More shocking information on the religion of peace from Jihad Watch:
Inside information on the New Jersey murders
A close friend of Hossam Armanious, the Coptic Christian who was brutally murdered in New Jersey along with his family, is the source of this information, which comes to you exclusively from Jihad Watch:
The Armanious family had inspired several Muslims to convert to Christianity — or thought they had. These converts were actually practicing taqiyya, or religious deception, pretending to be friends of these Christians in order to strengthen themselves against them, as in Qur'an 3:28: "Let believers not make friends with infidels in preference to the faithful -- he that does this has nothing to hope for from Allah -- except in self-defense."
It was these "converts" who knocked on the door of the Armanious home. Of course, the family, not suspecting the deception, was happy to see the "converted" men and willingly let them in to their home. That's why there was no sign of forced entry. Then the "converted" Muslims did their grisly work.
Many Copts are regarding the murders as a warning to the Coptic community as a whole, related to the increasing strife between Copts and Muslims in Egypt and the Copts' energetic efforts in America to get the truth out about the differences between Middle Eastern Christians and Muslims -- differences that the Islamic lobby, with its disingenuous talk of "Arab Americans," routinely glosses over and hopes you don't notice. The Copts, to their immense credit, have been particularly outspoken among Middle Eastern Christians about Muslim oppression. And yes, many are active on Pal Talk debating Muslims.
The nature of the warning? The murders send a signal from the Muslims to the Copts: we are going to behave here the same way we behaved in Egypt, and the First Amendment and American law enforcement will not protect you. Don't expect America to keep you safe from us. The oppression and harassment you thought you had left behind in Egypt has now come to you.
This means, if Armanious's friend is correct, that this is indeed America's Theo van Gogh murder: indication that all Muslims in the nation do not, as we are supposed to believe, unanimously accept the parameters of American pluralism. That at least some are willing to enforce Sharia penalties right here, right now.
But there are so many nominees for the Walter Duranty prize this time that most Americans have no clue of what's going on. Duranty, of course, was the New York Times reporter who knowingly covered up information about the genocidal famine Stalin caused and fueled in Ukraine, and won a Pulitzer Prize for his efforts. The Pinch Sulzberger Times of these dark days should dedicate the whole paper to Duranty's honor, and put his picture on the front page right next to "All the News That's Fit to Print."
Saturday, January 22, 2005
Some excellent content here from the Mere Comments blog of Touchstone:
Mr. Brooks’ Insight
By S.M. Hutchens
A remarkable column appeared in the November 30, 2004, New York Times. Its author, David Brooks, aptly comparing Tim Russert’s selection of Al Sharpton and Jerry Falwell to speak on religion and public life on Meet the Press to inviting Britney Spears and Larry Flynt to discuss T. H. Lawrence, indicated that this sort of thing is an all-too-common phenomenon among those who wish to represent religious people, Evangelicals in particular, as “bozos.” If one really wishes to understand what Evangelicals are like, one does not, Brooks says, look for its representatives on the fringes, but to people who are actually admired and followed by the majority of Evangelicals—one looks to people like John Stott.
Brooks cites Michael Cromartie of the Ethics and Public Policy Center as noting that if evangelicals could elect a pope, Stott would be the likely choice. “He was the framer of the Lausanne Covenant, a crucial organizing document for modern evangelicalism. He is the author of more than 40 books, which have been translated into over 72 languages and have sold in the millions. Now rector emeritus at All Souls, Langham Place, in London, he has traveled the world preaching and teaching.”
The most penetrating insight in the piece is Brooks’ recognition that Evangelicals like Stott do not believe what they believe and do what they do because they are political or social reactionaries, but from their devotion to the person of Christ. Through Stott’s witness, he does not only Evangelicals, but all Christians, the inestimable service of defining them by the perfection of which they all fall short, but apart from which they cannot be accurately described or properly understood. Blessings upon Mr. Brooks, not only for using his eyes and brains, but for doing as he would be done by—although one must say that if charity and concern for truth became the rule among his colleagues, the journalistic profession as we know it would cease to exist.
Which brings up his Newspaper. As a regular and terminally disgusted reader of the New York Times, I would add with respect to the principal audience he is addressing—the blue-state liberal elite for which it is the newspaper of record, and which obviously welcomes the caricature he is trying to efface—that this party’s difficulty is not simply with Evangelical Christians, or even orthodox Christians taken as a whole, but with all religions or belief systems that have traditional views of—yes, once again we must say it—sexual morality.
The battle lines between the Times' culture and traditional ones are laid firmly upon the issue of human sexuality, often described exogenously as “family values,” convictions and practices that must undergird any culture that survives long enough to establish a tradition. These include principled rejection of sexual intercourse and procreation outside the marriage covenant, condemnation of all forms of immodesty, including pornography, as harmful to the proper exercise of sexuality, the valuing and protection of children at all stages of their development, belief in the traditional, patriarchal family, and hence the society, structure, and identification of homosexuality as perverse and undesirable.
This is not simply fundamentalism, it is Christianity—and Judaism, and Islam. It is tribal morality also (which Margaret Mead knew she had simply to lie about), for it is necessary for tribal survival. It is the ethics of the human race—an ethics not simply of religious enthusiasm but of cultural survival—that rises up and speaks against the devolution of the modern liberal, to which he is not the enlightened harbinger of an enlightened future, but the carrier of a wasting disease typical of dying cultures.
The liberal—in modern context, the sexually liberated—cannot have his cake and eat it too. He cannot describe himself as the beneficiary of liberation from the mores of the past and claim at the same time, as he so often tries to do, that history (much less religion in historically defined forms) is his friend. He may ignore or misrepresent the consensus of the better part of humanity in his films, his textbooks, or the evening news, but what he cannot do is assert that he who has declared the old ways to be “old,” and thus invalid for progressive and technified modern man, has not alienated himself from a great deal more than the ignorant, violent, or debauched outlander he chooses to represent what is in fact the moral conscience of the human race.
The red states stand for what freedom remains here in the United States from the hegemony of an arrogant, self-destructive sociopathy and the deracinated, sex-and-entertainment-addicted dependent class it must sustain to keep itself in power. It is the survival, in its heartland, of a culture’s will to survive.
Mr. Brooks’ Insight
By S.M. Hutchens
A remarkable column appeared in the November 30, 2004, New York Times. Its author, David Brooks, aptly comparing Tim Russert’s selection of Al Sharpton and Jerry Falwell to speak on religion and public life on Meet the Press to inviting Britney Spears and Larry Flynt to discuss T. H. Lawrence, indicated that this sort of thing is an all-too-common phenomenon among those who wish to represent religious people, Evangelicals in particular, as “bozos.” If one really wishes to understand what Evangelicals are like, one does not, Brooks says, look for its representatives on the fringes, but to people who are actually admired and followed by the majority of Evangelicals—one looks to people like John Stott.
Brooks cites Michael Cromartie of the Ethics and Public Policy Center as noting that if evangelicals could elect a pope, Stott would be the likely choice. “He was the framer of the Lausanne Covenant, a crucial organizing document for modern evangelicalism. He is the author of more than 40 books, which have been translated into over 72 languages and have sold in the millions. Now rector emeritus at All Souls, Langham Place, in London, he has traveled the world preaching and teaching.”
The most penetrating insight in the piece is Brooks’ recognition that Evangelicals like Stott do not believe what they believe and do what they do because they are political or social reactionaries, but from their devotion to the person of Christ. Through Stott’s witness, he does not only Evangelicals, but all Christians, the inestimable service of defining them by the perfection of which they all fall short, but apart from which they cannot be accurately described or properly understood. Blessings upon Mr. Brooks, not only for using his eyes and brains, but for doing as he would be done by—although one must say that if charity and concern for truth became the rule among his colleagues, the journalistic profession as we know it would cease to exist.
Which brings up his Newspaper. As a regular and terminally disgusted reader of the New York Times, I would add with respect to the principal audience he is addressing—the blue-state liberal elite for which it is the newspaper of record, and which obviously welcomes the caricature he is trying to efface—that this party’s difficulty is not simply with Evangelical Christians, or even orthodox Christians taken as a whole, but with all religions or belief systems that have traditional views of—yes, once again we must say it—sexual morality.
The battle lines between the Times' culture and traditional ones are laid firmly upon the issue of human sexuality, often described exogenously as “family values,” convictions and practices that must undergird any culture that survives long enough to establish a tradition. These include principled rejection of sexual intercourse and procreation outside the marriage covenant, condemnation of all forms of immodesty, including pornography, as harmful to the proper exercise of sexuality, the valuing and protection of children at all stages of their development, belief in the traditional, patriarchal family, and hence the society, structure, and identification of homosexuality as perverse and undesirable.
This is not simply fundamentalism, it is Christianity—and Judaism, and Islam. It is tribal morality also (which Margaret Mead knew she had simply to lie about), for it is necessary for tribal survival. It is the ethics of the human race—an ethics not simply of religious enthusiasm but of cultural survival—that rises up and speaks against the devolution of the modern liberal, to which he is not the enlightened harbinger of an enlightened future, but the carrier of a wasting disease typical of dying cultures.
The liberal—in modern context, the sexually liberated—cannot have his cake and eat it too. He cannot describe himself as the beneficiary of liberation from the mores of the past and claim at the same time, as he so often tries to do, that history (much less religion in historically defined forms) is his friend. He may ignore or misrepresent the consensus of the better part of humanity in his films, his textbooks, or the evening news, but what he cannot do is assert that he who has declared the old ways to be “old,” and thus invalid for progressive and technified modern man, has not alienated himself from a great deal more than the ignorant, violent, or debauched outlander he chooses to represent what is in fact the moral conscience of the human race.
The red states stand for what freedom remains here in the United States from the hegemony of an arrogant, self-destructive sociopathy and the deracinated, sex-and-entertainment-addicted dependent class it must sustain to keep itself in power. It is the survival, in its heartland, of a culture’s will to survive.
From the blog The American Scene:
Roe at Thirty-Two
The following is taken from Richard Selzer's essay collection Mortal Lessons: Notes on the Art of Surgery:..
"In our city, garbage is collected early in the morning. Sometimes the bang of the cans and the grind of the truck awaken us before our time. We are resentful, mutter into our pillows, then go back to sleep. On the morning of August 6, 1975, the people of 73rd Street near Woodside Avenue do just that. When at last they rise from their beds, dress, eat breakfast and leave their houses for work, they have forgotten, if they had ever known, that the garbage truck had passed earlier that morning. The even has slipped into unmemory, like a dream.
They close their doors and descend to the pavement. It is midsummer. You measure the climate, decide how you feel in relation to the heat and humidity. You walk toward the bus stop. Others, your neighbors, are waiting there. It is all so familiar. All at once you step on something soft. You feel it with your foot. Even through your shoe you have the sense of something unusual, something marked by a special "give." It is a foreignness upon the pavement. Instinct pulls your foot away in an awkward little movement. You look down, and you see . . . a tiny naked body, its arms and legs flung apart, its head thrown back, its mouth agape, its face serious. A bird, you think, fallen from its nest. But there is no nest here on 73rd Street, no bird so big. It is rubber, then. A model, a . . . joke. Yes, that's it, a joke. And you bend to see. Because you must. And it is no joke. Such a gray softness can be but one thing. It is a baby, and dead. You cover your mouth, your eyes. You are fixed. Horror has found its chink and crawled in, and you will never be the same as you were. Years later you will step from a sidewalk to a lawn, and you will start at its softness, and think of that upon which which you have just trod.
Now you look about; another man has seen it too. "My God," he whispers . . . There is a cry. "Here's another!" and "Another!" and "Another!" . . .
Later, at the police station, the investigation is brisk, conclusive. It is the hospital director speaking: " . . . fetuses accidentally got mixed up with the hospital rubbish . . . were picked up at approximately eight fifteen A.M. by a sanitation truck. Somehow, the plastic lab bag, labeled HAZARDOUS MATERIAL, fell off the back of the truck and broke open. No, it is not known how the fetuses got in the orange plastic bag labeled HAZARDOUS MATERIAL. It is a freak accident." The hospital director wants you to know that it is not an everyday occurence. Once in a lifetime, he says. But you have seen it, and what are his words to you now.
He grows affable, familiar, tells you that, by mistake, the fetuses got mixed up with the other debris. (Yes, he says other, he says debris.) He has spent the entire day, he says, trying to figure out how it happened. He wants you to know that. Somehow it matters to him. He goes on: Aborted fetuses that weigh one pound or less are incinerated. Those weighing over one pound are buried at the city cemetery. He says this. Now you see. It is orderly. It is sensible. The world is not mad. This is still a civilized society.
. . . But just this once, you know it isn't. You saw, and you know."
That's all. Enjoy your Saturday.
Ross Douthat
Roe at Thirty-Two
The following is taken from Richard Selzer's essay collection Mortal Lessons: Notes on the Art of Surgery:..
"In our city, garbage is collected early in the morning. Sometimes the bang of the cans and the grind of the truck awaken us before our time. We are resentful, mutter into our pillows, then go back to sleep. On the morning of August 6, 1975, the people of 73rd Street near Woodside Avenue do just that. When at last they rise from their beds, dress, eat breakfast and leave their houses for work, they have forgotten, if they had ever known, that the garbage truck had passed earlier that morning. The even has slipped into unmemory, like a dream.
They close their doors and descend to the pavement. It is midsummer. You measure the climate, decide how you feel in relation to the heat and humidity. You walk toward the bus stop. Others, your neighbors, are waiting there. It is all so familiar. All at once you step on something soft. You feel it with your foot. Even through your shoe you have the sense of something unusual, something marked by a special "give." It is a foreignness upon the pavement. Instinct pulls your foot away in an awkward little movement. You look down, and you see . . . a tiny naked body, its arms and legs flung apart, its head thrown back, its mouth agape, its face serious. A bird, you think, fallen from its nest. But there is no nest here on 73rd Street, no bird so big. It is rubber, then. A model, a . . . joke. Yes, that's it, a joke. And you bend to see. Because you must. And it is no joke. Such a gray softness can be but one thing. It is a baby, and dead. You cover your mouth, your eyes. You are fixed. Horror has found its chink and crawled in, and you will never be the same as you were. Years later you will step from a sidewalk to a lawn, and you will start at its softness, and think of that upon which which you have just trod.
Now you look about; another man has seen it too. "My God," he whispers . . . There is a cry. "Here's another!" and "Another!" and "Another!" . . .
Later, at the police station, the investigation is brisk, conclusive. It is the hospital director speaking: " . . . fetuses accidentally got mixed up with the hospital rubbish . . . were picked up at approximately eight fifteen A.M. by a sanitation truck. Somehow, the plastic lab bag, labeled HAZARDOUS MATERIAL, fell off the back of the truck and broke open. No, it is not known how the fetuses got in the orange plastic bag labeled HAZARDOUS MATERIAL. It is a freak accident." The hospital director wants you to know that it is not an everyday occurence. Once in a lifetime, he says. But you have seen it, and what are his words to you now.
He grows affable, familiar, tells you that, by mistake, the fetuses got mixed up with the other debris. (Yes, he says other, he says debris.) He has spent the entire day, he says, trying to figure out how it happened. He wants you to know that. Somehow it matters to him. He goes on: Aborted fetuses that weigh one pound or less are incinerated. Those weighing over one pound are buried at the city cemetery. He says this. Now you see. It is orderly. It is sensible. The world is not mad. This is still a civilized society.
. . . But just this once, you know it isn't. You saw, and you know."
That's all. Enjoy your Saturday.
Ross Douthat
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
From Defense Watch:
We Can Still Win
By David H. Hackworth
The invasion of Iraq was sledgehammer-simple: Slug in some “shock and awe” and kiss Saddam Hussein goodbye.
But while our troops and generals deserve a big “bravo” for their brilliance and bravery during the initial war-fighting phase, the occupation – which went wrong right from the get-go and has bled along for almost two more terrible years – is going down as one of the biggest snafus in U.S. military history.
If the generals had any kind of plan to stabilize Iraq, it had to have been drawn up and approved by serving officers seriously stoned on LSD. But as there’s zip evidence of any high-level pre-invasion planning effort, I suspect that Gen. Tommy Franks bought into all the Pentagon hype about how once the statue of Saddam fell it would be wine, roses and ecstatic dancing in the streets – and then the majority of our soldiers would leave 40,000 peacekeepers behind to assist the appropriately grateful Iraqis in building a booming, oil-rich democracy and return home to confetti and victory parades.
Our troops were truly magnificent in the early days of the fumbled occupation. Their skill, sacrifice and flexibility gave new meaning to “take charge and move out, field expediency and staying loose,” and prevented even worse disasters in the chaos that ensued after our forces took down Saddam.
There is no doubt both that our warriors won the battle and that our generals blew the occupation and have been playing catch-up – badly – ever since. And nearly two years later, too many of our senior military geniuses still don’t understand that we’re fighting insurgents and that they need to get the necessary additional combat power on the ground quicksmart.
Again, the three mistakes that have continued to haunt our forces in Iraq since April ‘03 are: (1) No initial occupation plan; (2) no acknowledgment at the top that we’re fighting an insurgency war; and (3) not enough combat troops to put down the insurgents, who daily become smarter, stronger and better-organized.
Our grunts have been letting me know since the early days of the invasion that there has never been enough people power on deck to do the job. “We’re stretched too thin” has been a constant complaint. “Battalions are doing the work of brigades and brigades divisions,” snorts an infantry skipper now in the Mosul area of operations.
So far, not one general has had the guts to stand tall and demand more troops from either Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard Myers – who was selected for the job because he’s a technical whiz, not a warfighter – or his boss, SecDef Donald Rumsfeld. And late last year, when a reporter tore into Rummy on CNN about how our forces were knee-deep in an insurgency war that wasn’t going well, Rummy remained in undaunted denial, defending the one-note, high-tech 21st-century force he keeps pushing – in spite of the overwhelming evidence that this war is now all about insurgency.
Meanwhile, our brass hats appear to be suffering from the Shinseki disease they caught bearing witness to then-Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki’s being treated as a leper for standing up to Rummy over the number of troops needed for the occupation. The lesson learned from this telling example: Don’t cross Rummy. So even though Shinseki was dead-right, the brass went along – to get along – with a shamefully inadequate troop strength.
In my judgment, the war in Iraq against the insurgents is still winnable: if Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran are told to stop supporting the insurgents or else; if we get enough boots on the ground ASAP to saturate and dominate the badlands; and if the brass allow the small-unit leaders to do their thing without the obsessive micromanagement that infects our Army.
The troops should be left alone to build up a solid network of Iraqis who want the war to end. Then together they can put down the spoilers and spread the good life that the majority of the people in Iraq are now starting to enjoy.
Fighting insurgents is relatively simple. You don’t need to be the top guy in the class to win the game. But you do need common sense and commanders who aren’t afraid to stand up to bum-kissing top brass and dumb policy.
--Eilhys England contributed to this column.
Col. David H. Hackworth (USA Ret.) is SFTT.org co-founder and Senior Military Columnist for DefenseWatch magazine. For information on his many books, go to his home page at Hackworth.com, where you can sign in for his free weekly Defending America. Send mail to P.O. Box 11179, Greenwich, CT 06831. His newest book is “Steel My Soldiers’ Hearts.” © 2005 David H. Hackworth.
We Can Still Win
By David H. Hackworth
The invasion of Iraq was sledgehammer-simple: Slug in some “shock and awe” and kiss Saddam Hussein goodbye.
But while our troops and generals deserve a big “bravo” for their brilliance and bravery during the initial war-fighting phase, the occupation – which went wrong right from the get-go and has bled along for almost two more terrible years – is going down as one of the biggest snafus in U.S. military history.
If the generals had any kind of plan to stabilize Iraq, it had to have been drawn up and approved by serving officers seriously stoned on LSD. But as there’s zip evidence of any high-level pre-invasion planning effort, I suspect that Gen. Tommy Franks bought into all the Pentagon hype about how once the statue of Saddam fell it would be wine, roses and ecstatic dancing in the streets – and then the majority of our soldiers would leave 40,000 peacekeepers behind to assist the appropriately grateful Iraqis in building a booming, oil-rich democracy and return home to confetti and victory parades.
Our troops were truly magnificent in the early days of the fumbled occupation. Their skill, sacrifice and flexibility gave new meaning to “take charge and move out, field expediency and staying loose,” and prevented even worse disasters in the chaos that ensued after our forces took down Saddam.
There is no doubt both that our warriors won the battle and that our generals blew the occupation and have been playing catch-up – badly – ever since. And nearly two years later, too many of our senior military geniuses still don’t understand that we’re fighting insurgents and that they need to get the necessary additional combat power on the ground quicksmart.
Again, the three mistakes that have continued to haunt our forces in Iraq since April ‘03 are: (1) No initial occupation plan; (2) no acknowledgment at the top that we’re fighting an insurgency war; and (3) not enough combat troops to put down the insurgents, who daily become smarter, stronger and better-organized.
Our grunts have been letting me know since the early days of the invasion that there has never been enough people power on deck to do the job. “We’re stretched too thin” has been a constant complaint. “Battalions are doing the work of brigades and brigades divisions,” snorts an infantry skipper now in the Mosul area of operations.
So far, not one general has had the guts to stand tall and demand more troops from either Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard Myers – who was selected for the job because he’s a technical whiz, not a warfighter – or his boss, SecDef Donald Rumsfeld. And late last year, when a reporter tore into Rummy on CNN about how our forces were knee-deep in an insurgency war that wasn’t going well, Rummy remained in undaunted denial, defending the one-note, high-tech 21st-century force he keeps pushing – in spite of the overwhelming evidence that this war is now all about insurgency.
Meanwhile, our brass hats appear to be suffering from the Shinseki disease they caught bearing witness to then-Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki’s being treated as a leper for standing up to Rummy over the number of troops needed for the occupation. The lesson learned from this telling example: Don’t cross Rummy. So even though Shinseki was dead-right, the brass went along – to get along – with a shamefully inadequate troop strength.
In my judgment, the war in Iraq against the insurgents is still winnable: if Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran are told to stop supporting the insurgents or else; if we get enough boots on the ground ASAP to saturate and dominate the badlands; and if the brass allow the small-unit leaders to do their thing without the obsessive micromanagement that infects our Army.
The troops should be left alone to build up a solid network of Iraqis who want the war to end. Then together they can put down the spoilers and spread the good life that the majority of the people in Iraq are now starting to enjoy.
Fighting insurgents is relatively simple. You don’t need to be the top guy in the class to win the game. But you do need common sense and commanders who aren’t afraid to stand up to bum-kissing top brass and dumb policy.
--Eilhys England contributed to this column.
Col. David H. Hackworth (USA Ret.) is SFTT.org co-founder and Senior Military Columnist for DefenseWatch magazine. For information on his many books, go to his home page at Hackworth.com, where you can sign in for his free weekly Defending America. Send mail to P.O. Box 11179, Greenwich, CT 06831. His newest book is “Steel My Soldiers’ Hearts.” © 2005 David H. Hackworth.
Monday, January 17, 2005
From chroniclesmagazine.org:
WEAK REASONS FOR IMMIGRATION CONTROL
by Samuel Francis
"No issue, not one, threatens to do more damage to the Republican coalition than immigration," gasps neo-conservative David Frum in National Review's Dec. 31 cover story. Frum, the original "patriotic conservative" who tried to smear the entire antiwar right as "unpatriotic" back in 2003, has now defected from the ranks of the Open Border lobby, at least in a way. Should those who were never part of that lobby welcome him? Not especially. He still doesn't quite get what the real problem with mass immigration is—in part because he's not that much of a patriot himself.
Frum's article pants that the Republican Party will actually be harmed by the mass immigration it has refused to control for the last two decades and that it's high time the GOP did something about it. Indeed, that seems to be the major thrust of his case against immigration—it's bad for the Republicans.
That there are other reasons for being for tighter immigration control or even for a complete moratorium he only obliquely suggests. There are some national security problems with letting millions of aliens ramble across your borders, and there are some economic problems with permitting "entry by an ever-expanding number of low-skilled workers, threatening the livelihoods of low-skilled Americans."
But nowhere does our Patriot mention the major problem immigration causes—the creation of a massive subculture of unassimilated Third World aliens inside the country. For Frum, the immigration problem is mainly political, and partisan politics at that. "GOP You Are Warned," the article's title rumbles.
Of course, Frum is right about that, but it's interesting that this is hardly the first time National Review has issued such a warning. Back in 1997, Peter Brimelow, the magazine's senior editor, and Ed Rubenstein wrote an article warning the Republicans of the same thing—but for rather different reasons.
The Brimelow-Rubenstein article argued that immigration would hurt Republicans because immigrants would vote for the Democrats (and they do). Frum is arguing that Republican failure to deal with the immigration crisis could alienate the party's base (and it will).
"There's no issue where the beliefs and interests of the party rank-and-file diverge more radically from the beliefs and interests of the party's leaders," he writes. "Immigration for Republicans in 2005 is what crime was for Democrats in 1965 or abortion in 1975: a vulnerable point at which a strong-minded opponent could drive a wedge that would shatter the GOP." But what he misses is just why the "party rank-and-file" is so upset about immigration.
It's upset for precisely the cultural and national reasons I noted and which Frum rather manages to miss. National security and economics are significant parts of the case against immigration, but mainly Americans don't like their nation being colonized by an alien, Third World mass that speaks a different language, imports different values and is often loyal to a different country.
The problem, as Frum sees it, is that sooner or later the Democrats will seize the immigration issue if Republicans don't deal with it—as I also argued in a recent column, quoting none other than Hillary Clinton's dim views of illegal immigration. Frum quotes the same remarks, but if Hillary can't walk off with the GOP base, he suggests, there may well be other Democrats who could use the immigration issue to do just that.
He thinks the way the party should deal with the issue is to "develop and practice a new way of speaking about immigration, one that makes clear that enforcement of the immigration laws is not anti-immigrant or anti-Mexican: It is anti-bad employer," because employers hire illegals at the expense of Americans and legal immigrants.
Of course, the Open Borders people have an easy and perfectly logical answer to that: Legalize it all. If the only problem with illegal immigration is that it's illegal, if you're not willing to say mass immigration by itself is a problem, then why should we have any laws against it at all? The famous Wall Street Journal position—"there shall be open borders"—is the logical conclusion.
Frum's only response to this, apparently, would be that there's the security problem, but that's flaccid enough. His real problem is that he—like most of the rest of the neo-conservatives—will not affirm the reality and significance of the nation, the national identity. Security, economy and party interests are all well and good, but the fundamental issue in the immigration debate is who we are and what sort of nation we want to be. Frum, like a lot of his neo-con buddies, for all their ballyhoo about "patriotism," doesn't seem to offer a very clear answer.
WEAK REASONS FOR IMMIGRATION CONTROL
by Samuel Francis
"No issue, not one, threatens to do more damage to the Republican coalition than immigration," gasps neo-conservative David Frum in National Review's Dec. 31 cover story. Frum, the original "patriotic conservative" who tried to smear the entire antiwar right as "unpatriotic" back in 2003, has now defected from the ranks of the Open Border lobby, at least in a way. Should those who were never part of that lobby welcome him? Not especially. He still doesn't quite get what the real problem with mass immigration is—in part because he's not that much of a patriot himself.
Frum's article pants that the Republican Party will actually be harmed by the mass immigration it has refused to control for the last two decades and that it's high time the GOP did something about it. Indeed, that seems to be the major thrust of his case against immigration—it's bad for the Republicans.
That there are other reasons for being for tighter immigration control or even for a complete moratorium he only obliquely suggests. There are some national security problems with letting millions of aliens ramble across your borders, and there are some economic problems with permitting "entry by an ever-expanding number of low-skilled workers, threatening the livelihoods of low-skilled Americans."
But nowhere does our Patriot mention the major problem immigration causes—the creation of a massive subculture of unassimilated Third World aliens inside the country. For Frum, the immigration problem is mainly political, and partisan politics at that. "GOP You Are Warned," the article's title rumbles.
Of course, Frum is right about that, but it's interesting that this is hardly the first time National Review has issued such a warning. Back in 1997, Peter Brimelow, the magazine's senior editor, and Ed Rubenstein wrote an article warning the Republicans of the same thing—but for rather different reasons.
The Brimelow-Rubenstein article argued that immigration would hurt Republicans because immigrants would vote for the Democrats (and they do). Frum is arguing that Republican failure to deal with the immigration crisis could alienate the party's base (and it will).
"There's no issue where the beliefs and interests of the party rank-and-file diverge more radically from the beliefs and interests of the party's leaders," he writes. "Immigration for Republicans in 2005 is what crime was for Democrats in 1965 or abortion in 1975: a vulnerable point at which a strong-minded opponent could drive a wedge that would shatter the GOP." But what he misses is just why the "party rank-and-file" is so upset about immigration.
It's upset for precisely the cultural and national reasons I noted and which Frum rather manages to miss. National security and economics are significant parts of the case against immigration, but mainly Americans don't like their nation being colonized by an alien, Third World mass that speaks a different language, imports different values and is often loyal to a different country.
The problem, as Frum sees it, is that sooner or later the Democrats will seize the immigration issue if Republicans don't deal with it—as I also argued in a recent column, quoting none other than Hillary Clinton's dim views of illegal immigration. Frum quotes the same remarks, but if Hillary can't walk off with the GOP base, he suggests, there may well be other Democrats who could use the immigration issue to do just that.
He thinks the way the party should deal with the issue is to "develop and practice a new way of speaking about immigration, one that makes clear that enforcement of the immigration laws is not anti-immigrant or anti-Mexican: It is anti-bad employer," because employers hire illegals at the expense of Americans and legal immigrants.
Of course, the Open Borders people have an easy and perfectly logical answer to that: Legalize it all. If the only problem with illegal immigration is that it's illegal, if you're not willing to say mass immigration by itself is a problem, then why should we have any laws against it at all? The famous Wall Street Journal position—"there shall be open borders"—is the logical conclusion.
Frum's only response to this, apparently, would be that there's the security problem, but that's flaccid enough. His real problem is that he—like most of the rest of the neo-conservatives—will not affirm the reality and significance of the nation, the national identity. Security, economy and party interests are all well and good, but the fundamental issue in the immigration debate is who we are and what sort of nation we want to be. Frum, like a lot of his neo-con buddies, for all their ballyhoo about "patriotism," doesn't seem to offer a very clear answer.
From The New York Times:
A Weather-Related Problem
By Harvey Araton
Foxboro, Mass.
IT is one thing being the prettiest quarterback, another to be the grittiest. It is one thing to be the coolest cat around from the comfort of one's carpet, another to conquer the conditions of the cold, cruel world.
Wasn't this the year Manning had too much arm power for even Bill Belichick's brainpower? Wasn't Manning, the quarterback who amazed us with a record 49 touchdown passes this season, finally going to have Tom Brady's number? Instead, he was humbled again by those killer B's - Belichick and Brady - and another persistent opponent, Mother Nature, which cannot be lured and vanquished indoors.
One Mike Vanderjagt field goal. Three lousy points. That's what the Colts' Manning-led offense put on the board in a 20-3 defeat against the defending champion Patriots at frosty Gillette Stadium. This, after the blizzard of offense the Colts unleashed, indoors, on the Denver Broncos last week. This, after Manning's 4,557 regular-season passing yards, 67.6 completion percentage, a mere 10 interceptions, the record-shattering 49 touchdown passes, 6 in one game, 5 in three others.
Against the rest of the league, especially back in Indianapolis, dome sweet dome, Manning is obviously the chosen one, the audible king. Is it unfair at this point to say he is something much less than that in the icy open-air arena, where real football legends are made?
"I've always believed that a player does kind of define himself," Manning said after failing to complete a pass longer than 18 yards. "I've kind of changed those thoughts because there are so many opinions and experts about me and my career. I've just stopped trying to define myself."
This isn't baseball, where pitchers have the ability to dominate an opponent all by their lonesome. Manning's defense didn't have the staying power in the second half to contain Corey Dillon, who ran for 144 yards. A couple of lost footballs to Patriots inside linebacker Tedy Bruschi didn't help. A holding penalty killed another drive. But the expectation comes with the territory, whether you are Chad Pennington trying to prove you can win a big game or Manning, now shouldering the burden of demonstrating that he can reach the biggest game.
His coach, Tony Dungy, dismissed the talk of Manning being on his way to Marinoville, to a Hall of Fame but Super Bowl-less career. He reminded everyone of the doubts people had about Steve Young, about John Elway, before they punctuated their individual Hall of Fame credentials. Michael Jordan didn't win an N.B.A. championship until his seventh season. This was Manning's seventh season.
Of course, it's still early, but this was the year Manning broke Marino's single-season touchdown record, and yesterday that meant nothing. Even factoring in the quality of the opponent, the contrast from one week to another, inside to out, was remarkable. The Colts looked like a more celebrated A.F.C. version of the Vikings. If that is what they ultimately are, mustn't Manning's personal achievements be viewed somewhat like a slugger who jacks them out of a bandbox?
These are the standards Manning has set for himself. And these were not even the defensive Patriots of 2003, who intercepted him four times in last year's A.F.C. title game. Belichick was missing his starting cornerbacks, Ty Law and Tyrone Poole, as well as the stalwart defensive lineman Richard Seymour. Another wintry presence, the reserve cornerback Earthwind Moreland, was on the inactive list, unavailable to help fire up the elements.
"Most other times when you have starters down and you are missing some Pro Bowlers, you really sort of lick your lips," Manning said. He shook his head ruefully. With the Patriots, he added, "it seems like it doesn't really matter who is in there."
At least not in this venue, at this time of year. Not with the slight snow in a gentle wind that began to fall, on cue, just before 4 p.m., just as the afternoon light began to fade. In the stadium lights, the swirl looked more like a smoky haze. Welcome to the Patriots' house, the New England skies seemed to be saying.
Manning and Dungy insisted it was the Patriots who were the problem, not the weather or the field or the fates. But as the light snow continued to fall, and the field began to whiten for the start of the second half, the track became no place for Marvin Harrison or any of these fleet-footed Colts to be going long for a quick Manning strike.
The Patriots' defense pitched a second-half shutout, while Brady and Dillon and the familiar Patriots cast chewed up chunks of clock like a horde of cleats tearing away at a wet grass field. A 6-3 ball game became the 20-3 blowout.
The Patriots drove 87 yards in 8 minutes 16 seconds for one touchdown, and 94 yards in 7:24 for another. Manning spent most of his time on the sideline, watching the clock run, watching Brady again meet the magnitude of the moment, on his way to Pittsburgh, another frigid outpost, where he will feel right at home.
The A.F.C. title will be settled by the great outdoorsmen of the N.F.L. northeast, while the Manning who throws the prettiest passes will go home to watch the remainder of the postseason from the climate-controlled comfort of his home.
E-mail: hjaraton@nytimes.com
A Weather-Related Problem
By Harvey Araton
Foxboro, Mass.
IT is one thing being the prettiest quarterback, another to be the grittiest. It is one thing to be the coolest cat around from the comfort of one's carpet, another to conquer the conditions of the cold, cruel world.
Wasn't this the year Manning had too much arm power for even Bill Belichick's brainpower? Wasn't Manning, the quarterback who amazed us with a record 49 touchdown passes this season, finally going to have Tom Brady's number? Instead, he was humbled again by those killer B's - Belichick and Brady - and another persistent opponent, Mother Nature, which cannot be lured and vanquished indoors.
One Mike Vanderjagt field goal. Three lousy points. That's what the Colts' Manning-led offense put on the board in a 20-3 defeat against the defending champion Patriots at frosty Gillette Stadium. This, after the blizzard of offense the Colts unleashed, indoors, on the Denver Broncos last week. This, after Manning's 4,557 regular-season passing yards, 67.6 completion percentage, a mere 10 interceptions, the record-shattering 49 touchdown passes, 6 in one game, 5 in three others.
Against the rest of the league, especially back in Indianapolis, dome sweet dome, Manning is obviously the chosen one, the audible king. Is it unfair at this point to say he is something much less than that in the icy open-air arena, where real football legends are made?
"I've always believed that a player does kind of define himself," Manning said after failing to complete a pass longer than 18 yards. "I've kind of changed those thoughts because there are so many opinions and experts about me and my career. I've just stopped trying to define myself."
This isn't baseball, where pitchers have the ability to dominate an opponent all by their lonesome. Manning's defense didn't have the staying power in the second half to contain Corey Dillon, who ran for 144 yards. A couple of lost footballs to Patriots inside linebacker Tedy Bruschi didn't help. A holding penalty killed another drive. But the expectation comes with the territory, whether you are Chad Pennington trying to prove you can win a big game or Manning, now shouldering the burden of demonstrating that he can reach the biggest game.
His coach, Tony Dungy, dismissed the talk of Manning being on his way to Marinoville, to a Hall of Fame but Super Bowl-less career. He reminded everyone of the doubts people had about Steve Young, about John Elway, before they punctuated their individual Hall of Fame credentials. Michael Jordan didn't win an N.B.A. championship until his seventh season. This was Manning's seventh season.
Of course, it's still early, but this was the year Manning broke Marino's single-season touchdown record, and yesterday that meant nothing. Even factoring in the quality of the opponent, the contrast from one week to another, inside to out, was remarkable. The Colts looked like a more celebrated A.F.C. version of the Vikings. If that is what they ultimately are, mustn't Manning's personal achievements be viewed somewhat like a slugger who jacks them out of a bandbox?
These are the standards Manning has set for himself. And these were not even the defensive Patriots of 2003, who intercepted him four times in last year's A.F.C. title game. Belichick was missing his starting cornerbacks, Ty Law and Tyrone Poole, as well as the stalwart defensive lineman Richard Seymour. Another wintry presence, the reserve cornerback Earthwind Moreland, was on the inactive list, unavailable to help fire up the elements.
"Most other times when you have starters down and you are missing some Pro Bowlers, you really sort of lick your lips," Manning said. He shook his head ruefully. With the Patriots, he added, "it seems like it doesn't really matter who is in there."
At least not in this venue, at this time of year. Not with the slight snow in a gentle wind that began to fall, on cue, just before 4 p.m., just as the afternoon light began to fade. In the stadium lights, the swirl looked more like a smoky haze. Welcome to the Patriots' house, the New England skies seemed to be saying.
Manning and Dungy insisted it was the Patriots who were the problem, not the weather or the field or the fates. But as the light snow continued to fall, and the field began to whiten for the start of the second half, the track became no place for Marvin Harrison or any of these fleet-footed Colts to be going long for a quick Manning strike.
The Patriots' defense pitched a second-half shutout, while Brady and Dillon and the familiar Patriots cast chewed up chunks of clock like a horde of cleats tearing away at a wet grass field. A 6-3 ball game became the 20-3 blowout.
The Patriots drove 87 yards in 8 minutes 16 seconds for one touchdown, and 94 yards in 7:24 for another. Manning spent most of his time on the sideline, watching the clock run, watching Brady again meet the magnitude of the moment, on his way to Pittsburgh, another frigid outpost, where he will feel right at home.
The A.F.C. title will be settled by the great outdoorsmen of the N.F.L. northeast, while the Manning who throws the prettiest passes will go home to watch the remainder of the postseason from the climate-controlled comfort of his home.
E-mail: hjaraton@nytimes.com
From CBS.com, a report from last night's 60 Minutes:
Under Fire, Alongside The Fallen
RAMADI, Iraq, Jan. 16, 2005
What's it like to be fighting in Iraq, nearly two years into the war? 60 Minutes wanted to find out and joined up with the 2nd Battalion of the 5th Marine Regiment in one of the most hostile places in Iraq today. Correspondent Scott Pelley and a 60 Minutes crew spent two weeks with the Marines in November, and have just returned from another week.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The battalion, known as 2/5 Marines, is on its second tour in Iraq. For these men the resistance has turned out to be far deadlier than the invasion itself.
Last week Secretary of State Colin Powell called the war "a raging insurgency." That's what the Marines are fighting, under fire in Anbar province — the heart of the resistance.
Every morning the colors rise outside Whiskey Company, 2/5 Marines. To the flag, the Marines chain the dog tags of the men who died under the Stars and Stripes.
In the war to topple Saddam, the battalion lost one man. In the war on the insurgency it's lost 14 — most of them from Whiskey Company.
Cpl. Jake McCloskey won a purple heart for wounds suffered in September.
He says his second tour has been a lot harder than the first. "It's an enemy I can't identify right away. Last time uniforms made it a lot easier. These guys hide, they hide with the regular populous and it's very difficult to find them."
With 60 Minutes cameras present, a patrol in Ramadi was hit with a rocket propelled grenade, seemingly from nowhere.
Pfc. Josh Johnson was badly wounded.
2nd Lt. John McKinley, the patrol's commander, says, "Right now he's unconscious. Sounds like it came from the north, sir. From over our head. Roger, it sounded like it came from over our heads, don't know if it was a mortar or an RPG. Did it come from the north? Hey, how is he doc? What have we got. Hey let's not lose our minds here. Let's see this, roger, he's bleeding pretty bad out of his leg right now. We definitely need to get him out of here. He's definitely an urgent right now."
They did get him out. Johnson, with shrapnel in both legs, was medevaced to a combat hospital. He's home now, in the United States, making a full recovery—one of about 150 men wounded in the battalion since September. His comrades never found the man with the RPG.
"It's three dimensional. Every direction up, down, left, right, below you," says McCloskey. "I mean there's always a possibility that somebody could pop out somewhere, there's an IED [roadside bomb]. Sometimes you can't see them. A lot of times you can't see them so you've got to be constantly looking for something that maybe the day before that wasn't there." He figures you can tell if something isn't right two times in ten.
Whiskey Company corporals Jack Evers and Joseph Terwilliger told us if the Marines don't know what's about to happen, the people in town usually do.
"Most times before it happens the general populous is gone. They'll go inside and they lock up their shops and they leave, and nine times out of ten the people left out there are the insurgents or whoever it is attacking us, and it's us versus them at that time," says Terwilliger.
"Just drive by a group of locals and then ten minutes later you can drive back by and the same guy is walking by you, can be pointing an AK [automatic rifle] at you, or shooting an RPG, or setting an IED out alongside the road. So they're guerrillas out here."
The Marines look out on Ramadi from a base called Hurricane Point. Once the grounds of a palace, it is now home to several hundred Americans.
They venture out into the city only in combat patrols, magazines locked, chambers loaded, ready to fire. They leave the gates sealed in armored Humvees or ducking below the steel plate that they've welded on to open trucks.
In some parts of Iraq, children chase and cheer as Humvees go by. But you don't get much of that here. Ramadi is the capital of Anbar province, home of Iraq's Sunni minority, the once powerful supporters of Saddam.
60 Minutes joined the Marines along the main drag that they call Route Michigan with the battalion commander, Lt. Col. Randall Newman. His men run patrols to show presence, to search for weapons and to defend the offices of the U.S.-backed governor. The building is scarred by mortars, rockets and snipers.
"Ramadi is a town, advertised population coming in about 358,000," says Newman. "So I think if I've got my numbers right that's somewhere around the size of Kansas City. Off in the distance, you see that tall building you see with the charred-out window…that was where a sniper was that worked on us about a month ago."
The Marines have to defend this state capital from behind sandbags and bulletproof windows they pulled from Humvees.
"It's difficult when you're fighting an insurgency to probably say who owns anything on any given day," says Newman. "To win this type of fight, requires patience, presence and persistence."
Persistence to get past what has become the signature weapon in this war: what the military calls an IED, for improvised explosive device. It means a roadside bomb. Several Marines have not survived the drive on Route Michigan. So when they're leaving the base, the superstitious squeeze good luck charms.
Then they dash down Michigan—fast—scanning for trash or dirt that might hide a bomb. There's a feeling of determined resignation in the Humvee. It's either your day or its not. For a patrol on Route Michigan joined by 60 Minutes, the luck ran out.
The shockwave from an IED stopped a 60 Minutes camera. The wounds were relatively minor. The armored Humvee held up. But it's more hazardous in the open trucks. Marines have customized them themselves and call these weld wagons "Frankensteins."
From Hurricane Point to the governor's office is the gauntlet run where most of the IEDs on Route Michigan have been set. In fact, there was a time not too long ago when there were as many as a dozen IEDs on this road in just one day. Marines have nicknamed one intersection the "Axis of Evil" because of all the IEDs they've encountered there.
In November, 60 Minutes went on several combat patrols with Whiskey Company and their commander, Capt. Pat Rapicault.
He's an unusual Marine. Born in France, he came to the United States as a student. His accent is part France, part Mississippi. His men tease him about it and some of them call him Frenchie.
Rapicault, 34, and married, may have been born to be a Marine officer. He was first in his class in Ranger school. When we met him he'd already lost six men. And there was something we noticed about him. As he talked with us he never took his eyes off the potential threats to his Marines down the road. He told us the enemy was always watching, so you could never look away.
"We're constantly under observation from those guys. They know where we go. They know where we like to setup," he says. He avoids any kind of repetitions. "Change your route, change the buildings you use. Otherwise they come at you, booby trap those buildings and try to blow them up."
Rapicault "leads from the front," as the Marines like to say, and he's focused on getting the rest of his men home. Most often, Rapicault's men never see the enemy—they don't truly know who he is or what he's fighting for. They have never seen the enemy like this—that watches for an approaching American patrol and prepares to set off a roadside bomb. Iraqi photojournalist Ghaith Abdul-Ahad embedded himself with the insurgents and took pictures of them setting up their IEDs.
Abdul-Ahad describes the IEDs. He says the insurgents take a "couple of big mortar shells or artillery shells, they wire it with some explosive. They take the wire into the edge of the street and they hide behind a building." Then they "kind of put their heads into the ground and try to listen to the tanks coming."
The insurgents usually use cell phones, using local kids in the neighborhood as spotters for U.S. tanks.
"And they have spotters everywhere," he says. But he adds, "Most of the insurgency is — if I can use this word — is pathetic. Pathetic in the term that when they are waiting for the tank, and the tank is five meters away, and they kind of put the wires together and nothing happens, because it's an old battery or something. And that happens in some of the cases, you know. But other cases, they do kind of detonate things and do cause lots of damage."
Abdul-Ahad told us that some of the fighters he met were religious extremists from Saudi Arabia, Tunisia and Syria, but he claims that many others weren't fanatics at all. For example, a businessman was fighting because he despised the foreign occupation and its chaos.
"He wanted to end the occupation. And this is why he decided to sell off his business to fund a small cell of fighters, and to fight the Americans in Fallujah," Abdul-Ahad says.
In Ramadi the enemy has been pressing a vicious and effective campaign against American attempts to reach out to Iraq — especially undermining public works projects and the government.
Newman says Anbar province is on its third governor in just over a year. The first governor quit because insurgents kidnapped his family and threatened to kill them.
The mayor's office was recently attacked with an IED that destroyed the building.
Shortly after Newman's Marines delivered supplies to a hospital, a doctor was murdered. Newman says the killing was because the hospital accepted supplies from the Americans.
Even the Iraqi man who collected the trash on the base was murdered.
"They will try and target anyone, with fear and intimidation," says Newman.
Newman says the fear and intimidation is difficult to work against. "We're making headway slow but sure."
The headway is slow. For example, there won't be enough security for the election two weeks away, so the local government is keeping the location of polling places secret until the last minute.
Still, even with all the resistance, Whiskey Company's commander Pat Rapicault told us that its better to save Ramadi block by block than flatten it like Fallujah.
"I think the biggest difference between here and Fallujah is we could very well go ahead and do the same thing, bomb every building we get contact from, but then again that's not the purpose we were here for. We're trying to get this country rebuilt, this being the capital of the province."
Rapicault had warned us the enemy is adapting. And, sure enough, as the Marines got better avoiding IEDs, the insurgents turned to suicide bombers. We were with Rapicault's men heading down Route Michigan, nearly back to Hurricane Point, when a car packed with explosives pulled up next to one of Whiskey Company's Humvees and exploded.
His target, a fully armored Humvee, was destroyed. A Navy corpsman treated two survivors, but three Marines were killed, including the man who helped explain what combat is like, the captain some called, Frenchie, Pat Rapicault. In his company of about 160 men, there are now nine names in steel under the flag.
In recent days, Ramadi has been more settled. They're not sure why. At Hurricane Point the Marines are no longer fresh. Many have been to war twice now. But there is still determination. They go out the gate with purpose. They may not always know who they're fighting, but the commander told us they know what they're fighting for.
"Once the first drop of blood was shed by a Marine from this battalion and from the Marine battalion before us, we had too much invested in — in this city, in this country, in this cause — to turn our back on it. To do so would disrespect our fallen warriors that preceded us here."
©MMV, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Under Fire, Alongside The Fallen
RAMADI, Iraq, Jan. 16, 2005
What's it like to be fighting in Iraq, nearly two years into the war? 60 Minutes wanted to find out and joined up with the 2nd Battalion of the 5th Marine Regiment in one of the most hostile places in Iraq today. Correspondent Scott Pelley and a 60 Minutes crew spent two weeks with the Marines in November, and have just returned from another week.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The battalion, known as 2/5 Marines, is on its second tour in Iraq. For these men the resistance has turned out to be far deadlier than the invasion itself.
Last week Secretary of State Colin Powell called the war "a raging insurgency." That's what the Marines are fighting, under fire in Anbar province — the heart of the resistance.
Every morning the colors rise outside Whiskey Company, 2/5 Marines. To the flag, the Marines chain the dog tags of the men who died under the Stars and Stripes.
In the war to topple Saddam, the battalion lost one man. In the war on the insurgency it's lost 14 — most of them from Whiskey Company.
Cpl. Jake McCloskey won a purple heart for wounds suffered in September.
He says his second tour has been a lot harder than the first. "It's an enemy I can't identify right away. Last time uniforms made it a lot easier. These guys hide, they hide with the regular populous and it's very difficult to find them."
With 60 Minutes cameras present, a patrol in Ramadi was hit with a rocket propelled grenade, seemingly from nowhere.
Pfc. Josh Johnson was badly wounded.
2nd Lt. John McKinley, the patrol's commander, says, "Right now he's unconscious. Sounds like it came from the north, sir. From over our head. Roger, it sounded like it came from over our heads, don't know if it was a mortar or an RPG. Did it come from the north? Hey, how is he doc? What have we got. Hey let's not lose our minds here. Let's see this, roger, he's bleeding pretty bad out of his leg right now. We definitely need to get him out of here. He's definitely an urgent right now."
They did get him out. Johnson, with shrapnel in both legs, was medevaced to a combat hospital. He's home now, in the United States, making a full recovery—one of about 150 men wounded in the battalion since September. His comrades never found the man with the RPG.
"It's three dimensional. Every direction up, down, left, right, below you," says McCloskey. "I mean there's always a possibility that somebody could pop out somewhere, there's an IED [roadside bomb]. Sometimes you can't see them. A lot of times you can't see them so you've got to be constantly looking for something that maybe the day before that wasn't there." He figures you can tell if something isn't right two times in ten.
Whiskey Company corporals Jack Evers and Joseph Terwilliger told us if the Marines don't know what's about to happen, the people in town usually do.
"Most times before it happens the general populous is gone. They'll go inside and they lock up their shops and they leave, and nine times out of ten the people left out there are the insurgents or whoever it is attacking us, and it's us versus them at that time," says Terwilliger.
"Just drive by a group of locals and then ten minutes later you can drive back by and the same guy is walking by you, can be pointing an AK [automatic rifle] at you, or shooting an RPG, or setting an IED out alongside the road. So they're guerrillas out here."
The Marines look out on Ramadi from a base called Hurricane Point. Once the grounds of a palace, it is now home to several hundred Americans.
They venture out into the city only in combat patrols, magazines locked, chambers loaded, ready to fire. They leave the gates sealed in armored Humvees or ducking below the steel plate that they've welded on to open trucks.
In some parts of Iraq, children chase and cheer as Humvees go by. But you don't get much of that here. Ramadi is the capital of Anbar province, home of Iraq's Sunni minority, the once powerful supporters of Saddam.
60 Minutes joined the Marines along the main drag that they call Route Michigan with the battalion commander, Lt. Col. Randall Newman. His men run patrols to show presence, to search for weapons and to defend the offices of the U.S.-backed governor. The building is scarred by mortars, rockets and snipers.
"Ramadi is a town, advertised population coming in about 358,000," says Newman. "So I think if I've got my numbers right that's somewhere around the size of Kansas City. Off in the distance, you see that tall building you see with the charred-out window…that was where a sniper was that worked on us about a month ago."
The Marines have to defend this state capital from behind sandbags and bulletproof windows they pulled from Humvees.
"It's difficult when you're fighting an insurgency to probably say who owns anything on any given day," says Newman. "To win this type of fight, requires patience, presence and persistence."
Persistence to get past what has become the signature weapon in this war: what the military calls an IED, for improvised explosive device. It means a roadside bomb. Several Marines have not survived the drive on Route Michigan. So when they're leaving the base, the superstitious squeeze good luck charms.
Then they dash down Michigan—fast—scanning for trash or dirt that might hide a bomb. There's a feeling of determined resignation in the Humvee. It's either your day or its not. For a patrol on Route Michigan joined by 60 Minutes, the luck ran out.
The shockwave from an IED stopped a 60 Minutes camera. The wounds were relatively minor. The armored Humvee held up. But it's more hazardous in the open trucks. Marines have customized them themselves and call these weld wagons "Frankensteins."
From Hurricane Point to the governor's office is the gauntlet run where most of the IEDs on Route Michigan have been set. In fact, there was a time not too long ago when there were as many as a dozen IEDs on this road in just one day. Marines have nicknamed one intersection the "Axis of Evil" because of all the IEDs they've encountered there.
In November, 60 Minutes went on several combat patrols with Whiskey Company and their commander, Capt. Pat Rapicault.
He's an unusual Marine. Born in France, he came to the United States as a student. His accent is part France, part Mississippi. His men tease him about it and some of them call him Frenchie.
Rapicault, 34, and married, may have been born to be a Marine officer. He was first in his class in Ranger school. When we met him he'd already lost six men. And there was something we noticed about him. As he talked with us he never took his eyes off the potential threats to his Marines down the road. He told us the enemy was always watching, so you could never look away.
"We're constantly under observation from those guys. They know where we go. They know where we like to setup," he says. He avoids any kind of repetitions. "Change your route, change the buildings you use. Otherwise they come at you, booby trap those buildings and try to blow them up."
Rapicault "leads from the front," as the Marines like to say, and he's focused on getting the rest of his men home. Most often, Rapicault's men never see the enemy—they don't truly know who he is or what he's fighting for. They have never seen the enemy like this—that watches for an approaching American patrol and prepares to set off a roadside bomb. Iraqi photojournalist Ghaith Abdul-Ahad embedded himself with the insurgents and took pictures of them setting up their IEDs.
Abdul-Ahad describes the IEDs. He says the insurgents take a "couple of big mortar shells or artillery shells, they wire it with some explosive. They take the wire into the edge of the street and they hide behind a building." Then they "kind of put their heads into the ground and try to listen to the tanks coming."
The insurgents usually use cell phones, using local kids in the neighborhood as spotters for U.S. tanks.
"And they have spotters everywhere," he says. But he adds, "Most of the insurgency is — if I can use this word — is pathetic. Pathetic in the term that when they are waiting for the tank, and the tank is five meters away, and they kind of put the wires together and nothing happens, because it's an old battery or something. And that happens in some of the cases, you know. But other cases, they do kind of detonate things and do cause lots of damage."
Abdul-Ahad told us that some of the fighters he met were religious extremists from Saudi Arabia, Tunisia and Syria, but he claims that many others weren't fanatics at all. For example, a businessman was fighting because he despised the foreign occupation and its chaos.
"He wanted to end the occupation. And this is why he decided to sell off his business to fund a small cell of fighters, and to fight the Americans in Fallujah," Abdul-Ahad says.
In Ramadi the enemy has been pressing a vicious and effective campaign against American attempts to reach out to Iraq — especially undermining public works projects and the government.
Newman says Anbar province is on its third governor in just over a year. The first governor quit because insurgents kidnapped his family and threatened to kill them.
The mayor's office was recently attacked with an IED that destroyed the building.
Shortly after Newman's Marines delivered supplies to a hospital, a doctor was murdered. Newman says the killing was because the hospital accepted supplies from the Americans.
Even the Iraqi man who collected the trash on the base was murdered.
"They will try and target anyone, with fear and intimidation," says Newman.
Newman says the fear and intimidation is difficult to work against. "We're making headway slow but sure."
The headway is slow. For example, there won't be enough security for the election two weeks away, so the local government is keeping the location of polling places secret until the last minute.
Still, even with all the resistance, Whiskey Company's commander Pat Rapicault told us that its better to save Ramadi block by block than flatten it like Fallujah.
"I think the biggest difference between here and Fallujah is we could very well go ahead and do the same thing, bomb every building we get contact from, but then again that's not the purpose we were here for. We're trying to get this country rebuilt, this being the capital of the province."
Rapicault had warned us the enemy is adapting. And, sure enough, as the Marines got better avoiding IEDs, the insurgents turned to suicide bombers. We were with Rapicault's men heading down Route Michigan, nearly back to Hurricane Point, when a car packed with explosives pulled up next to one of Whiskey Company's Humvees and exploded.
His target, a fully armored Humvee, was destroyed. A Navy corpsman treated two survivors, but three Marines were killed, including the man who helped explain what combat is like, the captain some called, Frenchie, Pat Rapicault. In his company of about 160 men, there are now nine names in steel under the flag.
In recent days, Ramadi has been more settled. They're not sure why. At Hurricane Point the Marines are no longer fresh. Many have been to war twice now. But there is still determination. They go out the gate with purpose. They may not always know who they're fighting, but the commander told us they know what they're fighting for.
"Once the first drop of blood was shed by a Marine from this battalion and from the Marine battalion before us, we had too much invested in — in this city, in this country, in this cause — to turn our back on it. To do so would disrespect our fallen warriors that preceded us here."
©MMV, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Sunday, January 16, 2005
From The New York PostL
'ISLAMIC HATE' EYED IN SLAYS
By Douglas Montero and Stefan C. Friedman
The father of a murdered New Jersey family was threatened for making anti-Muslim remarks online — and the gruesome quadruple slaying may have been the hateful retaliation, sources told The Post yesterday.
Hossam Armanious, 47, who along with his wife and two daughters was found stabbed to death in his Jersey City home early Friday, would regularly debate religion in a Middle Eastern chat room, one source said.
Armanious, an Egyptian Christian, was well known for expressing his Coptic beliefs and engaging in fiery back-and-forth with Muslims on the Web site paltalk.com.
He "had the reputation for being one of the most outspoken Egyptian Christians," said the source, who had close ties to the family.
The source, who had knowledge of the investigation, refused to specify the anti-Muslim statement. But he said cops told him they were looking into the exchanges as a possible motive.
The married father of two had recently been threatened by Muslim members of the Web site, said a fellow Copt and store clerk who uses the chat room.
"You'd better stop this bull---- or we are going to track you down like a chicken and kill you," was the threat, said the clerk, who was online at the time and saw the exchange.
But Armanious refused to back down, according to two sources who use the Web site.
Jersey City Mayor Jerramiah Healy would neither confirm nor deny that cops and prosecutors were looking into the religion motive, saying only that "nothing is being ruled out." But a relative of the mayor who answered the phone at Healy's home said there was information the murders were "religion-related."
"There are several theories we are looking into, but we are not commenting on any of them at this time," said Hudson County Assistant Prosecutor Guy Gregory.
Armanious' fervor apparently rubbed off on his daughter, Sylvia — who would have turned 16 yesterday.
"She was very religious and very opinionated," said Jessica Cimino, 15, a fellow sophomore at Dickenson HS.
A family member who viewed photos of the bloodbath said Sylvia seemed to have taken the most savage punishment.
"When we saw the pictures, you could tell that they were hurt really, really bad in the face; especially Sylvia," said Milad Garas, the high-school sophomore's great-uncle.
The heartless killer not only slit Sylvia's throat, but also sliced a huge gash in her chest and stabbed her in the wrist, where she had a tattoo of a Coptic cross.
Also found murdered were the wife, Amal Garas, and the parents' other daughter, Monica.
Fred Ayed, the deacon at St. George and St. Shenouda Church, where the deeply religious family attended services, said he's worried that the murders could have a ripple effect.
"I am concerned for the safety of our community," said Ayed, who knew Hossam for 30 years. "People are scared because one family was slain like cows," said Moheb Ghabour, publisher of a local newspaper for the Coptic community.
Osama Hassan, director of the Islamic Center of Jersey City, described the relationship between Copts and Muslims as cooperative if not friendly.
"I think there might be people that can get into physical fights, but not to the point of murder," Hassan said.
Both the deacon and uncle poured cold water on the theory that the family were the victims of a robbery gone wrong.
"This is not a robbery, Ayed said. "We found all of the jewelry in the house. They didn't take anything."
The FBI confirmed it has been called in to help with the case.
Additional reporting by Heather Gilmore
'ISLAMIC HATE' EYED IN SLAYS
By Douglas Montero and Stefan C. Friedman
The father of a murdered New Jersey family was threatened for making anti-Muslim remarks online — and the gruesome quadruple slaying may have been the hateful retaliation, sources told The Post yesterday.
Hossam Armanious, 47, who along with his wife and two daughters was found stabbed to death in his Jersey City home early Friday, would regularly debate religion in a Middle Eastern chat room, one source said.
Armanious, an Egyptian Christian, was well known for expressing his Coptic beliefs and engaging in fiery back-and-forth with Muslims on the Web site paltalk.com.
He "had the reputation for being one of the most outspoken Egyptian Christians," said the source, who had close ties to the family.
The source, who had knowledge of the investigation, refused to specify the anti-Muslim statement. But he said cops told him they were looking into the exchanges as a possible motive.
The married father of two had recently been threatened by Muslim members of the Web site, said a fellow Copt and store clerk who uses the chat room.
"You'd better stop this bull---- or we are going to track you down like a chicken and kill you," was the threat, said the clerk, who was online at the time and saw the exchange.
But Armanious refused to back down, according to two sources who use the Web site.
Jersey City Mayor Jerramiah Healy would neither confirm nor deny that cops and prosecutors were looking into the religion motive, saying only that "nothing is being ruled out." But a relative of the mayor who answered the phone at Healy's home said there was information the murders were "religion-related."
"There are several theories we are looking into, but we are not commenting on any of them at this time," said Hudson County Assistant Prosecutor Guy Gregory.
Armanious' fervor apparently rubbed off on his daughter, Sylvia — who would have turned 16 yesterday.
"She was very religious and very opinionated," said Jessica Cimino, 15, a fellow sophomore at Dickenson HS.
A family member who viewed photos of the bloodbath said Sylvia seemed to have taken the most savage punishment.
"When we saw the pictures, you could tell that they were hurt really, really bad in the face; especially Sylvia," said Milad Garas, the high-school sophomore's great-uncle.
The heartless killer not only slit Sylvia's throat, but also sliced a huge gash in her chest and stabbed her in the wrist, where she had a tattoo of a Coptic cross.
Also found murdered were the wife, Amal Garas, and the parents' other daughter, Monica.
Fred Ayed, the deacon at St. George and St. Shenouda Church, where the deeply religious family attended services, said he's worried that the murders could have a ripple effect.
"I am concerned for the safety of our community," said Ayed, who knew Hossam for 30 years. "People are scared because one family was slain like cows," said Moheb Ghabour, publisher of a local newspaper for the Coptic community.
Osama Hassan, director of the Islamic Center of Jersey City, described the relationship between Copts and Muslims as cooperative if not friendly.
"I think there might be people that can get into physical fights, but not to the point of murder," Hassan said.
Both the deacon and uncle poured cold water on the theory that the family were the victims of a robbery gone wrong.
"This is not a robbery, Ayed said. "We found all of the jewelry in the house. They didn't take anything."
The FBI confirmed it has been called in to help with the case.
Additional reporting by Heather Gilmore
From westcoastmusic.com:
James Griffin dies (Bread)
Singer and songwriter Jimmy Griffin, the Bread alumnus who made his biggest impact on country music as a member of the Remingtons, died Tuesday (January 11) at his home in Nashville of complications from cancer. He was 61 and had been undergoing treatment for the past several months.
James Arthur Griffin was born in Cincinnati on Aug. 10, 1943. Soon after, his family moved to Memphis, where he grew up. When he was 7, his mother started him on accordion lessons at the Central Academy of Music. He continued to develop his musical talents and perform locally until he graduated from Kingsbury High School in 1962.
Living across the street from Griffin and serving as sources of musical inspiration were brothers Dorsey and Johnny Burnette, who were beginning to make names for themselves as rock 'n' roll musicians. The summer after he completed high school, Griffin visited the Burnettes who by then were living in California. They introduced him into the Los Angeles music community, and within a few months he signed a recording deal with Reprise Records. His first album, "Summer Holiday," a collection of cover tunes, was released in 1963.
His producer on this project was another rising talent, Jimmy Bowen, who would eventually go on to head the country divisions of Warner Bros., MCA and Capitol Records.
Jimmy Griffin also began developing as a songwriter, securing cuts by Rudy Vallee, Ed Ames, Lesley Gore, Bobby Vee and others. He ventured into acting as well and had small roles in the movies For Those Who Think Young (1964) and None But the Brave (1965).
In 1969, JImmy Griffin joined David Gates, Robb Royer and Jim Gordon to form Bread, a group distinguished by its rich, creamy melodies and yearning lyrics. The following year, the group's debut single, "Make It With You," went No. 1. Subsequent hits included "It Don't Matter to Me," "If," "Baby I'm-a Want You," "Everything I Own," "The Guitar Man," "Aubrey" and "Lost Without Your Love."
Still fascinated by the movies, Jimmy Griffin collaborated with Royer and Fred Karlin in 1970 to compose "For All We Know," which became the theme for the film Lovers and Other Strangers. The song won an Academy Award and was a No. 3 pop hit for the Carpenters in 1971.
Following the breakup of Bread in 1977, Jimmy Griffin returned to solo recording and songwriting. Polydor released the album James Griffin in Europe, and Shoe Records in Memphis issued a number of his singles. In the late '80s, Griffin teamed up with Randy Meisner (of the Eagles and Poco) and Billy Swan to form Black Tie, a country music trio. Their only charted single -- "Learning the Game," written by Buddy Holly -- came out in 1990 and made it to No. 59 on the country charts.
Then, in 1991, Griffin, Richard Mainegra and Rick Yancey (the latter two from the group Cymarron) formed the Remingtons and signed to the newly established RCA sublabel, BNA Records. The group's first single, "A Long Time Ago," was its most successful record, rising to No. 10 in early 1992. The last single, "Wall Around Her Heart" in 1993, topped out at No. 69.
Jimmy Griffin made occasional solo performances throughout the '90s and into the new century but mainly devoted himself to songwriting. He did his last studio work last year, pairing up with singer Lynn Bryant to record Todd Rundgren's pop classic, "Can We Still Be Friends."
Jimmy Griffin is survived by his wife, Marti, and three children.
Here is as a great souvenir: a letter of Neva Griffin speaking of his son Jimmy Griffin.
(photo by Ken Bank)
"You have taken the heart of me
And left just a part of me,
And look, look, look what you've done.
Well, you took all the best of me,
So come get the rest of me,
And look back, finish what you've begun.
There is some one you ought to meet;
It's me, mister incomplete.
Look, at what I've become.
For it's due to the lack of you
That I'm now only half of two.
Look back, finish what you"ve begun."
- Bread "Look What You've Done"
(Jimmy Griffin, Robb Royer) - 1969
"Love, look at the two of us
Strangers in many ways
Let's take a lifetime to say
I know you well
But only time will tell us so
And love may grow for all we know"
- Carpenters "For All We Know"
(Jimmy Griffin, Fred Karlin, Robb Wilson, Arthur James) - 1970
R.I.P.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
