Tuesday, August 30, 2005

FORTITUDE (A Long And Bumpy Road, No Left Turns, And Plenty of Links)


The alternate title to this was "Fortitude. We Are Going Forward In Iraq." The reasons will soon be Crystal clear. To those that are in denial that an earthquake has shaken the foundations of tyranny in the mideast, I say, read the draft of the new Iraqi Constitution. Here is the Preamble:

In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful

"Verily we have honored the children of Adam" (Quran 17:70)

We the sons of Mesopotamia, land of the prophets, resting place of the holy imams, the leaders of civilization and the creators of the alphabet, the cradle of arithmetic: on our land, the first law put in place by mankind was written; in our nation, the most noble era of justice in the politics of nations was laid down; on our soil, the followers of the prophet and the saints prayed, the philosophers and the scientists theorized and the writers and poets created.

Recognizing God's right upon us; obeying the call of our nation and our citizens; responding to the call of our religious and national leaders and the insistence of our great religious authorities and our leaders and our reformers, we went by the millions for the first time in our history to the ballot box, men and women, young and old, on Jan. 30, 2005, remembering the pains of the despotic band's sectarian oppression of the majority; inspired by the suffering of Iraq's martyrs -- Sunni and Shiite, Arab, Kurd and Turkomen, and the remaining brethren in all communities -- inspired by the injustice against the holy cities in the popular uprising and against the marshes and other places; recalling the agonies of the national oppression in the massacres of Halabja, Barzan, Anfal and against the Faili Kurds; inspired by the tragedies of the Turkomen in Bashir and the suffering of the people of the western region, whom the terrorists and their allies sought to take hostage and prevent from participating in the elections and the establishment of a society of peace and brotherhood and cooperation so we can create a new Iraq, Iraq of the future, without sectarianism, racial strife, regionalism, discrimination or isolation.

Terrorism and "takfir" (declaring someone an infidel) did not divert us from moving forward to build a nation of law. Sectarianism and racism did not stop us from marching together to strengthen our national unity, set ways to peacefully transfer power, adopt a manner to fairly distribute wealth and give equal opportunity to all. [I have to admit, I take issue with the third part of this sentence, as it was what the kind of rhetoric that the party of "Renewal" (Saddam Hussein's Baa'thists) and other socialist outfits usually employ in order to argue that free-market economics does not result in a just distribution of wealth. As long as someone has something that another individual does not, that in and of itself is supposed to be an injustice. Hopefully this passage is stricken from the text.]

We the people of Iraq, newly arisen from our disasters and looking with confidence to the future through a democratic, federal, republican system, are determined -- men and women, old and young -- to respect the rule of law, reject the policy of aggression, pay attention to women and their rights, the elderly and their cares, the children and their affairs, spread the culture of diversity and defuse terrorism.

We are the people of Iraq, who in all our forms and groupings undertake to establish our union freely and by choice, to learn yesterday's lessons for tomorrow, and to write down this permanent constitution from the high values and ideals of the heavenly messages and the developments of science and human civilization, and to adhere to this constitution, which shall preserve for Iraq its free union of people, land and sovereignty.

The Constitutional charge to "pay attention to women's rights" under this new Iraqi government should serve to inspire Islamic reformers in a positive way. The words of this Iraqi Draft Constitution are absolutely impressive. While women's rights are mentioned more times in the Iraqi Constitution than Islam is, it is clear that the faith will play a central role in Iraqi life. Article 2 of Iraq's Basic Principles in the Constitution reads:

1st -- Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation:

(a) No law can be passed that contradicts the fixed principles of Islam.

(b) No law can be passed that contradicts the principles of democracy.

(c) No law can be passed that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms outlined in this constitution.

It is now in the hands of the Iraqi people, and it will be a test for Islam and Islamic reformers. This can't be understated. The Iraqi people have been liberated from a dictatorship, but their nation, just like Israel, has been targeted by the Islamo-fascists, the terrormasters, and selfish and myopic tyrants who do not want to lose their power.

Click here if you have Windows Media Player. You have to see it to understand what this is all about. Cpl. Signs narrates a brief segment that I'm sure some readers would benefit from watching. These are the sons and daughters of America, risking their lives and reaching out to lend a helping hand to our Iraqi brothers and sisters.. It's a small window into some of the work that our Marines and our other military branches are doing, on the mission that is being carried out. America's armed forces are definitely our best, and that is why they will not be defeated, and why we cannot allow their sacrifices, blood sweat and tears, to go in vain and leave the people of Iraq at the mercy of the monsters that want to take them back to the dark ages..

I agree wholeheartedly with C.S. Lewis' statement that "there is no neutral ground in this universe; every square inch, every split second, is claimed by God and counter-claimed by Satan." Providence is a force, I believe, that manifests itself through the unity of God's purpose and our determined will to fulfill it. We celebrate the Glory of God by living by His will, not by making ourselves the center of the universe and succumbing to temptations and our weaknesses.

(B.T.W., the reference to bioethics in Mr. Colson's piece on C.S. Lewis reminds me of something that he wrote in The Abolition of Man (pgs 53-55 and 62), where he was trying to warn fellow academics of the effect that secular humanism and socialism would ultimately have: "'Man's conquest of Nature' is an expression often used to describe the progress of applied science... Again, as regards the powers manifested in the aeroplane or the wireless, Man is as much the patient or subject as the possessor, since he is the target for both bombs and for propaganda. And as regards contraceptives, there is a paradoxical, negative sense in which all possible future generations are the patients or subjects of a power wielded by those already alive. By contraception simply, they are denied existence... From this point of view, what we call Man's power over Nature turns out to be a power exercised by some men over other men with Nature as its instrument.

"One of the things they now have to decide is whether they will, or will not, so condition the rest of us that we can go on having the old idea of duty... How can duty help them decide that? Duty itself is up for trial: it cannot also be the judge. And 'good' fares no better.")

Why do some people make the argument that the best way to deal with evil is to condone it, to make believe that it doesn't exist? Of course they won't usually use those terms in admission (unless they are far-left militant post-modernists), but I'm trying to step out of the relativistic into into the objective here.

They appear to believe that surrender to evil is the best way to cope with it. So they reduce the likelyhood of their even percieving its influence in many cases.

Why, since in the long run it isn't?

I believe that they do because they may have been spiritually and intellectually disarmed, to a painfully obvious extent due to a psychological conditioning that can be observed in the French and ostrichlike reaction of the surrender and appease lobby and leadership.

Oswald Sobrino, a blogger that I sometimes read, put it well in one of his titles; "living better is the answer to the problem of evil." I think that Thomas Brewton made a very helpful historical summary that may explain how such an obvious fact can be lost. Some people may view that as an oversimplification, but the beauty of the truth is that it simplifies that which may be distorted or convoluted and shines a light upon it, making it plain as daylight.

The door to totalitarianism was opened in the late 18th century by Immanuel Kant. His celebrated categorical imperative - that one must act as if his every action were to become a universal rule of conduct - is essentially a restatement of the Judeo-Christian command to love thy neighbor as thyself ... he advocated the authoritarian, statist theory that true freedom lies in rigid state control of moral action in a way that prevents individuals from doing wrong deeds, thereby “freeing” them for true liberty. From there it’s only a short step to Mussolini’s Fascist and Hitler’s National Socialist doctrine that the individual has meaning only in carrying out the aims of the political state.

Professor John Dewey, the great exponent of secularity in Progressive education, stated in his pragmatic ethics that Darwin’s evolution hypothesis had proved that everything is continually evolving in response to random and accidental material factors. There is thus no God and no such thing as fixed principles of morality. Pragmatic ethics speaks, not of right or wrong, but of valid or invalid conduct. Valid action is defined as what works to your advantage, with the implication that the end justifies the means. Charles Darwin’s great champion, Thomas Huxley, declared that the evolution hypothesis had eliminated the ignorant belief in God. There is, he said, no such thing as sin (right or wrong); human life is nothing more than the struggle for survival.

The end of the road for all of these alternative ethical systems is either nihilism at the personal level, or totalitarian tyranny at the level of the political state. Nihilism meaning that, if there is no such thing as Divinely instituted order in human life, then anything becomes permissible, no matter how horrible. Every individual is free to make up his own rules. Such is the case among young men in the inner-cities who were spawned out of wedlock by the advent of President Johnson’s secular and socialistic Great Society of welfare entitlements. Drug dealing and drive-by shooting became commonplace; young men could look anyone in the face and kill him without remorse or mercy.

Totalitarian tyranny appeared with the first of the 19th century alternative systems of secular ethics.
The French Revolution’s Reign of Terror was followed by Napoleon’s military subjugation of Western Continental Europe, both in the name of secular materialism. The Russian Revolution of 1917 installed one of the most blood-thirsty, totalitarian regimes in history. Hitler’s National Socialism failed to match Soviet mass killing only for lack of time and interference by Allied military action. Mao’s socialist China resumed the death march.

[M]y firm faith is that the highest and best source of ethics is the religious principles of our Judeo-Christian heritage. Christian morality was the foundation of our unwritten constitution in the United States.

As Benjamin Franklin wrote, "We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that except the Lord build the House they labor in vain who build it.. without His concurring Aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel..."

Maybe he was on to something, just maybe.
Perhaps its something that can help us with the small matter of "living better."
[Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito]

Pertaining to the fighting in Iraq (there's no way for me to get around this so I'll be direct): so-called "Progressives" believe that we should yielded to "world opinion" on Iraq, although we gave it more than enough consideration. I will make that case in my next post, (no later than September 16). The 2004 election results should demonstrate that most Americans agree.

"Progressives" view the problem of anti-Americanism as something caused by the United States instead of by mere foolishness. They think that the criticism of more primative societies like France and Germany, the wimps and barbarians that gave us WWII should be taken more seriously when it comes to America's national security and military policy and interests; they assume and imply that most of the Mideast which blames all their problems on a country that's the size of the state of New Jersey (while oppressing their own people and inciting people to kill anyone that doesn't share their beliefs), have formed legitimate and rational criticisms of what America does or does not do..

Some consider it un-enlightened to view the grievances that the world has against the United States as exogenous to the heart of most issues that they are meant to influence while it is considered enlightened to neglect the fact that such greivances and attitudes are shaped and influenced more by misperceptions than by the subject of their manipulated ire.

It is universally acknowledged that our attitudes are circumstancially affected, and not absolutely independent. "No man is an island.."

For instance, an economic theory may be known to result in disaster, but if we are surrounded by enthusiastic supporters of the theory, we might have the impression and attitude that it is a good theory.

In the same way, other corrupting influences can be accepted, unpercieved and spread.

As I've addressed my Islamic friends in the attempt to highlight what I believe to be important points connected to Iraq; in the spirit of dialogue, I also should address our atheistic and agnostic fellow citizens and readers and state what I believe to be an important charicteristic of God: He is not part of the world. The author of the human soul and the universe is above and beyond our ability to reduce, dissect, and deconstruct.

That is something that many people forget or don't fully realize. That is where prayer and faith come into play. As George Shadroui wrote, "If we can entertain theories about wormholes and parallel universes, anti-matter and quantum mechanics, black holes and infinite universes whose origins remain one of the great mysteries, why not a spiritual dimension to human life? If we humans can transmit pictures and sounds on invisible radio waves, why can't God send messages through prophets?" This point must be emphasized in order to understand nature, because nature is neutral when it comes to good and evil, and she may reflect the purpose of heaven or come under the influence of hell. This is a crucial distinction to keep in mind when hell reaches out from its black pit to pull us in.

Below, I'm posting some key statements elicited by interviewer Wolf Blitzer, regarding the War On Terror, the Iraq front, airing on CNN, June 26, 2005. Some people say that we should not have militarily intervened there. On its face that is a legitimate challenge to pose and to deal with, but some people turn it into a cloak to diminish the historically monumental achievements that have been made, and for the proposition that America should not intervene anywhere at all, not even on her own behalf; i.e. "This country is not worth dying for." But it is more than a piece of land at stake, here.

I'll deal with the case for launching Operation Iraqi Freedom in the next post, but it can't be denied that this campaign is a vital part of the War On Terror that we woke up to that horrible September morning with a nasty wakeup call and grave warning that should have reminded EVERYONE of what Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. wrote inside of a jail in Burmingham: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly."

Sometimes the battle that rages unpercieved manifests itself on the physical realm. Sometimes the enemy has to be dealt with on the battlefield. Sometimes you do have to pick up the sword.

General John Abizaid, in charge of United States Central Command:

"There's only one way for the insurgents to win: That's to drive us out before the Iraqis are ready to assume the battle space... [Michael Moore's "Minutemen"] can't beat the Iraqi security forces. They can cause casualties. They don't really go after the Iraqi security forces. They go after Iraqi civilians. I mean, this is the most cynical strategy I've ever seen... And more Iraqis are dying on the battlefield fighting for their country against the insurgency than Americans.It's a point we've got to understand. We have to respect them for fighting the way that they're fighting.

"Just look at how things were in the American Army in 1775, 1776, as we think about the 4th of July holiday ahead of us. We had a terrible time getting our act together to win against the British, but ultimately we did, and that's what's going to happen with the Iraqi armed forces as well. They need time. They need help. That's what we're giving them.

"I want to also stress that it's not about one man. It's about his network. His network exists inside Iraq. It's connected to Al Qaida. It's got facilitation nodes in Syria. It brings foreign fighters in from Saudi Arabia and from North Africa. It is connected to what is happening in Afghanistan and what is happening in Pakistan. It is a global battle that we face... we should understand, it's a long war ahead of us. It's a difficult enemy that we'll have to fight over time throughout the region.

"We don't need to fight this war looking over our shoulder worrying about the support back home. We need to know we've got the support back home.[The General doesn't mean "please undermine our efforts to bring liberty to Iraq and defeat tyranny."]American soldiers fight best when they know the people back home are behind them.

"We are fighting for all the right reasons, against one of the most despicable and dangerous enemies this nation has ever faced. We need to know that the people are with us.

Iraqi PM Ibrahim Al Jaafari also made some very notable statements, very illustrative of the overall struggle that we're calling the War On Terror:

"There are bases in other countries outside our borders that are feeding these terrorist networks. They are training them. They are giving them money.What's happening in Iraq is not isolated. In fact, those terrorist networks are not simply Iraqis. It is in the context of the whole region. We cannot look at it in isolation. In fact, we should look at the impact of what's happening in Iraq on the whole world.

"...The timing cannot be simply put on a time scale. Withdrawal can be linked to conditions, not to a timeline... If we focus more at the condition of the country, then I think that is a responsible way of dealing with it. Otherwise it will be perceived as yielding to terrorism"

Vice President Dick Cheney was asked why and how if "there are actually more foreign fighters in Iraq now than there were six months ago" he could say that the Iraqi insurgency was in it's last throes. But doesn't the question in and of itself confirm the Vice President's statement and at the same time and emphasize the point that a free Iraq would be a nightmare for those that want to continue to smother the right of millions of human beings to determine their own destiny?

Wouldn't the right thing to call who we are fighting, be: Islamofascists? or in their own words: jihadis? instead of "Iraqi insurgents"? I think that the lable is misleading in a subtle manner when it is used (repeatedly) out of context. I can only pray that God has mercy on their souls, because I don't know that I could for individuals that devise ways to torture and kill innocent human beings, even if they believe in it. What they are doing is unholy and it troubles me sometimes that they have been brainwashed by the tools of despots and wicked men and influences. Many more people would be condemned that way, to that kind of depravity, if we allow the status quo to just continue. Can we really be convinced to abandon the obligation to oppose any such situation? No way. To look the other way while monsters carry out atrocities and injustices takes away from the meaning of the true value of the word peace.

Korean and World War II Veteran, Jim Baxter, doesn't like to mince words (a la "it depends on what 'is' is"):

I have watched and listened to the good-hearted “peaceniks” and their light-headed symbolism- without-substance of ringing bells, flying pigeons, floating candles, and sonorous chanting and I recall again that “Peace is not a cause - it is an effect.”


But for some people, truth, and everything else, is accidental. It is no surprise that while reluctant to admit it, many of them posit that it is whatever they say it is. This cartoon illustrates what sort of cartoonlike confusion can result from that attitude (WARNING, do not click that last link if you do not want to see naked liberals).

For some exceptional coverage of real progress in the making, I highly recommend Michael Yon's dispatches from the center of the storm.

Here are a few snippets, you will probably want to read the whole thing:

Every day, the Deuce Four launches dozens of combat missions in Mosul. Recently, a patrol was heading downtown, and its tasks included meeting with Iraqi police. I asked to go along. The Battalion Commander led the patrol, which also included two Strykers led by LT Sean Keneally from Charlie Company

...A couple minutes later, we leave the base and begin the drive downtown, passing spots where so many car bombs and IEDs have exploded.

...At least two terrorists are watching our approach, pretending to talk to a taxi driver. One holds a Motorola radio transmitter in his pants pocket...

We are in a big Stryker. Usually the IEDs just make the ears ring--I wear earplugs--or maybe knock an air-guard or two unconscious, filling the cabin with so much fine dust that it looks like smoke. I've often wondered if this fine dust sometimes ignites when the armor ruptures, adding to the flashover that burns so many soldiers inside.


One of the terrorists does a double take at the lead Stryker, blowing his cover. The call instantly goes out to "Block left! Lock 'em down! Two pax!"

...When we turn toward them, one man spooks and bolts. I'm watching on the screen [RWS] inside, as SSG Munch, our machine gunner, tracks this man who runs like an antelope. I follow along on the RWS, and think, Why is he running? How is he running that fast?

The Bionic Terrorist runs into a neighborhood. We take a couple of sharp turns chasing him, driving over a few curbs. Of course, I am thinking, this guy is leading us into a massive ambush...

LT Keneally's voice calls over the radio that when they caught the stripe-shirted man they found an IED radio transmitter in his pocket. Before the message is completed, we've started running, leaving our Stryker behind with a few soldiers to watch over the not-so-bionic terrorist. We cover the few hundred yards to the Yarmuk traffic circle, reaching the spot where the two men were standing when the commotion started...

The Yarmuk traffic circle is fantastically dangerous. On the first mission I ran in Mosul, we lost two soldiers and an interpreter, all killed by a car bomb. Others were horribly burned, scarred for life. Many of our wounded and killed soldiers got it right here, or in the immediate vicinity. The ISF takes serious losses in this part of town. But it's not entirely one-sided--the Deuce Four has killed well over 150 terrorists in this neighborhood in the past 10 months. But almost none of those made the news, and those that did had a few key details missing. [Consequential information omitted from an "MSM" story? Sacre blughgh!, c'est impossible!]

Here's a few more snippets from another one of Yon's reports:

Five soldiers from Recon—Holt, Ferguson, Yates, Welch and Ross—were moving through moon-cast shadows when an Iraqi man came out from a farmhouse, his AK-47 rifle hanging by his side. Suddenly encircled by the rifles, lights and lasers of four soldiers, the man was quickly disarmed. A fifth soldier radioed for the interpreter and together they sorted out that he was a farmer who thought the soldiers were thieves skulking around his property. Recon returned the man his rifle, and started making their way back, umbral and silent across the ploughed fields.

...Some Strykers were scouting for the shooters, while others were working details at Yarmook Traffic Circle. Major Craig Triscari from the 1-17th Infantry from Alaska was with Major Mike Lawrence, "Q," and other soldiers, when he noticed a car with its hood up. The 1-17th will relieve the 1-24th soon, so Triscari has been conducting operations with Deuce Four. The vehicle struck Triscari as odd: it hadn't been there a few minutes earlier.

Automatic weapons fire started coming from at least two places. Bullets were kicking up the dust, and we got a radio call that troops were in contact at Yarmook Traffic Circle. Sitting inside the Stryker with LTC Kurilla and me were two new faces....

You get the idea. His writing style is probably impacted by the fact that he was a Special Forces Soldier. I don't think that you can find better all around on the ground coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom (and maybe from the Afghanistan campaign in the future). You might want to check out the Milblogs, as well.

Hindrocket, of Powerline, recently posted some very interesting musings:

One wonders how past wars could have been fought if news reporting had consisted almost entirely of a recitation of casualties. The D-Day invasion was one of the greatest organizational feats ever achieved by human beings, and one of the most successful. But what if the only news Americans had gotten about the invasion was that 2,500 allied soldiers died that day, with no discussion of whether the invasion was a success or a failure, and no acknowledgement of the huge strategic stakes that were involved?

Here's some context: between 1983 and 1996, 18,006 American military personnel died accidentally in the service of their country. That death rate of 1,286 per year exceeds the rate of combat deaths in Iraq by a ratio of nearly two to one ... all through the years when hardly anyone was paying attention, soldiers, sailors and Marines were dying in accidents, training and otherwise, at nearly twice the rate of combat deaths in Iraq from the start of the war in 2003 to the present. Somehow, though, when there was no political hay to be made, I don't recall any great outcry, or gleeful reporting, or erecting of crosses in the President's home town. ["Somehow", indeed.] In fact, I'll offer a free six-pack to the first person who can find evidence that any liberal expressed concern--any concern--about the 18,006 American service members who died accidentally in service of their country from 1983 to 1996.

In Cindy Sheehan: Commander In Grief, Ann Coulter pointed out that libs "think that since they have been able to produce a grieving mother, the commander in chief should step aside and let Cindy Sheehan make foreign policy for the nation. As Maureen Dowd said, it's 'inhumane' for Bush not 'to understand that the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute.'"

We're sorry about Ms. Sheehan's son, but the entire nation was attacked on 9/11. This isn't about her personal loss. America has been under relentless attack from Islamic terrorists for 20 years, culminating in a devastating attack on U.S. soil on 9/11. It's not going to stop unless we fight back, annihilate Muslim fanatics, destroy their bases, eliminate their sponsors and end all their hope. A lot more mothers will be grieving if our military policy is: No one gets hurt!

I love Ann because she has a genious for unravelling the twisted and contorted knots of lib sophistry and brilliantly stating the obvious.

FReeper "Baynative" (apparently plagiarizing "Jeff Head") summarized the bottom line behind the latest purile theatrical production of the left:

Cindy Sheehan was a far-left, anti-American before her son was killed. She tried in vain, to talk him out of service to his country. He didn’t listen. After four years of regular duty he re-enlisted and volunteered for Iraq. Once there, he volunteered for a hazardous rescue mission saying, “Where my Chief goes, I go!” He was ambushed and killed on that mission. That is eating at Cindy.

She hated what her son had come to represent and her deep set anger and conflicting emotions are eating her up. Sadly, she has given herself over to the intoxicating glare of momentary fame and it’s bright lights. Now she waves a cross bearing her fallen son’s name and vociferously supports everything her son was against, calling the very people who killed him, “Freedom Fighters”.

She was longing to be a victim which is the highest calling of a contemporary hippie liberal. As a result she is now the victim of those she chose to join in protest. She is living in a self created personal hell and has no way out.

...and it shows in her countenance when she is not prepped for the press...

FReeper "Mr. Silverback" has some questions that he would ask her if he worked for one of the major media outlets. I would feel better in saying that the lib TV news networks were trying to inform people, rather than manipulate us, if they followed any of these three lines of inquiry:

I’d ask why, in an interview with Mark Knoller of CBS News, she said “But now that we have decimated the country, the borders are open, freedom fighters from other countries are going in…” (Oh, and I’d ask Mark Knoller why that statement never aired...

I’d ask about the recent incident where these "freedom fighters" rolled an SUV filled with explosives up to a group of children getting candy from American troops and blew them all up. Specifically, I’d ask what freedom those men were fighting for when they [deliberately] killed those children...


Before posting this, I discovered that the "poster-child" of the anti-war "Bush-is-a-****wod" crowd, who is supposed to provide their movement some form of moral credibility, in a speech in San Francisco, actually defended a terrorism-supporting lawyer.


"In closing, let me say it’s really important we connect the dots here, that we understand that what is happening to our comrade Lynne Stewart is connected to a larger political thing that’s going on in terms of an imperial expansion."

For all of those that don't know, Lynne Stewart was caught, tried, and convicted of supporting the terrorist network of one of the participants in the 1993 attempt to topple the World Trade Center with explosives:

...the government issued a special order that the imprisoned Rahman not be allowed to communicate with his followers, to prevent his inciting them to further violence. He was allowed to communicate only with his wife and with his lawyers, who were not allowed to relay his wishes to his followers.

Stewart promised to abide by those rules. But at her trial, the government produced evidence showing that Stewart and two codefendants on a number of occasions used their privileged access to Rahman to help transmit Rahman's orders to his followers in the Islamic Group.

The bottom line on the Cindy Sheehan production and the media's whitewash of anything that would give Americans a clue about the agenda and background of that outfit is that it is an attempt to provide moral legitimacy to the betrayal of America by the left. I hope that this Sheehan defeatist and leftwing presstitute nonsense backfires, and actually benefits the country, and civilization, by exposing to everyone the results of LIEberalism.

It takes fortitude to oppose evil in all of its forms, in all of its manifestations. I'm not trying to kick a dead horse (as long as it continues to writhe and wriggle it is a stalking horse for the forces of darkness), but I believe that the truth has to reach as many people as possible. Hence, this essay.

Quoting from FrontPageMag's very useful DTN site:

An F.B.I. affidavit prepared by agent Kimberley Whittle detailed the cunning measures Stewart resorted to during her prison visits in order to protect Rahman and assist the Islamic Group's homicidal agenda. According to the affidavit, Stewart "made random comments out loud for the [prison] guards to hear in order to conceal the real conversation" between Rahman and Yousry. During one such exchange, Stewart—all the while pretending to take notes in her legal pad—misled nearby guards by loudly inserting the nonsensical phrase, "Yes, the um...I am talking to you about...him going out on a, uh, chocolate eh...heart attack here" into a discussion between Rahman and Yousry. A wiretap captured Stewart, Rahman and Yousry joking afterwards about Stewart's deception, with the aging Leftist lawyer saying she could "get an award for it," and the Sheikh adding, "as long as the government is using secret evidence we will use secret doves."

Do not allow these people to succeed in their ridiculously disgusting attempts to pass themselves off "as a group of Soccer Moms" who are concerned with America's best interests. (Thanks for the link to Cao, blondie, I found the audio. Hopefully it stays up. Mohammed of Iraq The Model has a very important message, a response to Cindy Sheehan, one that is more generous than the kind that my temperament would usually allow mine to be. Please read it the whole thing.

Operation Iraqi Freedom is absolutely a Just Cause. I am satisfied that I have demonstrated that here for those that may be confused and misled by the naysayers. Next I will deal with the argument in defense of President Bush's case for launching into this grand American Enterprise, as many doubts have been raised that are better dealt with in another FOREWARD post up.

As I've written before:

President Bush's hopeful words and purposeful action in defeating America's enemies abroad also disgraces his malicious opponents (the ones that distort the truth to support their positions). He shames them with his goodness. The day that the Iraqis dipped their fingers in ink as if they were "poking the eyes of all the world's tyrants" to cast their votes, was a powerful demonstration that to be opposed to Operation Iraqi Freedom, based on everything that was known beforehand, and what is known today, was and is to be against humanitarian aid. The future of those born recently, and not yet, in Iraq will be better because they have been liberated from monsters. Some monsters remain (as far as history goes, some always have), but are no longer in power and in control of the future of the Iraqi people. Not many greedy imperialists these days leave the countries that they invade better off than before they invaded them. The specious claim that "war is wrong" can be negated by the fact that the use of force by the good guys against the bad guys is not.

"We will rebuild our defenses beyond challenge, lest weakness invite challenge. We will confront weapons of mass destruction, so that a new century is spared new horrors. The enemies of liberty and our country should make no mistake. America remains engaged in the world, by history and by choice, shaping a balance of power that favors freedom." -- President George W. Bush, January 20, 2001

Ultimately, as the president has repeatedly stated, peace in Iraq will require competent security forces and government. Competent security forces and government officials require the development of civil institutions and the encouragement of human potential. The obstacles and opponents to the achievement of those objectives have to be overcome. And those are not just terrorist insurgents. What we need to do is avoid dwelling on pessimistic speculation and keep our eye on the ball. As of this date, the development of Iraqi military forces and their governing structures are being put together. This is why Iraq is currently at the center of the War on Terror, and will remain a part of this long and difficult global conflict for years to come. But progress is definitely being made.

Here's Edward Morrissey, on February, 2005, saying it better than I could:

In the past two months, we have seen an explosion of momentum in Southwest Asia for political reform and democratization. Despite European warnings that democracy cannot be imposed at gunpoint [nevermind Japan and Germany], two longtime tyrannies (Afghanistan and Iraq) successfully held popular multiparty elections for the first time in their histories, freeing almost 50 million people from two of the most oppressive governments in modern history. Just before that, Ukrainians took to the streets to bring down a puppet government and a sham election that would have perpetuated it, and now we see popular demonstrations for liberty where we would least have expected it -- on the streets of Beirut and Cairo. The pro-Syrian puppet Lebanese government has fallen today as a result, while Hosni Mubarak has managed to stay one step ahead by promising multiparty elections later this year for the executive.

For twelve years, the international community sat on its hands while Saddam Hussein, the Assads in Syria, and other tinpot dictators openly oppressed their people and defied international calls for reform. All of that changed for the US after 9/11, when the product of all that simmering rage at political repression took out 3,000 of our citizens who committed the sin of going to work on Tuesday morning. Bush, Blair, and Howard correctly calculated that continuing with so-called realpolitik and cutting deals with the oppressors only created more risk..

After watching nothing but stagnation for decades and an Arab populace that appeared resigned to oppression all along, one has to ask: WHAT CHANGED? Why now?...

The answer lies in the 150,000 troops currently stationed in Iraq and the will to act that put them there. Does anyone think that Syria would have stood still for a spontaneous demonstration against their puppet government if Saddam Hussein was still defying the UN in Baghdad? Would Hosni Mubarak have suddenly transformed into a democrat without watching the Anglosphere demonstrate a will to act rather than just continue talking tough?

"Every lesson of history tells us that appeasement does not lead to peace. It invites an aggressor to test the will of a nation unprepared to meet that test. And tragically, those who seemingly want peace the most, our young people, pay the heaviest price for our failure to maintain our strength." -- Ronald Reagan, as governor of the Golden State, 1972, future GOP presidential candidate and U.S. President.

The credit for this essay should really be given to all of America's patriots and friends. It is with their words, inspiration, and sacrifice that I am able to present this essay in their honor. This is who this essay is dedicated to. I just hope that more of us recognized and actually supported them, instead of just saying so. They are the true holy warriors, as far as I'm concerned.

"Proclaim Liberty throughout All the land unto All the Inhabitants Thereof" Lev. XXV; X

God bless America.