: Apparently, Time magazine has retracted “the most damning piece of evidence” as well some other details with regards to its coverage on the Haditha incident

Haditha, Iraq, Marines, liberals, Bush, Murtha, politics, news

When I woke up today, the first news that I read about was the bombing death of al-Zarqawi. My reaction: awesome! I mean, the guy has inspired Jihadis to attack our troops for a long time now. Of course it’s a positive sign that he’s dead. So I go over to DailyKos to see their reaction. One post reads only “finally” and quotes the AP article. Of course the comments section is full of insults (for Bush), and question of conspiracy regarding the timing of al-Zarqawi’s death and Bush’s poll numbers (wow, the deep end has arrived). The only other mention of this accomplishment comes in an open thread which reminds us of all our failures trying to kill this guy in the past.

So when America kills a wanted terrorist, the far-left uses it to continue stewing in their hatred for Bush, while right-wingers rejoice and hope that Iraq has turned a corner. I can’t begin to express my indignance with the people at Daily Kos right now, I feel like they are traitors to our nation. They rejoice in our failings, and hate to see any success. Very telling.

Update: at Democratic Underground, they think that it’s fake. LGF is keeping watch over the the rest of the “reality-based community’s” reaction to al-Zarqawi’s death.

Update 2: Here’s something the lefties at Kos are celebrating: a deserting solider. This figures, celebrate a deserter, and attack Bush for killing a terrorist. “Reality-based” indeed. Desertion is a crime.

al-Zarqawi, Iraq, terrorism, Daily Kos, news, liberals, conservatives

Did the London Times intentionally mislabel a photo of murdered Iraqis to slander US troops? Here’s the photo with the original caption:

But, in fact, these people are fishermen not residents of Haditha. And they were killed six months before the alleged Haditha massacre. And they were killed by “insurgents” not American troops. Here’s the corrected caption:

But their apology and retraction was too late: it already inspired more hatred for our troops among the left. Here’s a cartoon from Jack Higgins of the Chicago Sun Times:

Michelle Malkin has contact information up on her page that you can use to contact the paper’s editor and inform him of the mistake. Here’s what I wrote:

Are you aware the London Times photo that you based your Haditha cartoon on was, in fact, not correctly captioned? The dead in the photo are actually Iraqi fisherman, murdered by “insurgents.” Please retract your cartoon and issue an apology for falsely conflating these deaths with American troops.

But it’s too late, the damage is done, people have associated those dead people with an American massacre. I sincerely doubt this was a mistake, given that the left has already convicted American troops of the Haditha massacre, in spite of the fact that the only two troops who have spoken out were not in Haditha when the incident happened.

Screenshot captions courtesy of Michelle Malkin.

liberal bias, Iraq, terrorism, politics, Marines, Haditha

In his inagural address to the nation, the President of the United States once said:

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This bold affirmation of liberty and freedom was part of a new doctrine. The date was the 20th of January, 1961. The president was in fact not Republican George W. Bush, but Democrat John F. Kennedy. Flash forward now to 2006: what has happened to that belief in liberty within the Democratic party as a fundamental human right? Where is the dedication to the spread of liberty around the world?

Reading far-left blogs such as Daily Kos and Think Progress causes me much sadness. Here are people that delight in the failings of the US within Iraq and Afghanistan. They rejoice when Afghanis riot against their new, democratic government. They point their fingers across the political aisle to say “I told you so” when Marines die in Falluja or when a Blackhawk helicopter is downed by terrorists. They read with baited breath of how US Marines allegedly massacred Iraqi civilians and hope that finally American troops will be brought home so that Iraq will fall into the hands of the Islamic terrorists.

Every IED that kills a US solider, every civilian contractor that is brutally tortured and killed, and every Iraqi civilian that is killed by a suicide bomber is a crushing blow. American families greive their lost loved ones who will never return from duty, Iraqi families greive their lost loved ones who won’t come home from a trip to the market. These deaths are also blows to the Bush administration, and to Bush’s reputation himself. This is no doubt why the left finds it difficult to contain their exuberance regarding mistakes and setbacks in Iraq.

But above all, each of the above events represent a small defeat for liberty. Terrorists in Iraq, streaming in from Iran and Syria, want nothing more than the eradication of freedom and democracy. In fact, they want the antithesis to these concepts — they want Islamic law, or Shariah. And to accomplish this, they want to force out the American military. There is then no doubt that some Islamic extremists loyal to the terrorists within Iraq (as well as their aims) are allying themselves with the global anti-war movement. Because American troops will never lose on the battlefield, and the terrorists know this.

So why have Democrats abandoned their belief in liberty? How has the party gone from “bear any burden” to “democracy just isn’t for everyone” (this is a popular sentiment now among part of the left)? And how has political bickering become more important than seeing through America’s mission in Iraq and Afghanistan? For those who hate Bush, who despise Republican stances on taxes or on education, for even the people who don’t believe that the WMD intelligence, although incorrect, wasn’t falsified — how can you justify cheering on the enemies of liberty? What cause is greater?

Democracy in Iraq is far from the democracy you or I know. But the world has no other choice than to promote democracy in nations that breed violence, instability, and terrorism. Not so coincidentally, these are Islamic nations. But democracy is a tool, and this tool can and will tear apart the stranglehold that clerics and mullahs have over their people. And to think peace can be obtained otherwise — without giving liberty to those who now live without it — is horribly mistaken.

Kennedy, Bush, liberty, democracy, Iraq, democrats, republicans, politics, religion, Islam, terrorism