Search This Blog

Wednesday, May 31, 2006

Change of Pace: Women and War Against Terror

I am not going to do the last Darwin piece right now. I believe I have made the central point, that Darwin decided idealogically what he wanted to conclude first before making the attempt to piece together evidence to prove it. I would maintain that Darwin-leaning scientists have been doing so ever since.

So a one day break from science. First, Amy says, look at the numbers!

"I took a trip to our local military museum here on post a few days ago. I came across a newspaper article dated August 15, 1945. During World War II on July 30, 1945, the USS Indianapolis was torpedoed by a Japanese submarine and sunk in the Philippine Sea. 300 men went down with the ship and almost 580 drowned or were eaten by sharks in the shark infested waters. After 4 days, only 316 men survived. It is known as the worst Naval disaster in US history.

Obviously initial reports that reported a 100% casualty rate in this disaster were wrong, but we now know that out of a total of 1,196 men, 880 were killed. The USS Indianapolis suffered almost a 75% loss of life.

This was in one incident. One day of war. Compare that one disaster with Operation Iraqi Freedom:

2,458 over 3 years

The total US military deaths in Operation Iraqi Freedom (March 19, 2003-May 26, 2006) is now at 2,458.

These are other wars involving the United States:


Revolutionary War (1775-1783): 25,324
Civil War, North (1861-1865): 363,020
Civil War, South (1861-1865): 199,110
Spanish American War (1898 ): 2,893
World War I (1917-1918 ) : 116,708
World War II (1941-1945): 408,306
Korean War (1950-1953): 54,246
Vietnam War (1957-1975): 58,219
Gulf War (1990-1991): 363


Pearl Harbor, Hawaii (Dec. 7, 1941): 2,388 (1 Day)
D-Day (June 6, 1944): 2,000-2500 (1 Day)
Battle of the Bulge (12/1944-1/45) 81,000 (5 & 1/2 weeks)
Iwo Jima (Feb.19,1945-March 25 ‘45): 6,503 (36 Days)
World Trade Center (Feb. 26, 1993): 6 (1 Day)
Oklahoma City Bombing (1995): 168 (1 Day)
USS Cole, Yemen (2000): 17 (1 Day)
September 11 (2001): (approx.) 3,000 (1 Day)

-American War Library.
-Department of Veterans Affairs

Reality makes the mantra “2245 Dead—How Many More?” look pretty ignorant and uninformed."

There are some brilliant women out there! Pam, for instance, first takes us to 1948.

"Not that it's about truth, history or right and wrong. It's about Jew hatred plain and simple. Even so, know the truth.

Who Caused the Arab Refugee Problem? Refugee: Arab Leaders Told Us to Flee in 1948 - Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook

In another corroboration by an Arab refugee that it was Arab leaders who were responsible for the flight of Arabs from the new State of Israel in 1948, an elderly woman, Asmaa Jabir Balasimah Um Hasan, told the PA newspaper Al-Ayyam on May 16, 2006, that it was Arab leaders and not Israel who told her and her neighbors to flee, for tactical military reasons. "They told us: 'The Jews attacked our region and it is better to evacuate the village and return after the battle is over.'"

This confirms earlier statements that have appeared in the PA press. On April 30, 1999, an Arab viewer called PA TV and quoted his father and grandfather, complaining that in 1948 the Arab District Officer ordered all Arabs to leave Palestine or be labeled traitors. On March 19, 2001, columnist Fuad Abu Higla wrote in the official PA daily Al Hayat Al Jadida of Arab leaders "in the year of 1948, who forced us to leave, on the pretext of clearing the battlefields of civilians." It is well-known among Palestinians that Arab leaders bear responsibility for the mass flight of Arabs from Israel in 1948, and were the cause of the "refugee" problem. (Palestinian Media Watch)"

Pam then sheds light on the terrorist states that are Syria & Iran:

"Verbal fisticuffs as the forces of good and evil went at it at the United Nations yesterday. The groundwork is being laid for the coming bloodshed. If the papers and networks ignore it, it won't make it go away. This is war;

New York Sun (Paid Only):A verbal brawl erupted at the Security Council yesterday as it debated the subject of terrorism. During the skirmish, Syria accused Israel of starting World Wars I and II, as well as “contemplating” a third world war.

The anti-Semitic outburst by the Syrian representative, Ahmad Alhariri, as well as allegations by his Iranian colleague, Ahmad Sadeghi, countered comments from Israel’s U.N. ambassador, Dan Gillerman, who said both Syria and Iran are part of an “axis of terror” that would pit them against a group of anti-terrorism “allies” in a “World War III.”

Secretary-General Annan released a statement on the exchange after Lebanon requested a cease-fire. Diplomats considered the statement even-handed, but it failed to mention a Security Council resolution that called on all Lebanese militias, including the most well-organized, Hezbollah, to be disarmed by the Lebanese government.

Spineless Annan

“Iran uses Hezbollah to fight its war by proxy,” Mr. Gillerman told the council yesterday, speaking during a speech at a periodic session evaluating international counterterrorism efforts. “We hold not only the government of Lebanon fully responsible for all terrorist activity initiated from its territory,but also hold responsible the governments of Iran and Syria for harboring and supporting Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations.”

truth teller

The “axis of terror is alive and active,” Mr. Gillerman said. “Leaders of Hamas meet regularly with, and have been offered financial assistance by, the president of Iran. The very same president who calls for the annihilation of another member state denies the Holocaust and is attempting to develop the nuclear capabilities to perpetrate the next one.”

The world “is no longer divided between rich and poor and north and south,” Mr. Gillerman added. “It is divided between those who join in this fight and those who do not.”

Mr. Gillerman [...] said, the council was able to “hear lectures about terrorism from two of the greatest experts on that subject.”

UPDATE: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad discussing the Holocaust with Der Spiegel, a German news magazine.;

"One group of scholars or persons, most of them politically motivated, say the Holocaust occurred. Then there is the group of scholars who represent the opposite position and have therefore been imprisoned for the most part. Hence, an impartial group has to come together to investigate and to render an opinion on this very important subject, because the clarification of this issue will contribute to the solution of global problems. Under the pretext of the Holocaust, a very strong polarization has taken place in the world and fronts have been formed. It would therefore be very good if an international and impartial group looked into the matter in order to clarify it once and for all. Normally, governments promote and support the work of researchers on historical events and do not put them in prison"

There's more on the whole vile interview here.

The Jerusalem Post has an excellent piece on the UN dogfight (actually, make that man-fights-dogfight) here."

One more Atlas Shrugs piece: Iran Rapes and Tortures Dissident Women

"Do you think the jihadi organ, The New York Times, had rape and torture in mind in their Sunday puff piece where they repeatedly trumpeted Ahmadinejad as “a proponent of women’s rights,” and claimed Ahmadinejad “challenged high-ranking clerics on the treatment of women,”or that he has “defended women in a way that put him outside the mainstream of conservative Islamic discourse.” Of course, the “mainstream of conservative Islamic discourse” takes a rather dim view of “women’s rights.”

The jihadi New York Times painted Ahmadinejad as an “ideologically flexible” leader who seeks a “dialogue.” and also described Ahmadinejad’s “consistent theme” as “the concept of seeking justice.” More here

Iran Rapes and Tortures Dissident Women From the Telegraph:

A leading Iranian pro-democracy and women's activist, who was jailed on trumped-up charges last year, has revealed how the clerical regime cynically deploys systemic sexual violence against female dissidents in the name of Islam.

Roya Tolouee, 40, was beaten up by Iranian intelligence agents and subjected to a horrific sexual assault when she refused to sign forced confessions. It was only when they threatened to burn her two children to death in front of her that she agreed to put her name to the documents.

Perhaps just as shocking as the physical abuse were the chilling words of the man who led the attack. "When I asked how he could do this to me, he said that he believed in only two things - Islam and the rule of the clerics," Miss Tolouee told The Sunday Telegraph last week in an interview in Washington after she fled Iran.

"But I know of no religious morality that can justify what they did to me, or other women. For these people, religion is only a tool for dictatorship and abuse. It is a regime of prejudice against women, against other regimes, against other ethnic groups, against anybody who thinks differently from them."

Miss Tolouee's account of her ordeal confirms recent reports from opposition groups that Iranian intelligence officials use sexual abuse against female prisoners as an interrogation technique and even rape young women before execution so that they cannot reach heaven as virgins.

Few women from the Islamic world are willing to discuss such matters, even with each other, but Miss Tolouee said that the regime routinely committed sexual attacks against female detainees....

"Four armed men and three armed women barged into my house at night and took me away," she said. "My kids were terrified and crying. I was questioned all night by different interrogators and then thrown alone into a cell."

She was held in solitary confinement in the prison of the feared internal intelligence service, with only a blanket and a cup that often had to serve as a lavatory.

For the first six nights, she was taken to a basement where interrogators demanded that she admit to organising the protests, and also that she identify co-conspirators on a list of names they put to her.

"When I wouldn't do what they wanted, they slapped me. But after the sixth night, the routine changed. I was left alone in a small dark room with two men. One was the assistant prosecutor and called himself Amiri. The other had a filthy mouth and said terrible things. They started slapping me again. For the rest of the night they did to me what no woman should ever experience. Amiri said, 'I'm going to hang you, but before I hang you, I will make an example of you so that no woman will dare to open her mouth here again'." He then sexually assaulted her.

When she asked Amiri how he could act like that, he told her that only Islam and clerical rule were important to him. The attack left her badly bruised and bleeding internally, but she refused to sign the papers they put before her. To her assailants' fury, she demanded to see a lawyer and cited international treaties on human rights.

The following night they did not sexually molest her again as she was still bleeding - and hence "unclean". Instead, they told her that they would kill her children by setting them on fire before her eyes.

Meanwhile, the world may be saved from a nuclear holocaust by a popular uprising now occuring across Iran and essentially unreported in the mainstream news media. More over at The IRIS blog

These women, these heros, take their life in their own hands when they dissent by speaking out, by marching, by talking to other women but they do it anyway. During a conversation I had with Phyllis Chesler, she told me of the phone calls she had gotten back in March from women in the international community and from Iran asking what Phyllis thought should they go to the annual march -- Women of Iran for the commemoration of International Women's Day in Tehran to fight for our freedom from under the rule of the misogynist Mullahs Date: March 8th, 2006 Time: 16:30 p.m. Place: Laleh Park, Tehran -- Phyllis said NO, they shouldn't go. And while Chesler is a huge proponent of freeing women of the brutality of Islamic life, she advised them not to go because she feared for their lives. And Phyllis is a warrior in the a war on Islam - she is in the pantheon of truth tellers, along with Bat Ye'or, Nidra Poller, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Melanie Phillips, Brigitte Gabriel ......

Despite the danger, despite the threats, the women in Iran went. . They went and got beaten, stomped, harassed. "We have reached a level where women on the streets are being killed," Amiri said. That story here."

Angel reveals that Islamofascism is alive and well in Pakistan, too! Once again, women bear the brunt.

"Pakistani Torture of Women

“KARACHI, Pakistan - Ayesha Baloch was dragged to a field, her brother-in-law held the 18-year-old down, her husband sat astride her legs and slit her upper lip and nostril with a knife.

They call such assaults on women a matter of “honor” in some Pakistani communities, but for the majority it is a source of national shame.

Married less than two months ago in Pakistan’s central district of Dera Ghazi Khan, Baloch was accused of having sexual relations with another man before marriage.

“First they tortured me and beat me. I started screaming. Akbar then caught my hands and pulled me to the ground. Essa sat on my legs and cut my nose and lips,” Baloch mumbled through her bandages at hospital in the city of Multan.

“I was bleeding and started screaming after they fled on a motorcycle. People heard me and rescued me and took me to my mother’s home.”

At least she wasn’t killed.

More than 1,000 women are slain by their husbands or relatives, and that is just the reported, not actual, number of “honor killings” in Pakistan each year.
Pakistanis try confronting shame of honor killing continues…
Many killings are planned rather than done in rage, and the motive often has more to do with money or settling scores..

Honor killings are known as “karo-kari” killings.

A woman is deemed a “black woman,” a “kari,” once she is accused of having sex outside of marriage and is liable to be killed..
The custom is rooted in tribalism, although a strict interpretation of Is-lam’s hudood penal code also rules that adulterers should be stoned to death.

Wer’e talking about Family killing their girls and women.
Did you get that?
Fathers, brothers, son-in-laws, uncles, cousins, brother-in-laws…torturing , mutilating and killing their female daughters, wives, daughters, sister- in laws and sisters.

Kicking, cutting flesh, biting, choking, strangling, hitting, pushing,and assaults with weapons are behaviors most often associated with hard core criminals, not with ones father or brother.

Torture is used to hurt, degrade, dominate, humiliate and gain power over the victim. Are all women thus viewed by their own flesh and blood as potential victims?

The causes and roots of this familial violence are embedded in attitudes toward women which have existed for thousands of years.
In Muzlim societies, women are treated as the property of their husbands and he is seen, according to some, as having the right to use physical force in relating to her, if necessary.

I guess in the case of 18 year old Ayesha Baloch ..the male sadists “deemed it necessary.”

Does the “PC Machine” acknowledge this horror publicly or is that part of Izlam just another form of cultural “expression”?
The torture and murder of women has, for far too long, gone unnoticed, been tolerated, or been given attention sporadically if at all.

Why haven’t we put an end to this barbarism?
Is it due to:
a lack of understanding?
a lack of recognition?
Denial of the severity of the problem with many still believing it is a private religious matter within the Muzlim faith instead of a violent, criminal issue and, therefore, best left alone?

To those whom this does not matter…….
I have four words.
What About the Victim?"

Thank you ladies, I couldn't have said it better myself! Those who wish to withdraw from the region of Islamofascists are short-sighted in the least. This kind of behavior is "coming to a country near you" unless you get behind those of us who understand the danger and support the efforts to 1) Help Afghanistan get settled, 2) Allow Iraq time to get their act together, 3) Support Israel against the sea of surrounding enemies and, 4)Come against outlaw nations like Iran and Syria at every turn. The John Murthas are willing to be safe at home now and let the wolf come right to the door twenty years from now. Why should he care, he'll be dead? But I care and if you have any sense and/or any children, you should too!


Anonymous said...

Do you imagine that liberals are happy about this sort of fundamentalist war against women? I'd like to say that it's an issue we can all come together on, but you know what? As I perceive it (and I may, one hopes, be mistaken), most of the time, the only people really making a fuss are on my side.

Take Afghanistan, post 9/11 and pre-invasion. Much of the country, including the First Lady, seemed to be finding out for the first time about the Taliban and their disgusting little ways. Mucho media coverage, lots of upset (and rightly so).

Meanwhile, humanitarian and feminist groups had been yelling about what the Taliban was doing for years, pretty much since they first took over ( It had been covered in the pages of major lefty magazines such as The Nation. Did folks on the right say anything, did the media bother to raise an eyebrow, before it became useful to rally support for war? I'm serious - does anybody remember such things? I know that shortly before 9/11 there was a little fuss in the news about how the Taliban was blowing up Buddhas - apparently statues are more important than flesh and blood women - but otherwise, I've got nothing, Maybe I wasn't paying close enough attention?

Same with the things you're talking about here.

And you know what? I suspect that if Iran became an ally of the US in the war on whatever, suddenly many on the right would go all quiet. Everybody here old enough, remember when South Africa was Our Friend in the fight against Communism (up through the mid-late 80s), and all that whiny liberal hysteria about apartheid was just silly?

Athough perhaps I'm wrong; it's possible that the character of the right has changed, due to the influence of the neoconservatives and their allies, or perhaps other social currents . . .

"Reality makes the mantra “2245 Dead—How Many More?” look pretty ignorant and uninformed."

Which of those totals do you want us to beat?

And - Tell that to the people who lose loved ones in a apparently random war of choice. Yes, they fooled you into thinking that Iraq is part of a grand struggle against 'islamofacism,' whatever that is (conflating islamic fundamentalism, Islamic theocracies, and Islamic terrorism and Middle Eastern politics - hey, they all have to do with Islam!). This is just zombiespeak. Cold War's over, but the mouths keeping moving - they just manage to replace Communism with islamofascism.

Although I'll grant you, we do have a problem with Iraq threatening to slide into fundamentalist theocracy-land - in large part because of the utter mule-headed fingers-in-ears incompetence of our leaders (not the guys on the ground, who with very few exceptions seem to be doing the very best they can in a bad situation). You know the Midas touch story, where everything King Midas touched turned to gold? This adminstration has the reverse, the Sadim touch. Everything it touches turns to crap.

And read up on the Phillippine-American War (aka the Phillipine Insurrection).

Although in some ways our conduct compares quite favorably, so far. If this is still going on in 2015, well . . .

"Why haven’t we put an end to this barbarism?"

I have a word, it's three letters, starts with O, ends with L . . .

But that's only part of the problem. Frankly, "invading their countries, killing their leaders, and converting them to Christianity" as the lovely Ms. Coulter suggested, really doesn't work so well as a means of social change. Afghanistan, we have/had a chance, since the Taliban were more filling a power vacuum - thanks to our short attention span - and imposing practices that were to a good extent imported (who's funding those madrassas, again? Well, basically, we are!) - although since this administration is more an ADDminstration, we may be blowing that as well . . .

(Speaking of which, what is wrong with Bush? I mean,heck, I'm not Mr. Eloquent when it comes to spoken English, not by a long shot, but everytime I hear him on the radio or tv, he sounds . . . well, like something's wrong with his brain, basically. I'm not trying for a partisan cheap shot here, honestly - it's really odd.

Was listening to an interview with Al Gore on the radio yesterday - y'know, the man the majority of Americans voted for in 2000 - and it was so odd - complete sentences, clearly expressed and even complex ideas!
(Whether he would have been the best president, it's hard to tell - it's possible that he wouldn't have been that great character-wise (not moral character, but more personality-ish stuff). Hard, though, to imagine him being any worse than the guy who was declared President that year thanks in part to numerous elderly Miami Jews who voted for the anti-semite Buchanan, and the Supreme Court . . .

"Denial of the severity of the problem with many still believing it is a private religious matter within the Muzlim faith instead of a violent, criminal issue and, therefore, best left alone?"

Talk to any feminist. Find me one who thinks this and . . . well, you probably can find anything on the internet, but what you'll be doing is finding a wildy unrepresentative moron.

" Those who wish to withdraw from the region of Islamofascists are short-sighted in the least."

As I've mentioned, I don't actually advocate immediate withdrawal, since it sounds like a plausible result would be Iraq exploding into full-fledged civil war. I don't actually advocate staying, since that means more dead Americans and inflames the whole region, making more terrorists. I have absolutely no idea what we should do, with one exception: I advocate national recognition that the clueless wonders who got us into this mess shouldn't be trusted with caring for a tank of goldfish - let alone international relations. Then we might have a chance to work some less-bad outcome out.

"John Murtha"
Speaking of whom, from what I've been hearing on the news - if I understand correctly, that the military is now expanding its investigation of the Haditha incident to include a possible attempted cover-up - there may be support for the idea that was suggested in parts of the lefty blogosphere (was it Atrios?): that Murtha was speaking up on behalf of contacts in the military who felt an adequate investigation was being blocked . . .

"and let the wolf come right to the door twenty years from now."

How do you see this happening?

-Dan S.

Amy Proctor said...

I don't want to you BEAT any of those totals. I want you to apprecaite the low fatality rate in Operation Iraqi Freedom compared to other combat missions which liberals don't whine nearly as much about.

For your info, my husband fought in OIF and will be returning in the not too distant future. We both TOTALLY support the effort. Not only that, we have Iraqi friends living there who are grateful for our intervention and are more reasonable about the course of war than most liberals.

When the Iraqi Consitution was being drafted, I got a phone call from a priest friend of ours in Baghdad and he was anxious but very encouraged by the progress. He is VERY glad we went to Iraq. You don't have to share the same view. Frankly, I don't care. I care more about Iraqis than American dissenting opinion. and don't give me the "Iraqi casualty" stuff. Less people die per day now than daily under Saddam. It may be hard, but they ARE better off. Of course, I'm only getting my information from troops on the ground and Iraqi citizens...

highboy said...

"Did folks on the right say anything,"

Well I did, if that means anything to you.

"did the media bother to raise an eyebrow,"

Well then if I were you I'd be asking what YOU call mainstream media, CBS, CNN, PBS, why they didn't. Those are your liberal friends.

" I suspect that if Iran became an ally of the US in the war on whatever, suddenly many on the right would go all quiet"

And you would be wrong. First, Iran would not become an ally on the war on terror without first being purged of its own terrorist government. Second, Iran was our allies at one time, right before the flaming lib Carter gave the Shah the finger and said "We don't care if murderers take over your government." And you know what? Right before that Iran's Air Force was equal to ours, and their infantry unmatched. They could have been powerful allies.

"nd - Tell that to the people who lose loved ones in a apparently random war of choice."

That tactic is getting old Dan. Soldiers die. That doesn't make the war less important. I didn't hear any liberals screaming "Bring our troops home" when I was getting my ass shot at in Bosnia.

"they just manage to replace Communism with islamofascism."

And they were right on both accounts. Soviet Russian posed a huge threat to the U.S. and the globe, and it was Islamfascists that flew air planes into our sky scrapers, and it is Islamofundies like Saddam who were manufacturing sarin and mustard gas chemical weapons:

"Kimmitt said the shell belonged to a class of ordnance that Saddam's government said was destroyed before the 1991 Gulf war (search). Experts believe both the sarin and mustard gas weapons date back to that time.

"It was a weapon that we believe was stocked from the ex-regime time and it had been thought to be an ordinary artillery shell set up to explode like an ordinary IED and basically from the detection of that and when it exploded, it indicated that it actually had some sarin in it," Kimmitt said."

""Everybody knew Saddam had chemical weapons, the question was, where did they go. Unfortunately, everybody jumped on the offramp and said 'well, because we didn't find them, he didn't have them,'" said Fox News military analyst Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney.

"I doubt if it's the tip of the iceberg but it does confirm what we've known ... that he [Saddam] had weapons of mass destruction that he used on his own people," Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, told Fox News. "This does show that the fear we had is very real. Now whether there is much more of this we don't know, Iraq is the size of the state of California."

But there were more reasons than weapons to get rid of Saddam, he added. "We considered Saddam Hussein a threat not just because of weapons of mass destruction," Grassley said."

"Gazi George, a former Iraqi nuclear scientist under Saddam's regime, told Fox News he believes many similar weapons stockpiled by the former regime were either buried underground or transported to Syria. He noted that the airport where the device was detonated is on the way to Baghdad from the Syrian border.

George said the finding likely will be the first in a series of discoveries of such weapons.

"Saddam is the type who will not store those materials in a military warehouse. He's gonna store them either underground, or, as I said, lots of them have gone west to Syria and are being brought back with the insurgencies," George told Fox News. "It is difficult to look in areas that are not obvious to the military's eyes.

"I'm sure they're going to find more once time passes," he continued, saying one year is not enough for the survey group or the military to find the weapons.

Saddam, when he was in power, had declared that he did in fact possess mustard-gas filled artilleries but none that included sarin.

"I think what we found today, the sarin in some ways, although it's a nerve gas, it's a lucky situation sarin detonated in the way it did ... it's not as dangerous as the cocktails Saddam used to make, mixing blister" agents with other gases and substances, George said."

But hey, that's Fox News. I'm sure they made it all up.

"I have a word, it's three letters, starts with O, ends with L . . ."

Got the tin foil hat on extra tight again I see. In what way is over oil, and what evidence to you have to prove this? Or are you just guessing?

"But that's only part of the problem. Frankly, "invading their countries, killing their leaders, and converting them to Christianity" as the lovely Ms. Coulter suggested, really doesn't work so well as a means of social change"

I fail to see how you are able to know that. Its never been tried.

"Speaking of which, what is wrong with Bush?"

Yeah, he has the speech capacity of a soap dish.

"y'know, the man the majority of Americans voted for in 2000"

Its not hard to see why, especially with all the Democrat manuvering by counting illegal votes for Gore in Florida, and throwing away miltary votes for Bush nationally. Its a wonder he didn't win the whole election. Not sure why you think its significant anyways, Bush won the popular vote in 2004, and so will the next Republican in '08, despite current Dem pipe dreams.

"Hard, though, to imagine him being any worse than the guy who was declared President that year"

Not really hard to imagine. He had 8 years of experience under Slick Willy to learn how to be worse.

"that Murtha was speaking up on behalf of contacts in the military who felt an adequate investigation was being blocked . . ."

You need to fit the word alleged into your vocabulary. Murtha is saying a lot, but that does not mean its true. There is a lot of evidence yet to come out in favor of the Marines, but hey, Murtha doesn't want to give our troops and benefit of the doubt, and would rather condemn them guilty before they are tried. Why? Politics of course.

"For your info, my husband fought in OIF and will be returning in the not too distant future. We both TOTALLY support the effort. Not only that, we have Iraqi friends living there who are grateful for our intervention and are more reasonable about the course of war than most liberals"

Stop right there Amy. Our troops assessment and opinion of what goes on in Iraq doesn't count with liberals, and never did. Unless its a former vet who smears Bush to get re-elected. The Iraqi citizens are stupid and don't know any better. Both groups are brainwashed by all the right-wingers in the middle east. Oh, wait...