Al Qaeda Bill of Rights I Rejected!

In a terribly narrow 51-48-1 vote, the Senate rejected Item I of the Al Qaeda Bill of Rights, an Amendment by Arlen Specter (R PA) which would have given the right to a writ of habeas corpus to the terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay. Briefly, habeas corpus provides that no prisoner can be held without charges being pressed. The prisoners at Guantanamo are not common criminals; they are rather enemy combatants and 315 of them have already been released due to insufficient evidence. Somehow, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International cannot bring themselves to report that some of them have been released. (At least 12 of those 315 have rejoined the terrorists on the battlefield in Afghanistan.) Enemy combatants and POWs have traditionally been imprisoned without the necessity of charges until the end of hostilities.
On Item I of the Al Qaeda Bill of Rights, every Democrat in the Senate except Nelson (D NE), voted Yea. Other supporters include Jeffords (I VT) and Chafee (R RI) who always vote with the Left, and three actual Republicans, Specter (R PA), Smith (R OR), and Sununu (R NH) also support more legal rights for terrorists. Olympia Snowe (R ME) sat on her hands. A few words of praise are due the moderate Republicans, Susan Collins, Chuck Hagel, Lindsey Graham and John McCain, for their refusal to stab the President in the back. The back-handed tone of that compliment to them is highly intentional.
After the failure of the Specter Amendment, the Senate voted 65-34-1 in favor of the Military Tribunals program for the Guantanamo terrorists. I don't write this often, but we've seen a productive last few days in the Senate.

Senate Passes Fence Bill!

The good news is, the pro-enforcement side of the illegal immigration debate scored a victory yesterday when the Senate passed a bill to build a 700-mile fence to enforce our border with Mexico. The bill passed 80-19-1, with Senator Kennedy (D, MA) sitting this one out on advice from "Splash," his Senatorial mascot. (That's not a joke. Senator Kennedy has a dog named Splash and he's written a children's book about their relationship.) It pays to note who the 19 Senators are who want to let as many illegal aliens in as possible.
Both of Hawaii's Senators, Akaka (D) and Inouye (D) voted Nay, but in all candor they have no dog in this fight. Bingamon (D NM) does, however, and this vote might hurt him, as it might hurt Harry Reid (D NV). The others are the typical liberal line-up: Cantwell (D WA), Murray (D WA) Levin (D MI), Durbin (D IL), Reed, (D RI) Chafee (R RI), (who continues to block the confirmation of John Bolton to the UN ambassadorship) Feingold (D WI), Jeffords (I VT), Leahy (D VT), Kerry (D MA), Lautenberg (D NJ), Menendez (D NJ), Sarbanes (D MD), and Salazar (D CO). All of the Democrats except Kerry who dream of the White House (Clinton, Obama, Schumer, Bayh, Harkin, etc.) voted Yea.
Lieberman (D CT) also voted against building the fence, which should remind all of the "Lieberman is a hawk" Republicans and Independents in Connecticut that old Joe is just as liberal on 99% of the issues facing the Senate as is John Kerry.
If you live in Nevada, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Illinois, Colorado, New Jersey, Hawaii, Washington, Wisconsin, Michigan, Vermont, Maryland, Connecticut or Massachusetts, you might voice some displeasure to your Senators on this occasion. Enforcement of the border is necessary as we seek to stem the tide of illegal immigrants, illegal drugs, and possibly terrorists. Some of them have come into the United States through Canada. It is probably only a matter of time before they come in through Mexico.

The Truth About Iraq Casualties

I have completed my compilation of the casualties at icasualties.org. The database at that site reports casualties, designating which ones are hostile and non-hostile, but it calculates the total toll in life without regard for the causes of death. It strikes me as slightly deceptive to count our 55 deaths from illnesses, including heart attacks, strokes, etc., as part of the death toll in Iraq. Through the end of August, the Coalition has lost 2,276 soldiers in hostile circumstances, with 595 deaths from non-hostile causes. We had also lost 230 troops from Great Britain and the other Coalition members by the end of August, which is a death toll we never hear about.
We've all been hearing lately about how bad things are in Baghdad - so bad that we are diverting troops to Baghdad from other areas. In fact, we have given the entire provice of Dhi Qar over to Iraqi control, so we've had the troops available for the diversion. As I performed my calculation, I divided hostile casualties by month, province, and monitored the toll in 6-month increments. The war in Iraq has lasted for exactly 42 months, so there are seven 6-month increments on my spreadsheet. In hostile realms, we have lost 83 soldiers in the last six months in Baghdad. That total is tied for the 4th-highest (and 4th-lowest) of the war, and a far cry below the 105 who were killed in the previous six months.
In Anbar province, the largest and most dangerous province, the last six months have only been worse than the previous six months by 7 deaths, going from 137 to 144. In Anbar, the worst period was the Sep04-Feb05 period, when we lost 203 soldiers in hostile encounters.
Additionally, it pays to note that total coalition deaths from March-August 2006 have numbered 370, which is the lowest total since the period ending in February 2004 and the third-lowest overall.
Finally, the realm that is nearest my heart, as a Company Safety Officer: In the last six months only 47 coalition troops have been killed in non-hostile circumstances, such as vehicle accidents, weapons accidents, suicides, etc. This is the lowest total thus far recorded in the entire war.
Sectarian violence is in the news plenty enough, but I take heart knowing that my comrades in arms are improving their chances of survival.
I'll be glad to email my casualty compilation spreadsheet to anyone who requests it.

Movie Review: Airplane! **1/2

It may have been a very near miss, but I am differing from Brent Hayward (a buddy from Advanced Camp) and the AFI on this review. The AFI ranked the disaster movie spoof "Airplane!" at spot #10 in its top 100 funniest movies ever. (“Some Like it Hot” was #1 and I heartily agree.) Sadly, the movie made in the year of my birth missed overall, though it had a few moments that were side-splitting, including the arguing loudspeaker voices at the airport and the frequent literal interpretations of expressions. (Doctor: We must get this girl to a hospital. Stewardess: A hospital? What is it? Doctor: It's a large building with patients, but that's not important now.) The best such gag came when the news reporters found out that the airplane was in trouble and invaded the office to interview the controllers. At the end they asked, "May we take some pictures?" and after the affirmative reply they emptied the walls of all of their framed photographs of airplanes and carried them out under their arms. Lloyd Bridges was a nervous controller whose stress increased with the peril of the plane. ("It looks like I picked the wrong week to stop smoking...drinking...taking amphetamines...sniffing glue.) Bridges and one other controller had the best scenes, I think.
Typically, a former fighter pilot, haunted by his war experiences has to take over the controls when the pilots and navigator come down with food poisoning. A storm is on, so the controllers got a veteran pilot to talk the pilot, whom he had known previously and hated, through the landing. Robert Hays played the pilot with a past and Julie Hagerty played the girl who couldn't marry him until he learned to deal with his past. Their former romance, with its flashback takeoffs on “Saturday Night Fever” and “From Here to Eternity” may have been "Airplane's" main Achilles' heel. Leslie Nielsen was typically humorous as the doctor, who delivers the "Win one for the Zipper" speech to get Hays to go through with the landing. Robert Stack as the veteran pilot had a memorable moment when he was trying to reach the terminal through the horde of religious types giving out flowers and asking for donations. He eventually had to punch and kick his way through them. As the plane is about to land, the runway landing lights go out, of course, but a grinning controller exclaims, "just kidding" and plugs the cord back in. Some ill taste in humor, (very ill in some cases) profane language and a highly unpleasant shock during the scene of bedlam in the airplane make "Airplane!" a movie that you might want to see once when you are "old enough." The TV version would be good, I think.

Paul Smith, Hero of the Week

Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is a sin if not a crime how little we know about the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who have been fighting with great tenacity in Iraq and earned some of our nation's highest awards. President Bush has not publicized them because he would be accused of politicizing the war and exploiting the courage of these brave men and women. I think he should place them in the gallery at his State of the Union address and salute them, saying, "It's a hard job, a deadly job and in many cases a thankless job, but no matter what you think about the cause they fight for, these servicemen have acted heroically, and I applaud them." Oh well, I haven't been hired as a Presidential speechwriter yet. So, the job the Bush Administration has chosen not to do, the job the Drive-By Media won't do falls to the small-time blogosphere to publicize. For the record, most of the stories I have about heroism in Iraq have come from a number of articles in Human Events newspaper and online sources.
Our first Hero of the Week, naturally, is the only man thus far to earn the Medal of Honor for his heroic conduct in Iraq. Sergeant First Class Paul Ray Smith of Bravo Company, 11th Engineer Battalion, Task Force 2-7 Infantry, 3rd Infantry Division, was a veteran of Desert Storm and had served terms in Bosnia and Kosovo. His engineer company led the battalion in support of Task Force 2-7 Infantry as they crossed into Iraq on March 19, 2003. They drove through the Karbala Gap in an all-night march on April 3, pressing towards Baghdad Airport.
On April 4, 2003, his unit was assigned to construct a POW holding area outside the airport and they chose to use a Republican Guard Complex for that function. When they knocked down a gate to the complex, a company-sized element of enemy soldiers came swarming out at them. Sergeant Smith had at hand only one Bradley Fighting vehicle, three M113 armored personnel carriers and two platoons of soldiers. Organizing a hasty defense, he personnally opened fire with an anti-tank weapon and hurled hand grenades at the Iraqi soldiers. When one armored personnel carrier (APC) sustained hits by an RPG and a 60mm mortar shell, Sergeant Smith assisted in evacuating three wounded men from the vehicle. As the Iraqis threatened to overrun his defenses, Sergeant Smith ran to a .50 caliber machine gun atop a damaged APC and began mowing down the advancing enemy troops. He had placed that particular APC at an intersection to block enemy penetration of his position, so there he took his stand. Firing for an hour and a half, Smith's only request to his men was that they furnish him more ammunition. The Iraqis had a command post in a tower with a mounted machine gun, from which they could lay down withering fire. Smith targeted several footsoldiers on each side of the CP, but could not dislodge the machine gun. Sergeant Smith was killed, but he held off the Iraqis long enough to prevent an overrun and to allow reinforcements to reach his position. After-action reports credited Sergeant First Class Paul Smith with 50 confirmed kills and over 100 American lives saved by his brave stand. He died, but not one of his men was killed that day. On April 4, 2005, President Bush presented the Medal of Honor to Sergeant Smith's wife, Birgit Smith, and his children, David and Jessica. Today, Sergeant Smith's M4 carbine is on display at the Fort Stewart Museum in a display case adjacent to Audie Murphy's M1 carbine.
As a Platoon Sergeant, Paul Ray Smith took his responsibilities to his troops very seriously and sacrificed for them in a number of ways. His sister recounted how back at Fort Stewart he had driven an hour each evening to visit the baby daughter of one of his soldiers who was in the hospital. On another occasion, one of Sergeant Smith's soldiers had been unable to have Christmas with his kids due to his recent surgery. Sergeant Smith and his wife collected food from the Company Christmas party and bought presents for the children and took them to the soldier's home. In his last letter home to his parents, Sergeant Smith wrote about his pride in the privilege, "to be given 25 of the finest Americans we call Soldiers to lead into war." He pledged to give, "all that I am to ensure all of my boys make it home." All gave some, some gave all, but SFC Paul Smith, saved scores of lives while laying his down. He was 33.

Leak Parade

Well, now that another classified document has been leaked and published (bottom line: the leaker is only half of the problem - the publisher is the other half) I guess we might as well start keeping tabs on leaks because they are adding up with fair rapidity. I thought the leaking and publicizing of the NSA Wiretap program was a problem while I was in Iraq because it alerted the terrorists to some of our intelligence and one of our tactics. Monitoring foreign calls to phone numbers which bonafide terrorists had been calling somehow morphed into "domestic spying" once the Drive-by Media got hold of it. I'm still confused about that one A judge ruled recently that these wiretaps without warrants (warrantless because the finding of a phone number does not constitute probable cause) are un-Constitutional, but the Bush Administration declined to even present a case. The plaintiffs presented the case that they have contacts with terrorist-harboring countries; hence their fear of the program. Evidently, it has been working.
The New York Times really crossed the Rubicon when they leaked our Terrorist Financing Network monitoring program and editor David Keller had the gall to defend their decision by saying, "Well, the terrorists know we're going after their funds." As though Benedict Arnold could defend his treachery with, "Everyone already knows the British want to capture West Point."
What is interesting about this latest leak from the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) is that the document is five months old. There is nothing pressing or new about the contents of this intelligence document, but the gist of this particular leaked portion suggests that the Bush policy in the Middle East has increased the number of terrorists. In fact, I agree with the intelligence and see no reason for alarm. Of course the terrorists have stepped up their efforts in answer to the invasion by Americans. Of course the Islamo-Fascists who thrived on Saddam's sponsorships (Was it $35,000 for each suicide bomber's family?) would object to our presence and the establishment of a democratic government. We all remember how they celebrated on September 11, 2001, shooting AK-47s in the air. The terrorists and extremist-minded Muslims hate us because of the Crusades. For those of you on the kook fringe, the Crusades are not what happened after the invasion of Iraq in 2003; they happened 700-900 years ago in response to the Muslim surge of conquest out of the Arabian Peninsula.
We cannot do anything to make the Islamo-Fascists hate us more than they did before September 11, 2001. What has changed since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom is our proximity to them. The terrorists can attempt to kill Christians, Americans, and those who consort with either of the above by planting an IED just down the street from their houses. A democratic government in Iraq is a threat to them unlike any they have faced in the last thirty years. They will continue fighting with all of the strength they can marshal. Our forces need resolve to combat them and our news sources need to stop aiding the enemy with tidbits of our intelligence and tips on how to avoid getting caught.

Al Qaeda Down I

Chalk it up, please. British forces have killed Omar Farouq, a top Al Qaeda leader previously involved in coordinating activities between Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda elements in Indonesia. ("But I'm just not comfortable calling al Qaeda terrorists 'Islamo-Fascists!'" shouts Russ Feingold) American forces captured Omar Farouq in Afghanistan initially, but he escaped from custody there and went to Iraq. Did you hear that? Everyone on Dailykos just screamed, "Nooooooooo!" because, as everyone knows, there's NO connection between al Qaeda and Iraq, and NO connection between the real War on Terror in Afghanistan and Bush's War for Oil in Iraq. We're in Iraq because President Bush decided to take his eye off the ball, so it must be a figment of your imagination that this al Qaeda operative went from Afghanistan to Iraq. Anyway, Omar Farouq, who was in Basra, even though he couldn't have been in Iraq, fired on a squad as it entered his house and they killed him. The men who dispatched him came from the Princess of Wales Royal Regiment, which fact I viewed with interest because a Corporal of that regiment gave us our fratricide briefing at Camp Buehring in Kuwait. Just after arriving in Kuwait in May, 2005, we had a briefing on fratricide prevention to give us information on what other friendly vehicles look like. The general idea was that we not shoot them. He had a strong accent, addressing us as a call for order, "All right, gents, se'tle down, then, se'tle down." We enjoyed that class thoroughly.
Heartiest congratulations to the Princess of Wales Royal Regiment. As you know, I take great satisfaction from these victories for the same reason that I took particular offense at the 9/11 attacks. Getting these guys is the job of men like me, so their victory is partly mine also. Hua!

Stem Cell Watch I

Last Wednesday, researchers in Germany reported another successful treatment using stem cells. When they injected heart-attack patients with stem cells from their own bone marrow, the doctors observed an increase in cardiac pumping efficiency of 7-11% after three months of treatment, including marked improvement in a patient whose heart attack had occurred 30 years earlier. The New England Journal of Medicine published the study and the Los Angeles Times reported the story.

Awards Debut

Dear Taxpayers,
We've had a candidate for vice-president recently who made his fortune of millions by suing Obstetricians over cerebral palsy cases that he said could have been prevented by Ceasarean sections during the delivery. The lootings committed by his ilk caused the rates of C-sections to quadruple in frequency and drove multiple OB-GYN doctors out of practice. Today, over 50 counties in America have no practicing OB-GYNs at all. The rest of the story, of course, is that the rates of cerebral palsy have not changed since this increase in C-sections. Therefore, all of his lawsuits were most likely frivolous and completely baseless.
In honor of this despicable looter from North Carolina, I'm inaugurating the JOHN EDWARDS AWARD FOR DISTINGUISHED AMBULANCE-CHASING. The award need not go to a lawyer who sues doctors. It can go to any lawyer with a distinguished record for suing productive establishments on behalf of the bereaved. The first winner is Mr. Peter Sullivan of New York, a lawyer representing Ms. Kelly Coakley, who is suing Starbucks for $114 million. Starbucks refused to honor a coupon for one free large iced coffee. Company spokesmen explain that the coupon was an email bonus that was supposed to go only to certain Starbucks employees, but Ms. Coakley received it by mistake, so they did not honor her coupon. I got this story from The Week magazine, under a heading "Only in America." I'd have thought that the most she could sue for would be one large iced coffee, but Mr. Sullivan says his client feels extremely betrayed, so he thinks he's being lenient by demanding $114 million. He is requesting class-action status for the others who might have been misled by the same coupon offer. In fairness to my award's namesake, I'm sure John Edwards was not the first lawyer to make looting productive people his chief pursuit. However, he probably was the first to run for president. Congratulations, Mr. Sullivan. If a few more Americans do what you're doing, we can kiss our prosperity good-bye.

The UN and American Policy

President Bush gave a speech recently at Turtle Bay, and I read the comments by a few contributors to National Review Online. They critiqued his rhetoric - too much of this, too little of that, etc. - but they reminded me of how refreshing is Bush's approach to the UN. There was a time in our nation's not-too-distant past when another president acted at the beck and call of the UN.
Do you remember the Cuban-American organization called Brothers to the Rescue? They were a private organization of pilots who flew small propeller planes over the waters south of Florida, looking for defectors from Cuba. In a few instances, the Brothers to the Rescue pilots sighted rafts on the surface and notified the Coast Guard of the refugees fleeing Cuba, thus facillitating their rescue. Two Cuban MiGs shot down two of these pilots over international waters and Fidel Castro thumbed his nose at us from ninety miles away. President Clinton went to the UN and essentially asked for permission to visit reprisals of some sort. He felt their pain, bit his lip, remonstrated with them, and entreated, but the UN refused. Two American citizens had been murdered by the air force of one of America's neighbors, and President Clinton did absolutely nothing about it.
Go ahead, critique President Bush's speech - too much praise of Annan, too little criticism of the UN's impotence - but be thankful for this: W. plans American policy and lets the UN come along for the ride if it wants to. W.'s message to the UN has been consistent over these six years, and it is essentially, "Lead and we'll follow, follow as we lead, or get out of the way and we'll go forward with out true allies without your stamp of approval." Clinton subjected American policy to the wishes of the UN and those two Brothers pilots' families are still waiting for justice. Here is a major reason why we cannot elect presidents who talk of a "Global Test" that American policies must pass. If we elect another Democrat, the UN will be central to our foreign policy rather than peripheral, as it is now. Viva W.!
Another foreign policy development: The U.S. asked NATO allies for 2500 additional troops for Afghanistan. The day had not ended before Poland pledged to send 900. Another cheer for New Europe! Viva Solidarity! Viva la Gipper!

All About Eve

ALL ABOUT EVE ****

I have often thought that the best performances to see are those that win Best Supporting Actor, and last night I was not disappointed with the 1950 winner. Bette Davis at that point had won her two awards and assumed her position as a perennial nominee who never really expected to win. The world of the theater is notorious, and rightly so, for its cutthroat participants. Such is the setting for the winner of Best Picture and 14-Oscar nominee in which Bette Davis plays Margo Channing, a 40-year-old actress who is feeling her years and getting rather MacBethian towards her friends. "All About Eve" opens on an awards ceremony narrated by the extremely dignified George Sanders, who later lent his voice to Sheer Khan in "The Jungle Book." How, he asks, could such a young girl reach such all-consuming prominence in only a year? In the flashback that occupies the bulk of the movie, Anne Baxter is Eve Harrington, the aspiring young starry-eyed actress who desperately desires a break and manages to catch the attention of Celeste Holm, the playwright's wife. Her humility in the face of Miss Channing and gracious actions toward all those involved is a wee bit too good. She seems almost like Melanie Hamilton, except that her sweet demeanor never falters even slightly in the face of all sorts of provocations. Gary Merrill gives a resounding performance that at times left me spellbound, as he shows himself every bit the equal of Bette Davis in some highly intense scenes. He loves her but she doubts his sincerity as she doubts herself in the coming of age. The strains on her career put strain on their relationship but Merrill is faithful always and will not let it go. He is the best director in the business, dating the best actress and they are lifelong friends with the playwright (Hugh Marlowe) and his wife. I postulate that they are fast friends because they have made many enemies in the process of reaching the top of their world. They are the only figures in show business who do not hate the four of them.

As the drama unfolds, our opinion of Margo Channing changes slightly for the better but Eve comes to truer light courtesy of Addison Dewitt, (George Sanders) the critic who is very good at his job. His job is to be fooled by nothing and he is never anyone's fool. As they make fools of one another, he glides through unscathed and manages to manipulate the outcome. After Eve's masterful apology that becomes a blackmail, he upstages her with a similar proposition, showing his devastating ability at smelling a rat. The power of the press is an awesome thing for a critic as skilled as Dewitt. Margo finds peace at last when her lad says the hard word and the irony of the last scene is thick enough to choke the best of us. The dialog throughout is memorable, "the minutes will fly like hours," etc. I am confident that no better movie about the theater behind the curtain has yet been made, although "The Country Girl" starring Bing Crosby, Grace Kelly and William Holden is also good. An amazing script, Davis, Baxter, Merrill and Best Supporting Actor George Sanders make "All About Eve" a magnificent work, and it is refreshing to have such depth of emotion without any foul language. **** This is why new movies cannot hope to surpass the old: they were more creative because they could not use cheap expressers such as profane language. Watch for a very young and apparently wholesome Marilyn Monroe in a bit role.

Bleeding Hearts

Dear friends,
I think the term "Bleeding Heart Liberals" is slightly missplaced. They talk so much more about their bleeding hearts than do other people, that some observers imagine that liberals have a patent on the practice. Conservative hearts bleed also, but for different reasons. Here is a test, by which you may easily distinguish which way your heart bleeds.
In 1988, a liberal governor boasted about his prisoner weekend parole system that had allowed a first-degree murderer to get out of jail and rape a woman. Did your heart bleed for her and her fiance, whom the perpetrator had beaten up, or for the convicted murderer, who was allegedly a victim of racism?
Earlier this year, a child molester was convicted of nine years of molestation of a little boy. Does your heart bleed for the boy or for the molester, who was short of stature and might get abused in prison? (The judge gave him probation.)
When a girl gets pregnant in unwanted circumstances, does your heart bleed for her over the economic burden that a child can be, or for her baby, who depends on her for its life?
On 9/11/2001, Islamo-fascist terrorists murdered nearly 3,000 Americans. Now, we have Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, mastermind of 9/11, behind bars at Gitmo. Does your heart bleed for the victims of 9/11 and their families, or for him because he might have to face military justice?
This development of McCain and Graham, Warner and Powell opposing military tribunals for the Gitmo terrorists is an utter outrage. I hope you are not surprised that a man who was tortured by the Communists of North Vietnam can now fail to differentiate between his condition and that of the terrorists of Gitmo. Media approval is these men's twenty sheckels and a shirt. I'm personally going to write Mr. McCain, that shameless media whore, (pardon my language, but if it sells out like a prostitute...) and let him know that he has lost my vote for president permanently.
Blessings,
Hugh