THE CLOCK IS TICKING ON IRAQ

I've been a consistent supporter of staying in Iraq as long as we possibly can. It isn't that I've been that sure we can win, it's that I want to be sure we gave the innocent people in Iraq every opportunity to have a stable country. Unlike my Democrat counterparts (I consider myself an Independent.) I'm not ready yet to say that all is lost. But I will say it's starting to look pointless to continue fighting for people who won't, or can't, decide who's side they're on. I decided months ago to give General David Petraeus, the senior officer in Iraq, the time he asked for to implement his plan (The Surge) and see if it's working. September 15 is when he said he would know and I'm going to wait till then to decide what to do next. However, the clock is now ticking on my patience and it saddens me.

For over a year now I've been reading a blog called "Iraq the Model" written by two Iraqi men, Mohammed and Omar. Through out that year I've learned a lot about both of them; their love for cigars and patio barbecuing. And most importantly, their never-ending optimism that they will one day see a free and stable Iraq. Every time the conversation turned to the war, I couldn't help but feel their presence. Often I would wonder how they felt about some of the attacks near their home of Baghdad, or how they viewed the Americans after a blunder. Then, In tag-team style, they would explain in their blog their emotions, their fears, and their hopes. One day I noticed a strange thing would happen as I waited for their next posting. I would find myself being worried that something may have happened to them. Why weren't they posting? It's been days, what going on? Then a post would appear and I would breathe a sigh of relief. I am quite sure that because of them, I have a better understanding of what it's like to be an innocent person in Iraq watching the world outside trying to drag you in. And I guess I've come to view them as friends, even though they haven't a clue who I am.

I've tried to get some of my more Liberal friends to read their blog, or even one of the dozens that they link to. Yet as of now, I don't think one of them ever has. I've tried to rationalize why they wouldn't want to know what it's like from an Iraqi's prospective as opposed to some pre-chewed story. The closest I can get to an explanation is that it would be harder to walk away from someone, if you felt you knew them.

Which leads me to why it saddens me to have to say my patience is running out. I feel like I should have to say to both of them," I'm sorry Mohammed and Omar, but I'm running out of arguments when I'm so in the minority. I know that you fear that everything will erupt into violence far exceeding what you've seen so far if we leave. I know you fear for your family, yourself, and for Iraq, but we can't fight forever." To turn and walk away when you know it could hurt a friend seems so heartless, so self-absorbed, and frankly, that's just not me. The Iraqi people themselves did nothing to deserve the mess we've brought upon them, and to even think this isn't our fault is like denying slavery was our fault. My only hope is that somehow General Petraeus will save the day and his plan will work. Hopefully, the innocent Iraqi people will say enough is enough and join in his attempt. But with the war becoming increasingly unpopular, with elections coming in '08, with Democrats and now even some Republicans calling for withdraw, it's looking like the clock is ticking for Iraq. And also for my innocent friends, Mohammed and Omar. H.C.

P.S. I'm also posting a poem on my Myspace with sympathy to all the people in Iraq.

IRAQ, IRAQ, AND MORE IRAQ

In my never-ending quest to bring you the truth, or at least make you question what is true, I've decided to run a few Iraq "facts" to see how well they hold up. I guess I should caution you all here, if you take everything that you read or hear from the mainstream media as fact, you may want to skip this one.

Iraq is in chaos, Iraq is in civil war, Iraq would be better off if we left, the "surge" is certain to fail, every General is now against the war, blah, blah, blah. It seems the mainstream media cannot find any good anywhere in Iraq worth reporting. If I have to listen to one more NPR report on how everything in Iraq either has failed or will fail I'm throwing my car radio into the street. Don't get me wrong, Iraq has been a monumental disaster. Every single thing that the Bush Administration has predicted about this war from the WMD's to the number of deaths to the duration, has been wrong. It would be hard to describe this war as anything but the worst foreign excursion since Vietnam. In many ways it may be the worst ever. But having said that, the fact that Bush has been wrong doesn't give you people who lean left the gift of foresight or the right to say anything you want without being questioned too. So without further ado, here's some of the problems I've found in the mainstream reporting.

CIVILIAN CASUALTIES

In mid October of last year the left started propagating a survey of the civilian deaths in Iraq by the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Policy. The numbers they were claiming, over 600,000 civilian deaths, were the highest numbers put out there by far. In fact, they were 5 to 6 times higher than anyone else estimated. Yet, NPR's Diane Rhem, the Washington Post and BBC News saw fit to treat them as fact, entertaining these numbers as if they could have any credence. Oddly enough, slightly over one month later, these same sources were propagating another story, the highest single month civilian deaths as estimated by the U.N.; 3,709. Now I'm no math whiz, as I've said before, but as of Nov. 2006, we had been in Iraq for approx. 42 months, and 42 times 3,709 comes to 155,778. My point here is; how can it be the highest monthly civilian death count when multiplying it by the total months gives you one quarter of what you were buying into as the total just a month before? The answer is; they're just trying to get you outraged, not informed. A closer estimate that doesn't include every Iraqi that died of the flu can be found at Iraq Body Count.

IRAQ IS IN A CIVIL WAR

Another thing that's being reported unfairly is whether or not Iraq is in a civil war. Now, I concede, there has been a lot of sectarian violence in the Sunni Triangle. In fact, nearly all the deaths in the past year have been in the region from Bagdad to Tikrit to Ramadi. The problem I have with the way that's being portrayed is; the Sunni Triangle only constitutes appox. 7812 square miles out of the 168,743 square miles of the country of Iraq, less than 5%. But to hear it reported you would think the whole country is in civil war. That's like saying that Michigan erupted into rioting during the 1967 riots. There wasn't a single riot in all of the Upper Peninsula or above Midland in the Lower Peninsula. It's simply not an accurate way of reporting. Iraq is in a civil war in some regions, but the vast part of Iraq is not.

ALL THE RETIRED GENERALS ARE AGAINST THE WAR

The trotting out of retired Generals (or for that matter soldiers) as a way of proving that the military is not behind the war is simply not accurate. Every American has every right to voice their opinion and that includes ex-military, but to make it seem that these Generals (or soldiers) are reflective of the whole is intellectually dishonest. According to Slate.com and military estimates, there are about 4,700 retired Generals. For CNN or NBC or even Fox News to interview these Generals and give the impression that they are one of a very few is simply not honest. The fact is, some Generals are against the war and view it as another Vietnam and others support our efforts there.

SOVEREIGNTY

This one really gets me ticked off. The media, in their never ending quest to badmouth every aspect of the war has found a way we can't possibly do it right. If we recognize the Iraq Government as sovereign and let them act as their culture tells them that they should (brutal Islamic law), we get badmouthed for creating a monster, even though the monster was far more cruel before we got there. If we intervene in their judicial process, then we are not respecting their culture and the Government of Iraq is just a puppet democracy. I would like for the left in this country to tell me once and for all, "Should we respect their sovereignty or not?" My answer? They are sovereign, let them end the problem their way.

A lot has happened since I last commented on the war, and most of it is bad. But is it as bad as it's being portrayed? NO. We can not retreat completely and in the very worse case scenario should only pull back away from the Sunni Triangle to contain it and isolate it from Iranian interference. I like an idea being floated by Steve Forbes to persuade the Iraqi government to share oil revenue in much the same way it is done in Alaska, but only in areas that are secured by the Iraqi Military. This will give incentive to both push out the troublemakers and to help hold the area to the residents. To give yourself a more objective view, I recommend checking out Iraqi blogs to get an inside look. I recommend Iraq the Model as a great source. I do agree with the right that we can not leave Iraq in a mess. I make the analogy that Bush is like a bad dog that ripped up the neighbor's garbage. They don't want to hear that it's your kid's dog or that you don't even like the dog yourself, it's our dog and we have a responsibility to clean up the mess. H.C.

WORLD WAR III?

Posted in Uncategorized on July 31st, 2006
In the 1982 miniseries movie, World War III, the Soviet Union has invaded Alaska to disrupt the Alaskan Oil Pipeline. After attempts at diplomacy, the film ends with both the president of the United States and the president of the Soviet Union on the phone in a last ditch effort to avert all out war. They both agree to withdraw their troops and stand down their nuclear weapons, but after hanging up, both turn to their aids and call for a “first strike.” For most of us who lived through the Cold War, this is how we envisioned World War III starting, an altercation with the Soviet Union escalating beyond control. The reality of how it may actually come down though, is way different than most of us anticipated. As much as I hate to tell all of you, the wheels may well be turning towards something very few of us ever foresaw.
Since the rise of the original two-headed terrorist, Yassar Arafat, terrorist organizations around the world have discovered that America and most of the world is conflicted about how they view a minority group fighting against a controlling majority. Following Arafat’s lead, they now understand that the leftist news media (not to mention their own) will defend and justify them hiding weapons in civilian populations, beheading hostages, declaring war on the U.S., Britain, and Israel, and even killing other Muslims all because they have less power. The trick, they’ve learned, is to portray themselves as innocent victims of Imperialism to the press, while preaching destruction of Israel and the West inside their Mosques. If quoted, they claim it was out of context, if it’s proven in writing, they claim it was forged. If cornered, they claim we conspire to vilify them unjustly. The American and European masses, so prone to conspiracy theories, swallow their lies whole. They claim discrimination, and so sensitive are we to the accusation, that we bend over backwards to prove we’re not. In our effort to be the better people, we allow the mass murderers into our homes and near our children.
What’s even worse than the lies is that they hide behind a religion. With a Koran in one hand and a suicide belt in the other, they manipulate the poor, uneducated masses to do their bidding in the name of Allah. They challenge the religious tolerance of other countries while showing none whatsoever in countries they control. While demanding Mosques be built in Britain, the U.S., France, and all over the world, they burn down churches in Somalia, Sudan, and Indonesia. They have no one to answer to in the places they control, and kill anyone who dares to question them.
Their plan is a simple one. Infiltrate every country in the world, blend in with the population, and then fight a guerilla war from within, through terrorism. In the countries that support them, they get their funding through charitable organizations, or under the table from the government who then denies having anything to do with them. In unfriendly countries, the money is funneled to them through bank accounts filled from overseas. Whatever their funding, where ever they are placed, they have one completely unified goal. The destruction of Israel and the removal of western influence from Islamic people. This goal will never change, no matter what they say, or who they pretend to be.
I give people this analogy to try to help them understand what they’re up against. Think of them as ultra-right wing Christians, the ones at the far, far, right. Beyond Pat Robertson, who think it’s justifiable to blow up abortion clinics, or kill homosexuals. Now picture that there’s millions of them, and they want their beliefs to prevail over the whole earth because they don’t think they should have to suffer even seeing homosexuality, adultery, nudity or their perception of immorality. Now picture they’re completely willing to die for it. Are you still sympathizing?
By now your probably thinking,”Not all Muslims want to kill us, H.C., or force their religion on the whole world.” Well, I agree. The estimates I’ve read put the percent of Muslims that subscribe to this form of Islam at about 10%, but considering that 1.3 billion people in the world follow Islamic teachings that means that 130 million people are willing to die to destroy Israel and western influence. Also, since the majority of the remaining people would jump on the side of any Muslims if the fight were against Israel or Zionists, you could put the rest in the supporting column.
For those of us that think of war as country vs. country, the concept of fighting with an enemy that swears no allegiance to one country and hides among the populace is a little hard to fathom. Maybe that’s the reason some of the people I talk to don’t think we’re at war anywhere but Iraq or Afghanistan. Liberals, who tend to take the optimistic outlook on human nature, have a particularly hard time imagining an enemy who lives among us and still wants to destroy us. For them, they can’t imagine how someone could come to this country and not be overwhelmed by our freedom to be whoever you are. If anything, they believe people coming here would want even more freedom. The truth is they are repulsed by our freedoms. They view us as Godless and immoral, in their world, they’re doing you a favor by killing you and saving you from a life of decadence. I never could understand Liberals defending these radical religious nuts when they would be the first ones they would kill.
So, what can we do to stop WWIII? The answer to that is, unfortunately, not much. Your never going to get them to stop moving toward what they believe is their destiny. For them, a world war is only going to leave the U.S. and Israel weaker. (This, by the way, is the main reason China and Russia doesn’t support us in any of our attempts to stop it.) We also won’t have much luck killing off all the different terrorist organizations. As soon as we kill one, another appears in its place. Our attempts so far have been a disaster. All three of the “Axis of Evil” countries are now in worst shape than they were the day G.W. declared them as such, and Iran and North Korea are now supporting terrorism openly. With the new front opening up in Southern Lebanon, Israel is being drawn into the war at the timing of Hezbollah. Every day that Hezbollah kills Jews with their new weaponry, the terrorists become emboldened. The word on Arab Street is that the terrorists have succeeded in stopping the most powerful country on Earth in Iraq and that they have shown Israel that the price of war will now be paid by both sides. This can not be a good thing for us. Technology is now theirs for the grabbing with only the price of a laptop, and it is showing in all their methods. Terrorists, who once prayed for an automatic rock-thrower, are now looking at biological and even Nuclear weapons. The clock has now begun ticking, and it’s only a matter of when, not if, one will be detonated.
Our only hope is for all of us to finally understand our enemy and to be as committed as he is. Whatever our methods, we need to once and for all understand this one truth; WE ARE AT WAR, and our commitment to stopping terrorism has to be as resolved as those that seek to destroy us. H.C.
“You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.”

U.N.able

Posted in political on September 15th, 2006
The year is 1993, the Tutsi-dominated Rwandan Patriot Front (RPF) and the Hutu-dominated Rwandan government (the Tutsi and Hutu are African tribes) have just signed a U.N. sponsored cease-fire. Unfortunately, neither side has any intention of honoring it. Both sides are hoping to gain advantage while the other is idle. The U.N. has approved resolution 872 which creates UNAMIR (United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda), their goal was to put troops between the warring sides to give peace a chance. They committed 2,500 troops to do the job, it would not be enough.
Without solid commitments from any one country (notably the U.S.) to assure the 2,500 troops would be in place immediately, the bickering and diplomatic efforts of the U.N. took over 5 months to reach that level, it was not soon enough. In April of 1994, the president of the Rwandan government, Juvenal Habyarimana, was assassinated, sparking one of the worst genocides the world has seen. In 3 short months, between 500,000 and 1 million Tutsi and moderate Hutu were exterminated. The U.N., lacking the troops or the ability to quickly muster more, stood idly by as the carnage exploded. It was but one example of the failings of U.N.
Now fast forward to the year 2000, the fighting in and around the Democratic Republic of the Congo has been raging for 2 years. With deaths now reaching nearly a thousand people a day, the U.N. has finally decided to act by sending in a multi-national force of 11,000 people to quell the fighting. Four years later, the ineffective force has done nothing to stem the killing, and an estimated 3.8 million men, women and children have died.
That isn’t even the worst of it. Some members of the international force, shielded by U.N. law leaving them free from prosecution, started raping, and photographing Congolese children. By the time the U.N. could not ignore the problem any longer, hundreds of babies were born to underage Congolese girls impregnated by U.N. officials and troops. One of the sickest aspects of these perverse acts was that U.N. officials would use food and medicine to blackmail them into these acts.
Now let’s move on to present day. In the war torn country of Sudan, in the region of Darfur, millions of black Sudanese have been driven from their homes by the Arab-controlled Sudan government. The Janjaweeds, (government backed Arabs), have been for the last couple of years, systematically killing all the male black Sudanese they can find. And it’s easy to find them. Without any food or water, they make their way to U.N. camps where, under cover of darkness or if they wander too far, they have their arms cut off if they’re not outright killed. The U.N. has sent troops to protect them and passed several resolutions condemning the Sudanese government but to this very day the killing continues.
So why is the U.N. so utterly ineffective? Picture that you have an oganization who’s goal it is to stop drug dealing in your neighborhood, now picture that not only do you have to let the drug dealers sit in on your discussions, but they get to vote on your methods. How effective do you think you would be? There lies the problem. Nations that are being investigated for crimes against humanity or for attempting to procure weapons of mass destruction get to sit in on, and vote on, the methods used to stop them. Does that make any sense? Of course not. Now add to that the fact that these nations can turn to the “Veto Nations” (think France or Russia prior to the present Iraq war) and bribe them with oil, money, or resources to put an end to any possible action, and you have a recipe for failure.
Is the U.N. completely worthless H.C.? No, I would say they have some use as a diplomatic tool, but that’s all. We did have some success in Bosnia keeping the Serbs under control, but that was one of the rare examples where Europe stood united. Don’t expect that to happen often. I would be in favor of us starting another, more pragmatic organization of Nations that would stand up militarily against groups like the Janjaweed. But getting Europe, or anyone else, to commit troops is always going to be the problem. If we can’t find figure out a way to get the rest of the world to stand up and take a solid moral stand against groups that only want chaos in the world, it may be time for the U.S. to decide if we can handle the problems alone, or move toward isolationism. H.C.

CAN WE WIN THE IRAQ WAR?
Posted in political on March 21st, 2006
With the third anniversary of the war in Iraq here, I feel I can no longer avoid commenting on it. Until now, I had felt I had nothing to add to what the legions of bloggers, news reports, and newspaper opinion columns had to say about the war. To me, it all sounds so repetitive, blah, blah blah, Bush, blah, blah, W.M.D.’s. Every angle debated, every move analyzed. I guess I hoped I could uncover something brand new to give you, something no one else had, you know, “Bodies found in Rumsfeld’s crawlspace,” something like that. Unfortunately, all I can do that hasn’t been done is give you my opinion, the H.C. analysis, of this expensive and questionable war.
I don’t hate Bush. Let’s get that out of the way first. Hate clouds your judgment. Hate someone enough and anything, no matter how ridiculous, seems possible. (If you thought my statement about Rumsfeld was likely, then I’m talking about you.) The Republican Clinton haters were just as bad in their time, some of them still think poor Bill killed Vince Foster for Christ sakes, but like I said, hate clouds your judgment.
When George W. Bush was just beginning his bid for the presidency, I was already warning my friends of this war. I’m no great soothsayer, it just seemed obvious. W’s dad had a history with Saddam, and they don’t like each other at all. George Sr. would even mispronounce Saddam’s name into “Sodom” as in “and Gomorrah” just to piss him off. Saddam for his part, has always claimed he thought the U.S. didn’t care if he invaded Kuwait and that he was tricked so that George Sr. had an excuse to attack Iraq. (I don’t put a lot of stock in what a tyrant like Saddam has to say though.) Saddam even tried to kill W’s dad at one point, as I said, they don’t like each other. This along with the fact that Saddam had repeatedly defied the U.N., was supporting Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorists, and was fast becoming a defiant martyr for other subversive nations; all led me to believe, if elected, Bush would attack Iraq. For that reason alone, I did not vote for Bush the first time around. Maybe that’s the reason I can’t seem to get as upset as my Democrat friends about the war, for me, this has been coming for a long time and was almost inevitable.
Now, as for the weapons of mass destruction, I’m not much persuaded by the “Bush lied, people died” mentality some of you have. Too many other nations also believed this to be true for it to be a Bush conspiracy. Once again, hate clouds your judgment. What Bush did do, was use everything he could to make this war happen. Saddam for his part, gave him lots of reasons. Saddam was a vicious, evil dictator, who never really cooperated with the U.N. inspectors, and given a chance, would have done anything in his power to get back at the U.S. for Kuwait. Saddam hated Bush at least as much as Bush hated Saddam.
However, Saddam was being kept on a short leash, I don’t feel, and never felt, that he was an imminent threat. The biggest problem with the U.N. trying to control Saddam was that too many other nations such as, Germany, Russia, and France were dealing with Saddam under the table, through the “Oil for Food” program orchestrated by the U.N.. This made it very hard to keep Saddam under the kind of pressure needed to keep him under control. Without the support of these nations Bush went into Iraq without the world consensus needed to pull it off. That and, of course, lack of planning for the aftermath. Given these facts, I believe the the war was risky from the start. Surely a better plan would have been to expose the “Oil for Food” program, (we knew enough to start an investigation) and then embarrass Germany, France, and Russia into supporting better inspections and a harder line against Saddam. Time was something we still had and a unified (if that’s possible) U.N. could have kept Saddam from posing any real threat. Failing all of that, we would of at least gotten better support when we did go in.
Now, once the war had begun, I had to shift my thinking. Before an unnecessary war, you try your best to stop it, but once it’s underway, your goal has to be to get the best end result. Losing this war, or retreating out of it too early, is not going to give us the best result. A stable Iraq could become a useful ally in a lot of ways, an unstable Iraq could lead to WW III. Anyone who is hoping we lose this war just to embarrass Bush, or to help the Democrats politically, is really not thinking it through. A drawn out civil war would destabilize oil supplies, redraw maps, empowers Iran, and leave terrorist with one in the win column, something they will use for future efforts. We must make sure this doesn’t happen. At the very least we owe it to the Iraqi people, you can’t destabilize their country and then just turn away. A lot of people I talk to think it’s hypocritical of me to oppose a war and then support it, but living in the past, without considering the future, is a very short-sighted policy.
Now, for the finale, can we win this war? The answer is of course, yes. Now I know a lot of you are screaming at me right now, but let me explain myself. America has plenty of resources to win, the big question is what are we willing to do to win? Most of our media is actually helping the insurgents more than the U.S.. Are we willing to censure our media to suit U.S. interests? Probably not. Tough tactics like those used against the insurgency in Germany after WWII could stop it, ( yes, Germany had an insurgency too) but I doubt we’ll allow that (the French and Russians would kill the families of insurgents.) We won’t allow torture, or a draft to increase troops, we won’t allow propaganda, even if it’s true, (remember paying Iraqi newspapers to run positive stories?) We will however, allow liberal newspapers to make 7 soldiers in Abu Ghraib seem the normal behavior of 140,000 troops. Now, I’m not advocating torture, or killing families, or even a draft, I’m just saying, that if we were willing to go that far, we could win. A bigger question is can we win with what we’re willing to do? To that I have to answer, I’m not sure. The media in America is the biggest problem in my eyes, just look at how they’ve made it so hard to win over the Iraqi people. In their effort to slander Bush, they degrade our troops, our motives, and our country. Dissent is O.K., but it depends on your motive. If your only searching for things gone bad so you can bash Bush, with no regard for how it effects America, Iraqis, or the stability of the world, then shame on you. CNN seems to lead the crowd in this regard, their pessimism knows no bounds. I’ve often wondered how they validate their opinion that 7 people in Abu Ghraib is proof of how horrible our military is, but 100 U.N. representatives raping children in the Congo is no reflection on the U.N. That’s very revealing as to how bias their reporting has become. I know that a lot of you think that Fox news paints too rosy a picture of the war, that if you don’t report accurately when things are going south, we could end up in a Vietnam-like scenario where we’re fighting a protracted war we can’t win. There is some basis to that argument, but I don’t think we’re there yet. Vietnam and Iraq have some similarities, but far more differences, such as sectarian issues and the urban nature of the fighting. One thing I feel will work out in our favor is that the Iraqis, both Sunni and Shite don’t want civil war. The Shite see their chance to have power and pull themselves out of poverty, the Sunni for their part, are basically surrounded, a civil war for them would be a disaster. They would rather use the insurgency as a tool to broker more power for themselves than to fight a civil war trapped between Iranian Shites and Iraqi Shites. I believe they can be brought around once they know they can retain a place at the table.
All this can happen, I still have faith, but we need to help the Iraqis by not being a propaganda arm for the insurgents and terrorists. News agencies in America need to be careful how they are portraying issues. We all need to be less critical of every move our military makes, and stress that our motives, (the American people’s) are for the Iraqi people to have a stable country, that benefits them, without any exploitation of their resources. Our payback will be a world that sees us a benevolent, and an Iraq that is grateful for our sacrifices. With a price tag running into the hundreds of billions and 2,300 plus lives given, this is the only answer that honors everyone. Lose this war and the potential consequences for Iraq, for the U.S. and for the world are too horrible to be considered. We owe it to the Iraqis to fix the problem we created for them and ourselves. H.C.

ALLAN A. MORR, AMERICAN HERO
Posted in Uncategorized on March 9th, 2006
I hate to jump right back into serious mode on you guys, but this issue struck close to home.
On Feb. 22, 2006, Allan A. Morr 21, was killed in action in Al Hawijah, Iraq along with three of his fellow soldiers. An improvised explosive device blew up the Humvee they were patroling in. His father, Tim Morr said, “He died doing what he loved.” This was especially sad for me as I knew Allan and his family. I live in a rural area, where there are only about a dozen houses on my mile long block, so everyone around here knows one another. Allan’s father Tim, is a friend of my mine, though we don’t socialize much. He is a quiet, friendly, easy going kind of a guy. We share a common interest in hunting and most of our conversations revolve around it. I have been over his house a few times, and I can tell you these people are some of the best America has to offer. They are people who believe in God, Country, and family. Side with who ever you want, but when it comes right down to it, these are my people.
I met Allan a few times at the local store and when hunting my neighbor’s property, which butts up to the back of their property. Allan was a polite, respectful kid, a throwback to a time when parents taught respect, and deserved it. I read in the paper that his nickname among the other troops was “Mighty Mouse,” that seems fitting, as he always stuck me as bigger than his stature. He was a fine young man.
Which brings me to why I’m skipping lunch to get this column out.
At the funeral, a group of protesters decided to use Allan’s death to further their own agenda. The Westboro Baptist Church out of Kansas sent a band of misguided misfits who believe, and I’m not kidding, that our soldiers are dying in Iraq because we don’t condemn gay people enough. They even have a website at www.godhatesfags.com to spread their filth. My contempt for these people has no words. Whether you are for or against this war, if you want to protest, fine, but don’t stand on the sacred soil of a soldier’s burial to do it. I can’t imagine the extra pain they caused these good people. I hope God lets me watch as they struggle to justify their sick actions in his name.
Now for the good news, a wonderful group called the Patriot Guard Riders sheltered the Morr family from these idiots by forming a barrier between them. They have a website that you can get more info on their cause at; http://www.patriotguard.org/Home/tabid/53/Default.aspx Please, people if there is anything you can do to help them, do it. It’s not often you can find people willing to do something so selfless.
I tried to go over their house the other day to check on them and to offer my condolences, but they were not home. I heard they went away for a while to escape the media and rest. Good, I hope they find some peace. I know everyone in this small town is grieving for all of our loss. May God be with the Patriot Guard Riders and the Morr family. H.C.