Please scroll down for posts on main page...
|WARNING: THIS SITE FEATURES ORIGINAL THINKING...Jim Croce once sang Don't tug on Superman's cape..., which seems like reasonable advice should we not wish to anger the supreme powers. We do have this duality in our culture: the Superman that is the state collective, the leftist call to a politics of meaning managed by the state, the deification of "we're from the government and we'll take care of you" - versus the Superman that celebrates individual freedom, private property, freedom of conscience, free enterprise, and limited government. We humbly take on the latter's mantle and, eschewing the feeble tug, we dare to PULL, in hope of seeing freedom's rescue from the encroaching nanny state. We invite you, dear reader, to come and pull as well... Additionally, if you assume that means that we are unflinching, unquestioning GOP zombies, that would be incorrect. We reject statism in any form and call on individuals in our country to return to the original, classical liberalism of our founders. (We're also passionate about art, photography, cooking, technology, Judeo/Christian values, and satire as unique, individual pursuits of happiness to celebrate.)|
Superman's product of the century (so far):
I recently wrote a piece about the Heroes of India Company reviewing a FOX News documentary - about brave Marines who fought in the battle of Fallujah, Iraq. Thousands of people around the world read that piece and watched the accompanying video - many have written to stand with pride for these incredible patriots and to share in the grief for those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom.
Please let me introduce you to another Fallujah hero from Washington state. His name is Tyler Farmer. He's also a Marine. He was wounded in the battle of Fallujah - was treated and is now back in action.
Tyler took particular care in doing his part to vote in this year's election. He didn't count on his home county making a mistake in not getting his ballot to him on a timely basis. He was disenfranchised by no fault of his own.
Better, let Tyler's father do the introduction and tell the story. Click on the picture to the left or here to see a video of the Rossi press conference the afternoon of December 30th (requires MS media player - this is about an 11 minute long clip.)
The Democrats in our state just appealed to our State Supreme Court to get a specific set of ballots - that had been rejected by the King County canvassing board (by 'mistake') - counted so as to not disenfranchise those voters. But in response to Tyler's plight - from this brave patriot who lays his body on the altar of freedom every day for you and me - Christine Gregoire, Washington's now Governor Elect, reminds us that the election is not 'golf'.
Let's be blunt: If you Christine Gregoire, Washington Democratic party, Gregoire supporters in the public - if you are not willing to go to the same length - even to the Washington Supreme Court - to see that the hundreds of overseas military voters that were disenfranchised are allowed to be counted - then you do violence to our democracy and you will be held accountable.
We will not allow the blood of patriots to be trampled under foot.
UPDATE: Many thanks to Michelle Malkin for the link. Also see the comment by reader 'Baynative' which concludes with "How do we explain this to those who are risking their lives to help conduct a democratic election in Iraq?".
UPDATE: Many thanks to Kathryn Lopez from the Corner at National Review Online for the link. Thank you for helping us get attention on this! Post after post on King County fraud and MSM calumny at Shark and friends' place.
UPDATE: In addition to Michelle Malkin, and the Corner, Many more blogs are bringing attention to this 'election': Polipundit, Powerline, Little Green Footballs, and Captain's Quarters - among many others I'm sure - all pile in.
UPDATE: 1/3/05: Shark got an email about more disenfranchised soldiers here.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference: WA Governor's Race: Meet another hero - but he's not allowed to vote.:
» THE NEVER-ENDING ELECTION from Michelle Malkin
In the Ukraine of the Pacific Northwest, blogger Stefan Sharkansky has been ahead of the MSM in breaking an important story about magical mystery ballots appearing and disappearing in several precincts. The Seattle Times miraculously credits him with u... [Read More]
TrackPulled on Dec 31, 2004 8:00:47 AM
» And supposedly nothing can be done... from The Anchoress
Now that this sham of an election has been "certified," everyone is supposed to just sit back and take it. Let's recap: The Republican Candidate won in the first vote. The Republican Candidate won the second vote, albeit by a margin of 42 votes. ... [Read More]
TrackPulled on Jan 1, 2005 7:53:57 AM
» Washington State Election Theft from Steady Earl's Rant
What can you say about the blatant theft of the governorship of Washington? It's a prime example (not that there aren't hundreds of examples, every single day) of the left's primary tactic. That is, they shriek to the heavens about their opponents' s... [Read More]
TrackPulled on Jan 1, 2005 11:29:48 AM
» Washington State Election Theft from Steady Earl's Rant
What can you say about the blatant theft of the governorship of Washington? It's a prime example (not that there aren't hundreds of examples, every single day) of the left's primary tactic. That is, they shriek to the heavens about their opponents' s... [Read More]
TrackPulled on Jan 1, 2005 11:30:39 AM
» Gregoire and Democrats Disenfranchise Serving Marines from UNCoRRELATED
While Democrats manage to ressurect declined ballots in King country they uphold the disenfranchisement of Washington State military serving in Iraq because their votes came in "too late". Pull on Superman's Cape gives you the sorrid details.... [Read More]
TrackPulled on Jan 2, 2005 11:58:16 AM
Wonderful post - and good, colorful language!
Posted by: Josef at Dec 31, 2004 9:33:10 AM
HAVE YOU EVER HAD A DREAM THAT IS ALL GOOFY AND CONFUSING WHERE YOU ARE IN AN ODD PLACE AND THE SITUATION HAS NO RELEVANCE? Then you wake up and feel kind of disoriented for a while until the tasks of the day put you back on track... I feel like that today.
My wife and I moved here last year. We toured Seattle and happened across a statue of Lenin. Then we were stunned to see pictures of a sign by the freeway that said, "WE SUPPORT THE IRAQI RESISTANCE" -(enemies of American liberty)
Now I am witnessing an election where anarchist supporters of socialism and detractors of American culture have given strong, even fraudulent support to a woman who has helped co-opt the ballot counting by denying our men and women serving America in combat the right to vote.
How do we explain this to those who are risking their lives to help conduct a democratic election in Iraq?
EMCEE: There is no possible way to explain it to our brave soldiers - or to the freedom seeking people of Iraq.
Posted by: Baynative at Dec 31, 2004 9:35:29 AM
There Was a Crooked Woman...
There was a crooked woman,
And she wore a crooked smile.
She had a crooked concience,
Besides the crooked smile;
She stole a crooked vote,
Which was her crooked fate,
And so became the governor,
Of a very crooked state.
Posted by: patch at Dec 31, 2004 12:41:16 PM
I'm happy the national media is trying to shed light on this, but I REALLY think Rossi MUST ASAP produce a dossier or something to shut up the mainstream media! With the exception of The Chronicle - all the other papers I've seen have called on Rossi to concede UNLESS Dino Rossi's campaign can provide the proof...
This also includes The Washington Post today ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40042-2004Dec31.html ). And the Seattle Times, the Seattle P-I, the Columbian, the Yakima Herald, the Everett Herald, and I could go further...
Damn them, yes - but only because you and I know the truth. But we need a dossier that the highly-esteemed Mary "Marummy" Lane or Dino Rossi - NOT the press piñata Chris Vance (pity on him) and NOT the blogosphere - produces. Preferably with an appropiate backdrop of lawyers or tanks...
Finally, on my blog http://josef-a-k.blogspot.com , I have posted the Chronicle's editorial in living glory AFTER proposing a referendum pledge to ANY Gregovych tax increase!
Posted by: Josef at Jan 1, 2005 4:51:22 AM
Please - Change it to "tug on Superman's cape."
This glaring inaccuracy is like screeching your fork across the plate. I like your blog but turn it off almost instantly when I see the pull on the cape crap. It is ok that you add the line about messing with Dan.
EMCEE: Bill - It has been my contention that 'Pull' and 'Tug' were in synonymous usage predating the instant of Croce's song. I intentionally used 'Pull' because of the double entendre it suggests that 'Tug' never could. I suppose that it dates me a bit given that I'm maybe the only one around here that actually remembers the lyricial controversies around the release of Jim's song. In another blog, in another life I posted this excerpted comment:
"As to tug/pull,(perhaps pee/spit, and Jim/Slim/Dan) - I'm glad someone finally noticed! ...
Notice that my blog title includes "... or something like that."
And what self-respecting ... knuckle dragging Republican operative is going to have 'tug' as part of his blog's name?
Those lexical idioms were of course part of the vox-populi of the early seventies. It so happens that "pull on superman's cape" was reasonably synonymous with "tug on superman's cape" at the time (and the use of "pull" in this particular colloquialism has a bit of unix lore attached to it if you want to look into it). Perhaps I'm the only one that is old enough here to remember the "pee" versus "spit" controversy? As I recall (admittedly a little brain addled), Jim originally recorded "...you don't pee into the wind" which is, of course, much more satisfying lyrically simply because of the visual imagery (admittedly in a male inflected sense) - but it was too racy for radio at the time (that didn't keep us from sophomorically singing "pee" at the top of our lungs when the chorus played).
Fundamentally, my intention was to be a bit more nuanced than perhaps is reasonably accessible. Croce's lyrics are imbued with the idea that the patently invincible really just ain't so. How else could Slim take Jim? I chose the name of my blog as prophecy - what may be considered now as quixotic endeavor may one day prove to be really taking on the mantle of "truth, justice, and the American way" after all. "Tug",for me, just wouldn't do."
So we'll keep Pulling around here - with the hope that the mantle is a finally attainable goal. Of course, none of this is really important - not in the context of an attack on our democracy. Don't you think?
Posted by: Bill Smith at Jan 1, 2005 1:54:44 PM
YES WE KNOW THE TRUTH:IF ROSSI REALLY CARED ABOUT THE MILITARY VOTES BEING COUNTED WHY DIDN'T HE MENTION THOSE VOTES ON THE FIRST COUNT? BECAUSE HE DIDN'T CARE TO HAVE ALL THE VOTES COUNTED UNTIL HE LOST AND REALIZED HE NEEDED MORE VOTES.
WASHINGTON FOLLOWED THE LAW THE ONLY THING CROOKED WAS THE DOUBLE KEYPUNCHED VOTES FOR ROSSI IN GRAYS COUNTY WE DID NOT HEAR THE ROSSI PEOPLE COMPLAIN ABOUT THAT OR THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY EVOTING MACHINES THAT COULD NOT PRODUCE A PAPER TRAIL.
PS THE MEDIA HAS THE RIGHT TO PRINT THE TRUTH AND THEY DID. ROSSI LOST ON THE RECOUNT THAT IS DEMOCRACY. GOD BLESS THOSE WHO STAND UP FOR DEMOCRACY AND UPHOLD THE LAW IN WASHINGTON STATE.
EMCEE: Thanks for your comment. Unfortunately, the law was NOT followed. There is nothing in the Washington statutes about recanvassing during a recount. The WA Supreme Court decided to create new law - unintended by the legislature. Because they changed the law - changed the rules, it must be pointed out that the new 'correction of mistakes' should provide equal protection. You cannot have it both ways. You can't count Larry Philips if you don't count Tyler Farmer.
Posted by: NITE SKY at Jan 1, 2005 8:51:34 PM
Rossi's loss was probably the best Christmas gift I could have received. It is so enjoyable to see that Republicans now believe that elections can indeed be stolen. What comes around goes around friends. Maybe now we can all agree that some real election reforms need to be made. This shouldn't be that hard.
EMCEE: Mike, it's not over.
Posted by: Mike Tremonti at Jan 2, 2005 1:38:48 AM
Rossi needs to concede, if only to preserve his viability to challenge Cantwell for Senator in '06, for which he is very well positioned. The more he whines about this election (which is, in fact, over) the more he damages himself in the eyes of potential voters.
EMCEE: Thank you for your comment - but there's no whining going on. It is a legal right to challenge the election. If Rossi doesn't do it then I will and I know thousands of other Washingtonians who will. The corruption of King County will not stand.
Posted by: M at Jan 2, 2005 8:56:02 AM
Real quick question. In the response to Bill Smith you say that you can not count Larry Phillips unless you count Tyler Farmer. You seem to believe that we indeed cannot count Larry Phillips so given that, I guess you then believe we also can not and should not count Tyler Farmer. So aren't you actually calling for a disenfranchisement of an American soldier yourself? After all you can't have it both ways, yes?
EMCEE: Mike, thank you for your comment. And my answer is: No and no. The Supreme Court of Washington changed the law by allowing votes to count that would not have been counted - that we all - legislature, courts, and voters - agreed to prior to the election taking place. We're all water under the bridge at this point. Larry Phillips' vote DID count. It's in the certified results - (along with 3700 something votes that there are no voters for) - and it is because the Supremes changed the law that Tyler Farmer's vote should now count. We can't go back now and have it the way that we agreed to before we started.
As a separate issue, I think we have to do whatever we need to do so that those who serve this country are in line to vote before the rest of us. I'm glad that this has particularly come into focus as a result of this very close election. I think the law should be changed to facilitate this - by the legislature and not by the courts.
It remains that you are apparently of the position that we should count Larry Phillips' vote (which we did) and not Tyler Farmers' (which at this point we have not).
Posted by: Mike Tremonti at Jan 2, 2005 8:59:52 AM
You are not really answering my question. Let me put it this way. Let's say you and I can agree that the King County votes which include Larry Philips do not count. We are throwing them out - some worker screwed up but too bad. Then, what do we do with Tyler Farmer's vote? Do we count it? That is all I want to know. If you say we don't count it then you are disenfranchising a soldier fighting in Iraq. If you say we count it then you are trying to have it both ways. So what's it gonna be - yes or no?
EMCEE: Mike: You are playing hypotheticals. If Larry Philips' vote didn't count, we aren't having a discussion. Just saying that you and I would agree to that has no impact on reality. The reality is that Philips' vote IS counted.
Despite that, I am never in favor of disenfranchizing a soldier under any circumstances. It's my point of view that if a 1,000 soldiers show up right now and say their vote hasn't been counted - then count them regardless of circumstances. But this doesn't regard what the law says. Prior to last week the law said one thing, now it says another. That's the fundamental problem with activist judicial fiat.
But this isn't me having it both ways. Why? I'm not a 'count every vote' minion. The position I am taking about having it both ways IS with 'count every vote' minions. The fundamental reason that Philips' vote was counted is a recognition by judicial fiat that all votes regardless of canvassing board error should count. Logically, that must include all errors by all canvassing boards. Therefore Farmer's vote should count by that same reasoning. It IS having it both ways by someone taking the point of view to say that the canvassing board mistake against Philips trumps the mistake against Farmer.
My personal point of view has no problem logically or morally with not counting Philips' vote and counting Farmer's vote. I never said 'count every vote'. I don't think Philips' vote should have counted because it breaks the rules that we agreed to before the election. I think Farmer's vote should be counted under any circumstances because I think the folks in the military rise to a different level altogether in this regard. Canvassing board errors be damned - someone that wears the uniform and defends our freedoms and maybe pays the ultimate price on the altar of freedom provide you and me with the very right to engage in discussion. I assert that they are of a different class altogether. But that's just me.
Posted by: Mike Tremonti at Jan 2, 2005 2:17:40 PM
Give me a damn break. Sorry, don't have a whole lot of sympathy for the good soldier. Thousands of voters were disenfranchised in Florida four years ago and look what happened to the country. We on our way backwards for another four years.
EMCEE: Thanks for your comment. You are inaccurate in your statement about Florida four years ago - a large number of soldiers WERE disenfranchised - but would not have helped Gore - they voted over 80% for George W. Bush. The Florida panhandle stopped voting in 2000 early - also predominantly for Bush - because of Dan Rather's big mouth. 2004 showed what Florida really thinks - it wasn' t even close. As to the road ahead, I can only say "Thank God for W!" Oh, and next time the bad guys come shooting - we'll put you out in front OK?
Posted by: Tim Sheehan at Jan 3, 2005 4:22:57 PM
I thought you would pull the "hypotheticals don't matter" excuse to avoid answering my question but I gave it a try anyway. However, your response made your position even more tenuous. Here are your own words, "It IS having it both ways by someone taking the point of view to say that the canvassing board mistake against Philips trumps the mistake against Farmer." and then later you write this, "My personal point of view has no problem logically or morally with not counting Philips' vote and counting Farmer's vote. I never said 'count every vote'. I don't think Philips' vote should have counted because it breaks the rules that we agreed to before the election. I think Farmer's vote should be counted under any circumstances because I think the folks in the military rise to a different level altogether in this regard." You see what I'm getting at here? In the first quote you say it IS having it both ways when one votes trumps another then in the second quote you advocate exactly that point of view by having one vote trump another. Farmer's vote is more important than Philip's vote. The law doesn't matter when it's a vote YOU want and you want to have it both ways when it helps YOUR cause. You just said it in your own words friend. This is why hypotheticals matter. When you don't think things through you get bad policy. Your idea is to allow every soldier's vote to count no matter what. Fine - no problem with that - I'm the kind of crazy liberal that thinks everyone's vote should count. However, setting the law up to ensure that military votes count no matter what creates a problem. Do we add veterans of prior wars to that list or just those currently serving? What about parents of those serving? Or maybe spouses. Where does it stop? You are advocating setting up some kind of insane voting caste system. That kind of reactionary backwards law-making is what gets us into this kind of mess in the first place.
EMCEE: Thanks again for the comment Mike. I'm enjoying this conversation and hope that sometime we'll be able to discuss this or another issue over a brew somewhere.
I'm enjoying our conversation because you are thinking and expressing yourself clearly - even though I think you are misguided.
I'll start with: I thought you were going to pull the "I already knew how you were going to answer before I asked" ploy since hind-sight is always perfect :) Since we are so good at predicting each others' responses perhaps we should just stick to responding. Otherwise we'll start having to issue the prediction first which will just lead to response aversion by the other party just to prove each other wrong.
Perhaps some exegesis is in order. You use my words to attempt a denouement, so we must examine them phrase by phrase so that you get exactly what the meaning is.
Let's break it down: "it IS having it both ways" - means I am asserting there is a logical inconsistency - "by someone taking the point of view" - this should perhaps say 'that ... view' - it is clearly in the context of referring to the 'count every vote' point of view - "to say that the canvassing board mistake against Philips" - from that 'count every vote' view, you must take Philips' expressed will - "trumps the mistake against Farmer" - from that 'count every vote' view, you must not take Farmer's expressed will.
Simple words: If you are of the view to count every vote, then counting Philips' vote and not Farmer's vote is inconsistent.
In simple logic terms: If A = view = count every vote, then A = count Philips, NOT A = don't count Farmer. Therefore the 'count every vote' view is A = A = NOT A. That's having it both ways.
Note that I use words in the strictly constructionist sense, meaning that the words simply mean exactly what they say - there are no emanations or penumbra allowed. I don't think that you hold a view that words mean something other than what they say - just want to make sure.
So far so good. I think that I understand from your post that the above exegesis is correct and means what it says.
Let's continue: "My personal point of view has no problem logically or morally with not counting Philips' vote and counting Farmer's vote. I never said 'count every vote'." - this is distinguishing my point of view from the 'count every vote' view. If the 'count every vote' is 'A', my total view is 'B' - i.e. it is different - "I don't think Philips' vote should have counted because it breaks the rules that we agreed to before the election." I am elucidating my 'B' view and we can call this 'C': for people who have ready access to polling places or are provided a timely ballot - we should play by the rules we have in place prior to the election - "I think Farmer's vote should be counted under any circumstances because I think the folks in the military rise to a different level altogether in this regard" - further elucidation of my 'B' view and since it isn't opposite of 'C', since it is another thesis, we'll call it 'D': For those in the field that are risking their lives for our freedom, we must guarantee them access to a polling place or a ballot on a timely basis and even if we fail to do that we must expressly correct it at any point during the election process even if it is post-certification.
Simple words: I am of the view that we count only valid votes and that validity should be defined by the existing law for those who reside in Washington state and should be defined by new law for those in the armed services that are serving abroad any time around election day.
In simple logic terms: B = view = count valid votes. C = Philips' vote should be invalid because it broke the rules we agreed to prior to the election, D = I am in favor of changing the rules for those in military service to insure that they have the same rights to a polling place or ballot that those back at home do - and beyond that, if our infrastructure fails to provide that to insure that their votes are counted anyway - because it corrects a pervasive policy strategy that is just plain wrong. Therefore that's B = C + D. There's nothing inconsistent with that. I don't even make a claim to 'nuance'.
You subsequently argue that I am advocating that Farmer's vote trumps Philips' vote (meantime, in the real world Philips' vote has been counted and Farmer wasn't provided Equal Protection to even enjoy enfranchisement) when I am arguing rather that the error damage to Farmer trumps the error damage to Philips - and that now that Philips' vote has been counted (despite my thinking that it shouldn't - I just have to accept reality), Farmer's should be.
There's no bad policy by instituting my view. The problem is that we have bad policy in the first place. Some liberal democrats (I'm excluding you from this group - I said "some") have implemented a strategy that insures that military personnel serving overseas are disenfranchised. This is not just a problem in Washington state - it is a national problem. Election officials do not provide ballots timely and point their finger in blame to primaries and other external factors as their excuse. We have nothing in place that would require states to provide complete provisionals to the military prior to the election. In reality, it is just no different than having "whites only" drinking fountains. We already HAVE a caste system in place - it's just that up to now the serving soldier is the inferior class.
I am proposing that we correct that by legislating a kind of affirmative action for soldiers - recognizing the logistics problems that they have while executing battle strategy and trying not to get their asses shot off. I'm not uncomfortable with saying that the warrior class deserves special treatment when it comes to the right of enfranchisement.
You launch a litany of potential problems with implementing my view. Mike, Mike, my friend - I am NOT a liberal. If you give me an inch I DON'T take a mile. Only liberals take a temporary tax and make it into a permanent one, only liberals take affirmative action and turn it into discrimination. You are making much ado about something that I would never advocate. I believe I have been very clear that what we are talking about is soldiers currently serving overseas during an election cycle. As to time frame, we need only err to the side of caution. Veterans not currently serving? No. Parents? No. Spouses? No. Nothing needs to stop because nothing would be started.
The kind of law making that I'm talking about is law making to fix a problem that exists - and I want to thank you for assisting me in clearly thinking through the language that I'll use in the referendum - the national referendum - that you'll see in a special election near you.
Posted by: Mike Tremonti at Jan 4, 2005 5:55:00 PM
This may never be read by anyone and is propably misspelled, but I needed somewere to vent.
There was no illumination in the back of the transport tank were 16 young warriors awated their first chance at battle. There had been months of training and reherslas, but this was it going to be the real thing. Real explosions, real bad guys, real bullets. Outside there was a load explosion as a 2000lb bomb impacted the breaching point outside the city. The attack had begun. In the back of the tank there was dead silence as each warrior prepared himself in his own way to get into the fight. I rehersed weapons immediate action drills, casualty care, building clearing, and marksmanship skills in my head again and again. No one is ever ready to step off the ramp when the tank stops and the ramp opens to reveal the bowels of hell itself. Outside the expolsions were getting louder and more frequent as the planes started finding more and more targets. My adrenaline started to rise as the tank started to move forward and the ultimate realization of what you are about to get yourself into finally sinks in, there is no turning back, no changing your mind, in just minutes the ramp is going to drop and you are going to be expected to run into the darkness into a hail of bullets. It basically comes down to surviving untill the sun comes up. The track jerked to a stop, spun around, and we were there. The tank crew cheif droped out of the hatch into the back where we were seated to give us a breif discription of the terrain we were about to run into. "There are two buildings to the left and a large pile of concrete in the front that could provide some cover, other than that your on your own!" During the period the crew chief is talking to us you can hear what sounds like rain on a tin roof on the right side of the tank. Its chilling when you realize its enemy machine gun fire. The crew cheif diapears back uptop and opens up with the .50 cal machine gunn as the ramp drops. Doors open, time to go. As I was running out the back of the tank I kept straining my eyes trying to get them to focus in the dark. Trying to pic friendly from enemy shadows in the night. We finally made it to some cover and a switched on my night sight to have a look at what the terain looked like. As I scoped the alleys and houses I remeber thinking to myself that I had never been more focused and intouch with the harmonics of nature. I could feel others moving in the darkness around me without needing to see them. I was mysteriously calm and un effected by the fact that there were rounds impacting into the cement we hid behind. Then I was excited when I knew it was time to stand up and fight. We pushed to the side of the cement and awated for anothe squad the set into place to provide us with some covering fire so we could assault the house that the majority of the fire was coming from. Once they were set, without a word we stacked on the outside of the two story house. I remember thinking to myself how brave all the guys in my stack were to rush into a house, in the middle of the night under fire from a unknown enemy. The first man in the stack pitched a grenade just inside the door to push the enmy back enough to let us in. The charge went off and in the stack rolled. There are no words to decribe the following ten minutes. As I entered the house I swithched on my maglight attached to the m-16 A4 and was astonished to no less then five insurgents firing from behind the living room couch. Fire, fire, fire I was thinking,(think I was yelling it to). Two one, two one I was saying to myself as I pushed into the room trying to find cover. "Two to the chest one to the head...next guy...two to the chest one to the head. Why aren't they going down? I know I'm hitting target whats wrong? Put down the m-16 take the shotgun off my back. This will do the trick." Only two insurgents still standing behind the couch now, maybe the other three died, maybe they are reloading on the floor. The shotgun has eight rounds left,seemiauto, four went into the standing insurgents four into the couch and surrounding area to make sure the rest weren't just reloading. Quite. No more gunfire. "Cover me while I move to inspect." I shout to my partner. "Move." He replies. Shotgun reloaded and ready I causiously move over to the couch. No movement or breathing. We wated for reinforcements to beef up innerroom security. I coordinated with the first man into the building. I started the conversation joking around with him, "Well thats one room down and nine to go! Did you seen anyone else fall back further into the house?" He told me he had seen at leat three others flee the room and go down the hallway. The best advice I ever got from a prior war heroe was to never expose soft flesh to the enemy when you didn't need to. So I have we have to take the rest of the house and not expose ourselves to further gunfire. Grenades didn't do anything to these meth feinds, what should we do? One of the younger guys came in from the kitchen with the propane tank and sugested throwing it down the hall and shooting it. Good initiative bad planning. We took the idea but revised the shooting at it part. Instead we strapped a 1.25lb block of c-4 to the side, attacked 30 seconds of time fuse, ingiited it, threw it down the hall and got the hell out of the house. Man what a fireball! The fire swept through every room on both floors and cleaned the hjouse of insugents with no American casualties. I looked at the same guy I had cracked the joke with and said " One house down, nine more on the block!"
To be continued...
The story is long, but exciting. I won't take you through the hundreds of houses we cleared in Fallujah, just some of the important battles that represented stepping stones in both the evolution of modern urban combat and young men into hardened warriors. If the posts are to long or boring and you wish to not hear anymore PLEASE say something and I'll quit. See ya Monday.
EMCEE: James - I assure you that your thoughts are read and appreciated. I've been trying to get emails to you at your yahoo address - but I don't think you are getting them. Can you send me an email address for you that you know works? I have an idea to discuss with you. Thanks!
Posted by: Duisputed Heroes at Apr 15, 2005 9:27:55 AM
I like the post. You put forward your point, nicely.
This is Joshua from Israeli Uncensored News
Posted by: Joshua at Mar 10, 2010 11:28:43 PM
James Pell - Hospital Corpsman 2nd Class - American hero with stories to tell about Iraq, Kosovo, and Bosnia.
Emcee - "Don't encourage him!" Jeff Goldstein
At the same trough...
Thomas More Law Center goes after DHS...
Issaquah, Washington Tea Party!
If you can't send a real tea bag...
What does it mean when every world event is a "distraction"?
Everything Old is New Again...
So you've heard of Chinese censorship of blogs right?
Concerned about Republican Leadership?
New currency anyone?
So it has come to this...
The Market Greets its Savior...
Art, ok maybe that's too strong a word
Election Night 2004 - Eye on C-BS
It feels so wrong so it's gotta be Wright
Super Bowl XL
The Armadillo Conceptual Series
The Revelation of Jesus Christ
UN Oil For Food - Oil For Fraud
WA Governor's Race
War on Terror
Wisconsin Vote Fraud
The most brilliant journalist of our age - does heavy lifting
Want to know what is really going on in our armed services? Matt does tell. He's a man of honor and gives tribute to men and women who serve all of us around the world.
Blogs For Terri
Terri Schindler Schiavo - We will NEVER forget!
Master photographer Jan shows off spectacular photos around the Pacific Northwest.
Commissioner Hugh Hewitt
The man! Inspirer of blogs, flogger of the currently most important.
Common Sense and Wonder
Great group blog - full of common sense penned by very talented people. I wonder...
Cream of the Crock
Diana once killed me in a place of wisdom. We've made up. One of my favorite experts.
Day by Day
Chris Muir provides the best first place for you to spew your coffee every morning
Digital Brown Pajamas
Sleepy Stormtroopers of the Religious Right. Plus Jeff is just a great guy. And Steve! Don't forget Steve! Oh no, where'd you guys go?
What can I say? I like Joe.
File it under...
These guys are animals. I mean it, they are animals.
The Federalist Papers are still alive - and so is Alexander ...
Hilarious answer to Arianna Huffington's psuedo-blog
In DC Journal
Bill is positively InDC, occasionally InDCent, always Bill
Lead by Robert Spencer - dedicated to bringing public attention to the role that jihad theology and ideology plays in the modern world.
Find her on the radio and listen - does heavy lifting
Culture and current affairs from Seattle journalist and musician - and contributor to Sound Politics and Redstate - all in one very productive guy.
Conservative goddess - does heavy lifting
MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
Beth has a terrific blog AND she's my favorite Bama fan. (Which for an AU guy is like we've overcome class warfare, you know?)
Nerf Coated World
Friend Matt's wisdom tech and politech
Ninme, tenme, elevenme, just don't two-time me
Replacing the creator of worlds - do you miss Allah? Go see Attila.
I'm a Pixie. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it. (It's Shell - Look what God made!) - Found her again!
The triumvirate. I'm not worthy! I'm not worthy!
Jeff's menagerie of extreme thoughts, well said.
Gail can write! And make you do your English homework!
'Wiley' Willis cats and thoughts.
Like Special K - only better
Shark and friends dig out the unsound
Tapscott's Copy Desk
Mark Tapscott, Director of The Heritage Foundation's Center for Media and Public Policy. Solid good read all the time. Moved to Examiner now...
The incomparable Ace of Spades HQ
The truth in spades!
The Jawa Report
Dr. Rusty and pals. Find original fisking and research here.
The Mighty Beldar
Crusty trial lawyer, bemused observer of politics & internet dilettante from Houston, Texas
the pragmatic chef™
Scott is a connoisseur of food and life! He really knows what seared means...
The Radio Equalizer -Brian Maloney
Could Brian be the next conservative heavy lifter? My money's on him.
The Truth Laid Bear
TTLB Ecosystem host and esteemed pundit.
Brilliant analysis - plus Red State WA!
Great conservative commentary and about some kind of Weblog awards or something like that
Fellow traveler McGehee's musings