July 24-25, 2007
Jul 24 02:08 The Reconciliation Continues Jul 24 02:51 Walz's Selective Morality Jul 24 03:36 Newsmax Readers Step Up For Haditha Marines Jul 24 04:15 I'm Sorry Jul 24 07:44 Another Prosecution Witness Exposed Jul 25 11:47 Giuliani Supports John Doe Protections Jul 25 15:16 'New' Murtha Amendment DOA Jul 25 18:47 NY Times' Struggles Continue
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Prior Years: 2006
The Reconciliation Continues
Despite Harry Reid's declaration that "the surge has failed", local Sunni and Shia tribal leaders have agreed to patrol their areas in Anbar Province.
U.S. forces said they believe they are making progress in persuading Sunni and Shiite tribal leaders to join forces against al-Qaida. The latest deal between rival Sunni and Shiite tribes was brokered by members of the First Calvary Division based at Camp Taji some 20 miles west of Baghdad, The Washington Times reported Monday.The bombs will still go off but they won't spur an escalation in sectarian violence because these tribal leaders know that raising the level of violence plays into the militia's hands. Once the militias realize that they can't play one group off of another, their only option left is to kill people in both groups.
The leaders agreed to use members of more than 25 local tribes to protect the area around Taji from both Sunni and Shiite extremists in a policy that has transformed security in western Anbar province, the newspaper said. One day later, the extremists used a suicide car bomb to punish one of the Sunni tribes involved in the accord. Three militiamen were killed and 14 others were wounded in the attack.
A Shiite tribal leader involved in the accord reportedly received a phone call saying one of his relatives had been assassinated in what was described as a warning from the Mahdi Army of radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, the Times said.
That won't work because of the quotes in this Times of London article:
Fed up with being part of a group that cuts off a person's face with piano wire to teach others a lesson, dozens of low-level members of al-Qaeda in Iraq are daring to become informants for the US military in a hostile Baghdad neighbourhood. The ground-breaking move in Doura is part of a wider trend that has started in other al-Qaeda hotspots across the country and in which Sunni insurgent groups and tribal sheikhs have stood together with the coalition against the extremist movement.That isn't the only proof of success in the reconciliation process:
"They are turning. We are talking to people who we believe have worked for al-Qaeda in Iraq and want to reconcile and have peace," said Colonel Ricky Gibbs, commander of the 4th Brigade, 1st Infantry Division, which oversees the area.
American forces in Iraq have managed to broker a security accord between Sunni and Shi'ite tribal leaders, in a bid to solicit their help in rooting out extremist elements. A similar policy, officials say, has helped to transform the security situation in a western Anbar province, the Washington Times reported.That's sounding like a hostile work environment for AQI terrorists. This is just another instance of the civilians turning on the terrorists. Other reports have filtered in on that type of progress. The proof is in the pudding. Ramadi, once AQI's sanctuary in Anbar Province, is now terrorist-free and a calm has descended on the city.
Members of the First Calvary Division based at Camp Taji helped seal the deal with tribal leaders, who in turn agreed to use members from 25 tribes to help protect the area around Taji from extremists. "We want to protect innocent civilians from killing and kidnapping," Nadeem al-Tamimi, a Shi'ite tribal leader, told the paper. "We have been working against al Qaeda for two years and paying for it from our own pocket. But we're not just against al Qaeda. We're against all murderers and thieves."
Despite the Democrats' claims that Iraq is a mess that isn't worth the trouble, the truth tells a quite different tale. Based on their history, that shouldn't surprise anyone.
Posted Tuesday, July 24, 2007 2:09 AM
No comments.
Walz's Selective Morality
I certainly agree that it's our nation's moral obligation to take care of our soldier's medical needs, as Rep. Walz says in this Strib article. What I'm wondering is if Rep. Walz thinks that it's his moral obligation to stand against the immoral treatment that the Haditha Marines have received at the hands of Rep. John Murtha.
Rep. Walz needs to know that this is 'rubber meets the road' time. For all his talk about treating veterans right, he still hasn't lifted a finger to help out the wrongly accused Haditha Marines. It isn't likely that he will, either, because Rep. Murtha holds the purse strings to the tons of pork Rep. Walz will need to win re-election. Crossing Rep. Murtha likely means that that pork won't be routed to a zip code in Walz's district.
If Rep. Walz is that concerned about these veterans' health, why isn't he concerned that the Haditha Marines might languish in prison for a decade or longer for a crime they didn't commit?
I'd recommend that Rep. Walz keep his mouth shut instead of talking about morality as it relates to veterans. It seems his morality is selective and limited. That doesn't sound that genuine to me.
Posted Tuesday, July 24, 2007 2:52 AM
No comments.
Newsmax Readers Step Up For Haditha Marines
When I read this Newsmax article, I couldn't contain my excitement. Check this out:
Dear NewsMax Reader: We have helped the legal defense funds of three heroic Marines raise close to $200,000 in just a week. These Marines are Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt, Lance Cpl. Stephen Tatum, and Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich.This is spectacular good news. There shouldn't have even been an Article 32 hearing for any of these men because the military had video of that night's events the entire time. It's the equivalent of Patrick Fitzgerald's starting grand jury proceedings after he was told that Richard Armitage had leaked Valerie Plame's name.
We at NewsMax are proud of our efforts, but even more proud of our readers who have risen to the challenge of helping these Marines whom we believe were falsely accused for actions they took during combat in Haditha, Iraq.
Approximately 3,000 of our readers contributed to three legal defense funds for these Marines. It is estimated the three Marines will have legal and others costs well over $750,000. If you want to help these Marines, please read NewsMax editor Christopher Ruddy's " Urgent Letter " and find out how you can help, Go Here Now.
Please remember that 100 percent of proceeds go to the Marines' defense funds. NewsMax pays for the credit card processing costs, and is adding an additional $10,000 donation.
We are pleased to hear that one of the investigating military officers has recently recommended that one of the accused Marines, Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt, be exonerated. We expect the other two will receive similar judgments.
Thank you again for your generosity.
NewsMax.com
Simply put, there was no there there with the Haditha Marines or with Fitzgerald's investigation.
As I noted in this post, the prosecution's case hinges on Lance Cpl. Humberto Mendoza's shifting testimony. Had the prosecution been interested in justice, they would've dropped these cases when they realized that their star witness's testimony wasn't reliable. In a civilian court, Mendoza's testimony would've been shredded by a defense attorney and the jury wouldn't have a choice but to acquit these American heroes.
In the military judicial system, this sort of injustice can continue because there isn't any judicial review or congressional oversight. They answer to themselves.
That's what makes these contributions so important. Now these defendants can get the best defense attorneys to defend themselves. Rest assured that people like Darryl and Theresa Sharratt got excited to hear the news.
I strongly recommend that everyone contribute to these heroes' legal defense funds. I promise you won't regret it and I promise that these Marines and their families will appreciate it.
Posted Tuesday, July 24, 2007 3:37 AM
No comments.
I'm Sorry
Thanks to Pam at Atlas Shrugs for this excellent video of John Murtha's lies:
John Murtha: Guilty of denying true American heroes their constitutional rights of due process, innocent until proven guilty and right to a fair trial.
W e T he P eople's Recommended Sentence: Frogmarched out of the House of Representatives following his expulsion
Posted Tuesday, July 24, 2007 4:16 AM
No comments.
Another Prosecution Witness Exposed
I've written a couple times about the weakness of the prosecution's case against the Haditha Marines. This SD Union article offers a perfect illustration of what I'm talking about:
Special Agent Michael Maloney testified on the fifth day of a pretrial hearing for Lance Cpl. Stephen Tatum. He is charged with seven counts of murder, negligent homicide and assault for his alleged role in a shooting spree that left 24 Iraqis dead after a roadside bomb blast killed a member of his squad. Maloney said at least 17 bullets had been fired. He said the women were shot first, and that the children were killed as they scrambled to escape.This is a major hit against the prosecution's case. If they can't prove that Marines were the people who did the shooting, then their case isn't worth much. In fact, their case is essentially nonexistent. Let's put it this way: In a civilian court, based solely on this testimony, it's impossible to prove if these people were killed by Marines or by terrorists. That's called reasonable doubt, which guarantees an acquittal. The same standard should apply to LCpl. Tatum.
But under defense cross-examination, Maloney acknowledged that he based his conclusions on photographs. He said a brief, on-site investigation four months after the killings revealed no physical evidence tying the Marines to the scene.
I don't know what other evidence they've got but if the prosecution's cased hinged largely on Special Agent Maloney's testimony, then the I/O's recommendation should be straightforward. That recommendation should read like this: Drop all charges against LCpl. Tatum.
The more articles about the Haditha Marines that I read, the more I question why the prosecution has taken things this far. The I/O at LCpl. Sharratt's hearing didn't deliberate long before recommending that all charges against Justin be dropped. Remember that Lt. Col. Paul Ware didn't just say that charges be dropped; he essentially trashed their case:
Col. Ware wrote in his report: "It is difficult, if not impossible to believe that trained and experienced Marines would decide to execute 4 unarmed men by leading them into a house, moving them to a back room with no light [curtains were closed] and allow them to move about the room while trying to shoot them with the least-effective weapon in their arsenal."Lt. Col. Ware's recommendation report couldn't be much more critical of the prosecution's theory of the offense. That's essentially the legalese equivalent of saying "You expect thinking people to buy into that pile of nonsense?"
As more of these hearings are held, the more that the American people will ask why these cases have been brought forward. As they learn more about what started the ball rolling on this, the more disgusted they'll get with Rep. Murtha.
The more you know about these cases, the more you'll realize that these cases wouldn't have gone this far if Rep. Murtha hadn't falsely accused these Marines on national TV. You'll also realize that Murtha's accounts of what happened keep changing. Finally, you'll realize that his story has changed about who he got his information from.
We should put maximum pressure on the Democratic leadership, including Rep. Murtha. I don't have any illusions that they'll take action against him. That isn't my goal. My goal is to raise a stink about this now so that GOP candidates can use the Democrats' protection of a corrupt politician as a campaign tool.
UPDATE: I just got off the phone with Tim Harrington, the foremost authority on these cases. I told him about this article. Tim said that he'd read that already. He said that Maloney hasn't given consistent testimony either. Check back later today because Tim is forwarding the specific details of Maloney's inconsistencies later today.
Posted Tuesday, July 24, 2007 7:48 AM
No comments.
Giuliani Supports John Doe Protections
That's the unmistakable message of this Washington Times article by Audrey Hudson.
Republican presidential hopeful Rudolph W. Giuliani yesterday endorsed a provision to protect citizens from being sued for reporting potential terrorism-related activity and criticized congressional Democrats for blocking the legislation.Rep. Stephen Pearce, (R-NM), initially wrote the bill protecting the John Doe passengers immediately after CAIR filed a lawsuit against US Airways, MAC and John Doe passengers on behalf of the imams.
"Congressional Democrats are once again showing they just don't get the terrorists' war on us, by attempting to strip important protections for those who report suspected terrorists on airlines," said Mr. Giuliani, who was mayor of New York City during the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
"Peter King is doing the right thing by putting our national security first and political correctness run amok second," said Mr. Giuliani, who also criticized Democratic presidential candidates for failing to acknowledge "Islamic terrorism" in public debates, including Monday night's YouTube gathering. "The terrorists are at war with us, whether or not Democrats in Washington and on the campaign trail choose to acknowledge it. And we must stay on offense to prevail," Mr. Giuliani said.Predictably, CAIR's Parvez Ahmed is denying Islam's ties with terrorism:
This perception is greatly assisted by a veritable cottage industry of neo-experts pontificating with great certainty about the cause-effect relationship between Islam and terrorism. Such mischaracterization is at odds with the reality that Islam unequivocally condemns terrorism and advocates the preservation of life, honor and dignity of all human life as a supreme endeavor. Thus, terrorism even when carried out in the name or defense of Islam cannot be called jihad but is rather an unholy war. Robert Pape in his seminal work Dying to Win contends that military occupation, not religious ideology, is the primary enabler of terrorism.That is pure nonsense. It isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Consider the fact that it's written by a man with extensive connections with Hamas. That alone disqualifies the editorial. The truth is that CAIR is expert at spinning things. They don't know the meaning of the word truth.
Thanks Rudy for standing up for good legislation.
Posted Wednesday, July 25, 2007 11:48 AM
No comments.
'New' Murtha Amendment DOA
John Murtha is pushing a 'new' plan for US defeat in Iraq that doesn't include hard deadlines for completion of the pullout. Based on President Bush's stated mission of winning in Iraq, it's safe to say that this 'new' plan is DOA if it even passes the Senate.
Rep. John Murtha, a moderate Pennsylvania Democrat and longtime critic of the war, said he would propose that in an amendment to a defense spending bill for the fiscal year starting October 1, expected on the House floor next week.Just last week, Gen. Lynch and Gen. Gaskin asked for more time to let the surge work. They certainly didn't make those statements without first knowing that the White House was on board with that.
The bill providing $459.6 billion for defense was approved by the House Appropriations Committee on Wednesday. Murtha said some Republicans on Capitol Hill, backed by the White House, have advocated reducing U.S. troops in Iraq to 70,000 from the current level of nearly 160,000.
While he opposes leaving any U.S. troops behind, Murtha said he'll bring an amendment to the House floor next week that requires the White House to start redeployment within 60 days of enactment, without setting a deadline for completion.
"I'm hearing signals. They (Republicans) are trying to work out a deal where we leave 70,000 troops over there...That's the White House telling them to do that, I'm convinced," he told reporters. I'm hoping there will be an agreement between Democrats and Republicans and the Senate and the House and the White House and I think you'll see that happen. I think you'll see that happen by September, October," he said.
I thought it was laughable that Reuters called Murtha a "moderate Democrat." He's a hardcore liberal, having sold out to CodePink and other elements of the extreme fringe of the Democratic Party. In fact, I'm not that certain that these activists will like the thought of keeping 70,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely.
UPDATE: I just saw this diary at Kos:
John Murtha is yet again proposing a vacuous, look, ma, no teeth and maybe no gums either bill to give Bush everything he wants with wording that might lead the stupid and the ignorant of the Democrats to believe that it's actually accomplishing something, along with a knowing wink and a nod to the Republicans...who would LOVE this one because it lets 'em off the hook.Am I good or what? This diarist sounds totally upset with Murtha. It wasn't long ago that Murtha was the darling of the left. He could do no wrong. That's quickly changed because President Bush has refused to back down from the anti-war left. They can't override President Bush's vetoes and the Democrats can't afford to vote against the troops.
And the Repubs would be happy: no deadlines but they could still tell their people that "troops are coming home."
Murtha said next week he would also propose an amendment to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba within 180 days and another to require that U.S. troops sent to Iraq be fully trained and equipped. "(Secretary of Defense Robert) Gates wants it closed, the president wants it closed, and we want it closed," he said of Guantanamo. "We think that will pass."That's another flight of fantasy. Until there's a viable option to replace Gitmo, it won't be closed.
Posted Wednesday, July 25, 2007 3:17 PM
Comment 1 by Patty at 27-Jul-07 03:45 AM
Well I guess you not going to like this article very much.
Pentagon makes contingency plans for Iraq pullout REUTERS
July 26, 007
The Pentagon is making contingency plans for a gradual U.S. withdrawal of troops from Iraq, according to US Defense Secretary Robert Gates who called the planning a priority.
In a letter deliverd on Tueday to Sen. Clinton who tangled with the Pentagon to learn whether such plans exist. Gates said he was actively involved in drafting them.
He said he would work with the Senate Armed Service Committee to find a way to keep senators informed aboutthe conseptual thinking, factors, considerations, questions and objectives associated with the pullout.
NY Times' Struggles Continue
I don't know if struggling is the right word for what the NY Times is currently experiencing. What I do know is that prosperous isn't the right adjective to use in describing the NY Times. This AP article says why prosperous is the wrong word:
Newspaper publishers New York Times Co. and Tribune Co. reported lower advertising revenues for the second quarter on Wednesday as the industry struggled with deep losses in several categories, especially classified. The Times, which also owns The Boston Globe, the International Herald Tribune and a group of regional newspapers, posted a 6.9 percent decline in newspaper advertising in the period, while Tribune's fell 11.2 percent.They still made profits but mostly because these media giants started selling off assets. That isn't a hint at economic health. Instead, it's proof that the NY Times business model isn't prosperous over the long term. The truth is that the NY Times and other liberal media outlets are failing because (a) they're insulting their readers with their anti-war, anti-military and anti-America message;(b) their reporting stinks and (c) the internet's instant updates have made the printed newspaper all but obsolete. They don't report facts accurately.
Chicago-based Tribune is the nation's No. 2 newspaper company by circulation and publishes 11 newspapers including the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune and Newsday. Weak classified advertising was a big factor behind the declines at both companies, falling 13.4 percent at the Times company and 17.7 percent at Tribune.
Classified advertising, long a cash cow for the industry, has been hurt by competition from online alternatives to newspapers and by weakness in the housing market, which affects real estate ads. The Times also noted softness in advertising for banking and other financial services.
They all but automatically dismiss anything that conservatives say. They all but instinctively reject tax-cutting policies because their indoctrination won't allow them to think as viable anything beyond their own ideology. In short, they're doing everything in their power to insult their customer base. That's a path to disaster.
With revenues continuing to decline, the Times said it would take another $230 million out of its annual cost structure over the next two years. The savings will come from selling an older printing plant in New Jersey, reducing the size of the Times by 1.5 inches beginning next month and other measures.TRANSLATION: They're making dramatic changes because their revenues continue faltering because their product sucks.
If I worked at a newspaper these days, I'd keep my resume polished.
Posted Wednesday, July 25, 2007 6:48 PM
No comments.
