Oh, to be back in college when I knew everything. Writing for the student newspaper, Kevin Dooley takes time out of his busy day to solve the Iraq problem:

Even though Saddam may have all the time in the world now to write poetry (at least until he is publicly hanged), Saddam is needed somewhere else. And it's not as a writing instructor in a creative writing class here at the University of Massachusetts. Instead, Saddam Hussein needs to be put back in power as president/dictator of Iraq immediately.

[...]

Say what you want about the guy, and yes, I know he is a brutal dictator who is responsible for countless lives being lost, but he was the only one it seems that was able to keep the Shiite and Sunni Muslims from going at each other's throats.

So what's a little rape and murder, just so long as the buses run on time.

Yesterday, I had the pleasure of eating brunch with Master Chief Frank Welch, the highest ranking NCO in the Coast Guard. He and his wife are delightful, and she is an excellent host and cook. It got me to thinking about how the Coast Guard does a thankless job.

The Coast Guard was rolled under the Department of Homeland Security, while the other military branches are under DoD. But their job is no less dangerous. But the Coast Guard has participates in most major wars, including: the War Between the States, the Spanish-American War, World Wars I and II, Korea, Vietnam, and both Gulf Wars.

In Vietnam, the boats that patroled the countries 1200 miles of coast line and countless waterways and streams included Coast Guard vessels. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Coast Guard sent cutters, tenders, and patrol boats to provide port security and support. They also performed intercept and search missions which put them closer to the action that many naval units.

Of course this is in addition to their more prominent duties of drug smuggling interdiction, immigration enforcement, and answering calls of maritime distress.

Their contributions to National Security and Military Preparedness are invaluable and should be applauded.

(Hook 'em Horns, Master Chief.)

Senator John McCain, a Republican (surprise!) from Arizona, pushed through an al-Qaeda Bill of Rights, which protects terrorists from "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" at the hands of the U.S. military.

"We've sent a message to the world that the United States is not like the terrorists. We have no grief for them, but what we are is a nation that upholds values and standards of behavior and treatment of all people, no matter how evil or bad they are," McCain said. "I think that this will help us enormously in winning the war for the hearts and minds of people throughout the world in the war on terror."

No longer will terrorists be subjected to such horrors as:

- Being interviewed by a woman
- Having dogs in the same room
- Having to look at the bottom of someone's shoe
- Being forced to listen to Whitney Houston (I actually agree with that one)
- Uncomfortable silence or staring
- Rapid fire questions
- Sleep deprivation

That is just a sample of the numerous "torture" techniques that were approved by the U.S. Army, according to this declassified memo provided by the ACLU (al-Qaeda Civil Liberties Union).

Merriam-Webster defines torture:

1 a : anguish of body or mind : AGONY b : something that causes agony or pain
2 : the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure

None of the items on the list are what a reasonable person would consider "torture".

Hoping to prevent terrorists from crashing trains and buses into buildings, the Federal Air Marshals Service will expand to ground transportation.

It should come as no surprise that less than two minutes after President Bush's speech on Iraq, House Minority Leader and resident hippie Nancy Pelosi rushed to the microphone to endorse an immediate surrender. The Washington Times quotes Pelosi in her gushing approval of John Murtha's call for a U.S. surrender in Iraq:

"I'm endorsing what Mr. Murtha is saying, which is that the status quo is not working and that we need to have a plan that makes us safer, our military stronger, and makes Iraq more stable," she said.

"I believe that a majority of our caucus clearly supports Mr. Murtha," she added.

This support is best evidenced by the House's 403-3 rejection of Murtha's proposal. What's more, both Murtha and Pelosi voted against the Murtha bill. So I guess it could be said that Pelosi is actually voting for Murtha's bill after she voted against it.

Just last week Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha implied that surrender was a valid option by suggesting that U.S. troops immediately withdraw from Iraq. Now media outlets like the Seattle Times are reporting that Republicans have branded Congressman John Murtha as a coward for couragously voicing his opinion.

The tone only grew angrier the next day on the House floor when freshman Republican Jean Schmidt of Ohio accused Murtha of being a "coward."

Such nuance. What Schmidt actually did was read the letter of a U.S. Marine on the ground in Iraq. The Chicago Tribune reports:

He was asked about comments Friday by freshman Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio), who said on the House floor that a Marine reservist "asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message: that cowards cut and run, Marines never do."

I don't know what your definition of the word 'coward' is, but perhaps it should include someone who suggests a course of action, claims to have the support of the majority of America, and then lacks the courage to support it.

House Republicans on Friday pushed for a vote on a nonbinding resolution to pull out the troops after Murtha's comments. It was rejected 403-3, but Democrats said the quick call for the vote was a political stunt designed to undermine Murtha's comments.

So Democrats are blaming Republicans for putting a Democrat proposal to a vote. What's more, Rep. John "don't call me coward" Murtha voted against it. Supporting the resolution to withdraw from Iraq were Robert Wexler, D-FL, Cynthia McKinney, D-GA, and Jose Serrano, D-NY.

Former Marine and Pennsylvania Democrat Rep. John Murtha, is calling for the U.S. Military to unconditionally surrender in Iraq. While most Democrats have made the claim that they support the troops but not the mission, Murtha is calling for an immediate withdrawal.

"U.S. and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq," the senior lawmaker said. "It's time for a change in direction."

He said he believes all the forces could be redeployed over a six-month period.

Murtha, a former Marine Corps colonel and veteran of the Vietnam war, is the first senior lawmaker to call for an immediate withdrawal. Other critics of the war have asked President Bush to set up a timetable for withdrawal...

"Our military has accomplished its mission and done its duty," he said. "Our military captured Saddam Hussein, captured or killed his closest associates, but the war continues to intensify."

Wasn't our mission to win the war? If so, then how could our mission be accomplished?

The GOP is using the Democrats words against them. They've released a video (9 MB) showing Democrats as far back as 1998 saying that Saddam had WMD and that we must act now.

Michael Scheuer, a former covert CIA agent and first head of the CIA's 'bin Laden unit' was on Hardball last night with Chris Matthews. When prodded by Matthews, Scheuer claimed that we'd all be better off with Saddam Hussein back in power.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Just to think outside the box here, would we be better off with Saddam Hussein still running tyrannically that country... If Iraq right next door to Jordan, would Jordan be more secure in that environment?

MICHAEL SCHEUER: No doubt about it sir.

MATTHEWS: No doubt?

SCHEUER: There would be many more dead.. many fewer dead Americans and we would have many more resources available to annihilate al-Qaeda which is what we have to do. Without a doubt in the war against al-Qaeda Saddam Hussein was one of our best allies.

Yes, he actually said that "without a doubt in the war against al-Qaeda Saddam Hussein was one of our best allies." The problem is that just a few years ago, Michael Scheuer wrote this:

Regarding Iraq, bin Laden, as noted was in contact with Baghdad's intelligence service since at least 1994. He reportedly cooperated with it in the area of chemical-biological-radiological-nuclear (CBRN) weapons and may have trained some fighters in Iraq at camps run by Saddam's anti-Iran force, the Mujahedin e-Khalq (MEK). The first group of bin Laden's fighters is reported to have been sent to the MEK camps in June 1998; MEK cadre also were then providing technical and military training for Taliban forces and running the Taliban's anti-Iran propaganda.

Other laboratory and production facilities available to bin Laden are reported in the Khowst and Jalalabad areas, and in the Khartoum suburb of Kubar. The latter facility is said to be a "new chemical and bacteriological factory" cooperatively built by Sudan, bin Laden, and Iraq, and may be one of several in Sudan. In January 1999, Al-Watan Al-Arabi reported that by late 1998, "Iraq, Sudan, and bin Laden were cooperating and coordinating in the field of chemical weapons." The reports say that several chemical factories were built in Sudan. They were financed by bin Laden and supervised by Iraqi experts.

James Taranto points out this hilarious post on Democratic Underground. (link contains some profanity)

Sometimes I just get so mad that my country is committing mass murder. What power have I to stop it?

I am going to start reading up on Ghandi. This is the breaking point. I have to do something drastic, like go on a hunger strike chained to a light pole next to the NBC building in Chicago. But it's starting to get cold and I have my thesis to work on and classes to finish up this semester.

When I graduate in May, if we are still at war, I will honestly be about doing this. I can go for weeks on a diet of a handful of rice per day. If it's Summer, I won't die of cold, either. I wish I had done this this last Summer.

Maybe I can get 20 or so people to do this with me. Maybe we can lie on the street covered with cow blood for weeks at a time and say we are calling attention to the murders of our own troops and Iraqi civilians. And only until the war has ended will we feel good enough to eat again. I could surround myself with pictures of dead soldiers and Iraqis.

Do you think it would work? Do you think the Chicago police would arrest me and take me in? Would you be willing to join me in May?

While this is of little comfort to those who will be murdered by George Bush between now and next May, it's refreshing to see that some young people out there are still willing to sacrifice themselves for others; as long as it's not too cold outside or doesn't get in the way of homework.

While every death is tragic, James Na gives Iraq War deaths a little context.

For World War I, over 6,100 per month.
For World War II, over 9,200 per month.
In Korea, over 900 killed-in-action each month (non-battle death information is not available).
For Vietnam, over 600 per month.
For Gulf War I, almost 300 in one month.

The first Gulf War was noted for its remarkably low casualty rate. Some even observed that the death rate for the deployed American military personnel was lower than that during peacetime, making it "safer to be at war than at home."

In comparison, an average of 63 died each month in the current war.

Imagine if our anti-war media was around during World War II, when we lost nearly 800 souls rehearsing for the Normandy invasion.

"During the Vietnam War, enemy body counts became a regular feature in military statements intended to demonstrate progress. But the statistics ended up proving poor indicators of the war's course. Pressure on U.S. units to produce high death tolls led to inflated tallies, which tore at Pentagon credibility." -- Washington Post, October 24, 2005.

"A U.S. Army sergeant died of wounds suffered in Iraq, the Pentagon announced Tuesday. The death _ along with two others announced Tuesday _ brought to 2,000 the number of U.S. military members who have died since the start of the Iraq conflict in 2003." -- Washington Post, October 25, 2005.

Vat a difference a day makes... ah, ah, ah.

Isn't this the same media that keeps a running tally on the number of U.S. soldiers who've died in Iraq?

Eager to demonstrate success in Iraq, the U.S. military has abandoned its previous refusal to publicize enemy body counts and now cites such numbers periodically to show the impact of some counterinsurgency operations.

The revival of body counts, a practice discredited during the Vietnam War, has apparently come without formal guidance from the Pentagon's leadership...

During the Vietnam War, enemy body counts became a regular feature in military statements intended to demonstrate progress. But the statistics ended up proving poor indicators of the war's course. Pressure on U.S. units to produce high death tolls led to inflated tallies, which tore at Pentagon credibility.

It takes a bit of chutzpa to bitch about the military keeping a body count, and then have a link to your own body count in middle of the story. Keep in mind that the media's body counts includes any and all soldiers who've died, whether it be at the hands of the enemy, in car accidents, or even of natural causes.

Anti-war peaceniks have been claiming time and time again that Iraq and the War on Terror are unrelated. Well, someone needs to tell that to al Qaeda, because they've got Iraq on the brain. USA Today reports:

In a letter to his top deputy in Iraq, al-Qaeda's No. 2 leader said the United States "ran and left their agents" in Vietnam and the jihadists must have a plan ready to fill the void if the Americans suddenly leave Iraq.

"Things may develop faster than we imagine," Ayman al-Zawahri wrote in a letter to his top deputy in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. "The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam � and how they ran and left their agents � is noteworthy. ... We must be ready starting now." [...]

"More than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media," he wrote. "We are in a media battle in a race for the hearts and minds of our umma," or community of Muslims, he wrote.

So Iraq is another Vietnam, says the media, the anti-war left, and al Qaeda. Now, I would never question the patriotism of the anti-war crowd, but it makes me wonder which side they're on.

If you haven't read this yet, then do.

For evidence that we're winning the War on Terror, you have to look to news reports overseas.

The US military believes it is one step closer to tracking down al-Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

The prediction comes after al-Zarqawi's deputy was killed in a gun battle in Baghdad.

Abu Azzam played a key role in organizing the campaign of deadly suicide bombings in Iraq...

Abu Azzam always enjoyed a spot near the very top of America's most-wanted list in Iraq. The US military says he co-ordinated al Qaeda's operations in Baghdad, ranging from deadly suicide bombings to individual assassinations.

Azzam was also seen as the terror group's moneyman, helping finance the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq to join the insurgency.

CNN reports that most Americans polled think that the United States will lose the Iraq War.

Only 21 percent said the United States definitely would win the war in Iraq, which began when a U.S.-led coalition invaded in 2003 to topple Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. Another 22 percent said they thought the United States probably would win.

Twenty percent of respondents said the United States was capable of winning in Iraq -- but probably would not. And 34 percent said they considered the war unwinnable.

Maybe I just don't get it, but I thought we had already won the Iraq War. We toppled Saddam Hussein, found some of his weapons of mass destruction, and helped the Iraqis set up a form of representative government. Maybe I'm just too much of an optimist.

We are facing a lot of terrorism in Iraq, which is proving to be hard to eradicate. I think that part of the secret to winning against the terrorists is to help Iraq secure her borders and prevent foreign nationals from importing and breeding terror.

UPDATE: Here's a better poll: Poll: Most Americans Not In Iraq

The anti-war peacenik crowd is still complaining that we haven't found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They seem to have selective amnesia. As proof, Neal has a nice run-down of the WMD that has been reported to have been found in Iraq so far.

Here's also a nice little list of what was found:

-500 tons...that's right...TONS...make that 1million pounds of yellow cake uranium. It was found at Saddam's nuclear weapons facility (yup...he had one of those too.)

-1.8 tons of partially enriched uranium found at the same place. You know, the stuff you need to make nukes.

-Hidden centrifuge parts and blueprints.

-Two dozen artillery shells loaded with Sarin and mustard gas.

Sounds like WMD to me!

He even backs it up with sources: USA Today; Newsmax; Frontpage Mag.

Or you could just ask the Kurds, or the Iranians. Both were victims of Saddam's chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.

So Britain is going to start throwing out Islamofacists who are preaching hatred for the West. That sounds like a good plan, until the leftists start relaxing the definition of "hate speech".

Fortunately for the British government, they don't have those pesky Constitutional protections to keep them from enacting such a plan. Then again, neither do we 60 days before a general election.

The New York Post reports what the mainstream media doesn't:

* Every one of the Army's 10 divisions � its key combat organizations � has exceeded its re-enlistment goal for the year to date. Those with the most intense experience in Iraq have the best rates. The 1st Cavalry Division is at 136 percent of its target, the 3rd Infantry Division at 117 percent.

Among separate combat brigades, the figures are even more startling, with the 2nd Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division at 178 percent of its goal and the 3rd Brigade of the 4th Mech right behind at 174 percent of its re-enlistment target.

This is unprecedented in wartime. Even in World War II, we needed the draft. Where are the headlines?

* What about first-time enlistment rates, since that was the issue last spring? The Army is running at 108 percent of its needs. Guess not every young American despises his or her country and our president.

* The Army Reserve is a tougher sell, given that it takes men and women away from their families and careers on short notice. Well, Reserve recruitment stands at 102 percent of requirements.

* And then there's the Army National Guard. We've been told for two years that the Guard was in free-fall. Really? Guard recruitment and retention comes out to 106 percent of its requirements as of June 30.

The numbers for "new recruits" are still down for the year.

A cache of Weapons of Mass Destruction have been found in Iraq. But the Washington Post makes assures us that these are new WMDs, created because of President Bush's illegal war for oil.

Combined, the chemicals would yield an agent capable of "lingering hazards" for those exposed to it, [Lt. Col. Steven A. Boylan] said. The likely targets would have been "coalition and Iraqi security forces, and Iraqi civilians," partly because the chemicals would be difficult to keep from spreading over a wide area, he said.

Boylan said the suspected lab was new, dating from some time after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. The Bush administration cited evidence that Saddam Hussein's government was manufacturing weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for the invasion. No such weapons or factories were found.

Maybe Washington Post reporters should actually read the Washington Post, which reported back in May 2004 that a weapon of mass destruction dated from the first Gulf War had been used against U.S. troops.

An artillery shell containing the nerve agent sarin exploded near a U.S. military convoy in Baghdad recently, releasing a small amount of the deadly chemical and slightly injuring two ordnance disposal experts, a top U.S. military official in Iraq said yesterday.

The discovery of the nerve agent, reported yesterday by a team that has been searching for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq since shortly after last year's U.S.-led invasion, marked the first time the team has found one of the types of weapons that the Bush administration cited as initial justification for toppling the government of Saddam Hussein.

The Post also seems to be forgetting the more than three dozen vials of sarin found in Falluja, or the cache of blister agent shells found by coalition troops.

Those findings had been ignored because they weren't considered "stockpiles" of WMD. Now they don't even want to admit that they were found at all.

Michael Yon is on the ground in Iraq, and he makes a familiar claim about U.S. small arms firepower:

The lack of power of the American M-4 and M-16 rifles is astonishing. So many people and cars shot-up, but they just keep going and going. For a moment, it appeared the terrorists might get away.

Maybe the gunnies in Columbus could them some of their so-called "assault weapons".

One of the London bombing suspects is saying that there is no link between the July 21st bombings and al Qaeda, and that they were committed to draw attention to Iraq and not meant to hurt anyone. Of course the useful idiots from the blame America first crowd will play right into this and say "See! See!", it's all Bush's fault. Because a guy who would commit murder and heinous acts of terrorism wouldn't lie.

"I am against war," the source quoted Osman as saying. "I've marched in peace rallies and nobody listened to me. I never thought of killing people."

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a Republican, is authorizing city officials to conduct random searches of passengers entering the city's subways. They won't be racially profiling, so hot chicks are more likely to be groped than people who share similar physical characteristics with your average terrorist. When asked about violating the civil rights of his subjects, Bloomberg had this to say:

"We just live in a world where, sadly, these kinds of security measures are necessary," Bloomberg said. "Are they intrusive? Yes, a little bit. But we are trying to find that right balance."

Proving the futility of the security measures, Police Commish Raymond Kelly noted that "passengers will be free to 'turn around and leave' rather than consent to a search." I wonder how many people too uninformed to know they don't have to consent will be caught carrying recreational contraband like guns, drugs, or cigarettes.

Well, it was only a matter of time before a fatwah was issued against a blogger. While I cannot imagine why someone would walk across the street to kill me, apparently some terrorists are considering crossing the globe to come after Chris Byrne at Anarch Angel. You gotta live Chris' response:

If you attempt to do anything to me, to my friends, to anyone I care about; I WILL KILL YOU. I will not simply defend myself, I WILL kill you, and while you are dying I will piss on you.

I have jsut rolled all my bullets in pig fat. I'm going to start carying around pieces of swine flesh with me; and I'll shove them into your wounds, then force feed them to you. Then I'll cut your cock and balls off and shove them down your throat.

I am heavily armed at all times, I have booby trapped my car and my home, and I am waiting for you. If you come after me or mine, you will die, and I will make damned sure you won't see paradise for all eternity you evil motherfuckers.

While the anti-war appeasement crowd continues to blame America for inciting terror, Muslim countries are becoming increasingly intolerant of terrorism. A poll conducted by the Pew Global Attitudes Project shows that we are winning the war on terror.

In a striking finding, predominantly Muslim populations in a sampling of six North African, Middle East and Asian countries are shared to "a considerable degree" Western nations' concerns about Islamic extremism, the survey found. Many in those Muslim nations see it as threat to their own country, the poll found.

"Most Muslim publics are expressing less support for terrorism than in the past. Confidence in Osama bin Laden has declined markedly in some countries, and fewer believe suicide bombings that target civilians are justified in the defense of Islam" ...

Compared with previous surveys, the new poll also found growing majorities or pluralities of Muslims surveyed now say democracy can work in their countries and is not just a political system for the West. Support for democracy was in the 80 percent range in Indonesia, Jordan, Lebanon and Morocco and the highest score at 43 percent in Pakistan and 48 percent in Turkey, where significant numbers of respondents were unsure.

"They are not just paying lip service. They are saying they specifically want a fair judiciary, freedom of expression and more than one party to participate in elections. It wasn't just a vague concept," said Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center and director of the project. "U.S. and Western ideas about democracy have been globalized and are in the Muslim world."

While Pew was shocked at the findings, I would bet that most hawks are thinking "we told you so". The foreign terrorists who make up the so-called "insurgency" in Iraq have been targeting civilians as well as coalition troops. It's only a matter of time until they start placing blame with the bad guys holding the bombs and not supporters of the global war on terror.

On page A01 of the Washington Post the headline reads, "Abu Ghraib Tactics Were First Used at Guantanamo". The Post reports that detainees at Club Gitmo were made to wear women's underwear on their head when they became uncooperative.

Interrogators at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, forced a stubborn detainee to wear women's underwear on his head, confronted him with snarling military working dogs and attached a leash to his chains..

In other news, Abu Ghraib tacticts were first used at Delta House, where fraternity pledges were forced to wear women's underwear on their heads and paddled on their buttocks when they became uncooperative.

At least illegal immigration isn't a serious problem:

The manager of the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles office at Springfield Mall was charged yesterday with selling driver's licenses to illegal immigrants and others for up to $3,500 apiece.

The arrest of Francisco J. Martinez marked the second time in two years that a Northern Virginia DMV employee was accused of fraudulently selling licenses for cash. A similar scheme two years ago at the DMV office in Tysons Corner led to the guilty pleas of two employees.

What's more, this was NOT uncovered by the Virginia DMV, but by the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security. The DMV will "cancel" the licenses, but they don't say how the documents will be retrieved.

From the AP story in which Clinton compares Bush to Alfred E. Neuman:

[Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, S-NY] said the United States should remain in Iraq until peace can be maintained by the Iraqi people, saying the mission was part of the "long struggle against terrorism" by the U.S.

Is it just me or is that revalation buried in the classifieds?

To our friends in England, you are in our hearts and prayers.

Breaking Story...

In case you missed the statement from Tony Blair:

. . .It is important, however, that those engaged in terrorism realise that our determination to defend our values and our way of life is greater than their determination to cause death and destruction to innocent people in a desire to impose extremism on the world. Whatever they do, it is our determination that they will never succeed in destroying what we hold dear in this country, and in other civilised nations throughout the world. . .

President Bush spoke to the nation on prime time television last night to address criticism to the War on Terror. He still hasn't said two words about illegal aliens pouring into our country. But some people are taking notice. Terrorist mouthpiece Al-Jazeera, had planned on running a "news" piece on how to sneak across our borders.

"It is insane policy to allow Al-Jazeera to film Arizona's unsecured border with Mexico and then broadcast it to the very people who perpetrated 9/11," [U.S. Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz.] said. Hssaini, who described himself as a Moroccan-born citizen of Canada working legally in the United States, dismissed the suggestion that his motive for coming to Arizona concerned something other than journalism. . .

"They are a legitimate news organization," said Jacqueline Sharkey, head of the journalism department at the University of Arizona. "There has been criticism in some of the ways they have covered the war in Iraq - just as there's been criticism of the way some of the U.S. media have covered the war in Iraq."

I tend to agree with Sharkey. Oh, I don't think Al-Jazeera is anything other than a two-bit terrorist propaganda network. But banning them from filming our loose border security doesn't solve anything. What Franks really ought to be upset about is that our borders are so insecure that al-Jazeera would even want to film there.

So, you're captured by terrorists in Iraq, held hostage for weeks, and then are lucky enough to be set free. What do you do next? You hire bounty hunters to track down and kill those dirty bastards, of course.

A hostage held alongside Australian Douglas Wood in Iraq has hired bounty hunters to track down his former captors, promising to eliminate them one by one.

Swede Ulf Hjertstrom, who was held for several weeks with Mr Wood in Baghdad, was released by his kidnappers on May 30.

Mr Hjertstrom has since claimed he shared information with US and Iraqi troops about Mr Wood which led to the release of the 63-year-old Australian engineers two weeks ago, after 47 days in captivity.

Now, he wants to find those responsible.

"I have now put some people to work to find these bastards," he told the Ten Network today.

"I invested about $50,000 so far and we will get them one by one."

(Hat tip to Spoons)

TIME Magazine attempts to show just how horrible the treatment is at the Guantanamo Bay Gulag. I had no idea the torture was this inhumane. Check out the details of the escalated interrogation techniques. These were used on a prisoner who was intended to be one of the 9/11 hijackers:

Dripping Water or Playing Christina Aguilera Music: After the new measures are approved, the mood in al-Qahtani's interrogation booth changes dramatically. The interrogation sessions lengthen. The quizzing now starts at midnight, and when Detainee 063 dozes off, interrogators rouse him by dripping water on his head or playing Christina Aguilera music. According to the log, his handlers at one point perform a puppet show "satirizing the detainee's involvement with al-Qaeda." He is taken to a new interrogation booth, which is decorated with pictures of 9/11 victims, American flags and red lights. He has to stand for the playing of the U.S. national anthem. His head and beard are shaved. He is returned to his original interrogation booth. A picture of a 9/11 victim is taped to his trousers. Al-Qahtani repeats that he will "not talk until he is interrogated the proper way." At 7 a.m. on Dec. 4, after a 12-hour, all-night session, he is put to bed for a four-hour nap, TIME reports.

Another procedure called for "Invasion of Space by a Female", where the prisoner was "agitated by the close physical presence of a woman".

I had no idea that al Qaeda operatives were such wussies. They wouldn't last five minutes in a fraternity hazing ritual.

Say Uncle writes: "It seems the UN is alarmed that the equipment that was not used to not make weapons of mass destruction has been removed..."

After seeing what happened in Iraq, Libya gave up it's nuclear program. Perhaps Qadaffi didn't want to share that spider hole with Saddam. So what do the French do? They offer to send them nuclear technology.

France will "soon" offer Libya a cooperation agreement to help Tripoli develop its civilian nuclear energy program, the French foreign ministry said Tuesday.

"The principle of cooperation in the area of peaceful applications of nuclear energy is a given, but the content has yet to be defined. We're still in the exploratory phase," said ministry spokesman Jean-Baptiste Mattei.

"We will soon offer an agreement to the Libyans on what can be done," the spokesman told reporters.

France's ambassador to Tripoli on Monday handed Libyan Foreign Minister Abdelrahman Shalgham an official note announcing France's readiness to cooperate with Tripoli on its nuclear power projects, officials said.

Now, why would a country who produces nearly 10 times as much oil as they consume be so interested in nuclear technology?

CNN released another poll, and this one concludes that more Americans prefer Saddam.

Fifty-seven percent of those polled said they did not believe it was worth going to war, versus 41 percent who said it was, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll of 1,006 adults.

That was a drop in support from February, when 48 percent said it was worth going to war and half said it was not.

It's also the highest percentage of respondents who have expressed those feelings and triple the percentage of Americans who said that it was not worth the cost shortly after the war began about two years ago.

One third of 57% means that only 19% of Americans said it wasn't worth going to war at the outset. Of course retrospective is much easier than predicting the future.

What would those who changed their mind have us do? Put Saddam back in power and reopen the rape rooms. Maybe the next poll should ask the families of the 200,000 people found in mass graves if they thought the liberation was worth it.

The good news on the war front is that Canada won't harbor cowards that flee from their military duties.

The ruling, written by Immigration and Refugee Board member Brian Goodman, said [U.S. Army paratrooper Jeremy] Hinzman had not made a convincing argument that he would face persecution or cruel and unusual punishment if sent back to the United States.

Goodman said that while Hinzman may face some employment and social discrimination, "The treatment does not amount to a violation of a fundamental human right, and the harm is not serious."

Hinzman's attorney, Jeffry House, said his client would appeal the ruling and still believed that he would be granted refugee status in Canada.

Hinzman, 26, fled from Fort Bragg, North Carolina, in January 2004, weeks before his 82nd Airborne Division was due to be deployed to Iraq. He had served three years in the Army, but had applied for conscientious objector status before his unit was sent to Afghanistan in 2002.

Hinzman screwed up by saying that he would still support the military, just not in a combat role. That pretty much says that he doesn't object to the war itself, just to his having to fight on the front lines. Of course if I didn't want to be the first boots on the ground, I probably wouldn't volunteer for paratrooper duty.

McCain Backs Iraq War Despite WMD Findings -- Associated Press Headline, March 22, 2005.

This is the tiring before and after paradox. If you knew before you did something what you knew after you did it, would you still do it knowing then what you know now? If it were me I'd say something like, "If you knew before you asked that question that I was going to punch you in the nose and have sex with your wife, would you still ask me that question?"

Which is why I'll probably never have a career in politics.

So what's wrong with this story by the New York Times?

In the weeks after Baghdad fell in April 2003, looters systematically dismantled and removed tons of machinery from Saddam Hussein's most important weapons installations, including some with high-precision equipment capable of making parts for nuclear arms, a senior Iraqi official said this week in the government's first extensive comments on the looting. [...]

Dr. Araji said equipment capable of making parts for missiles as well as chemical, biological and nuclear arms was missing from 8 or 10 sites that were the heart of Iraq's dormant program on unconventional weapons.

Well for starters, the New York Times and the anti-war left have spent the last several years repeatedly claiming that Bush LIED!!! Time and time again they've claimed that there was no WMD, and that Bush lied so that he could take revenge on Saddam Hussein for trying to kill his father. So the New York Times own story would seem to contradict their years old anti-war, anti-Bush position.

Then there is this story from the UK Telegraph:

Saddam Hussein's regime offered a $2 million (�1.4 million) bribe to the United Nations' chief weapons inspector to doctor his reports on the search for weapons of mass destruction.

Rolf Ekeus, the Swede who led the UN's efforts to track down the weapons from 1991 to 1997, said that the offer came from Tariq Aziz, Saddam's foreign minister and deputy.

This prompts conservative pundit Rush Limbaugh to point out that the emperor has no clothes.

Why? If there weren't any, why? Why start bribing people about this? Two million just to the chief inspector? What was it he doing to some of the underlings? Why bribe anybody if there were no weapons of mass destruction?

Something tells me the media won't stop the presses to issue a retraction.

(Cross posted at the Command Post.)

The Washington Post reports that the untamed fire of freedom lit by President Bush continues to burn on the Arab street:

"His talk about democracy is good," an Egyptian-born woman was telling companions at the Fatafeet (or "Crumbs") restaurant the other night, exuberant enough for her voice to carry to neighboring tables. "He keeps hitting this nail. That's good, by God, isn't it?" At another table, a Lebanese man was waxing enthusiastic over Bush's blunt and irreverent manner toward Arab autocrats. "It is good to light a fire under their feet," he said.

From Casablanca to Kuwait City, the writings of newspaper columnists and the chatter of pundits on Arabic language satellite television suggest a change in climate for advocates of human rights, constitutional reforms, business transparency, women's rights and limits on power. And while developments differ vastly from country to country, their common feature is a lifting--albeit a tentative one--of the fear that has for decades constricted the Arab mind.

Regardless of Bush's intentions--which many Arabs and Muslims still view with suspicion--the U.S. president and his neoconservative crowd are helping to spawn a spirit of reform and a new vigor to confront dynastic dictatorships and other assorted ills.

Hat tip to Taranto

No doubt you've heard about the Italian Journalist who is claiming that they were just driving along minding their own business, when American troops (and tanks) deliberately shot at her. (Somewhere Eason Jordan is smiling).

What I'm not hearing very much is that she works for an anti-American, anti-capitalist, communist news outlet (other than CNN). That doesn't make her a de facto liar, but when it comes to credibility I think I'll give the benefit of the doubt to American troops over a two-bit pinko reporter.

But maybe that's just me.

Thomas Sowell makes a worthwhile (albeit futile) attempt to reason with the unreasonable. At issue is the University of Seattle, "where a student mob prevented a military recruiter from meeting with those students who wanted to meet with him." Writes Sowell:

At first, the university president said that the student rioters should apologize. But the storm this created forced the typical academic administrator's back-down under pressure.

One of the student rioters explained that she didn't want anyone to be sent overseas to be killed. Apparently it never occurred to her that what she wanted was not automatically to be imposed on other people, with or without mob violence.

Back in the days of the divine rights of kings, it might be understandable why a given monarch might think that what he wanted was all that mattered. But, in an age of democracy, how can millions of people live together if each one asserts a divine right to impose his or her will on others?

But how will we know what to do if we don't allow 19-year olds to push us around?

President Bush's call for the expansion of freedom claimed another victory, as freedom in the Middle East is spreading.

The Lebanese government abruptly resigned Monday during a stormy parliamentary debate, prompting a tremendous roar from tens of thousands of anti-government protesters in Beirut's Martyrs Square.

The demonstrators, awash in a sea of red, white and green Lebanese flags, had demanded the pro-Syrian government's resignation -- and the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon -- since the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri two weeks ago.

Syria has stated that it will comply with U.N. Resolution 1559, a 2004 decree that demands Syrian troops withdraw from Lebanon. Syria first agreed to pull out way back in 1989 with the Taif agreement. Better late than never.

Meanwhile, an awful lot of CNN readers think this is no big deal.

Peaceniks have been decrying the U.S. Army for using so-called torture techniques to extract information from the terrorists and combatants being held at Guantanimo Bay Cuba. The alleged torture was even a hot topic during Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' confirmation hearings.

But how bad could the torture have really been, considering British Channel 4 will be airing a reality gameshow featuring Gitmo torture techniques.

As part of its so-called "torture season," Channel 4 - the same channel that brought the reality TV hit "Big Brother" to the world - plans to broadcast "The Guantanamo Guidebook" on Monday.

The four-part series will recreate torture techniques apparently used by U.S. interrogators at Guantanamo Bay.

That's right people will actually be volunteering to experience the so-called inhumane treatment and humiliation subjected to Gitmo detainees.

I still think a better name for the show would have been The Happy Smile Super Challenge Family Wish Show.

Last November, a Marine Corp soldier got into some hot water for shooting a mostly dead terrorist. The media was in an uproar, claiming that our Marines were not properly looking out for the well being of terrorists. Despite having been shot the day before by a mostly dead terrorist, he was not even given the benefit of any doubt by the mainstream media. Some on the left were accusing our boys of committing war crimes. The good news is that it looks like he will not face a courtmartial.

Oh his TV show last night, Bill O'Reilly wanted to know why Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, who stands accused of plotting to assassinate President Bush, is being given the benefit of the doubt, while our soldiers who put themselves in harm's way are not.

It would appear that President Bush's call for the expansion of freedom didn't fall on deaf ears in Lebanon.

"Syria out. Syria out," they shouted as Arabic pop music blared, amid calls for a "peaceful intifada" or "uprising" against a government that was put into place and remains controlled by neighboring Syria.

"We are with the Muslims, the Druze, together for a free Lebanon," said one member of a Christian militia. "Tell America we are waiting for them to invade, all of us."

On his radio show yesterday, El Rushbo played a clip where Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld was butting heads with Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez over the number of trained Iraqis. This is a perfect illustration of why I love Rummy.

RUMSFELD: We're scheduled to have 200,000 in September or October of this year. When the elections take place with respect to the constitution, and the program takes it to 270,000 by June of '06.

SANCHEZ: The numbers that you bandy around about how many troops we really have out there that are Iraqi police, et cetera, et cetera.

RUMSFELD: You say we bandy around numbers. They're not my numbers. I don't invent them. They come from General Petreus. There's no bandying at all.

SANCHEZ: I have Petreus' numbers. They're different than your numbers, by the way.

RUMSFELD: Well, what is the date? They're not different if the date's the same. The date on my paper here is February 14th. What's yours?

SANCHEZ: December 20th.

RUMSFELD: Not surprising there's a difference.

Hehehe. Sanchez' figures were nearly 2 months old; Rummy's 2 days.

For a look at just how successful the Iraqi elections really were, Mostly Cajun points out an op-ed in the Arab News.

In spite of everything, the Iraqis voted. They did so with a passion and a seriousness that gives the lie to the cliche that Arabs are not ready for democracy. One myth down, a thousand to go.

Everyone says that this is the first free elections in Iraq for fifty years. That is another lie. There has never been one single free election in the long history of the Arabs ever. This is the first one.

It took the Americans to conduct it and force it down the throats of dictators, terrorists, exploding deranged humans, and odds as big as the distance between the USA and the Middle East.

Of course this this shouldn't be taken lightly. For all the talk of voter intimidation in the U.S. during the last two elections, Iraqis faced the very real possibility of being murdered for trying to vote. And that very thing almost happened, as Free Iraq blog points out.

Citizens of Al Mudhiryiah (a small town in the "death triangle") were subjected to an attack by several militants today who were trying to punish the residents of this small town for voting in the election last Sunday.

The citizens responded and managed to stop the attack, kill 5 of the attackers, wounded 8 and burned their cars.

3 citizens were injured during the fire exchange. The Shiekh of the tribe to whom the 3 wounded citizens belong demanded more efforts from the government to stop who he described as "Salafis".

It's refreshing to see these Iraqis using their inalienable right to keep and bear arms for the security of a free state.

James Taranto points out this bit of Chutzpah.

Iraq's leading Sunni Muslim political group said Wednesday that the country's new government will lack the legitimacy to draft a constitution because many Sunnis boycotted Sunday's elections.