Archive for December, 2007

Can we sue Brattleboro, Vermont?

Vermont Town Considers Measure to Arrest Bush, Cheney for War Crimes

Friday, December 28, 2007

 

What a load of horse hockey. Good on ya, Vermont. Way to kick in the troop support.

Baghdad Bob has a female counterpart?

From Yahoo news

In the raid on a property owned by Maki Adnan al-Dulaimi, Iraqi forces reportedly found guns, bombs and explosives underneath a chicken coop. Al-Dulaimi’s father Adnan heads the Sunni Arab Accordance Front, a three-party alliance that has 44 parliamentary seats.

Two Iraqi police officials involved in the operation said they found 80 mortars, 60 grenade launchers, six hand grenades, two sniper rifles, hundreds of boxes of bullets and ten bombs used in cars, as well as fuses and wires used for explosives. The officials declined to be named because they were not authorized to speak to the media.

Sunni lawmaker Asmaa Adnan al-Dulaimi, Maki’s sister, said the reports were baseless. The U.S. military said they did not have any operational reports on the incident.

U.S. and Iraqi troops arrested al-Dulaimi on Nov. 30 after a gunman they were pursuing fled to the offices of his father.

Brig. Gen. Qassim al-Moussawi, the chief Iraqi military spokesman in Baghdad, said he was arrested after confessions by guards arrested after the pursuit.

Al-Moussawi said two car bombs were discovered at the al-Dulaimi’s office compound. The U.S. said one vehicle rigged as a suicide car bomb was found on the street outside the compound, and one of al-Dulaimi’s security guards had the keys.

Nothing to see people. Move along. LOL! The guy is busted red-handed and his sister says the accusations are baseless. That’s rich.

Why we must stand up for our troops…

Do the dhue over at FreeRepublic.com posted this and I felt the need to post it here verbatim…

This is why we must stand up for our Troops:

How North Vietnam Won The War The Wall Street Journal, Thursday August 3, 1995

What did the North Vietnamese leadership think of the American antiwar movement? What was the purpose of the Tet Offensive? How could the U.S. have been more successful in fighting the Vietnam War? Bui Tin, a former colonel in the North Vietnamese army, answers these questions in the following excerpts from an interview conducted by Stephen Young, a Minnesota attorney and human-rights activist. Bui Tin, who served on the general staff of North Vietnam’s army, received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30, 1975. He later became editor of the People’s Daily, the official newspaper of Vietnam. He now lives in Paris, where he immigrated after becoming disillusioned with the fruits of Vietnamese communism.

Question: How did Hanoi intend to defeat the Americans?

Answer: By fighting a long war which would break their will to help South Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh said, “We don’t need to win military victories, we only need to hit them until they give up and get out.”

Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi’s victory?

A: It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.

Q: Did the Politburo pay attention to these visits?

A: Keenly.

Q: Why?

A: Those people represented the conscience of America. The conscience of America was part of its war-making capability, and we were turning that power in our favor. America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win.

Q: How could the Americans have won the war?

A: Cut the Ho Chi Minh trail inside Laos. If Johnson had granted [Gen. William] Westmoreland’s requests to enter Laos and block the Ho Chi Minh trail, Hanoi could not have won the war.

Q: Anything else?

A: Train South Vietnam’s generals. The junior South Vietnamese officers were good, competent and courageous, but the commanding general officers were inept.

Q: Did Hanoi expect that the National Liberation Front would win power in South Vietnam?

A: No. Gen. [Vo Nguyen] Giap [commander of the North Vietnamese army] believed that guerrilla warfare was important but not sufficient for victory. Regular military divisions with artillery and armor would be needed. The Chinese believed in fighting only with guerrillas, but we had a different approach. The Chinese were reluctant to help us. Soviet aid made the war possible. Le Duan [secretary general of the Vietnamese Communist Party] once told Mao Tse-tung that if you help us, we are sure to win; if you don’t, we will still win, but we will have to sacrifice one or two million more soldiers to do so.

Q: Was the National Liberation Front an independent political movement of South Vietnamese?

A: No. It was set up by our Communist Party to implement a decision of the Third Party Congress of September 1960. We always said there was only one party, only one army in the war to liberate the South and unify the nation. At all times there was only one party commissar in command of the South.

Q: Why was the Ho Chi Minh trail so important?

A: It was the only way to bring sufficient military power to bear on the fighting in the South. Building and maintaining the trail was a huge effort, involving tens of thousands of soldiers, drivers, repair teams, medical stations, communication units.

Q: What of American bombing of the Ho Chi Minh trail?

A: Not very effective. Our operations were never compromised by attacks on the trail. At times, accurate B-52 strikes would cause real damage, but we put so much in at the top of the trail that enough men and weapons to prolong the war always came out the bottom. Bombing by smaller planes rarely hit significant targets.

Q: What of American bombing of North Vietnam?

A: If all the bombing had been concentrated at one time, it would have hurt our efforts. But the bombing was expanded in slow stages under Johnson and it didn’t worry us. We had plenty of times to prepare alternative routes and facilities. We always had stockpiles of rice ready to feed the people for months if a harvest were damaged. The Soviets bought rice from Thailand for us.

Q: What was the purpose of the 1968 Tet Offensive?

A: To relieve the pressure Gen. Westmoreland was putting on us in late 1966 and 1967 and to weaken American resolve during a presidential election year.

Q: What about Gen. Westmoreland’s strategy and tactics caused you concern?

A: Our senior commander in the South, Gen. Nguyen Chi Thanh, knew that we were losing base areas, control of the rural population and that his main forces were being pushed out to the borders of South Vietnam. He also worried that Westmoreland might receive permission to enter Laos and cut the Ho Chi Minh Trail.

In January 1967, after discussions with Le Duan, Thanh proposed the Tet Offensive. Thanh was the senior member of the Politburo in South Vietnam. He supervised the entire war effort. Thanh’s struggle philosophy was that “America is wealthy but not resolute,” and “squeeze tight to the American chest and attack.” He was invited up to Hanoi for further discussions. He went on commercial flights with a false passport from Cambodia to Hong Kong and then to Hanoi. Only in July was his plan adopted by the leadership. Then Johnson had rejected Westmoreland’s request for 200,000 more troops. We realized that America had made its maximum military commitment to the war. Vietnam was not sufficiently important for the United States to call up its reserves. We had stretched American power to a breaking point. When more frustration set in, all the Americans could do would be to withdraw; they had no more troops to send over.

Tet was designed to influence American public opinion. We would attack poorly defended parts of South Vietnam cities during a holiday and a truce when few South Vietnamese troops would be on duty. Before the main attack, we would entice American units to advance close to the borders, away from the cities. By attacking all South Vietnam’s major cities, we would spread out our forces and neutralize the impact of American firepower. Attacking on a broad front, we would lose some battles but win others. We used local forces nearby each target to frustrate discovery of our plans. Small teams, like the one which attacked the U.S. Embassy in Saigon, would be sufficient. It was a guerrilla strategy of hit-and-run raids.

Q: What about the results?

A: Our losses were staggering and a complete surprise;. Giap later told me that Tet had been a military defeat, though we had gained the planned political advantages when Johnson agreed to negotiate and did not run for re-election. The second and third waves in May and September were, in retrospect, mistakes. Our forces in the South were nearly wiped out by all the fighting in 1968. It took us until 1971 to re-establish our presence, but we had to use North Vietnamese troops as local guerrillas. If the American forces had not begun to withdraw under Nixon in 1969, they could have punished us severely. We suffered badly in 1969 and 1970 as it was.

Q: What of Nixon?

A: Well, when Nixon stepped down because of Watergate we knew we would win. Pham Van Dong [prime minister of North Vietnam] said of Gerald Ford, the new president, “he’s the weakest president in U.S. history; the people didn’t elect him; even if you gave him candy, he doesn’t dare to intervene in Vietnam again.” We tested Ford’s resolve by attacking Phuoc Long in January 1975. When Ford kept American B-52′s in their hangers, our leadership decided on a big offensive against South Vietnam.

Q: What else?

A: We had the impression that American commanders had their hands tied by political factors. Your generals could never deploy a maximum force for greatest military effect.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1123293/posts

Also see:

http://www.grunt.com/scuttlebutt/corps-stories/vietnam/north.asp

It is my opinion that our Troops won this war. It is the people who stayed home who lost the war. We lost our resolve and tied the hands of our politicians. If we would have kept our resolve and let the politicians make the decisions necessary to win, it would have been over sooner with less men paying the price.

We must not allow this to happen again. We must stand behind our Troops and their leaders. We must allow our leaders to do what is necessary to win the war. We must not allow the commie traitors to steal our resolve away again. I say stand we must stand a post for our Troops and this can be done in March in Washington DC.

God bless our Troops and their commanders.

Where will you be, when the leftists and the Winter Soldiers accuse our troops of all manner of evil in order to weaken our will to win?

Merry Christmas from the Troops!

Video shows car carrying 6 Al Qaeda leaders blown up by U.S. helicopter

Hey Reid, Murtha and Pelosi et al – you lose!

Sunday, December 23, 2007

Iraqi Sunni and Shia Join In Historic Peace March in Baghdad!

Link to story at Gateway Pundit

And another hattip to AliVeritas!

I don’t know about you…

but I don’t trust the New York Times for my updates on the State of Iraq.

Or is Iraq still a weakly governed and very violent place where sectarian reconciliation is starkly absent?

The problem for American policymakers, troops and voters is that both these situations are simultaneously real.

Boot Murtha

This picture just begged for a photoshop job – and I couldn’t resist….

How the press covered Iraq in 2007

The Portrait from Iraq – How the Press Has Covered Events on the Ground

By Project for Excellence in Journalism.

Through the first 10 months of the year, the portrait of Iraq that Americans have received from the news media has in considerable measure been a grim one. Roughly half of the reporting has consisted of accounts of daily violence. And stories that explicitly assessed the direction of the war have tended toward pessimism, according to a new study of press coverage of events on the ground in Iraq from January through October of 2007.

In what Defense Department statistics show to be the deadliest year so far for U.S. forces in Iraq, journalists have responded to the challenge of covering the continuing violence by keeping many of the accounts of these attacks brief and limiting the interpretation they contain.

…or they make stuff up.

Am I too picky?

Well, I took a lot of hits today on this thread at FR titled USO Troupe Braves Sand, Snow For GIs.

I took exception to the title. Maybe I came on too strong — I said:

The title of that makes me wanna barf — how about “Troops brave sand and snow to see a USO show.” And guess what? When the show’s over the USO Troupe goes home — the Troops stay.

I got called a Grinch and grouchy among other things. My point was this:

I just don’t think the entertainment industry folks deserve hero status for going to the sandbox and “braving” the snow to entertain our troops who live there and are undergoing true hardship to protect and defend our country. It is Enemedia Bias by placement

Newspaper stories are usually written in a “pyramid” style — that is, the most important facts are supposed to appear early in the story, with each paragraph a little less important than the previous paragraph.*snip*

Studies have shown that, in the case of the average newspaper reader and the average news story, most people read only the headline.

The headline of this story points toward the entertainers as being somehow heroic for going, and neglects to say that the Troops are.

Oh well – I stand by my assertion that it’s the TROOPS who deserve to billed as heroes, not the ENTERTAINERS who decide to go see them for a few days.

Speaking of traitors…

George Soros’ dirty hands are getting some scrutiny – finally! ACORN charged with voter fraud here in St. Louis.

And would you believe, the story doesn’t mention ANYWHERE that ACORN is associated with Soros? I would call that Bias by Omission. The link is undeniable and the organization needs to be shut down for multiple infractions.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: