Wednesday, May 28, 2008

U.S. Memorial Day

The world of blogs picks up lots of stuff that you would never read in the old media. An excellent example is a post by John Rubery who has marked Memorial Day by a tribute to the Australians who have fought alongside Americans in America's wars since 1900 -- even in Vietnam and currently now in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Australians celebrate their equivalent of Memorial Day on April 25th. And our ANZAC day is undoubtedly our most solemn national day. So it is easy for Australians to understand how Americans feel on their similar occasion. You can read what I wrote last April 25th here.

John Rubery is a "blogging friend" of mine so I think I should warn him about the Australian sense of humour if he ever comes to Australia. Australians have great fun with nicknames. There is a short stocky Australian mining magnate who is referred to even in the media as "Twiggy" (after a very thin British model of yesteryear); Redheads are commonly addressed as "Bluey" and I have even heard German immigrants with the Christian name of "Heinz" referred to as "57 varieties". So if he were ever here for long John Rubery would undoubedly be addressed by his friends as "Rubbery".


The hate-filled NYT versus GWB

In its Memorial Day editorial the NYT insists the Iraq War is unwinnable:
President Bush opposes a new G.I. Bill of Rights. He worries that if the traditional path to college for service members since World War II is improved and expanded for the post-9/11 generation, too many people will take it.

He is wrong, but at least he is consistent. Having saddled the military with a botched, unwinnable war, having squandered soldiers' lives and failed them in so many ways, the commander in chief now resists giving the troops a chance at better futures out of uniform. He does this on the ground that the bill is too generous and may discourage re-enlistment, further weakening the military he has done so much to break.

So lavish with other people's sacrifices, so reckless in pouring the national treasure into the sandy pit of Iraq, Mr. Bush remains as cheap as ever when it comes to helping people at home.

The White House immediately countered this outrageous Memorial Day article.
The White House on Monday blasted The New York Times for irresponsibly distort[ing] President Bushs strong commitment to strengthening and expanding support for Americas service members and their families.

...This editorial could not be farther from the truth about the presidents record of leadership on this issue, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said in a statement. She added that the newspapers editorial board doesnt let the facts get in the way of expressing its vitriolic opinions - no matter how misleading they may be.

More... The White House released this statement today in response to the hateful reporting at The New York Times:
Once again, the New York Times Editorial Board doesn't let the facts get in the way of expressing its vitriolic opinions - no matter how misleading they may be.

In today's editorial, "Mr. Bush and the GI Bill", the New York Times irresponsibly distorts President Bush's strong commitment to strengthening and expanding support for America's service members and their families.

This editorial could not be farther from the truth about the President's record of leadership on this issue. In his January 2008 State of the Union Address, while proposing a series of initiatives to support our military families, President Bush specifically called upon Congress to answer service members' request that they be able to transfer their GI Bill benefits to their spouses and children. In April, he sent a legislative package to the Hill that would expand access to childcare, create new authorities to appoint qualified spouses into civil service jobs, provide education opportunities and job training for military spouses, and allow our troops to transfer their unused education benefits to their spouses or children.

As Congress debates the best way to expand the existing GI Bill, Secretary Gates has laid out important guidelines to ensure that legislation meets our service members' needs and rewards military service. First, since our servicemen and women have regularly requested the ability to transfer their GI bill benefits to their family members, legislation should include transferability. Second, legislation should provide greater rewards for continued military service in the all volunteer force.

There are several GI bill proposals under consideration in both the House and Senate. The Department of Defense has specific concerns about legislation sponsored by Senator Webb because it lacks transferability and could negatively impact military retention.

The President specifically supports the GI Bill legislation expansion proposed by Senators Graham, Burr, and McCain because it allows for the transferability of education benefits and calibrates an increase in education benefits to time in the service.

More here


A dangerous Democrat

Are we engaged in a war? If so, against whom? To Sen. Joe Biden, the answers are apparently "no" and "I don't know." In this op-ed, Biden asserts that the regimes and movements sworn to the destruction of the West are merely "a small number of radical groups." He adds that "to compare terrorism with an all-encompassing ideology like communism and fascism is evidence of profound confusion."

Indeed, terrorism is a weapon so it makes no sense to compare it with an ideology. But Biden should by now have at least a passing acquaintance with the ideologies and movements utilizing the terrorist weapon to wage an asymmetrical global conflict. Those ideologies go by various names including militant Islamism, Jihadism, Islamo-Fascism, Khomeinism, Salafism and bin Ladenism. Has Biden not heard these terms? Or does he think he might offend some peaceful merchant in Casablanca were he to utter them?

Biden insists, too, that "Sunnis and Shiites, Persians and Arabs, Iraq and Iran, al Qaeda and Shiite militias" are "more at odds with each other than with us." That the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is not familiar with the abundant evidence to the contrary is frightening.



List of backup or "mirror" sites here or here -- for readers in China or for everyone when blogspot is "down" or failing to update. Email me here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here or here or here


The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist" (Nationalsozialist) and the full name of Hitler's political party (translated) was "The National Socialist German Workers' Party" (In German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei)


No comments: