PRAISE FOR MICHAEL KELLY

The Washington Post story on his death.
Rich Lowry and Michael Ledeen and Jonah Goldberg and John J. Miller of National Review.
The Atlantic Monthly.
The New Republic.
Michael Kelly was one of the few "must-read" columnists and was especially good during the Clinton scandals. So good, in fact, that he had to leave his post at The New Republic. I suspect that George Will is going to find it rather lonely now on the right side of The Washington Post's op-ed page

COLUMNIST MICHAEL KELLY KILLED IN IRAQ

Atlantic Monthly editor-at-large and Washington Post columnist was killed in a Humvee accident traveling with the Army's 3rd Infantry Division. He is the first American journalist killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom. He will be missed and our thoughts and prayers are with his family.

Michael Kelly's last column.

Here is a link to Michael Kelly's recent columns.

And as should be expected, the low lifes at Democratic Underground are cheering his death, and wishing death upon a multitude of others they disagree with.

WHEN WILL THE FRENCH TROOPS ARRIVE AS PROMISED?

Chemicals in the Euphrates and now MSNBC is reporting positive tests for ricin and botulinum toxins in a northern Iraq lab tied to Al Qaeda. And what's left of the Saddam Regime is promising "unconventional action," whatever that is. No reaction yet from Blix, Annan, Chiraq or Sarandon.

PAGING DOCTOR BLIX

Further evidence of the complete ineffectiveness of the United Nations, MSNBC is reporting that evidence of Cyanide and Mustard (as in the gas, not Dijon) are turning up in the Euphrates river. Now, the question is whether this is an attack -- an attempt by the regime to poison U.S. soldiers who have been processing Euphrates water for drinking, or is it merely the junkie flushing the goods when the police arrive? Time will tell.

CHAMBERLAIN, CHIRAQ, ET AL.

Brian, Maybe she meant to write "Pease" and is actually a counterprotester making a serious point. We just can't see the leading "AP". I can hope, can't I?

STUDENTS PREFER PROTESTING OVER LEARNING

The Greeley Tribune reported that students at Central High School staged a walk out to protest the war in Iraq. Actions like this are nothing new, nor are they news worthy. What student would prefer to be in class if they have an opportunity to leave school without fear of punishment? Walk outs, sit-ins, and a whole host of other "actions" are common place in high schools. But lets look at some choice items from the article.

Hillary Frey, a sophomore at Greeley Central, left school to make a statement. She hates that her friends serving in the war overseas are at risk of being killed for what she considers no reason. “Americans are really naive,” said Hillary, 16. “They think we’re doing all this positive stuff when all we’re doing is killing people. And where is it going to get us? Friends and family who are dead?”

16 year olds, as we all know, are in the stage of their life where they know everything. Certainly Hillary is not naive while President Bush and 70%+ of the American population are.

Jessica Lucas, a senior at Central High participated in the protest, but unlike her fellow students who "chanted, shouted, and sang" she didn't say a word. She covered her mouth with a piece of duct tape that read "PEACE."

Principal Mary Lauer (no relation to Matt as far as we know) met with students prior to the walk out. She informed them if their actions disrupted the school day they would be suspended. She also asked the police for an assembly permit for the students. In her defense, she did request that parents be informed of the walkout. Commenting on the walkout, Lauer had the following to say.

“If parents excuse their children, the school has no jurisdiction,” Lauer said. “They wanted to demonstrate, so we worked with them to do it positively. These kids are the best and brightest of the school.”

Below is a picture of the previously mentioned Jessica Lucas, one of Principal Lauer's "best and brightest."



Take notice of the misspelling of the word peace. She spelled it PEASE!

Any reporter worth his salt should have pointed this fact out in his report about her duct tape. Especially since she is the lead of the article!

Students in favor of the war have approached Principal Lauer as well. "She will discuss their rights to voice their opinions, too, she said." Sure she will. After it doesn't matter anymore.

IRAN WANTS NEXT

Drudge highlights this UPI story from the annals of the Axis of Evil:

Iran's senior leadership decided last month to send irregular paramilitary units across their border with Iraq to harass American soldiers. "This confirmed all of our suspicions that the Iranians are not our friends and not for peace in the region. They are in fact for a piece of the region," one U.S. intelligence official told United Press International.

A "piece of the region!" Priceless. Sounds like the kind of "piece" Jacques Chirac was really talking about all along, and the only piece he's talking about now.

DESPERATE AND PATHETIC

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), after pledging not to be overly critical of foreign policy in time of war, has lost his mind and begun equating the Bush Administration with Saddam's rape and torture machine. It's a sad thing to see someone of the Senator's stature start panicking, adopt the rhetoric of the anti-war and communist-affiliated protestors and hijack the principles of former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, despite his vote authorizing the President's use of force. The media began its hand-wringing that the war was lost after just days of battle, and now Kerry is in panic mode a full 10-months before his first primary.

EDWARDS DOESN'T SUPPORT LAWYERS

Senator John Edwards (D-NC) expects support of his trial lawyer buddies when he runs for President next year, but he lets his staff do the work he should have hired a corporate attorney to do. Yeah, I know, technically he's only formed an exploratory committee but his website makes it clear that he is running. This is one of those lies that the press deems acceptable and they play along. Anyway, here's how not hiring a lawyer was a mistake. According to the website, the campaign is being run by an entity called "Edwards for President, Inc." But, there is no such entity and the reason is because Sen. Edwards didn't think it was necessary to engage a corporate lawyer to form his company. In fact, the company that does seem to exist, shouldn't, because its Articles of Incorporation do not comply with North Carolina law, and his filing never should have been accepted by the office of the North Carolina Secretary of State. Sure, this is a minor matter, but it is a violation of the law. And for someone hoping to be President when he grows up, it is very sloppy work. Funny thing is, Edwards surely knows plenty of lawyers around Raleigh. He's one. His campaign manager is one.

Now, I wonder why Elaine Marshall would have accepted a defective filing that was not in compliance with Section 55D-20(a)(1) of the North Carolina General Statutes? Hmmm.

FRENCH OPINION

So, fully one third of the cheese eating surrender monkeys want Saddam to defeat "les anglo-saxons." I suspect that is not as high as the percentage of Frenchmen pulling against us in 1944 from the comfort of newly Jew-less Vichy.

DO THEY REALLY SUPPORT THE TROOPS?



The "anti-war" protesters like to claim they support the troops, even when they criticize the president.

For example, today's Ithaca Journal has a letter from an "anti-war" advocate in which he writes "It is important to keep in mind that criticizing the president and his misguided decision to go to war unilaterally, without the support of a new U.N. security resolution, does not mean you do not support our young men and women in uniform. To be against the war doesn't mean that you are against our troops."

At first glance, that seems reasonable.

But, like so many positions held by the left, you need to take a second, or even third, glance.

The letter goes on to state "...if you protest the war then you are against our president, not the young men and women who will be sacrificed in the name of avarice and imperialism."

So this is how the anti-war crowd "supports the troops"? By telling them that they are fighting, not for freedom, but for "avarice and imperialism"?

And this isn't the only example. More and more you see the "peace" protesters engaging in outright hostility toward our troops, such as incidents where they:

Threw blood on a recruiting office;
Carried banners stating "we support our troops when they shoot their officers;"
Called soldiers "baby killers";
Taunted soldiers' children; and
Threw stones at National Guardsmen.

And it's not just the "extreme" side of the anti-war movement, nor is it a few "atypical" members. More and more, the people who claim to be supporting the troops, but aren't, include "mainstream" liberals.

Just last week, a Columbia University professor "called for the defeat of American forces in Iraq and said he would like to see 'a million Mogadishus' - a reference to the Somali city where American soldiers were ambushed, with 18 killed, in 1993." The crowd applauded his call for our troops' defeat.

And, that same week, a Democratic congressman, Maurice Hinchey, accused our troops of, in effect, committing war crimes in Iraq. A few days later, he received a standing ovation from the anti-war crowd for his comments.

So, to summarize: the left claims that they support the troops. Their "support" is manifested by attacking their mission, attacking them physically, calling for their defeat and/or death and accusing them of war crimes?

With "friends" like this, who needs the Iraqi army?

FRANCE: SIDING WITH SADDAM

How opposed to freeing the people of Iraq are the French? A recent Le Monde poll shows that fully one third of the cheese eating surrender monkeys want Saddam to defeat "les anglo-saxons." Some have even desecrated the graves of American and British soldiers at Etaples where 11,000 are buried. On the graves of those who saved the cowardly French from Germany slogans reading "Rosbeefs go home," "May Saddam prevail and spill your blood," and "They are soiling our land” in red paint reported the The London Times.

If in the near or distant future France is again threatened by an invading army, I would encourage the American military to sit by and watch.


The words on the tank read "Today Baghdad, Tomorrow Paris!"

BUSH AT WAR

Excellent article from USAToday reporting on the President's approach to managing the war:

"It's not personal," one Bush aide says. Rather, the president's passion is motivated by his loathing for Saddam's brutality, aides say. He talks often about his revulsion for Saddam's use of torture, rape and executions. He is convinced that the Iraqi leader is literally insane and would gladly give terrorists weapons to use to launch another attack on the United States.

And this:

On March 17, before he delivered a 48-hour ultimatum to Saddam, Bush summoned congressional leaders to the White House. They expected a detailed briefing, but the president told them he was notifying them only because he was legally required to do so and then left the room. They were taken aback, and some were annoyed. They were just as surprised by his buoyant mood two days later at another White House meeting.

GAROFALO, AT IT AGAIN

Janeane Garofalo, who has plenty of time on her hands because the roles aren't coming as often as they once did, is at it again. Friday night she was on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher. She displayed her supreme intelligence that has made her a pundit extraordinaire. Commenting on the woes of the Dixie Chicks, she said: “You know what is good about these Dixie Chicks burnings or bashings? It's a wonderful, wonderful way for really stupid people to hook up. They meet, they throw some things on the fire, they talk about Vin Diesel, they tell stories about who their favorite Fox anchor is, they exchange phone numbers and in some cases has led to marriages.”

Co-panelist Michael Graham, a radio talk show host mentioned his having seen anti-war protestors at a San Francisco rally carrying a banner reading “We Support Our Troops...When They Shoot Their Officers”. Garofalo, never one for calm, reasoned debate, flew into a rage and shot back “that's what all you right-wing radio hosts do. You make shit up all the time.”

Ms. Garofalo, you're the one making "shit" up. Mr. Graham was not.


San Francisco, 15 March 2003

WHY THERE ARE RULES FOR WAR

Previously, I explained that the rules of war were intended not to make war a gentlemanly affair, but to protect the lives of civilians and other non-combatants. American troops shot up a van full of women and children today when it failed to stop at a checkpoint. This never would have happened if Saddam had not adopted the tactic of dressing his soldiers as civilians and having them carry out suicide car bomb missions. Still, it is a tragedy that these women and children had to die, but the cause of their deaths lies not with the American soldiers who pulled their triggers in self-defense, but with Saddam who gave them reason to be nervous.

SEE NO EVIL . . .

The ignorant and naive who stand up for Saddam in the streets of Cairo, Amman, San Francisco and New York will surely dismiss the latest reports from Iraqis themselves, who welcome their liberation and the end of Saddam's reign. A defector worries about families who will be killed by Saddam's thugs:

"The army knows I ran away. They could come and take revenge," he said in the central police barracks in Kalak, about 20 miles northwest of the Kurdish administrative center Irbil. "My only hope is that I'm not alone. There are so many deserters and those who want to run. They cannot attack all these families with a war going on."

This defector from Saddam's army is in a much better position to speak for the Iraqi People than is Peter Arnett, a Columbia University professor or an American lying in the middle of the street in between cups of latte.

"We knew nothing. We were told only that America was trying to take over Iraq," Ali said. "But we are not so stupid. We know how Saddam rules the country. We know in our hearts we'd be better off without him."

Iraqis fleeing the fighting stop to offer food to U.S. Marines, saying "We like Americans," and telling of their dislike for the Butcher of Baghdad.

Meanwhile, Syria announces, "We've got next" when it's foreign minister says "Syria has chosen to align itself with the brotherly Iraqi people who are facing an illegal and unjustified invasion and against whom are being committed all sorts of crimes against humanity." Seems the brotherly Iraqi people are siding with the "invaders" and Syria is siding with the murderous Ba'ath Party.

WHO WANTS NEXT?

1. Syria
2. North Korea
3. Iran
4. Palestinian Authority
5. Peter Arnett
6. Columbia University