Several readers have written to point out this excellent article by Oliver North on a genuine hero, Marine Sgt. Rafael Peralta:

On the morning of November 15, 2004, the men of 1st Battalion, 3rd Marines awoke before sunrise and continued what they had been doing for seven days previously - cleansing the city of Fallujah of terrorists house by house.

At the fourth house they encountered that morning the Marines kicked in the door and "cleared" the front rooms, but then noticed a locked door off to the side that required inspection. Sgt. Rafael Peralta threw open the closed door, but behind it were three terrorists with AK-47s. Peralta was hit in the head and chest with multiple shots at close range.

Peralta's fellow Marines had to step over his body to continue the shootout with the terrorists. As the firefight raged on, a "yellow, foreign-made, oval-shaped grenade," as Lance Corporal Travis Kaemmerer described it, rolled into the room where they were all standing and came to a stop near Peralta's body.

But Sgt. Rafael Peralta wasn't dead - yet. This young immigrant of 25 years, who enlisted in the Marines when he received his green card, who volunteered for the front line duty in Fallujah, had one last act of heroism in him.

As Sgt. Rafael Peralta lay near death on the floor of a Fallujah terrorist hideout, he spotted the yellow grenade that had rolled next to his near-lifeless body. Once detonated, it would take out the rest of Peralta's squad. To save his fellow Marines, Peralta reached out, grabbed the grenade, and tucked it under his abdomen where it exploded.

The saddest part of this inspiring story, in my view, is not Sgt. Peralta's death, tragic and noble though it was. The saddest fact, as Col. North notes, is that Peralta's act of heroism has received only a fraction of the media coverage accorded to another young soldier, Pablo Paredes, who became a media darling by refusing to board his ship bound for Iraq along with 5,000 other sailors and Marines. Instead, he showed up on the pier wearing a black tee shirt that read, "Like a Cabinet member, I resign."

How clever. In the mainstream media, that cheap stunt merits far more notice than the sacrifice of the patriotic Sgt. Peralta.  Friday, December 17, 2004

www.powerlineblog.com

*

HEARTS AND MINDS

Go read this post at BlackFive from a Marine Gunnery Sergeant in Iraq, and know that we have friends: The Heart of America.

As you know, I asked for toys for the Iraqi children over here and several people (Americans that support us) sent them over by the box. On each patrol we take through the city, we take as many toys as will fit in our pockets and hand them out as we can. The kids take the toys and run to show them off as if they were worth a million bucks. We are as friendly as we can be to everyone we see, but especially so with the kids. Most of them don’t have any idea what is going on and are completely innocent in all of this.

On one such patrol, our lead security vehicle stopped in the middle of the street. This is not normal and is very unsafe, so the following vehicles began to inquire over the radio. The lead vehicle reported a little girl sitting in the road and said she just would not budge. The command vehicle told the lead to simply go around her and to be kind as they did. The street was wide enough to allow this maneuver and so they waved to her as they drove around.

As the vehicles went around her, I soon saw her sitting there and in her arms she was clutching a little bear that we had handed her a few patrols back. Feeling an immediate connection to the girl, I radioed that we were going to stop. The rest of the convoy paused and I got out the make sure she was OK. The little girl looked scared and concerned, but there was a warmth in her eyes toward me. As I knelt down to talk to her, she moved over and pointed to a mine in the road.

Immediately a cordon was set as the Marine convoy assumed a defensive posture around the site. The mine was destroyed in place.

It was the heart of an American that sent that toy. It was the heart of an American that gave that toy to that little girl. It was the heart of an American that protected that convoy from that mine. Sure, she was a little Iraqi girl and she had no knowledge of purple mountain’s majesty or fruited plains. It was a heart of acceptance, of tolerance, of peace and grace, even through the inconveniences of conflict that saved that convoy from hitting that mine. Those attributes are what keep Americans hearts beating. She may have no affiliation at all with the United States, but she knows what it is to be brave and if we can continue to support her and her new government, she will know what it is to be free. Isn’t that what Americans are, the free and the brave?

If you sent over a toy or a Marine (US Service member) you took part in this. You are a reason that Iraq has to believe in a better future.  Thursday, December 6, 2004

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog

*

OHIO -- ONE STEP FORWARD, ONE STEP BACK

The comedy continues in Ohio, where the ACLU and Jesse Jackson continue their efforts to manufacture a voting controversy in order to claim victimization for the next four years. Hanging chads have returned to the American electorate as recount teams try to divine voter intent from incompetence, while a federal judge tells Jackson to read the law before filing a complaint:

In a scene reminiscent of Florida circa 2000, two teams of Republican and Democratic election workers held punch-card ballots up to the light Wednesday and whispered back and forth as they tried to divine the voters' intent from a few hanging chads. ...

The scene is being repeated statewide this week in a recount in the state that put Bush over the top in the election last month.

We should have learned the lesson four years ago: any process in which ballots get reviewed for "voter intent" is inherently subjective and should be rejected. Either a voter successfully casts a ballot or not at all. The threshold should be that a ballot can get counted properly by the machine designed for that purpose. Anything else lends itself to partisan mischief.

On a brighter note, a federal judge tossed out another complaint by Jesse Jackson because of his own demonstrated incompetence at understanding electoral law:

The Ohio Supreme Court's chief justice on Thursday threw out a challenge to the state's presidential election results. ...

Chief Justice Thomas Moyer ruled that the request improperly challenged two separate election results. Ohio law only allows one race to be challenged in a single complaint, he said.

The challenge was backed by the Rev. Jesse Jackson and Cliff Arnebeck, a Columbus attorney for the Massachusetts-based Alliance for Democracy, who accused Bush's campaign of "high-tech vote stealing."

I find Jackson incredibly boring and inconsequential; fumbles like this provide the only remarkable aspect to his public works. His racebaiting and paranoid delusions make for interesting copy, but as long as Democrats continue to follow his destructive strategies, they will continue to lose ground among rational voters. How hard can it be to do the legal research necessary to file a valid complaint?

Not only did they screw up the form of the suit, the substance also fails to meet the laugh test. Jackson wants the court to throw out the election results because of an exit poll -- later shown to be preliminary -- predicted that John Kerry would get 52% of the vote. In other words, Jackson wants to give more legal weight to the few hundred people approached on their way out of polling booths than the actual votes cast in the election. While the ruling today leaves open the possibility of the complaint being refiled, it deserves more to be buried in a landfill.

A WARNING SIGNAL FROM YANUKOVYCH?

Ukrainian Prime Minister and presidential candidate Viktor Yanukovych gave a statement that sounds suspiciously like a warning of a potential military takeover of the nation if the rerun of the final election stage goes against him:

Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich, facing a new election battle against a liberal challenger buoyed by vast street protests, said on Thursday Ukraine had been cast into a crisis which could turn to disaster after the new vote. ...

Speaking at his headquarters, Yanukovich restated his opposition to the Supreme Court ruling that led to the new vote.

"This is not a conflict between the opposition and the authorities. It is a crisis which is determining the future of Ukraine," he said, while declining to answer questions.

"Moreover, a real danger exists that after Dec. 26, Ukraine may be on the brink of a full-scale crisis."

At first blush, this statement comes across as either (a) preparation for another hijacked election and the inevitable street protests that would follow, or (b) Yanukovych's refusal to accept any losing result by claiming fraud in the new runoff -- and using the military to retain power in either case. There doesn't seem to be any other reason for Yanukovych to make that dire prediction. It sounds like Yanukovych wants to prepare a case for declaring a national emergency, one that would keep him in power indefinitely.

Yanukovych, however, may find that power denied him as his one-time allies have started to jump ship. Current president Leonid Kuchma has apparently cut ties with his protegé now that Yankovych's support has all but collapsed in Ukraine:

The prime minister was backed in the earlier vote by outgoing President Leonid Kuchma, but he has since turned on his former ally, saying the president did nothing to stop more than two weeks of street rallies by Yushchenko's supporters.

Nor is Kuchma alone in backpedaling away from the suddenly radioactive prime minister. Yanukovych's prior campaign manager and now-former head of Ukraine's central bank has repudiated the PM as well. Yanukovych's public support is drying up, making it highly unlikely that he will retain control of Ukrainian security forces after another election debacle like the last. If he loses a fair election -- an almost certain outcome now -- he won't have a prayer of convincing the military to install him in a putsch. That may not keep him from trying it, and today's missive shows that Yanukovych intends on keeping his options open.

BRAVE SIR ROBIN NOW DEMANDS MORE EQUIPMENT

Our own fearless Senator Mark Dayton has latched onto the meme du jour amongst the left, the rather esoteric issue of the lack of up-armored Humvees in the battle regions of Iraq. After a planted question during a military town-hall session with Donald Rumsfeld brought this issue national attention, the Democrats have suddenly transformed themselves into armor-plating experts of a sort. Dayton has amusingly tried to top all of them, calling for the resignations of ... well, everyone:

Sen. Mark Dayton urged President Bush Wednesday to order an investigation into the government's failure to provide enough armored vehicles for soldiers stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In a conference call with reporters, the Minnesota Democrat called the failure "outrageous and indefensible" and said Bush should ask everyone responsible to resign.

Dayton said he is upset by recent reports that makers of the armored vehicles and armor kits had the capacity to produce more armament upgrades but hadn't received orders to do so.

While an inquiry into the lack of armor for vehicles wouldn't hurt anyone, the hysterics who chalk up the shortage to the cold-hearted incompetence of the Secretary of Defense demonstrate a shortage of experience themselves with military procurement processes, most of which have been mandated by Congress. Those of us who have seen this process first-hand understand why it takes so long to even generate the orders to purchase materiel of any kind. As John Guardiano, an enlisted Marine in Iraq wrote for the Wall Street Journal, the procurement mess has been one of Rumsfeld's highest priorities (hat tip QandO):

If you’re an American soldier or Marine whose life is on the line now, clearly that’s not good enough. On the other hand, it simply isn’t true that U.S. military leaders have callously ignored the troops’ request for up-armored vehicles and other protective equipment. In fact, most of our troops in Iraq have up-armored vehicles, and units there take force protection quite seriously.

Delays ought to be blamed on the military bureaucracy, which Secretary Rumsfeld has been trying to reform. Indeed, that’s what military transformation--a Rumsfeld priority--is all about. Yet, many of the same people who are most vociferously denouncing the lack of up-armored humvees in Iraq also fight military reform tooth and nail.

In other words, it would be more helpful for those who go into screaming hysterics over every individual issue of procurement to fix the disease rather than blame the players for the symptoms. In fact, of all people, Mark Dayton should be the last to complain about a lack of heavy, armored equipment in Iraq. Only this past spring he lectured Donald Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers on the danger of sending heavy vehicles to a war zone:

You're increasing the number of forces, the number of tanks over there. How can this have anything to do but to escalate the level of violence, the opposition of Iraqis, intensify the hatred across the Arab world to the United States, and more atrocities? How can this have any result other than to put us deeper into this situation and make the conditions there worse for our forces and for our nation and for the world?

Senator Mark Dayton. He was against armored vehicles before he was for them. What a perfect microcosm of the hysterical Left in American politics.  Thursday, December 6, 2004

www.captainsquartersblog.com

*

www.michellemalkin.com

*

TOTAL WAR

An interesting article from the Christian Science Monitor highlights some of the challenges of putting 'more boots on the ground' in Iraq. It turns to be a little more complicated than ordering more men into the theater.  It means creating more units in the first place and structuring them differently.

The armored force that led the thrust into Baghdad in 2003 will in January become the first division to return to Iraq for a second, year-long tour. ... For decades, the Army has sized, arrayed, and trained its forces to sprint to victory in a conventional war against opposing states. Thursday, for the first time since Vietnam, it faces a marathon of protracted deployments against dogged insurgents - with no end in sight. Many of the strains are already showing as the 3rd Infantry trains in the Louisiana backcountry for another Iraq tour, grappling with an abrupt reorganization, an influx of new troops and equipment, and veterans with combat stress.

Army leaders admit that at current levels they must rotate troops into war zones at a rate that is unsustainable in the long run. Warning of a force not yet "broken" but "bent," they are rushing to add 30,000 soldiers to the 482,000-strong active-duty force and increase the number of active brigades - from 33 when the Iraq war began to 43 by 2006, with another five possible by 2007. Only then might the Army hope to shorten tours to about six months every two years, which soldiers say is more bearable for them and their families.

This apparently simple task conceals a multitude of difficulties, including changing the arrangements between reserve and active components; breaking up the old divisional structure into a larger number of brigades; creating the appropriate tables of equipment and tactics for the newly resized units; altering the role of support troops to reflect a "war without fronts". To it must be added the tasks of disseminating combat lessons learned, delivering training in new robotic and networked weapons systems. These are certainly in addition to addressing the more publicized shortfalls in body armor and hardened vehicles.

From the window of his C-12 jet, Maj. Gen. William Webster traces the contours of the Red River as it winds through the woods of his native Louisiana.  ... On this November morning, General Webster is heading back to Polk as commander of the 3rd Infantry Division (3ID) to appraise the Army's newest brigade. Cobbled together in just eight months, with scores of recruits arriving to fill out its ranks this summer, the 4th Brigade is undergoing final training before shipping out to Iraq early next month.

"In the midst of a war, we knew we had to change in eight to 10 months versus eight to 10 years," he says, drinking black coffee from a Thermos. "The chief [Army chief of staff, Gen. Peter Schoomaker] said, 'I think we can create 15 new brigades. You guys figure out how to do it.' We just had to run through this thing on the fly."

As Secretary Rumsfeld was on his way to Kuwait, during which he would be asked the famous question about "hillbilly armor", an interviewer asked him what he regarded as the task ahead. Whereas General Webster was concerned with solving operational problems, Rumsfeld was facing the same difficulties that Webster had been grappling with, but at a higher level of abstraction.

Well, the election’s over and the President asked me if I would be willing to stay on and I told him I would be delighted to do that. We’ve got a lot of work that’s well along, but some of it’s not finished. The task of moving an institution as large as the U.S. Department of Defense is a sizable task. And it’s the kind of thing that doesn’t happen instantaneously. Great bureaucracies don’t spin on a dime.

The services are in the process of rebalancing the active component with the reserve component so that we get on to active duty the forces we need on a continuing basis and put into reserves some of those skill sets that we need less frequently. The effect will be to not have to put such demands on the Guard and Reserve. ... We are doing something that needed to be done for decades and that is to adjust our force posture in the world globally. We’ll be bringing home some troops, we’ll be bringing home some dependents, we’ll be shifting our weight in various parts of the globe. And the emphasis will be not on numbers of things, but on capabilities. And we’ll be looking less to how many troops or how many tanks or how many planes are located in a certain spot and we’ll be focused more on precision, equipment, speed, agility, as opposed to mass and sheer numbers. And that’s going to be a hard thing for people to understand.

The hardest thing to understand was that the old world -- and the old military metrics had departed forever. During the First World War large horse cavalry masses were held in reserve for years in the expectation of a role which had already disappeared into history. Each transformational task that Rumsfeld faced had its analogue in the field. General Webster described his efforts to "reinvent the 3ID" against the "warstoppers".

"It's like guerrilla warfare," he says, describing tactics he's used to skirt the constraints of budgets and regulations to secure vital weaponry, personnel, and equipment. Several times in the past year, Webster has confronted obstacles so severe he called them "war stoppers." "At one point, I didn't have enough rifles to give to all the soldiers, or radios to give to the leaders, or armored vehicles. That's a war stopper," he says. "So by hook or by crook we got what we need." That meant, for example, using artful accounting to spend $11 million on add-on armor for 885 Humvees.

In a very real sense the dominance of the US armed forces over the enemy is a function of its superiority of organization. War is combat between armies not duels between individuals. In still wider terms it is a confrontation between societies and the power they can bring to bear on the battlefield. When Clausewitz referred to war as 'politics by other means', he was speaking the literal truth. The scheduled January 30 elections in Iraq are just as much part of the war plan as the redeployment of the 3ID, a component in a larger plan that is beyond a SecDef to control. Whatever his defects and mistakes, Rumsfeld at least recognizes the need to transform the purely military aspect of American strength. The challenge, without which any military transformation will be negated, is to improve foreign policy and intelligence in the same way.  Thursday, December 6, 2004

http://belmontclub.blogspot.com

*

OSAMA - ANOTHER WHINING LEFTIE 

www.chrenkoff.blogspot.com

*

THE HAND THAT FEADS...

*

OSAMA: "THE STRUGGLE IN SAUDI ARABIA...IS PART OF THE STRUGGLE BETWEEN BELIEVERS AND NON-BELIEVERS"

While the UN wrings its hands over "Islamophobia" and Kofi Annan laments that "Islam’s tenets are frequently distorted and taken out of context, with particular acts or practices being taken to represent or to symbolize a rich and complex faith," Osama bin Laden (or someone purporting to be Osama) has, inconveniently enough, issued a new statement in which he shows, much more clearly than anyone at the UN, why many people in the world have come to be suspicious of Islam and jihad. From CNN, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:

"While the struggle in Saudi Arabia appears to be internal, it is part of the struggle between believers and non-believers" of Islam, the speaker said.

Near the end of the approximately 70-minute tape, the speaker asks for God's blessings for "our brothers who stormed the American consulate in Jeddah."

"We pray to Allah to accept the mujahedeen who stormed the U.S. consulate in Jeddah as martyrs," the speaker says....

The quality of the recording is poor, but al Qaeda expert Paul Eedle says the voice seems to be that of bin Laden.

A Saudi militant group with ties to al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the December 6 attack in Jeddah, posting its claim on several Islamist Web sites often used by militants.

A U.S. State Department official had also said that al Qaeda was suspected in the attack....

The group that claimed responsibility called itself the Qaeda al Jihad in the Arabian Peninsula.

In the Internet post, the group said: "This operation comes as part of several operations that are organized and planned by al Qaeda as part of the battle against the crusaders and the Jews, as well as part of the plan to force the unbelievers to leave the Arabian Peninsula."

The group said its fighters "managed to enter one of the crusaders' big castles in the Arabian Peninsula and managed to enter the American consulate in Jeddah, in which they control and run the country."

UK COURT REJECTS TERROR DETENTIONS

MORAL VALUES OF THE QUR'AN: NO LOVE FOR UNBELIEVERS

Muslims must not love unbelievers -- even a little bit? Uh-oh! Is this another "Islamophobic" production, complete with "out of context" quotes from the Qur'an? Nope. This is part of a Muslim catechism for children -- written by Muslims for Muslims. It comes from a site called Play & Learn (thanks to MCJ), which also features an Islamic coloring book and other material for children.

Note also that this little valentine was written by none other than Harun Yahya, a foremost "moderate Muslim" who got a bit of publicity after 9/11 for loudly proclaiming that Islam condemns terrorism, etc. I discuss some of the points he makes in Islam Unveiled.

No Love Towards The Unbelievers

In order to live with the morals of the Qur'an, one should completely leave the culture and all the moral values of the profane society. One of the first things to be left is the love towards it.

In a profane society, all the relations are based on selfish interests. A person gets along with the other one only if there is a benefit from him or if he is been taken care of the other or at least he treats him good. Another measure is the family tie. People love others just because that they are from the same family; or from the same dynasty, or from the same society or sometimes even from the same nation.

However these are not the criteria for the believers. Because, believers love Allah more than anything or anyone.

"Yet there are men who take (for worship) others besides Allah, as equal (with Allah): They love them as they should love Allah. But those of Faith are overflowing in their love for Allah. If only the unrighteous could see, behold, they would see the penalty: that to Allah belongs all power, and Allah will strongly enforce the penalty."
(AL-BAQARA 165)

Believers respect Allah above anything, therefore the believers love people according to their sincerity with Allah, and they dislike them according to their disobey to Allah. No matter if these people are close to him or not. This characteristic of the believers is described in the Qur'an as:

"Thou wilt not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day, loving those who resist Allah and His Messenger, even though they were their fathers or their sons, or their brothers, or their kindred. For such He has written Faith in their hearts, and strengthened them with a spirit from Himself. And He will admit them to Gardens beneath which Rivers flow, to dwell therein (for ever). Allah will be well pleased with them, and they with Him. They are the Party of Allah. Truly it is the Party of Allah that will achieve Felicity."
(AL-MUJADILA 22)

Having even a little bit of love towards the unbelievers would never be a proper attitude for a believer. Believers are seriously warned in the Qur'an as below verse expresses:

"O ye who believe! Take not my enemies and yours as friends (or protectors),- offering them (your) love, even though they have rejected the Truth that has come to you, and have (on the contrary) driven out the Prophet and yourselves (from your homes), (simply) because ye believe in Allah your Lord! If ye have come out to strive in My Way and to seek My Good Pleasure, (take them not as friends), holding secret converse of love (and friendship) with them: for I know full well all that ye conceal and all that ye reveal. And any of you that does this has strayed from the Straight Path."
(AL-MUMTAHINA 1)

U.S. TO NAME HEZBOLLAH TV A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION

This is the same station that was just banned in France. From CNN, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The State Department plans to designate Hezbollah's television station, Al-Manar, as a terrorist organization for broadcasting incitement, a senior State Department official said Wednesday.

The designation could come later this week, the official said.

Hezbollah is a Lebanon-based group linked to the 1983 bombing of a U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 241 servicemen. It is already designated a terrorist organization by the United States.

Al-Manar, which was licensed by the Lebanese government in 1997, has come under renewed scrutiny amid claims that the organization is inciting terrorism and has made outrageous claims against Israel and other nations.

In one recent broadcast, according to The New York Times, Al-Manar claimed Israel spread the AIDS virus and other diseases throughout the Arab world.

The station, which can be seen in the United States via satellite, has also shown images of a skeletal Statue of Liberty dripping blood and pictures of Adolf Hitler and his forces juxtaposed with President Bush and American troops.

The station's Web site says: "Al-Manar is the first Arab establishment to stage an effective psychological warfare against the Zionist enemy."  Thursday, December 6, 2004

http://jihadwatch.org

*

http://news.bostonherald.com/holbert

*

IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN, PEGGY

Peggy Noonan urges the Democrats to embrace the word “Christmas” and to stand up for the right of religious folk to express their faith in the public square.

Stop the war on religious expression in America. Have Terry McAuliffe come forward and announce that the Democratic Party knows that a small group of radicals continue to try to "scrub" such holidays as Christmas from the public square. They do this while citing the Constitution, but the Constitution does not say it is wrong or impolite to say "Merry Christmas" or illegal to have a crèche in the public square. The Constitution says we have freedom of religion, not from religion. Have Terry McAuliffe announce that from here on in the Democratic Party is on the side of those who want religion in the public square, and the Ten Commandments on the courthouse wall for that matter. Then he should put up a big sign that says "Merry Christmas" on the sidewalk in front of the Democratic National Committee Headquarters on South Capitol Street. The Democratic Party should put itself on the side of Christmas, and Hanukkah, and the fact of transcendent faith.

This would be taking a stand on an issue that roils a lot of people, and believe me those people don't think conservatives are scrubbing America of Christmas, they think it's liberals; and they don't think it's Republicans, they think it's Democrats. Confound them, Terry! Come forward with a stand. It is the stand that is the salvation, not mysterious words or codes or magic messages.

And later that day, the light of the sun will be blotted out by the flocks of flying pigs…

Look, if there’s anything we’ve learned in the post-election period, it’s that there is a sizable chunk of the Democratic party that isn’t the slightest bit interested in reaching out to the voters who voted against their candidates in the last election. And the religious faith of many of the opposition’s supporters is perhaps what these bluest of the blue find most repugnant.

They write off the red states as “Jesusland.” They conclude “Totalitarian Christianity” to be as great a threat to America, if not a greater threat, than militant Islam. They declare the “exurbs” to be “the breeding ground for hatred and intolerance of anything foreign.”

Chatting on left-of-center blogs, this faction is quite open about their views on religion:

“I strongly feel that religion is primarily and perhaps only a force for repression in society. Organization religion in this country tends overwhelmingly to stand on the side of backsliding, of superstition, and outright bigotry.”

“Religious adherents [sic], you need to get a clue. There are plenty of secular humanists out there who reliably pull the lever in the voting booth for the straight D ticket. When you force your man-in-the-sky beliefs down our throats, you make us throw up.”

“Because, of course, all people who believe in religion are at one of the childhood levels of moral development.”

There are plenty of faithful Democrats out there, who see their progressive political values as a direct result of, or intertwined and inseparable from, their religious faith. But a significant chunk of the Democratic party is anti-faith elitists, sees their party as the primary anti-religion political force in this country, and they like it that way. If McAuliffe or any other party leader had a “Sistah Souljah moment” by standing up to those most hostile to religious expressions in public life, he would have a revolt on his hands. The move would be denounced as a capitulation to the religious right. Editorial pages would be bursting at the seams with letters from angry Democrats, announcing their move to the Green party. Frank Rich would declare that a legislative ban on sex itself is right around the corner.

The Democratic party doesn’t have a reputation as the side hostile to religious faith because its messages have been misinterpreted, or because it has clumsy public relations, or because it can‘t keep up with the GOP “message machine.” It has that reputation because a large number of its members are hostile to religious faith.

They got that reputation the old fashioned way - they earned it.

HEY, WHATEVER HAPPENED TO SANDY BERGER?

BummerDietz declares 2004 to be the "Year of the Document Scandal," pointing to the misinformation and fake headlines in Fahrenheit 9/11, Sandy Berger, and Kerry's military records as three easily-forgotten scandals that stemmed from documents.

The New York Sun wrote on Dec. 8, "More than a year after President Clinton's top national security adviser, Samuel Berger, walked out of the National Archives with top-secret documents, a criminal investigation into the matter remains open with no sign of any imminent action."  Thursday, December 6, 2004

www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerryspot.asp

*

DO ARMY BOOTS COME IN PINK?

By Jane Chastain

Still looking for the perfect Christmas gift for the women in your life? Consider a flack jacket or combat boots. Yes, combat boots!

Unless we can find some real men in Washington soon that old slur concerning your mother's choice in footwear – Army boots – won't be a matter of choice much longer. Mom could be heading off to the front lines of the next big battle, along with your wife and sisters.

Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness has blown the whistle on the Army's plans to imbed mixed-gender support units into new infantry-armor combat battalions for the very first time, thus advancing the feminists' theory that men and women are, indeed, interchangeable fungibles.

This, of course, is utter nonsense! The average woman is shorter, lighter and – more importantly – has only 50 to 60 percent of the upper body strength and 70 to 75 percent of the aerobic capacity of a man.

In may not be fair, but it is a reality!

Over the last two decades, our service academies and armed forces – caught up in an atmosphere of political correctness – have done their best to paper over this glaring imbalance in physical ability by lowering overall fitness standards and instituting a policy of "gender-norming," where the emphasis is on "equal effort," not equal ability.

Anyone with half a brain knows that when a battle begins, all the gender-norming in the world will not help women survive. Also, it doesn't matter if these female soldiers are designated combat or combat support if they are in the line of fire.

Unfortunately, unless the Bush administration and Congress act soon, this unthinkable, wrongheaded, scenario of men and women fighting side by side on the battlefield will become a deadly reality.

When the Army's 3rd Infantry Division redeploys to Iraq in January or February, female soldiers will be in forward support companies collocated with ground combat troops unless our fearless leaders put their timid little feet down and put a stop to it.

This collocation of support units containing women with combat units is against Defense Department rules and in violation of a law requiring prior notification of Congress of any change in Defense Department regulations regarding the assignment of female soldiers. But, what good is a rule or a law if there is no one willing to see that it is enforced?

Where is Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on this? Where is President Bush? Where are House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner?

Dug into their political foxholes, no doubt! Haven't heard a peep out of them since all this nonsense began last spring.

On May 10, the Army first telegraphed its intentions in an internal presentation at the Pentagon when it attempted to make the case that it didn't have enough male soldiers to fill the Forward Support Companies, which are to be collocated with combat brigades. In a Nov. 3 briefing for senior congressional staffers, the Army finessed the issue of collocation by separating these FSC units from their combat units on paper. A sleight-of-hand trick, nothing more! Then, on Nov. 29, in another internal briefing, Col. Robert H. Woods Jr. made the case for lifting the collocation rule altogether and going around Congress.

The argument that the Army doesn't have enough male soldiers to fill these positions is highly suspect. The current active duty force is 480,000. Women make up only 15 percent of that force. The idea that we will be sending women into combat zones while there are able-bodied men working as supply clerks, radar operators, etc. is absurd!

Also, the Army's assertion that the pool of male recruits is "too small to sustain the force" fails the smell test. The U.S. Census Bureau estimates there are more than 8 million men between the ages of 18-21 in the country. Any recruiter worth his salt can attract more than enough young men who are ready, willing and able to defend the country, if he is not saddled with artificially high quotas to recruit women.

Meanwhile, the Air Force and Navy are paring down their forces. Many of these young men are being encouraged to trade their blues for greens in order to stay in the military.

Over the years, Army Research Institute surveys have shown that the 85 to 90 percent of women who volunteer to serve in our military are opposed to involuntary combat assignments. These women should be supported – not used as cannon fodder in the battle over political correctness  

Hello! Are there any real men left in Washington, or are they all – to borrow a Schwarzenegger phrase – just girlie men afraid to stand up to a few feminists in their midst?  Thursday, December 6, 2004

www.worldnetdaily.com