Memorial Day Remembrance

National Cemetery of the Pacific. Memorial Day 2009.



Please take the time to comment! Click the Informed Opinion Link adjacent to the Post Title.

George S. Patton

George C. Scott's portrayal of Patton's speech to the Third Army:



Please take the time to comment! Click the Informed Opinion Link adjacent to the Post Title.

Audie Murphy

To Hell and Back:



Please take the time to comment! Click the Informed Opinion Link adjacent to the Post Title.

To Those Who Served

Today is an especially difficult day. Today, we set aside time, free from other distractions to honor those who have gone before us. We honor those who laid down their lives to preserve the most amazing country on the face of the planet. We offer reverence to those who gave it all in persuit of the freedoms that we all hold so dear. Today we honor the troops who gave their lives in defense of this great nation.

Countless men and women have placed their lives on the line and paid the ultimate sacrifice so that we may live the lifestyle that we choose today. We owe everything that we have and everything that we've earned to those who've done so. Take a moment and meditate upon the sacrifices that those whom we honor today, and their families have given up for us. God bless the fighting men and women of the United States.

Please take the time to comment! Click the Informed Opinion Link adjacent to the Post Title.

Government Denies Care To Cancer Stricken Veterans

Can you say, 'preview of things to come?'

"My wife would hug me, and it became almost unbearable," he said. "I went to a doctor, and they sent me to the oncologist, and they did biopsies on both sides. And then I ended up with a double mastectomy."


Kelly is one of 20 retired U.S. Marines or sons of Marines who once lived at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, and who are now suffering from breast cancer, a disease that strikes about one man for every 100 women who get it.

Wait... 20 retired U.S. Marines or immediate family members who lived at Camp Lejeune now have breast cancer? That's a pretty freaky coincidence, no?

All 20 fear that water contaminated with high levels of toxic chemicals may have caused their illnesses, but the Marine Corps says no link has been found between the contamination and their diseases. Without that link, the men are denied treatment by the Department of Veterans Affairs, which says it can't treat them for a condition that hasn't been shown to have been "service-related."

Huh. So, the same government agency which would be forced to spend millions of dollars in care for these individuals cannot find a link between water contamination, contamination which the military does not dispute, and the cases of cancer. Why, I'm completely shocked by that!

Kelly said his VA representative told him, "It's not the VA's problem, it's the Marine Corps' problem."


And Peter Devereaux, who was stationed at Camp Lejeune in the early 1980s, was told in writing that his breast cancer "neither occurred in nor was caused by service."

One Government Agency pointing at another, neither of which claim responsibility. Shocking.

The men with breast cancer are among about 1,600 retired Marines and Camp Lejeune residents who have filed claims against the federal government. According to congressional investigators, they are seeking nearly $34 billion in compensation for health problems they say stemmed from drinking water at the base that was contaminated with several toxic chemicals, including some the federal government has classified as known or potential cancer-causing agents.

20 cases is coincidence, 1600 cases of disease caused by contaminated wells is indisputable.

In 1980, the Navy hired experts to test for trihalomethanes, a byproduct from chlorination, in the base tap water. The experts reported that some of the base tap water was "highly contaminated," according to a test report.


In 1981, the lab again found "water highly contaminated" -- and added the word "solvents," with an exclamation point. In August 1982, the experts found one sample with levels of trichloroethylene, a degreaser believed to cause cancer, of 1,400 parts per billion. Today's EPA safe level for the substance is five parts per billion.


"We've never seen 1,400 parts per billion of trichloroethylene, so that is very high," said Frank Bove, an epidemiologist with the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

I believe this is what's referred to as a 'smoking gun.'

But it would take until late 1984 and early 1985 for the Corps to begin widespread testing of wells on the base and shutting down ones that had been polluted. In addition to trichloroethylene, chemicals eventually identified in the drinking water included benzene, which the federal government identifies as a known cancer-causing agent; and the dry-cleaning solvent perchloroethylene, a suspected carcinogen.


The Marine Corps said two independent studies have found no link between water contamination and later illnesses. And in a statement to CNN, the Marine Corps wrote, "Once impacted wells were identified, they were promptly removed from service."

Let's see, the contamination was discovered in 1980 and reaffirmed in 1981 and the wells were shut down in late 1984? Hell, by Government standards that qualifies as "promptly removed from service."

A fact-finding panel created by the Corps in 2004 ruled that officials acted properly and that the water was "consistent with general industry practices" at the time. And investigations by the Bush administration's Justice Department and Environmental Protection Agency found no criminal conduct by Marine Corps officials and no violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Ah HA! Now we get to the nut of it! It was all Bush's fault. Bastard...

Two years ago, Congress ordered the Marine Corps to notify all Marines and their families who might have been exposed -- an estimated 500,000 people. The Marines say they have worked with environmental and health agencies "from the beginning" to determine whether the contamination resulted in any illness, and "this collaboration continues to the present day."


"I think if cancer of the breast in men or other kinds of cancer have been linked to this exposure, that we ought to know about that," said Richard Clapp, a nationally recognized epidemiologist who has studied clusters of cancer cases at toxic sites. "The families deserve that. The veterans themselves should know about that, and they should be compensated if the link can be made."


But for now, there is no proven link -- just Marines and their families who say they are suffering.

I'm ready to turn over my health care decisions to the government! Who's with me?!

Please take the time to comment!

FireDogLake, Libtard Sewerhole

One of the leading stories within the last 24 hours at Memeorandum was this post by Mike Stark over at FDL. Mike attended a recent YAF event where Newt Gingrich was the featured speaker, and found the two young conservatives who produced the 'Young Cons' rap video. Admittedly, I am not a huge fan of rap, and this isn't the greatest representation of conservatism or rap, however, they had the ballz to get on the interwebbynets and post thier beliefs, so bravo. Anyhow, Mike Stark begins to question the two gentlemen about Reagan's legacy stating that he was 'sorry to put [them] on the spot like this,' but justifying it by stating that the two have 'taken on a very public role.'

Stark asked the following questions of the Young Cons:

• Did you know that Reagan doubled the Social Security Tax? It was at 6% and he took it to 12?
• Did you know that Jimmy Carter didn't give an inch to 'those Iranian bastards' who took the American hostages, refused to negotiate? What he did do is send in some helecopters that got lost in a sand storm, kind of like the sand storm in Iraq that slowed our progress right in the beginning. On the other hand, Regan traded arms for hostages with the Iranians. Did you guys know about-?
• Did you know that he bailed out of Lebanon? I spent four years in the Marines, he kind of bailed out of Lebanon, you know, after, you know, 280 some of our 'Devil Dogs' got blown up. Do you think that- does that improve or diminish his image in your view?
• Do you think Barack Obama is in a 'terrible time' in Iraq and he should pull us out of Iraq as soon as he can to get us out of that terrible [crosstalk]?
• Why didn't you guys join, just out of curiosity, why didn't you join the military?
• What did you think was more important than serving your country?

So, as we've done before, let's analyze the questions and posit the answers that should have been given and would have, had the Young Cons known that they were going to get ambushed at the YAF event.

Reagan doubled the Social Security Tax from 6% to 12%.
The question makes it seem as if on the morning of January 20, 1981 the Social Security Tax rate was 6.0% and by the morning of January 21, 1981 Reagan had doubled it to 12.0%. Unfortunately, that just isn't the case. Looking at this chart we can see that in 1981 when Reagan took office the total rate of contribution from Employees and Employers, each to Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance and Hospital Insurance combined was at 6.65%. The rate of contribution from the self employed to Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance and Hospital Insurance combined was at 9.3%. When Reagan left office in 1989, the Employee/Employer rate had risen to 7.51% and Self-Employed rate had risen to 15.02%, neither considered a doubling. Here is another chart for comparison.
Something liberals tend to forget when going after Reagan is that during his entire Presidency, the congress was controlled by Democrats. Even though he won with a large majority of the electorate voting for him in '80 and in '84, Reagan's policies still had to pass through the Democratic controlled congress for approval. I can't remember anyone claiming that Reagan never raised taxes, as a matter of fact, he raised taxes in a few areas.
However, Reagan was also able to cut taxes in several other areas, most notably corporate tax rates. We can see here what the result of those tax cuts have been.

Reagan traded arms for hostages with Iran
That's right, Reagan himself handed Mahmoud Ahmadinnerjacket the keys to a hummer, 1,000,000 lbs. of C4 and the triggering device for a nuclear device. Or not... That insinuation is patently false and intellectually dishonest. After a long investigation by Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh, it was never proven that Reagan even knew about let alone authorized the arms sales to Iran. This, of course, has come to be known as the Iran Contra. Certain individuals within the Defense Department authorized the sale of military weapons to Iran in order to help secure the release of 6 US hostages being held by Hezbollah. A portion of the monies generated from the sales of these weapons was diverted to fund anti-Sandinista and anti-communist rebels, or Contras, in Nicaragua. So Reagan did not trade weapons for hostages. As to the Jimmy Carter thing, what can I say that hasn't already been said. Arguably, if it weren't for him turning his back on the Shah, Iranian riots never would have taken place and the US Embassy in Tehran never would have been over run leading to the (separate) hostage crisis in Iran.

Reagan 'bailed out' of Lebanon after the Marine Barracks Bombing, In Beirut.
Here is Reagan in his own words on why we were in Lebanon to start with:

"The purpose of having our troops and those of the other three nations in Beirut was to help keep the peace and to free the Lebanese army to go after the various militias and warlords who were terrorizing the country. We never had the intention of getting involved in Lebanon's civil war. For a while, our policy seemed to be working. There was genuine peace on the streets of Beirut. Still, as we were learning, the situation in Beirut was much more difficult and complex than we initially believed."

In fact, the Syrians were informed that the Marine presence in Beirut was defensive in nature. After the attack on the US Marines, Ronald Reagan authorized retaliatory attacks against enemy artillery points. Here is Reagan in his own words on that event:

"Although there was some resistance from Cap and the Joint Chiefs over whether we should retaliate, I told him to give the order for an air strike against the offending antiaircraft batteries. We had previously let the Syrians know that our reconnaissance operations in support of the marines were only defensive in nature. Our marines were not adversaries in the conflict, and any offensive act directed against them would be replied to. The following morning, more than two dozen navy aircraft carried out the mission. One crewman was killed and another captured by the Syrians. Our planes subsequently took out almost a dozen Syrian antiaircraft and missile-launching sites, a radar installation, and an ammo dump. When the Syrians fired again at one of our reconnaissance aircraft, I gave the order to fire the sixteen-inch guns of the battleship New Jersey on them. Two days later, we had a new cease-fire in Lebanon, a result, I'm sure, of the pressure of the long guns of the New Jersey..."

And finally, here is Reagan on the decision to pull the Marines out of Lebanon:

"As 1984 began, it was becoming clearer that the Lebanese army was either unwilling or unable to end the civil war into which we had been dragged reluctantly. It was clear that the war was likely to go on for an extended period of time. As the sniping and shelling of their camp continued, I gave an order to evacuate all the marines to anchored off Lebanon. At the end of March, the ships of the Sixth Fleet and the marines who had fought to keep peace in Lebanon moved on to other assignments. We had to pull out. By then, there was no question about it: Our policy wasn't working. We couldn't stay there and run the risk of another suicide attack on the marines. No one wanted to commit our troops to a full-scale war in the middle East. But we couldn't remain in Lebanon and be in the war on a halfway basis, leaving our men vulnerable to terrorists with one hand tied behind their backs."

The insinuation, again, here by Mike Stark is that we were attacked and Reagan immediately ordered the withdrawal, and the US left with it's tail between it's legs. In fact, the original attack was on October 23, 1983 and the order for withdrawal wasn't given until February 7, 1984, three and half months later.

Should Barack Obama pull US troops out of Iraq.
Mike attempts to draw a parallel between the circumstances of Lebanon 1983 and Iraq 2009, a comparison that is murky at best. The Marines had been stationed in Beirut as part of an international peace keeping force, something liberals love, and to free the Lebanese Army to do battle with the PLO. Our involvement in Iraq was to dispose the despotic murderous tyrant Saddam Hussein. A military presence in Iraq must be maintained until such time as the Iraqi government and military can take over the daily security concerns for the fledgling democracy. For the United States to pull out before said time could possibly result in a massive civil war, or lead to an invasion by a more powerful neighbor, further destabilizing the region. The Marine presence in Lebanon was merely defensive in nature and their presence ultimately was inconsequential to the security of the government as a whole. The force of 800 marines were part of a larger Multi-National Force assigned to cover the evacuation of Syrian troops and PLO fighters from Beirut.
Different mission, different stakes.

Why didn't the Young Cons enlist and serve in the Military? What was more important to them than serving the country?
The beautiful thing about the United States Military is that it is an all volunteer force, and no one can be compelled to serve. Each person has their own reasons for why they choose to, or not to enlist and serve in the military. However, an individual's viewpoint on political matters cannot and should not be discounted because of their involvement or lack thereof in the military. Where the hell would Barack Obama be as POTUS if his views were discounted as a result of him choosing not to serve in the military? As a Marine, Mike has the right to ask these two why they did not serve, but again their choice to serve, or not to serve should have no bearing on the validity of their political philosophy.

Overall, I think it was bullshit for Mike to grab these guys coming out of a speech by Newt Gingrich and put them on the spot regarding some political history, most of which occurred before these guys entered grade school. His justification for putting them on the spot is worthless... Using his reasoning, these guys should be Obama experts, and ready to give a defense of the $1.3 trillion stimulus package and his attendance at Reverend Wright's church for 20 years.

As an aside, the Young Cons can't be any more than 26 years old, which would place them being born in 1983. Do you have a real good grasp on the President or policies that were in place the year that you were born, or the first 6 years of your life? Can you be a vocal proponent of a political philosophy, or a fan of an individual without knowing all the details on their life? I certainly hope so, otherwise there is no explanation for all the Bill Clinton fans running around the world...

64 Years Ago; US Drops Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima

I've already seen sites around the web chastising the US for it's use of nuclear weapons against the Empire of Japan, calling the acts cowardly and unconscionable. I've also seen some sites that are mourning the loss of Japanese life. What I haven't seen nearly enough of is praise of the military commanders and the Commander in Chief for choosing to use a weapon that would save American lives. People are quick to point out the 70,000-80,000 lives that were lost as a result of the initial blast, and the 70,000 more that would die as a result of the exposure, however, few cite the estimated 1,000,000 casualties that the US anticipated suffering as a result of an invasion on the Japanese homeland.
Bombing population centers was standard operating procedure during WWII, practiced by the Germans, British, United States and yes, even the Japanese. It is an unfortunate side effect of war that civilians are killed and it stands a testament to the US military and weapons developers that civilian casualties have been minimized to the effect that they are now.
Military commanders and the President of the United States were faced with the very real prospect of having to invade the Japanese homeland. When casualty and death estimates were worked up by top commanders and the Department of War, numbers for US soldiers ranged from 125,000 to 4,000,000. These deaths in addition to the already suffered 400,000+ troop deaths from the beginning of the war.
The answer to this situation presented itself in the form of two atomic bombs, results of the top secret Manhattan Project. Targeted for destruction were Hiroshima and Nagasaki. From teh Wikipedia:

Hiroshima was described as "an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area. It is a good radar target and it is such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged. There are adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focussing effect which would considerably increase the blast damage. Due to rivers it is not a good incendiary target."

Hiroshima had escaped earlier bombing raids by allied forces so it was seen as a blank canvas upon which to review the effectiveness of the experimental weapon. Moreover, the goal was to gain the greatest psychological effect against Japan and create a very real example for the Japanese nation and the rest of the world of the immense power of the new weapon that the United States possessed.
The order was given, and on August 6, 1945 'Little Boy' was dropped from the B-29 Enola Gay at an altitude of 32,330'. The bomb took 57 seconds to fall to the predetermined height of 2,000' where it self-detonated resulting in the worlds first nuclear attack against a hostile nation.
Unfortunately, the Japanese command did not surrender at once, and a second bomb was ultimately dropped on Nagasaki, an arms manufacturing and port city to the southwest of Hiroshima.
Somewhere between 125,000 and 4,000,000 American lives were saved on that day, and by that decision. I regret that the Japanese allowed the war to get to the point that we had to drop these bombs on their homeland, but I do not regret the lives saved as a result of their use.
God Bless the United States, and God Bless the men who had to make that fateful decision.

This Can't Be Good...

When will the Arabs learn not to provoke the Joos?

Veteran Flys Flag Until Son Returns Safely

A Fresno man is refusing to take down a tattered flag until his son returns home from his tour of duty in Iraq. Louis Haros, a Vietnam Veteran, says that he made a promise to his son to fly the flag until the he returned safely.

"I made a promise to him that it won't come down until he's home," Haros told FOXNews.com on Tuesday. "Well, it's still there. I feel if I bring it down and something happens to him … I don't know."

This has become an issue in the neighborhood in which Haros resides. He is receiving a lot of pressure to bring the flag down, and replace it with a new flag.

Recently, there was a discussion over at Paul's place regarding flag etiquette. I'm torn on this issue. I can understand respecting the flag and the symbolism involved, but this isn't about disrespect. This is about honor and love for country and love for family.

What say you?

US Military; Now With Less Beef!

A visual representation of US Military strength.  Seen here is the Military under Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43 and Obama.  Can you guess which one is which?

The Terrorist Times has a story about the rusky's parking two subs off the east coast of the United States. Iran could have nuclear weapon in as little as one year. NOKO is firing off ICBMs like its New Years on the Thames. And guess what PeeBo is doing? Cutting Military spending. I totally get that logic, can't you? Don't worry, when NOKO starts blowing up west coast cities and pummeling Hawai'i (Obama's birth state, dontcha know) back into the stone age, well PeeBo's just gonna sit down and have a nice little chat with Kim Jong to talk him down.

There, don't you feel better?

Tragedy: Preventable Troop Deaths

This one is hard to comprehend, but hopefully with the issuing of this report from the DODIG (Department of Defense, Inspector General), guidelines will be followed, responsible parties will be punished and future lives will be saved.

Apparently there have been multiple troop deaths in the War on Terror as a result of faulty work on the part of contractors and the military's failure to inspect. So what is the correct response to this? Do we arrest Bush and Cheney because obviously they hand picked KBR and directed them to produce faulty work? Do we criminalize all contractors who have ever worked with/for the military, cause we know Haliburton was a contractor and everyone knows how evil they are, right? Do we pull the troops out and bring them home now, because we do not want to waste anymore life at the hands of faulty electrical work in a misguided war?

No. We hold the individuals responsible, period. The commanding officer within the Army who was responsible to ensure that the inspections were carried out should be reprimanded and made to personally apologize to the families of those injured and killed as a result of the negligence on his/her watch. The individual soldiers in the field who were responsible to physically inspect the work should be reprimanded and possibly charged with negligent manslaughter as a result of failing to carry out their mission(s). KBR should be fined, and the monies recovered should go to the families of those soldiers who were killed and injured as a result of the faulty work. Finally, the officer(s) responsible for authorizing the message that was given to the families as the reason for the death of their loved ones, should be court martial-ed. Lying to the family of service members about the manner in which their loved ones died should never be acceptable outside matters of the utmost national security.