US Cav’s ON Point Editor David J. Danelo, posted a piece concerning LTC Yingling’s article (”A Failure in Generalship“) in the Armed Forces Journal. Those of you who read Part I of the series Iraq: What Went Wrong, know that LTC Yingling’s article was referenced as an opposing view. However, LTC Yingling’s article is actually a complimentary view, because there have been failures on the part of America’s most senior military leaders. Foremost among these failures is a return to the slavish mentality exhibited by senior military leaders during the Viet Nam War.

The following is Mr. Danelo’s article titled

“Officer Risks Career to Blast ‘Buffoonery’ of Generals“

Last week, an active-duty Army lieutenant colonel did an amazing thing: he publicly castigated an entire group of serving officers for their collective leadership failures. “As matters stand now,” wrote Lt. Col. Paul Yingling in the Armed Forces Journal, “a private who loses a rifle suffers far greater consequences than a general who loses a war.”

In and of themselves, Yingling’s remarks were not unique. They mirror the sentiment of thousands of military personnel who have served in Iraq. Yingling later commented that his remarks received “almost universal approval” among enlisted men, company-grade officers, and his own peers.

But in professional military circles, the article—which begins with a quote about officers amusing themselves with “God knows what buffooneries”—could be the equivalent of a suicide bomb. Yingling’s willingness to take his critique public was a bold move that some say could cross the line of insubordination.

“He might get sent to Adak, Alaska for the rest of his career,” commented one military officer in an online discussion forum for national security professionals. Adak is a remote outpost that is not seen in the Army as a career-enhancing duty station.

Can Yingling kiss his career goodbye?

Although professional critiques are common in service-specific publications like the Armed Forces Journal, Naval Institute Proceedings, or the Marine Corps Gazette, Yingling’s broadside was noteworthy. Effectively, Yingling said that Generals Tommy Franks, Richard Myers, and Peter Pace—and others like them—were the moral equivalent of failed leaders like Civil War-era general George McClellan, whom Lincoln fired after his battlefield missteps.

Yingling, who is a two-tour veteran of the Iraq war, said on National Public Radio that a Purple Heart ceremony he attended inspired the article. “It occurred to me that these soldiers have performed heroically, but that military officers had not done their part,” he said. “My critique is not of individual performances, but of the entire system that produces our senior leaders.”

A deputy commander of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, Lt. Col. Yingling is a close colleague of Col. H.R. McMaster, whose success as a commander in counterinsurgency in Tal Afar, Iraq, was trumpeted by President Bush as one of the main success stories in 2005.

Col. McMaster also wrote Dereliction of Duty, a book about the failure of the general officer corps to challenge civilian leadership during the Vietnam era. Yingling’s article is already being favorably compared by junior military personnel as this generation’s version of McMaster’s book.

In his interview with NPR, Yingling could only name one general officer whom he felt had lived up to the responsibility of telling the American people what resources would be necessary to win the war in Iraq: Gen. Eric Shinseki. In 2002, Shinseki told Congress that it would take “several hundred thousand soldiers” to stabilize postwar Iraq. Then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz said that estimate was “wildly off the mark.”

For his candor and honesty, the Defense Department rewarded Gen. Eric Shinseki by sending him into early retirement. We can only hope that Lt. Col. Paul Yingling will not suffer the same fate. The Army needs more officers like him.

Written by ON Point Editor David J. Danelo, who served a tour in Iraq in 2004.

“Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war than we know about peace, more about killing than we know about living. We have grasped the mystery of the atom and rejected the Sermon on the Mount.”

General of the Army Omar N. Bradley

“Of course the people don’t want war. But after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.”

Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

From Op-Ed pieces at the Grey Lady to blog reports from the combat zone, there is a wide variety of opinion as to what is actually taking place in Iraq, including whether the war is lost or not.

The first reality we must recognize is the one that centers on the US military. Since the end of World War II, the United States has not declared war. Despite the rhetoric of a few hardcore constitutionalists, a declaration of war does not somehow magically empower the military to perform its mission. A declaration may make war more palatable to some, but it has not affected the individual Soldier or Marine engaged in the nasty business of killing and dying violent deaths.

No, the reality is the military’s civilian masters lose wars for America and, just as in Viet Nam, the administration, its civilian appointees, and congress are losing the war in Iraq for America and the Iraqi people. If there were such a thing as war crime trials for America’s civilians, then the first trials would be already underway.

From Bremer’s arrogant mishandling of the post-war occupation, to the failure of Rummy to listen to General Shinseki, to neo-con loyalty tests for civilian appointees, to the Democrat’s blatant lies concerning support of the troops, the civilian mismanagement of this war is criminal. Innocent men, women, and children die everyday in Iraq, and the blame can only be laid at the feet of the incompetent, uncaring, selfish, arrogant, and wicked decision makers – both men and women. In fact, the conduct of the military’s civilian “masters” is the antithesis of what the Army demands form its Soldiers. In other words, the civilians did not and do not set the appropriate example and this fact alone is why the stench of hypocrisy emanates from Washington. Let’s call it hubris on steroids.

If America and its allies (including Iraq) are to prevail in its campaign against the insurgency, then this administration must address reality. President Bush and his decision makers must forego any additional political spin and grand standing so the military is free to provide an honest assessment, followed by a workable bi-partisan political and military solution set. The status quo is insufficient and continued neo-con involvement will preclude success in both areas.

For an opposing view on the military role in the Iraq War failure read “A Failure in Generalship”

Look for the next article in this series: “How America’s Civilians Created the Insurgency”

There is a new enemy of the American Constitutional Republic, and it is the taxpayer-supported Public Broadcasting System (PBS). Even though Bill Moyers and his anti-Christian tripe has been present for years, now PBS turns its guns on moderate adherents to Islam. The following is taken from CNS News        The Moderator

PBS Accused of Same Tactics Radical Muslims Use Against Moderates
By Kevin Mooney
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
April 25, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - Public Broadcasting Service officials who have refused to air a documentary on moderate Muslims are using the same tools of suppression and censorship Islamists employ to stymie debate, a documentary-maker charged Tuesday.

“Islam vs. Islamists: Voices from the Muslim Center,” a 52-minute, taxpayer-funded documentary, was originally slated to be screened as part of an 11-part PBS series called “America at a Crossroads,” examining post-9/11 challenges facing the nation.

The series began airing for the first time last week on WETA, the Washington, D.C., PBS affiliate, but “Islam vs. Islamists” has been dropped from the lineup.

Hollywood veteran Martyn Burke of ABG films co-produced the film with Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, and Gaffney’s CSP colleague Alex Alexiev, who specializes in Islamic extremism.

The film, which cost more than $600,000 to produce, focuses on conflicts that have erupted within the Muslim community in the U.S., Canada, Denmark and France.

The producers held a private screening in Washington, D.C., Tuesday, joined by three of the “anti-Islamist Muslims” featured in the film — Danish parliamentarian Naser Khader, Islamic Forum for Democracy President M. Zuhdi Jasser, and French-Algerian journalist Mohammed Sifaoui. Also attending on behalf of the Islamic Supreme Council of America was Hedieh Miramahdi.

Burke told the audience that PBS and WETA advisors and producers had objected to the participation of conservatives Gaffney and Alexiev. A “bitter fight” ensued over the content of the film, and the PBS/WETA criticisms became increasingly “hysterical,” he said.

“PBS is doing what the Islamists are doing,” Burke charged. “They are silencing these people [Muslim moderates].”

The producers said PBS replaced their film with another one, “The Muslim Americans,” which Gaffney called “a triumph for the Islamists,” saying it promoted a perspective in line with that of America’s enemies. For his part, Alexiev claimed that the replacement film paints a “fawning portrait” of U.S. organizations with extremist ties.

Alexiev also noted a conflict of interest: He said the replacement film was produced by Robert MacNeil, who also hosts the “Crossroads” series.

MacNeil was therefore allowed to produce his own film and at the same time was “the key guy who decided what gets cut,” he claimed.

PBS spokesman Joe Deplasco told Cybercast News Service the Burke-Gaffney-Alexiev film was unfinished and could not be shown. He said he was aware of their arguments, but declined to comment on them, referring further queries on the subject to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) - a private body funded by the federal government to promote public broadcasting through PBS.

CPB officials did not return calls Tuesday.

Asked about “The Muslims in America,” Deplasco said the decision to include it in the series was made for sound reasons. As the “Crossroads” project went forward, he said, the PBS-WETA producers felt that there “something missing” about everyday Muslim life. Consequently, they decided to use “The Muslim Americans.”

Deplasco said films that did not make the cut for the series may still be considered for airing later as “stand alone” pieces.

But the “Islam vs. Islamists” filmmakers contend that their product is complete and in no need of further editing.

“We are at the end of the road with PBS,” Gaffney said. “They have rejected the film we have made; they are insisting on structural and textual changes that would essentially eviscerate the message.”

The next step, Gaffney explained, was to ask the CPB to relinquish distribution rights to the film so it can be viewed by the American people “in another medium.”

In a letter to the CPB board last March, Burke, Gaffney and Alexiev said criticism of their film was based on a serious, perhaps willful misinterpretation of its message and its method.

Roger Aronoff, a media analyst with Accuracy with Media, told Cybercast News Service Tuesday that while he has not seen the film that PBS refuses to air as part of the series, his organization has had “issues with PBS over the years.”

The broadcaster, he said, has “a long record of airing primarily left-leaning documentaries.”

“The fact that they aired other documentaries as part of the ‘America at a Crossroads’ series that arguably represent a conservative point of view gives them some plausible deniability when they say that [neither] Gaffney’s viewpoint nor his association with an advocacy group is why they shelved his film,” Aronoff said. “But Gaffney’s film, according to reports, represents an important point of view that needs to be heard.”

“It is for just these types of situations that we have long advocated that tax dollars and politically biased programming do not mix,” he added. “Do we really want political appointees deciding what views deserve airing, and which do not? No. Let’s let the marketplace decide.”

Just as we were ready to return our focus to the War on Terror, Doug Phillips ups and blows it again.

The latest post on his church’s website is a hoot! It’s so bad it reads like something Matt Chancey would dream up. The real question though is this: Where is/are the source document(s) Phillips/BCA is allegedly quoting from?

Everyone has seen the source documents Mrs. Epstein posted, but we don’t see the much ballyhooed Faith Presbyterian Church document(s) Phillips references. Come on, Phillips, why didn’t you post the original document(s)?

In the meantime, over at Jen’s Gems, the Epstein’s supporters are running roughshod over those who support Phillips. This is really not much of a surprise considering Phillips placed his supporters in a lose-lose position. So much for “inspired” leadership.

The Moderator

Glad to see this one! Ministry Watchman and the Pineapple Pundit are taking Dapper/Dishonorable Doug Phillips to the wood shed for his latest diatribe concerning the Virginia Tech tragedy. As one commenter over at the Watchman noted, “The pandering, power-posturing and using every national tragedy as an opportunity to promote one’s particular agenda is truly disturbing. Not to mention that the supporters of Doug Phillips mock those who don’t feel comforted by his words.” Oh, yes, couldn’t have said it better myself.

Watchman takes Phillips to task for using anything to promote Dishonorable Doug’s agenda. Well, if the Vision Forum thing doesn’t work out in the long run, at least Phillips can continue his political specialty (ad hominem attacks) or be a carnival barker! Both would seem to suit him just fine.

Meanwhile, the Pineapple Pundit gently blasts Phillips for his lack of compassion (gee, didn’t I read about that on Mrs. Epstein’s website?). Speaking of the Epsteins, the “mister” in the equation noted this about Phillips’ lack of compassion:

“Watchman, you wrote in paragraph six that ‘Phillips’ article is likely to be interpreted by many as a message that God is cruel, unloving, uncaring, judgmental, and only too eager to destroy sinners.’ Do we see a pattern here? Aren’t the adjectives you used exactly what Jennifer has proven Phillips is (cruel, unloving, uncaring, judgmental, eager to destroy those Doug defines as sinners)?”

What’s truly beautiful about these two posts are the comments. It seems people are really beginning to see Doug Phillips as he is, not the phony public persona he projects. Well, to be honest, there are one or two comments supporting DD, however, it is obvious they checked their brains at the door and are not comparing what Doug says to what God says. It’s sad to say, but this is an overwhelmingly common mistake in American Christianity these days.

The articles are Doug Phillips Uses Virginia Tech Shootings to Promote Agenda and VT Massacre. Check ‘em both out.

On one final note, take a look at the picture below, which was borrowed from the Watchman’s site. Yup, it’s Dishonest Doug flaunting his 17″ Mac PowerBook.

As previously noted, it’s all about image with this political charlatan masquerading as a “preacher man.” Spare us all, Phillips.

The following Op-Ed piece by Terrible Ted Nugent is filled with wisdom (the original piece can be found at, get this, CNN). Anti-gunners, such as Adolf Hitler, love people like Rosie O’What-a-moutho and the Brady Bill toadies. Good job, Ted!

The Moderator

Nugent: Gun-free zones are recipe for disaster

By Ted Nugent
Special to CNN

Editor’s note: Rock guitarist Ted Nugent has sold more than 30 million albums. He’s also a gun rights activist and serves on the board of directors of the National Rifle Association. His program, “Ted Nugent Spirit of the Wild,” can be seen on the Outdoor Channel.

WACO, Texas (CNN) — Zero tolerance, huh? Gun-free zones, huh? Try this on for size: Columbine gun-free zone, New York City pizza shop gun-free zone, Luby’s Cafeteria gun-free zone, Amish school in Pennsylvania gun-free zone and now Virginia Tech gun-free zone.

Anybody see what theevil Brady Campaign and other anti-gun cults have created? I personally have zero tolerance for evil and denial. And America had best wake up real fast that the brain-dead celebration of unarmed helplessness will get you killed every time, and I’ve about had enough of it.

Nearly a decade ago, a Springfield, Oregon, high schooler, a hunter familiar with firearms, was able to bring an unfolding rampage to an abrupt end when he identified a gunman attempting to reload his .22-caliber rifle, made the tactical decision to make a move and tackled the shooter.

A few years back, an assistant principal at Pearl High School in Mississippi, which was a gun-free zone, retrieved his legally owned Colt .45 from his car and stopped a Columbine wannabe from continuing his massacre at another school after he had killed two and wounded more at Pearl.

At an eighth-grade school dance in Pennsylvania, a boy fatally shot a teacher and wounded two students before the owner of the dance hall brought the killing to a halt with his own gun.

More recently, just a few miles up the road from Virginia Tech, two law school students ran to fetch their legally owned firearm to stop a madman from slaughtering anybody and everybody he pleased. These brave, average, armed citizens neutralized him pronto.

My hero, Dr. Suzanne Gratia Hupp, was not allowed by Texas law to carry her handgun into Luby’s Cafeteria that fateful day in 1991, when due to bureaucrat-forced unarmed helplessness she could do nothing to stop satanic George Hennard from killing 23 people and wounding more than 20 others before he shot himself. Hupp was unarmed for no other reason than denial-ridden “feel good” politics.

She has since led the charge for concealed weapon upgrade in Texas, where we can now stop evil. Yet, there are still the mindless puppets of the Brady Campaign and other anti-gun organizations insisting on continuing the gun-free zone insanity by which innocents are forced into unarmed helplessness. Shame on them. Shame on America. Shame on the anti-gunners all.

No one was foolish enough to debate Ryder truck regulations or ammonia nitrate restrictions or a “cult of agriculture fertilizer” following the unabashed evil of Timothy McVeigh’s heinous crime against America on that fateful day in Oklahoma City. No one faulted kitchen utensils or other hardware of choice after Jeffrey Dahmer was caught drugging, mutilating, raping, murdering and cannibalizing his victims. Nobody wanted “steak knife control” as they autopsied the dead nurses in Chicago, Illinois, as Richard Speck went on trial for mass murder.

Evil is as evil does, and laws disarming guaranteed victims make evil people very, very happy. Shame on us.

Already spineless gun control advocates are squawking like chickens with their tiny-brained heads chopped off, making political hay over this most recent, devastating Virginia Tech massacre, when in fact it is their own forced gun-free zone policy that enabled the unchallenged methodical murder of 32 people.

Thirty-two people dead on a U.S. college campus pursuing their American Dream, mowed-down over an extended period of time by a lone, non-American gunman in illegal possession of a firearm on campus in defiance of a zero-tolerance gun law. Feel better yet? Didn’t think so.

Who doesn’t get this? Who has the audacity to demand unarmed helplessness? Who likes dead good guys?

I’ll tell you who. People who tramp on the Second Amendment, that’s who. People who refuse to accept the self-evident truth that free people have the God-given right to keep and bear arms, to defend themselves and their loved ones. People who are so desperate in their drive to control others, so mindless in their denial that they pretend access to gas causes arson, Ryder trucks and fertilizer cause terrorism, water causes drowning, forks and spoons cause obesity, dialing 911 will somehow save your life, and that their greedy clamoring to “feel good” is more important than admitting that armed citizens are much better equipped to stop evil than unarmed, helpless ones.

Pray for the families of victims everywhere, America. Study the methodology of evil. It has a profile, a system, a preferred environment where victims cannot fight back. Embrace the facts, demand upgrade and be certain that your children’s school has a better plan than Virginia Tech or Columbine. Eliminate the insanity of gun-free zones, which will never, ever be gun-free zones. They will only be good guy gun-free zones, and that is a recipe for disaster written in blood on the altar of denial. I, for one, refuse to genuflect there.

Original article appeared here: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/commentary.nugent/index.html

The last time the FBI was involved in determining the motives of a murderer, they put together a convincing court case that still baffles some of us. And regardless of the state execution of McVeigh, questions linger about foreign terrorist complicity; questions that just aren’t asked by “conspiracy” theorists, but rational individuals who have legitimate questions remaining unanswered.

Therefore, let’s ask the question: Was Cho Seung-Hui a member of Laskar Jihad or any other terrorist organization the federal law enforcers know about or the CIA is tracking?

Mrs. Epstein posted a very interesting piece concerning Phillips and Little Bear Wheeler. Although this post answers the question about the church the Epsteins attended after leaving Phillips’ BCA cult, there are still a number of unanswered questions everyone should be asking Phillips. For example, who was the man that introduced the motion to excommunicate the Epsteins? From what I’ve read, it doesn’t seem to be Phillips. Who was this man? Does anyone besides Phillips’ cult members know the answer? While we’re all pondering this question, don’t miss the latest addition to this sordid tale.

Doug Phillips Shuns Little Bear Wheeler