Looking for solutions to real problems. Because the imaginary ones are a waste of time.

Toy Box

Toy Box
Walnut, Maple, Canary, and Pecan

Toy Box

Toy Box
Tool Box : ]

Tall Desk

Tall Desk
Back, not sure what I was doing with the upside down A's


Tall Desk, Walnut and Ash


Ash and Walnut
Buffet, very nice detail and features


Curly Maple
Coffee Table, nice arched Dental molding


Maple and Walnut, Charlie Brown was the inspiration for the Top

Chest of Drawers

Chest of Drawers
Alder Stained, with Curly Maple highlites


Just for fun, The wife does the Carvings

Saturday, June 30, 2007

Japanese Propaganda and American Mass Media
June 29, 2007:U.S. troops have been mystified at how differently the war they fight in Iraq is portrayed by the U.S. media back home. Most just shrug it off as "politics," and yet another reason to not trust what the mass media presents as reliable reporting. But recently, the troops have been passing around an interesting discovery. Namely, that the Japanese psychological warfare effort during World War II included radio broadcasts that could be picked up by American troops. Popular music was played, but the commentary (by one of several English speaking Japanese women) always hammered away on the samepoints;

1 Your President (Franklin D Roosevelt) is lying to you.

2 This war is illegal.

3 You cannot win the war.

The troops are perplexed and somewhat amused that their own media is now sending out this message. Fighting the enemy in Iraq is simple, compared to figuring out what news editors are thinking back home. A few times, the mass media has been bold, or foolish, enough to confront the troops about this divergence of perceptions. The result is usually asurreal exchange, with the troops giving the journalist a "what planet are YOU from" look. Naturally, this sort of thing doesn't get much exposure. When pressed, a journalist or editor will dismiss the opinions of the troops (of all ranks), because they are "too close" to see "the big picture." For the same reason, reporters who send back material agreeing with the troops, find their stuff twisted into an acceptable shape, or not used at all. Historians will have a good time with all this

Friday, June 29, 2007

Immigration Reform, for Real

By The Editors

For months, the establishment dismissed those of us opposed to amnesty as a tiny minority of the public and the Congress. On Thursday, that “tiny minority” outnumbered the pro-amnesty forces in the Senate, dealing a humiliating and well-deserved defeat to President Bush. The same White House that insisted that there was no realistic alternative to “comprehensive immigration reform” had better recalibrate its realism now. There always were better alternatives, and the president and his party have no way out of the immigration morass he has created unless they pursue them.

Nor does the country. The public is rightly dismayed at our incapacity to exercise a key attribute of sovereignty: control of the borders. For decades, our elected officials have passed immigration laws that they lack the political will to enforce. Among the fallacies of “comprehensive reform” was the notion that this situation could be fixed instantaneously. It cannot. But by rejecting a solution that would make the problem worse, we may have taken the first of many steps toward a better immigration system.

The next step ought to be President Bush’s. As divisive as this debate has been, it did reveal a consensus on the need to enforce current laws. The president should accept that consensus and act on it. If necessary, he should request additional authority and resources for the purpose.

Under current law, the border can be secured and the administration can crack down on scofflaw employers. Contractors can be required to enroll in the government’s employee-verification system as a condition of doing business with the federal government. The Social Security Administration identifies tens of thousands of W-2 forms with false or stolen Social Security numbers. The IRS can fine employers who file a significant number of such forms.

In arguing for the comprehensive reform, Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff said that his department needed data from the Social Security Administration to enforce the law on employers. There never was any need to hold that simple reform hostage to amnesty, and the president should ask Congress to enact it now. He should also clarify that state and local law-enforcement agencies have the constitutional authority to make arrests for violations of federal immigration laws.

Bush could also learn from some of the amendments offered during the recent debate. Court-ordered restrictions on deportation should, where possible, be eased. “Sanctuary cities” ought to be penalized. So should visitors who overstay their visas.

The president’s error has been to regard controlling immigration and welcoming newcomers as polar opposites. But a sensible control of immigration would provide both an economic basis for new immigrants to succeed and a political basis for them to be greeted warmly. And in any case, Republicans who seek their own political health no longer have a choice in the matter.

Those who profit from porous borders took a risk when they broached the topic of comprehensive reform: that the public, long inattentive to the causes of our failing policy, might start taking a closer look. It is going to be much harder for the political class to follow its accustomed course. If the president charts a new one, he will have the support of the public and even some Democrats. If Congress balks, he will have in his hands a winning issue. That would be a nice change of pace, wouldn’t it?

Tuesday, June 5, 2007

So who will report this?

U.S. agent says Iraqis led him to Saddam's WMD
By William Hargrave

There were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when Americans invaded in 2003.

This claim comes from Dave Gaubatz, who served for 12 years as an agent in the U.S. Air Force’s Office of Special Investigations. He says he was "hand-picked" to locate weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Between March and July 2003, he identified several of Saddam Hussein’s WMD sites in the immediate aftermath of the Iraq invasion.
Where were they?Huge caches were located within the city limits of the southern Iraqi city of Nasariyah, and were also discovered in another location 15 to 20 miles south of Nasariyah between two canals and near Um Qasr in the Basra region 284 miles south of Baghdad.

Some of this information has been published by The Spectator (London), The New York Sun, and other U.S. newspapers and Internet news sites. But the mainstream media have chosen not to inform readers and viewers of the credible reports of WMDs discovered in Iraq.

According to these reports, Saddam’s WMDs were apparently smuggled to Syria, Iran and other destinations under the nose of American forces. The political fallout that would occur from investigation and affirmation of this extremely serious American operational failure with its profound military and geo-strategic implications has apparently helped to keep a lid on this information—until now.

Gaubatz appealed to Congress to investigate his claims. But neither political party wishes to touch the issue for different reasons. The Democrats do not want the public to know that President Bush’s stated reason for invading Iraq might be justified. The Republicans do not want Americans to know that the administration's military command failed to stop what may have been the biggest WMD transfer of all time.

The issue is, as The Spectator put it, “an axis of embarrassment.”

At the start of the 2003 invasion, Gaubatz was sent to Nasariyah to locate possible WMD sites and ascertain threats to U.S. interests in the area. Fluent in Arabic, Gaubatz was able to meet numerous locals who told him he had struck gold: the WMDs were actually close by in farms and marshes. Some were buried in concrete bunkers 20-30 feet beneath the Euphrates River. These were vaults with 5-foot-thick concrete walls beneath the river bed.

“These were under 25 feet of water,” Gaubatz said in an interview with Insight. “Saddam didn’t care about poisoning the water of southern Iraq."

“They took us to the sites, we took photos and grid coordinates,” he said. “The missile imprints were still in the sand. Based on the detail they provided and what was confirmed by others, I felt 100 percent confident WMDs were at the locations identified.The Iraqis told us we must either excavate the sites and remove the WMDs or our enemies would.”

Along with Gaubatz, a group of U.S. Office of Special Investigations (OSI) agents visited the sites and got what his doctor later told him was radiation sickness from all the contaminants in the air and the water.

The U.S., however, did not investigate these locations. Other nations did.

The failure to find significant stockpiles of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons has proved a massive public relations problem for the Americans and the British, whose intelligence indicating that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein did possess WMD stockpiles was one of their primary justifications for the invasion of Iraq.

How credible is the source?

“Mr. Gaubatz is not some marginal figure,” said Melanie Phillips, a columnist for London’s Daily Mail newspaper, in a recent piece on Saddam’s secret WMD bunkers for The Spectator, a weekly British conservative magazine. “He’s pretty well as near to the horse’s mouth as you can get.”

Gaubatz is a sandy-haired man who’s been stationed as a federal agent at nuclear sites stateside and then as a U.S. Air Force special agent overseas. He is widely regarded as one of America’s most capable and experienced intelligence officials. According to Phillips, Gaubatz was decorated in 2001 for being the “lead agent in a classified investigation, arguably the most sensitive counter-intelligence investigation currently in the entire Department of Defense.” Because his “reports were such high quality, many were published in the Air Force’s daily threat product for senior USAF leaders or re-transmitted at the national level to all security agencies in the U.S. government.”

After 20 years on active duty service in counterintelligence work (12 of them as an OSI agent), he retired, and then obtained a position as a civilian Federal Agent with the Air Force (OSI). He was specifically chosen to go to Nasariyah in Iraq to locate Saddam’s WMD sites and discover threats to U.S. forces in the area. He saw mass Shi’ite graves of women holding their babies in their arms. He met Muslims who told him they were being recruited for terrorist cells. Every time he stumbled on a factoid, he sent a memo to the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), a group of more than 1,000 Americans, Brits and Australians whose job it was back in 2003 to locate the WMDs.

Between March and July 2003, Gaubatz says he was taken by local Iraqis to four suspected WMD sites — two within Nasariyah, one just south of the city, and another one near Basra. He says Iraqi sources told him the sites contained biological and chemical weapons, missiles and material for a nuclear program. Gaubatz said he was sure he found the WMD sites because the Iraqi government had obviously gone to considerable lengths to conceal the bunkers. Three of the bunkers were buried 20 to 30 feet under the Euphrates River.

Gaubatz was told by American environmental engineers that the parts of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers near the sites showed abnormally high radiation levels. Gaubatz and his team had also been exposed to radioactive substances and he still suffers unexplained headaches and nausea.

Gaubatz asked his superiors for heavy equipment to be brought in from Kuwait so the bunkers could be excavated. The response was that there weren’t enough soldiers available to secure them.

“People were putting their lives on the line showing us those sites,” he said, adding that some of his informants have since been kidnapped, tortured, and then killed. “But they [the superiors] told me they didn’t have the manpower or equipment to do so, plus it wasn’t safe. Well, war is never safe.”

Moreover, the conventional understanding was that the WMDs were further to the north. Gaubatz had already sent some 60 classified intelligence reports to Prince Sultan Air Base, an American base in Saudi Arabia. When he returned to the United States, he contacted two Republican congressmen: Reps. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan and Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania. Interested, they tried to follow up on his information by accessing the 60 intelligence reports. But not only had all the reports Gaubatz had sent to Saudi Arabia mysteriously disappeared, their intended audience, the ISG, never saw them. The congressmen tried extracting information from the Defense Department and the CIA as to how this was allowed to happen, but were stonewalled.

Gaubatz has since learned the sites have been looted and an unknown amount of the weapons carried off. Now, he says, the U.S. has an even more difficult task: Figuring out exactly where the WMDs are and proving they were transported there from Iraq. He says the WMDs were there for the finding not so long ago, but the U.S military totally underestimated what it would take to locate them.

“There weren’t enough soldiers to secure the borders, much less exploit the sites,” he said.

“The Americans were not prepared. They were overwhelmed. It was a Katrina of war,” Gaubatz said, referring to the massive August 2005 hurricane that wiped out much of New Orleans.

"We witnessed thousands of Iranians pouring into southern Iraq," he said. "We were told by Iraqis the Iranians' intent was to initiate a civil war."

Gaubatz says his team "immediately" reported this important intelligence to the Pentagon and the CIA, but "it was never followed up on."

"The Iranians were taking over Shi'ite-dominated southern Iraq," he said.

Internet news sites cited reports in 2003 that U.S. intelligence believed Saddam’s WMDs were moved west to Lebanon’s heavily fortified Bekaa Valley, a beehive of Hezbollah forces, Iranians and Syrians. Also, prominent Washington journalist Bill Gertz has reported on the stream of tractor-trailer trucks the CIA spotted moving from Iraq to Lebanon via Syria in early 2003. Russian military advisors and special forces helped move the poison gas components, missile parts, nuclear-related equipment, tank and aircraft parts. Some of the WMDs could have also been trucked eastward into Iran. Why were the Russians so anxious to get the incriminating materials out before the Americans arrived? Perhaps because much of it was manufactured by them or Eastern European nations such as Ukraine, Bulgaria and Belarus.

Oddly, the United States has not publicized this huge arms transfer. Gertz reported that John Shaw, a deputy undersecretary of state who in October 2004 leaked information to the media of Russia’s involvement in the truck convoys, was forced to resign on Dec. 10 of that year. The reason: “exceeding his authority” in releasing the information, according to the Pentagon.

Gaubatz says that, while in Iraq, he was continuously mistaken by locals for being a Russian. This was because prior to the U.S. invasion, the locals said they saw numerous Russians coming in and out of the area.

The likelihood that WMDs were successfully spirited out of Iraq was also addressed in a 2006 book, “Saddam’s Secrets,” by former Iraqi fighter pilot and Gen. Georges Sada. He says not only were many of the WMDs driven out in large 18-wheeler trucks to Syria, but some WMDs were also flown out.

“I know the names of some of those who were involved in smuggling WMDs out of Iraq in 2002 and 2003,” Sada wrote. “I know the names of officers from the front company, SES, who received the weapons from Saddam. I know how and when they were transported and shipped out of Iraq. And I know how many aircraft were actually used and what types of planes they were.”

Gaubatz has learned through his Iraqi sources that some time after his 2003 visit, someone brought in heavy equipment and got the weapons out of the Euphrates bunkers and other nearby sites.With notebooks showing the site coordinates in hand, he meticulously makes his case.

“Take me back to those sites and let’s see what’s there now,” he says. “It won’t be a popular thing to say the enemy has taken these WMDs. You’d at least find the footprints: labs and storage.”

"I have been informed by Israeli intelligence and learned through British intelligence that the intelligence on WMDs our team provided in 2003 was accurate," he said.

Gaubatz almost got a chance to go back a year ago when then-Congressman Curt Weldon expressed interest in visiting the sites. About nine Iraqis who had helped Gaubatz locate the sites had been given asylum in the U.S. after word leaked out that they were helping the Americans. According to e-mails showing correspondence between him and Weldon’s chief of staff, Russ Caso, Weldon met with some of these Iraqis. His office then thought up a plan: Weldon and Hoekstra, who was then the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, would travel to Iraq on a junket, but detour to a WMD site. If they could get the military to produce some heavy equipment and security, Weldon would be present during the excavations. If nothing was found, the trip would remain secret. If WMDs were found, the congressmen would alert the media that they had happened upon the strategic sites.

Then Gaubatz got word that Weldon did not want to alert rival Democrats, the Pentagon or even intelligence officials about the trip. He backed out.

“It was going to be this big private trip,” Gaubatz said, “but they were offering no protection for the Iraqi witnesses.”

Weldon, who lost his election race in 2006, now heads up a company called Defense Solutions. He did not respond to e-mails and phone calls from Insight. Neither did former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, who had previously spoken out about the presence of WMDs in Iraq. A spokesman for Hoekstra referred all calls to the House Intelligence Committee, whose spokesman, Jamal Ware, also declined to respond to questions.

Gaubatz is disturbed by what he sees as a government effort to bury the story. He reports being interviewed in March by talk show host Glenn Beck for a one-hour segment to appear on CNN's Headline News.Gaubatz was with an Iraqi contact for the show. The Iraqi, who was part of the federal witness protection program, got calls from the FBI telling him they should stop the interview from being broadcast. The interview was not shown. Gaubatz says the FBI used security concerns as a justification for leaning on Beck's people, but the Iraqi had spoken out on these issues before and there had been no problems.

The real problem was, Gaubatz says, that "with me and the Iraqi source going public about this, it would open a can of worms on the WMD issue.Weldon and Russ Caso [Weldon's chief of staff] keep on telling me not to anger the wrong people."

Gaubatz rues the fact that many people in Iraq — Americans and Iraqis alike — have risked their lives to reveal priceless intelligence information to U.S. policymakers. But in the sieve that is America’s intelligence apparatus, the most important information gets filtered out so that the president and members of Congress have critical gaps in understanding events on the ground. Weldon and Hoekstra, Gaubatz said, had no idea that WMDs were sitting in Iraq waiting to be found until he took the initiative to approach them.

“I was hand-picked to go to Iraq and locate WMD sites,” Gaubatz says. “The sites at a minimum should have been searched when I and my team identified them. I put my life on the line everyday to go out into Iraq. Many troops did lose their lives. If one of the primary reasons we went to war was because of Saddam having WMDs, we should have done our jobs and excavated the sites before our enemy did.”

One congressman who supports Gaubatz on the record is Rep. Virgil Goode, a Republican whose U.S. House seat represents a district in southern Virginia where Gaubatz grew up. In an interview, Goode says he remembered mentioning WMDs to the House Intelligence Committee, but his inquiries—like so many—went nowhere.

“I believe he saw something,” Goode said of Gaubatz. “I think a whole lot of members of Congress have bought the national news media line that there were no WMDs there.”

Four years into the war, Gaubatz says, “The Republicans want to forget this. They don’t want to know if there were WMDs because if there were, they blew it and the WMDs are not accounted for.”

“And the Democrats have Bush in a hot box. Why would they want to change that?”

- Katharine Harris contributed to this report.


-- "I found Saddam’s WMD bunkers," The Spectator, April 20, 2007

-- "I found Saddam's WMD bunkers," full article, MelaniePhillips.com

-- "Ex-Officer Spurned on WMD Claim," New York Sun, Feb. 8, 2006

-- United Nations Security Council Report, May 28, 2004

-- "UN inspectors: Saddam shipped out WMD before war and after," WorldTribune.com, June 11, 2004

-- "Report: U.S suspects Iraqi WMD in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley," WorldTribune.com, Aug. 26, 2003

-- "Russia tied to Iraq's missing arms," The Washington Times, Oct. 28, 2004

-- "Photos point to removal of weapons," The Washington Times, Oct. 29, 2004
-- "2 Russian generals given awards in Iraq on war eve," The Washington Times, Oct. 30, 2004

-- "Pentagon ousts official who tied Russia, Iraq arms," The Washington Times, Dec. 30, 2004

Seems we have not fired enough Judges lately

I found this artical at WND and just cant believe Americans agree to this type of garbage.

N-word fine, but 'family values' banned
Christians challenge ruling that 'hate speech' could scare workers

Posted: June 5, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

A Christian organization fighting on behalf of religious and speech rights is going to the U.S. Supreme Court to challenge an appellate court decision that found municipal employers could censor words such as "marriage" and "family values" because they are hate speech and could scare workers.

At the same time, those municipal officials for the city of Oakland, Calif., were allowing employees to exchange epithets such as the N-word, the appeal said.

"To allow the lower court's ruling to stand exposes every public employee to outright censorship by a municipal employer for merely mentioning words such as the 'natural family,' 'marriage,' 'and 'family values,' issues which are at the forefront of national debate," said the appeal prepared by the Pro-Family Law Center.

"In fact, the lower courts' decisions could preclude a public employee from so much as mentioning the birth of one's child or the fact that they were just married because this might theoretically offend a co-worker," said the file in the case argued at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals level by Richard D. Ackerman, of the Pro-Family Law Center, as well as Scott Lively.

"We are simply unwilling to accept that Christians can be completely silenced on the issues of the day – especially on issues such as same-sex marriage, parental rights, and free speech rights," Ackerman told WND.

"If we fail to get U.S. Supreme Court review, however, it will be up to each individual Christian in the United States to stand up for their rights to be heard on the issues of the day. If we choose to be silent, silenced we shall be," he said.

The case involves the Good News Employee Association and two women, Regina Rederford and Robin Christy, who wanted to launch the organization among co-workers. They put up an announcement on an Oakland city bulletin board asking those interested in those "family" issues to contact them.

This came after the same bulletin board – as well as the city's e-mail system – had been used to promote speech "concerning war, health-care, peace, employee outsourcing, sports, racism, slavery, spirituality, hate, God, the Gay-Straight Employee Alliance, tolerance, homosexuality, 'coming out,' diversity, Christ, the Bible, sexuality, and a host of other topics," the appeal said.

None of those topics was a problem. However, their supervisors ordered the two Christians' announcement about Good News pulled down, and issued a warning that such "homophobic" literature could lead to penalties up to and including dismissal, the law firm said.

The decision was affirmed by the 9th Circuit, which issued an unpublished "memorandum." in the dispute.

It found that municipalities have a right to dictate what form an employee's speech may take, even if it is in regard to controversial public issues.

"Public employers are permitted to curtail employee speech as long as their 'legitimate administrative interests' outweigh the employee's interest in freedom of speech," said the court's opinion noted.

"The district court appropriately described [the Christians' speech rights] as 'vanishingly small,'" the opinion continued.

"This incredible and devastating ruling has had the practical effect of silencing hundreds, if not thousands, of City of Oakland employees who simply wish to talk about marriage and family values. To the extent that this ruling has been shared by Oakland with other cities, there is a huge risk that these rulings are being treated as precedent by other cities across the nation. In fact, one of the defendants is presently in charge of the Washington, D.C., school district," the Pro-Family firm said.

The two Christian women had brought a complaint over the censorship of their announcement against the city as well as Joyce Hicks, the deputy executive director of the Community & Economic Development Agency in Oakland, and Robert Bobb, as city manager.

The lawsuit developed in 2002 when the women chose to create the Good News Employee Association, "in response to Bible-bashing by ranking city officials and free rein given to radical left-wing groups over the city's e-mail and bulletin board systems," the law firm said.

The Pro-Family Law Center noted that city-approved e-mails have included establishing an "altar" for Day of the Dead, and one e-mail that was circulated said, "I personally think the good book (Bible) needs some updating…"

The Christians' notice said:

Good News Employee Associations is a forum for people of Faith to express their views on the contemporary issues of the day. With respect for the Natural Family, Marriage and Family values.
If you would like to be a part of preserving integrity in the Workplace call Regina Rederford @xxx- xxxx or Robin Christy @xxx-xxxx

"The mere publication of these words was met with a direct threat of termination from employment," the law center said. "[The women] have been absolutely chilled in the exercise of free speech and cannot afford to lose their jobs."

Meanwhile Oakland's Gay-Straight Employees Alliance "was openly allowed to attack the Bible in widespread city e-mails, to deride Christian values as antiquated, and to refer to Bible-believing Christians as hateful. When the plaintiffs attempted to refute this blatant attack on people of faith, they were threatened with immediate termination by the City of Oakland. The Ninth Circuit did not feel that the threat of immediate termination had any effect on free speech," the appeal said.

U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker had ruled in 2005 that Oakland had a right to prevent the employees from posting that Good News Employee Association flier promoting traditional family values on the office bulletin board.

"The city of Oakland has interpreted this district court's ruling to mean that Christianity has no place in our society and should be subject to punishment. I want to believe that our Supreme Court will ultimately decide this case on the values and instructions set forth in motion by the nations Founders," said Ackerman.

His arguments are based on the 1st Amendment and the 14th Amendments.

"With the likelihood of a lively and important national debate about same-sex relationships, religion, and the future of our nation in the upcoming 2008 presidential election, there exist compelling reasons for granting review in this case. If review is not granted, there is an imminent likelihood that thousands of California's Bay Area employees will be chilled in the exercise of free speech … or completely silenced during a time where friendly debate about national issues should not only be allowed but invited," the appeal said.

During Bobb's tenure, employees were allowed to discuss just about anything they wanted except for threatening or actual violence against other employees. "In fact, employees could actually refer to each other as 'niggers' or other such derogatory terms, as a form of 'workplace speech,'" the appeal said. "It's hard to believe Respondent Bobb would allow the term 'nigger' to be used …but not the terms 'natural family, marriage and family values.'"

Ackerman's firm represents the women and said the Pro-Family Law Center and Abiding Truth Ministries have helped underwrite the thousands of dollars it has cost to fight the city's aggressive promotion of the homosexual lifestyle.

Saturday, May 5, 2007

First post

I thought that I would start by writing a little about myself. I am what some folks refer to as a jack of all trades. I enjoy new challenges, solving problems, learning new things. I am a Millwright by trade, but I have done a wide variety of jobs ranging from Machinist to Heavy equipment operator, but furniture making is my first love. I am currently employed by one of the foremost technical universities in the country, working on a very difficult astronomy project.
I am in my early 40's and have little education outside of the trade's I have been involved with. I have a great family and absolutely love the folks I work with, and my life in general. I am typically upbeat and positive, I have tremendous faith in my fellow Americans.
BUT, their are some among us that feel this is a bad place full of bad people, so.........
I expect this blog will be mostly political, since I am absolutely appalled by how our current crop of politicians are acting. I will admit I am a Republican, and things haven't gone our way as of late.

What in the world are they thinking?

Their is simply know excuse for the garbage that some of the Politicians would have you believe. The media is even worst, why do they go out of their way to point out all of America's supposed failings, while hardly a peep about the murderers and tyrant around the world. Look around folks, these are your fellow countrymen they speak so ill of. I know hundreds if not thousands and don't have any idea of who they are referring to. If the media went so far as to call the woman and children killing terrorists "murdering scumbags" it would go a long way to help in this fight.
I think the one thing we can all agree on is,the killing of innocents is wrong, then why not fight it with all that we have. If some of our politicians would quit acting like we are at fault and actually take Americas side and the media would quit pretending we are bringing it on ourselves. I think progress would be quicker then it has been. They both serve up "hope" for the murdering thugs. They are endangering our folks and for what? They hate Bush? What kind of excuse is that? Seems to me that their hatred of the current administration is going to put more of our folks in harms way for many years to come. Bush will be gone sooner then later then what? What are they going to say when we get attacked again? It's Bushes fault, sorry that just isn't good enough. It wasn't any Americans fault for 9/11, but the next one will have plenty of folks to blame.
Unlike what many might have you believe, we are the good guy's,

For the life of me I cant seem to understand why the MSM and Democrats want us out of Iraq so badly? Is it to get reelected, money, principles? What then? They are for doing what about the situation? They surly cant be so naive as to think things will get better without our intervention can they? Let alone the long term problems that will come when we are gone. We will be responsible for what results in the eyes of allies and foe. Why do they both claim to support our front line heroes. It is obvious to every one I know that they are doing everything in their power to undermine them. Instead of writing and talking about what scumbags the terrorist are, they focus on our security problems and mistakes, to the point of almost supporting the terrorist. They cant be so stupid as to think the very words they use don't lift the spirits of the murdering scum our guys are fighting.
OUR GUY's, these folks are our neighbors, kin folk, brother, sisters and sons and daughters. How dare they speak negatively of them or hold them in a tainted light. Anyone whom has ever met a group of these hero's knows that they can be trusted to represent the USA and those of us living here in the most positive way possible. We can be sure that the terrorist will get what they deserve and so will the peaceful Iraqi citizens if we just allow them to do their work the best way they know how.

I have news for all of the politicians that voted for the war, you are as responsible as anyone else for the problems and the results. You want us to believe that some of you were so naive as to be "mislead" then you are not qualified to be a Representative for these United States. Most of you were falling all over yourselves trying to vote for the war, thinking only of your political career. You were elected to represent the country not yourselves! Sure the war isn't popular, the very fact that you and the media don't do anything to buck up the people is mostly why. Many of you even gave long speeches about how this was going to be a long tough fight, then lost your nerve when the first sign of your reelection seemed in jeopardy. This will only get worst if we do not confront it now with determination and a heavy hand. We cannot allow anyone to think we will not defend innocents.