A LOCAL CONNECTION TO SEPTEMBER 11-TH

I know it won't mean a whole lot to liberals...but there IS a connection between Saddam and Al-Quada and September 11th. It was contained in a ruling by a US District Court Judge and confirmed by the 2nd Court of Appeals...in a lawsuit filed by September 11th victims. Now before you whiney liberals get your undies in a wad, stay with me for a moment. The local connection? Well, Mount Pleasant's own Ron Motley is the lead attorney for the families.

Here's the original report of the lawsuit filing (August 2002, CBS News)

And here's the lawsuit ruling by the judge (May 2003, USA Today)

Now, for you liberals...before you go off ranting that it's a ruling by some tiny judge somewhere, be advised that Judge Harold Baer is a Carter appointee. Of course, holding true to your standard operating proceedure, I expect you'll find some way for you to "eat your young" because it's a little inconvenient for you to deal with the facts of the case.

Funny, isn't it? A judge can find gay marriage in a 200-year old document written by John Adams and it's the gospel truth...but this one finds a connection to Saddam and it'll be explained somehow.

While it's was good news (sadly not remembered very well today by the media OR GW Bush)...I'm not all that keen on the legal system being used this way. Notice the dates and time it took between the filing and the ruling. This is my point: This is how John Kerry would prefer we run the "war on Terrorism" and the situation in Iraq.

I HAVE TO ADMIT, I'M A LITTLE OFF TODAY...

I'm having a difficult time...I'm not doing well today in particular. I'm tired...tired of listening to the loony left and their anti-Americanism. Sorry, but I have to get this off my chest...

This weekend is Memorial Day weekend. In the past, I've complained lightly about how the weekend is treated...as an excuse to have fun. I've retreated a little since I also realize other holidays are used and abused for purposes other than their intention...Easter, July 4th, Thanksgiving, Christmas...virtually all of them carry some "other" celebratory baggage other than intended. I guess that's okay, which is why I'm not as strong as I'd like to be in regards to Memorial Day.

But this year is different.

The loony left have been hammering our actions in Iraq and the war on terror. They say: It's not a real war...it's not for our safety...Iraq is a distraction...Bush lied...all of these things. They add up to me and I'm getting tired, physically and mentally, of trying to understand and rationalize their idiocy. I get in trouble from the true-left for questioning their patriotism when they have the dual task of being against the war, but "for the troops"...I'm not going to let them get away with it anymore.

One of our promotional announcements for our station is about a recognition of the Memorial Day holiday. It's not selling anything, such as a product...or even necessarily the station. It's simply a message that says "we honor their committment to our freedom...and for bearing the cost of our freedom" while names of actual KIA's are read underneath. I actually got a complaint today from a listener (who wouldn't give his name, of course) that we were promoting the war in Iraq with a Memorial Day message. He made his case...and it made me sick.

But here's the problem the left has now: While they say that the action in Iraq isn't for OUR freedom...logic suggests that those who have died did NOT die for that freedom. Therefore, we shouldn't be honoring those in Iraq who have died to "protect our freedom"...because it was all based on faulty info, Bush lies, etc. After hearing Al Gore in his "phoney-passion-mode" outline the beliefs the radical left (more mainstream than you know) have about Iraq, I don't expect him to be attending any Memorial Day rememberances on behalf of members of the military who have died so far in Iraq. If they do, they better get some more lessons in acting...

Then (and this is what causes me to be a bit depressed), I tried to think of other wars and actions in which we had people dying...and wanting to count among them which ones were REALLY for our freedom. I started after WWII because we ALL recognize THAT was for protecting our freedom right? (some liberals are wincing right now)

You try:

Korea 1950 - a civil war we didn't need to be in. No threat to US freedom, right?

VietNam 1961 - we refereed until they started shooting back. Again, no real threat to the US.

Grenada 1983 - was called an "excuse" to tangle with Cuba...a "perceived" threat to medical students?

Persian Gulf 1990 - the only threat was to oil, right? Who cares if Saddam invaded Kuwait.

Somalia 1993 - just tried to make sure people got some food. Somalia a threat? Please.

Kosovo 1999 - we just acted as the only available police force the UN had, not really a threat to freedom

Afghanistan 2002 - really about revenge, not really a threat to US freedoms

Iraq 2003 - just listen to Al Gore

Message to the Left Wing Loons: I dare you to show up on Monday at your local ceremony. I dare you. I know the challenge I'm issuing may interupt your grilling or boating plans, but I DARE YOU. Because I know you're not all trained in the thespian arts as well as Al Gore is...

I'M ACTUALLY SURPRISED YOU DIDN'T KNOW

I had a caller yesterday near the end of the program that couldn't believe what I was telling him. Note to listeners: never complain about me repeating myself ever again because I have made this a major beef of mine - Illegal Immigration and it's impact on the Presidential Election.

The caller couldn't believe that we count ILLEGAL aliens when we take the census every ten years. It's true...and it's been policy since 1979. In 1979, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) sued to enjoin the Census Bureau from counting illegals in the decennial census of 1980 (FAIR v. Klutznick, 486 F. Supp. 564, D.D.C. 1980). The case was ultimately dismissed by the Supreme Court on the grounds of lack of standing. In 1988, a similar suit filed by FAIR, 40 members of Congress, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was also dismissed. As a result, the constitutionality of excluding illegal immigrants from the apportionment has yet to be decided by a court of law. But the 2000 Census is the first after an unprecedented influx of illegal aliens (thanks to lax border control and federal encouragement) in our history. This IS a big deal, but no one (not even Rush) is talking about this...

There's a reason for that...because it benefits George W Bush as well as Congressional representatives. Note the following from a piece by John J. Miller of National Review Online:

"...based on the fact that a state's electoral votes are the sum of its two senators and the number of its House members. In the 2000 election, Bush earned 271 electoral votes to Al Gore's 267. If any of the states in Bush's column had gone the other way — including New Hampshire (4 electoral votes) or traditionally Democratic West Virginia (5) — we'd now be in the third year of the Gore administration. Looking ahead, let's assume that Bush carries the same 30 states in 2004 as he did in 2000. Because this will be the first election following the 2000 Census reapportionment, Bush would collect 278 electoral votes from this same set of states. If both New Hampshire and West Virginia were to defect, Bush would most likely retire to his ranch in Crawford..."

It also means individual states are losing power to states with high concentrations of illegal immigrants (some even encourage it by giving out drivers licenses, in-state tuition, etc)...Montana, for instance, only has 1 Congressman...California picked up 6 extra in 2000. The issue could be easily changed if Congress would pass a law eliminating illegal aliens from the Census totals...but you guessed it, MIGHT makes RIGHT and states with big gains in congressional representation have a lot more pull...

GAS...AND ONE CANDIDATE IS FULL OF IT

I, like a lot of my fellow South Carolinians, filled up the vehicle a few times over the past couple of weeks. I don't like higher prices any more than most of you do...and 2-dollars a gallon seems like a lot when you're used to paying $1.58. But adjusting for inflation and wage earning power, gasoline today is cheaper than it was 20-years ago...even more.

I think the issue of oil prices is being played like a fiddle by people that know how to emotionally move the citizenry to do their bidding...temporarily distracting them from larger more important issues and causing them pause to consider their message of liberalism.

People are basically stupid and easily led. The ones that don't pay attention, that is. Like the guy who buys a copper wrist-band to help his golf game, or magnets to sleep on to cure his back pain - these people deserve what they get when they purchase their future from a re-designed snake oil salesman.

I've always found it funny that people pay $1.50 for a 20-ounce bottle of water or soda pop and complain about 2-dollar a gallon gasoline. They think nothing of dropping 2-dollars for a 10-cent (real cost) cup of coffee.

Here's the truth about the current gasoline prices:

(From Steven Moore - economist)

Despite the recent surge in prices caused by the Iraq War and the supply cutbacks by the OPEC cartel, oil is still cheap by historical standards. We have to work less today to purchase oil than any other generation had to — which is really the best measure of scarcity. Think gasoline is expensive today? In the 1920s our grandparents paid, in today's wage-adjusted prices, $10 a gallon. In today's prices, oil cost $100 a barrel in 1900. Energy prices have been falling almost continuously (with some notable exceptions, such as the 1970s) ever since man first discovered oil.

In the 1950s, for example, no one thought it was possible to get oil from the bottom of the sea. By 1965 we had the technological capacity to drill 60 feet into the sea bed. Today's rigs can drill more than 10,000 feet down. Moreover, new sources of oil are being discovered. One of the richest oil fields in the Western hemisphere is up in Alaska, at Prudhoe Bay. Geologists recently discovered there is at least twice as much oil in this deposit as originally forecast. No one knows for sure how much oil is available within the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, but this could amount to one of the most lavish oil deposits in the world — yet the liberals like John Kerry refuse to allow drilling.

"Everything that can be invented has been invented." Charles H. Duell, U.S. Commissioner of Patents, allegedly said that in 1899. I wonder how many people believed the quote in those days - and how many fall for the John Kerry's and other 'chicken littles' doom and gloom?

The South Carolina Democrat Leadership Council came up with an article in support of releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. A silly idea, really. The former President (Bill Clinton in case he lets you forget) actually did this in the year 2000, remember? Yeah, oil prices fell to 28-dollars a barrel from 35-dollars for a total of 3 weeks before they returned to 35-dollars (a savings of 5-cents per gallon for three weeks). By holding off the storing of 8-million barrels over 3-months (as Kerry recommends), that would give the US an additional 100-thousand barrels a day. We use about 8-million barrels a day in the United States. Total price for gasoline would drop by about a penny.

But, thanks to effective leadership by George W Bush - Saudi Arabia is encouraging OPEC to increase production by 2.5-MILLION barrels A DAY.

Think about that the next time you fill up with gas...hot air, mostly.

STUNNING THE CIVIL RIGHTS ESTABLISHMENT

The tide may be turning far more quickly than I thought. The tide against the usual response to civil rights complaints and "the movement" to 'keep hope alive'...

Following the report of recent comments by Bill Cosby at an NAACP gala, I found an interesting connection between what he said and a local issue...it's what I do.

A while back, a young man by the name of Asberry Wilder was shot and killed by police following the reports of a robbery at a local grocery store. Predictably, the civil rights and do-nothing NAACP folks got their undies in a wad and made a big stink out of it...including a protest march, Jesse Jackson, and the usual lack of responsibility on the part of the perpetrator. Asberry Wilder was black, he was said to be "mentally challenged" and only stole some ham from a deli. All of these details played into an emotional angle for the poverty pimps and race baiters of the civil rights establishment.

On the matter of criminality, Bill Cosby stunned members who were present by saying, "...These are not political criminals. These are people going around stealing Coca-Cola. People getting shot in the back of the head over a piece of pound cake and then we run out and we are outraged, saying, 'The cops shouldn't have shot him.' What the hell was he doing with the pound cake in his hand?"

Simply change 'Coca-Cola' and 'poundcake' to 'ham' and you can see where I am going with this issue.

Funny thing, though. I've been saying much the same thing for years...and branded a racist. I wonder how long it will be before Bill Cosby is called a sell-out or Uncle Tom? Perhaps he has more in common with average people than we thought. You remember, of course, the criticism lobbed against Cosby in the 80's, don't you? Sure, they thought his portrayal of a black family (married mother and father) with a doctor and law degree respectively, was "...out side the bounds of what blacks are dealing with today...the Cosby show isn't reality to most black folks..."

Sure enough, the Cosby statements didn't make much of a blip on the radar of our local race-carping class:

Charleston NAACP to unveil crime-fighting plan

And their answer is? The same old same old...

"...The Rev. Joe Darby, branch vice president, said the plan will try to reduce crime by eliminating the climate for violence brought on by economic decline, drugs and limits on education...the plan suggests that churches and community groups pay for the funerals and health care expenses of crime victims. It proposes that observers attend court hearings as advocates to insure that defendants receive fair trials...

How about something simpler and less time consuming? Remember the Golden Rule? It's still a rule...

SOMEONE FINALLY CAUGHT ON...

A while back, I was taking apart the latest screed by Senator Fritz Hollings on the show. In his editorial earlier this month, he blamed the whole Iraq and terrorism problem on President Bush's eye toward the Jewish vote. It inspired a few calls from people that seemed normal to the screener at first, but after a while on the air with me, I sensed they were a little nuts. I even got a few complaints that I was too mean to the guy by asking him whether or not he believed the Holocaust happened. I did that as a test to his current sanity. The caller failed.

Michael Rubin at the American Enterprise Institute (right wing think tank) has a piece today highlighting a concern of his...increased Anti-Semitism as it relates to some weird conspiracy theories.

Here's how Fritz put it in his editorial...

"...Led by Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Charles Krauthammer, for years there has been a domino school of thought that the way to guarantee Israel's security is to spread democracy in the area...He (Bush) came to office imbued with one thought -- re-election. Bush felt tax cuts would hold his crowd together and spreading democracy in the Mideast to secure Israel would take the Jewish vote from the Democrats..."

As Mr Rubin points out in his article (also available on National Review Online)...

"...Several scholars have addressed the creeping anti-Semitism in the current discourse. Max Boot, Olin Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, published an excellent essay in the January/February 2004 edition of Foreign Policy in which he called the charge 'a malicious myth' the argument that neoconservatives were 'Jews who serve the interests of Israel.' Boot explained, 'With varying degrees of delicacy, everyone from fringe U.S. presidential candidates Lyndon LaRouche and Patrick Buchanan to European news outlets such as the BBC and Le Monde have used neocon as a synonym for Jew, focusing on Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Eliot Cohen, and others with obvious Jewish names..."

I wondered where ole Fritz got the brains to put that piece of trash he printed in the local papers together...Lyndon LaRouche. It happens to be the same website that the nutty Anti-Jewish caller referenced.

An article today in the State newspaper is the first article I've seen criticizing Hollings for being anti-semitic. Too bad his last name wasn't something like Gingrich, DeLay, or Lott...he might have had to leave the Senate earlier than he planned...

BY THE WAY

I've added a new feature to the blog...don't abuse it. You can post comments on the screed by yours truly. Have fun. Again, don't abuse it or it will go away. There's no such thing as free speech when I'm paying for it...

BIG BAD WAL-MART

I was really interested in the story in the Post and Courier that announced a possible new Wal-Mart superstore in Mount Pleasant. Again, journalists are mostly lazy and there are some corrections to make in the story (more on that below), but what caught my attention is an issue that I see developing among liberals. They used to be for the small-guy...

I believe a lot of the opposition to Wal-Mart is coming from a basic snobbery...the elitists among us (liberals) don't like you low-class family types with your sticky-faced kids and sweatpants invading their neighborhoods. They like the small eclectic little mom and pop places that force you to pay premium prices. Especially here in Charleston with our wonderful restaurants and fine dining...I would venture a guess that a lot of these same people wouldn't be caught dead in a supermarket, much less to purchase groceries...they have no need to. It might explain why local convenience stores stock small and extremely pricey dry goods you might need in a pinch.

As pointed out in a bunch of recent stories on the success of Wal-Mart, here are some collected facts about the "cavernous" stores that inspire such detest:

* Wal-Mart is the number 1 private employer in the United States, employing nearly 1.4-million workers. Government is #1 overall.

* Starting wages for Wal-Mart employees are higher than the federal minimum wage and higher than most state minimum wages.

* 2/3rds of Wal-Mart executives come from the ranks of hourly employees.

* Wal-Mart is the #1 seller in three major categories: furniture, groceries, and toys.

* More than 90-percent of employees have health insurance benefits.

* Wal-Mart faced more than 6,000 lawsuits in 2002 (I consider that good news because it must mean they're doing something liberals don't like)

Ever notice how concerned these liberal Saks-5th Avenue types always seem to have this great concern about the people working there, the mom and pops who have to close shop because of competition, the 'urban sprawl' they create, and a host of other weird opposition complaints...NEVER seem to mention the people who SHOP there? I wonder if it could be because they themselves go there too...and don't like admitting they get a darn good deal on darn good products. What's more American than that?

Now, to a few items in the Post and Courier story:

"...Last month, voters in Inglewood, a low-income community near Los Angeles, voted down a Wal-Mart Supercenter..."

If the journalist would have done his/her homework, they would have found this not to be true. They voted down a proposal to allow Wal-Mart to bypass the usual red tape involving the environmental and planning/zoning commission in Inglewood...they did not vote down the store. Few people do as evidenced by the number of people who shop there (and buy their stock).

The other problem I had with the story is the claim that, "...Wal-Mart, running into grass-roots opposition across the country in its quest to build supercenters, is experiencing the same resistance to plans for one of its giant-sized stores in Mount Pleasant..."

I read the whole story and darned if I could find anyone who I would consider to be 'grass roots' identified in the story. I see the Mayor, Harry Hallman...I see a college professor of career services...I see a member of the planning committee...BUT no one else.

Definition, Grassroots: People or society at a local level rather than at the center of major political activity. Population groups that are difficult to reach. Referring to activities or organizations started by average citizens at the community level.

Nope...none of them in this story...count them instead among the elite who just can't stand progress.

COULD SOMEONE PLEASE CONTACT WEBSTER?

I've wanted to write and do a show that focuses on the changing language in America. Mind you, this isn't some claim that the "Newspeak" that Orwell warned about is here, it's more of a way for those on the wrong side of issues to make it sound like they aren't.

There was a march at the SC Statehouse this weekend on behalf of those "in favor of public education" and "fair opportunities" for children in school.

Certainly, someone can be against the political stance they are taking and be in favor of public education...and someone can be for equal opportunity without having to worry about being fair. Fair sounds like such a nice and compassionate word, doesn't it? Who isn't for fairness? Well, for one...I am not for fairness if it means restructuring the playing field to force fairness.

Liberals today seem to frame the debate in order to make conservatives sound mean when they oppose their ideas. I guess it's the same way for conservatives in some examples...but the difference is conservatives are right - liberals are always wrong. Liberals want to argue the "heart string" issues like 'protecting the HEALTH of the mother' and 'pay their FAIR share' and 'FAIR opportunity for all children' to get an education. Very tricky, right? The only problem is, the liberals NEVER define themselves. They could...but they won't because they know most people disagree with them.

So let me straighten a few of these tough ones out for you.

PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE - means everyone should pay more. Not just the rich, not just the super rich...everyone. I can't come up with a specific number at which we're supposed to start paying our fair share, because they never answer that one...so in my mind, it means everyone. Every time the phrase has been used, it has led to a tax increase on everyone. Look at the gas prices today...what I find hilarious is the complaints that the oil companies are getting away with too many profits and they should pay their fair share of hurt in order to lower prices for you. Note that there's never any discussion about how much GOVERNMENT makes from oil...it's the second largest cost of a gallon of gasoline...taxes. If you paid 1-dollar for gasoline, it would breakout as follows: 46 cents for the actual cost of the crude, 11-cents profit, 19-cents refining costs, and a whopping 24-cents to government. The government is making MORE than the oil companies...wouldn't it be more FAIR for the government to give up some of THEIR profit? After all, they don't really work for it...they just take by force of law. Go ahead, ask a liberal some day what their idea of fair is...you'll get a lot of gobbledy-gook...and some mumbling answer about how you are mean for asking...or they'll ask a question as an answer.

FAIR OPPORTUNITY - Similar to the above, but its a nice turn of the phrase, 'equal opportunity' isn't it? When liberals start using FAIR for EQUAL opportunity...it really means we already have equal opportunity, it just didn't work out so well for their lazy-bum constituency. Everyone has equal opportunity to apply themselves to the wonderful options they have in being an American. And because a bunch of in-breds sit in their hammock of a safety net and wait for others to save them from their own misery, we now have to give them more. This IS a matter of breeding. When liberals came up with the idea of creating dependency, they accomplished much of what they wanted...we have a large percentage of Americans who know and understand that they can do pretty much anything they want and they won't be held responsible. If they suck at taking tests - the test is unfair. If they can't sit still - we have a pill for that. If they screw up and fail - we pass them anyway. We have an equal opportunity to education...if you don't take advantage of it...that's YOUR problem, not mine.

LIFE vs HEALTH OF THE MOTHER - I know abortion isn't a fun one, but this is a great example of how liberals have hoodwinked a lot of Americans. We must protect the 'health' of the mother...that sounds like the same as 'life' of the mother, doesn't it? It isn't. LIFE is a very clearly defined thing - you are either alive or you are dead. There's no middle or grey area there. Health is a completely different matter. My health can be threatened or lessened by pretty much anything. For instance, today I have a toothache...my view of my own health is different than it was yesterday. Protecting the 'health' of someone is full of thousands of issues that might conflict with your own view of your health. Liberals really hate when I reference this issue when discussing partial birth abortion. They claim that my use of a hang-nail by a mother as a way of defining their protection of health is silly. But is it? Liberals are the most tolerant people on earth, aren't they? Why would they prevent someone from using a hang-nail as a reason for wanting to abort their child in a late term? The reason is simple - because they can't draw a line in the sand for fear of being as mean as conservatives in wanting to limit someone from doing what they feel like doing. Once they say a mother shouldn't be able to abort their child because of a hang-nail, they're finished...because they must recognize a limit in something. Just like anything else, they have to take a stand on something...and they can't.

Whew...sorry for the length today. I was/am in a mood.

FINALLY SOMETHING ELSE INTERESTING

Whew...is it over yet? The prison abuse "scandal"...is the coast clear? Probably not, but I'm going to do my best to try to avoid the whole topic that has so far taken up all three hours of the show in recent days.

A curious story caught my eye today, an incentive program being launched at a school. Instantly, I thought of the education establishment searching through their files of past attempts and envisioned them screaming about the unfairness of it all...you know, the people who don't want to see someone else do better than them? Yes, those "hate the rich, punish the successful" diversity and cultural inclusion types. I've always believed that opposition to incentive programs come mainly from lazy, good-for-nothing union types. These are people who continue to believe they are owed something simply for having a piece of paper that says they're smart, or they've been doing the same thing for a long time, or just because they want to be left alone and collect their checks at the end of the week. It sounds almost libertarian when you think about it...but it's quite the opposite.

Well, I didn't have to read that far to come to the chief of the complaint department. The story is about rewarding students for getting things accomplished...100-dollars for a diploma, and further incentives for members of the staff.

"...Charleston County School Board Chairwoman Nancy Cook...said she wasn't sure what to think. 'OK, that's nice,' she said, 'but I don't know'..."

What she's afraid of actually saying here is what she is thinking...some children will be left out and feel bad because they didn't WIN. I guarantee it. She won't say it out loud because most of you folks would have an obvious disagreement with her and she's a politician at heart. Here's more...

"...Parent Kathleen Evans said it is wrong to pay people to go to high school. 'I don't think it's a good idea to pay people to do what they're supposed to do,' she said. 'It sets a real bad precedent that, whatever I do in life, when I do what I'm supposed to do, I am owed something.'..."

It's just the opposite, dearie. Where does she get her check from? Probably from something that pays her just for being there. I suspect it's something called "a husband" but that would be mean of me to mention it. I get mine for holding a job and performing according to my expectations. I get MORE if I do better than expected. Under the current system, students get something just for showing up...but because they get such an awful version of what they're supposed to...they don't see any value in it.

I am not in favor of paying students for simply getting a diploma...but why not make the incentive more "market based" (boy, that scares the liberals, doesn't it?) by rewarding BETTER than expected performance...like say, a 3.0 grade average or better?

Come to think of it...that would enrage the libs even more, wouldn't it? Acknowledging that there are those that may be better than others is a no-no among today's PC Police...

On the other hand...after reading the story, the money they would pay out to students comes from overspending by the state...which means maybe the checks should be written out to taxpayers...oh, well...it's only your money.

WOMEN APPARENTLY JUST AS BAD AS MEN

Are they pigs? Well, a story today about Pfc. Lynndie England in the New York Post today might put some truth to that statement. According to the story, she was engaging in "shocking...sexcapades with other soldiers in front of Iraqi prisoners..."

I wonder if she was so stupid as she claims in her interview the other day that "she only did what she was ordered to do"...is it common for women to follow orders to have sex with multiple partners in your unit?

What did I freaking say on the radio the other day? It's amazing to me how the story of Women in the Military is being ignored here! Where are the members of Congress from "The Year of the Woman" age and Tailhook when you need them?

I guess they really meant it when they said women can do everything men do...

I GOT AN INTERESTING PRESS RELEASE TODAY

I'm working on contacting the folks below...perhaps I could use your help in finding out when they might issue a new press release calling upon the Islamic extremists and terrorist organizations to apologize and step down from their posts...for giving the Islamic faith such a bad reputation around the world:

U.S. Muslims call for Rumsfeld's Resignation
--CAIR says defense secretary should put nation's interests first--

A prominent national Islamic civil rights and advocacy group today called on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to "put America's interests first" by resigning over his handling of the growing prisoner abuse scandal in Iraq.

That request by the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) came following further revelations of mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners held by American military personnel.

In its statement, CAIR said:

"As Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld bears ultimate responsibility for the brutal and humiliating actions of American troops and for the poor handling of the scandal by the military establishment. He must also take responsibility for fostering an atmosphere in which the traditional rules of war and norms of international law are treated as excess baggage.

"With responsibility comes accountability. Secretary Rumsfeld and his entire management team must put America's interests first by resigning their posts. If he and his top advisors do not resign, they should be removed by President Bush. No other action could possibly help mitigate the devastating impact this scandal has had on our nation's image worldwide."

Just so you know...I put calls into the following. I'm expecting an explanation and/or apology for Nick Berg's be-heading.

CAIR - Northern Georgia
3920 North Peachtree Road
Suite 205
Atlanta, GA 30341
Contact Name: Yusof Burke
Main Telephone: 770-220-0082
Fax Number: 770-220-2799

CAIR - South Carolina
221 Rolling Roch Road
Columbia, SC 29212
Contact Name: Minhaj Arastu
Main Telephone: 803-750-1236

I CAN'T BELIEVE I HAVE TO DO THIS AGAIN...

It seems everywhere I turn, I hear scapegoating charges; a willingness to downplay the crimes; and a general "understanding" of how these reservists could've done what they did. Balderdash.

Just a few of the excuses I'm hearing:

1. The reservists were not properly trained. This is total BS. Reservists get the same training as anyone else. Besides, how much training do you have to have in order to think that putting naked human beings in a pyramid wasn't proper conduct...then, how much more training do you have to have to not take pictures of the "display?" This is just silly. It excuses the reservists of a basic understanding of right and wrong. I don't have ANY military training...and I would have said something or questioned the order and/or refused if given an order to put human beings in a naked pyramid.

2. Morale problems due to length of time in Iraq. You're kidding me right? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the reservists seemed to be enjoying themselves based on the smiles they had in some of the photos. Could this just be another example of the "instant gratification" syndrome among young people today? The knowledge that you could be serving our nation in a time of war if you sign up for the military (active, reserves, national guard, etc) is nothing new. I realize you maybe didn't think you'd serve a year in a foreign country...but s*it happens...suck it up.

3. The failure of the military. This is rich...I love it when a Press Release in March of 2004(!!!) becomes major news in May of 2004 and somehow it's the military's fault for not following up and the chain of command is not doing their jobs. Folks...the only thing NEW about this story is the addition of the photos. A headline in March of 2004 (Washington Post for crying out loud) detailed a military investigation into the matter. In fact, the entire report has been available on-line since March! Read it HERE.It doesn't sound like a cover-up to me...sounds like the media found it finally.

4. Rumsfeld should resign. Yeah...like all those apologies worked to stem the tide of criticism...this will do the same thing. Fail. This is a political witch hunt for someone with something more than a few stripes on their sleeves. The people responsible should be removed from responsiblity (they have), face charges (they are), serve jail time (they will), and be discharged from the military (dis-honorably, I might add). Unless Don Rumsfeld gave the order himself (which still should have been questioned by the troops), there's no reason for him to resign.

I'm sure there will be more and more to come...can't wait for the video.

WITH APOLOGIES TO THE GREAT ONE...

See...I told you so - Rush Limbaugh book title

Yesterday I outlined my disgust at the photos and treatment of Iraqi detainees...and today it's exploding among those who enjoy taking political advantage of the situation. They include:

Islamic extremists - who have also seen fit to publish additional "fake" photos alleging rapes and other forms of torture.

Democrat extremists - who have taken the cue from their instincts and are seeking political advantage of the issue by blaming Bush. See Tom Daschle for more information.

I received a lot of comments by those who (unbelievably) want to explain away the problem...minimize the impact...and make excuses for the treatment. My wife, who is normally an understanding former member of the military, said in our home-discussion of the topic that they were probably not "supervised properly." I'm sorry if I don't understand this as well as most people, but I'll put it simply:

Honesty and integrity are best exemplified by the actions we take when no one is watching.

Here's just one good email that represents a lot of them I've received:

Yesterday you railed against people who justified the humiliation of Iraqi prisoners. I am another one. I am certainly not for abusing anyone, BUT when there are American soldiers lives at stake the interrogators must be given broad leeway. To humiliate and mistreat a few Iraqis to gain the much needed intelligence to save just one Marine life is by far worth it. To prevent having to tell the parents of just one Marine that their son has paid the ultimate sacrifice, this type of interrogation is VERY justified. The pictures, on the other hand, should have never been taken. This is the ugly part of war that does need to be shown to the world. Any type of embarrassment or humiliation of an individual can be easily overcome and forgotten about. Lopping of a hand or cutting out a tongue can not. When the war prisoners are taken, the intelligence they hold becomes stale quickly. The information must be extracted immediately. Naked leap frog, naked pyramids, or even making prisoners perform homosexual acts is justified, while reports of sodomizing prisoners with broom handles go over the line. Serious, long-lasting injuries can occur from this abuse. In conclusion, give the Intel officers the leeway they need to get the job done, but rely on their good judgment to what is crossing the line into abuse.

I especially enjoyed the remark - "...To humiliate and mistreat a few Iraqis to gain the much needed intelligence to save just one Marine life is by far worth it..."

I hate to pull too much of a fast one, but isn't that what terrorists do? Kill a few civilians for the "greater good" of their cause? I rest my case.

NOT MY KIND OF SOLDIERS

I'm sure everyone has heard or viewed some of the disgusting photos of the humiliation of Iraqi detainees. I'm curious though...why the hell did they take photos of what they did? What kind of an idiot commits an obvious violation of the Geneva Convention...

The Third Geneva Convention of 1949 states, in part, that, "Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention...prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity."

...and then takes pictures!

Pardon me for remembering that we live in the age of defining deviancy down, don't we? Can't we turn on the news on an occasional basis and find some young person smashing mailboxes and video taping the whole thing? Hazing incidents, other acts of brutality against other Americans have all shown up on the TV News with video tape. Isn't video-taping of sex acts by youngpeople becoming somewhat common when we hear about it?

It is not possible to explain this all away with a simple "parent like" excuse...or lawyering by slick defense lawyers outlining more excuses for their behavior...they should serve a very long stint in Leavenworth.