The Violence Worker!

There Will Be No Parades

The last combat troops rolled out of Iraq this weekend.  We won...sort of.  We ousted a cruel dictator, a huge threat to the region (and the world to a smaller extent), and helped install a democratically elected government.  We, hopefully, put them on the road to joining the 21st century.  It's up to them to do so, I suppose.

Regardless of our successes, we are leaving in the middle of the night as if we are ashamed and defeated.  Many on the left certainly did all they could to assist our enemies in that endeavor.  In more saner times, many would have went to jail for giving away secrets and sabotaging our efforts.  Despite what many of the Left Wing extremists thought or said, we did not enter illegally, nor did we kill millions of innocents.

Our troops seem to feel more of a sense of relief rather than the elation of victory.  They understand the historical moment and most understand the precarious precipice on which we leave Iraq hanging.  They also understand that the next few years will be crucial to its future.  Will they survive as a democracy, or will they be swallowed up by Iran or other Islamists?  Time will tell, but frankly, the future looks a bit bleak.

The politicians will spin the withdrawal in whatever direction they think will benefit themselves.  It's disgusting, but that's politics.

The Reservists and Guardsmen will return to their communities.  Most will resume their lives and a few will be troubled.  We, as a nation, owe them more than we can pay.

Welcome back, heroes!   Thank you for your multitude of sacrifices. I'm sorry there will be no parades for you. The ticker-tape will not fall from the canyons of Manhattan and the New York Times will not print a banner, half-page headline.  

I pray for your healing. 

VW

Wally, Alicia And Jeff's Excellent Protest

Yesterday, while perusing the news, I saw that there was going to be an anti-war protest at 8 PM at the corner of "D" and Puyallup streets near downtown. So I loaded up my camera and headed down the hill to take a look see. I was more curious than anything else. I've never seen one of these things close up before.

I got there about ten after eight. I drove around the area a few moments looking because no one was there. I was just about to head back home, when I spotted three people heading for the corner across from Alfred's Cafe with a couple "stop the war" signs. Cool! There was going to be a protest after all!

So I parked my car in a parking lot down the street and waited to see if anyone else showed up. After about ten minutes, it looked like it was just going to be these three people. I decided then, that maybe these guys would talk to me a bit. Obviously, I didn't look like I belonged. I'm 55 and gray, with a haircut straight out of the old AFR 35-10 (You old timer USAF vets will remember that) and a bit of a paunch. I was wearing a red "Dragon's Breath Ale" tee shirt I bought in Kingston, Ontario, jeans, and black leather walking shoes. I was as out of place as a computer geek at a Luddite convention so my approach had to be two pronged: non-confrontational and sincere enough so that they would feel comfortable talking to someone so obviously out of their sphere.

I decided that I would tell them that I was a blogger and I wanted to write about this event (which is a true statement) for the blog. After our introductions, I explained my purpose and asked if I could ask a few questions and they agreed.

My first question was simply this: "What do you guys hope to accomplish?"

They were quite candid in their answer. They explained that they knew they weren't going to stop the port from unloading military equipment. Their hope was to make it as costly as possible, there by taking out any profit. They also wanted to tie up city resource and make it too expensive for the city to stop them. I pointed out that I hadn't seen a police car even pass by, let alone parked to watch and Wally sheepishly admitted that this seemed the case, but last night he proudly shared that there were three "cop cars" parked over there, (he pointed west toward pacific) for awhile last night!

They said they also wanted to keep attention on the fact that the war was still going on. Jeff quoted some figure that the networks only devoted an average of187 minutes of coverage to the war this year and that was about two minutes a day. I then asked that since the war was not near as violent these days, that combat deaths were the lowest since the start and that the violence was down by 80 percent or more, there just wasn't that much to report.

"No", Jeff told me, "things were just as bad, the news media just aren't reporting it." and he asked if I was aware that over 48 million Iraqis had been displaced and forced to leave their homes. I was a bit surprised at that number and I told him I didn't think there were even that many Iraqis in the entire country. He assured me there were that many and more. I said, OK and moved on. Let me make it clear that he said 48, not four point eight or four to eight -- I asked. (For the record, in 1997, it is estimated that there were about 22,220,000 Iraqis and the latest figures are in 2008, there are about 28,220,000 people.)

I noticed that Wally was wearing some kind of helmet and I asked him if he was expecting trouble and he laughed and said no, it's just something he wears all the time. He said he sometimes wore a hat from his military days and that he was a veteran (He was in the Navy), but Alicia was wearing it.

I asked where everyone else was and they said that most everyone was over at exit 119 and it appears that this morning's TNT confirms that.

I was there about ten minutes. Alicia (Aleeseeya) wasn't there for most of it.

I think Wally was there more for the fun and Alicia seemed to be there because Wally was there. Jeff seemed to be the more serious one with all the "facts and figures" (Even if they were not even close to being accurate). I asked if I could take a quick photo and they said yes. So here are my new friends, in all their revolutionary glory, posing for me.

Left to right:  Wally, Alicia and Jeff

We actually had a good time.  Too bad they are clueless tools.

VW

Obama Is In Over His Head

I'm not a general, I'm a mechanic.  I've been in charge of large maintenance operations - operations that run 365, 24/7.  While my knowledge of the mission and equipment were sufficient for my position, I could not be there every minute of every day.  I had people that I trusted to run it in my stead.  My commander was not a mechanic.  He probably didn't know a diode from a resistor but he didn't need to.  He was originally trained as a fighter jock in an F-4 so he probably had some background, but he didn't know my equipment.  He relied upon me to keep my shop running and would often come down to see how things were in the trenches.  If I needed something, I told him.  He would listen, and either agree, disagree or he might look for some other input. But in the end, I knew he always gave weight to what I had to say - especially if it involved my equipment and the troops under me.  He trusted me and that is why I had the job. 

Obama doesn't understand this concept.  Obama isn't a general either and from the looks of it, he isn't much of anything but a liberal who will say anything if it sounds like it might get him a vote.  He has no experience.  He has no executive or even supervisory experience to speak of.  This is evident in this exchange from NewsBuster's transcript:

MORAN: But the difference is real. Commanders here want withdrawals to be based on conditions on the ground. Obama emphasizes his timetable, but he insists he would remain flexible. I'm going to try and pin you down on this-

OBAMA: Here, let me say this, though, Terry, because, you know, what I will refuse to do, and I think that, you know-

MORAN: How do you know what I'm going to ask?

OBAMA: Well, then if I don't get it right, then you can ask it again. Is to get boxed in into what I consider two false choices, which is either I have a rigid time line of such and such a date, come hell or high water, we've gotten our combat troops out, and I am blind to anything that happens in the intervening six months or 16 months. Or, alternatively, I am completely deferring to whatever the commanders on the ground says, which is what George Bush says he's doing, in which case I'm not doing my job as Commander-in-Chief.

You see what is going on here? He's weaseling! He says he has two false choices.  The first choice is his own timeline scenario that he has stated on numerous occasions that is not negotiable.  In effect, he's inferring that those mean old Republicans are trying to make him look bad by making him stick to his own words!  Next, he's saying that listening to the Commanders is false because that is what Bush does.

This is showing his real lack of depth.  He painted himself into a corner - a conundrum that most experienced leaders and executives know not to do.  He says he has two false choices, but essentially, those are his main choices. What's a commander-in Chief to do?  Those commanders work and serve at the pleasure of the President.  The Senate must confirm, but rare is the officer that gets turned down.  If Obama is President, he must appoint Commanders he feels will give him the best information.  If all he is looking for is a yes man, then save a bunch of money and hire a Private!  And remember, The Democrats excoriated Bush when they thought he WASN'T listening to his commanders.

Then Mr. Moran asks this:

MORAN: This is Obama's second trip to Iraq. His first was in January 2006 when the country was plunged into horrific violence. But the surge of U.S. troops, combined with ordinary Iraqis' rejection of both al-Qaeda and Shiite extremists, has transformed the country. Attacks are down by more than 80 percent nationwide. U.S. combat casualties have plummeted -- five this month so far, compared with 78 last July. And Baghdad has a pulse again. If you had to do it over again, knowing what you know now, would you support the surge?

OBAMA: No, because, keep in mind that-

MORAN: You wouldn't?

OBAMA: Well, no, keep in mind, these kinds of hypotheticals are very difficult. You know, hindsight is 20/20. But I think that, what I am absolutely convinced of is that at that time, we had to change the political debate because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one that I just disagreed with.

Here's the video:

Essentially, Obama was against the surge for no other reason than because President Bush was for it.  And even now - even when by all measures, and with the grudging admission of many members of the MSM , the surge worked.  He cannot bring himself to admit it was the right thing to do.

MORAN: And so, when pressed, Barack Obama says he still would have opposed the surge. He did admit to me, however, that he didn't anticipate what people here sometimes call the Iraqi surge, the uprising of Iraqis against al-Qaeda extremists and Shiite extremists. And he said he did not anticipate that. But he is insisting that he's focusing forward on what he believes needs to be done, setting that timetable for withdrawal.

What Obama does not want to admit to is it was the troop surge that helped bring this about.  To be sure there are other reasons, but you need to understand that until the situation on the ground is secure, the political process cannot work.  When the enemy was finally marginalized, the Iraqis could finally begin to rebuild and see an end to the violence.

If Obama had his way, Iraq would be a killing field.

Obama is a hack.  He has no experience and he lacks a serious depth and understanding of the military and their capabilities.

He is not qualified in any shape, way or form to be their Commander-in-Chief.

VW

Iraq orders Boeing Jets

Iraq Airlines is ordering some Boeing jets; mostly 737-800, but after that deal is sealed, they'll announce for some 787s.  They also ordered some smaller jets from Canada's Bombardier.

From The Seattle PI:

BAGHDAD, Iraq — Iraq on Monday signed two deals worth $5 billion to buy 40 planes from Boeing and 10 planes from Canada's Bombardier to upgrade Iraqi Airways' aging fleet.

The deals were signed by Finance Minister Bayan Jabr in a ceremony attended by Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as well as U.S., British and Canadian diplomats.

The first Boeing plane will be delivered in 2013, Jabr said, while the Canadian company will start delivering the planes later this year.

A Boeing spokesman in Seattle, Peter Conte, said the firm order from Iraq was for 30 Boeing 737-800s worth $2.2 billion at list prices. He said Boeing and Iraq are still finalizing an additional order for 10 new 787s.

Over at the cesspool otherwise known as the Democratic Underground,  the kiddies are incensed.  Since most of the participants there still live in the mommies basement with their Linux machines, piles of Mountain Dew bottles and empty Dorito bags, it's not surprising why they say some of the things they do.  Like this little lad who calls him(it)self "FarCenter"

Considering that single country airlines are folding up all over the place, how does Iraq justify having an airline. 

If the Swiss can't afford it, and the Italians can't make a go of it, it surely isn't economic for Iraq.

There's genius for ya!  All over the place means two. 

What many people don't realize, including our heavily sugared and caffeinated DUmmie friends, Royal Jordanian already has a schedule.  I think it's on hold at the moment, but they've been flying in and out.  Also, the deliveries of these planes won't start tomorrow or even next month.  These planes are five years out!  You don't just walk into a show room and pick out a floor model.  Airplanes are custom made.

In that five years, the Iraqis will be ready more than ready and probably even be dealing with other airlines already operating. 

VW

Even Church Isn't Safe

It used to be that a church held some kind of respect in the community.  Not with the radical left.  These self-righteous bastards respect nothing. 

CHICAGO —  Six Iraq war protesters disrupted an Easter Mass on Sunday, shouting and squirting fake blood on themselves and parishioners in a packed auditorium.

Three men and three women startled the crowd during Cardinal Francis George's homily, yelling "Even the Pope calls for peace" as they were removed from the Mass by security guards and ushers.

They don't give a rat's ass what the Pope says.  They have their agenda and that is all they are concerned about.

One Mass attendee, Mike Wainscott of Chicago, yelled at the anti-war protesters.

"Are you happy with yourselves?" he said. "There were kids in there. You scared little kids with your selfish act. Are you happy now?"

That's my point.  They DON'T care!  They knew children would be there.  They know who attends church services.  They don't care who they hurt or traumatize.  It's all about them.  They are selfish, self-righteous bastards.

They need to be arrested for trespassing and disturbing the peace.  They also need a good ass kicking.

VW

Cage The Recruiters

I've been warning you that things are ratcheting up in the radical whacko community.  This is another in a series and this time we go to Pittsburgh.

A collection of radical nitwits calling themselves the "Pittsburgh Organizing Group", or POG, has this on their website:

On Wednesday, March 19, POG will be holding a torch-lit march to a modern day castle of abominations—our local military recruiting station. If the station remains open, we intend to evict it and everything inside of it, occupy the location, and transform it into something useful for the community. We'll also be bringing a movable cage in which to confine military recruiters until they no longer pose a danger to our friends and neighbors. (Emphasis added)

They plan to raid the office, destroy (and steal) everything in it and cage the recruiters.  Of course, that's what they say they are going to do.  I'm not sure if they are really dumb  enough to ransack the office, kidnap, and imprison the recruiters.  It isn't going to happen.

First, they are going to do this at 6:30 PM.  They already know the recruiters will most likely not be there.  They also more than likely understand that kidnapping and false imprisonment of a government official are federal felonies and if they are convicted of such an offense, they will be very old men and women when they are eventually let out of prison. 

They know that and pretty much admit it as you read on:

Of course, the station may be closed and recruiters may flee or hide behind the police apparatus that enables the war to continue. That is often the case, and we've seen in the past the overwhelming resources the state directs against these anniversary events because of their importance as a symbol of dissent. We believe in acting effectively, in confronting the war, at times and places of our choosing. When the state brings the resources necessary to suppress direct action against the war, it makes sense to hold a symbolic protest, and we still consider that a success, as it exposes the reality that it is ultimately on the local level that our countries war policy will be decided.

They know that if they do carry out such an act, they will go to jail.  So when they rally and the police are there because they, in effect, telling the police what they plan on doing, they still claim victory because after all, its the symbolism that counts.  It's called symbolism over substance.  It's not actually doing the deed, but willingness to carry it out if there is no real danger to themselves.  Loosely translated, they are your typical coward commies.

Starting this week, things are going to get warmer and I don't necessarily mean the weather.

Michelle Malkin and Yankeemom is tracking a a bunch of upcoming protests.  Check in with them often.  I do.

VW

Snatching Victory From The Jaws Of Defeat

Despite the tremendous media campaign by Democrats and the media themselves, we seem to be winning in Iraq.  Despite the despicable Harry Reid and Jack Murtha, our troops are winning and it is in the New York Times.  This, of course, gives the Democrat defeatist Presidential candidates a huge problem with credibility.

As violence declines in Baghdad, the leading Democratic presidential candidates are undertaking a new and challenging balancing act on Iraq: acknowledging that success, trying to shift the focus to the lack of political progress there, and highlighting more domestic concerns like health care and the economy.

I have news for them and you:  Trying to change the subject will not make it go away. 

The first question that must be asked of these folks is this:  "Why should we trust you if you were wrong on Iraq in the first place?"  Let's face it, their predictions and subsequent disparaging of our armed forces is indicative of only one thing.  All they've cared about all along is politics.  Their sole focus was entirely aimed at delegitimizing our strategy and efforts in Iraq.  Their purpose is purely political.

Advisers to Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama say that the candidates have watched security conditions improve after the troop escalation in Iraq and concluded that it would be folly not to acknowledge those gains. At the same time, they are arguing that American casualties are still too high, that a quick withdrawal is the only way to end the war and that the so-called surge in additional troops has not paid off in political progress in Iraq.

It's called snatching victory from the jaws of defeat.  If they are trying to shift focus to political gains, then someone needs to tell them that political gains will come as the violence declines.  To pull out now would negate the impetus of the surge and return the country back to the factional fighting of before.  And you want to trust our own security to these people?  LUDICROUS!!!!!!

If security continues to improve, President Bush could become less of a drag on his party, too, and Republicans may have an easier time zeroing in on other issues, such as how the Democrats have proposed raising taxes in difficult economic times.

You mean we might just start paying attention to the other ridiculous things they are saying? 

Check out Hillary's idiotic statement:

"Our troops are the best in the world; if you increase their numbers they are going to make a difference," Mrs. Clinton said in a statement after her aides were asked about her views on the ebbing violence in Baghdad.

"The fundamental point here is that the purpose of the surge was to create space for political reconciliation and that has not happened, and there is no indication that it is going to happen, or that the Iraqis will meet the political benchmarks," she said. "We need to stop refereeing their civil war and start getting out of it."

Like I said, political gains will come as the violence subsides.  There is no civil war.  There is sectarian violence, but there are not huge sections of the country warring against each other.  It's as much a civil war as Northern Ireland was considered a civil war and eventually, even they have figured out how to get along.  Much of the Sectarian Violence has subsided.  What little violence is taking place is mostly the lasts gasps of Al Qaida. 

I think the Democrats may actually face some stiffer competition than they originally imagined if this trend continues.  They may actually have to explain their defeatism and their plans for taking more and more money from working people.

VW

 

 

Iraq

It's been the mantra of the left for several years now that Iraq is a "quagmire". I'll admit it was looking like it could be. There was sectarian violence and Al Qaida was running amok. Iraq is the next Vietnam we've been told over and over again. Leave aside that there are no parallels that I can discern, but that hasn't stopped the moonbats from trying to make the case.

And now we are told that violence is down by 70%. I'm not much of a math wizard so I don't have much of an idea as to how they arrived at the 70% figure, but 70% is huge! It's like walking into the grocery store and buying $100 worth of groceries and only having to pay 30 bucks! Ok lousy analogy, but the truth is we are winning. Even Osama knows he's being licked.

You remember moveon.org and their slanderous "betray us" ad last month? What does it say about moveon.org to see stats like that? What does it say about the left and their lies when even ABC is starting to report good news?

ABC has a video about the turnaround in Fallujah.

CHARLES GIBSON: In Iraq itself, we have an extraordinary comeback story tonight from the place where the Marines suffered their worst losses of the war. Fallujah is undergoing a remarkable turnaround. Tribal leaders, local officials and the U.S. Marines have united behind a common cause. Bringing security to a place that had been one of Iraq's most insecure. ABC's Miguel Marquez reports tonight from Fallujah.

MIGUEL MARQUEZ: The markets bustle. Traffic chokes the streets. Marines, once despised here, are now a welcome sight.

COLONEL RICH SIMCOCK, U.S. Marines: This is one of my big measures of effectiveness, where, you know, kids will come up to you, you know, they feel safe to come out and play.

MARQUEZ: Colonel Rich Simcock has been the main battlefield commander in Fallujah for the past ten months.

SIMCOCK: Every day, it just gets a little better.

MARQUEZ: In that time, he has witnessed a sea change.

SIMCOCK: For someone that doesn't know Fallujah, you know, you'd look around like, well, this is kind of a dirty city. We're walking almost in the center of the city. Numerous battles have been fought in this area, and we're walking around, no one shooting at us.

MARQUEZ: Battles that left the city devastated.

SERGEANT CHUCK BURTON, U.S. Marines: And there was times, we were rolling through the city, you get there through sundown, you were guaranteed to either get popped on or get shot at.

MARQUEZ: And when's the last time you were shot at these days?

BURTON: I'd say, end of March.

MARQUEZ: The last car bomb in Fallujah was in May.

Not shot at since March and no car bombs since May!!!!!! This is Fallujah!!!!

Iraq just might be turning the corner. I think it's a bit early, but if I was a betting man, I think I could wager a few bucks on it.

VW

Hat Tip: Newsbusters

Blood For Oil

So Greenspan says it's about oil. 

Greenspan, 81, is understood to believe that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East

I would agree with that assessment and I would also agree that the all administrations should have been open about it.  The problem is that there are people, mostly gullible, that think oil isn't important enough to fight over.  The slogan "No blood for oil!" is a common one amongst the various and nefarious anti-war mobs.  What that really means is that they are sure that there is some conspiracy headed by "big oil" to secure the world's oil supply at the expense of the poor (as in economically disadvantaged), uneducated, young American of color whose only way out of misery is a promise of college money for enlisting in the Yankee imperialist army.

I don't doubt the possibility of some powerful people entering into some conspiratorial cabal to protect their assets and to advance their own agendas.  We all do it.  It's human nature.  Even those who are claiming there is some sort of big oil conspiracy, conspire to advance their causes sometimes using events and lies to further their own plans.  They justify it because they see themselves as the underdog in the big scheme of things.

I doubt that there is some grand oil company conspiracy that pushed us into war.  Yes, I know that president Bush has ties to the industry, but there just is no proof.  And if you read what Greenspan is actually saying, he isn't saying that is the case.  Hussein was a threat to the security of the Middle Eastern oil supplies.  That is worth securing!

Like it or not, oil is the life blood of the world's economic engine.  Everything, the food you eat, the computer you are reading this on, the house you live in and even your job, is dependent upon the the free flow of oil at a reasonable market cost. Without oil, our economy would be in shambles.  Add to all of this the fact that oil is currently in high demand with China and Russia going after every drop they can get.  That is one big reason why the price is hovering at 80 dollars a gallon.   

We have vast quantities of oil here in the United States that are untouchable because the left uses the reason that the areas are environmentally sensitive.  It's true, but that is not the entire story. They seem not to mind that oil producers elsewhere are looking and drilling for new sources. Most environmental groups are run by radical left-wingers that use the environmental argument, but they also know that allowing new sources will force the price of oil to stay low.  Most liberals want the price to be high - a lot higher than the price is even now.  Let us not forget that modern methods of extracting oil are very much more environmentally friendly these days so that argument is really just a red herring.  It can be done and the moose on the tundra would never know the difference.

There are a couple of reasons the leftists want our oil prices high.  The first, of course is they want to "wean" us off of oil.  That is fine, but what are we supposed to replace it with?  There is no good answer yet and alternatives are much more expensive than oil at the moment.  The second is that they know the effect higher prices would have on our economy.  The stated goal of many left-wing extremist organizations is to destroy our way of life.  They know that that is the only way they can obtain power.  We certainly would never vote them in if things are all hunky-dory.

The fight for a secure supply of oil at reasonable prices is as much a priority as fighting radical Islam because both threaten our way of life and our freedoms.  It's worth fighting for.  If you don't believe that, you don't really care about our freedoms. 

VW

Listening To The Generals

Sometime ago, not long after the Iraq War started, the Democrats and all their little sycophants on the left were complaining that the Bush Administration wasn't listening to the generals on the ground in Iraq.  Do you remember that?  They were screeching that we didn't have enough troops and that Bush had ignored the military when they requested troops. 

Now I don't know if that was so.  It seems the generals mostly disagreed with the Democrats but it doesn't really matter because it seems that today, the Democrats have decided to change their minds about listening to the generals.

General Petraeus, by all accounts, is a man of unquestionable honor and integrity.  He is known in the ranks as a straight shooter.  He has stated, on record and under oath, that his report and his conclusions are his and his alone.  He stated that the White House did not influence him in anyway.

The Democrats are accusing him of lying.  The less than honorable megadriles at moveon.org  called him "betray us" and accused him of lying.  Yeah, I'm questioning their patriotism!

This is why Democrats do not deserve the mantle of leadership. To be sure, the Repbulicans aren't a whole lot better in some cases, but by and large, they aren't lining up to besmirch the reputatation of General Petraeus.

It's despicable.

VW