SO NOW THEY'RE "DETAINEES"

Iran is announcing that all 15 British hostages have "confessed" to intruding into their waters. Yeah ... we're buying that.

Notice how the media is referring to the hostages as "detainees." The world merely serves to give Iran a pass on their actions. So what if Iran is violating the Geneva Convention by parading the hostages on TV.[video] No wonder Iran kidnapped the soldiers...they knew the Euro-weasels would be weak and would continue to appease the Islamofascists. And that's exactly what is happening.

Make no mistake, the only reason Iran took these soldiers hostage is because they knew nothing bad would happen and they would be able to use them to garner publicity, divert attention from the United Nations and their nuclear program, and make the West look weak. They knew Britain would give up without a fight and that there would be no consequences and that is exactly what has happened. The policy of appeasement and coddling Islamofascism in Europe is now playing out in Iran. Will the United States join the rest of the world in making that mistake?

IS THE WEST JUST TRYING TO LOOK WEAK?

It seems that for every little shove the Islamic fascists and radical Muslims deliver to the western world, we respond by looking earnestly for yet another way we can show weakness and a willingness to capitulate. While the Iranians are parading 15 British sailors and Marines in front of the Arab media, we learn that the European Union has a nifty little rule in place designed to prevent angering Muslims.

The London Daily Telegraph has now revealed the existence of a classified handbook for EU diplomat types that encourages governments and the European media to avoid using phrases that might (gasp!) offend Muslims when referring to terrorism. The EU handbook suggests banning words like "jihad", "Islamic" or "fundamentalist."

Yup .. that's right. It is now officially improper in Europe to refer to an Islamic terrorist as an Islamic terrorist. Never mind the fact that virtually every terrorist operating in the world today is a Muslim ... and never mind that the wonderful, peaceful, serene, nonviolent, passive, tranquil, placid, laid-back, loving religion of Islam virtually relies on terrorism as it's chief foreign policy tool. We certainly don't want to offend these people now, do we? So the EU handbook on how to talk about terrorism without offending the people responsible for the terrorism tells us that we might want to give consideration to the phrase "terrorists who abusively invoke Islam."

Screw that.

Islam is a religion of hate and violence ... and so it shall remain until we see Muslims everywhere in the world openly and loudly standing up to these violent Islamic fascists and their apologists like the Council on American Islamic Relations. CAIR has never issued a blanket repudiation of the use of violence and terrorist tactics on the part of Islamic groups. I fully realize that there are Muslims everywhere who hate the violence and hatred brought to us by the jihadists as much as we do .... but until they are as loud in their condemnation of terrorism as the jihadists are in their threats to the West ... Islam will be known by the actions of the radicals, not of the peaceful.

In the meantime, look around for an example of the Western world standing up to the Islamic goons. The City of Minneapolis suggests a light signal system on its taxis to warn customers of which Muslim cab drivers will transport passengers carrying alcohol, and which will not. Target stores jumps through its own rear end to find a way to accommodate Muslim cashiers at its stores who refuse to ring up items containing pork. A British school changes the name of the "Three Little Pigs" to the "Three Little Puppies." Today's Daily Mail from London reports on a study by the Department for Education and Skills. British teachers, it seems, are not teaching the Holocaust in British schools. Some teachers are afraid that Muslim pupils might react badly in class.

Everywhere you look you see capitulation. From supermarket check-out counters to the halls of the U.S. Congress. This capitulation is seen by Islamic fascists as nothing less than signs of weakness. It emboldens them, and weakens us. You do the math. Where does this lead?

JOINT POLICE FORCE WORKS TOWARD A MORE SECURE IRAQ

Joint Police Force Works Toward a More Secure Iraq

By Sgt. Marcus Butler
4th Brigade Combat Team (Airborne),
25th Infantry Division

ISKANDARIYAH, Iraq, March 31, 2007 — The future security of Iraq starts at the ground level with the Iraqi security forces. In order to prepare the Iraqis for this responsibility, soldiers in transition teams have been working around the clock all over Iraq.

Soldiers of the 127th Military Police Company are ready for this challenge.

Based out of Forward Operating Base Kalsu, the headquarters for the 127th has platoons throughout the battle space for the 4th Brigade Combat Team (Airborne), 25th Infantry Division.

One platoon in particular, 3rd Platoon "Wolf Pack" is operating in Iskandaryiah, Iraq, home to the 1st Battalion, 501st Parachute Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team (Airborne), 25th Infantry Division. The Wolf Pack arrived at Forward Operating Base Iskan approximately four months ago fully knowing their mission.

"Our mission as a police transition team is to make sure the (Iraqi police) are fully trained and qualified to take on the mission of securing their country and keeping the citizens safe," said Staff Sgt. Johnny Colon, squad leader and native of Guayama, Puerto Rico.

This mission is of the highest priority not only to the Iraqi police who are training but also for the civilians they are training to protect.

"In our area of operation, the important thing is that more of the local population is beginning to trust the IPs," said 1st Lt. Nathan Diaz, platoon leader for the Wolf Pack. "The people are happy to see the IPs going through their villages and towns patrolling the area as well as a large increase of information being given to the IPs to help combat the insurgents in the local areas."

"In the short time that we have been here, the human intelligence has grown dramatically," said Diaz. "We are getting more and more tips on events that could harm Iraqi security forces and coalition forces in the local neighborhoods."

The relationship between the police and the civilians is the not the only one that matters. Soldiers of Wolf Pack worked daily with the IPs of the local area helping them to become more proficient in their job and building bonds in the process.

These bonds will lead to lasting impressions for both the IPs and soldiers.

"Moving from unit to unit, you have to start from scratch building trust with the people that you are working with. We have different personnel that work with the leadership of the IPs to help in specific areas," said Sgt. 1st Class Michael King, platoon sergeant for the Wolf Pack.

"Whether that area involves investigations, accountability of weapons, or training; we have built a strong relationship with all of the stations that fall within our AO."

Progression of the IPs is sometimes compared to the police forces in United States, but that is inequitable, noted King.

"One of the things when looking at progress of the IPs is you can not look at them as law enforcement in the United States for the simple fact the threat in Iraq is much greater," said King. "That causes unique challenges for the IPs. I have noticed an increase in professionalism as well as proactive efforts."
These soldiers will not only grow from the experience of working with IPs but also working with the Paratroopers of 1st Battalion, 501st PIR.

"It has been a very unique experience for me working with paratroopers for the first time. I have made life-long bonds with many of them and I know that I can count on them no matter what," said Colon.

"The paratroopers of 1-501st PIR welcomed us in with open arms. Whenever we needed something to happen there was never any issue with getting it done," said King.

The soldiers of Wolf Pack and the IPs will be better for this experience, noted Diaz.

"Our soldiers will take with them a lasting positive impression on what they have learned during their time here and I know our IP counterparts will feel the same," he added.

Photo: Sgt. Christopher Benjamin, 3rd Platoon, 127th Military Police Company, watches as Iraqi policemen handle the flow of traffic at a checkpoint south of Baghdad, March 22. Benjamin, a native of Tampa, Fla. is visiting the checkpoint as part of his platoon's mission as a police transition team. U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Marcus Butler

WORRIED AT THE WAPO?

by Jed Babbin

Yesterday, I posted an article on HumanEvents.com pointing out the absurd bias in the Washington Post's Military Correspondent Tom Ricks’s story about Gen. Barry McCaffrey’s March 26 report on his trip to Iraq. In it, I pointed out how Ricks had totally inverted the McCaffrey report to fit his own anti-war narrative. My piece apparently struck a nerve.

Last evening, Ricks sent me this e-mail:

Subject: A comment on yours

News isn't a proportional relationship--that is, one paragraph deep in a report may contain the nugget of a story, and hundreds of other pages may not be worth a mention. In my view, given General McCaffrey's past optimism, the news here was his "problems" section. Also, when I pointed out to him the discrpeancy in the tone of different parts of the report, he told me that he wrote that section with his head, but the later more optimistic parts with his heart.

At any rate, if I were interested in misprepresentation, why would I have the Post make sure to put the entire report on-line, and have a notice to that effect at the end of the print story that encouraged people to read the whole thing?

Best,
Tom Ricks
Military Correspondent
The Washington Post
rickst@washpost.com

Here’s my response:

News isn't proportional, but reporting is about facts, not fitting something into your narrative. Your piece is about 663 words, and from the first sentence to the last -- with only two sentences I can find intervening to show McCaffrey's actual assessment -- your go on and on with freighted words about how hopeless the whole enterprise is.

If you were reporting and not commenting politically, you should have made clear McCaffrey's conclusions:

1. Since Petraeus arrived, the situation on the ground has improved "clearly and measurably"'

2. We can still achieve the president's objectives of a stable Iraq not producing terrorists and committed to a law-based government; and 3. Most importantly -- and contrary to what the Dems are doing in Congress -- "[W]e need a last powerful effort to provide US leaders on the ground -- the political support, economic reconstruction resources and the military strength it requires to succeed."

You chose sides in "Fiasco." Why not just admit it? What has Downie said about this? Who reviewed it before it went out? Has Downie decided to let your readers know that the White House is disputing the truth of your report?

Let's send this to the deans of the top five journalism schools and see what they say about it. And let's stand you and me up in front of a town hall group in Colorado Springs or St. Louis and see who is believed. How does the Post justify this obvious strong bias? Best, Jed Babbin.

Jed Babbin
Editor
Human Events

This is what the Washington Post, the New York Times, CBS and the rest of the politically active media do when caught: obfuscate. Will the editors of the Washington Post ever hear of the White House’s disparagement of the Ricks report, or of the actual import of McCaffrey’s words? Don’t bet on it.

GOP STICK TO THEIR GUNS ON IRAQ

By Howard Fineman

Despite the loss of Congress, an unpopular president and public weariness over the war in Iraq, Republicans are marching to same old tune.

March 31, 2007 - “The war,” Sen. Mitch McConnell told me last week, “is the reason you are speaking to the Republican leader, not the majority leader.” Yet McConnell and his fellow Republicans in Congress have chosen, nearly unanimously, to stick with George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove in a confrontation over the Democrats’ proposal to tie $100 billion in Iraq funding to a timetable for withdrawal. “The war is a difficult issue for my party, which is a statement of the obvious,” he said. But the goal remains the same: “to establish a stable government in Iraq” that can be an ally in the “war on terror.” And so it came to pass that the Leonidas of Louisville led the Spartans—47 senators and 198 House members who voted against the Dems—to Thermopylae (or at least spring break).

Since self-sacrifice for the sake of principle is rare in Congress, you have to ask: are Republicans marching to glory? Or, in Barbara Tuchman’s stinging phrase, is this a March of Folly? Sen. Evan Bayh, a hawkish Democrat turned war critic, thinks the more apt screen reference is “Blazing Saddles.” “You know the movie scene: the guy turns a gun on himself and shouts, ‘Stop or I’ll shoot!’” With presidential approval ratings at historic lows, with voters supporting a timetable for withdrawal by a clear majority, with the GOP’s brand name melting faster than an Alaskan glacier, what could McConnell & Co. be thinking?

Short answer: whatever Rove tells them to. The Boy Genius faces subpoenas and an antagonistic press, but Republicans up for re-election in 2008—including McConnell, 17 other senators and the party’s declared presidential contenders—have not found, or even seriously searched for, an alternative to Rove’s “wartime commander in chief” theory of post-9/11 politics.

The GOP survival strategy rests—not unreasonably—on the hope that Democrats fall to squabbling over competing House and Senate versions of a funding bill. Republicans will argue that Congress is not able, and constitutionally barred, from a lead role in the war. And they’ll decry the pork-barrel spending the Dems used to grease passage of their plans. Rove, meanwhile, is talking up internal polls that purport to show an uptick in public optimism about Iraq. Bush, on the road this week, plans to argue that the surge is working and tout the “new realism” of the American commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus. With not the least bit of irony—let alone shame—Republicans will contend that they care more about the soldiers, the sordid evidence at Walter Reed notwithstanding. They will unveil an online “countdown” clock showing the days allegedly left until money runs out for the troops—a made-up number in the world’s capital of flexible arithmetic.

But, at their core, Republicans will rely on Rove’s argument that emerged after 9/11: that the GOP, led by Bush, does not flinch from war; that the war on terror is unlimited in space and time; and that those who think otherwise are misguided, weak-kneed or naive enablers of the enemy. Democrats, McConnell says, wrote a bill that has a “surrender date for Iraq in it.” He professes a lack of concern for polls that show his own approval rating in Kentucky at 46 percent, and the president’s at 43 percent: “Kentucky is not Berkeley. We have Fort Campbell, the home of the 101st Airborne, the Screaming Eagles. I would doubt that an antiwar effort would get much resonance in a very patriotic, pro-military state like mine.” But even in Kentucky, there’s a limit to patience. The Screaming Eagles may not be able to rescue him.

THE U.N. CAN'T GET ANYTHING RIGHT

The worthless United Nations continues to be useless. Iran goes into Iraqi waters and kidnaps 15 British sailors, one of them a woman, and the best they can do is to express "grave concern." Oh wow! Grave concern! I'm sure that really curled some beards in Iran. The U.N. originally intended to "deplore" the hostage-taking, but Russia objected. And here we thought that Putin was mad at Iran for not paying its bills! I guess not.
Face it. The U.N.'s response to this naked aggression shows that the organization serves no practical purpose and should be downgraded to a Sunday afternoon tea society.

Here you have an open-and-shut case of a rogue, dictatorial regime kidnapping and holding hostage innocent soldiers...soldiers that were not in Iranian waters when they were apprehended. The Brits have the GPS data to prove it. One of the sailors is a woman, making the situation all the more outrageous. On top of all this, Iran is parading the soldiers on TV...in direct violation of the Geneva Convention.

And what does the UN do? Nothing. Why? Because the UN is anti-American, and that makes it anti-Brit. It's time for not only the United States to pull out of the United Nations but for us to kick them out of the United States. Let's form another international organization composed of countries with elected governments that adhere to principles of economic freedom and guaranteed rights for their citizens. The UN? Give it Haiti. The two deserve each other.

The left always tells us we need the U.N. as a place for countries to settle international disputes. Tell me just one international dispute the UN has settled! It's a sounding board for third-world anti-Americanism. Nothing more.