SamSaid!

CONDI

     As the newly appointed Secretary of State, Condileeza Rice now ranks as one of the most important women in the country. Her appointment will be confirmed because the Democrats just don't want to fool with this lady  — for good reason. Now the press is jumping on her as being captive to the thinking of Pres Geo Bush. Somthing wrong with that? Do they suggest that George should appoint someone with whom he is at odds? Are we better off when the Prez and the Secy of State do not see eye to eye on foreign policy?? What kind of Neanderthal thinking is that?

      But now is the time to speculate. Just imagine that Ms. Rice performs very well in the next 4 years. Could that set the stage for a Condileeza Rice vs Hillary Clinton race for the White House in 2008? Stranger things have happened. Wouldn't that pose a dilemna for the femininsts infatuated with the idea of the 1st woman President? Who would they pick? I think the answer is obvious  — that they would back Hillary and her left wing solutions to big issues. But I wouldn't sell Ms. Rice short. I think I would look forward to a good cat fight! 

MARINES

     A few months back, we were treated to the efforts of the mass media to transform the Abu Graib prisoner abuses into a full fledged military scandal reaching up thru the chain of command to the Secretary of Defense. Night after night were were exposed to the graphic pictures. After investigation, it turns out that a handful of GIs were at fault at the lower levels of the military heirarchy and there was no policy directive supporting or encouraging that kind of behavior. They were appropriately punished.

     Now, we have another episode to invigorate the anti war wusses. This time it is a Marine who shot and killed a wounded insurgent in the battle of Fallujah.  No question  — he killed him. So now, the bleeding hearts want this young marine to stand trial for a “war crime”. And the graphic photos become the lead story on the evening TV news. Just imagine  — as a 20 year old, you were wounded the prior day in the tough house to house combat by insurgents who would sooner die than surrender. Marines were being killed by booby trapped bodies of fallen insurgents. The terrorists waved the white flag of surrender to trap Marines and shoot them. Behind every door there is a motivated assassin just waiting to kill an American. Car bombs go off every day  — frequently. And so what is your mind set?

     I don't know about you, but my foremost rule this this dirty war with suicidal fanatics is to shoot first and ask questions later. When an insurgent makes a questionable move, you just don't refer the matter to Committee. You act. This Marine acted and shot the guy when he made a move. I can relate to that. We didn't go into Fallujah to persuade mis-guided youth to amend their ways. We went there to kill them  — the only sure way to handle suicidal maniacs. That was the mission of the Marines, and that is what this Marine did. So why should he have to stand before these bleeding heart do-gooders who righteously cite the Geneva Convention when we are at war with terrorist fanatics who don't know the difference between Genva and Geronimo.

     War is a messy business, and very often the front line guys do not have minutes or hours to make a decision. It may be just a matter of seconds to determine the life or death of your comrades. He did what he had been trained to do. The sum total of his actions is one less terrorist.

     How easy it is for some slimy lawyer or network word merchant to sit in New York and pass judgment on a young man acting under the greatest of life and death pressures. Is he entitled to the benefit of the doubt? He is in my book. Like I said, in combat the basic rule is “when in doubt, shoot”.    You got a better idea??