The Pirates of Tehran By Fred Thompson

 The Pirates of Tehran

By Fred Thompson

Oil prices fell. The stock market rose. Video images of smiling British soldiers with Iranian President Ahmadinejad were everywhere. So were pictures of the 15 freed hostages embracing family members back home. The relief over the return of the Brits was so tremendous; you could almost hear birds singing.

Maybe it’s because military action won’t be needed or maybe it’s just because the ordeal won’t drag on and on, but the world is breathing easier now. A lot of folks are happy. The problem, as I see it, is that Ahmadinejad seems to be the happiest.

And why shouldn’t he be? He has shown the world that his forces can kidnap British citizens, subject them to brutal psychological tactics to coerce phony confessions, finagle the release of a high-ranking Iranian terror coordinator in Iraq, utterly trash the Geneva conventions and suffer absolutely no consequences.

The UN Security Council summoned its vaunted multilateral greatness to issue a swift statement of sincere uneasiness. The EU, which has pressured Britain to rely on Europeans for mutual defense instead of the US, wouldn’t even discuss economic sanctions that might disrupt their holidays. Even NATO was AWOL.

Please do keep reading . . .

Novak: Fred Thompson’s Campaign Moves Forward

Novak: Fred Thompson’s Campaign Moves Forward

By Robert Novak
Apr 7, 2007

WASHINGTON — Three Republican congressmen, who visited Damascus three days before House Speaker Nancy Pelosi arrived, were eager to disassociate themselves from the Democratic leader and make clear they did not even know she was going to Syria. When President Bush assailed Pelosi for her Syrian mission, she noted that Republican Reps. Frank Wolf of Virginia, Joseph Pitts of Pennsylvania and Robert Aderholt of Alabama made the same journey. Some news reports gave the false impression that they all were on the same congressional delegation. While Wolf stressed that he and his two GOP colleagues support Bush’s Iraq policy, their mission to Damascus violated the president’s policy, as did Pelosi’s.

A footnote: Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey, a senior Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, was with Wolf, Pitts and Aderholt in Israel during the Easter recess and wanted to join them in Syria. He could not be added at the last minute.

Fred Thompson's Campaign Moves Forward
Novak: Fred Thompson’s Campaign Moves Forward


Fred Thompson’s progress toward becoming a Republican presidential candidate will take a step with the return of Congress from its Easter break when he meets privately with a large group of Republican House members.

GOP House leaders had prepared last year to board George Allen’s campaign wagon before his defeat in Virginia for re-election to the Senate eliminated him from presidential consideration. They had been moving toward support of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, led by former Speaker Dennis Hastert’s endorsement. But many have stepped back from Romney and are looking hard at Thompson. One member of the GOP leadership who had been prepared to endorse Romney is holding his fire while he considers Thompson.

A footnote: Thompson will hit the campaign trail next month in advance of any formal announcement with a May 4 speech in Orange County, Calif. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani has led GOP presidential hopefuls in lining up California support.

Pelosi, the dummy or should I say Dhimmi

It is normal when entering a place of worship to conform to your hosts. In a synagogue you cover your head, in a church you uncover it and in a mosque you take off your shoes.

But in the diplomatic arena we are supposed to be equal and no one is shown deference. One does not start a diplomatic meeting by groveling, cringing or paying deference. When Pelosi covers her head she is adopting Dhimmi status and thus has handed a victory to Assad who is secular and to Islam. She conveys a message of weakness. Simply by going there she delivers a message of weakness and capitulation.

The WSJ editorialized under the title Democrats at War.

The NY Sun editorialized, Pelosi’s Inspiration.

Why is Congressman former Navy Vice Admiral Joe Sestak raising funds for CAIR?

Why is Congressman former Navy Vice Admiral Joe Sestak raising funds for CAIR?

by Lori Lowenthal Marcus

American Congress for Truth, Action Alert, April 6, 2007

Why is a US Congressman helping to raise money for an American Islamic organization of which nearly a dozen associates have verified connections to terrorism?

Freshman Congressman and former Navy Vice Admiral Joe Sestak (District 7-PA) obstinately refuses to withdraw from speaking at a CAIR fundraiser in Philadelphia tomorrow, April 7th.

CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations, has a lengthy dossier proving it has had and continues to have associated with it dangerous individuals who have been convicted of, charged with and deported because of, actions that threaten America and its allies. Middle East and terrorism experts such as Steven Emerson and Daniel Pipes have written extensively about CAIR’s connections to terrorism.

Unfortunately, the public and in particular the mainstream media have embraced the rejection of the experts’ warnings by CAIR and its fellow travelers who claim those experts are right-wing conservatives and – to make matters worse – Jews, who are furthering their personal agendas by vilifying CAIR.

Apparently many believe that CAIR is being victimized by neo-conservative Jewish operatives, and that any criticism of the organization or its supporters is evidence of Islamophobia. Indeed, that is precisely what CAIR leaders claimed was motivating (the primarily Jewish) critics of Congressman Sestak’s financial connection to CAIR.

The public pandering to this dangerous group of Muslims is only possible by a refusal to distinguish between fact and opinion. FACT: five CAIR board members and employees have been convicted of terrorism-related activities. Fact: CAIR received seed money from and subsequently raised money for the Holy Land Foundation, an entity shut down by the US government because of its proven connection to Hamas. HLF is designated by the US State Department (hardly a coterie of neo-cons) as an official Foreign Terrorist Organization. Fact: CAIR is an offshoot of the Islamic Association of Palestine, an organization that also was dissolved and designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. Fact: CAIR’s executive director, Nihad Awad, announced during a public appearance that he was a Hamas supporter. Fact: Immediately following 9/11 CAIR posted on its website a link seeking donations to what it labeled “the NY/DC Disaster Relief Fund.” Unsuspecting potential donors who clicked on that link were connected to the web site of the HLF.

CAIR bills itself as a “civil rights organization,” which is, perhaps, why it gets a free pass from those who should know better. But consider CAIR’s peculiar understanding of civil rights: Randall “Ismail” Royer, CAIR’s former communications specialist and civil rights coordinator, is currently serving a 20 year sentence after having been charged with possessing “AK-47-style rifles, telescopic lenses, hundreds of rounds of ammunition, documents on undertaking jihad and martyrdom” and instructional booklets for manufacturing and using explosives and chemicals as weapons.

Several weeks before Congressman Sestak’s scheduled appearance at a Philadelphia-CAIR fundraiser, he was scheduled to appear at a “town meeting” in a Philadelphia-area synagogue. Sestak’s appearance at that event had been arranged by local Democrat party officials and was sponsored by the local Jewish Federation and the synagogue.

To his credit, but not necessarily to those who invited him and would not withdraw the invitation, Sestak showed up on March 11th to speak to what he had to know would be a very hostile audience. Area residents had been calling his office to register their disapproval. Unfortunately, the former CAIR employee and the one who arranged his appearance at the CAIR event was the Sestak staffer who was charged with taking calls on the topic.

And what was Sestak’s response to the critical questions put to him? First of all, he told his questioners, dozens of his constituents were going to be present at the fundraiser and wanted him to be there. He told the town meeting participants that just as he meets with all his constituent groups: Irish groups, Polish groups, Jewish groups, the NAACP, he was going to meet with this group as well.

Second, the Congressman told the audience that during his campaign, whenever he needed people to help him hand out flyers he first called the Muslim community because they were always eager to help. In other words, Sestak’s first go-to volunteer group during his campaign was the Muslim community rather than the Democratic Party machine. Odd.

Finally, Sestak defended his association with CAIR by pointing out that the US government would have shut it down if there were any problems. Perhaps, but the myriad and verifiable dangerous activities with which so many CAIR members have been involved should be more than enough to deter a sitting Congressman from helping CAIR raise money. Meet with them if you feel you must, but assist in fundraising? That smacks of, at the very least, poor judgment.

Sestak told the audience that he had his campaign staff investigate CAIR during his campaign. Perhaps that happened when CAIR-PA Director Iftekhar Hussain made a several hundred dollar contribution to Sestak’s campaign and with whom Sestak allegedly visited in his home.

At the town hall synagogue appearance Sestak floundered for several hours during which he was forced to face angry Americans who rejected his flaccid responses to their pointed questions. Since that time, though, no one has called him to task for what certainly seems to be an unnecessarily provocative, some might suggest unwise, decision. Joe Sestak is a US Congressman. Claiming that he is merely satisfying his obligation to meet with Muslim constituents by financially assisting a group like CAIR is not only an insult to non-terrorist related Muslims, but also to all his other constituency groups, and, frankly, to all Americans.
A local newspaper that covered Sestak’s appearance at the Philadelphia-area synagogue editorialized that if there were anything to the terrorism-related allegations, there would be a huge public outcry. In fact, the first line of that editorial was: “Give Joe Sestak a break.” The mainstream media has been giving Sestak a break which is why there has been no outcry. It is time for those who believe we should be fighting terrorism to stop pandering to dangerous groups. Joe Sestak refuses to break his connection to CAIR, a group with terrorist connections. Because of that, he does not deserve a break. And if he still gets a pass, then shame on all of us.
Here’s what you can do about it. Contact his Washington, DC and District offices by phone, fax and email and tell him that you object to using his position as a U.S. Congressman in supporting a fundamentalist advocacy group like CAIR with known terrorist ties.

Congressman Joe Sestak’s contact information

Washington D.C. Office1022 Longworth House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-2011
Fax: (202) 226-0280

District Office

600 N. Jackson Street
Suite 203
Media, PA 19063
Phone:(610) 892-8623
Fax:(610) 892-8628

Lori Lowenthal Marcus is Co-host and commentator of the THE ZOA MIDDLE EAST REPORT in Philadelphia heard weekly on and President of the Philadelphia region chapter of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA)

Posted by Jerry Gordon @ 11:29 am |

Hollywood Heroes and Hollywood Morons

Hollywood Heroes and Hollywood Morons

by Bill Levinson

It is instructive to compare the personal character and integrity of today’s Hollywood celebrities and those of fifty or sixty years ago. Today, of course, we have 9/11 conspiracy theorists like Rosie O’Donnell and Charlie Sheen. Hanoi Jane Fonda is still active, while Michael Moore’s Web site calls the terrorists who are murdering our men and women in uniform “Minutemen.” The following information is primarily from Wikipedia which, although we recognize that it is not always authoritative or entirely accurate, is probably good enough for our purposes.


Marlene Dietrich

In 1941 the U.S. entered the Second World War and Dietrich became one of the first celebrities to raise war bonds. She entertained troops on the front lines in a USO revue that included future TV pioneer Danny Thomas as her opening act. Dietrich was known to have strong political convictions and the mind to speak them. Like many Weimar era German entertainers, she was a staunch anti-Nazi who despised anti-Semitism.

She recorded a number of anti-Nazi records in German for the OSS, including “Lili Marleen”. She also played the musical saw to entertain troops. She sang for the Allied troops on the front lines in Algiers, France and into Germany with Generals James M. Gavin and George S. Patton. When asked why she had done this, in spite of the obvious danger of being within a few kilometers of German lines, she replied, “aus Anstand” – “it was the decent thing to do”.

Dietrich was awarded the Medal of Freedom by the US Government for her war work. She was also made a chevalier (later commandeur) of the Légion d’Honneur by the French government.

Henry Fonda

…he then enlisted in the Navy to fight in World War II, saying, “I don’t want to be in a fake war in a studio.”

Previously, he and Stewart had helped raise funds for the defense of Britain from the Nazis. Fonda served for three years, initially as a Quartermaster 3rd Class on the destroyer USS Satterlee. He was later commissioned as a Lieutenant Junior Grade in Air Combat Intelligence in the Central Pacific and won a Presidential Citation and the Bronze Star.

Bob Hope “…performed his first United Service Organizations (USO) show on May 6, 1941, at March Field, California. He continued to travel and entertain troops for the rest of World War II and later during the Korean War, the Vietnam War and the 1990–1991 Persian Gulf War. When overseas he almost always performed in Army fatigues as a show of support for his audience.”

Hedy Lamarr (Delilah in “Samson and Delilah”) “and composer George Antheil received U.S. Patent 2,292,387 for their Secret Communication System on August 11, 1942. This early version of frequency hopping used a piano roll to change between 88 frequencies and was intended to make radio-guided torpedoes harder for enemies to detect or jam. …Lamarr wanted to join the National Inventors Council but she was told that she could better help the war effort by using her celebrity status to sell War Bonds. She once raised $7,000,000 at just one event.”

Christopher Lee (Saruman in “Lord of the Rings” and Count Dooku in “Star Wars”): “He volunteered to fight for the Finnish forces during the Winter War against the Soviet Union in 1939 – though, as Lee admits in his autobiography, he and his fellow British volunteers were in Finland only a fortnight and kept well away from the Russian forces the whole time. He went on to serve in the Royal Air Force and intelligence during World War II.”

Patrick Macnee “was commisioned as a Lieutenant in the Royal Navy and was awarded the Atlantic Star for his service during WW2.” Not content with fighting cinematic evildoers side by side with Avenger Emma Peel, Macnee also fights them in real life: “In his spare time Patrick enjoys bird-watching, desert reclamation, and preventing terrorism! (He received an award from the Bureau of Federal Aviation for preventing terrorism on aircraft).”

Audie Murphy “received the Medal of Honor, the military’s highest award for valor, along with 32 additional medals awarded for bravery and service.”

Jack Palance

With the outbreak of World War II, Palance’s boxing career ended and his military career began. Palance’s rugged face, which took many beatings in the boxing ring, was disfigured when he bailed out of his burning B-24 Liberator while on a training flight over southern Arizona, where he was a student pilot. Plastic surgeons repaired the damage as best they could, but he was left with a distinctive, somewhat gaunt, look. After much reconstructive surgery, he was discharged in 1944.

Ronald Reagan

On May 25, 1937, Reagan was appointed a second lieutenant in the Officers’ Reserve Corps of the Cavalry, serving with Troop B, 322nd Cavalry. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, Lieutenant Reagan was ordered to active duty, but because of his astigmatism, he was prevented from serving overseas. Reagan remained in Hollywood for the duration of the war. At the request of the Army Air Force, he applied for a transfer from the Cavalry to the Army Air Force. In June 1942, he was assigned to the First Motion Picture Unit, which made training and education films for the war effort.

Brigadier General James Maitland “Jimmy” Stewart–well, the military rank speaks for itself. The Army Air Force veteran often played airplane pilot roles in postwar films.

In 1944, he twice received the Distinguished Flying Cross for actions in combat and was awarded the Croix de Guerre. He also received the Air Medal with three oak leaf clusters. In July 1944, after flying 20 combat missions, Stewart was made Chief of Staff of the 2nd Combat Bombardment Wing of the Eighth Air Force. Before the war ended, he was promoted to Colonel, one of only a few Americans to rise from private to colonel in four years.

While Marlene Dietrich was singing for Allied soldiers, Hanoi Jane Fonda posed in a North Vietnamese gun emplacement.

Michael Moore calls terrorists who are murdering our men and women in uniform “Minutemen.”

Rosie O’Donnell, former keynote speaker for the disgraced and defunct Million Mom March, joins Charlie Sheehan in espousing 9/11 conspiracy theories while blaming the United Kingdom for Iran’s recent act of piracy on the high seas.

Susan Sarandon (Susan Saranwrap to Michael Savage) “Sarandon appeared at an Anti-War rally in Washington, D.C., with people such as Tim Robbins, and Jane Fonda. Her stance was, “Let us resist this war” and “Let us hate war in all its forms, whether the weapon used is a missile or an airplane.”” And don’t forget to sing “Kumbaya…” (Given her Welsh ancestry, we recommend that she learn the meaning of “Men of Harlech” instead.) Her behavior is admittedly far less objectionable than that of Fonda, Moore, O’Donnell, and Sheen; unlike O’Donnell and Sheen, she apparently agrees that terrorists used airplanes as weapons on 9/11.

Charlie Sheen joins Rosie O’Donnell’s 9/11 denial. 9/11 Denial = Holocaust Denial, except it writes off, excuses, or blames on someone else four missing aircraft and two missing skyscrapers instead of six million missing Jews and three missing Polish Catholics.

Posted by Bill Levinson @ 1:21 pm |

Teheran thinks it has moved one step closer to a nuclear arsenal

Teheran thinks it has moved one step closer to a nuclear arsenal
Fri. 06 Apr 2007

The Daily Telegraph

By Con Coughlin

Inside Abroad

Suddenly, Iran is everybody’s friend.

The safe return to Britain of 15 sailors and Marines in time to celebrate Easter with their families and friends has shown the ayatollahs in a new light. Gone is the image of a regime that represses its people and seeks the annihilation of its foes. Forgotten are the chants of the Friday prayer worshippers calling for the destruction of America, the “Great Satan”, and “Little Satan”, as Britain is disparagingly referred to in the parlance of Iran’s radical mosques.

Instead, we now find ourselves having to come to terms with a regime that is rational, benign and generous of spirit. For how else can one explain the magnanimity of the Iranians in arranging the captives’ safe return? They had, after all, been caught red-handed conducting military operations within Iranian territorial waters.

We know this, of course, because of the “confessions” the captives made on television before their release. Such was the gravity of their crime that the Iranians believed they had every right to put them on trial where, if convicted, they faced lengthy jail terms. But by arranging for their return home, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the former Revolutionary Guards commander who was hitherto deemed an ideologically driven menace, has shown himself to be a statesman of international repute. Rather than getting bogged down in a protracted dispute over territorial boundaries, he found it within himself to forgive the Servicemen and to send them home.

The logical conclusion – or so many will now argue – to be drawn from this transformation in the way we view the Iranian government is that if goodwill can prevail over an issue as delicate as the detention of British Servicemen, why can’t it be extended to other areas of dispute, such as Iran’s support for radical Shia groups in Iraq and its desire to acquire nuclear technology?

That is certainly the kind of response the ayatollahs will be hoping for now. But while the Servicemen’s release might appear to be a simple act of altruism, an ulterior motive is never far from their minds.

In terms of seeking Iran’s help in securing the release of British hostages, we have been here before. The Iranians were pivotal in ending the captivity of Terry Waite, John McCarthy and all the other Western hostages in Lebanon during the 1980s. But then they were best placed to do so, having ordered the hostages’ abduction in the first place.

Iran has always seen terrorism as a useful tool for achieving its political ambitions. On that occasion, they used the hostages as a bargaining chip to limit Western interference in the Gulf after the campaign to liberate Kuwait in 1991. The moment the allies fulfilled their pledge to disband the coalition assembled to defeat Saddam’s occupation forces, Waite et al were released.

A similar subtext lies at the heart of Ahmadinejad’s decision to release the British Servicemen. The Iranians are concerned that their attempts to consolidate their hold over radical Shia groups in southern Iraq are being frustrated by the American and British military, especially after a number of Revolutionary Guard officers were detained for their involvement in equipping Iraqi insurgent groups with deadly weaponry, including the materials used in roadside bombs such as the one that yesterday killed four British soldiers and their translator outside Basra.

Five Revolutionary Guard officers are still in American custody, and, while both London and Teheran insist no deal was done, it is surely no coincidence that an Iranian official was yesterday granted access to the detained officers, the first contact Teheran has had with them since their arrest at the start of the year.

But for Iran, the radicalisation of the Shia of southern Iraq is almost a sideshow compared with the acquisition of nuclear weapons. Even as Sir Nigel Sheinwald, Tony Blair’s foreign affairs guru, was in Teheran negotiating the release, work was continuing at Iran’s uranium enrichment plant at Natanz where the Iranians could have sufficient fissile material for an atom bomb by the end of next year.

The acquisition of a nuclear arsenal is the ayatollahs’ dream, and everything they do – whether it is grandstanding over the detention of a handful of British Servicemen or prevaricating with UN nuclear inspectors – is aimed at achieving this ambition. With yet another UN deadline approaching for the Iranians to cease uranium enrichment at Natanz or face tougher sanctions, the issue of the British captives provided Ahmadinejad with the perfect platform to demonstrate to an international audience the benefits to be gained from treating Teheran with respect, not threats.

As Ahmadinejad made clear in the rambling, two-hour anti-Western diatribe he delivered before dramatically announcing the captives’ release, Iran has as much of a right to develop nuclear technology as any other country, and, by letting them go free he and his advisers are seeking to reinforce the point that they are honourable men who, contrary to what Messrs Bush and Blair would have us believe, are perfectly capable of acting in good faith.

But if the Iranians are merely interested in developing nuclear technology as an alternative energy source, why, then, does their pattern of behaviour over a period of more than a decade suggest their intentions are far more sinister?

Why, for example, are the Iranians negotiating with North Korea to share the technological expertise Pyongyang gleaned from last year’s successful test-firing of an atom bomb? And why have the Iranians put the International Atomic Energy Agency under pressure to remove nuclear inspectors they consider to be too effective in uncovering glaring inconsistencies in Iran’s official declarations about its nuclear programme?

The answer to these and many other questions relating to Iran’s nuclear programme is that the Iranians are trying to conceal their true intentions. They might, as in the case of the British captives, appear both rational and reasonable, but only a fool would take their gestures of goodwill at face value.

Iran president to announce nuclear ‘good news’

Iran president to announce nuclear ‘good news’
Sat. 07 Apr 2007

TEHRAN, April 7, 2007 (AFP) – President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is expected to unveil what he has described as “good news” on Iran’s nuclear programme on Monday amid international calls for a suspension of uranium enrichment.

April 9 is Iran’s national nuclear technology day and marks the first anniversary of its enrichment of uranium to the level needed to produce fuel for civil reactors.

Ahmadinejad will visit Iran’s enrichment facility in the central city of Natanz to mark the anniversary.

“Ceremonies marking the national day of nuclear technology will be organised in the presence of President (Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad in Natanz,” said a statement from Iran’s atomic energy organisation.

Ahmadinejad has repeatedly promised that he is preparing a major announcement on Iran’s nuclear programme and his presence at the enrichment plant for the anniversary has fuelled speculation that it will be the venue.

The semi-official Fars news agency speculated that the president would confirm the belated launch of a cascade of 3,000 centrifuges at the plant.

“In February they were supposed to announce the installation and launch of 3,000 centrifuges, but it did not happen so it is expected that the good news involves the installation and launch of the centrifuges,” the news agency said.

At low levels of 3.5 percent or so, uranium enrichment provides the fuel for nuclear reactors, but at highly extended levels of well over 90 percent it can also produce the fissile core of an atomic bomb, the source of Western concerns about Iran’s intentions.

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, there are at least 1,000 centrifuges in Natanz at different stages of installation.

Only around a third of them have yet been fed with uranium hexafluoride gas feedstock.

Iran has vowed to gave 3,000 centrifuges up and running at the facility by May 2007 despite repeated ultimatums from the UN Security Council to suspend its efforts to master the nuclear fuel cycle.

The Security Council has already imposed two packages of sanctions against Iran over its failure to heed the ultimatums.

The second resolution tasked the European Union’s top diplomat Javier Solana with holding talks with Iran about the possibility of renewed negotiations.

But Iran insists it will only enter talks without preconditions and not, as the Security Council demands, following a prior suspension of uranium enrichment.

Chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani reiterated on Thursday that there could be no freeze on enrichment activities ahead of talks.

Washington has repeatedly refused to rule out military action if diplomacy fails to secure a change of heart from Tehran.

Iran has retaliated against the UN sanctions by withholding immediate notification of its plans to build or modify nuclear facilities, saying notice would come only six months before improved facilities are brought into service

Gas And Rumors Of Gas

Gas And Rumors Of Gas


Al Qaeda ( the guys President Pelosi says aren’t in Iraq ) have begun using chlorine gas attacks. Fortunately, this has pissed off the locals, most significantly the Sunni locals in Al Anbar. As a result, the Sunnis have essentially passed their limits of tolerance for the terrorist interlopers, and are working with us to dislodge and kill them. And, as the MSM did NOT tell you, Saudi Arabia has gotten directly involved in the war, as our ally. They negotiated a deal with the most powerful tribe in Al Anbar, the Jabur, to fight with us in full-fledged combat operations against Al Qaeda. And the Saudis paid the Jaburs a fat ‘motivating’ reward. And lastly, as I reported on Fox News two months ago, the re-Baathification of the Iraqi Army has not only started, but is moving ahead at a succesful clip. Again, the young tribal sheiks who had been working with us for the last chapters of the war were proving no match for their professional international Jihadi foes in Al Qaeda. The Baathists are being brought in to ratchet up the level of Iraqi leadership skills. Most are being paid signing bonuses and retroactive pay.

Now of course, we could leave Iraq tomorrow and scatter Al Qaeda and the rest of the International Jihad Machine back to Afghanistan, Chechnya, Pakistan, Iran and the rest of the four winds. Or we can continue to fight them while we have them concentrated in Iraq. We can pretend they are elsewhere, and that we should leave where they already are in order to find and fight them. Yes, friends, that is exactly the nonesense logic the Leftists give us. That horseshit gibberish is the funniest part about the Fascist Left’s line: We need to get out of Iraq and go find and kill those damn Jihadis, especially Al Qaeda, wherever the hell they actually are. Since they’re not Iraq. Even though we’re fighting them in Iraq. Pure Big Brother, “War is Peace” logic. Let me get this straight one more time: if we scatter the terrorists from the battlefield in Iraq, scatter them all around the world in fact, it’ll be easier to find them, even though today we have them concentrated in one place. Doh. Anybody remember that Steely Dan album, “Pretzel Logic”? Of course not, you’re not old fucks like me. But I’ll be back patrolling Ramadi soon, so don’t laugh too hard.

Anyway, back to gas. Fortunately, chlorine gas is rarely lethal, but painful and with some potential for long term physical damage. And it basically seeps right through a gas mask. Mustard Gas is a whole other potentially lethal story. I have full direct confirmation that military leadership has begun warning it’s troops about Al Qaeda plans to begin attacking with Mustard Gas. Enough intel had been gathered to merit the warnings.

Iran wants it’s payback for releasing Brits

What ever happened to “Let’s Roll”

What ever happened to “Let’s Roll”
By Dean Barnett
Saturday, April 7, 2007
On 9/11, the passengers aboard United Flight 93 had an option – they could rely on the good intentions of their captors or they could fight back. When presented with this Hobson’s choice, they responded with the words “Let’s roll.” Their ensuing actions were the very definition of heroism.

A few weeks ago, 15 British seamen and marines, soldiers of the Royal Navy, found themselves in a similar quandary. Belligerent Iranians had surrounded them and threatened them with both words and actions. Just as the passengers on Flight 93 had a choice, so too did the British seamen who ultimately spent a couple of weeks as hostages of the Iranian regime. Why did these soldiers, the products of military training and representatives of Her Majesty’s flag, make the decision to surrender themselves? Because, according to their Captain at a Friday press conference, “Fighting back was simply not an option.”

What a strange and dismal trip it has been for the Western world, going from “Let’s Roll” to “Fighting Back Was Not An Option” in scarcely more than five years. One can only hope that when the history of our era is written, the former will turn out to be the immortal quote, not the latter.

IT MAY SEEM EASY AND UNSEEMLY FOR A KEYBOARD WARRIOR like me to criticize the conduct of the British troops. Perhaps it is too easy; I have never been in a situation comparable to the one these men (and woman) were in. I can’t say with any confidence how I would respond.

But I can say with some confidence how I would hope to respond; I hope my response would be nothing like that of the British seamen. And I’d like to think my life experience has helped me arrive at this worldview. A half-decade of serious illness has forced me to accustom myself to looking death squarely in the eye on an ongoing basis. At some point, you come to a realization that death is inevitable. And you also come to appreciate that there are things worse than death. Just as there are things worth living for, there are things worth dying for. One’s own honor and especially the honor of one’s country must be among those things if you don the uniform of your country’s military.

In spite of the foregoing, I understand and acknowledge that my résumé for discussing such matters is slight. But MSNBC military analyst Jack Jacobs’ is not.

Jacobs won the Medal of Honor for his heroism in Vietnam. According to his Medal of Honor citation, Jacobs received the Medal “For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty.”

With his company under intense enemy fire and the command group having suffered heavy casualties, “Capt. Jacobs assumed command of the allied company, ordered a withdrawal from the exposed position and established a defensive perimeter. Despite profuse bleeding from head wounds which impaired his vision, Capt. Jacobs, with complete disregard for his safety, returned under intense fire to evacuate a seriously wounded advisor to the safety of a wooded area where he administered lifesaving first aid. He then returned through heavy automatic weapons fire to evacuate the wounded company commander. Capt. Jacobs made repeated trips across the fire-swept open rice paddies evacuating wounded and their weapons. On 3 separate occasions, Capt. Jacobs contacted and drove off Viet Cong squads who were searching for allied wounded and weapons, single-handedly killing 3 and wounding several others. His gallant actions and extraordinary heroism saved the lives of 1 U.S. advisor and 13 allied soldiers.”

I had the pleasure of meeting Captain Jacobs for a few minutes about a year ago. He’s a small man, and you don’t look at him and instantly think “war hero.” It’s precisely for this reason that his valor is so poignant. For a nation to be great and its military to be great, it needs ordinary men to do extraordinary things. It also needs ordinary men who are willing to make extraordinary sacrifices.

Jack Jacobs watched the English press conference where the soldiers’ Captain declared that “fighting back was simply not an option.” Like me, Jacobs was horrified. Because of his military experience, Jacobs was personally outraged as well.

Asked by an MSNBC hostess for his feelings about the released soldiers and their press conference, Jacobs inveighed on-air, “That was the most disgusting, disreputable, dishonorable performance I can remember in more than 40 years of my relationship with the military service. I think every man every woman, who wears the uniform or has ever worn the uniform of his country, no matter what country it is, ought to be disgusted by this…Words can’t express my disgust.”

To some, the returning British soldiers may be heroes. If we have so defined heroism down, woe be unto us all