Interesting…news from 2003 we could have used.

Could these weapons have been within our reach, but spirited away, while the military dealt with an offensive that went so fast, they couldn’t have possibly managed to keep the chaos organized?

As teh article points out, it would be tremendously embarrassing for the White House to let the cat out of the bag now…after all, it is a Republican President, and he can’t lie, without being pilloried by the press and the Democrats. On the other hand, a Democrat president could shrugs their shoulders and say “it all depends on what the meaning of ‘found’ is” and the story would pass with a yawn.

Forget that. The routine harangues about no WMD, and therefore no need to have had 4000+ service members giving their lives would be stopped in their tracks, even if it is “embarrassing.” On top of that, the reasonable opportunity to no longer continue the shredding of the nation along ideological lines would actually be good for us, and would most certainly allow peace of mind for the familes who have contributed far too much in the form of a lost loved one, knowing it wasn’t in vain, or for some future legacy, but for the real protection of peoples, even beyond our borders.

Also, in the end part of the article, a comment about seeing thousands of Iranians crossing into Iraq, specifically for the purpose of fomenting a civil war. Kinda like BhO not wearing a flag label pin, and a few months later, you find out his mentor hates the country. It puts incomprehensible things into a context that makes sense.

Anyhow, take a read, and see what may well have been mishandled, and the net result is someone, in fact, many people are at risk for this error, if in fact the linked story is correct.

Is it better to listen to the pronunciations of those who have never left the comfort of their homes, or Congressional Offices, as to the current state of affairs and progress of the in Iraq, or a person who has risked life and limb to find and report what is happening?

I’ll pick the person with boots on the ground and eyes on the scene in every case. In this case, it’s Michael Yon in a Wall Street Journal editorial:

Let’s ‘Surge’ Some More
By MICHAEL YON
April 11, 2008

It is said that generals always fight the last war. But when David Petraeus came to town it was senators – on both sides of the aisle – who battled over the Iraq war of 2004-2006. That war has little in common with the war we are fighting today.

I may well have spent more time embedded with combat units in Iraq than any other journalist alive. I have seen this war – and our part in it – at its brutal worst. And I say the transformation over the last 14 months is little short of miraculous.

The change goes far beyond the statistical decline in casualties or incidents of violence. A young Iraqi translator, wounded in battle and fearing death, asked an American commander to bury his heart in America. Iraqi special forces units took to the streets to track down terrorists who killed American soldiers. The U.S. military is the most respected institution in Iraq, and many Iraqi boys dream of becoming American soldiers. Yes, young Iraqi boys know about “GoArmy.com.”

As the outrages of Abu Ghraib faded in memory – and paled in comparison to al Qaeda’s brutalities – and our soldiers under the Petraeus strategy got off their big bases and out of their tanks and deeper into the neighborhoods, American values began to win the war.
[…]

Don’t miss the rest of the words of a man who has lived the war, not just been a “commuter” in and out of the war zone.

Even if you did ride a corkscrewing landing into an airfield with a sniper trying to take you out, it cannot possibly produce the understanding and analysis of the person who was there before you ducked and ran for the cars, and after you left, with months and months and months being the measurement scale.

History, when complied and sorted through, I’ll wager, will report a very different war from what our newspapers and “national news” organizations have. Funny, I’m not sure why they are betting to be connected to a business model that would paint them as completely off base in their reporting of the present, unless, of course, there was much more gain in supporting our enemies and the cowards who will not speak the truth.

Interesting how things are turning out: jf kerry’s too stupid to get educated types are rolling up their sleeves, and putting down their M-4s to help another people make a life.

From a wonderful and detailed post by Michael Totten:

“This is my hardest deployment,” Marine Sergeant Cooley said as he unfastened his helmet and tossed it onto his bed. “We weren’t trained for this kind of thing.” He’s been shot at with bullets and mortars, and he’s endured IED attacks on his Humvee, but post-war Fallujah is more difficult and more stressful than combat. He isn’t unusual for saying so. Many Marines I spoke to in and around the Fallujah area said something similar.

“We’re trained as infantrymen,” Captain Stewart Glenn said. “But here we are doing civil administration and trying to get the milk factory up and running.”

“We make up all this stuff as we go,” Lieutenant Mike Barefoot added.

While most Americans go to school, work traditional day jobs, and raise their families, young American men and women like these are deployed to Iraq, Kosovo, and Afghanistan where they work seven days a week rebuilding societies torn to pieces by fascism, terrorism, ethnic cleansing, and war. It is not what they signed up to do. Some may have geeked out on nation-building video games like Civilization, but none of the enlisted men picked up any of these skills in boot camp.
[..]

Go, read, absorb and put it in your memory banks, for those years from now, when you meet an OIF vet, long removed from that part of their lives, now just looking like almost any other person i our nation, not wearing a uniform. Shake their hand. Tell them how much you appreciate that they would take up tools, instead of weapons or war, for those half way around the globe, to save them, and to thereby save us from harm.

I remain in awe of the compassion and dedication of those who have been trained to use violence in defense of this nation, and can put that aside for a greater purpose for all mankind.

I’ll venture to say, it will not be in me to ever thank a Democrat for the role they have played in signaling the enemy it is acceptable to kill ours and their own to support the political end game of a few power hungry people to the detriment of the rest of humanity. More souls have been lost in their pursuit of power, while our service men and women clean up behind them. But then. how could we expect anything else?

I found this chasing links via Little Green Footballs.

Not only does this man tell us something of the actuality of Al Qaeda in Iraq, before 2003, but also of how they are among us now, and others are being actively recruited as they arrive in the US. The oft asked question: Where are the moderate Muslims? Here he is, and he is not just saying it, he is engaged in helping in the hunt to track and contain the very real threat to our very safety while doing that for the sake of his family. His vision is a large one, which seeks to protect us all, in order to protect his family All I can think is how is he being selfish for us all and I’ll accept that any day from a fellow human being. He’s more than moderate, he’s a man we should one day be able to bring into public and award him for his courage and desire for real peace among humanity.

The “teaser,” but I’d recommend you sit and read the entire interview at FrontPage Magazine carefully. Sobering, insightful, myth destroying, and uplifting to know at least one man will take a stand, even if Harry Ried, Nancy Pelosi and their majority will not:

Al Qaeda in Iraq Under Saddam
By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | Thursday, March 13, 2008

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Osama al-Magid, a former police officer in Iraq (1992- 2003). He can be contacted at osamaalmajid@yahoo.com.

FP: Osama al-Magid, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Al-Magid: Thank you Mr. Glazov. I hope to provide information to the American public that will help them understand that terrorism in the U.S. from Al Qaeda did not end on September 11th, 2001. There are currently supporters of Al Qaeda not only outside of the U.S. but also inside of it.

This is my first interview pertaining to many of the issues I am going to discuss with you. Right now I can provide some details, but as time goes by I will be providing the Americans with more about the truth in Iraq. There have been friends of mine who have tried to inform the American people about things in Iraq before 2003 and after the Americans came to Iraq, but for some reasons the information has not been widely publicized. I will tell the American people that a person who is like a brother to me has risked his life to tell people about many important issues in Iraq. I met Special Agent Dave Gaubatz in 2003 (Nasiriyah). Dave and I started working together to obtain intelligence about threats against the U.S. forces. We traveled in Nasiriyah and other cities. We protected one another and today in 2008 we are still working together. I can’t explain everything right now for security reasons, but we are traveling through America and trying to identify terrorists and their supporters who want to attack America like in 2001. We are trying to help law enforcement so they can protect America.

Both of us have families and we do not want the children in America, Iraq, or any country to suffer from terrorism.
[…]

A man for the times. A man who stands for a future of peace, exactly the left says they want. Will they acknowledge him and lend their support?

Update: Maybe we are witness to the dam breaking, first the article above, then about a Muslim who equates Islam with fascism. Brave men, these two, and needed urgently to stay strong.

It seems there way too much going on at a much higher level, as we, collectively, suffer from the early onset of Presidential politics.Thanks to the new feature that Charles installed at Little Green Footballs called the “Link Viewer,” I have been collecting links to, hopefully, sort in a logic order and then make some points.Personally, I used to see the “news” a day or two ahead of the MSM at LGF. Kinda fun, actually, seeing the MSM getting scooped by thousands of “intelligence collection agents” (all working for free, mind you). Now, with the volume of links there, I find some very interesting reading, yet it seems even the LGF “cycle” is not as speedy as I once thought. On the other hand, the pages are crowded with great tidbits, and larger stories from all points of the globe.

My collection effort began with a section: “The Coming Tsunami.” Relates to the sweeping tide of Islamist culture, driven hard into use using explosive techniques. I have subfolders for “Head in the sand” and “Destroy the ability to fight.” The latter mentioned is getting lots of interest, as those who we pay to represent us are on holiday, leaving their in baskets full of the people’s business, and it’s not because they are overworked, but more invested in making politic points for their own gain..all the while, spending my and your money. I have also included a “Push back” folder, which, thankfully, is showing some activity.

When will it all come together? Not sure. But, like others who have been involved in having to look at piles of hard copy inputs, then make a reasonable assessment of it all, while being paid, I’m finding it is still something I’m drawn to do.

Now, for my friends in Congress, who would allow trial lawyers to earn more multi millions, if not billions, while exposing the very foundations of our economy and therefore society to destruction while out shaking hands and kissing the very babies they care not if they are killed at the mall, here is my completely unconflicted message to you:

Bonus found via the referenced Link Viewer): “The Liberal Mind” by Dr. Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr. He says they are just like angry little children. Gee, who woulda thunk it?

Adam Gadahn is taking a dirt nap?

Not wishing death on anyone, but…something about living by the sword comes to mind…

In a war long ago and far away, a “terrorist” was caught and executed. 40 years ago today, as a matter of historical fact.General Loan was murdered that day, and the man who took the photo came to realize it. Eddie Adams spent a lifetime trying to apologize:

[…]
Adams caught the instant of death in a photo that made front pages around the world. It would became one of the Vietnam’s War’s most indelible images, shocking the American public and used by critics to dispute official claims that the war was being won.

In later years Adams found himself so defined — and haunted — by the picture that he would not display it at his studio. He also felt it unfairly maligned Loan, who lived in Virginia after the war and died in 1998.

“The guy was a hero,” Adams said, recalling Loan’s explanation that the man he executed was a Viet Cong captain, responsible for murdering the family of Loan’s closest aide a few hours earlier.

“Sometimes a picture can be misleading because it does not tell the whole story,” Adams said in an interview for a 1972 AP photo book. “I don’t say what he did was right, but he was fighting a war and he was up against some pretty bad people.”
[…]

It’s about context. In context, in the heat of battle, a combatant not dressed in a uniform…well, the Geneva Conventions allow this.

On the other hand, another Vietnam War photographer (still living), denies it was right, questioned if the man killed had been killing and that gives an entirely different spin on the story, the exact opposite of the “justice” being protrayed:

[…]
Sadly Adams is dead, so the programme featured a different, but also distinguished, war photographer Philip Jones Griffiths. And Jones Griffiths described his feelings about the photo and his own decision to track down and photograph the executed man’s widow.

Jones Griffiths had strong views on the photo and gave them to us.

He dismissed the idea that the executed man had been a killer saying both that the idea that the man had just killed others was “kind of propaganda” and that “he wouldn’t have been much of a Vietcong soldier” if he hadn’t tried to kill people. He clearly viewed the photo’s power as being its revelation of the evil of the war and America’s involvement.
[…]

Nice to put your spin on the situation your professional peer, now passed away, witnessed, in context.

Anyhow, there’s context with the picture taken 40 years ago this day, and when it was, the shooting killed many things, including the reputation of a fighting man.

A picture here, with an attached essay tell the story of a Nation United.

Another picture here, which has become the image of a Nation Now Divided.

One event stood us together, then next one, tears us apart.

One let us proclaim the evil of the enemy, the other, warns us from “judging” others, lest we be taken into court for “hating.”

Once a Nation that saw the President as it’s leader, even if flawed, now see the President as the proximate cause of all the ills of the plant, our people and the people even outside our borders.

Once a place where many rolled up their sleeves and pitched in to make for the betterment of their neighbors and the country, now one that sits back and awaits the arrival of Government agencies, then has the guts to deride them as ineffective in making them feel the way they want to.

Once a nation that cared what the majority wanted and needed and tempered it with a large dose of common sense. Now any one person can cause their discomfort in a situation become a life change for the rest of the citizenry with little opposition.

But…a Nation who’s young men stood in line for hours on this day 66 years ago, and has young men and women still raising their right hands and saying “I will support and defend The Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help me God” and mean it with the very fiber of their soul.

There is hope. It is portrayed in the images we see of 17, 18, 19 and 20 something year olds, purposely trading personal freedom for the Nation’s well being. They are the future leaders, and they are learning what it means to defend something valuable.

Far more eloquently than I would, SteelJaw Scribe has a tribute to that day in his Flight Deck Friday series.

Words and powerful pictures take you back to a different time in the history of our Nation, and that of the world.

In September 2005, Colorado Representative Tom Tancredo said that he would not be happy so long as the Flight 93 Memorial still included the giant crescent. He has kept his promise. The crescent is still there, and Tom Tancredo is NOT HAPPY.Alec Rawls has just received from Representative Tancredo a letter of complaint that Mr. Tancredo sent to Park Service Director Mary Bomar this afternoon. It notes the continued presence of the crescent:

Unfortunately, it appears that little if any substantive changes to the most troubling aspect of the design – the crescent shape – have been made.

And it calls for scrapping the crescent design entire and starting anew:

And while I regret having to contact the Park Service again about this issue, I sincerely hope that you will direct the committee to scrap the crescent design entirely in favor of a new design that will not make the memorial a flashpoint for this kind of controversy and criticism.

Thank you Tom Tancredo! The full text of Mr. Tancredo’s letter is pasted below.

G Gordon Liddy is on it

Alec Rawls will be on G Gordon Liddy’s radio show tomorrow morning (Tuesday) from 11-12, talking about the many Islamic and terrorist memorializing features in the planned memorial. The show should be a blockbuster.

Tom Burnett Sr. is going to call in. Tancredo or his press secretary TQ Houlton may call in.   And YOU can call in:

1 800 GGLiddy

Streaming audio and broadcast stations here. Podcasts here. For the full expose, see Alec’s Crescent of Betrayal book, available for free download until the print edition of the book comes out in February.

A crescent and star flag on the crash site

For those who are not familiar with the memorial debacle, the original Crescent of Embrace design would have planted a bare naked Islamic crescent and star flag on the crash site:

Architect Paul Murdoch’s job is to work with symbols. He did not plant an Islamic flag on the crash site by accident. But even if this were somehow coincidence, it would still be wrong to build the memorial in a shape that the hijackers claimed as their own.

Representative Tancredo was the only Congressman to state the obvious, that “the crescent’s prominent use as a symbol in Islam–and the fact that the hijackers were radical Islamists,” raises the possibility that “the design, if constructed, will in fact make the memorial a tribute to the hijackers.” (Tancredo Press release, 9/12/2005. See Crescent of Betrayal, download 1, page xiii.)

Two days later, Tancredo’s press secretary laid out Tom’s conditions:

… that the congressman would be happy with the changes only if the crescent shape is removed.

Nothing was changed

All the Memorial Project did was add some surrounding trees. Every particle of the original Crescent of Embrace design remains completely intact in the Bowl of Embrace redesign. The crescent shape was NOT removed. It was only very slightly disguised:

The graphics were recolored, and a few trees were added outside of the mouth of the crescent (lower left). Every particle of the original crescent and star structure remains. (Click here for site plan view.)

Representative Tancredo was right to demand removal of the crescent. It turns out that a person facing directly into the half mile wide crescent will be facing Mecca. That makes it a mihrab, the central feature around which every mosque is built. You can plant as many trees around a mosque as you want and it will still be a mosque. This is the world’s largest mosque, by a factor of a hundred.

If you want to thank Tom Tancredo for keeping his Flight 93 promise and standing up again for the honor of our murdered heroes, his phone numbers and online email form are here.

Full text of Representative Tancredo’s letter to Park Service Director Mary Bomar

November 5, 2007

The Honorable Mary A. Bomar
Director
National Park Service
U.S. Department of Interior
1849 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20240

Dear Director Bomar,

I am regrettably writing you in reference to the proposed memorial to commemorate the victims of Flight 93 which crashed in Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001. As you may know, I contacted Director Mainella in late 2005 about my concerns with the design.

The appropriateness of the original design, dubbed the “Crescent of Embrace,” was questioned because of the crescent’s prominent use as a symbol in Islam – and the fact that the hijackers were radical Islamists. As I pointed out in my September 2005 letter, the use of the crescent has raised questions in some circles about whether the design would make the memorial a tribute to the hijackers rather than the victims whose mission the flights passengers helped to thwart.

When I received Director Mainella’s response to my letter on October 6, 2005, I was pleased to read her assurance that the advisory committee and the architect were amenable to “refinements in the design which will include negating any perceptions to the iconography.” I was also pleased to learn that the name of the memorial was to be changed.

Unfortunately, it appears that little if any substantive changes to the most troubling aspect of the design – the crescent shape – have been made. This deeply concerns me. As I told Director Mainella in 2005: Regardless of whether or not the invocation of a Muslim symbol by the memorial designer was intentional, I continue to believe that the use of this symbol is unsuitable for paying appropriate tribute to the heroes of Flight 93 or the ensuing American struggle against radical Islam that their historic last act has come to symbolize.

I remain committed to ensuring that this memorial is a powerful symbol for the whole nation and a testament to the courage and will of the passengers of the flight – as I am sure you are. And while I regret having to contact the Park Service again about this issue, I sincerely hope that you will direct the committee to scrap the crescent design entirely in favor of a new design that will not make the memorial a flashpoint for this kind of controversy and criticism.

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Tom Tancredo, M.C.

The phony redesign

To see clearly how the redesign leaves the original Mecca-oriented cescent fully intact, note that the orientation of the crescent is determined by connecting the most obtruding points of the crescent structure, then forming the perpendicular bisector to this line (red arrow):

The green circle shows the direction to Mecca (the “qibla” direction) from Somerset PA. It was generated using the Mecca-direction calculator at Islam.com. Just place this qibla graphic over the original Crescent of Embrace site plan and the Mecca-direction line almost exactly bisects the crescent.

Looking closely at the above graphic (click for larger image), you can see that the most obtruding tip at the bottom of the original crescent structure is the last red maple at the bottom. On top, the most obtruding tip of the crescent structure is the the end of the thousand foot long, fifty foot tall, Entry Portal Wall. Here is an artist’s rendering of the end of the Entry Portal Wall as seen in the Bowl of Embrace redesign. It shows how overtly this upper crescent tip remains intact in the redesign:

The redesign only added the extra row of trees on the left, behind the visitors in this graphic. Notice that these trees are not even visible to a person who is facing into the crescent. They do not even affect a visitor’s experience of the crescent, never mind affect the presence or integrity of the crescent itself.