Keeper of the Flame Award 2009

Remarks by Sec. Donald Rumsfeld, Sen. Jon Kyl and Vice President Richard Cheney
All have won the Keeper of the Flame Award from the Center for Security Policy

"We can NOT hope to win a war
by talking down our country and those who do its hardest work -
the men and women of the military and the intellegence services -
they are the true Keepers of the Flame.
- Vice President Richard B Cheney

Afghanistan - Through the Eyes of Michael Ramirez

I don't often post on politics on this blog, but the current politics are adversely affecting out troops - people I know and care about.

It's time for the President to lead - something he doesn't seem to know how to do - but, when you have troops in the field and the generals ask for reinforcements, you provide them or you go home.

American Held Hostage by Pirates

An American, Captain Richard Phillips, is being held hostage by Somalian pirates after they tried to take his ship the Maersk Alabama (sister ship shown above).

It is believed that Capt. Phillips offered himself as a hostage to ensure the release of his crew. He is being held in one of the Alabama's lifeboats with the pirates.

Capt. Phillips lives in Underhill, Vermont. He is a graduate of the Massachusetts Maritime Academy. Phillips had flown to the United Arab Emirates about two weeks ago to take command of the 508-foot-long container ship, loaded with USAID humanitarian aid supplies and other cargo destined for Kenya.

The USS Bainbridge is now on sight. The Alabama and her crew are secure. The life boat seems to be dead in the water. We are waiting for updates to the story, thinking about his family and friends and keeping him in our prayers.

From the State Department, Hillary Clinton showed leadership by bursting into giggles about the life boat being out of gas. From the White House, Obama has nothing to say - it's just not on the agenda today.

With this type of leadership, Capt Phillips needs divine intervention - please hold him in your prayers today.

Dignified Transfer Ceremony ~ Press Intrusion Begins

An Air Force Mortuary Affairs Operations Center carry team transfers the remains of Air Force Staff Sgt. Phillip A. Myers, of Hopewell, Va., at Dover Air Force Base, Del., April 5. Sergeant Myers died April 4 near Helmand Province, Afghanistan, from wounds suffered from an improvised explosive device. He was assigned to the 48th Civil Engineer Squadron, Royal Air Force Lakenheath, United Kingdom. Sergeant Myers' family is the first to allow media to cover the dignified transfer under the new Department of Defense policy.

U.S. Air Force photo/Roland Balik

The "Dignified Transfer Ceremony" Policy

A solemn dignified transfer of remains is conducted upon arrival at Dover Air Force Base, Deleware, from the aircraft to a transfer vehicle to honor those who have given their lives in the service of our country. The vehicle then moves the fallen to the Port Mortuary.

A dignified transfer is the process by which, upon the return from the theater of operations to the United States, the remains of fallen military members are transferred from the aircraft to a waiting vehicle and then to the Port Mortuary. The dignified transfer is not a ceremony; rather, it is a solemn movement of the transfer case by a carry team of military personnel from the fallen member's respective service. A dignified transfer is conducted for every U.S. military member who dies in the theater of operation while in the service of their country. A senior ranking officer of the fallen member's service presides over each dignified transfer.

The sequence of the dignified transfer starts with the fallen being returned to Dover by the most expedient means possible, which may mean a direct flight from theater, or a flight to Ramstein Air Base, and then to Dover. It is the Department of Defense's policy, and AFMAO's mission, to return America's fallen to their loved ones as quickly as possible. Once the aircraft lands at Dover, service-specific carry teams remove the transfer cases individually from the aircraft and move them to a waiting mortuary transport vehicle. Once all of the transfer cases have been taken to the transport vehicles, they are then taken to the Port Mortuary.

***************************************

President Obama ordered the DOD to write a policy that allowed the press to intrude upon these solemn ceremonies. This ended the policy of privacy instituted by President George H W Bush during the first Gulf War. Last night, the first of these press covered events occured.

I have never understood the point of the press being at ramp ceremonies in Iraq or Afghanistan or Kuwait or any other country, nor have I undersood their 'need' to photograph the arrival of the fallen at Dover.

I read all of the press reports found on the internet. The only pictures I found were identical to these taken by an Air Force PAO, but CNN did video tape it. Little, if anything, was written about the soldier who was being returned.

I have never understood the point or the necessity of making a family's personal moment a photo opportunity. I never believed that they needed it to tell the story. I never believed that one flag draped coffin looked any different than any other flag draped coffin. And, the press proved me right that it is not about the person who died, it is about the pictures. Not one of the press reports mentioned anything about who SSG Myers was.

All it takes is one read of a soldiers description of a ramp ceremony to know about the honor that is given to a fallen warrior. Those stories can never be told in a picture.

The anti-war crowd yammers that not seeing them hides 'the true cost of war' - really? Without a coffin, you don't believe that the obituaries and life stories are real? Why don't you go to the actual funeral if you want to see the real cost of war on a family and a community - not to mention the coffin?

I have never heard one good reason why the press should be at Dover for the return.

I have, however, been contacted by more than a handful of soldiers who have said, "If I die, promise me that you will make sure that my family doesn't let those press people in." I can't help but wonder why the soldier wasn't given the opportunity to decide in the myriad of papers that they fill out when they deploy. While the policy now allows the family to decide if the press will be there, every decision a family has to make about 'what would they have wanted' just adds to the grief. And, family opinions often do NOT reflect the soldiers opinions.

To read about the soldier who returned home last night, please read here:
http://gazingattheflag.blogspot.com/2009/04/farewell-walk-with-god-ssg-phillip.html

A Tale of the Troops and Their Commanders in Chief

A picture is worth a thousand words, and these pictures are worth volumes.

Farewell & Thank You, Mr. Bush

Farewell & Thank You

President & Mrs. Bush
Vice-President & Mrs. Cheney


We are saying good-bye to these amazing people.
They have worked hard to do what they were elected to do.
They have provided leadership. They have kept us safe.
They have honored those who serve and sacrifice.
They have cared deeply about our country and about each of us.

I am proud to have voted for them twice.
I will miss them deeply.
I send my gratitude and my prayers.

Grace and Class have left Washington.

Barney Bites the Bad Guys!

Good Dog!

VOTE!

VOTE

The Ideological Battle is On.
Take a Stand.
Cast Your Vote.

VOTE! ~ Renew Your Right to Gripe!

RENEW

YOUR

RIGHT

TO

GRIPE

VOTE!

My grandpa used to always begin any political discussion with, "Did you vote in the last election?" Since voter turn-out in this country is so low, more often than not, the answer would be "NO". Grandpa would smile and say, "Well, then, you forfeited your right to any opinion or criticism, didn't you." Grandpa always got his point across and eliminated a lot of silly discussions that way. But, his larger point was always the OBLIGATION OF CITIZENSHIP. He believed that since many great men had conceived, fought for and risked everything to create this country, that we had an obligation to VOTE. He also believed that if we all took that obligation seriously, politicians would get away with less dishonesty, fraud, corruption and general bad behavior. On my 21st birthday (OK, I'm old, but you used to have to be 21 to vote), he sent me a picture of Arlington Cemetery and a note that said, "If you don't vote, they gave their lives for nothing. Vote, always vote, and remember the greatness of your country when you do."

Please vote, and please ask your candidate, "Do You Want America to Win?" Vote as if your country depends upon it, because it does!

"The fact is that for some on the far left, their belief in America as a force fo evil and destruction in the world makes them believe that the American military is the agent of that evil and destruction. Their whole approach is to blame America and demean our fighting men and women, not the enemies who threaten us.

"The far left believe themselves to be the intelligent and cultured elite who possess the only opinions that matter. They become apoplectic when reality collides whith their misguided worldview. The fact is that the average young man and woman serving in Iraq today is better educated than the average civilian American their age and comes from a higher income level than the average civilian American their age. The fact is that our troops are exemplary young men and women serving our country for patriotic and decent reasons. But instead of accepting these facts about our troops, they call them stupid, desperate and worse." -Newt Gingrich

Please think about this when you VOTE!

I wrote this two years ago, but it is just as relevant now... you're in my thoughts Grandpa!

Dear Mr. Obama

A reminder before we vote.

General Petraeus and 'Vets on the Hill'

Today, Vets for Freedom will bring our message to Congress, when over 400 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans descend on Capitol Hill for "Vets on the Hill."

Our guys will enjoy breakfast with the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Richard Myers, before heading to Capitol Hill for a bi-partisan press conference with two-dozen members of Congress, including Senators John McCain, Joe Lieberman, and Lindsay Graham.

General Petraeus will be making his report to Congress.

It is a very big day on the hill. We are in this to win and I am grateful for the Vets who have gone to Washington to remind Congress of that!!!

Support the Marines Over Berkeley City Council

Sign the Petition

http://www.moveamericaforward.org/index.php/MAF/Petition/Berkeley2008/

Gold Star Mom ~ Standing Up for the Troops

Gold Star Mother Debbie Lee

Speaks to the Berkeley City Council

PO2 Marc Allen Lee - Navy SEAL

Tributes here, here and here

Dear Barry ~ An Open Letter to Barack Obama

Dear Barry~

I am writing to you as a fellow alumni of Punahou School. I was gone long before you were there, but we shared the same rooms, some of the same teachers, the same atmosphere and environment. We grew up with similar experiences. I am motivated to do this because of the disturbing things you are doing that erode all credibility you might have had for me.

I can not think of any political issue that you and I will ever agree upon. You believe in giving people everything - just as everything was given to you. It always amazes me that most spoiled liberal children grow up without ever learning to work for anything or to earn anything. And, I am disgusted that you have pared your biography down to exclude the parts that might let people know where you come from. There is something dishonest about that.

[For my readers, Barry (his name in high school - Oahuan yearbook picture above) was a 1979 graduate of Punahou School, which is a top prep school (remember how GWB was excoriated for attending one of those) in Honolulu, Hawaii. Barry was sent to this premier and expensive school by his white grandparents with whom he lived. He attended from grade school through high school. His black African father had abandoned him and his white mother when he was a toddler. While I don't normally write political pieces, I feel strongly about his sins of omission.]

I do know that you were given one of the finest educations available in the United States. I know that you grew up a child of privilege. I do know that you were taught to speak in public, to think and to act. We should BOTH be grateful for the quality of education that we received. Yet, you seem to hide yours under the rock of omission. Are you worried that the masses might think less of you if they knew where you came from? How sad that you chose not to say - 'see where a great education and great teachers can inspire you to go?' And, are you going to tell people that those GREAT teachers were not part of a Union - they were there to mentor us and educate us and THEY DID.

Of the many things that we instinctively knew with our shared background, the most important things were the lessons learned about race. In any classroom we were in, it was a given that everyone in the room would be of varying racial combinations. It was so dramatic that no one cared - we weere each a minority of one - except the twins in my class. We learned that character and the ability to excel with whatever gifts we had were the important things. We had the benefits of learning from multiple cultures - we ate one another's foods, learned about holidays and celebrations and had our pidgin' peppered with words from cultures around the globe. We had few cultures withheld from our experiences. We were each unique and yet none of us was more unique than the others. We learned the strenght of the individual. We learned that it is character, not color, that defines us. How sad that you have not shared this valuable lesson with people on the campaign trail, but have rather chosen to fall into the Clinton trap of isolating the races?

I guess it is easier to let people think that you 'fought' your way to the top, when we know it is not true. But, how dishonest - how horribly dishonest.

When I heard your speech at the 2004 Democrat National Convention, I was impressed - most of the country was impressed. You are a profoundly gifted orator. But, as I watch your campaign, though you have the gift to stir the crowds, I have yet to hear you say anything of substance. You say "CHANGE" a great deal. You get the crowds to chant, "YES WE CAN."

But, you never define the change. Fascism is a change, Communism is a change, Depression is a change, Massive Unemployment is a change, Undermining Capitalism is a change, Attacks on our Soil are a change. Change is not necessarily a good thing. What is it that you mean? Or, are you satisfied to have an electorate that has no ability to think or reason or question you? Or, horrors, don't you know what you mean? And, what, exactly is it that we can do?

Most of my disdain is for the only thing that you ever express in your platform - tucking our tail between our legs and running from the battlefield in Iraq. BAD IDEA. Yet, you never speak of Afghanistan. You never speak of the War on Terror. Don't you believe they exist? Certainly you would have a policy position on them if you did. You scare me. I know that you have the capacity to be a deep thinker. Why is it that we are seeing the shallowest of rhetoric?

If you want to be the President of this country, you will have an obligation to ALL of America - not just those who vote for you. Barry, it is time to excel - to be the thinker and communicator, else that will never happen.

Sincerely,

A Fellow Alumni of Punahou School (and owner of this blog)


Anonymous - a gift for you!

To the Anony-mice who think leaving messages with vile language and calling me names is dialogue and debate - finda dictionary and look up the words you are using - it will save you looking foolish.

To the Anony-mice who think that asking a Presidential candidate to be the best he can be is wrong - you will destroy this country if you don't believe that too.

To the Anony-mice who want to argue with me about Foreign Policy, this is the topic index on Obama's website : Ending the War in Iraq, Iran, Renewing American Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, Building a 21st Century Military, Biparisanship and Openness, On Israel. No Policy Paper on Afghanistan OR the War on Terror. I have done my homework - you have not done yours.

To anyone who is supporting Barry for President - if you have not read his policy positions, you are a fool. A complete and total fool. A responsible voter reads the policy positions of the candidate. An irresponsible voter falls for things like 'hope' and 'change' - words that mean nothing in the realm of governance.

Trading Congress for the Marine Corps

Illinois Rep. Jim Watson, R-Jacksonville, admires a farewell greeting during a Republican County fundraising dinner in Jacksonville, Ill. Watson is going off to war. The 42-year-old spent his last week in Illinois by taking care of the last minute details before his deployment to Iraq.

By Nguyen Huy Vu - The Associated Press

Posted : Monday Jan 21, 2008 7:53:14 EST

JACKSONVILLE, Ill. — Jim Watson is going to war, and that means taking care of details familiar to any Marine: updating his will, packing his duffel bags, saying goodbye.

Then there are a few unusual chores, like figuring out how to raise campaign money while in Iraq and arranging for other lawmakers to watch over his legislative district while he’s away.

Watson is a staff sergeant in the Marine Reserves, but he’s also a Republican member of the state House, representing a swath of farmland and small towns in central Illinois.

He leaves Sunday to train in Camp Pendleton, Calif. When he arrives in Iraq a few weeks later, Watson will become one of just 23 state legislators deployed overseas by the military over the past four years, according to a survey done last summer for the National Network of Legislators in the Military.

The National Conference of State Legislatures estimates Watson will be one of five state legislators currently deployed in Iraq.

Watson, 42, expects to be shipped to Al-Anbar, Iraq, and spend nine months working with local leaders to strengthen their government.

He’ll miss his son’s 14th birthday and his youngest daughter’s tumbling meets. He’ll also miss the spring legislative session, leaving his district without a vote in the House, a situation that irritates some constituents.

“I hope that people in the district look at that and say, ‘That’s a sacrifice we can live with so that he can do what he’s doing,’” he said. “If that’s not the case, then I am not the right guy. This is important to me, and I hope that is important to them.”

Watson already has served overseas once.

He started his military career in 1985 with the Marine Corps. He returned to active duty in 1990 and served in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia for seven months with a combat engineering unit as part of Operation Desert Storm.

Watson started thinking about re-enlisting in 2005. His pangs to return to active duty grew as he watched his old unit being sent to Iraq three times. Two of them died.

“You get into this because you have a sense of duty, and just because you take the uniform off doesn’t mean that sense of duty is put in the closet with it. It’s still there,” Watson said. “And so when these things flare up you find yourself saying, ‘I should be there, I can help.”’

Last summer, he signed up for the reserves again, joining a civil affairs unit that could use his experience in government.

He got word around Christmas that he was being shipped to Iraq.

Watson spent the last few weeks raising money, voting on legislation and trying to make time for his family. “It’s complicated to put it all together, but it’s coming together,” he said.

More than 200 supporters packed a banquet room Monday night to wish Watson luck during an annual political fundraiser that doubled as a farewell party. They lined up to shake his hand and promise to take his son hunting or invite his youngest daughter to sleepovers.

The next day it was back to business. Watson wants to make sure his district isn’t forgotten by state officials while he’s gone. He plans to keep in touch through e-mail, and other representatives from both parties have promised to visit the district.

Watson caught heat from a few constituents and local papers because he can’t vote while serving in Iraq. He understands the concern, and it’s one reason he delayed re-enlisting. But he doesn’t consider it a crisis that the district will be without a vote for 270 days. If he served any longer, Pentagon policy would require him to give up his political office.

Watson sits with advisers over pork loin and cornbread as they try to tie up loose ends. Have they thought of everything? Are the office hours covered? Do we have the right reps? Is the right staff in place?

Next, they head over to his campaign headquarters a few yards away and discuss how to stay visible through blogging, e-mails and video teleconferencing. The group then tosses ideas around about moneymaking strategies.

Watson listens intently and struggles to swallow a few yawns.

An hour later he picks up his youngest daughter. Recently divorced, Watson usually gets the kids once a week but he has the entire week with them before he ships off.

The hardest part was telling the kids. Katie, 16, Jacob, 13, and Lexie, 9, gathered around at Watson’s Jacksonville duplex when he told them the news. Katie and Lexie had the toughest time. They couldn’t stop crying.

Jacob sat quietly. He began to ask questions. If you have to go, where will you be? How long are you going to be there? What kind of gun are going to carry?

Jacob said he is disappointed that his dad has to go.

“I really don’t have a choice, I have to accept it because he’s already going and you can’t turn back,” Jacob says.

His children were the main reason it took so long to commit to the service.

“There’s nobody that can replace your parents,” Watson says. “Missing some games, missing tumbling meets, missing a swim meet, not being able to help them on a test, not being there to help out their mother. She’s got to carry this load and that’s tough.”

While Watson helps Jacob study for a Spanish test, there is a knock at the door. It’s a stranger. The man introduces himself and, out of the blue, offers to help any way he can while Watson is away.

Watson thanks the man. Then he simply grins.

From the Marine Corps Times

Just visiting my blogger friends and found this story is also at Lubbock Marine Parents!

Thank You, Prime Minister John Howard

Prime Minister John Howard of Australia lost his bid for reelection. With his departure, the United States looses one of its staunchest allies. PM Howard is a man of great courage, strength and eloquence.

Now is the time to send him a message of thanks for all he has done... go here

Thanks to Dude, Where's the Beach for the link!!!

Protesters Mar Veterans Day Parades

Veterans Day parades across the country were dealing with the political rather than the honor due to our veterans. A group known as veterans for peace were refused entry into the Veterans Day parade in Boston, which is run by the American Legion. They were also denied a place on the speakers dias.

To express their disdain and disrespect for the American Legion, they marched at the end of the parade with inverted flags on their backs and carrying inverted flags, chanting anti mantras. Then, they took over the speaker's platform and 'gagged' themselves to show that their speech was being restricted because they were not invited into a private event. 18 of them were arrested - and, they are proud of it.

Local groups showed up at many Veterans Day parades across the nation - they were allowed to march in some, not in others, but at all of the parades, they turned it into a political statement. In some they were joined by Code Pink and other anti-war groups.

This type of insertion of politics into an event meant to honor and the blatant disrespect for our flag is pathetic. Veterans Day was not about the anti's favorite topics - Iraq, Bush, Bush, Bush, Iraq - it was about honoring the men and women down through history who have protected us and defended us and, when necessary, fought and bled and died for us. When people behave so despicably, I applaud their exclusion. No one is entitled to take over an event organized by people they disagree with.

Authorization of the War in Iraq ~ Five Years Ago

Five years ago, Congress authorized military action against Iraq. The action did not take place for another five months. Most of us never read the resolution and allow people to quote incorrectly from it. It is well worth the read.

Washington, DC — October 16, 2002 - Congress gives President George W. Bush the authority to invade Iraq to locate and destroy Saddam Hussein's suspected stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction. While the authorization encourages Bush to seek UN support for such action it did not require him to have it in order to attack Iraq. The war, known as Operation Iraqi Freedom, started in March 2003.


Public Law 107–243
107th Congress
House Joint Resolution 114
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

H.J.Res.114

One Hundred Seventh Congress
of the
United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
the twenty-third day of January, two thousand and two

Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
(a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).
(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.

Anonymous was here.....

Yesterday, we went off on a day trip - really had a great time and saw some amazing things!! I had planned to share our travels with you, until this came up.

When I got home, I found that our gutless friend ANONYMOUS had pooped all over my blog, commenting on several old posts. While attempting to show me that I was wrong and stupid, it revealed itself to be shallow, thoughtless, inconsistent in thought, rather ignorant at even correctly relating the standard talking points and totally unaware of the belief system it says it ascribes to.

1. It's contention is that the Democrat party is Pro-Victory. Obviously written by someone who has NO idea who these people are: Harry Reid, Al Gore, John Kerry, John Murtha, John Edwards, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton... need I go on? Additionally, the Democrat party - national and local branches, are organizing and anti-war counter rally to the Move America Forward Pro-Victory tour which starts this week. Yep, that sounds Pro-Victory.

2. Did you know that 'Bush' (FYI, it is President Bush) has been creating Jihadists? - I guess he is using his underground bunker to do this. No one creates a Jihadist - it is a belief system based on a perversion of Islam.

3. It wanted me to know that I 'despise democrats'. This was news to me. I obviously respect them more that it does as I capitalize the 'D' when I write the name - if I ever do, which is quite rare. I do not care enough about them to despise them. I don't respect many individuals who belong to the party. I don't respect the platform of nanny state realities. I don't respect most politicians at all. But, despise - that takes far more emotion that I am willing to give to them.

4. One of my favorites - my posts 'stir hatred and contempt'. Would those posts be the tributes to the fallen or the good news about our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan?

5. Then, it attacked my friend Sgt Vaughn and his editorial. It totally missed the point of the post and since it took exactly 1 minute to read it, I wonder how that happened? Then, it started typing incoherently and comes up with some bizarre conclusions.

6. But, it was humorous as well.... "Please can we all remember that Democrats are also loyal Americans." Since I never said they weren't, the paranoia takes over and truly stupid things get written. I think that a great many Americans are far too selfish and self-absorbed to be loyal to much of anything - their family, their marriage, their children, their jobs, let alone their country. But, I have not cast the term to anyone on this blog.

7. The saga ends with, "Shouldn't we be focusing aggression (anger and hatred if it makes you feel better) against our enemies?" Yes, we should. Maybe you could talk to our 'friends' in government about trying to do that. And, for the record, the only 'anger and hatred' that has been expressed is yours.

ANONYMOUS - you are an idiot... a coward... without substance to your angry typings, and not terribly capable of reading comprehension. Most of all, you are not welcome here. If you want to comment SIGN YOUR NAME - if you are not proud enough to sign it, then maybe it isn't worth saying.

Not Even a Contest by Russ Vaughn

Not Even a Contest

I’m a soldier; haven’t been in uniform in forty years but the six years of active duty I did serve and the ensuing thirty-plus years I’ve spent working with the U.S. military, instilled in me certain qualities and beliefs that have grown and persisted within me all these decades and provide me with the basis for my stance on the war on terror. I may now be only an armchair warrior, but I’m still a soldier. As such, I understand the value of a rapid counterattack when your enemy has struck and badly hurt you. I say this as a brief, prefatory explanation of why I believe the Bush Administration has done the right thing in carrying the war on terror into the heart of terrorism itself. Yes, I know there are legions of liberals, so blinded by their certainty that the Supreme Court cheated Al Gore out of the presidency that they actually profess to believe that there were no ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq. To them I would say consider this: Syria had ties to Al Qaeda; Jordan had ties to Al Qaeda; Egypt had ties to Al Qaeda; Yemen had ties to Al Qaeda; Somalia had ties to Al Qaeda; Saudi Arabia had ties to Al Qaeda; the various Gulf monarchies had ties to Al Qaeda; Iran had ties to Al Qaeda; Pakistan had ties to Al Qaeda; Indonesia, the Philippines, North Korea and several of the former Soviet satellites under Muslim rule had ties to Al Qaeda.

But not Iraq.

That’s right, according to Democrat politicians and the liberal Left in America and Europe, only one country in the Middle East, Iraq, a country under the iron-fisted control of an absolute dictator who had reason to hate the American government far more bitterly than any of the leaders of the above nations, and yep, sitting smack dab in the middle of all these other terrorist harboring countries, only America-hating Iraq, was lily white clean according to liberal Democrats when it came to affiliation with Al Qaeda.

Excuse me folks, but Old Sarge’s bullshit detector is going off like a Geiger counter at ground zero in Chernobyl.

Now, of all the countries listed above, one of you Democrats, real quick, tell me which of them is absolutely known to have used weapons of mass destruction against a foreign enemy and dissident elements within its own borders. Hmmm, only one? Really? Only Iraq? Imagine that…chemical weapons used in conjunction with modern weapons delivery systems against Iranian forces and rebellious Kurds? Trust me folks, Old Sarge’s specialty in the Army was chemical, biological and radiological warfare and he knows quite well that the use of lethal, disabling and disfiguring gases in bombs, rockets and artillery warheads constitutes the use of weapons of mass destruction under the rules of land warfare. Never mind that Saddam Hussein blew the world a huge raspberry as he was gassing his enemies without and within. Nah…this guy didn’t have any weapons of mass destruction. Ask any Bush-hating Democrat.

So, contrary to all these liberals, whose only chance of seeing the light is when some proctologist’s probing proctoscope finally manages to locate their deeply-embedded eyes, this old grunt sees the value in hitting our enemies smack-dab in the middle of the threat; and that central target, folks, in this war on terror, just happened to be Iraq. And yes, Iraq has become a killing field, but far more so for radical Jihadists than for America and her allies. Potential bombers of Western cities flock like flies to the flypaper of a martyr’s death, not in New York or London, but on the killing field we have created for them. Remember one thing very well, Senators Reid, Durbin and Schumer: every single jihadist who dies in Iraq will never have the opportunity to die in one of our cities taking hundreds if not thousands of your potential voters with him.

And for all you armchair, liberal strategists who continue to throw up that canard that our military efforts should be entirely focused on capturing or killing the Al Qaeda leadership, Osama bin Laden and Zayman Al Zawahiri, in Afghanistan and Pakistan; may I inquire as to where you obtained your advanced degrees in military science? Madam Chair, would perhaps that have been at Berkeley’s famed War College? We know Congressman Murtha obtained his multiple military degrees from a rural Pennsylvania diploma mill, established and funded entirely by earmarks in federal legislation, but that’s a topic for another essay.

So, a simple question: did George Washington seek to capture King George? Did Abraham Lincoln focus all his military strategies on the capture or elimination of Jefferson Davis? In WWI, if we were hell-bent on capturing the Kaiser, why did we spend so many months in the hellish, intransigence of those trenches? Why on earth did MacArthur spend all that time and those American boys’ lives to move systematically up the Pacific archipelago in WWII if all we had to do was focus on capturing Emperor Hirohito? Would modern-day Democrat strategists label Eisenhower a fool and a loser for moving indirectly through Africa, Italy and the soft underbelly of Europe, Southern France, when all he had to do was attack Berlin directly and put Hitler in chains?

The truth is, all you Democrat military geniuses, is that none of those enemy leaders was captured until the fighting was over and the respective war was won; truth is, most of them never suffered any ill effects other than the ignominy of losing. Hell, if we did capture Osama, you liberal turkeys would be clamoring for the Bush administration to give him a fair and speedy trial, afforded all the rights of a U.S. citizen, and the ACLU would be appealing his conviction long beyond his natural death.

So what does this show America about its Democrat leadership? Well, it shows this old combat infantryman that you liberal wienies don’t know jack about fighting wars. It’s a far cry from forging voters’ registration certificates, stuffing ballot boxes and buying minority votes to standing solid under fire and defeating a lethal enemy on the battlefield. But since so very few of you have ever even worn the uniform, much less served in combat, you wouldn’t have any way of knowing that would you, ladies? I’ll make a wager right now: the average, enlisted, American military volunteer has more courage, integrity and patriotism than the U.S. congressman who supposedly represents him.

Hell, forget the bet; that’s not even a contest.

Russ Vaughn
2d Bn, 327th Parachute Infantry Regiment
101st Airborne Division
Vietnam 65-66