The magnificent Riehl World View gives The Captain’s Journal a very polite nod and handshake and welcomes us to the world of conservative blogging (and according to Google Analytics, a few readers were turned our direction too).  A hearty thanks.

I have said before that I do not know, but suspect what happened in Haditha (the Marines engaged in a fire fight and employed approved and necessary room-clearing tactics designed to save Marine lives).  I will wait until the evidence is in.  And it better be conclusive!  But until it comes in, let’s play ‘What’s wrong with this picture?’

It comes from MSNBC.com, and its caption reads:

This image purportedly shows a room where some of the Haditha civilians died. A lawyer representing several of the families of victims provided the photo to media (bold mine).

At least they had the foresight to say “purportedly.”  Take a hard look at the alleged blood splatter pattern.  No, the one up above the bed head board and adjacent to the top of the window.  If I am not mistaken, this is remarkably consistent with someone jumping up in the air four feet and being shot at the apex of his ascent.  Note the fact that the report claims that the occupants of the room were not killed by a fragmentation grenade, but by gun shots.

So we’re back to that person jumping up in the air four feet.

I have said before that I do not know, but suspect what happened in Haditha (the Marines engaged in a fire fight and employed approved and necessary room-clearing tactics designed to save Marine lives).  I will wait until the evidence is in.  And it better be conclusive!  But until it comes in, let’s play ‘What’s wrong with this picture?’

It comes from MSNBC.com, and its caption reads:

This image purportedly shows a room where some of the Haditha civilians died. A lawyer representing several of the families of victims provided the photo to media (bold mine).

At least they had the foresight to say “purportedly.”  Take a hard look at the alleged blood splatter pattern.  No, the one up above the bed head board and adjacent to the top of the window.  If I am not mistaken, this is remarkably consistent with someone jumping up in the air four feet and being shot at the apex of his ascent.  Note the fact that the report claims that the occupants of the room were not killed by a fragmentation grenade, but by gun shots.

So we’re back to that person jumping up in the air four feet.

This is very moving — and a must read for those who care about our boys in harm’s way.

Farewell

The Strategy Page has this from July 6:

July 6, 2006: The large number of  charges brought against U.S. troops for crimes against civilians recently is partly coincidence (the rate of such incidents is much less than in past wars, but that is not considered news) and partly right out of the al Qaeda playbook. Making false accusations of atrocities, to attract media attention, is recommended in al Qaeda training documents, as a good way to keep the enemy off balance. After three years of defeats, al Qaeda, and their Iraqi Sunni Arab allies, are in need of some good news. Atrocities can be created, by forcing witnesses to make false claims, and to otherwise fabricate evidence. Anti-American media will not examine the evidence too closely, and will instead run with the story. That most of these claims turn out to be false is, again, not news, and the terrorists know it. Repeat a lie often enough, and it becomes, to some at least, the truth.

On June 23 I said this:

Make no mistake about it.  The tactics of the future will be some or all of the following:

1. Beheadings
2. Kidnappings 
3. Body mutilations and torture of those captured or kidnapped (don’t ever forget that 
   

God bless Michael Fumento.  I am glad to see that someone is bringing the story home of our boys over there.  The MSM is too cowardly to go to Ramadi.  My son deploys early in 2007.  The sentiments that are expressed in the story are felt by me too, and my son is not over there yet.  I intend to print this and make my son read it before he deploys.  Keep up the good work Michael.  I follow you diligently.

G.I. PHONE HOME (OR AT LEAST E-MAIL)

Here I posted (among other things) that there would be an ingrained hesitancy now in the Marines’ room-clearing techniques and less overall willingness to defend themselves due to the charges brought against the Marines at Haditha (along with other similar instances).  At Haditha, I still believe (until it is proven otherwise) that the room was cleared using techniques that the Marines are trained on and which are approved by the brass.  The intent is to kill those in the room.  Read here and here.  The presupposition is that those in the room are enemy, and that the Marines are threatened.

Now we find out that:

In theory, the rules for “clearing a building” are simple: The person inside must have been conclusively identified as a combatant, and the threat must be confirmed as real.

But in practice, every case is different — particularly with an enemy that prefers to hide behind women and children, U.S. combat veterans say.

Marines who fought in Fallouja said later that the mere suspicion that a sniper was in a building was justification for calling in a tank or airstrike. Now the bar is higher.

“It’s not just one suspicion or one event [that is needed], but several,” said Lt. Col. Pat Kline, deputy director of one of the training programs.

The presence of civilians also has to be considered when deciding whether, for example, to enter a building by throwing in a grenade, as Marines did in Haditha.

“Because someone is hostile inside a house, that doesn’t mean the entire house is hostile,” Baczkowski said.

Read the full Los Angeles Times story here.

You mark my words.  This new “protocol” will mean the deaths of more Marines.  But hey.  The upshot is that John Murtha will be happier.

I have just left the mind of a mad man — or a man on dope (“we all live in a yellow submarine … a yellow submarine … a yellow submarine … we all live …” ahem, excuse me; I sort of zoned out).  It is titled “New York Times Report from Ramadi: Evidence of U.S. War Crimes in Iraq.”  It is written by Barry Grey, of WSWS.  Who is WSWS, you say?  Well, none other than the World Socialist Web Site.  Real socialists?  ThaaaaAAT’s RIGHT!  You thought that they only existed on the campuses of American universities and in the democratic party leadership, didn’t you?  There are actually a few left out there, although not in Russia or China (or any other country who has actually tried socialism for any extended period of time).

Well, the title of the article is telling to say the least.  Mr. Grey doesn’t do any investigative work.  He ascribes a position to the NYT, a position in fact which is neither taken by the NYT nor supported by anything in the NYT article.  Either Mr. Grey is a liar and knowingly propagated slander against the Marines, or he was high on dope when he wrote this article.  We will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he was high.  Whatcha been smokin’ Barry?  Pretty strong stuff, huh?

Let’s tackle this bizzare article piece by piece.  It begins as follows:

A front page article in the July 5 New York Times provides a chilling and damning picture of the daily, murderous violence being perpetrated by US forces in occupied Iraq.

Just so that you know the context, the picture is shown below.

Now then.  This picture could show a deserted part of town, or a slum where homeless people live (here in the states we could certainly show photos like this of inner city ruins), or perhaps it could show how certain city blocks can become a victim of the relocations that occur as a course of war.  What, exactly, it shows, Mr. Grey does not say, except to assert that “it is a damning picture of the daily, murderous violence being perpetrated by U.S. forces in occupied Iraq.”

Maybe its just me, but does anyone see a Marine perpetrating “daily, murderous violence” in the picture above?  Maybe, just maybe, it’s that dope that Barry is smoking.  Good stuff, huh Barry?

Barry continues by citing the NYT article (C’mon Barry, do your own investigative work):

“In three years there the Marine Corps and the Army have tried nearly everything to bring this provincial capital of 400,000 under control. Nothing has worked.

Hmmmm … strange.  Seems like only a few days ago we learned that Ramadi was seeing U.S. and Iraqi patrols for the very first time (or at least, Ramadi was seeing things that they ‘rarely’ saw) in large parts of the city.  But according to the NYT, the Marine Corps has tried “nearly everything.”  Quite a statement of superlative, that phrase.  “Nearly everything.”  Oh well, don’t worry about the facts.  We all live in a yellow submarine.

It just gets better and better.

Barry continues by citing the NYT article on the ethos of the Marines in Ramadi:

“One of the ‘habits of mind’ drilled into the Marines from posters hung up inside: ‘Be polite, be professional and have a plan to kill everyone you meet.’”

This is a bizzare as I can imagine.  Barry seems like a child at an easter egg hunt who is angry that he found an easter egg.  What does he expect?  Marines who have a plan to kill people.  Imagine it!  Actually, the wording is quite clever, precise and intentional.  It says “have a plan.” It doesn’t say to do it in all cases.  And if Barry thinks that there is an ethos in the Marines to kill people who attempt to perpetrate violence against them, he has that absolutely right.  I can vouch for this ethos.  Its there.  I’ve seen it.  But since I have never attempted to kill a Marine, a Marine has never attempted to kill me.  So I have not had any problems with them.  Is Barry shocked that a Marine would have a plan to kill people?  What did Barry’s mommy tell him that Soldiers and Marines do?  Apparently this is a traumatic experience for Barry.

Barry continues:

The Times’ article is far from a denunciation of the US military in Ramadi. It has more the character of an apologia, repeating uncritically the official US line that the people of Ramadi are “caught in the middle” of a struggle between American troops and insurgents—an absurd contention on its face given the tenacity of the resistance and the well-known tenet of counter-insurgency warfare that partisan guerrillas fighting foreign occupation rely on popular support and sympathy against the overwhelming military superiority of the occupier.

So it is all about the sympathy that the Iraqis feel for the insurgents?  It has nothing to do with fear of reprisal attacks?  On the face of it, there is nothing to this claim that the people of Ramadi are “caught in the middle?”  And Barry has not even been to Iraq and interviewed these people?  Barry, put down the joint, dude.  It is clouding your judgment.

Barry continues (apparently, he has not put down the joint yet):

Nevertheless, the very facts reported by the Times make clear that the US is committing war crimes, and that it is doing so in a systematic way and on a massive scale. The vast majority of these crimes go unreported, leaving the American people largely in the dark, unaware of the full extent of the horror being carried out in their name.

Ooooh.  See the twist of the wrist, the sleight of hand?

The “vast majority of these crimes go unreported.”  This means that we take his word for it.  Yep.  War crimes are happening, and on a massive scale.  Want the evidence for his assertion?  Well, it doesn’t work that way.  Why?  Because most of these crimes go unreported.  That’s why.  There isn’t any evidence for them.  We take Barry’s word for it.  Barry takes another toke and then continues:

“The inquiry into the possible executions of 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha by Marines has also brought the same lukewarm response. More than three years into the war, many Iraqis say they are no longer surprised by abuses on the part of American troops [Emphasis added].”

Collective punishment, exemplary punishment, the destruction of entire civilian centers—tactics associated in the last century with Nazi barbarism in occupied Europe—are part and parcel of the modus operandi of the US occupation of Iraq. 

We can only respond with a collective ‘what‘?  I thought we were discussing Ramadi and looking at a picture of an empty block in the downtown area?  In fact, we were discussing Ramadi.  But Barry has allowed himself to lose track of the discussion and bring in elements of an incident that has no bearing on Ramadi.  Besides, the investigation being only recently completed, the results of the investigation have not yet been made public, and so Barry really doesn’t know what happened in Haditha.  But Barry has gotten worked up and only now reaches the pinnacle of his rant by screaming:

America’s so-called volunteer army is being brutalized and dehumanized by its involvement in a filthy colonialist war. More than three-and-half years into the slaughter, those young men and women in the military, having initially been bombarded with lies and propaganda, who have been able to retain some moral compass, find it increasingly difficult to continue to do so.

I am wondering when the draft was reinstituted since our Army is only a “so-called volunteer” Army?  A filthy, colonialist war.  Sounds like Marxist propaganda to you?  Well, it is.  Remember that this comes from WSWS — the World Socialist Web Site.

Oh well, Barry continues his ramble for a while; you can read it at your leisure.  Who would actually believe this stuff?  Barry’s dope dream was picked up and reposted by none other than the “Bay Area Independent Media.”  Imagine that.

We all live in a yellow submarine … a yellow submarine … Oh wait, was that all about LSD rather than weed?  Sheesh … my head is spinning.

Which is it Barry?  What kind of stuff are you on?  Care to come on over to the Captain’s Journal and tell us?  Over here, we do not have protest songs, long hair or dope.  You have to bring your own.  E-mails:

sfbay-web@lists.indymedia.org

https://www.wsws.org/phpform/use/comments/form1.html

Byron York has this rundown of a recent Gallup Poll:

Gallup has released its yearly racial breakdown on George W. Bush’s job approval rating.  (Getting such a breakdown requires a larger polling sample than Gallup’s ordinary surveys.)  The poll shows in the last two years, Bush’s ratings have remained virtually unchanged among blacks and Hispanics; it is among non-Hispanic whites that the president’s ratings have fallen significantly.

Non-Hispanic Whites           Approve            Disapprove
June 8-25, 2006                          42                   53
June 6-25, 2005                          47                   48
June 9-30, 2004                          61                   38

Blacks
June 8-25, 2006                          15                   78
June 6-25, 2005                          16                   77
June 9-30, 2004                          16                   79

Hispanics
June 8-25, 2006                          38                   53
June 6-25, 2005                          41                   49
June 9-30, 2004                          40                   52

The numbers suggest that Bush’s ratings among blacks and Hispanics fell to the floor between June 2003 and June 2004.  Among blacks, Bush fell from 32 percent approval in June 2003 to 16 percent in June 2004.  Among Hispanics, Bush fell from 67 percent approval to 40 percent in the same period. (Among non-Hispanic whites, Bush fell from 69 percent to 61 percent in that time frame.) 

Apparently, the gushing that Bush has done over Hispanics had no effect and is having no effect.  The GOP does not have the Hispanic heart.  It is because, as I have tried to point out in the past, the Hispanic is coming to the U.S. with a completely different political paradigm.  They are socialist in world view, and they do not relinquish that world view just because they are in the U.S.

However, as I also pointed out, the GOP could very well lose the GOP base over the immigration issue, thereby ensuring its own death.  The votes are not there.  They never were, and every word spent on pushing this loser immigration policy is another nail in the coffin of the GOP.

Michelle Malkin has a link to a Washington Times article about the overstatement of the worth of the alleged Hispanic vote, and Michelle observes that this romantic pursuit of the Hispanic vote is “quixotic.”  Quixotic indeed.  Will the GOP leadership see it in time?

Prior:

• http://www.captainsjournal.com/category/immigration/

I previously wrote about a Navy Chaplain who is facing court martial for praying in Christ’s name.  It included some very interesting things: a little history on the Chaplain, links to his web site, my letter to the Navy Times and their desire to publish it until they found out I was a Milblogger, etc..  I said that I would follow this story.  Here is my second installment.

As it turns out, the Chaplain is facing court martial not only for praying in Christ’s name in uniform, but also for preaching from Romans Chapter 8 at a memorial for a departed Christian sailor.  It is important to remember that this is part of a continuing effort to suppress the religious freedom of our Chaplains.  The initial volley was in the Air Force.  The history of this can be found here (along with a critique and response).  A temporary truce resulted from the stinging critique of the policy, but the volley continued in the Navy where Chaplain Klingenschmitt is the “example” being used by the Navy (you must read the critique — it is simply a demolition job; nothing remains of the policy after the critique is finished.  Loud Applause, high fives all around, and the scoreboard reads “Christians – 1, Lions – 0”).

It is also important to remember that the issue is not: where Klingenschmitt was when he prayed? whether he was in uniform? whether this was a sanctioned event? whether he was with Judge Roy Moore when he prayed? whether he had specific permission to pray in Christ’s name? whether he used this instance as a seed for further action or some other kind of protest against the Navy policy? or any other sideline issue.  We need to stay on-point in our analysis of this issue.  The military does not like people protesting orders or policies, and for good reason.  But however tempting it is to focus on the background noise, again, we must stay on-point in our analysis.  I can analyze the background noise for you later.

The are some important things to remember in our analysis of this question, including:

1. Is the Navy policy constitutional?
2. Is it even possible to pray a prayer that offends no one?

On the second question, since the nature of Christianity is exclusive (“I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me,” Jesus Christ, circa 33 A.D.), to fail to honor Christ in an attempt to keep from offending the adherents of some other faith by its very nature offends Christ, and therefore, the Christian (notice that I did not use the term CE when referring to dating; I used AD.  Does that offend anyone?).  It is rather like that old liberal college professor adage that goes “there is no such thing as truth,” to which the perceptive student might respond, “But professor, is your statement true?  If so, then the proposition “there is no truth” is manifestly false.  If your statement is false, then why should we listen to you?”

The laws of logic must be followed, and if the Christian is required to pray a prayer that does not offend the Muslim or the Jew, then by definition, he offends his own religion.  Another way of saying it is this.  ‘A’ and ‘not-A’ cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time.  Again, remember the laws of logic (in this case, the law of contradiction).

The Navy policy-makers are not thinking men; they attempt to require a Christian Chaplain to pray a prayer that offends no one, and thus they forget the fundamental laws of logic.  What they order is impossible.  It would violate the laws of logic.

As to the second question, the reader needs to refer to other more impressive works than anything that I can put into prose.  I recommend for starters:

1. Daniel L. Dreisbach, “Real Threat and Mere Shadow: Religious Liberty and the First Amendment.”
2. Rousas J. Rushdoony, “The Nature of the American System.”

Suffice it to say based on Rushdoony’s work that most of the thirteen original colonies had an established religion or faith, and the ones that did not were Christian in their system of laws and regulations.  The first amendment did not promise freedom from religion, but the freedom of it.  The same colonies that had established religions also approved the first amendment, demonstrating conclusively that whatever it means, it does not mean that a Chaplain cannot pray in Christ’s name.

The most ironic and humerous aspect of the most recent legal ruling is the radical departure from the constitution that Rear Admiral Ruehe lapses into when he claims that the Chaplain could have “commanded the assent of the vast majority of his audience” by preaching something less exclusive.  Permit me a chuckle or two here.  Since when has the military worried about commanding the assent of a vast majority of its audience?  Good Lord!  How effeminate we have become as a nation.  It is literally embarrassing.  I guess I have to be embarrassed for all of us — apparently, the Rear Admiral is too stolid to be ashamed.

Does the Admiral not understand that the so-called “vast majority” of America is still Christian, and that commanding their assent requires the exclusive Christian message?  Does the Rear Admiral read and study?