Anti-war History with an Agenda

The “cut-and-run” crowd has resorted to rewriting history. Ted Galen Carpenter of the Cato Institute, a thinktank that I normally have respect for, has written a piece released in the Chicago Sun-Times that would have you believe that our involvement in Iraq has now lasted longer than our involvement in World War II. Unfortunately, that correlation is a direct and deliberate misrepresentation of historical fact.

Carpenter states,

The U.S. mission in Iraq has now lasted longer than America’s involvement in World War II. That should be an occasion for sober reflection. In less than four years — from 1941 to 1945 — the United States and its allies managed to defeat two of the most powerful militaries in the world. By contrast, today, we are still mired in an endless conflict in a single small country after the same amount of time.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it “compares apples to oranges.”‚  It is true that by 1945 the powers we battled in World War II had officially surrendered.   However, insurgency continued for years after.   Our postwar occupation of Japan under MacArthur continued until 1952, seven years longer than Carpenter would have you believe.   In Europe, the occupation lasted even longer with the Army as the executive agency for military government until 1949, and leaving an occupation force in place until 1955.   During this time there were insurgencies to be fought in both countries.   So for Carpenter to state, “America’s involvement in World War II [lasted] less than four years” is simply an absurd analogy that preys on the fact that the average American is more likely to be able to recite pro football stats than key dates in American history.

[Withdrawal from Iraq now will be less painful than years from now]

Can Democrats Reid?

Once again, the Democratic Leadership is uttering things that, to an educated and informed public, would be considered ridiculous. Unfortunately, it is my opinion that the majority of people listening to people like Harry Reid last night take what they are told at face value.

While President Bush was giving his speech last night [ full transcript ] and discussing his Strategy for Victory in Iraq [ read it here ], Harry Reid was giving a little rhetoric of his own. And he is hoping that you will believe him and not actually listen to (or read) the President’s message.

Even though the President outlined his strategy for success and pointed viewers and listeners to to read it, Reid said Bush “once again missed an opportunity to lay out a real strategy for success in Iraq that will bring our troops home.” It is pretty clear that Reid’s definition of success has nothing to do with a stable democracy in Iraq, or a country that can protect itself from terrorists. Reid’s definition of success is how soon can we cut and run. I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating. A timetable for withdrawal is a strategy for disaster. Sure it would get our troops home sooner. But we would pay the price of this shortsighted non-strategy in the future with Iraq prone to control by the terrorists.

Unfortunately, the only way to know that is to actually listen to the President’s speech, read the strategy for success, and compare it to Reid’s response. Since that would require an effort on the part of the observer, the vast majority of Americans will go under- or misinformed.

Mismanaged Compassion

Cindy Sheehan was indeed upset about Hurricane Rita this week. But not for the reasons you might think. It was because she didn’t get to be the center of attention with her “protest” (more on that later). Here is what she had to say on

i am watching cnn and it is 100 percent rita…even though it is a little wind and a little rain…it is bad, but there are other things going on in this country today…and in the world!!!!

She sure was quick to jump all over the government response to Katrina. It is clear now that was because it didn’t interfere with her own media coverage. This statement lets us see into the real Cindy. A little wind and rain? I’m certain the people that lost their homes don’t see it that way. Sorry your demonstration wasn’t top priority today Cindy. The media, and your public, sure is fickle, isn’t it?

Should We Leave Now?

To the Sheehans, Moores, and Mark Pattersons of the World, should we really leave Iraq now?

If the war is “illegal,” should the freely elected governing council, and the appointed president be removed? How about reinstating Saddam?

Of course that would be ridiculous. Why then would we not listen to the plea of Jalal Talabani? [full story]

I’ve got news for you naysayers that say we shouldn’t be there and that the Iraqis don’t want us there.

American forces are in Iraq at the invitation of the democratically elected government of Iraq, and with the backing of a United Nations Security Council resolution…

Americans should be proud of what its soldiers have achieved. The presence of foreign forces has prevented a renewed civil war in Iraq–renewed because there has already been a civil war in Iraq. For 35 years, Saddam and his Baath Party made war on the Iraqi people. The liberation of Iraq ended that civil war.

Notice that Talabani uses the phrase “liberation of Iraq.” I grow weary of the media giving a soapbox to the Sheehans, the Moores, the Moveon.orgs to refer to the same as an “invasion” and that we remain “occupiers.” Sorry, but it doesn’t look like Iraq sees it the same way you do. We now have an ally in the Middle East, something we will need desparately in the future as the spectre of a nuclear power looms in Iran. We must continue to defend our new ally.

By giving us the tools, your troops help us to defend Iraqi democracy and to finish the job of uprooting Baathist fascism.

Talabani and the Iraqi people want the Allies to finish the job. The troops want to finish the job.

Let them finish the job!

How Many Nuclear Weapons Can You Make from 500 Tons of Yellow Cake?

A recent comment on the blog opined that Bush is a muderous liar and therefore we should leave Iraq now, that there were no weapons of mass destruction, and that history would prove him right. Unfortunately, history is being made every day, and it is proving him wrong. Too bad he isn’t paying attention to what is going on in the world around him.

The major rally cry of the anti-war crowd is “Bush Lied, People Died!” Somehow, they have narrowed down the sole reason for war in Iraq was WMDs. And, they contend, there were none. Therefore, Bush lied to get us into a war for some personal Bush-family vendatta against Saddam Hussein.

Now, if you are some kind of extremist, conspiracy theorist, or just simple minded enough to buy a one-sided argument, that might actually hold water. And if you believe this is the whole story, you probably also believe the Freemasons and the Illuminati are plotting to take over the world. But, that is a far cry from reality. I prefer to base my opinions on something a little more substantial than conspiracy theory and circumstatial evidence.

So let’s focus on the Weapons of Mass Destruction, since that is the main point of contention. Let’s look at what we know about Iraq’s weapons programs. I submit the following as a few examples:

So we know that Saddam Hussein did have programs to develop nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, and that these programs did in fact continue on in violation of UN Security Council Resolutions. So, why have these stockpiles of weapons not shown up.

Well, who is to say they haven’t? One specific example comes to mind – al Tuwaitha. The Tuwaitha site was heavily bombed during the ’91 allied campaign, yet, when the allies showed up in 2003, they found that this site had continued to be used to stockpile material as part of an appearent nuclear weapons program.

Here is an interesting statement to consider. It is from M.N.H.Comsan of the Egyptian Nuclear Physics Association, Cairo, Egypt. He states that as of July 10, 2001, all fissionable material had been removed from Iraq.

According to discussions, all nuclear and fissionable materials were removed from Iraq, equipment were destroyed, research in nuclear sciences was severely contracted, and most of scientists left the country. 30 years may be needed for the Al-tuwaitha site to recover and peaceful nuclear activities started again.

How surprised Dr. Comsan must have been at the recent discovery of 500 tons of yellow cake uranium located at the Tuwaitha site, along with 300 tons of radioisotopes including Cesium-137 and Cobalt-60. Both are extremely radioactive substances that are ideal for use in Radiological Dispersal Devices (RDD), or “dirty bombs.” Yellow cake is uranium that has been milled into uranium oxide that can be enriched into weapons grade uranium. The discovery of depleted uranium at the Tuwaitha site indicates that the enrichment process was indeed taking place. A total of 1.8 tons of enriched uranium have been discovered and removed from Iraq since the war started in 2003.

Now, the IAEA knew about the yellow cake after the first Gulf War and they sealed it so that it could not be used by Saddam Hussein. The American Thinker offers this must read article to consider why on earth would the agency charged with preventing nuclear proliferation allow this material to remain in the hands of a dictator that clearly desired to develop nuclear weapons.

History of the al Tuwaitha site up to the 1991 Persian Gulf War

Nuclear material found in Iraq and removed: UN complains about 1.8 tons of enriched uranium the US removed from Iraq

U.S. Rep Pete Hoekstra, R-Michigan visits the al Tuwaitha site:

More information al Tuwaitha from the International Atomic Energy Agency: Nuclear capabilities of Iraq – The IAEA plan of action

More food for thought – 500 tons of uranium is enough to create 142 nuclear weapons

History of Iraq’s nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War

No. The liar here was not George Bush. It was Saddam Hussein. He had the base material to manufacture nuclear weapons. 1.8 tons of enriched uranium later, we are lucky he didn’t get that far.

Our next discussion will focus on multiple reports of warheads loaded with sarin from different parts of Iraq. Yet Saddam said he destroyed his sarin loaded weapons a decade ago. If he is not credible on this point, do you actually think he is to be believed in other areas involving WMDs?

Support the Troops

You want to support the troops? The way NOT to do it is by standing with Cindy Sheehan. This undermines the mission and lowers troop morale. Unfortunately, the vocal few get the most press coverage. As I’ve said before, if you don’t support the mission, you don’t support the troops.

If you want to show your support, here’s the right way. Go to the following link and get involved with one or more of these groups:

America Supports You

Some quotes from our service men & women:

I really appreciate all those out there who support us and what we’re doing. We all signed up and volunteered to do our job and I know that what we’re doing is right… I want the entire world to be able to experience the freedoms that we all enjoy as Americans… Thank You for all your support and may we always “Let Freedom Ring.”
SSgt Charles Foster USAF, Roosevelt, UT

Thank you for all of your support. It means a lot to me to see all of the people who are taking their time to thank us for what we are doing.
Brad Purkhiser/AO2/U.S. Navy, Woodruff, SC


I’m Not Done Yet

Mr. Patterson really got my dander up. Not because he took some cheap shots by making a flimsy attempt to insult my intelligence (I believe the best he could muster was “idiot” – that’s the equivalent, in my book, of trying to throw sand at me, yet he is trowing into the wind), but rather because, unfortunately, his viewpoint seems to resonate from far too many people these days. The sad fact is that a great many of these disciples of the hard line extremists merely parrot the opinions of those they choose to follow. That is not unlike a jury basing its entire decision on the statements made by the prosecution, without bothering to listen to the defense.

So as a result of Mr. Patterson’s weak attempt at insulting me, there is a great deal more to write on this subject – the war on terror, the war in Iraq, weapons of mass destruction. There will likely be things you don’t agree with me on. That’s ok. If a preacher isn’t making some of his congregation feel uncomfortable – well, he ain’t preachin’!!

We will take a look at the hard facts. If you choose to disagree, that’s fine. If you choose to chime in with your thoughts, the comment line is open. Be forewarned, however, that if you choose to spew forth with name calling, but can’t back up your position with more than a baseless opinion, you will be eaten alive! Mr. Patterson says that history will prove him to be right, but he has yet to produce one single fact to back up his opinion. If I chose to wait for one, I believe I would be waiting a long time. (“I read it on Michael Moore’s web site, so it must be true” does not count.)

Calling a Spade a Spade

Well, sorry folks. It had to happen sooner or later. With my posts about Cindy Sheehan and the War in Iraq, it was only a matter of time before some extremist (right or left) had to come by.

In case you missed out, one of my posts received an ill-written comment on how wrong I was about the war. The problem was, the writer of said comment clearly had no supporting evidence for his opinion. I hypothesized that he was likely a member of an extremist group – either a Michael Moore wannabe or Or both. So I commented on his comments, and sure enough, he was waiting in the wings. This time with an even more entertaining rant.

It is amazing to me that some people think that, just because they know where the “caps lock” key is on their keyboard and that they can bandy about with name calling, that they somehow display themselves as intelligent. The truth is that they expose their ignorance. Hey, a few mispelled words or punctuation errors are ok here and there. We all make them, especially when writing so prolifically. Who has time to proofread that much content? But mix it all together and you look like a grade A imbecile.

For kicks, I looked up some synonyms for imbecile. They are quite fun. Here are a few of the better ones: addle-pate, boob, cretin, dimwit, dunce, dunderhead, fool, halfwit, ignoramus, lamebrain, loony, lunkhead, muttonhead, numskull, simpleton.

So, this commenter is clearly an extremist. Interestingly, even though I stated that I belong to neither major political party, he referred to me as a right wing republican (as if that was an insult). I guess, from the extreme left, everyone else seems to be right wing – even Bill Clinton. Anyway, since my commenter is clearly a big fan of Michael Moore, he may take offense at Bill O’Reilly’s recent comments about what makes an extremist.

If you think Michael Moore reports accurately, you’re an extremist.

Extremists who follow other extremists rarely take the time to actually learn their position. They could not debate themselves out of a paper bag. And yet they try to take on anyone and everyone who disagrees with them. If you disagree, look out! A barrage of expletives and name calling will commence. And here is a tip: if they call you a Nazi, congratulations! You have won your argument. It means that, even though you may still have supporting evidence and documentation on your position that you have not dipped in to, your opponent has been run into a corner and can’t get out. It is much like the little kid in a fight that, when backed into a corner, puts his head down and just starts swinging and flailing his arms. He’s bound to hit something, anything. He doesn’t care what, as long as it’s something.

Feel free to comment and debate. It is healthy and realistic. But for goodness sake, if you are going to open your mouth, make certain that you know of what you speak. And if you are grammatically challenged, perhaps you would be better off remaining silent.

I Should Have Known…

Typical of those that can’t substantiate their position, they always resort to name calling, throwing things, and if all else fails, pull out the ever popular “I know you are but what am I?”

Seems my friend Mark Patterson is back with more comments. And this time, it is clear that he not only refuses to research before he takes a position, he also likely didn’t even read my post before he started his rant. Now, I could have just deleted his post. And frankly, that probably would be the wise thing to do. But, I have chosen to make an example of how not to win a debate with me. It’s also kind of funny, for those of us grounded in reality, to read the rants of someone clearly out of touch. Seems I touched a nerve with this one. (Note that if you are offended by either strong language or simply can’t stand to read rants written by people who don’t, won’t, or can’t read, then you probably should just avoid this post).


Wow. Nothing like starting off with a well substantiated point. When all else fails, throw “liar” and “murderer” into your statement. And for good measure, call your opponent an “idiot.” That sure scores points. Mr. Patterson must have been a Master Debater in school.


Now, I’m not sure if “wake up loser” is actually supposed to be part of this sentence. It actually went better with the next one. But that is where Mr. Patterson put his period, so I can only assume he meant this to be an ill-conceived sentence for some specific reason.

Also note that, again, it is typical that when you can’t substantiate a statement, you must resort to name calling. And, I would submit for discussion that we didn’t actually “lose” in Vietnam. It was two years after we pulled out, as a result of losing the war at home, that North Vietnam overan the South. So, yes, in an indirect way, the protesters were part of what kept us from winning in Vietnam. And you make it sound like the protesters of the Vietnam era were somehow warm and fuzzy about the troops. Appearently you have forgotten that our troops came back to be spit on and called “baby killers.” But I digress…


Again with the name calling. (Can this guy debate or what?) We all want them home. But some of us want them to complete what they are doing, which is stabalize a volatile region. Regardless of whether you believe the war was right or not, it would clearly be foolhardy to pull out now.

Here is also where it becomes abundantly clear that Mr. Patterson either can’t read, or doesn’t want to. In my previous post, I referred to H. Con. Res. 104 (which reiterates Public Law 105-338) and I quote:

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) stated that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

The promotion of a democratic government has yet to be completed. Now hold that thought for a moment, because I need to add the next part of Mr. Patterson’s comments to tie this together.


Here is where it is completely obvious that Mr. Patterson doesn’t read things before he opens his mouth. He seems to think that he pays attention to the news and I don’t. Ok, Mr. Patterson. Maybe you missed it, but we also had news today from General Richard Myers that the troops want to finish the job. That would be the job I mentioned earlier, the promotion of a democratic government. You do know who Gen. Richard Myers is? If not, I’m not going to tell you. You clearly need to learn how to do your own leg work instead of having to be spoon fed.

Bringing up the Sunni demonstration only serves to reinforce my point that you haven’t a clue of what you are talking about. Based on your statement, it would seem that you actually believe that a demonstration by a portion of a minority group that includes members of Saddam’s former party means that the entire country wants Saddam back. That’s pretty much what is going on here in America, since you probably also believe that Al Gore actually won the 2000 election.


I shouldn’t have to point this out, but it is actually AN ASS.

The rest is just too easy. I almost feel guilty pointing this out, but you haven’t done a lick of research. Republicans aren’t the only ones in support of this military action. Or, haven’t you noticed? You do realize that every vote taken in Congress is a matter of public record? I know that you don’t like to read on your own, and it would require some effort, but please Mr. Patterson, before you embarass yourself any further…


Oops. You did it. I tried to stop you. But I couldn’t save you from yourself. Well, we all know now, don’t we? You clearly have no ability to think for yourself, do your own research, develop your own opinion. I was correct in my first post when I mentioned you were likely a left wing extremist associated with either Michael Moore or

So appearantly you feel that since you are either too lazy, or too illiterate, to learn on your own, it would be easier to take a left wing extreme view handed to you in a “documentary” that clearly had a biased agenda. Call that your own opinion since you clearly are unable to develop your own. You somehow believe that “there is no terrorist threat”, that somehow this would all go away if we pulled out. Oh, you poor misguided fool. To pull out now would only strengthen extremists that are already bent on the complete and total destruction of Western Civilization.

Of course I fully expect to see another rant from Mr. Patterson. I would be deeply disappointed otherwise. While I am sincerely impressed with your unabated mastery of the English language, I would recommend sir, that you do a little research and develop a well substatiated point before you attempt rebuttal. I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

It’s About Respect

Here is one of the best quotes I’ve seen that sums up why it’s important to support the troops in their mission:

In Vacaville, Toni Colip, 50, said her son, David, went to high school with Casey Sheehan and is now in the Marines, although not in Iraq. She said her son opposes Sheehan’s activities and has asked her to support his military service even if he is injured or killed.

“He said, ‘Don’t dishonor me, don’t walk on my grave,'” Colip said.

Bush Backers Amass to Counter ‘Peace Mom’

Cindy Sheehan could take a lesson here. I didn’t know Casey Sheehan, and I’m going on the heresay of the media here, but it sounds to me like he was what I would consider a hero. He was an eagle scout and then he went into military service. He re-upped after the war in Iraq was in full swing so he knew what he was getting into. And from what I understand, he volunteered for the mission in which he was killed, and it was a rescue mission at that. To me, this man should be honored.

I’m glad to see that there are military families out there with the “You don’t speak for me, Cindy” slogan. They accept what has already been accepted by their sons and daughters: they are serving on a mission that their country asked them to do and they do it with honor. If they make the ultimate sacrifice, we should not deny them an honorable memory. To not support their mission takes away what they gave their lives for.

My city has lost several sons to this war, on 9/11, in Afganistan, and in Iraq. We have a memorial to the victims of 9/11, complete with a beam from the WTC and stone from the Pentagon. This is also a memorial for one of our own residents, Naval Commander Dan Shanower, who died in the attack on the Pentagon.

The memorial takes its theme from an article written by Commander Shanower entitled “Freedom Isn’t Free.” In it, he wrote: “Those of us in the military are expected to make the ultimate sacrifice when called. The military loses scores of personnel each year. Each one risked and lost his or her life in something they believed in, leaving behind friends, family and shipmates to bear the burden and celebrate their devotion to our country…Freedom isn’t free.”

When Cindy Sheehan stands up at an an anti war rally supporting Lynne Stewart, who aided and abbetted terrorists, and says “This country is not worth dying for,” she spits on the grave of every member of our military who answered the call of duty and made that ultimate sacrifice. Compare and contrast the following statements, one from a fallen soldier, on from a soldier who may be called to make the ultimate sacrifice, and one from a mother whose son has fallen:

Those of us in the military are expected to make the ultimate sacrifice when called.” – Commander Dan Shanower

Don’t dishonor me, don’t walk on my grave.” – David Colip

This country is not worth dying for… I would never have let [Casey] go and try and defend this morally repugnant system we have.” – Cindy Sheehan

Sorry, but I have no respect for Sheehan. She has stepped out of the sympathetic role of grieving mother and into the role of antiwar activist. Think about that when picking which side you are on.