Friday, June 30, 2006

They ain't like you, Murtha...

Trailer for Pat Dollard's upcoming movie "Young Americans" made in Baghdad:

(Warning--graphic language/lyrics--NSFW)

Quite the rebuke to the antiwar crowd...

"Can't bust a nut"

This great 7 1/2 minute clip from Pat Dollards upcoming movie is a great example of our soldiers and the Iraqi's resolve: (note the Iraqi's reactions to Michael Moore--they would most likely have had the same reaction to Murtha, had the film been made within the last six months or so)

Despite the dangers, the brave soldiers in the film press on with what they know is a worthwhile mission.

How Murtha can badmouth their mission and how they're doing is beyond me.

Yes, Murtha... Bush's strategy IS working...

Another Arab state edges toward full democracy:

Another Arab State Edges Towards Full Democracy
By Patrick Goodenough International Editor
June 30, 2006

( - Women in Kuwait voted and ran for office for the first time on Thursday, a development seen as pushing the Middle East another step closer to full participatory democracy.

Kuwaiti men and women voted for some 250 candidates -- including 28 women -- to fill 50 seats in the small Gulf state's 65-seat National Assembly (the remaining 15 are appointed by the country's emir. (read the whole story)
Although gender equality still has a way to go in Kuwait, this is an important first step.

As was experienced in the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc countries, once freedom is unleashed, it cannot for long be contained. Bush's overall strategy of establishing a democracy in Iraq cannot help but eventually spread freedom throughout the middle east, and the way of the islamo-fascists will eventually wither on the vine.

Although you would never know it if all you did was listen to Murtha, our cause in Iraq is indeed just.

Pelosi Joins Irey Campaign Team

In a gesture of bipartisanship, GOP candidate Diana Irey welcomed Nancy Pelosi to her campaign team. Here's Pelosi's official statement on the Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld ruling:
"Today’s Supreme Court decision reaffirms the American ideal that all are entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system. This is a triumph for the rule of law. The rights of due process are among our most cherished liberties, and today’s decision is…a reminder of our responsibility to protect both the American people and our Constitutional rights. We cannot allow the values on which our country was founded to become a casualty in the war on terrorism."
Here's Ms. Irey's reaction to Ms. Pelosi's statement:
I welcome Ms. Pelosi to the Irey Campaign Team, and hereby deputize her as a Colonel in the Irey Army, because in releasing that statement, she rebukes Jack Murtha for his reckless condemnation of U.S. Marines at Haditha and his unilateral decision to deprive them of THEIR rights of due process.
Jack Murtha declared on May 17 that our Marines had ‘killed innocent civilians in cold blood’, before the first Marine was charged, before the first court-martial was convened, before the first soldier was convicted. When he did that, he deprived our own soldiers of the very rights to due process that Nancy Pelosi extols.
In the spirit of bipartisanship, I'd like to congratulate Ms. Pelosi for her putting a higher priority on the rule of law than on partisanship.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

Cut (and run) From the Same Cloth

Thursday, June 29, 2006

Where Was Pelosi Then?

That's what I thought when I read this Pelosi statement:
"Today's Supreme Court decision reaffirms the American ideal that all are entitled to the basic guarantees of our justice system. This is a triumph for the rule of law. The rights of due process are among our most cherished liberties, and today's decision is a rebuke of the Bush Administration's detainee policies and a reminder of our responsibility to protect both the American people and our Constitutional rights. We cannot allow the values on which our country was founded to become a casualty in the war on terrorism."
That self-serving statement is intellectually dishonest. If due process is "among our most cherished liberties," then where was Ms. Pelosi when John Murtha was playing judge, jury & executioner before the invevstigation was even completed? Has Ms. Pelosi backed up her commitment to this "cherished" liberty by demanding John Murtha retract all his judgmental statements and issuing a formal apology? I watch a ton of news articles each day and I don't recall her demanding that.

Whenever I read a Pelosi statement like that, I get an urge that I've never acted on, namely to slap her senseful. I wouldn't say that I'd beat her senseless because it's obvious that someone's beaten me to that long ago.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

The WaTimes has Murtha's number...

As we have been alluding for some time here on MMG, there indeed appears to be an agenda behind Murtha's agenda... and that is to distract from dicey ethics entanglements that, if brought up against the light of day, would spell curtains for his political career. Says the WaTimes:
...This has led not a few to wonder if Mr. Murtha's antiwar extremism isn't entirely selfless. Last week, we mentioned his involvement in the Abscam scandal 25 years ago, when the Pennsylvania Democrat escaped prosecution while still being identified as an "unindicted co-conspirator." That apparently led to the House Ethics Committee's special counsel in the case, E. Barrett Prettyman, resigning in protest. Although Mr. Prettyman never said one led to the other, he did tell Roll Call a decade later that to make that assumption would be "a logical conclusion."

The facts speak for themselves. According to FBI tapes, Mr. Murtha is seen talking with undercover agents about taking a bribe to help expedite the immigration process of a phony Arab sheik. Saying he didn't want to get involved "at this point," Mr. Murtha declined the bribe, which was about $50,000. But according to a story in The Washington Post at the time, Mr. Murtha "did say he might be interested after he got to know the would-be givers better."

The Post's 1981 story, which tells how Mr. Prettyman resigned within hours of the committee's exoneration of Mr. Murtha, also reported that "sources said Prettyman had prepared several charges of ethical misconduct against Murtha, but all were rejected" on a party-line vote.

Combined with suspicious appropriations dealings, this is the history Mr. Murtha wants the media to forget. Once a Los Angeles Times story about Mr. Murtha's appropriations panel's deliverance of $20 million to his brother's defense firm began to gain traction last year, suddenly Mr. Murtha, who voted for the Iraq war, reinvented himself as an antiwar partisan.

Now Mr. Murtha has discovered that extremism can be successfully traded for power -- a bribe of a different sort. We wonder if Democrats, however, especially their public-relations people, aren't regretting having pushed television networks to air that extremism for all Americans to hear. (read the entire piece)

Irey on Fox...

Murtha vs. Irey? Night and day, my friends...night and day...

BTW--rather than facing Irey, it looks as if Jihad Johnny "cut and run" from this interview, too.

John Murtha Backpedals with "Press Releases"

It appears that even Congressman Murtha now realizes that his statements made recently have been over the top and claims in a press release you will not find anywhere except his website and below that his quotes were taken out of context.

The publications that printed these statements have subsequently also agreed to print "New York Times style" corrections, meaning that they are all trying to put the so called genie back in the bottle after their loose lip stories and quotes first ring around the Western media and then the Arab press endlessly. But you can rest assured they will not be reprinting the retractions anytime soon on the front page of Al Jazeera's website.

You'd think that Pennsylvania Congressman Murtha has enough to worry about right now with the epic flooding occuring in his homestate than to be worried about things occuring on the national and worldwide stage.

Below is the first part of the so-called explanation:
Congressman John Murtha - Pennsylvania's 12th Congressional District - Press Releases: "(Washington D.C.)- (Washington D.C.)- June 27, 2006 – Congressman John Murtha today issued statements on two recent occasions in which he was quoted out of context.

The first is about coverage in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel on his appearance in Florida over the weekend.

“I was recently misquoted following a speech I gave at a Veterans forum at the Florida International University Biscayne Campus on June 24, 2006. During the speech, I made a point that our international credibility was suffering, particularly due to our continued military presence in Iraq and that we were perceived as an occupying force. For illustrative purposes, I provided the example of a recent Pew Poll which indicates a greater percentage of people in 10 of 14 foreign countries consider the U.S. in Iraq a danger to world peace than consider Iran or North Korea a danger to world peace.

Dangers to World Peace Table

Murtha added, “It is imperative that these issues be discussed in an open and informative manner. I will continue to insist that this administration face the true realities of its policies with respect to Iraq and insist that they change direction.”

In response to the misquotes, the Sun-Sentinel ran the following correction on Wednesday, June 28“Correction:

"An article in Sunday’s editions misinterpreted a comment from U.S. Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., at a town hall meeting in North Miami on Saturday. In his speech, Murtha said U.S. credibility was suffering because of continued U.S. military presence in Iraq, and the perception that the U.S. is an occupying force. Murtha was citing a recent poll, by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, that indicates a greater percentage of people in 10 of 14 foreign countries consider the U.S. in Iraq a greater danger to world peace than any threats posed by Iran or North Korea". see the poll and more

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

Are Murtha and his surrender-monkey minions...

...playing right into our enemy's hands?

You be the judge:
Hamas Video
A Hamas video just released on their web site focuses on the broader Palestinian Islamic ideology, promising the eventual conquering and subjugation of Christian countries under Islam. The way Israel "ran" from Gaza after terror is presented as the prototype for future Israeli and Western behavior in the face of Islamic force.

The video is a collection of statements by Hamas terrorist leader, Yasser Ghalban, killed last week by Palestinians, in the ongoing internal fighting.

To view this video, anticipating Islam's conquering of US and Britain, click here

The following is the transcript of selections from the Hamas video:

"We will rule the nations, by Allah's will, the USA will be conquered, Israel will be conquered, Rome and Britain will be conquered. The Jihad for Allah... is the way of Truth and the way for Salvation and the way, which will lead us to crush the Jews and expel them from our country Palestine. Just as the Jews ran from Gaza, the Americans will run from Iraq and Afghanistan and the Russians will run from Chechnya, and the Indian will run from Kashmir, and our children will be released from Guantanamo. The prisoners will be released by Allah's will, not by peaceful means and not by agreements, but they will be released by the sword, they will be released by the gun".

The video identifies itself as from the "Al-Qassam Brigades Media Office."

"Al-Qassam Brigades" is the name the Hamas calls its military wing. (
Looks pretty much like Murtha's and Code Pink's agenda to me.

And the vets are weighing in...

A cadre of veterans who are no doubt disgusted by Murtha's antics have opened up shop:


Check out Vets for Truth "Boot Murtha" web page!

On second thought...

The following may be emblematic of the support that Murtha is receiving in his home district. Upon first glance, this video from Hannity and Colmes show folks from Murtha's district praising Murtha and the job he is doing in Washington... UNTIL, they are confronted with Murtha's anti-American rhetoric, and the picture drastically changes. This is well worth the view:

As they say, "The truth shall set ye free!"

Murtha sold his soul?

So says a Veteran Marine...
Murtha Sold his Soul
Retired Marine Colonel and serving Congressman Jack Murtha (D-PA) has sold his soul: Not to the devil, but to his constituency. And as a former
Marine, I urge him now to do the only honorable thing: relinquish his sword and
his Eagle, Globe, and Anchor. At the very least, he should apologize to the Marine Corps and the American people for making an utterly outlandish statement in an attempt to keep the fire hot in the cut-and-run camp, of which he is a primary stoker.

At a press conference earlier this month, Murtha stated, "they [a squad of U.S. Marines from Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, 1st Marines operating in Iraq] killed innocent civilians in cold blood. And that's what the report
is going to tell." He was referring of course to the November 2005 action at Haditha, a remote farming community in Iraq's Al Anbar Province, where Marines allegedly killed a number of innocent Iraqi civilians - including women and children - following an ambush launched against the Americans.

Keep in mind, "in cold blood" means "deliberately or cruelly; ruthlessly, showing no concern or passion, a complete lack of emotion." In other words, killing without heart or mercy. How Murtha, who was not present with the Marines at the time of the action, purports to know how the men involved felt or what they actually did is beyond me.

Here's what we know for a fact:
On the morning of November 19, a Marine Humvee was struck by a roadside bomb, killing Lance Corporal Miguel Terrazas. Then, insurgents are said to have opened fire on the Marines from several directions. The Marines counterattacked. Several enemy combatants were killed, and apparently innocent civilians were, as well.

Within hours, I received an e-mailed press release from Multi-National Force West at Camp Fallujah, Iraq, stating: "A Marine assigned to Regimental Combat Team 2, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force (Forward), was killed in action when his vehicle was attacked with an improvised explosive device attack while conducting combat operations against the enemy in the vicinity of Haditha."

The following day, I received a second release from the 2nd Marine
Division at Camp Blue Diamond in Ramadi, a portion of which reads: "A U.S. Marine
and 15 Iraqi civilians were killed yesterday from the blast of a roadside bomb in Haditha. Immediately following the bombing, gunmen attacked the convoy with small arms fire. Iraqi Army soldiers and Marines returned fire killing eight insurgents and wounding another."

Just how the civilians were actually killed has been the subject of a series of investigations. Some published reports indicate there were more than 15 civilians killed, including a three-year-old girl, and that they were
killed as a result of raids on at least three houses believed to be harboring insurgents. A preliminary investigation was completed in March, and three Marine officers have since been relieved of command.

What we do not know are the particulars of what actually happened and why: and we won't know until a more thorough investigation is completed in the coming weeks, followed by possible courts martial of those involved.

A recent editorial in National Review Online pegged the Murtha condemnation accurately: "The military's investigation of those claims isn't finished yet, but Murtha apparently can't wait for all the facts to emerge before damning the accused." And an editorial in The Washington Times says the accusation is "not only irresponsible, but an egregious violation of ethical conduct by a sitting congressman."

Indeed, but how could he? How could a retired Marine officer possibly forget, not only from whence he came, but that all Americans - including his fellow Marines who are performing the most dangerous missions on the ends of the earth - are innocent until proven guilty.

Now, this is not easy for me to write. After all, Murtha spent 37 years in the Corps, starting out as an enlisted rifleman, becoming a drill instructor, later an officer. He served in Vietnam, was highly decorated, and ultimately retired as a Reserve colonel.

Murtha's service to our country should be respected. But unless he retracts his statement and issues a public apology to the Corps, perhaps his title (Marine) should be stripped, even if the Marines involved are ultimately found guilty.

This has nothing to do with blind obedience to a cause on either side of
the political fence, or lemming-like fealty to either party. It has everything to do with being "always faithful" to the Corps, respecting our Marines in the field, and above all acknowledging the fact that the Marines involved are accorded the presumption of innocence until the Uniform Code of Military Justice deems otherwise.

I'm not making excuses for those who may have done something incomprehensibly dark in the heat of battle. I pray they did not. If anyone is found to be guilty of committing war crimes, they should be punished;
and if found guilty I am confident they will be.

But that is not the case as of this writing. It was not the case when Murtha accused unconvicted Marines of killing "in cold blood."

When I was a young Marine-recruit, I was taught there is no such thing as an
ex-Marine: Marines are either active, reserve, retired, former, or dead; thus the adage, "Once a Marine, always a Marine."

The only ex-Marines were those whom did not make it through boot camp; or
as we liked to say those not packing the gear to serve in the Corps. The only
other way for a Marine to become an ex-Marine would be to shame or denigrate
the Corps in such a way that he would essentially be excommunicated, which -
it pains me to say - is what Colonel Murtha should be.

W. Thomas Smith, Uniontown, PA

Murtha News is a Bit Light Today

This is mostly due to the New York and LA Times grabbing the Moonbat of the Week award as the individual or organization doing it's best to assist the enemy in their war against America, thus taking away the spotlight from the usual culprits.

But Murtha won't be out of the headlines for long, he's got the stage now and he will have to say something stupid soon in order to stay current leader of the Moonbat Brigade, a role he has taken to well.

Murtha's Anti-War Role Could Imperil Him at Home by Robert Novak:

"Rep. John Murtha (D.-Pa.) appears to be suffering 'Daschle-itis,' a figurative disease which makes entrenched incumbents become national celebrities and, in the process, risk alienating the voters that put them in office.

Since seizing his party's anti-war mantle, Murtha has become a great draw for Democratic fundraisers, helping his party boost its prospects for a congressional takeover. Naturally, this helps his party-leadership bid as well.

But at the same time, his outspokenness made him a huge target for the Internet right. His district went for John Kerry with only 51% in 2004. What originally seemed like a long-shot bid by Diana Irey (R.) to unseat Murtha has taken on new credibility as she raises money from the Internet and as Murtha makes more and more outrageous statements. " more

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Irey Sighting...

The following is forwarded by:

Diana Irey is going to be in the 4th of July Parade in Canonsburg, PA. South of Pittsburg. It's a big event in this neck of the woods. She has a float and we are working to get as many veterans as possible from the surrounding area to turn out to support her.

Could you please spread the word? You can call her campaign headquarters for more info (location and time, etc). Phone: 724-258-2300, or email them at
Irey truly is a supporter of our soldiers, as well as their mission to defend freedom. If you're a vet, please think seriously about joining Irey's efforts!

The Realm of the Ridiculous, and of crossing the line.
"American presence in Iraq is more dangerous to world peace than nuclear threats from North Korea or Iran, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said to an audience of more than 200 in North Miami Saturday afternoon."

Mr. Murtha's only reason to be in Miami was to raise money for the local Dems. Left wing bloggers and Murtha's own press aide have said that he was misquoted. They say that he was merely quoting a poll on how Europeans feel about the United States.

Whether including such material in order to denigrate the US in a public speech (during a time of war at a $150 a plate dinner at a Democrat Party function) - thus aiding and abbetting our publicly sworn enemies - is a good thing or for you to decide.
Kofi Annan Welcomes Iranians to UN Human Rights Council
Kofi Annan welcomed the invited Iranian delegation to the Inaugural Human Rights Council session in Geneva last week. The Iranians immediately blasted the US for human rights violations and promoted the return of Palestinians to their homeland.

In View of all of the talk....

As others have already commented on this at some length, I will only post a few references and resources for your use and consideration, and leave you with one question:

Has your Senator, Representative or other elected official been true to their oath of office? Read the Constitution, check his or her voting records. Read their public statements and stands on the issues...and make your own decision as mature men of freedom and as responsible adults.

The Oath of Office

The oath of office required by the sixth article of the Constitution of the United States, and as provided by section 2 of the act of May 13, 1884 (23 Stat. 22), to be administered to members, Resident Commissioner, and Delegates of the House of Representatives, the text of which is carried in 5 U.S.C. 3331:

"I, ____________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact!
In the Terminiello case, the majority opinion, by Justice William O. Douglas overturned the disorderly conduct conviction of a priest whose anti-Semitic, pro-Nazi rantings at a rally had incited a riot. The court held that Chicago's breach of the peace ordinance violated the First Amendment.

Jackson wrote a twenty-four page dissent in response to the Court's four page decision, which concluded: "The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."



Section 2381. Treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I--CRIMES CHAPTER 115--TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIESSec. 2388. Activities affecting armed forces during war (a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States, or attempts to do so--Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both. (b) If two or more persons conspire to violate subsection (a) of this section and one or more such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be punished as provided in said subsection (a). (c) Whoever harbors or conceals any person who he knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, has committed, or is about to commit, an offense under this section, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. (d) This section shall apply within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States, and on the high seas, as well as within the United States.

TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I--CRIMES CHAPTER 37--ESPIONAGE AND CENSORSHIPSec. 798. Disclosure of classified information (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign
government to the detriment of the United States any classified information-- (1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes--Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Aid and Comfort to the Enemy

The Cramer Case.—Since the Bollman case, the few treason cases which have reached the Supreme Court were outgrowths of World War II and have charged adherence to enemies of the United States and the giving of aid and comfort. In the first of these, Cramer v. United States,1343 the issue was whether the “overt act” had to be “openly manifest treason” or if it was enough if, when supported by the proper evidence, it showed the required treasonable intention.1344 The Court in a five-to-four opinion by Justice Jackson in effect took the former view holding that “the two-witness principle” interdicted “imputation of incriminating acts to the accused by circumstantial evidence or by the testimony of a single witness,”1345 even though the single witness in question was the accused himself. “Every act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses,”1346 Justice Jackson asserted. Justice Douglas in a dissent, in which Chief Justice Stone and Justices Black and Reed concurred, contended that Cramer’s treasonable intention was sufficiently shown by overt acts as attested to by two witnesses each, plus statements made by Cramer on the witness stand.

The Haupt Case.—The Supreme Court sustained a conviction of treason, for the first time in its history, in 1947 in Haupt v. United States.1347 Here it was held that although the overt acts relied upon to support the charge of treason—defendant’s harboring and sheltering in his home his son who was an enemy spy and saboteur, assisting him in purchasing an automobile, and in obtaining employment in a defense plant—were all acts which a father would naturally perform for a son, this fact did not necessarily relieve them of the treasonable purpose of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Speaking for the Court, Justice Jackson said: “No matter whether young Haupt’s mission was benign or traitorous, known or unknown to the defendant, these acts were aid and comfort to him. In the light of this mission and his instructions, they were more than casually useful; they were aids in steps essential to his design for treason. If proof be added that the defendant knew of his son’s instruction, preparation and plans, the purpose to aid and comfort the enemy becomes clear.”1348
1343 325 U.S. 1 (1945).
1344 89 Law. Ed. 1443-1444 (Argument of Counsel).
1345 325 U.S. at 35.

1346 325 U.S. at 34-35. Earlier, Justice Jackson had declared that this phase of treason consists of two elements: “adherence to the enemy; and rendering him aid and comfort.” A citizen, it was said, may take actions “which do aid and comfort the enemy . . . but if there is no adherence to the enemy in this, if there is no intent to betray, there is no treason.” Id. at 29. Justice Jackson states erroneously that the requirement of two witnesses to the same overt act was an original invention of the Convention of 1787. Actually it comes from the British Treason Trials Act of 1695. 7 Wm. III, c.3.

1347 330 U.S. 631 (1947).
The Court held that conversation and occurrences long prior to the indictment were admissible evidence on the question of defend-ant’s intent. And more important, it held that the constitutional requirement of two witnesses to the same overt act or confession in open court does not operate to exclude confessions or admissions made out of court, where a legal basis for the conviction has been laid by the testimony of two witnesses of which such confessions or admissions are merely corroborative. This relaxation of restrictions surrounding the definition of treason evoked obvious satisfaction from Justice Douglas, who saw in the Haupt decision a vindication of his position in the Cramer case. His concurring opinion contains what may be called a restatement of the law of treason and merits quotation at length:
‘As the Cramer case makes plain, the overt act and the intent with which it is done are separate and distinct elements of the crime. Intent need not be proved by two witnesses but may be inferred from all the circumstances surrounding the overt act. But if two witnesses are not required to prove treasonable intent, two witnesses need not be required to show the treasonable character of the overt act. For proof of treasonable intent in the doing of the overt act necessarily involves proof that the accused committed the overt act with the knowledge or understanding of its treasonable character.’

‘The requirement of an overt act is to make certain a treasonable project has moved from the realm of thought into the realm of action. That requirement is undeniably met in the present case, as it was in the case of Cramer.’

‘The Cramer case departed from those rules when it held that ‘The two-witness principle is to interdict imputation of incriminating acts to the accused by circumstantial evidence or by the testimony of a single witness. 325 U.S. p. 35. The present decision is truer to the constitutional definition of treason when it forsakes that test and holds that an act, quite innocent on its face, does not need two witnesses to be transfomred into a incriminating one.’ 1349
1348 330 U.S. at 635-36.

1349 330 U.S. at 645-46. Justice Douglas cites no cases for these propositions. Justice Murphy in a solitary dissent stated: ‘But the act of providing shelter was of the type that might naturally arise out of petitioner’s relationship to his son, as the Court recognizes. By its very nature, therefore, it is a non-treasonous act. That is true even when the act is viewed in light of all the surrounding circumstances. All that can be said is that the problem of whether it was motivated by treasonous or non-treasonous factors is left in doubt. It is therefore not an overt act of treason, regardless of how unlawful it might otherwise be.’ Id. at 649.

Iran admits it has influence over Al Qaeda.

Iran admits it has influence over Al Qaeda.

RIA Novosti reported that Tehran is prepared to assist in releasing four Russian diplomats abducted by Al Qaeda insurgents in the Iraqi capital. By making this statement, Iran has admitted it's over Al Qaeda.

You have a choice:

1.) Keep doing the same thing over and over again - while expecting different results. ...and just keep electing the same people over and over again and hope to hell you don't get blown to hell and gone by a Muslim militant while using the bathroom at the local mall.


2.) You can elect people who represent you and what you expect from government. The government's primary job being to protect this nation - and therefore your and your loved ones - from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

The choice is entirely yours and yours alone. You can sit on your butt and whine and bitch and moan and blame everyone else.

...or you can take responsibility for your own words and deeds and get off yer ass and do something about it.

Something like supporting Diana Irey in the campaign for the House of Representatives in Pennsylvania's 12th district.

New York Times and John Murtha--bed buddies?

Virginia Buckingham writes in the Boston Herald:
Prosecute The New York Times and censure Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.)? I have a better idea: Sit back and watch them self-destruct.
Murtha and The New York Times have done more to aid the fight for Republicans to retain their House and Senate majorities in the last couple of days than Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman could possibly do all year.
But no one, not even the guys who are so devoted to the GOP that they wear elephants on their ties, should be cheering.

What has been lost by Murtha’s rantings and the Times’ irresponsibility can never be regained by electoral victory in the fall. But nor will they regain what they have lost by their own words and actions - the moral high ground.
Let’s start with the Times.
We are less safe today from terrorist attack than we were before the Times disclosed the existence of the National Security Agency’s terrorist surveillance program.
We are more in danger today because The New York Times and other outlets disclosed that American intelligence has access to foreign banking transactions.
Combined, these two programs gave American officials tools they did not have before Sept. 11 to track and disrupt terrorist plots before thousands die.
By the Times’ own admission, the “penetration” into international banking networks helped track down the Bali bombers.
How many more innocent young lives were saved, as a result, from a similar fate in other discos in other terrorist strongholds or, as possible, in a nightclub in New York?
Before the Times revealed the two security programs, literally in black and white, al-Qaeda and its allies did not know, could no know for sure, how best to avoid detection.
They know now.
Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), no Bush administration-toadie he, said it best: “Nobody elected The New York Times to do anything. The New York Times is putting its own arrogant, elitist, left-wing agenda before the interests of the American people. The time has come for the American people to realize and The New York Times to realize we’re at war and they can’t be just on their own deciding what to declassify, what to release.”
And now, the Murtha factor:
And Murtha?
The damage done by this self-proclaimed and much acclaimed moral authority on the Iraq war is far less quantifiable.
Did Murtha bring a smile to al-Qaeda leaders’ faces when they read his remarks over the weekend that America has “become the enemy” in Iraq?
What must Kim Jong-Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad think of America’s seriousness when a Democratic leader says with a straight face that our nation “is more dangerous to world peace than nuclear threats from North Korea or Iran?”

I’ve no doubt most Americans respect Murtha’s valor in Vietnam.
Surely many respect yet disagree with his position on immediate troop withdrawal.
But Americans are united on this: We’re not infallible, but we are not part of the axis of evil. America is the greatest country on Earth.
A political party and its advocates in the media who forget that will be reminded this November. (Read the entire article here)
Not to mention this little gem:
Speaking in Florida recently, the anti-war Democrat from western Pennsylvania announced at a political gathering that the "American presence in Iraq is more dangerous to world peace than nuclear threats from North Korea and Iran."

Furthermore, he told the crowd of about 200, "We want as many Americans out of (Iraq) as possible" because "we have become the enemy."
Murtha and the New York Times are indeed in bed together. While they may sport different linens and bedclothes; both are blinded by an agenda that puts American security and war efforts at a distant third behind sheer avarice and attainment of self-serving political objectives.

****UPDATE & BUMP*****

Commenter Infozone says:

The Infozone is reporting on the alleged comments by Murtha on the weekend.

What it is starting to look like is the comments by Murtha may have been taken out of context.

Read the story and tell me I am wrong.


After reading said piece, I came across Murtha's response to his comments that the U.S. presence in Iraq was more dangerous than the leadership in North Korea or Afghanistan:
Rep. John Murtha D-PA in a statement issued today says, "I was recently misquoted following a speech I gave at a Veterans forum at the Florida International University Biscayne Campus on June 24, 2006. During the speech, I made a point that our international credibility was suffering, particularly due to our continued military presence in Iraq and that we were perceived as an occupying force. For illustrative purposes, I provided the example of a recent Pew Poll which indicates a greater percentage of people in 10 of 14 foreign countries consider the U.S. in Iraq a danger to world peace than consider Iran or North Korea a danger to world peace."
Completely missing in Murtha's comments, and his explanation, was a refutation of that concept. Nowhere in his statement does he challenge the wrong-headedness of those who espouse such views. Nowhere in his statement does he come to the defense of those who are putting their lives on the line to better the lives of Iraqis, the middle east, and consequently, the physical and economic security of the entire world.

Murtha merely parrots this mentality to meet his ends, and treats the idea as if it was legitimate.

Sorry, Mr. Murtha. That dog won't hunt.

The "bug" in John Murtha's head...

From John Burtis in the CanadaFreePress

It all came into focus when I received an e-mail the other day from a friend in the medical field. It was rather graphic and showed someone suffering from this parasitic infestation. It went to describe the bizarre symptoms experienced by the victim, who needed prolonged hospitalization and counseling to fully recover.

Whoa, I said. This case closely matches the increasingly vulgar Honest John Murtha situation, from soup to nuts, especially concerning the latter.

The symptoms included an increasingly haughty sense of self, ever wilder and more insensate attributions, increased paranoia, a growing belief in one’s personal invincibility, knee-jerk reflex of propelling the foot into one’s oral cavity, the additory need for increasing personal publicity, total forgetfulness of one’s own past indiscretions, the need to personally enrich one’s relatives by steering contracts their way through the use of one’s legislative committee, the immediate need to grossly inflate the smallest bit of information into vast universes of creation (after the patterns discussed by the noted physicists Alan Guth and Willem de Sitter), the assumption of other characters, and, eventually, total institutional madness.

And I can see the growing panoply of illness on John’s part.

Honest John Murtha explained to the FBI, who posed as sheiks in the Abscam roundup, that although he wasn’t interested in taking the dough "at this point," he was up for further discussions. And there’s Honest John, his brother Kit and the defense business angle of reflexive contracts.

Judge John Murtha has declared that the US Marines in Haditha are guilty of murder before the facts are in, the investigation is complete, killed the civilians "in cold blood," and complains that the chain of command has covered up the crime. It is said he carries judicial robes on every trip for immediate rulings on thorny issues.

Majority Leader John Murtha already began his campaign for the post when he was advised by Nancy Pelosi to back off until the elections might actually determine his ability to run. Badges have been printed, "I am your Leader."

General John Murtha, drawing on his vast logistical experience and a few phone calls to Wes Clark, told Tim Russert that troops relocated to Okinawa could be re-deployed "very quickly" to Iraq, despite being almost 5,000 miles away — a feat which might require as much a four months to accomplish. The House Sergeant at Arms has refused Murtha’s request to wear 4 stars on his collar when speechifying.

President John Murtha, showing how rapidly he is able to bump and run, explained how easily it is to withdraw when the going gets tough, drawing parallels with Beirut and Mogadishu. The future President failed to note that these activities formed the basis for al-Qaeda’s bedrock belief that America always runs when similar going gets tough — the yellow brick road which President Murtha wholeheartedly endorses. Yes, President Bush has denied Murtha’s request to have his photo taken while sitting at the President’s desk, signing documents.

Nope, there’s some sort of bug in John Murtha’s head and it isn’t pretty.

But I say leave it in. (Read the entire story)

Hopefully Mr. Murtha will have plenty of time to get it treated come November.

Monday, June 26, 2006

Mr. Murtha and the New York Times.

Many people are not considering the extended impact of Mr. Murtha's statements over the last few months. Muslim militant propagandists around the world are posting and sharing his words verbatim - unedited - and using Murtha's words to encourage one another to greater exertion on behalf of "The Prophet." The murder and desecration of the bodies of two of America's finest could be ascribed to Murtha's words over the last few months. Almost every death in Iraq since at least last September could be placed squarely upon Mr. Murtha's shoulders.

As well, Mr. Murtha's words were surely a consideration by the managers and editors of the New York Times before they revealed yet another classified operation to the enemies of us all.

After reading Mr. Keller's "Letter to the Public" about the incident, I could not help but compose a short note to the managing and executive editor's of the once proud and noble Grey Lady.


"The next time that you wonder why your readership is dropping...remember this entire hullabaloo. Of course, the readership of your newspaper will now spike for a few days or even weeks, but in the long term it will continue to drop. That will, of course, further affect ad revenues.

I found Bill Keller's letter to the public to be disingenuous and intellectually dishonest, at best. It is only the other side of the coin, however. It is a side of the coin that reveals the underlying philosophy behind your newspaper's difficulties with truth and integrity in recent years.

It is not a problem with the public's perception of your newspaper's work, gentlemen. The problem is not external to your publication. The public’s perception of your product begins with an internal problem within your company that reveals a much deeper problem with honor and integrity. This problem begins with you and the masthead of your once respected and esteemed organization.

As for freedom of speech, among twenty-six million others in this nation, I paid a price for your exercise of free speech. So, yes, say and report what you will, however detrimental to the safety of your own loved ones and to the three hundred million citizens of this nation. But be aware. With freedom comes personal responsibility.

You have compromised the security of this nation and of its citizens during a time of war and of conflict. You have compromised the safety and military operations of men on the battlefield during a time of war. You have compromised the lives of your own friends and loved ones by revealing the information that you have in recent days. This goes quite beyond the encouragement of a "Jayson Blair" reporting of falsehoods and subsequent attempts at a cover-up on your parts.

You have treasonously exposed your own lives and the lives of your families, friends - and the lives of every citizen in this nation - to extreme danger. You have endangered the lives of the men and women who now serve that you might be free to say and do what you will. The reporting in your newspaper, particularly of late, is poor repayment for their sacrifice. By publishing such “news,” you have proven to all that you do not in fact support the troops in any substantive way whatever. Those who agree with your revelation of a classified program in a time of war also prove that they do not support the troops in any fashion. To endanger another’s life is not defined as “support” unless you have taken complete leave of your senses. Gentlemen, you have endangered the lives of us all. As free men, and therefore responsible for your own words and deeds, it can only be assumed that you have done so purposely and with malice aforethought. Such “letters to the public” as Mr. Keller has composed and released reveals the purpose and forethought behind why you have endangered this nation and the men and women who protect it.

When your readership and revenues continue to fall, remember the day that you decided to reveal what you knew about our nation's attempts to starve the enemy of financial support. When the next Muslim attack succeeds in this nation, remember your own decision to reveal classified information to the enemy of us all. ...and then take responsibility for what you have done.


Warren "Bones" Bonesteel"

Murtha Opposed NY Times Printing of Secret Finance Program?

A moment of clarity for Mad Man Murtha? Not quite. This according to Michelle Malkin via A.J. Strata's reporting.
The Strata-Sphere » Blog Archive » Breaking News: Murtha Begged Keller Not To Expose Terrorist Program: Excerpt: "Keller is doing an interview on CNN at 7:05 PM Eastern and has dropped a bomb shell bit of news. There were three people outside the administration who asked the NY Times to not expose the terrorist financial transaction monitoring program. Two of them from the 9-11 Commission where the co-chairs Lee Hamilton and Thomas Keane. The third person who tried to tell the NY Times they should not expose this important program was Democrat Representative John “Jack” Murtha! That’s right - Mad Murtha himself. Of course, this makes sense in an odd way. Murtha would rather not fight terrorism militarily, and this financial tracking program was a good option to military action."

Ah Ha! That explains it, more ulterior motives not unlike his behind the scenes manipulating to jockey for the speaker of the house position a few weeks back should the Dhimmocrats win seats in November.

Michelle has alot more on the story here.

Agape Press: The Christian Factor.

In their “Commentary and News Briefs,” Agape Press contains a little note about Mr. Murtha's opponent. Although it is not a long article, I have excerpted this passage for your enjoyment:

"And Murtha has a long history of appeasement, the Pennsylvania official asserts. She says he told Ronald Reagan the U.S. had to pull out of Beirut and told Bill Clinton America had to pull out of Somalia, just as the congressman is now telling George W. Bush that the U.S. needs to pull out of Iraq. "The way I see it is, Jack Murtha never saw a towel he didn't want to throw in," Irey observes. She says she has been amazed at how many people want to see Murtha out of office. Irey notes that she has received financial support from every U.S. state and even from military service members in Iraq." [Chad Groening]
Mrs. Irey has a backbone and a bit of spirit, it would seem.

Now, if Murtha had continued his practice of keeping a low profile in the House - after narrowly escaping indictment during ABSCAM - I would have said that Mrs. Irey might have a snowball's chance in hell of defeating him in November. There are three primary reasons that I would have said that.

1.) Mr. Murtha's voting record reveals that he is something of an aberration as a Democrat these days. According to the votes that he has cast on the major issues of the day, he is actually rather conservative. (Pun intended, but meaningless.)
2.) The demographics of his district reveal a population that is composed primarily of Democrats, but Democrats of the Zell Miller variety. They are what some call “Reagan” Democrats and what others call “Kennedy” Democrats. Certain political pundits use finer distinctions, but these analogies do well enough for my purposes here. In essence, his voting record on the major issues does reflect the “will of the people’ in the 12th district.
3.) Murtha has a solid reputation for delivering the pork to his district. Local media, businessmen - and many of the people, of course - are very appreciative and don’t want the pork to stop.

However, he gave up his low profile and opened his mouth in several nationwide - and even worldwide venues. He has opened his mouth so many times on Iraq and related topics over the last few months that it is difficult to keep up with all of the misrepresentations and inconsistencies. Zell Miller - Reagan -Kennedy Democrats are very patriotic and rather independent. They don’t like it when you verbally assault the United States or those who serve in the military. They really don’t like it at all.

...and then, there are the Christians in his district to consider. Normally, churches in such a demographic will tend to stay well away from politics. After their various meetings and services people will meet at local restaraunts, cafes, picnics and Sunday dinners to talk about the issues of the day. They'll also call one another, sharing emails and other information. If publications like Agape Press are mentioning the race, even in passing, Christians in his district will be talking about it.

Talk About Great News!!!

I just visited Wizbang Politics. While there, I got this shot of good news:
You have to hand it to this guy - he seems hellbent on turning Pennsylvania's 12-7 Republican delegation to 13-6.
Alex McClure is one of the most astute, if not the most astute, polibloggers out there. In fact, his predictions for the 04 presidential election were phenominal. He predicted one state wrong: Alex had Kerry winning Iowa if memory serves correctly. He had the net pickups of the Senate exactly right.

That's why I give special recognition of his saying Murtha's "hellbent on turning Pennsylvania's 12-7 Republican delegation to 13-6." This shouldn't be taken as a flippant remark but rather as serious analysis of the state of the race in PA CD-12. The bottom line is that I wouldn't be betting much on Murtha getting re-elected this November.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Cross-post at LetFreedomRingBlog

Let the resuscitation of Murtha begin...

How do you re-inflate a moonbat darling after
he makes a complete fool of himself

Murtha's a star on the campaign trail
By Mark Preston
CNN Political Editor

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Eight months ago, Rep. John Murtha (D-Pennsylvania) choked back tears when he called for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq saying the "military has accomplished its mission and done its duty."

It was a stunning statement from this decorated Marine veteran, who had established a long record in Congress of being a hawk on defense matters. Republicans criticized Murtha, but he was immediately showered with praise by likeminded Democrats.

Murtha continues to speak out against the war, but his words now have a sharper political edge.

"To all the Republicans who sit in their air-conditioned offices and talk of the courage it takes for them to keep young kids in harm's way - I say enough," Murtha wrote in a fundraising letter sent Friday on behalf of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "Karl Rove talking about 'cutting and running' while he sits on his big, fat backside-saying 'stay the course.' I say enough! That's not a plan! We've got to have a new direction, and it's clear we need more Democrats in Congress to get that done."

His willingness to lock horns with President Bush and his top political advisor Rove on the issue of Iraq has made Murtha a political star on the campaign trail. Today, he attends a fundraiser in Pittsburgh for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. This event follows on the heels of Murtha's keynote speech at the Palm Beach County Jefferson-Jackson Dinner Saturday night in West Palm Beach, Florida. He heads to New Hampshire in late July to attend the Hampton Democratic Town Committee's annual picnic.

Something about "all the kings horses and all the kings men" comes to mind here...

But make no mistake... the last sentence of this piece says it all:
Should Democrats take control of the House in November, Murtha has said he will run for majority leader and most likely will seek to cash in all of his political "chits."
Does the term "sellout" have any meaning here?

Spinning Haditha

That's the title of W. Thomas Smith's column for It's my opinion that this is a must read column for MMG readers. Here's why:
In a May 28 interview for ABC’s "This Week," Murtha added, "I will not excuse murder, and this is what has happened." and "There has to have been a cover-up of this thing. No question about it."
Oddly, an Associated Press story on June 9 referred to Murtha as one having "a reputation in Congress as a strong friend of the military." Even if one agrees with Murtha, it is almost laughable for anyone to suggest that a man who accuses U.S. Marines of murdering in cold blood before the facts are in, could possibly have a reputation of being a strong friend of the military. Even if the involved Marines are ultimately found guilty, the Corps’ motto, "always faithful" has been spat upon by Murtha, and done so while Marines were legally under the presumption of innocence.
Here at MMG, we've been wondering the same thing for quite some time. It's also our question as to how Mr. Murtha can expect those serving in the military or retired military vets to vote for him this November. I suspect that the likelihood of them voting for him like they have in the past is between slim and none.

I'd be delighted, though not surprised, to learn that Murtha's constituents figure it out and stop supporting him and instead choose Diana Irey. It can't happen soon enough.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

Hollywood Producer/Film Maker/Agent joins the MMG blogroll

Pat Dollard has joined us in our efforts to get John Murtha unseated in November. In case you don't know who Pat Dollard is, first, read his website, then, read the following:
June 26, 2006 -- GEORGE Clooney may be Steven Soderbergh's muse, but the director's ex-agent sure doesn't seem to be a fan of the outspoken Oscar winner.

Pat Dollard was Soderbergh's 10- percenter until he ditched his lucrative Tinseltown career to make a pro-war documentary about U.S. Marines fighting insurgents in Iraq. Last year, his Humvee convoy was blown up in Ramadi, killing two Marines and sending Dollard to the hospital with a concussion and shrapnel wounds.

So it's understandable that Dollard might have been annoyed when Clooney chastised Democrats last year for not having the guts to condemn the war. While Dollard was careful not to name names, he told Page Six that he went into "a black rage" while in Iraq after reading a certain movie star's pompous pronouncements online.

"I read something on the Internet in which someone was patting himself on the back for having the courage to oppose the war," Dollard recalled. In an obvious reference to Clooney, who owns a villa in Italy, he said, "They actually equate bravery with speaking out against the president because [losing fans] might cost them one less servant at their Italian villa . . . It put me into a black rage and made me sick to my stomach."

Squeamish viewers of Dollard's "Young Americans" will likewise be reaching for their Tums. "It's the most graphic real-war documentary ever made," Dollard says. "It has the spirit and experience of the grunts, absolutely unfettered. I never had an officer standing over my shoulder supervising what I was doing. But I also have the president of Iraq, the prime minister, the generals - so it's not just a grunt's-eye view."

Dollard says his enthusiasm for the war has left some of his former showbiz colleagues cold. "Being a Republican in Hollywood today is not much different than being a communist in Hollywood in the 1950s," he said. "I'm not trying to overstate the case, but the reality is there is a blacklist in Hollywood. It's very McCarthy-like. It just shows the hypocrisy of the left."

And what does left-leaning Soderbergh think of "Young Americans"? "He loved the footage," Dollard says. "He's seen a lot of it, and he has given me some advice."

Dollard says he's in talks with HBO and Showtime about airing "Young Americans" but may end up releasing it as a DVD. "Given the sort of grass-roots support and cult status that it's been getting, it's going to come out somehow," he said. The trailer can be viewed on
Welcome to the roll, Mr. Dollard--and thanks for all your doing to support our military and their mission in Iraq!

Sunday, June 25, 2006

Just whose side is Murtha on? Murtha says U.S. more dangerous that DPRK and Iran...

Murtha's seditious rhetoric continues...
MIAMIAmerican presence in Iraq is more dangerous to world peace than nuclear threats from North Korea or Iran, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said to an audience of more than 200 in North Miami Saturday afternoon.
Not to mention the usual cut and run, we can't win this war, etc.,

Do you really want this guy in any place of power??? Do you really??? Think about it hard, 12th CD Pennsylvanians. Think about it really hard.


Yes, there's much more to the above-referenced article than Murtha's absolutely imbecilic statement quoted above. Much the same B.S. that he continues to spout off that has been refuted time and time again ad nauseum... so I'll let Darleen take over:

He said the more than 100,000 troops in Iraq should be pulled out immediately, and deployed to peripheral countries like Kuwait.

What? What happened to Okinawa?
Murtha also has publicly said that the shooting of 24 Iraqis in November at Haditha, a city in the Anbar province of western Iraq that has been plagued by insurgents, was wrongfully covered up.
Which must be news to Major General Eldon Bargewell who reported last week that there was none.
"(The United States) became the target when Abu Ghraib came along," Murtha said.
So the Islamofascists only targeted Americans after abuse (not torture) at Abu Ghraib? So exactly what was Clinton reacting to when he signed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998?

Or does Murtha believe that Pissed-Off Presbyterians bombed Khobar Towers ten years ago today?

This is no longer innocent senility. (Read the entire post)

PC Free Zone has more here, here and here.. including this pictorial truth:

Jack Kelly On John Murtha

Jack Kelly, one of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's two or three openly conservative writers, takes a look at the latest pronouncements of wisdom from Okinawa Jack:
Rep. John Murtha, D-Johnstown, imagines himself to be the scourge of the hawks in the Bush administration. Many journalists do, too, because they keep inviting him to appear on talk shows.
Ah yes -- talk shows, Murtha's biggest source of support thus far in the campaign. Or they were, until he mentioned Okinawa. Says Jack Kelly:

Mr. Murtha has been recommending redeployment to Okinawa ever since his rebirth as a dove last year, so what he said on "Meet the Press" was no slip of the tongue.

Let us be clear about the Murtha "strategy." It is insane. It would be easier to defend Germany from Chicago; Alaska from Miami, or Hawaii from Pittsburgh than to defend Iraq from Okinawa.

It would take 10 to 12 hours -- and six refuelings -- for F-16s to fly from Kadena AFB on Okinawa to Baghdad (assuming China and India would grant overflight rights, a dubious assumption). Mr. Murtha may regard this as "very quickly," but the Air Force does not.

As Bugs Bunny would say: "What a maroon!"

If I resided in the PA 12th district, I would prefer Bugs Bunny as a representative over John Murtha. The rabbit might be aware of something like this:
Another howler is Mr. Murtha's assumption that U.S. troops currently serving in Iraq would be welcome in Okinawa. For decades Okinawans have been seeking a reduction in the U.S. military presence, both because they covet the land on which U.S. military bases sit, and because of a long history of pacifism. The U.S. recently agreed to withdraw 7,000 Marines from Okinawa.
I thought the left wanted to get out of places where we aren't wanted.
The problem, however, is not where we are wanted, but where we are needed. Who needs us more? The Okinawans, or the Iraqis?

Read the whole thing, as we say. And remember to keep asking the right questions, and give the right answers, as Jack Kelly does:

Mr. Murtha sounds less like a Marine colonel these days, and more like a male Cindy Sheehan. Has he become senile? Or was he always this stupid?

In either case, voters in his district should take a close look at Diana Irey, the Republican who hopes to put an end to the embarrassment to Pennsylvania that Jack Murtha has become.

Support those who defend your freedoms!

Toni at Bear Creek Ledger has this to say:

Support the Camp Pendleton Eight

Filed under: Military, Iraq, Support The Troops — Toni @ 8:36 am

I just completed Ilario Pantano’s book “Warlord“. What was clear from Ilario’s trial was that NCIS did a hack job of investigating the charge against Ilario. They based the whole charge on the voice of one witness - Sgt. Coburn, a lying, cowardly Marine who was incompetent and jealous of Pantano. I was astounded by the tunnel vision of NCIS, their lack of interest in verifying or validating the word of one Marine who didn’t have the courage to report the charges. The charges were brought forth by a 3rd party who heard about it via telephone from Coburn. If Ilario Pantano had not been able to raise funds he wouldn’t have received the best defense available to prove his innocence. The organization started by his Mother (Defend the Defenders) raised much of the needed funds. And the Marine Corps drove out of the Corps a stellar officer. I’m not saying not to investigate charges but how about a competent investigation by NCIS where they have no preconceived conclusions. Shame on the higher ups in the Marine Corps.

I hope the same treatment does not happen with the Marines held for the Haditha investigation or the Marines charged for the Hamdania investigation (Camp Pendleton Eight).

I just heard Carl Levin(D,MI) on Fox News Sunday say there was “overwhelming” evidence that the Marines committed this atrocity in Haditha. Guess he hasn’t been reading Sweetness & Light, Michelle Malkin, Chickenhawk, Blue Star Chronicles and many other blogs who are doing the work the dominent media should be doing. But then, that would be wrong since it would appear they are pro-military and they just couldn’t do that. Afterall, the NYT’s and LAT’s ARE pro-Islamic Insurrgent Terrorists!

Here’s three sites you can go to support the Camp Pendleton Eight who are charged in the Hamdania case.

Fighting For Tyler

Innocent Marine

Patriot Defense Fund

Toni asks that if you know of any other organizations that are helping in this matter, let her know and she will post them.

"A Frustrated Jarhead Speaks"

From WorldNetDaily Today: "In a recent column, I talked about how the 'support' the left has offered the troops is anything but. Apparently, it hit a vein as I have been swamped with e-mail from as far away as Iraq and as close as my hometown – most of it from active and retired servicemen.

..Now we are told that our soldiers had their genitals cut off and stuffed into their mouth. They were beheaded. They were tortured unmercifully while still alive by the disciples of Allah, and I hear no words of outrage from the "left" today.

While I would love to publish the mail I get from Iraq, it is probably inappropriate at this time. Suffice to say they pay little attention to the likes of Murtha. They are too busy fighting a WAR. However, there was one letter I received that should be read by ever politician in America. It reflects the overwhelming emotion the public is experiencing given the silence and the lack of coverage our two brave soldiers have received over their brutal slaughter at the hands of the enemy. An enemy that has no face, no uniform and no regard for any human life.

Phil is a retired Marine who is 55 years old. He would do anything to, once again, put on the uniform of the country he loves and fight against the threat he knows exists. Phil has experience in defending his nation. He did so with valor during Vietnam. He still relies on his instincts of right and wrong to guide his life. So he was compelled to write his friends a letter. The letter speaks for itself and will not be accompanied by any commentary from me. Special thanks to WND for having the backbone to allow the world to hear the true heart and grit of the American Spirit. read the letter

This "Justice" Sounds More & More Familiar

The dispicable details emerging from Baghdad this weekend kind of sounds like the MSM & John Murtha school of Haditha justice was administered here against our 2 brave Marines found murdered & mutilated last week. The below is what happens when you have the Judge, Jury and Executioner all wrapped in one Mr. Murtha.
Militants likely captured soldiers alive: "WASHINGTON - The two American soldiers whose mutilated bodies were recovered earlier this week near Baghdad were likely captured alive, though possibly wounded, after an attack and were killed later by insurgents after a hasty trial, military officers familiar with an investigation said Friday.

Evidence gathered so far indicates that Pfc. Kristian Menchaca, 23, of Houston, and another soldier survived a firefight June 16 and were taken by insurgents to a hideout in the area.
The other soldier that they so callously refer to was Pfc. Thomas L. the way...well known info that for some inexplicable reason is left out of a story written today?
There they were tried by a hurriedly convened Islamic court and killed, execution-style, according to an officer familiar with the Army inquiry in Iraq." skip ahead

The military has delayed issuing a report about the capture of Menchaca and Pfc. Thomas Tucker, 25, of Madras, Ore., in part to withhold details that, upon release, may jeopardize the intense manhunt under way for the killers.

"We are on the hunt for the people who did this. There are good leads we are following up on," said Lt. Col. Michelle Martin-Hing, a spokeswoman for the military command in Baghdad.

Maybe Murtha and his Minions can locate these enemy criminal terrorists and lynch them too.

The remainder (more) of the interesting article discusses the families' disappointment that these soldiers seem to have been left in a compromising postion that may have encouraged their abduction and killing. If that is indeed the case hopefully the protocol will be adjusted by the commanders and officers to assure that this doesn't happen again to any more of our bravest.

Saturday, June 24, 2006

Regarding our guardsmen...and why I started this blog...

I posted this over at my personal blog, Psycmeistr's Ice Palace; I guess I'd like to post it here as well, just as a reminder to myself (and hopefully others) why I started this blog:

The AP has a pretty decent story (never thought I'd be typing that) about some Pennsylvania guardsmen and their tour of duty in Iraq..

HATTIESBURG, Miss. (AP) -- They are returning home with a sense of accomplishment, but also with feelings of anger and frustration, even despair.

They speak proudly about building up the Iraqi security force, restoring electricity and watching Iraqis walk miles to vote.

But they wonder whether it will be enough to secure Iraq's future, and at times, express bitterness toward the people they wanted to help.

"They're using our good will, our good-nature policy against us," says Sgt. Bobby Walls, a 38-year-old Pennsylvania National Guard member. "The fact that we fight as the good guys sometimes turns around and kicks us in the can, you know?"

Such are the swirling emotions for troops returning home from Iraq. Among the most recent of those returnees are members of the largest contingent of Pennsylvania National Guard troops deployed to a combat zone since World War II.

Fifteen from their ranks of about 2,000 were killed during the nearly yearlong deployment in Iraq's Anbar province, a huge swath of land that's a stronghold of insurgency. Two others are being investigated in connection with the shooting death of an Iraqi civilian earlier this year.

For the rest of these part-time soldiers, it can be a struggle as they return home this summer to regain the sort of normalcy they knew before spending a year with their lives in danger wherever they went. During stopovers at Camp Shelby in Mississippi on their way home, some talked about their experiences.

Walls felt helpless and furious as he stood at ground zero on Sept. 11, 2001, one of several Philadelphia police officers who on their own drove New York City to help. He vowed to become an infantryman and get even, so the father of three went off inactive status in the Navy Reserves and joined the Army National Guard.

At boot camp, the other recruits - many just 18 - called him grandpa. He lost 45 pounds in basic training and scout school that followed. Then his unit was sent to Ramadi, which he nicknamed the "meat grinder." He worked as a sniper, usually with just one partner.

At night, they'd sneak into rural villages and urban areas, tracking suspected terrorists for hours at a time. Sometimes, they'd kill them.

Back at the base camp, Walls became hyper-vigilant. He'd fear if he went to sleep, he would die.

"You start realizing how vulnerable you really are all the time," Walls says. "You're not safe anywhere in that damn place, and that's a bad feeling. Too many guys got hurt or killed just walking to chow ... or running to the bathroom, and they don't come back."

Walls is proud of the work he did as a sniper. He said he killed "upper-tier insurgents" who would have likely killed or injured other American soldiers if they had tried to capture them.

He wonders, though, about the future of the Anbar region. The people "will not be pacified, they will not work with us. I don't ever see it happening," he says.

Walls says insurgents wear civilian clothes and use women and children as shields.

"If you're going to fight the enemy, there are two ways to look at it. You either become just like them, fight them on their own terms or you take the heavy burden like we're doing it right now and it's going to cost American lives. It's a hell of a price to pay but if you fight them on their terms, you're no better than them.

"That's the true dilemma of the soldier right now, to get his sanity and keep his morals, keep his integrity. And it's hard. It's a ... minute-by-minute struggle ... over in Iraq."

From the looks of this article, it reads like these soldiers were stationed at or very near to where my son, Doug is stationed. This next part really hits home for me, because it sounds a lot like what my son Doug likes to do (I mean play with the children and give them treats):

Children looking for handouts of candy would often approach 1st Lt. Anselm T.W. Richards and the men in his platoon. The soldiers would oblige them, then ask for information.

Sometimes, the children would tell them who made bombs and dealt in weapons. Everybody in town seemed to know the answer.

One day, Richards says, the parents of a 12-year-old boy told him their son had been beheaded by insurgents because he accepted a soccer ball as a gift from soldiers.

"We said to the parents, 'You tell us who did it and we will get them.' They said if we talk to you, they'll kill us as well,'" says Richards, a hedge fund broker from Philadelphia.

"That's the fear in which these people live. That's probably the biggest hindrance to them moving forward."

What is really different about this AP story that is far too-absent in the MSM reporting of Iraq is that they include information like this:

Like Walls, Richards believes no one should be too quick to judge the small group of Marines being investigated in the Nov. 19 deaths of 24 Iraqi civilians, including unarmed women and children, following a roadside bomb that killed a fellow Marine.

"My question is why are people so curious and so eager to find fault with the Marines or soldiers whose lives are on the line," he says. "Why is it their behavior that's being questioned, not the behavior of the guy placing the IED, or the bomb."

He adds: "If it's because children were killed or women, it's understandable, but you know what, those Marines who are killed are children of someone as well."

Among the difficulties: Richards says Iraqi insurgents know the U.S. troops wouldn't fire at a school - "so they will set up on a school or put a sniper on the roof of a school."

Richards says the region is safer than it was a year ago, though five of his men were injured by a roadside bomb just a few weeks before the end of their deployment. Among other accomplishments, he says his brigade helped expand the hours of available electricity each day and trained Iraqi police and security officers. (emphasis added)

And these soldiers are human:

As much as he hates to admit it, 1st Lt. Michael Green, a Pennsylvania state employee from Hershey, says he found it hard at times to like the Iraqis.

He was furious to learn some Iraqis blamed the Americans for a suicide bomb attack that claimed the life of Lt. Col. Michael McLaughlin, the first Pennsylvania Army National Guard officer to die in combat since World War II.

After a year in Iraq, "It's not that I feel so different about the war," he says. "I feel different about the Iraqi people because I saw the bad sides along with the good sides, and before all I saw was potential."

He was so angry that he wanted to shoot some construction workers who had pretended, he says, not to have seen a vehicle driven by the kidnappers of a small boy.

He says he wanted to help catch people responsible for bombings and other violence but that townspeople often didn't want to get involved.

To be successful in Iraq, he says, Americans "need to learn the culture well enough to get inside it" and convince the people that terrorism is dishonorable and brings shame on their family.

"They have all the materials they need to be a strong country. What they probably lack the most is the democratized individuals making decisions collectively ... It's more of a 'Why should I get involved?'"(Read the rest)

This story gives me some pretty good insight as to what life must be like for my kid. He tells me in his emails and on the phone that he is doing well, although he relates that the situation around him is "getting hotter."

It'll be a great day next March when he finally comes home. If you can spare a prayer on his behalf (and on behalf of his comrades) when you think of it, it would be greatly appreciated.



(Filed under Iraq, Heroes)

Again, my son understands his mission, and supports the purpose for his being there. I couldn't stand to sit idly by while Congressman Murtha, almost daily, besmirched our fighting men and women, along with the mission for which they are willing to take bullets--or worse.

Our kids deserve better.