Protests target “surrender monkeys” Pelosi and Reid

Move America Forward

Protests target “surrender monkeys” Pelosi and


By Catherine Moy

Friday, May 18, 2007

Surrender MonkeyProtestors and “surrender monkeys” marched on the offices of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, and Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., on Thursday opposing the Democrats retreat-and-defeat policies in the war against Muslim Jihadists in Iraq and around the world.

The “surrender monkeys” – played by two chimpanzees in San Francisco – wore the uniform of the original surrender monkeys from France: a beret and a waving white flag.

Move America Forward (MAF), the country’s largest pro-troop group, sponsored the “Surrender is Not an Option” protests in three cities: San Francisco, Las Vegas and Carson City, Nev. The protesters included Iraqi veterans, Vietnam veterans, Gold Star parents, Blue Star parents, American patriots and special guests: two chimpanzees and one French monkey dressed as “cheese-eating surrender monkeys.”

Following the protest, 10 people were allowed inside Pelosi’s San Francisco office to discuss the issues with a staff person. The media were prohibited from witnessing the meeting; cameras and recording devices were banned, with no explanation. Guards kept an eye on the rally and strictly controlled entry into Pelosi’s office.

Sen. Reid’s office did not take kindly to the 100-plus protestors at his Carson City office. A handful of people, including a war veteran carrying a flag, went to the office and asked a Reid worker if they could make a formal complaint to the Democratic Senator. The group, led by Eric Odom of, asked her if she agreed with Reid. The woman slammed the door in their faces. (Video is at

Neither Reid nor his office could be reached for comment on the incident.

MAF chairman Melanie Morgan spoke at the San Francisco event, which drew more than 70 people. Morgan, who is also cohost of the popular Lee Rodgers and Melanie Morgan show on San Francisco’s KSFO, explained the “cheese-eating surrender monkeys” were meant to mock the cut-and-run politicians in Congress.

“Commander-in-Chief Nancy Pelosi and her sidekick Harry Reid personify the retreat-defeat-surrender mentality that is typical of what the Democrat party stands for today, “Morgan said in an earlier interview. “I might lump in Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican from Nebraska in that column.ÊNo matter what party,ÊAmericans do not stand for defeat.”

The chimpanzees in San Francisco were treated with great care at the rally. Their handlers ensured they were safe and content. Jake, one of the chimpanzees, carried a flag that said, “Surrender is not an option.”

The temperature in Las Vegas reached 97 degrees, which drew a complaint to the Humane Society of America, according to the Las Vegas Sun.

“It’s a shame that Move America Forward is exploiting animals to score political points,” Wayne Pacelle, president and chief executive of the Humane Society of the United States, said in a statement to the Sun. “Bringing monkeys into a crowded situation – especially in 97 degree heat – is potentially dangerous for the animals as well as the public.”

It is unclear who complained about Hobo the “surrender monkey’s” performance, which included him energetically riding a scooter. Hobo’s handler ensured that the French monkey was hydrated and comfortable.

MAF spokespeople said Hobo was safe and appeared to enjoy his shtick.

“We treated the animals with love, compassion and respect,” said Joe Wierzbicki, MAF spokesman who was at the Las Vegas rally.

“What’s truly inhumane is how Speaker Pelosi and Senate Leader Harry Reid are cutting and running on our troops, attempting to strip them of funding for training, ammunition and food in the middle of battle,” Morgan said.

The “surrender monkeys” brought a bit of comedic relief to the protestors, many of whom have either served in the Iraq war or have loved ones deployed.

Joseph Williams, a Vacaville resident whose son was killed in the early days of the Iraq war, drove to San Francisco so Pelosi would know that most Gold Star parents want the United States to win the war Ð not leave with our tails between our legs.

“I’m tired of the cheese-eating surrender monkeys led by the Commander-in-Cheese Pelosi,” said Williams, a Vietnam veteran.

Joe Eckstein, a San Francisco resident, showed up “because I love my country.”

Eckstein believes Pelosi is a danger to our country by doing such things as taking trips to Syria while thumbing her nose at President Bush and the State Department.

“I’ve known she was dangerous since the time I saw her march in a parade with child molesters, NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association),” Eckstein said. “We call her NAMBLA Nancy.”

Christine Sargent took time off work to attend the San Francisco protest.

“I’m here for the troops,” Sargent said. “My son is in the Navy. . . Nancy Pelosi is very self-absorbed. How she got that position Ð God only knows.”

Fairfield resident Rod Ferroggiaro took the ferry to San Francisco to participate. He served three tours in Vietnam and he remembers the horrible treatment he and his fellow veterans received upon returning to the States. He likened it to Reid’s disrespectful actions and words.

“I know what it felt like,” Ferroggiaro said. “The civilian population had a hard time looking us in the eyes. Commanders told us not to wear our uniforms in public.

“I came here because it was the right thing to do.”

Neither Pelosi’s nor Reid’s leadership has led to a successful timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. And their behavior is apparently having an effect on public opinion. Congress now has a lower approval rating than President Bush.

MAF’s Morgan swears she won’t stop her efforts until the war is won.

“We can, and will, honor our troops by blowing some air into their sails as they fight a dirty and dangerous war,” Morgan said. “They are trying to cut the budget that funds our soldiers in harm’s way. That’s unacceptable. Senator Reid told the world ‘we are losing in Iraq.’ I DARE him to say that to a fighting man or woman in theatre. It’s disgusting.”


The Case for Hegemony

The Case for Hegemony

By Robert T. McLean

On April 30th, the State Department released a report noting a 25% increase in terrorist attacks around the world in 2006, ostensibly signaling the emergence of a period of unparalleled danger.  Indeed, the end of the Cold War did not usher in an era of universal peace, but rather unleashed both rogue regimes and non-state actors to pursue ambitious and destabilizing goals.  Today global hostilities are covered with unprecedented scrutiny magnifying their destruction and expanding the perception that the world has become concurrently more perilous and exceedingly unpredictable.  This has unleashed a nostalgic desire for the simplicity of the past that has now expanded to virtually every corner of the globe. 

The bipolar international structure of the Cold War is often warmly remembered as a time when the balance of power – aided by the commonly understood inevitability of mutual assured destruction – ensured a relatively peaceful world where a war between the superpowers was largely unfeasible.  By contrast, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the threats of international terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and the instability of the greater Middle East draw many to the deduction that perhaps a multipolar world where no single power maintains hegemony is the preferable path towards a more stable and peaceful future. 
Such judgments have justified, if not formed the basis for, the current strategies of Russia and China to balance the power of the United States.  Russian President Vladimir Putin recently derided Washington’s attempts to create a unipolar world while speaking at the Munich Conference on Security Policy in February, as he explained that such actions have led to an increasing number of global conflicts.  Defense Minister Sergey Ivanov clarified Putin’s remarks to Itar-Tass, Russia’s main government news agency, when he noted the following: “We say that a unipolar world does not lead to anything good, there are many times more conflicts now than at the time of the Cold War.”  
To be sure, this line of thinking is neither new nor confined to those outside the United States apprehensive of the unquestioned primacy of a single foreign power.  Writing in the Atlantic Monthly in August 1990, University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer wrote an essay self-explanatorily titled “Why We Will Soon Miss the Cold War.”  The central supposition was simple: with the loss of order provided by the structural compositions of the Cold War, a Hobbesian anarchy was destined to shape the future of international relations.  Of course Mearsheimer was not alone in his views.  He has been joined by not only a growing number of “realists” weary of the costs associated with hegemony, but also a different sort of critic represented by the increasing number of anti-American leftists in the United States who are inherently suspicious of American power.
With the growing level of agreement that the United States should abandon its role as world’s lone superpower, some questions must be asked.  May Mearsheimer and his radical leftist counterparts have been right?  Is the Kremlin accurate in its assessment they we have indeed reached a time of unprecedented conflict and global disorder?  A rather simple exploration of history illustrates that, on the contrary to those who disparage the preservation of American hegemony, the world has indeed become significantly more peaceful since the end of the Cold War.
According to data compiled by the University of Maryland, an average of 52.5 wars occurred per decade of the Cold War through 1984.  As a result of those conflicts, an average of nearly 4.6 million people died per decade.  This is hardly peaceful.  By contrast, the Uppsala Conflict Data Program in Sweden found that state-based conflicts decreased by approximately 40% from 1992 to 2005.  Battle deaths since 1990 make up only a small fraction of those incurred through any decade during the Cold War, and the frequency of attempted military coups has dropped significantly; an average of 12.8 occurred per year between 1962 and 1991, while just 5.9 were attempted per year from 1992 through 2006.  From 1989 to 2005 the number of genocides decreased by 90%. 
A common misperception of the post-Cold War era maintains that while conventional battles between states have decreased, globalization and the deterioration of stability have put civilian lives at risk as the barriers between combatant and civilian have broken down from the growing number terror attacks and civil conflicts.  However, as the authors of the University of British Columbia’s Human Security Brief 2006 noted in their latest annual report: “notwithstanding the increase in terrorist attacks, the number of civilian victims of intentional organized violence remains appreciably lower today than it was during the Cold War years.”  Thus, all of the leading indicators – number of wars, battle deaths, civilian lives lost – point to a more peaceful and stable world under American primacy. 
If the confrontation of the Cold War is not a correct paradigm for a peaceful future, perhaps one resembling that of the Concert of Powers and the long held mutual goal of a balance of power that prevailed in Europe between 1815 and 1914 would provide a greater blueprint for the 21st century.  Such a restructuring of the world order has been called for from analysts and commentators as diverse as Henry Kissinger and Noam Chomsky.  But was the world after the fall of Napoleon until the outbreak of World War I really as peaceful as some of the advocates of balance of power would lead you to believe? 
While a continent-spanning great power conflict was avoided until the outbreak of the First World War, the peace established at the Congress of Vienna in 1815 did not last long.  By 1829, the Russo-Turkish War had concluded leaving more than 130,000 dead.  This was not the last time these two powers would go to war as an approximate 200,000 died in further hostilities in 1877 and 1878.  In the meantime, the Russians faced the Polish Insurrection between 1830 and 1831 – they had been granted control of much of Poland at the Congress of Vienna – leaving at least 20,000 dead, while the First Carlist War in Spain ended only after more than 30,000 lost their lives.   The Crimean War of 1854 to1856 resulted in approximately 300,000 deaths; the Seven Weeks War in 1866 killed 35,000; and by the time the Franco-Prussian War concluded in 1871 more than 200,000 had lost their lives.  Additional competition between the European powers for empire and the influence and resources that go along with it was also not without incident. 
In fact, it was largely the example of the tumultuous environment of 19th century Europe that molded America’s earliest perceptions of a proper security environment.  What was essentially conceived by George Washington and was later refined by John Quincy Adams, American leaders have long sought to avoid entangling the nation in any sort of foreign policy based on balance of power. Expressing his deep seated reluctance for any type of balance of power in the Western Hemisphere, Adams noted in 1811 that were the United States not to emerge as the hegemon of the Americas, “we shall have an endless multitude of little insignificant clans and tribe at eternal war with one another for a rock or a fish pond, the sport and fable of European masters and oppressors.”  Multipolarity, in the absence of a global congruence of interests and widespread cooperation, will inevitably lead to such a situation the world over. 
Critics of American efforts to maintain its primacy often point to the economic, political, and military costs associated with such ambition.  These concerns are not without merit, but they also overlook the costs incurred when a peer competitor arises as was the case throughout much of the Cold War.  The average annual percentage of GDP spent on defense during the Cold War was roughly 7% compared to less than 4% since 1991.  Thus, the so-called “peace dividend” would be more appropriately labeled the “primacy dividend” as the United States was not at war at until the collapse of the Soviet Union, but rather was in a costly struggle to outlast a peer competitor. Additional criticisms about the costs in American lives are also unfounded.  During the Cold War an average of about 18,000 American military personnel died as a result of hostile action per decade. Even if we count the civilian lives lost on 9/11, that number has decreased a staggering 83% since 1990.  Finally, the questions of the political consequences incurred as a result of hegemony are, at the minimum, significantly exaggerated.  It was the not so not-aligned Non-Aligned Movement that emerged out of the Cold War, and even “Old Europe” is returning to the acknowledgement that there is a pervasive parallel in values and interests with the United States.
Indeed, any future deterioration of American hegemony would be accompanied by catastrophic consequences.  History reveals that tragic violence inevitably follows newly created power vacuums.  The decline of the Ottoman Empire brought on a massacre of the Armenians, and the end of British rule in India resulted in massive devastation in South Asia.  As was persuasively illustrated in Niall Ferguson’s War of the World, the weakening and contraction of Western empires were indispensable contributors to the unprecedented bloodshed of the 20th century.  Make no mistake, history will repeat itself – beginning in Iraq – should the United States loose its nerve and retract from its responsibilities as the world’s lone superpower.  While it has become fashionable to proclaim that the 21st Century will emerge as the “Asian Century,” the United States – and its many allies – should do everything in their powers to insure that we are indeed at the dawn of a new American century. 
Robert T. McLean is a Research Associate at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C. 

Bush says he will veto new Dem war bill

DOA Again

Bush says he will veto new Dem war bill


WASHINGTON (AP) – President Bush would veto any bill drafted by House Democratic leaders that would fund the Iraq war only into the summer months, his spokesman said Wednesday.

And Defense Secretary Robert Gates told a Senate committee that such short-term funding would be very disruptive and “have a huge impact” on contracts to repair and replace equipment. The Defense Department, he said, just doesn’t “have the agility to manage a two month appropriation.” (Read More)

Posted by Pat Dollard 7 Comments

America! Why have you abandoned us?

America! Why have you abandoned us?

By Gerd Schroeder

An open letter to the American People

My fellow Americans; what have the American Fighting men and women done to cause you to abandon them in a foreign land, surrounded by sinister people that are bent on killing them and all Americans? Do we believe that these people, who think nothing of killing men, women, and children of their own race, culture, and religion, will hesitate a moment if given the chance to destroy us, our families, and our freedoms?
And they know that Congress has cut off spending for our troops.
Where is the sort of overwhelming swell of outrage of the American people that caused the rather benign “Dubai Ports deal” to be killed in less than a month?  Why have the halls of Congress and the Whitehouse not been overwhelmed by citizens outraged over the abandonment of our fighting men and women?   Is the silence a sign that shock jocks, and dead playmates are more important to American than our soldiers?
While politicians on both sides of the political spectrum have quibbled about timelines, a date for withdrawal from Iraq, and $24 billion in pork to buy votes, the American Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan have been all but forgotten.  The American people’s silence is morale-crushing and a betrayal.  For whatever purpose we believe our soldiers have gone to war, surely abandonment in a hostile, foreign land was not it.
Over 200,000 American Warriors, deployed around the world in austere and hellish conditions, are always in the crosshairs of evil people bent on killing them.  Over 3350 have freely, and honorably, given their lives; over 24,300 have been wounded and maimed for us, for our families, and for our freedoms in this war.  They sacrifice, not for money, education, and world travel – as some have suggested.  They sacrifice their lives for their oaths to us.  Their oaths are not to the President, Congress, or a military commander.  Their oaths are to us. To the American People.
This is the oath of the American enlisted Soldier, Marine, Airman, and Sailor:

“I, (your son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, neighbor, and friend), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

The oath of an officer is similar:

“I, (your son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, neighbor, and friend), (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.”

The Warrior Ethos:

I am an American Soldier.
I am a Warrior and a member of a team. I serve the people of the United States and live the Army Values.

The following are four examples out of tens of thousands of warriors fulfilling their oaths to you.
I will always place the mission first.
“Mission First” meant more than mere words to Sgt. Christian P. Engeldrum.  The 39-yearold firefighter from Bronx, N.Y., served on active duty in the Army from 1986 to 1991 and was in Operation Desert Storm.  He returned to New York, trading his Army uniform for a policeman’s.  Several years later, he became a New York City firefighter.  He was awarded a N.Y. Fire Department citation for bravery on July 15, 2000, for successfully rescuing two people in a fire on West 110th St. in Manhattan.
September 11, 2001 was a turning point in his life. On that day, he and fellow firefighters from Ladder 61 in the Bronx responded to the World Trade Center attacks.  For the next few months he assisted in the recovery effort, digging through the rubble. 
Sgt. Engeldrum then rejoined the Army, serving with the 1st Battalion, 69th Infantry Regiment, of the New York Army National Guard.  “He loved his country, he loved being a firefighter and he was 100% Soldier,” said one of his fellow firefighters. 
Sgt. Engeldrum is the first New York firefighter to die in Iraq since the U.S.-led war began. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said, “I join all New Yorkers in mourning his loss and pray that his family finds comfort in the innumerable ways he touched so many lives.”  Sgt Engeldrum is survived by his wife Sharon and two sons Royce, 16 and Sean, 18.
I will never accept defeat.
The President of the United States of America, authorized by Act of Congress, March 3, 1863, has awarded, in the name of Congress, the Medal of Honor to

Sergeant First Class Paul R. Smith, United States Army

For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty:

Sergeant First Class Paul R. Smith distinguished himself by acts of gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty in action with an armed enemy near Baghdad International Airport, Baghdad, Iraq on 4 April 2003. On that day, Sergeant First Class Smith was engaged in the construction of a prisoner of war holding area when his Task Force was violently attacked by a company-sized enemy force. Realizing the vulnerability of over 100 fellow soldiers, Sergeant First Class Smith quickly organized a hasty defense consisting of two platoons of soldiers, one Bradley Fighting Vehicle and three armored personnel carriers. As the fight developed, Sergeant First Class Smith braved hostile enemy fire to personally engage the enemy with hand grenades and anti-tank weapons, and organized the evacuation of three wounded soldiers from an armored personnel carrier struck by a rocket propelled grenade and a 60mm mortar round. Fearing the enemy would overrun their defenses, Sergeant First Class Smith moved under withering enemy fire to man a .50 caliber machine gun mounted on a damaged armored personnel carrier. In total disregard for his own life, he maintained his exposed position in order to engage the attacking enemy force. During this action, he was mortally wounded. His courageous actions helped defeat the enemy attack, and resulted in as many as 50 enemy soldiers killed, while allowing the safe withdrawal of numerous wounded soldiers. Sergeant First Class Smith’s extraordinary heroism and uncommon valor are in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon himself, the Third Infantry Division “Rock of the Marne,” and the United States Army.
I will never quit.
Army Capt. David Rozelle, 31, lost part of his right leg below the knee in a June 2003 land mine explosion near Hit, Iraq.  But Rozelle was not about to quit. While going through an oftentimes, painful recovery at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, he spearheaded the effort to put together a team of other amputees from the medical center for the Army Ten-Miler race in October 2004. Dubbed the “Missing (Parts) In Action team-Some Assembly Required”-the team included troops from each of the military services.  Rozelle ran the 10-mile race in just 1 hour, 38 minutes-just 16 months after the loss of his lower leg in what most would term a “debilitating” injury. In addition to running the race, he returned to the Ski Slopes in Colorado at the National Disabled Veterans Winter Sports Clinic.

But Rozelle was not just interested in his own recovery. He wanted to help other injured Soldiers.  Rozelle sees sports as a healing tool for Soldiers like himself. He is working to establish an amputee support group at his duty station, Fort Carson, CO, where he knows of other Soldiers with prosthetics. The group will not only focus on networking Soldiers with prosthetics, but getting them involved in outdoor sports as well. “I want to give Soldiers someone to talk to who has made it through what they’re facing, let them ask questions, and have them see me walking,” he said.  But most incredible of all, Rozelle wanted to remain on active duty and return to Iraq. And, the Army granted him his wish. He was the commanding officer of Regimental Headquarters Troop, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, a unit that deployed to Iraq in early March 2005.  While Rozelle’s story is compelling, it is not unique. He is just one of many Soldiers who demonstrates daily their commitment to live by the ideals contained in the Warrior Ethos, “I will never quit” and “I will never accept defeat.”
I will never leave a fallen comrade.
U.S. Army Command Sgt. Major.  Ron Riling was awarded the Silver Star for his actions in Al Rammadi Iraq on April 6, 2004.   He said he was honored to be awarded the Silver Star, but he‘d gladly give it back if it would bring back the 12 Marines who lost their lives that day in Rammadi.  Riling said the decision to enter the fray was an easy one.  “The colonel looked at me and said ‘Sgt Major, let’s go” Riling quickly organized his forces and rushed to help.  They immediately came under fire from every direction.  The Marine squad has been pinned down by snipers and was in terrible shape.  The squad leader was dead, and three of the seven Marines were seriously wounded.  Riling absorbed the Marines into his team and they fought their way out, taking with then all their dead and wounded.

These are our Soldiers

Are the actions above of someone just after money for an education?  Of a person seeking a poor paying job?  Of a person trying to defraud the American people of their money?  If this is what we think, then America is truly in dire straits. We know that this is not how the majority of good Americans view their Soldiers. But then why the lack of strong, decisive action in defense of the American Soldier? 
Soldiers like these, and thousands of others like them, have been forsaken by the American people, who are failing to engage the elected officials of this government.  By our silence we allow our elected government to play games with Soldiers’ lives for personal gain, ego, and selfishness.  During the month that this funding cutoff debate debate has gone on, over 100 brave men have lost their lives in Iraq alone, protecting the American people. 
Stories like these number in the thousands.  Each story is a sacrifice for our families and us.  It is imperative that the American People understand their power, and responsibility in compelling the passage of this measure by the elected officials of this country. Without our intercession, on behalf of our military, the funds that the troops need will not arrive in time.  Soldiers will suffer and die needlessly.
The bill that came out of conference, passed by the Congress, and has been vetoed by the President is an embarrassment to this country.  It is a slap in the face to all the military families that have consecrated their loved ones to us to preserve our freedom.
Perhaps some have waved off the critical nature of this impasse, and think that in the end, and in time, the Congress and President will come together.  This is a dangerous assumption.  Heavy pressure from the American People on all 535 members of Congress and the President is the only way to shake them from their power-induced stupor. 
Does America deserve the sacrifice the U.S. Military makes for them?  The people’s inaction is an indictment of leadership in the White House and Congress; but more disheartening, it is an indictment of the American People in their abandoning the military in time of war.  A blanket of shame has covered this great land, its leaders, and people.  Americans should hang their heads in shame, for a moment, and then overwhelm the government of this country in protest supporting the troops in time of war. 
Gerd Schroeder is a Major in the United States Army.  His views are his own.  He does not speak for the US Army or Department of Defense.

The Democrats’ unilateral war policy

The Democrats’ unilateral war policy

By Ray Robison

It wasn’t too long ago that the Bush Administration suffered the barbs of Democrat leaders who decried US “unilateralism” in Iraq. As recently as April 23, 2007 Senator Harry Reid (D-Nevada) “painted the president’s war policy as unilateral.”

But now the Democrats’ move to pull US Forces from Iraq would constitute a unilateral abandonment, and override the will of the vaunted international community. All of a sudden it is the Democrats who are behaving like unilateral cowboys and breaking away from the accepted international framework.
In June of 2004, the US presence in Iraq was approved by the United Nations in an overwhelming multilateral fashion. This CNN report explained the views of the “international community” about US forces remaining in Iraq. By unanimous vote fifteen members of the UN Security Council approved the resolution that says the multinational force will serve “at the request of the incoming interim government of Iraq” and that the force can be asked to leave at anytime.
That’s right, the “occupation” of Iraq ended almost three years ago when it became a UN mandate to stabilize and provide security for Iraq.
Remember how apoplectic the Democrat leadership became because France, Germany, and Russia opposed the US war against Saddam Hussein and President Bush went “cowboy” – or “went it alone”? Well I guess the Democrats don’t need FGR approval after all, since all three approved the measure that the Democrats now seek to unilaterally overturn:

“Germany supports this resolution as an important step towards the restoration of full sovereignty of the Iraqi interim government in all relevant areas and towards Iraqi ownership,” said Germany’s U.N. ambassador, Gunter Pleuger.

French Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere noted that the recent negotiations were “demanding,” but that the world body considered France’s concerns.

“Our main concern has been taken into account, and this is why we think it is a good resolution,” he said.

Putin called the resolution a “major step forward.”
UN leader Kofi Anon chimed in:

“I believe it is a genuine expression of the will of the international community … to help the Iraqi people take charge of their own political destiny — in peace and freedom — under a sovereign government.”

The fledgling Iraqi government weighed in when its’ Foreign Minister said of the resolution that “We need these forces. It is an Iraqi need, more than an American or coalition need. The consequences would be catastrophic.” He also reminded the council that Iraq had been liberated from Saddam. Considering that all fifteen members of the Security Council authorized US forces to stay and support the Iraqi government, the concept of Iraqi liberation was finally recognized by action at the UN, an act that the Democrats now want to unilaterally abandon.
Since 2004, a second resolution (1723) has been passed with unanimous approval again that says the Iraqi government should continue to transition to a democratic government under the protection of the Multi-National Forces (MNF) until it can provide for its’ own security. While Russia and France made clear that they expected an end point for US forces to withdrawal, even they did not specify a timetable.
The measure also recognized progress in Iraq which Democrat leadership and their media accomplices have continuously refused to concede:

Welcoming the progress made to date in the training and equipping of Iraqi security forces as well as in the transfer of security responsibilities to those forces in Muthanna and Dhi Qar provinces and looking forward to the continuation of that process during 2007″

Anybody expect to hear Congressman Murtha “supporting the troops” by touting their success? Me neither.
The 2006 measure goes where the Democrats will not by recognizing that Iraq is under attack by terrorists and that it is the responsibility of all nations to fight terrorism:

Reaffirming that acts of terrorism must not be allowed to disrupt Iraq’s political and economic transition, and further reaffirming the obligations of Member States under resolution 1618 (2005) of 4 August 2005 and other relevant resolutions and international conventions with respect, inter alia, to terrorist activities in and from Iraq or against its citizens,

Contrast that to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who still calls Iraq a “distraction” from the fight against terrorism.
A bizarre condition now exists in which the United Nations provides a more reasonable and realistic assessment of the conditions in Iraq than our own Democratic Party leadership. The American Democratic Party has now moved to the left of France and Russia.
Who is unilateral now?
Ray Robison is co-author of the book Both in One Trench, a blogger, and a frequent contributor to American Thinker.




by Bob Parks

When some of hear the words of our “leadership”, many of us are outraged. Many of us wonder how those we elect can be so callous and insensitive. Many of us wonder if those that were elected really know how their words affect people.

I’m beginning to understand.

This is a sensitive topic in my home and I can only imagine our situation multiplied by the hundreds of mothers who are going through what one is going through here.

A son who volunteered to join the United States Armed Forces is shipping out this week for training before going to The Show. A mother is facing a reality while insensitive politicians are telling her that he’s going there for a lost cause.

I keep my finger on the remote control when newscasts turn to “The War” in an effort to shield her from news that will, over the coming months, become very up close and personal. All that, while United States Senators and Congressmen privately gloat that “bad news” will be good for them politically next November.

What will these leaders say tomorrow to comfort the hundreds of mothers nationwide who break down, sobbing uncontrollably, whose minds are constantly throwing around the worst of possibilities. Instead of leading by example and being respectful of their fellow citizens and the unease that’s mounting, elected idiots are predicting electoral advantage with every star that goes from blue to gold.

The sobbing part is not a slam, but an acknowledgement of the heart these women show for their children. Big difference from those we see in videos of women in the Middle East proudly sending their children to blow themselves up along with innocent civilians. Our mothers are watching their sons and daughters go face an enemy that would blow their children up here if given the chance.

It’s not just the mothers whose lives are upside down. Whole families whose sons and daughters are in theater now are anguishing every time the news comes into their homes, just to have some reckless Washington elites act on one hand like they care about those families, and on the other hand tell the world they are a bunch of losers from the general down to the private.

Taking this one day at a time is the only solution these mothers have. Kind of like Chinese water torture. Living with someone who is directly affected brings the reality of this conflict home. While Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid salivate with the prospects of this war giving them a larger Democrat majority, those who are reeking havoc in the Middle East salivate knowing that there are Americans actively participating in the breaking of our will as a people to the benefit of terrorists worldwide.

Breaking the will of the enemy is the means to victory in modern warfare.

“They are looking at all this, they read newspapers, they see it on television and they say, ‘The American domestic resolve is weakening, therefore we should maintain our resolve. If there is a perception of an America defeat in Iraq, that will leave the whole of the Middle East in great turmoil and will be an enormous victory for terrorism.”
– Australian Prime Minister John Howard

Pelosi, Reid, and the American left have insulted the Iraqi government officials who are marked for summary execution by the terrorists. Some government officials have indeed been assassinated going to work. Our politicians’ only worry is traffic. For our elected officials to denigrate the risks the Iraqi government endures daily is another example of the heartless incompetence that is the anti-war movement. But such ignorance of what is going on there is yet another example of why their statements are irresponsible to the point of treasonous.

I wonder how President Truman would deal with a fellow Democrat that declared we were losing during the battles that comprised World War II? Although I wasn’t around then, I believe there would be a sense of compassion for the parents, especially the mothers of the sons that were living in the constant worry that only a mother can have for a child.

I wish to share this letter, in case you haven’t seen it, sent to Senator Reid and share it with all the mothers you know who have children going or already in Iraq….

When you say we’ve lost in Iraq, I don’t think you understand the effect of your words. The Iraqis I speak with are the good guys here, fighting to build a stable government. They hear what you say, but they don’t understand it. They don’t know about the political game, they don’t know about a Presidential veto, and they don’t know about party politics.

But they do know that if they help us, they are noticed by terrorists and extremists. They decide to help us if they think we can protect them from those terrorists. They tell us where caches of weapons are hidden. They call and report small groups of men who are strangers to the neighborhood. Men, who look the same to us, but are obvious to them as a foreign suicide cell.

To be brief, your words are killing us. Your statements make the Iraqis afraid to help us for fear we’ll leave them unprotected in the future. They then don’t report a cache, and its weapons blow up my friends in convoy. They don’t report a foreign fighter, and that fighter sends a mortar onto my base. Your statements are noticed, and they have an effect.

Finally, you are mistaken when you say we are losing. We are winning. I see it every day. However, we will win with fewer casualties if you help us. Will you?”

LT Jason Nichols, USN”

When listening to the words of politicians, I fear those words are being heard. Those on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan have lots worse to deal with, and claims that the war is “lost” are just pissing them off. During military training, in all phases, we do not teach how to lose.

The problem is, aside from support groups which are quite valuable and noble, no one has taught the mothers how to lose. As we’re not the ignoramii the left considers us, we all know what ultimate defeat would mean, there and later here.

The Democrat leadership obviously appreciates the fact the war is confined and won’t impinge on their opulence. The war is already here and the mothers of those serving are in a world Pelosi and Reid wouldn’t think of imposing on themselves.

They may not hear the private sobs of fear and anguish from the mothers of our soldiers, but a lot of us do, and it’s never a good idea to make someone’s mother cry.





Discuss This Article


As Expected, Appeasement Advocates are Encouraged and Concerned by Bad News

As Expected, Appeasement Advocates are Encouraged and Concerned by Bad News

Another embarrassingly bad week for advocates of appeasing totalitarianism. Not to worry: cooler heads will pevail. And so much is happening behind the scenes. And … so it goes.

A brief roundup:

Rising China’s Stalinist/Kimist vassal, North Korea, blew off a key deadline (see story below), and the four-year-old struggle to get the rogue regime to begin dismantling its nuclear programs remained stalled Saturday.

Beijing urged patience, while America’s dumbbell diplomats said they were “concerned” but also “encouraged.” (They have yet to figure out if Pyongyang’s program is limited to plutonium bombs or includes clandestine uranium enrichment.)

So much for the Korean peninsula. Over in Iran, the nuclear-arming mullahocracy–China’s most important ally in the Muslim world–continued to defy the West with its uranium enrichment boasts.

Tehran’s turbaned tyrants also turned up the heat in Lebanon. Amid reports that Iranian proxy Hezbollah was preparing for a summer war with Israel, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah made a fiery speech suggesting a determination to take power in Lebanon even if it leads to a new civil war. (Nasrallah is now a looming influence in Syria. The secular Baathist dictatorship, as part of an attempt to appease an Islamist revival sweeping the country, has promoted his beaming, bearded visage in banners, posters, and tee-shirts.)

The bloodshed in Iraq picked up at week’s end with suicide bombings in Baghdad that killed dozens of civilians. Still, Washington clings to the notion that a combination of military force and diplomacy can somehow end the war without leaving competing Iranian-backed and Al Qaeda-associated factions in charge of the fractured country.

There was one piece of good news in the region. While Iraq’s Islamist maniacs were spilling innocent blood Saturday, more than 300,000 Turks marched to try to stop the ruling AK Party from picking Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan as their presidential candidate next week because of his Islamist roots. The party was spawned by rightwing political Islam. The possibility of a presidency headed by Erdogan has split secular but predominantly Muslim Turkey, which is seeking European Union membership.

“Turkey is secular and will remain secular,” protesters shouted as they waved national flags and banners of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, revered founder of the republic that separated religion and state.

Some protesters called on the government to resign and chanted: “We don’t want an imam as president.”

Erdogan has supporters and sympathizers in the US foreign policy establishment. They see him as a model, so-called moderate, “Islamist-leaning” leader.