|
|
|
Why We Cannot Win
by Al Lorentz
Before I begin, let me state that I am a soldier currently deployed in Iraq, I
am not an armchair quarterback. Nor am I some politically idealistic and nave
young soldier, I am an old and seasoned Non-Commissioned Officer with nearly 20
years under my belt. Additionally, I am not just a soldier with a muds-eye view
of the war, I am in Civil Affairs and as such, it is my job to be aware of all
the events occurring in this country and specifically in my region.
I have come to the conclusion that we cannot win here for a number of reasons.
Ideology and idealism will never trump history and reality.
When we were preparing to deploy, I told my young soldiers to beware of the
"political solution." Just when you think you have the situation on the ground
in hand, someone will come along with a political directive that throws you off
the tracks.
I believe that we could have won this un-Constitutional invasion of Iraq and
possibly pulled off the even more un-Constitutional occupation and subjugation
of this sovereign nation. It might have even been possible to foist democracy on
these people who seem to have no desire, understanding or respect for such an
institution. True the possibility of pulling all this off was a long shot and
would have required several hundred billion dollars and even more casualties
than weve seen to date but again it would have been possible, not realistic or
necessary but possible.
Here are the specific reasons why we cannot win in Iraq.
First, we refuse to deal in reality. We are in a guerilla war, but because of
politics, we are not allowed to declare it a guerilla war and must label the
increasingly effective guerilla forces arrayed against us as "terrorists,
criminals and dead-enders."
This implies that there is a zero sum game at work, i.e. we can simply kill X
number of the enemy and then the fight is over, mission accomplished, everybody
wins. Unfortunately, this is not the case. We have few tools at our disposal and
those are proving to be wholly ineffective at fighting the guerillas.
The idea behind fighting a guerilla army is not to destroy its every man (an
impossibility since he hides himself by day amongst the populace). Rather the
idea in guerilla warfare is to erode or destroy his base of support.
So long as there is support for the guerilla, for every one you kill two more
rise up to take his place. More importantly, when your tools for killing him are
precision guided munitions, raids and other acts that create casualties among
the innocent populace, you raise the support for the guerillas and undermine the
support for yourself. (A 500-pound precision bomb has a casualty-producing
radius of 400 meters minimum; do the math.)
Second, our assessment of what motivates the average Iraqi was skewed, again by
politically motivated "experts." We came here with some fantasy idea that the
natives were all ignorant, mud-hut dwelling camel riders who would line the
streets and pelt us with rose petals, lay palm fronds in the street and be
eternally grateful. While at one time there may have actually been support and
respect from the locals, months of occupation by our regular military forces
have turned the formerly friendly into the recently hostile.
Attempts to correct the thinking in this regard are in vain; it is not
politically correct to point out the fact that the locals are not only disliking
us more and more, they are growing increasingly upset and often overtly hostile.
Instead of addressing the reasons why the locals are becoming angry and
discontented, we allow politicians in Washington DC to give us pat and
convenient reasons that are devoid of any semblance of reality.
We are told that the locals are not upset because we have a hostile, aggressive
and angry Army occupying their nation. We are told that they are not upset at
the police state we have created, or at the manner of picking their
representatives for them. Rather we are told, they are upset because of a
handful of terrorists, criminals and dead enders in their midst have made them
upset, that and of course the ever convenient straw man of "left wing media
bias."
Third, the guerillas are filling their losses faster than we can create them.
This is almost always the case in guerilla warfare, especially when your tactics
for battling the guerillas are aimed at killing guerillas instead of eroding
their support. For every guerilla we kill with a "smart bomb" we kill many more
innocent civilians and create rage and anger in the Iraqi community. This rage
and anger translates into more recruits for the terrorists and less support for
us.
We have fallen victim to the body count mentality all over again. We have shown
a willingness to inflict civilian casualties as a necessity of war without
realizing that these same casualties create waves of hatred against us. These
angry Iraqi citizens translate not only into more recruits for the guerilla army
but also into more support of the guerilla army.
Fourth, their lines of supply and communication are much shorter than ours and
much less vulnerable. We must import everything we need into this place; this
costs money and is dangerous. Whether we fly the supplies in or bring them by
truck, they are vulnerable to attack, most especially those brought by truck.
This not only increases the likelihood of the supplies being interrupted. Every
bean, every bullet and every bandage becomes infinitely more expensive.
Conversely, the guerillas live on top of their supplies and are showing every
indication of developing a very sophisticated network for obtaining them.
Further, they have the advantage of the close support of family and friends and
traditional religious networks.
Fifth, we consistently underestimate the enemy and his capabilities. Many
military commanders have prepared to fight exactly the wrong war here.
Our tactics have not adjusted to the battlefield and we are falling behind.
Meanwhile the enemy updates his tactics and has shown a remarkable resiliency
and adaptability.
Because the current administration is more concerned with its image than it is
with reality, it prefers symbolism to substance: soldiers are dying here and
being maimed and crippled for life. It is tragic, indeed criminal that our
elected public servants would so willingly sacrifice our nation's prestige and
honor as well as the blood and treasure to pursue an agenda that is ahistoric
and un-Constitutional.
It is all the more ironic that this un-Constitutional mission is being performed
by citizen soldiers such as myself who swore an oath to uphold and defend the
Constitution of the United States, the same oath that the commander in chief
himself has sworn.
September 20, 2004
|
| |
| |
Great. Excellent analysis. Bush screwed up when he disenfranchised
the Ba'athists, and gave them no stake in the new Iraqi order. And it
didn't help to call the project Operation Iraqi Liberation (O.I.L.). :)
Everyone knows what was foremost on the Bushies' mind.
Now, can we have a cite?
Enjoy our $2/gal gas -- if we had let well enough alone, and even let
Saddam pump more oil, there wouldn't be a problem with supplies. Blame
it on Bush. Again. Does he EVER do ANYTHING right?
S. O. Damocles wrote:
Why We Cannot Win
by Al Lorentz
Before I begin, let me state that I am a soldier currently deployed in Iraq, I
am not an armchair quarterback. Nor am I some politically idealistic and nave
young soldier, I am an old and seasoned Non-Commissioned Officer with nearly 20
years under my belt. Additionally, I am not just a soldier with a muds-eye view
of the war, I am in Civil Affairs and as such, it is my job to be aware of all
the events occurring in this country and specifically in my region.
I have come to the conclusion that we cannot win here for a number of reasons.
Ideology and idealism will never trump history and reality.
When we were preparing to deploy, I told my young soldiers to beware of the
"political solution." Just when you think you have the situation on the ground
in hand, someone will come along with a political directive that throws you off
the tracks.
I believe that we could have won this un-Constitutional invasion of Iraq and
possibly pulled off the even more un-Constitutional occupation and subjugation
of this sovereign nation. It might have even been possible to foist democracy on
these people who seem to have no desire, understanding or respect for such an
institution. True the possibility of pulling all this off was a long shot and
would have required several hundred billion dollars and even more casualties
than weve seen to date but again it would have been possible, not realistic or
necessary but possible.
Here are the specific reasons why we cannot win in Iraq.
First, we refuse to deal in reality. We are in a guerilla war, but because of
politics, we are not allowed to declare it a guerilla war and must label the
increasingly effective guerilla forces arrayed against us as "terrorists,
criminals and dead-enders."
This implies that there is a zero sum game at work, i.e. we can simply kill X
number of the enemy and then the fight is over, mission accomplished, everybody
wins. Unfortunately, this is not the case. We have few tools at our disposal and
those are proving to be wholly ineffective at fighting the guerillas.
The idea behind fighting a guerilla army is not to destroy its every man (an
impossibility since he hides himself by day amongst the populace). Rather the
idea in guerilla warfare is to erode or destroy his base of support.
So long as there is support for the guerilla, for every one you kill two more
rise up to take his place. More importantly, when your tools for killing him are
precision guided munitions, raids and other acts that create casualties among
the innocent populace, you raise the support for the guerillas and undermine the
support for yourself. (A 500-pound precision bomb has a casualty-producing
radius of 400 meters minimum; do the math.)
Second, our assessment of what motivates the average Iraqi was skewed, again by
politically motivated "experts." We came here with some fantasy idea that the
natives were all ignorant, mud-hut dwelling camel riders who would line the
streets and pelt us with rose petals, lay palm fronds in the street and be
eternally grateful. While at one time there may have actually been support and
respect from the locals, months of occupation by our regular military forces
have turned the formerly friendly into the recently hostile.
Attempts to correct the thinking in this regard are in vain; it is not
politically correct to point out the fact that the locals are not only disliking
us more and more, they are growing increasingly upset and often overtly hostile.
Instead of addressing the reasons why the locals are becoming angry and
discontented, we allow politicians in Washington DC to give us pat and
convenient reasons that are devoid of any semblance of reality.
We are told that the locals are not upset because we have a hostile, aggressive
and angry Army occupying their nation. We are told that they are not upset at
the police state we have created, or at the manner of picking their
representatives for them. Rather we are told, they are upset because of a
handful of terrorists, criminals and dead enders in their midst have made them
upset, that and of course the ever convenient straw man of "left wing media
bias."
Third, the guerillas are filling their losses faster than we can create them.
This is almost always the case in guerilla warfare, especially when your tactics
for battling the guerillas are aimed at killing guerillas instead of eroding
their support. For every guerilla we kill with a "smart bomb" we kill many more
innocent civilians and create rage and anger in the Iraqi community. This rage
and anger translates into more recruits for the terrorists and less support for
us.
We have fallen victim to the body count mentality all over again. We have shown
a willingness to inflict civilian casualties as a necessity of war without
realizing that these same casualties create waves of hatred against us. These
angry Iraqi citizens translate not only into more recruits for the guerilla army
but also into more support of the guerilla army.
Fourth, their lines of supply and communication are much shorter than ours and
much less vulnerable. We must import everything we need into this place; this
costs money and is dangerous. Whether we fly the supplies in or bring them by
truck, they are vulnerable to attack, most especially those brought by truck.
This not only increases the likelihood of the supplies being interrupted. Every
bean, every bullet and every bandage becomes infinitely more expensive.
Conversely, the guerillas live on top of their supplies and are showing every
indication of developing a very sophisticated network for obtaining them.
Further, they have the advantage of the close support of family and friends and
traditional religious networks.
Fifth, we consistently underestimate the enemy and his capabilities. Many
military commanders have prepared to fight exactly the wrong war here.
Our tactics have not adjusted to the battlefield and we are falling behind.
Meanwhile the enemy updates his tactics and has shown a remarkable resiliency
and adaptability.
Because the current administration is more concerned with its image than it is
with reality, it prefers symbolism to substance: soldiers are dying here and
being maimed and crippled for life. It is tragic, indeed criminal that our
elected public servants would so willingly sacrifice our nation's prestige and
honor as well as the blood and treasure to pursue an agenda that is ahistoric
and un-Constitutional.
It is all the more ironic that this un-Constitutional mission is being performed
by citizen soldiers such as myself who s
|
| |
| |
en Smith wrote:
Great. Excellent analysis. Bush screwed up when he
disenfranchised
the Ba'athists, and gave them no stake in the new Iraqi
order. And it
didn't help to call the project Operation Iraqi Liberation
(O.I.L.). :) Everyone knows what was foremost on the
Bushies' mind.
Now, can we have a cite?
Open wide, repug!
Roadmap for the Prosecution
by Karen Kwiatkowski
by Karen Kwiatkowski
Al Lorentz is a reserve Non-Commissioned Officer currently serving in Iraq. His
blazingly clear, succinct article on Iraq has raged over the wires since it was
published on LewRockwell.com.
Al, in his civilian life, was an active member of the Constitution Party in the
great state of Texas. He worked on a ranch, served in the reserves, and when
activated, deployed to Iraq.
He has something in common with our own President George W. Bush, who was also
active in a political party in Texas, worked on a ranch, and did some time in
the National Guard. Of course, President Bush hasnt served in Iraq.
Al and George might have a lot to talk about.
Al penned a factual personal assessment of what is happening in Iraq. He
revealed no classified information. Far more detail on Iraq challenges has long
been provided by respected retired military officers like Marine General Tony
Zinni and former Director of the National Security Agency William Odom. Al wrote
nothing more damning than what has already been published and released in part
by the Central Intelligence Agency regarding conditions and future possibilities
in Iraq.
So what is the problem?
The problem is that Al Lorentz, "Big Al" to his friends, has something that the
Bush administration needs badly.
The Holy Grail in Washington is credibility. Bush and the Pentagon brass want
it. The administrations credibility deficit is its Achilles heel. Lack of
credibility is the primary reason Bush will lose in November. George W. Bushs
own troubled past, a presidential lack of interest in terrorism until 9/11,
criminal mendacity on the way to war in Iraq, flagrantly abused tax dollars at
home and abroad, Patriot Act absurdities, artificial dummy governments amidst
social and economic disaster in Kabul and Baghdad, the odd Iranian agent
provocateur (Chalabi) and the more familiar Israeli-linked ones (Chalabis
former allies in the Pentagon), the list goes on and on. It is as if Bush and
Company signed up for a credibility destroyer of the month club at a special
four-year subscription rate.
Credibility. Big Al has it. The electorally nervous White House and edgy
Pentagon executives are frightened as they witness an example of genuine courage
and find they are on the wrong side of it.
Naturally, there are consequences. Als military chain of command is considering
charging him with violation of 18 USC 2388, willfully causing or attempting to
cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military
forces of the US.
Read his article for yourself, again, seriously. It has a thought-provoking
title "Why We Cannot Win in Iraq." But in fact it contains a recipe for success,
if the Bush administration was truly interested in not wasting more American
lives and dollars in the interminable strategic disaster of occupying Iraq to
base the military and buttress the petrodollar debt scheme. The brass ought to
have read Lew Rockwell, hauled Lorentz up to the J-5, and incorporated his ideas
into the OPLAN. USC 2388 simply does not apply.
The military chain of command is considering charging Al with violation of
Article 134 for making a statement with the intent to promote disloyalty or
disaffection toward the U.S. by any member of the Armed forces.
If the charge is promoting disloyalty and disaffection toward the United States,
it needs to be applied just a wee bit higher than good old Sergeant Lorentz.
Tragically, we cant find many neoconservative academics that are subject to the
UCMJ. However, doesnt it apply to Secretary Rumsfeld and his Deputy Paul
Wolfowitz? And isnt their boss George somewhere in the chain of command? Yeah,
I know, not for Abu Ghraib torture sessions, but somewhere?
The military chain of command is also considering charging Al with violation of
1344.10, the conduct of partisan political activity, and violation of Standards
of Conduct for unauthorized use of Government assets to create and email
stories.
This one is laughable, as active duty members apparently constituted 3% of the
delegation at the Republican National Convention only a few weeks ago. Do you
think those military members will be accused of violating 1344.10?
We are reminded of the eternal words from the mouths of talking pigs in Orwells
Animal Farm, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than
others."
1344.10 also refers to "writing stories." If Al Lorentz had written a story, he
would be in no trouble at all, and we might be reading his serialized novellas
on the CENTCOM website. But, as so many in the military past and present know,
the truth can be a mean #@&@
. Big Al wrote the truth, and in doing so he both
embarrassed and frightened the chain of command.
The good thing about these charges is that they provide the rest of America with
a roadmap for the prosecution of many in the Pentagon and elsewhere in the
current administration.
Charges of inciting insubordination, disloyalty and mutiny, promoting
disaffection towards members of the United States military, and conduct of
partisan political activity will come in handy for the key appointees at the
Under Secretary for Defense Policy and the Vice Presidents office. In pleading
to these charges, which can carry a maximum of 20 years in federal military
prison, perhaps the more serious charges of gross dereliction of duty, national
and international war crimes, espionage and treason can be mitigated.
The Non-Commissioned Officer has always been the backbone of the American
military. This has never been more true than today, in an era where so many of
the officers in key leadership positions are more politicized and less
courageous than ever before. God Bless Sergeant Lorentz, and keep him.
September 27, 2004
Karen Kwiatkowski [send her mail] is a retired USAF lieutenant colonel, who
spent her final four and a half years in uniform working at the Pentagon.
Enjoy our $2/gal gas -- if we had let well enough alone,
and even let
Saddam pump more oil, there wouldn't be a problem with
supplies. Blame
it on Bush. Again. Does he EVER do ANYTHING right?
S. O. Damocles wrote:
|
| |
| |
his is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0188_01C4A67E.B4627CE0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
You lying piece of scum -
Here's the story about YOUR "Al Lorentz"
The left is parading around articles allegedly written by one "Al =
Lorentz", who is allegedly serving in Iraq as a reserve Army NCO in =
"civil affairs".
This person has written a number of anti-US articles over the years in =
which his military status and history have changed.
For example, in the most current diatribe =
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/lorentz1.html he claims to be an NCO =
with over two decades of service:
Before I begin, let me state that I am a soldier currently deployed in =
Iraq, I am not an armchair quarterback. Nor am I some politically =
idealistic and na=C3=AFve young soldier, I am an old and seasoned =
Non-Commissioned Officer with nearly 20 years under my belt. =
Additionally, I am not just a soldier with a muds-eye view of the war, I =
am in Civil Affairs and as such, it is my job to be aware of all the =
events occurring in this country and specifically in my region.
Yet in an earlier wild-eyed article =
http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_lorentz_013003_thanks.html about =
the "police state" his background is different:
Al has served as a Marine Sniper and later as an Airborne Ranger in =
the Texas National Guard.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Ranger an active duty =
designation?
And his bio from the Constitution Party of Texas =
http://www.cptexas.org/articles/albio.html lists his military service =
as:
Al Lorentz is the current Chairman of the Constitution Party of Texas. =
He has serviced in both the USMC and later, in the National Guard as an =
Airborne Ranger for nearly 20 years total.
That's pretty unusual, since a Ranger is an Army unit, not a Marine =
unit. Marines are part of the Navy and the similar outfit would be the =
SEALs. Why would he change services, and more to the matter, could he =
change serivces? And, while some Civil Affairs units are "airborne", =
they are not the same units as "airborne" Rangers.
On the online website Operation Truth one Al Lorentz lists his current =
residence as Aberdeen, Maryland and his current duty designation as both =
"active duty" and "retired/separated" Army with the job title of =
"96delta".
Finally, such an outspoken critic on the United States is unlikely to =
have remained in active duty. Other people who have questioned the =
legality of the liberation of Iraq have been relieved of duty: =
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-12-01-reservists-usat_x.htm
The call-up has already taken a casualty, the unusual dismissal of one =
officer who was assigned to head overseas. Capt. Steve McAlpin of =
Rochester, N.Y., was relieved of his duties as a civil affairs team =
leader last week for questioning the fairness and legality of the orders =
in private discussions with his superiors.
If his opposition to the "legality" of the liberation of Iraq wasn't =
enough, Mr. Lorentz has advocated a militia that would be free to kill =
IRS agents: http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_lorentz.html
A local militia would simply ask the IRS where their "authority" to =
tax was being derived from and then send them back to DC (or to the =
morgue).
Then there is this article blaming Bill Clinton for 9-11: =
http://www.cptexas.org/articles/al100802.shtml
The blame for the terrorist attacks of 9/11 are the responsibility of =
none other than William Jefferson Clinton, the most disgraceful and =
criminal individual to have ever darkened the halls of our nation's =
capital in it's history.
And this is the man the left has latched onto in order to try and =
discredit President Bush's policied in Iraq?
Not only is Lorentz's background in question, but his accounts of what =
is happening in Iraq is refuted by verifiable testimony from verified =
members of the Civil Affairs units in Iraq and someone we can verify is =
serving in a Civil Affairs unit comprised of Army Reserve personnel from =
Texas. http://www4.army.mil/USAR/news/2004-09-10_002.php
Mr. Lorentz has some explaining to do! What is your actual military =
background? Why did you switch from the Marine Corps to the Army (to be =
a Ranger and then the Army Reserves)? What dates were you in the Marine =
Corps and Army? When did you deploy to Iraq and with what unit? How have =
you been able to publish anti-government diatribes without suffering any =
punishment from the military?
All questions that need answers before we can determine whether Mr. =
Lorentz is credible!
Note:
After a little research, It has been discovered that Mr. Lorentz is =
claiming to be up for charges and facing a court-martial over his =
propaganda efforts. This revelation in itself is rather odd, since =
anyone facing court-martial in a combat zone would most likely be under =
arrest and unable to send and receive email at will.=20
Why We Cannot Win
=20
by Al Lorentz
=20
Before I begin, let me state that I am a soldier currently deployed in =
Iraq, I
am not an armchair quarterback. Nor am I some politically idealistic =
and na=EFve
young soldier, I am an old and seasoned Non-Commissioned Officer with =
nearly 20
years under my belt. Additionally, I am not just a soldier with a =
muds-eye view
of the war, I am in Civil Affairs and as such, it is my job to be =
aware of all
the events occurring in this country and specifically in my region.
=20
I have come to the conclusion that we cannot win here for a number of =
reasons.
Ideology and idealism will never trump history and reality.
=20
When we were preparing to deploy, I told my young soldiers to beware =
of the
"political solution." Just when you think you have the situation on =
the ground
in hand, someone will come along with a political directive that =
throws you off
the tracks.
=20
I believe that we could have won this un-Constitutional invasion of =
Iraq and
possibly pulled off the even more un-Constitutional occupation and =
subjugation
of this sovereign nation. It might have even been possible to foist =
democracy on
these people who seem to have no desire, understanding or respect for =
such an
institution. True the possibility of pulling all this off was a long =
shot and
would have required several hundred billion dollars and even more =
casualties
than we=92ve seen to date but again it would have been possible, not =
realistic or
necessary but possible.
=20
Here are the specific reasons why we cannot win in Iraq.
=20
First, we refuse to deal in reality. We are in a guerilla war, but =
because of
politics, we are not allowed to declare it a guerilla war and must =
label the
increasingly effective guerilla forces arrayed against us as =
"terrorists,
criminals and dead-enders."
=20
This implies that there is a zero sum game at work, i.e. we can simply =
kill X
number of the enemy and then the fight is over, mission accomplished, =
everybody
wins. Unfortunately, this is not the case. We have few tools at our =
disposal and
those are p
|
| |
| |
linton's Legacy, September 11, 2001
Al Lorentz
State Chairman, Constitution Party of Texas
Al Lorentz's Bio.
As I write this article, the US Senate is holding hearings to probe the
failures on September 11th 2001, the day our nation was attacked savagely by
terrorist thugs who killed thousands of our citizens. On that terrible day,
our nation was blindsided by an attack that, to the average citizen, was as
savage as it was unprecedented. Also evident was that this was not a spur of
the moment attack but one that had taken months, perhaps years of planning.
The most obvious question to be asked of course was "Why?" and President
Bushes opaquely self serving and duplicitous answer of "because they hate
freedom" displays not only his unwillingness to deal with the truth but also
that he is once again covering for his fellow globalist Bill Clinton. The
blame for the terrorist attacks of 9/11 are the responsibility of none other
than William Jefferson Clinton, the most disgraceful and criminal individual
to have ever darkened the halls of our nation's capital in it's history.
While some may consider this just another case of "Clinton bashing", I would
challenge you to read on and discover the terrible truth.
As is well known, the Clinton administration was unprecedented in it's
politicization of many of our nations enforcement and regulatory agencies.
The fact that the authority and indeed the very existence of many of these
same agencies is entirely un-Constitutional is an issue we will deal with
again at another point. What is important to remember however is the manner
in which the Clintons used and abused these agencies for purely partisan
political ends and means.
Whether it was using these various agencies to hand over political dirt via
FBI files, to run politically motivated and unjustified IRS investigations
against their many critics or simply to treat the entire taxpayer funded
United States government as their personal property, the Clinton
Administration is without rival in it's absolute abuse of authority and
disregard for the United States Constitution and the rule of law. Adding to
this list the highly un-presidential conduct of William Jefferson Clinton
including felonious perjury and obstruction of justice we must also remember
that his party openly solicited and accepted millions of dollars from a
foreign nation (a felony in and of itself) and a Communist nation at that.
But possibly the worst abuse of power was when Bill Clinton declared that
those who stood against him politically were terrorists and that they were
in fact the most dangerous threat to the United States.
By re-tasking the FBI from their legitimate role to monitor, investigate and
help keep track of terrorists such as the Al Qaida and turning them loose on
Clinton's personal and political enemies, we saw the most flagrant abuse of
Clinton's power and the depths to which the Clintons and the Democratic
party in general were willing to stoop. What these craven individuals did
was nothing less than high treason by leaving our nation open and vulnerable
to attack in their fanatical desire to usurp the rights of fellow American
citizens. We should never forget that, despite being exposed, accused, tried
and convicted of high crimes (felonies DO qualify as high crimes), the
entirity of the Democratic party not only rallied around Bill Clinton to
defend him, they actually had the temerity to declare him "the greatest
President ever!"
And so in February of 1999, Clinton appointee Louis Freeh told the US
Congress ""While the United States holds little credible intelligence at
this time indicating that international or domestic terrorists are planning
to attack United States interests domestically through the use of weapons of
mass destruction, a growing number (while still small) of 'lone offender'
and extremist splinter elements of right-wing groups have been identified as
possessing or attempting to develop/use chemical, biological or radiological
materials," Notice the Clintonian manner in which right wing groups,
ostensibly anyone who was not a Clinton supporter are not accused of having
"growing numbers" of extremist splinter elements and that these folks are,
without any proof whatsoever are accused of posessiong or attempting to
develop sophisticated weapons of mass destruction. My how times have
changed, it seems like only weeks before this accusation that we "right
wingers" were hardly capable of intelligent thought and now we are able to
develop Weapons of Mass Destruction in our own kitchens, basements and
garages.
Not content to cast aspersions on right wingers alone, Louis Freeh felt it
necessary to declare other good Americans to be enemies of the State
"Additionally, religious/apocalyptic sects which are unaffiliated with
far-right extremists may pose an increasing threat," Freeh said. Keep in
mind that this was immediately following terrorist bombings by Islamic
Fundamentalists against our embassies in Africa, our military barracks in
Dahran and of course the first World Trade Center terror attack. While the
evidence was clear that the real terrorists were Islamic Fundamentalists,
nonetheless, the Clinton political appointee Louis Freeh continued to parrot
the Clinton party line to the bitter end and made sure that the FBI spent
it's time and resources investigating Bill Clintons political enemies
instead of investigating the obvious presence of Islamic Fundamentlist
terror cells here in America.
Remember Project Megiddo where Christian fundamentalists and any others who
believed the Bible were declared to be terrorists? I find it hard to fathom
that my Sunday School class was somehow a threat to the United States of
America worthy of such FBI scrutiny while Islamic terrorists and
environmental extremists were bombing and murdering throughout this nation
and the world. Was Louis Freeh afraid that the little gray haired ladies in
churches everywhere might set aside their knitting needles and start working
instead of Weapons of Mass Destruction? I rather suspect that Louis Freeh
and his master Bill Clinton were concerned more with demonizing their
political opposition than they were with upholding their oath to uphold and
defend the Constitution of the United States of America.
Sadly, I believe that all we will see coming from these hearings is yet
another useless government program. It is amazing how our politicians can
turn the solution to a problem into an opportunity for higher taxation,
usurping the rights of the American citizens and a general expansion of
their already bloated powers. If nothing else, we should have learned from
the pro-Globalist, Anti-American Clinton administration the dangers of
granting sweeping, unchecked, unbridled and undivided power to any man or
group of men. Today Globalist darling George Bush is abusing his office to
further the expansion of Federalist power and one day he will hand that
power to yet another globalist until one day we no longer have even the hint
of a charade for elections, we will have transformed ourselves into a
dictatorship.
Now is the time for all good men and women to come to the aid of their
country. Help us in the Constitution Party to restore our great nation
before it is too late. Remember, if
|
| |
| |
Why We Cannot Win
by Al Lorentz
Before I begin, let me state that I am a soldier currently deployed in
Iraq, I
am not an armchair quarterback. Nor am I some politically idealistic and
nave
young soldier, I am an old and seasoned Non-Commissioned Officer with
nearly 20
years under my belt. Additionally, I am not just a soldier with a muds-eye
view
of the war, I am in Civil Affairs and as such, it is my job to be aware of
all
the events occurring in this country and specifically in my region.
I have come to the conclusion that we cannot win here for a number of
reasons.
Ideology and idealism will never trump history and reality.
When we were preparing to deploy, I told my young soldiers to beware of
the
"political solution." Just when you think you have the situation on the
ground
in hand, someone will come along with a political directive that throws
you off
the tracks.
I believe that we could have won this un-Constitutional invasion of Iraq
and
possibly pulled off the even more un-Constitutional occupation and
subjugation
of this sovereign nation. It might have even been possible to foist
democracy on
these people who seem to have no desire, understanding or respect for such
an
institution.
Iraqis want their freedom and human rights. Only Al-qaeda and Islamic
fascists do not want Iraqis to be free.
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 18:40:45 -0600, "S. O. Damocles" <so@damocl.es>
wrote:
Why We Cannot Win
by Al Lorentz
Before I begin, let me state that I am a soldier currently deployed in Iraq, I
am not an armchair quarterback. Nor am I some politically idealistic and nave
young soldier, I am an old and seasoned Non-Commissioned Officer with nearly 20
years under my belt. Additionally, I am not just a soldier with a muds-eye view
of the war, I am in Civil Affairs and as such, it is my job to be aware of all
the events occurring in this country and specifically in my region.
I have come to the conclusion that we cannot win here for a number of reasons.
Ideology and idealism will never trump history and reality.
When we were preparing to deploy, I told my young soldiers to beware of the
"political solution." Just when you think you have the situation on the ground
in hand, someone will come along with a political directive that throws you off
the tracks.
I believe that we could have won this un-Constitutional invasion of Iraq and
possibly pulled off the even more un-Constitutional occupation and subjugation
of this sovereign nation. It might have even been possible to foist democracy on
these people who seem to have no desire, understanding or respect for such an
institution. True the possibility of pulling all this off was a long shot and
would have required several hundred billion dollars and even more casualties
than weve seen to date but again it would have been possible, not realistic or
necessary but possible.
Here are the specific reasons why we cannot win in Iraq.
First, we refuse to deal in reality. We are in a guerilla war, but because of
politics, we are not allowed to declare it a guerilla war and must label the
increasingly effective guerilla forces arrayed against us as "terrorists,
criminals and dead-enders."
This implies that there is a zero sum game at work, i.e. we can simply kill X
number of the enemy and then the fight is over, mission accomplished, everybody
wins. Unfortunately, this is not the case. We have few tools at our disposal and
those are proving to be wholly ineffective at fighting the guerillas.
The idea behind fighting a guerilla army is not to destroy its every man (an
impossibility since he hides himself by day amongst the populace). Rather the
idea in guerilla warfare is to erode or destroy his base of support.
So long as there is support for the guerilla, for every one you kill two more
rise up to take his place. More importantly, when your tools for killing him are
precision guided munitions, raids and other acts that create casualties among
the innocent populace, you raise the support for the guerillas and undermine the
support for yourself. (A 500-pound precision bomb has a casualty-producing
radius of 400 meters minimum; do the math.)
Second, our assessment of what motivates the average Iraqi was skewed, again by
politically motivated "experts." We came here with some fantasy idea that the
natives were all ignorant, mud-hut dwelling camel riders who would line the
streets and pelt us with rose petals, lay palm fronds in the street and be
eternally grateful. While at one time there may have actually been support and
respect from the locals, months of occupation by our regular military forces
have turned the formerly friendly into the recently hostile.
Attempts to correct the thinking in this regard are in vain; it is not
politically correct to point out the fact that the locals are not only disliking
us more and more, they are growing increasingly upset and often overtly hostile.
Instead of addressing the reasons why the locals are becoming angry and
discontented, we allow politicians in Washington DC to give us pat and
convenient reasons that are devoid of any semblance of reality.
We are told that the locals are not upset because we have a hostile, aggressive
and angry Army occupying their nation. We are told that they are not upset at
the police state we have created, or at the manner of picking their
representatives for them. Rather we are told, they are upset because of a
handful of terrorists, criminals and dead enders in their midst have made them
upset, that and of course the ever convenient straw man of "left wing media
bias."
Third, the guerillas are filling their losses faster than we can create them.
This is almost always the case in guerilla warfare, especially when your tactics
for battling the guerillas are aimed at killing guerillas instead of eroding
their support. For every guerilla we kill with a "smart bomb" we kill many more
innocent civilians and create rage and anger in the Iraqi community. This rage
and anger translates into more recruits for the terrorists and less support for
us.
We have fallen victim to the body count mentality all over again. We have shown
a willingness to inflict civilian casualties as a necessity of war without
realizing that these same casualties create waves of hatred against us. These
angry Iraqi citizens translate not only into more recruits for the guerilla army
but also into more support of the guerilla army.
Fourth, their lines of supply and communication are much shorter than ours and
much less vulnerable. We must import everything we need into this place; this
costs money and is dangerous. Whether we fly the supplies in or bring them by
truck, they are vulnerable to attack, most especially those brought by truck.
This not only increases the likelihood of the supplies being interrupted. Every
bean, every bullet and every bandage becomes infinitely more expensive.
Conversely, the guerillas live on top of their supplies and are showing every
indication of developing a very sophisticated network for obtaining them.
Further, they have the advantage of the close support of family and friends and
traditional religious networks.
Fifth, we consistently underestimate the enemy and his capabilities. Many
military commanders have prepared to fight exactly the wrong war here.
Our tactics have not adjusted to the battlefield and we are falling behind.
Meanwhile the enemy updates his tactics and has shown a remarkable resiliency
and adaptability.
Because the current administration is more concerned with its image than it is
with reality, it prefers symbolism to substance: soldiers are dying here and
being maimed and crippled for life. It is tragic, indeed criminal that our
elected public servants would so willingly sacrifice our nation's prestige and
honor as well as the blood and treasure to pursue an agenda that is ahistoric
and un-Constitutional.
It is all the more ironic that this un-Constitutional mission is being performed
by citizen soldiers such as myself who swore an oath to uphold and defend the
Constitution of the United States, the same oath that the commander in chief
himself has sworn.
September 20, 2004
|
| |
| |
n Wed, 29 Sep 2004 19:50:44 -0600, "S. O. Damocles" <so@damocl.es>
wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
Open wide, repug!
Roadmap for the Prosecution
by Karen Kwiatkowski
by Karen Kwiatkowski
Al Lorentz is a reserve Non-Commissioned Officer currently serving in Iraq. His
blazingly clear, succinct article on Iraq has raged over the wires since it was
published on LewRockwell.com.
Al, in his civilian life, was an active member of the Constitution Party in the
great state of Texas. He worked on a ranch, served in the reserves, and when
activated, deployed to Iraq.
He has something in common with our own President George W. Bush, who was also
active in a political party in Texas, worked on a ranch, and did some time in
the National Guard. Of course, President Bush hasnt served in Iraq.
Al and George might have a lot to talk about.
Al penned a factual personal assessment of what is happening in Iraq. He
revealed no classified information. Far more detail on Iraq challenges has long
been provided by respected retired military officers like Marine General Tony
Zinni and former Director of the National Security Agency William Odom. Al wrote
nothing more damning than what has already been published and released in part
by the Central Intelligence Agency regarding conditions and future possibilities
in Iraq.
So what is the problem?
The problem is that Al Lorentz, "Big Al" to his friends, has something that the
Bush administration needs badly.
The Holy Grail in Washington is credibility. Bush and the Pentagon brass want
it. The administrations credibility deficit is its Achilles heel. Lack of
credibility is the primary reason Bush will lose in November. George W. Bushs
own troubled past, a presidential lack of interest in terrorism until 9/11,
criminal mendacity on the way to war in Iraq, flagrantly abused tax dollars at
home and abroad, Patriot Act absurdities, artificial dummy governments amidst
social and economic disaster in Kabul and Baghdad, the odd Iranian agent
provocateur (Chalabi) and the more familiar Israeli-linked ones (Chalabis
former allies in the Pentagon), the list goes on and on. It is as if Bush and
Company signed up for a credibility destroyer of the month club at a special
four-year subscription rate.
Credibility. Big Al has it. The electorally nervous White House and edgy
Pentagon executives are frightened as they witness an example of genuine courage
and find they are on the wrong side of it.
Naturally, there are consequences. Als military chain of command is considering
charging him with violation of 18 USC 2388, willfully causing or attempting to
cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military
forces of the US.
Read his article for yourself, again, seriously. It has a thought-provoking
title "Why We Cannot Win in Iraq." But in fact it contains a recipe for success,
if the Bush administration was truly interested in not wasting more American
lives and dollars in the interminable strategic disaster of occupying Iraq to
base the military and buttress the petrodollar debt scheme. The brass ought to
have read Lew Rockwell, hauled Lorentz up to the J-5, and incorporated his ideas
into the OPLAN. USC 2388 simply does not apply.
The military chain of command is considering charging Al with violation of
Article 134 for making a statement with the intent to promote disloyalty or
disaffection toward the U.S. by any member of the Armed forces.
If the charge is promoting disloyalty and disaffection toward the United States,
it needs to be applied just a wee bit higher than good old Sergeant Lorentz.
Tragically, we cant find many neoconservative academics that are subject to the
UCMJ. However, doesnt it apply to Secretary Rumsfeld and his Deputy Paul
Wolfowitz? And isnt their boss George somewhere in the chain of command? Yeah,
I know, not for Abu Ghraib torture sessions, but somewhere?
The military chain of command is also considering charging Al with violation of
1344.10, the conduct of partisan political activity, and violation of Standards
of Conduct for unauthorized use of Government assets to create and email
stories.
This one is laughable, as active duty members apparently constituted 3% of the
delegation at the Republican National Convention only a few weeks ago. Do you
think those military members will be accused of violating 1344.10?
We are reminded of the eternal words from the mouths of talking pigs in Orwells
Animal Farm, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than
others."
1344.10 also refers to "writing stories." If Al Lorentz had written a story, he
would be in no trouble at all, and we might be reading his serialized novellas
on the CENTCOM website. But, as so many in the military past and present know,
the truth can be a mean #@&@
. Big Al wrote the truth, and in doing so he both
embarrassed and frightened the chain of command.
The good thing about these charges is that they provide the rest of America with
a roadmap for the prosecution of many in the Pentagon and elsewhere in the
current administration.
Charges of inciting insubordination, disloyalty and mutiny, promoting
disaffection towards members of the United States military, and conduct of
partisan political activity will come in handy for the key appointees at the
Under Secretary for Defense Policy and the Vice Presidents office. In pleading
to these charges, which can carry a maximum of 20 years in federal military
prison, perhaps the more serious charges of gross dereliction of duty, national
and international war crimes, espionage and treason can be mitigated.
The Non-Commissioned Officer has always been the backbone of the American
military. This has never been more true than today, in an era where so many of
the officers in key leadership positions are more politicized and less
courageous than ever before. God Bless Sergeant Lorentz, and keep him.
September 27, 2004
Karen Kwiatkowski [send her mail] is a retired USAF lieutenant colonel, who
spent her final four and a half years in uniform working at the Pentagon.
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 18:40:45 -0600, "S. O. Damocles" <so@damocl.es>
wrote:
Why We Cannot Win
by Al Lorentz
Before I begin, let me state that I am a soldier currently deployed in Iraq, I
am not an armchair quarterback. Nor am I some politically idealistic and nave
young soldier, I am an old and seasoned Non-Commissioned Officer with nearly 20
years under my belt. Additionally, I am not just a soldier with a muds-eye view
of the war, I am in Civil Affairs and as such, it is my job to be aware of all
the events occurring in this country and specifically in my region.
I have come to the conclusion that we cannot win here for a number of reasons.
Ideology and idealism will never trump history and reality.
When we were preparing to deploy, I told my young soldiers to beware of the
"political solution." Just when you think you have the situation on the ground
in hand, someone will come along with a political directive that throws you off
the tracks.
I believe that we could have won this un-Constitutional invasion of Iraq and
possibly pulled off the even more un-Constitutional occupation and subjugation
of this sovereign nation. It might have even been possible to foist democracy on
these people who seem to have no desire, understanding or respect for such an
institution. True the possibility of pulling all this off was a long shot and
would have required several hundred billion dollars and even more casualties
than weve seen to date but again it would have been possible, not realistic or
necessary but possible.
Here are the specific reasons why we cannot win in Iraq.
First, we refuse to deal in reality. We are in a guerilla war, but because of
politics, we are not allowed to declare it a guerilla war and must label the
increasingly effective guerilla forces arrayed against us as "terrorists,
criminals and dead-enders."
This implies that there is a zero sum game at work, i.e. we can simply kill X
number of the enemy and then the fight is over, mission accomplished, everybody
wins. Unfortunately, this is not the case. We have few tools at our disposal and
those are proving to be wholly ineffective at fighting the guerillas.
The idea behind fighting a guerilla army is not to destroy its every man (an
impossibility since he hides himself by day amongst the populace). Rather the
idea in guerilla warfare is to erode or destroy his base of support.
So long as there is support for the guerilla, for every one you kill two more
rise up to take his place. More importantly, when your tools for killing him are
precision guided munitions, raids and other acts that create casualties among
the innocent populace, you raise the support for the guerillas and undermine the
support for yourself. (A 500-pound precision bomb has a casualty-producing
radius of 400 meters minimum; do the math.)
Second, our assessment of what motivates the average Iraqi was skewed, again by
politically motivated "experts." We came here with some fantasy idea that the
natives were all ignorant, mud-hut dwelling camel riders who would line the
streets and pelt us with rose petals, lay palm fronds in the street and be
eternally grateful. While at one time there may have actually been support and
respect from the locals, months of occupation by our regular military forces
have turned the formerly friendly into the recently hostile.
Attempts to correct the thinking in this regard are in vain; it is not
politically correct to point out the fact that the locals are not only disliking
us more and more, they are growing increasingly upset and often overtly hostile.
Instead of addressing the reasons why the locals are becoming angry and
discontented, we allow politicians in Washington DC to give us pat and
convenient reasons that are devoid of any semblance of reality.
We are told that the locals are not upset because we have a hostile, aggressive
and angry Army occupying their nation. We are told that they are not upset at
the police state we have created, or at the manner of picking their
representatives for them. Rather we are told, they are upset because of a
handful of terrorists, criminals and dead enders in their midst have made them
upset, that and of course the ever convenient straw man of "left wing media
bias."
Third, the guerillas are filling their losses faster than we can create them.
This is almost always the case in guerilla warfare, especially when your tactics
for battling the guerillas are aimed at killing guerillas instead of eroding
their support. For every guerilla we kill with a "smart bomb" we kill many more
innocent civilians and create rage and anger in the Iraqi community. This rage
and anger translates into more recruits for the terrorists and less support for
us.
We have fallen victim to the body count mentality all over again. We have shown
a willingness to inflict civilian casualties as a necessity of war without
realizing that these same casualties create waves of hatred against us. These
angry Iraqi citizens translate not only into more recruits for the guerilla army
but also into more support of the guerilla army.
Fourth, their lines of supply and communication are much shorter than ours and
much less vulnerable. We must import everything we need into this place; this
costs money and is dangerous. Whether we fly the supplies in or bring them by
truck, they are vulnerable to attack, most especially those brought by truck.
This not only increases the likelihood of the supplies being interrupted. Every
bean, every bullet and every bandage becomes infinitely more expensive.
Conversely, the guerillas live on top of their supplies and are showing every
indication of developing a very sophisticated network for obtaining them.
Further, they have the advantage of the close support of family and friends and
traditional religious networks.
Fifth, we consistently underestimate the enemy and his capabilities. Many
military commanders have prepared to fight exactly the wrong war here.
Our tactics have not adjusted to the battlefield and we are falling behind.
Meanwhile the enemy updates his tactics and has shown a remarkable resiliency
and adaptability.
Because the current administration is more concerned with its image than it is
with reality, it prefers symbolism to substance: soldiers are dying here and
being maimed and crippled for life. It is tragic, indeed criminal that our
elected public servants would so willingly sacrifice our nation's prestige and
honor as well as the blood and treasure to pursue an agenda that is ahistoric
and un-Constitutional.
It is all the more ironic that this un-Constitutional mission is being performed
by citizen soldiers such as myself who swore an oath to uphold and defend the
Constitution of the United States, the same oath that the commander in chief
himself has sworn.
September 20, 2004
|
| |
| |
n Wed, 29 Sep 2004 19:50:44 -0600, "S. O. Damocles" <so@damocl.es>
wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
Open wide, repug!
Roadmap for the Prosecution
by Karen Kwiatkowski
by Karen Kwiatkowski
Al Lorentz is a reserve Non-Commissioned Officer currently serving in Iraq. His
blazingly clear, succinct article on Iraq has raged over the wires since it was
published on LewRockwell.com.
Al, in his civilian life, was an active member of the Constitution Party in the
great state of Texas. He worked on a ranch, served in the reserves, and when
activated, deployed to Iraq.
He has something in common with our own President George W. Bush, who was also
active in a political party in Texas, worked on a ranch, and did some time in
the National Guard. Of course, President Bush hasnt served in Iraq.
Al and George might have a lot to talk about.
Al penned a factual personal assessment of what is happening in Iraq. He
revealed no classified information. Far more detail on Iraq challenges has long
been provided by respected retired military officers like Marine General Tony
Zinni and former Director of the National Security Agency William Odom. Al wrote
nothing more damning than what has already been published and released in part
by the Central Intelligence Agency regarding conditions and future possibilities
in Iraq.
So what is the problem?
The problem is that Al Lorentz, "Big Al" to his friends, has something that the
Bush administration needs badly.
The Holy Grail in Washington is credibility. Bush and the Pentagon brass want
it. The administrations credibility deficit is its Achilles heel. Lack of
credibility is the primary reason Bush will lose in November. George W. Bushs
own troubled past, a presidential lack of interest in terrorism until 9/11,
criminal mendacity on the way to war in Iraq, flagrantly abused tax dollars at
home and abroad, Patriot Act absurdities, artificial dummy governments amidst
social and economic disaster in Kabul and Baghdad, the odd Iranian agent
provocateur (Chalabi) and the more familiar Israeli-linked ones (Chalabis
former allies in the Pentagon), the list goes on and on. It is as if Bush and
Company signed up for a credibility destroyer of the month club at a special
four-year subscription rate.
Credibility. Big Al has it. The electorally nervous White House and edgy
Pentagon executives are frightened as they witness an example of genuine courage
and find they are on the wrong side of it.
Naturally, there are consequences. Als military chain of command is considering
charging him with violation of 18 USC 2388, willfully causing or attempting to
cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military
forces of the US.
Read his article for yourself, again, seriously. It has a thought-provoking
title "Why We Cannot Win in Iraq." But in fact it contains a recipe for success,
if the Bush administration was truly interested in not wasting more American
lives and dollars in the interminable strategic disaster of occupying Iraq to
base the military and buttress the petrodollar debt scheme. The brass ought to
have read Lew Rockwell, hauled Lorentz up to the J-5, and incorporated his ideas
into the OPLAN. USC 2388 simply does not apply.
The military chain of command is considering charging Al with violation of
Article 134 for making a statement with the intent to promote disloyalty or
disaffection toward the U.S. by any member of the Armed forces.
If the charge is promoting disloyalty and disaffection toward the United States,
it needs to be applied just a wee bit higher than good old Sergeant Lorentz.
Tragically, we cant find many neoconservative academics that are subject to the
UCMJ. However, doesnt it apply to Secretary Rumsfeld and his Deputy Paul
Wolfowitz? And isnt their boss George somewhere in the chain of command? Yeah,
I know, not for Abu Ghraib torture sessions, but somewhere?
The military chain of command is also considering charging Al with violation of
1344.10, the conduct of partisan political activity, and violation of Standards
of Conduct for unauthorized use of Government assets to create and email
stories.
This one is laughable, as active duty members apparently constituted 3% of the
delegation at the Republican National Convention only a few weeks ago. Do you
think those military members will be accused of violating 1344.10?
We are reminded of the eternal words from the mouths of talking pigs in Orwells
Animal Farm, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than
others."
1344.10 also refers to "writing stories." If Al Lorentz had written a story, he
would be in no trouble at all, and we might be reading his serialized novellas
on the CENTCOM website. But, as so many in the military past and present know,
the truth can be a mean #@&@
. Big Al wrote the truth, and in doing so he both
embarrassed and frightened the chain of command.
The good thing about these charges is that they provide the rest of America with
a roadmap for the prosecution of many in the Pentagon and elsewhere in the
current administration.
Charges of inciting insubordination, disloyalty and mutiny, promoting
disaffection towards members of the United States military, and conduct of
partisan political activity will come in handy for the key appointees at the
Under Secretary for Defense Policy and the Vice Presidents office. In pleading
to these charges, which can carry a maximum of 20 years in federal military
prison, perhaps the more serious charges of gross dereliction of duty, national
and international war crimes, espionage and treason can be mitigated.
The Non-Commissioned Officer has always been the backbone of the American
military. This has never been more true than today, in an era where so many of
the officers in key leadership positions are more politicized and less
courageous than ever before. God Bless Sergeant Lorentz, and keep him.
September 27, 2004
Karen Kwiatkowski [send her mail] is a retired USAF lieutenant colonel, who
spent her final four and a half years in uniform working at the Pentagon.
|
| |
| |
"S. O. Damocles" <so@damocl.es> wrote in message news:<2EJ6d.1860$wF2.72148@news.uswest.net>...
Ken Smith wrote:
Open wide, repug!
Um, Ken was agreeing with you. he was just asking for a citation as to
where to find the article.
Matt
|
| |
| |
Matt Telles wrote:
Um, Ken was agreeing with you. he was just asking for a
citation as to where to find the article.
Um, Ken's still a self-confessed Repugnikkkan, he claims to
be a "special kind" of Repug, and tries to distance himself from
the terror and horror his fellow Repugnikkkunts have wreaked
upon the U$$A and the World, but nonetheless, as with accomplices
in any crime, they are guilty and responsible for any/all acts committed
by their fellow criminals in the commission of a crime -- just ask
Lisl Auman if you doubt that.
Matt
|
| |
| |
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 11:31:21 -0600, "S. O. Damocles" <so@damocl.es>
wrote:
Matt Telles wrote:
Um, Ken's still a self-confessed Repugnikkkan, he claims to
be a "special kind" of Repug, and tries to distance himself from
the terror and horror his fellow Repugnikkkunts have wreaked
upon the U$$A and the World, but nonetheless, as with accomplices
in any crime, they are guilty and responsible for any/all acts committed
by their fellow criminals in the commission of a crime -- just ask
Lisl Auman if you doubt that.
|
| |
| |
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 11:31:21 -0600, "S. O. Damocles" <so@damocl.es>
wrote:
Matt Telles wrote:
Um, Ken's still a self-confessed Repugnikkkan, he claims to
be a "special kind" of Repug, and tries to distance himself from
the terror and horror his fellow Repugnikkkunts have wreaked
upon the U$$A and the World, but nonetheless, as with accomplices
in any crime, they are guilty and responsible for any/all acts committed
by their fellow criminals in the commission of a crime -- just ask
Lisl Auman if you doubt that.
|
| |
| |
On 30/9/04 5:32 am, in article x%L6d.320$o27.78@twister.socal.rr.com,
"Acharya" <acharya@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
Iraqis want their freedom and human rights. Only Al-qaeda and Islamic
fascists do not want Iraqis to be free.
And where do you get this information from ?
Bush and his cabal of Neo-Conservatives ?
The greater majority of those opposing the US occupation are Iraqis - FACT.
There were no terrorists or Al Qaeda in Iraq before Bush invaded - FACT.
The recent leaked document from the Pentagon stated that the situation in
Iraq would stay the same as it is now at best, with civil war breaking out
as a worse case scenario, which could well become a reality.
Open your eyes, face the facts and stop peddling Neo-Con and Zionist
propaganda - it makes you look stupid.
MWC
|
| |
| |
"S. O. Damocles" <so@damocl.es> wrote in message news:<TpX6d.37$WH6.27049@news.uswest.net>...
Matt Telles wrote:
Um, Ken's still a self-confessed Repugnikkkan, he claims to
be a "special kind" of Repug, and tries to distance himself from
the terror and horror his fellow Repugnikkkunts have wreaked
upon the U$$A and the World, but nonetheless, as with accomplices
in any crime, they are guilty and responsible for any/all acts committed
by their fellow criminals in the commission of a crime -- just ask
Lisl Auman if you doubt that.
Sorry, I disagree. Lisl notwithstanding (I agree with you there),
Republicans aren't automatically evil. I agree with their basic
financial ideas (Bush is NOT a Republican, don't even go there) and
with some of their social ones. Welfare, as it had become, was a bad
idea. They were the ones pushing to change it. They have some bad
ideas, like putting Social Security money into the stock market. But
these are things that are best settled by honest debate, not
accusations.
Oh, and for the record, I'm most definitely NOT a Republican.
matt
|
| |
| |
Matt Telles wrote:
Sorry, I disagree. Lisl notwithstanding (I agree with you
there),
Wow! One of the quickest manifestations of schizophrenic
psychosis in the history of Usenet.
Republicans aren't automatically evil.
Bwahahahaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Ok, I'll give you that point, some, a very few, are
just knuckle-draggin' Neanderthal stupid. like Serious
Scammy.
I agree with their basic financial ideas (Bush is NOT a Republican, don't even
go
there)
Fuck you. He's on YOUR ticket. He's being supported by YOUR machine.
He's being financed by YOUR money. He IS *your* responsibility.
and with some of their social ones. Welfare, as it had become,
was a bad idea. They were the ones pushing to change it. They have
some bad ideas, like putting Social Security money into the stock
market. But these are things that are best settled by honest debate,
"Honest" debate? Is that something that the smirking chimp, Karl Rove
and Dick "saddam and osama were lovers" Cheney would give us?
not accusations.
Oh, and for the record, I'm most definitely NOT a
Republican.
Yet, oddly enough, you *are* part of the problem.
matt
|
| |
| |
On 30/9/04 5:32 am, in article x%L6d.320$o27.78@twister.socal.rr.com, "Acharya" <acharya@hawaii.rr.com> wrote: And where do you get this information from ?
The greater majority of those opposing the US occupation are Iraqis -
FACT.
Al-jazeera is the network favored by terrorists.
There were no terrorists or Al Qaeda in Iraq before Bush invaded - FACT.
Yes and the enemy wears purple. FACT.
The recent leaked document from the Pentagon stated that the situation in
Iraq would stay the same as it is now at best, with civil war breaking out
as a worse case scenario, which could well become a reality.
You forgot to mention that the sky is falling.
Open your eyes, face the facts and stop peddling Neo-Con and Zionist
propaganda - it makes you look stupid.
MWC
The truth is neither liberal nor conservative. Your political polemics make
you look stupid.
|
| |
| |
| |
