Saturday, 11 August 2007

INTIFADA? IN BROOKLYN? FUGGEDABOUDIT

Ken Berwitz

What do you think would happen if someone proposed a public school in Brooklyn, New York, dedicated to Christian culture?  How fast would the separation of church and state people be jumping on that?  At warp speed, that's how fast.

And if someone proposed a public school in Brooklyn dedicated to Jewish culture?  Same jump, same speed.

Ok, now what if someone proposed a public school in Brooklyn dedicated to Arab culture?  Do you think there would be an identical reaction?

If so, you are woefully unacquainted with PC.  Exactly such a school WAS proposed and is about to open.  Not only that, but the principal of that about-to-open school just had to resign, because she was overseeing the sale of  T-shirts within the school that said (so help me, I am not making this up) "Intifada USA".

And the separation of church and state crowd?  Nowhere to be seen.  A quasi-madrassa in Brooklyn, apparently, is ok with them.

Could this possibly be more nuts?  Could this possibly be less acceptable?

Here is how the New York Post framed it in their lead editorial today.  See if you agree with them (as usual, the bold print is mine):.

August 11, 2007 -- First the good news: Dhabah "Debbie" Almontaser yesterday quit as principal-designate of the city's new Arabic-themed public school - though not without blaming her resignation mostly on The Post (not by name, of course).

But here's the bad news: The Department of Education says it still plans to open the Khalil Gibran International Academy. And Almontaser herself will remain on the DOE payroll in an undetermined role.

After she defended the sale of T-shirts emblazoned with the slogan "Intifada NYC," and then issued a quasi-apology that only made things worse, it was inevitable that Almontaser would have to step down as head of the Arabic academy she'd first proposed.

Her words had brought a sharp rebuke from, among others, teachers-union head Randi Weingarten (until then a strong supporter of the Gibran school), who said, "Parents and teachers have a right to be concerned" about a school run by someone who didn't seem to understand the difference between "peace and war-mongering."

Chancellor Joel Klein's office refuses to release Almontaser's resignation letter. (Why not? Did she write something that would embarrass the department even further?)

But it did issue a statement attributed to Almontaser in which she complained, "This week's headlines were endangering the viability of Khalil Gibran International Academy, even though I apologized."

That is, she's blaming the media - in this case, Post reporters Chuck Bennett and Jana Winter and this page - for reporting and commenting on her foolishness.

Now she's been severed from any connection to the Gibran Academy, according to DOE. So what useful role can she continue to serve at the Department of Education?

As for the school itself, we continue to believe that it's a bad idea - one that runs counter to the notion of public education, which should be about pluralism, not self-segregation and separatism.

City Hall continues to defend the school: Deputy Mayor Dennis Wolcott yesterday insisted it's meant to "prepare students for the global community" by "exposing them to different cultures in our city and the world."

Indeed, he pointed to the fact that the city has more than 60 schools that focus on a single language and culture, including French, Chinese, Spanish, Russian, Korean and Greek.

Now, why the French, Chinese, Spanish, Russian, Korean and Greek kids aren't immersed in English and American culture - remember the Melting Pot? - remains a mystery.

Beyond that, however, Almontaser said the Gibran Academy is meant to focus primarily on the need for "creating cultural understanding of the complexity of Arab history and the diversity of Arab culture."

We don't have a problem with teaching students Arabic language, or even Arabic culture and history - as part of a regular public-school curriculum.

But we think it's wrong-headed to create an entire public school, supported by taxpayer dollars, that stresses a single language and culture - one aimed principally at fostering cultural pride, rather than simply providing instruction in a foreign language.

Yes, students need to be exposed to different cultures. But only to prepare them to be part of an integrated community - not members of an ethnocentric communal enclave.

DOE would do well to shelve the whole idea as a painful lesson learned.  .

It's bad enough public schools are not at all serious about teaching things like civics and history anymore (ask a teenager who was the president in any random year, starting, say, 20 years ago and I bet you won't even get a guess, let alone an answer.  Ask that teenage who either US senator or his/her congressperson is and you're likely to get either a blank or insolent stare for your trouble).

But do we have to dedicate schools to teaching foreign languages and culture- not as part of a curriculum (which would be fine with me) but as the education itself???????? 

Do we have to make it harder, not easier for these children to assimilate into our culture?

I asked this at the beginning and I'll ask it again now:  Could this possibly be more nuts?  Could this possibly be less acceptable?


THE UN "DOES ITS WORK" IN AFRICA

Ken Berwitz

If there was one sentence we heard more than any other during the lead-up to our invasion of Iraq, it was "Let the UN do its work".  We were supposed to accept as a working premise that the UN was an effective organization.  That if hans blix was jerked around long enough by the saddam wild goose chase routine, everthing would be okey-dokey.  Things would be fine, no problem at all about saddam's mass murders, starvation of his people while he built palaces to himself, international bribery using his oil and avid support of international terrorism.

Never mind the fact that saddam had ignored 16 - count 'em - 16 different UN resolutions after the US and our coalition defeated him during Desert Storm.  We were supposed to pretend that the UN was capable of reigning him in. 

How?  We're still waiting to hear.  Other than through some kind of deus ex machina that would make a Greek playwright cringe with embarrassment, no one seemed to have an answer.  But that was what we were supposed to rely on.  That and the UN's sterling history of effectiveness in other places such as ...........er.................uh.......................give me some time here.

More recently, the UN, with great fanfare, has decided to send 26,000 "troops" (that's in parenthesis because they aren't going to be doing any fighting) into the Darfur region of Sudan, presumably to stop its endemic murder and mayhem;  murder and mayhem that have gone on for YEARS while the UN collectively twiddled its thumbs and spent its days figuring out new ways to condemn Israel.

Prior to that, the UN's "troops" in Africa were most notable for raping underage girls in the Congo - something Darfurian parents had better protect their daughters from once this force of 26,000 shows up.

In any event, I would like to show you another of the "effective" means by which the UN functions in Africa.  I have pulled excerpts of an article I found on www.msnbc.com which should give you pretty good idea of how they're making out (as usual, the bold print is mine):.

GOMA, Congo - It had already been a long day when Case No. 4, woman with delinquent husband, walked through the metal gates into the spare, concrete-floored chambers of the so-called Children's Parliament here.

The aggrieved woman sat in front of a large wooden desk, where skinny, 14-year-old Eddy Musoke -- the Honorable Eddy, to his parliamentary colleagues -- recorded her story with the seriousness of a seasoned attorney.

"The case was of a woman with six children," he explained afterward, glancing down at the fresh file. "She came to accuse her husband of being an irresponsible father. He has six children, and for three years, the father has paid no school fees."

"We'll write an invitation to the father and another to the wife," he added. "Their appointment is next Wednesday."

Veering toward the absurd
Life in Congo can often veer toward the absurd. It is one of
Africa's richest countries in terms of mineral wealth, but its people are among the poorest on Earth. Federal employees go to work each day, but most of them have not been paid in more than a decade.

With government institutions, including the courts, hobbled by decades of corruption and neglect, one of the few bodies still reliably administering justice is a parliament run by, and mostly for, children.

Launched in 2002, the U.N. initiative has since taken on a life of its own, with 150 members and little day-to-day adult supervision.

One recent Friday, there were no adults in sight except those pleading for help from the children. The parliament's officers took a break from a busy schedule -- lobbying to free children from prison that morning, four cases in the afternoon -- to discuss their work.

"Mostly children bring cases here," said Arthur Omar Kayumba, 16, seated at a desk on which a folded piece of paper read "Vice-President."

"Sometimes they are accusing their parents of not taking care of them, or women are accusing their husbands of not supporting the children," he said. "Since January, we've had more than 105 cases."

He pulled a thick, blue binder from a bookshelf lined with legal texts and recounted some of them.

Children's issues
There was the girl whose father had accused her of being a witch; the 16-year-old boy who had been forced to serve as a militia commander's bodyguard; the woman who accused her husband of illegally selling their compound, to the detriment of their 10 children.

Musoke, the parliament's adviser on protection for children, usually records the unsavory details. The parties are then sent a letter including a date when they can present their stories to the parliament's officers. The letter also includes a P.S.: "We will be obliged to contact the competent service in the matter of protecting minors if you do not respect this invitation. Sincerely, Junior Alimasi, Vice-President of Protection and Participation."

Although the parliament cannot render legal rulings, officers do offer recommendations -- "moral advice," Kayumba called it -- based on their study of Congolese law and U.N. conventions on children's rights.

In Case No. 4, for instance, "if the father says, 'Okay, I will take care of my children,' he will have to sign a document promising he will," Musoke said.

"We listen to both parties and try to assist them based on the conventions and the constitution," Kayumba added. "And we show them the consequences of not respecting the law."

Most adults listen
Most adults listen to their decisions, he said, but "if not, we contact the special police."

The police do not always follow up, but when they do, consequences can range from a reprimand to fines to jail time, depending on Congolese law, Kayumba said.

The United Nations has initiated other children's parliaments in Africa, which are meeting at a convention later this year to discuss, among other topics, how to address the plight of children worldwide.

The original officers in Goma were selected by their teachers on the basis of their academic records. Now, officers are elected by the parliament's members.

The precocious leaders strictly enforce rules requiring that members be younger than 17. Adults can be honorary counselors if the members agree.

"If you have ideas to dominate or manipulate the parliament, you must leave," said Kelvin Batumike, who, at 20, has been given the title of high counselor.

Over the years, the officers have developed their own thoughts on the state of their nation. Congo, then known as Zaire, was ruled for nearly 40 years by the dictator Mobutu Sese Seko, who stole liberally from the state's coffers and encouraged a culture in which government employees did the same.

Growing up fast
Mobutu's overthrow in 1997 triggered a decade of civil war in eastern Congo, where militia groups still roam the lush green mountains and children are often forced to become soldiers and in other ways grow up fast.

Up and down the crumbling dirt roads here, it is common to see toddlers hauling heavy jugs of water, teetering under the weight. A steady stream of twig-legged boys make their way down from the surrounding mountains into Goma every day, pushing wooden bicycles twice their size and piled impossibly high with bananas.

"When I see such kinds of problems, it makes me think that in the future, I will become a man of revolution to fight against this mistreatment of children," Musoke said. "All the world knows Congo is a big, rich country, and I would make it worthy of its name."

Kayumba said he imagines a political career.

"I want to be president of the republic," he said.  .

As you can see, The Congo is a country rich in natural resources with absolute corruption, child labor, child abuse and God only knows what else existing without any check or balance on it at all.

So what is the UN's answer?  Create a "court" comprised of  children 16 and under that renders "verdicts" with no legal authority, which the authorities can enforce or not enforce randomly.

The utter devastation of the country?  The hopeless corruption?  The rampant abuse of children?  That's someone else's problem, we're too busy setting up the children's court which may make young people like Kayumba feel more important but does exactly nothing to address what is wrong there.  Zero. 

Maybe it's not a coincidence that his name is an anagram for kumbaya.

Useless, ineffective and futile, but heralded as some kind of wonderful breakthrough.  THAT is what we get when we "Let the UN do its work". 

Do you like it?


THE UN "DOES ITS WORK" IN AFRICA

Ken Berwitz

If there was one sentence we heard more than any other during the lead-up to our invasion of Iraq, it was "Let the UN do its work".  We were supposed to accept as a working premise that the UN was an effective organization.  That if hans blix was jerked around long enough by the saddam wild goose chase routine, everthing would be okey-dokey.  Things would be fine, no problem at all about saddam's mass murders, starvation of his people while he built palaces to himself, international bribery using his oil and avid support of international terrorism.

Never mind the fact that saddam had ignored 16 - count 'em - 16 different UN resolutions after the US and our coalition defeated him during Desert Storm.  We were supposed to pretend that the UN was capable of reigning him in. 

How?  We're still waiting to hear.  Other than through some kind of deus ex machina that would make a Greek playwright cringe with embarrassment, no one seemed to have an answer.  But that was what we were supposed to rely on.  That and the UN's sterling history of effectiveness in other places such as ...........er.................uh.......................give me some time here.

More recently, the UN, with great fanfare, has decided to send 26,000 "troops" (that's in parenthesis because they aren't going to be doing any fighting) into the Darfur region of Sudan, presumably to stop its endemic murder and mayhem;  murder and mayhem that have gone on for YEARS while the UN collectively twiddled its thumbs and spent its days figuring out new ways to condemn Israel.

Prior to that, the UN's "troops" in Africa were most notable for raping underage girls in the Congo - something Darfurian parents had better protect their daughters from once this force of 26,000 shows up.

In any event, I would like to show you another of the "effective" means by which the UN functions in Africa.  I have pulled excerpts of an article I found on www.msnbc.com which should give you pretty good idea of how they're making out (as usual, the bold print is mine):.

GOMA, Congo - It had already been a long day when Case No. 4, woman with delinquent husband, walked through the metal gates into the spare, concrete-floored chambers of the so-called Children's Parliament here.

The aggrieved woman sat in front of a large wooden desk, where skinny, 14-year-old Eddy Musoke -- the Honorable Eddy, to his parliamentary colleagues -- recorded her story with the seriousness of a seasoned attorney.

"The case was of a woman with six children," he explained afterward, glancing down at the fresh file. "She came to accuse her husband of being an irresponsible father. He has six children, and for three years, the father has paid no school fees."

"We'll write an invitation to the father and another to the wife," he added. "Their appointment is next Wednesday."

Veering toward the absurd
Life in Congo can often veer toward the absurd. It is one of
Africa's richest countries in terms of mineral wealth, but its people are among the poorest on Earth. Federal employees go to work each day, but most of them have not been paid in more than a decade.

With government institutions, including the courts, hobbled by decades of corruption and neglect, one of the few bodies still reliably administering justice is a parliament run by, and mostly for, children.

Launched in 2002, the U.N. initiative has since taken on a life of its own, with 150 members and little day-to-day adult supervision.

One recent Friday, there were no adults in sight except those pleading for help from the children. The parliament's officers took a break from a busy schedule -- lobbying to free children from prison that morning, four cases in the afternoon -- to discuss their work.

"Mostly children bring cases here," said Arthur Omar Kayumba, 16, seated at a desk on which a folded piece of paper read "Vice-President."

"Sometimes they are accusing their parents of not taking care of them, or women are accusing their husbands of not supporting the children," he said. "Since January, we've had more than 105 cases."

He pulled a thick, blue binder from a bookshelf lined with legal texts and recounted some of them.

Children's issues
There was the girl whose father had accused her of being a witch; the 16-year-old boy who had been forced to serve as a militia commander's bodyguard; the woman who accused her husband of illegally selling their compound, to the detriment of their 10 children.

Musoke, the parliament's adviser on protection for children, usually records the unsavory details. The parties are then sent a letter including a date when they can present their stories to the parliament's officers. The letter also includes a P.S.: "We will be obliged to contact the competent service in the matter of protecting minors if you do not respect this invitation. Sincerely, Junior Alimasi, Vice-President of Protection and Participation."

Although the parliament cannot render legal rulings, officers do offer recommendations -- "moral advice," Kayumba called it -- based on their study of Congolese law and U.N. conventions on children's rights.

In Case No. 4, for instance, "if the father says, 'Okay, I will take care of my children,' he will have to sign a document promising he will," Musoke said.

"We listen to both parties and try to assist them based on the conventions and the constitution," Kayumba added. "And we show them the consequences of not respecting the law."

Most adults listen
Most adults listen to their decisions, he said, but "if not, we contact the special police."

The police do not always follow up, but when they do, consequences can range from a reprimand to fines to jail time, depending on Congolese law, Kayumba said.

The United Nations has initiated other children's parliaments in Africa, which are meeting at a convention later this year to discuss, among other topics, how to address the plight of children worldwide.

The original officers in Goma were selected by their teachers on the basis of their academic records. Now, officers are elected by the parliament's members.

The precocious leaders strictly enforce rules requiring that members be younger than 17. Adults can be honorary counselors if the members agree.

"If you have ideas to dominate or manipulate the parliament, you must leave," said Kelvin Batumike, who, at 20, has been given the title of high counselor.

Over the years, the officers have developed their own thoughts on the state of their nation. Congo, then known as Zaire, was ruled for nearly 40 years by the dictator Mobutu Sese Seko, who stole liberally from the state's coffers and encouraged a culture in which government employees did the same.

Growing up fast
Mobutu's overthrow in 1997 triggered a decade of civil war in eastern Congo, where militia groups still roam the lush green mountains and children are often forced to become soldiers and in other ways grow up fast.

Up and down the crumbling dirt roads here, it is common to see toddlers hauling heavy jugs of water, teetering under the weight. A steady stream of twig-legged boys make their way down from the surrounding mountains into Goma every day, pushing wooden bicycles twice their size and piled impossibly high with bananas.

"When I see such kinds of problems, it makes me think that in the future, I will become a man of revolution to fight against this mistreatment of children," Musoke said. "All the world knows Congo is a big, rich country, and I would make it worthy of its name."

Kayumba said he imagines a political career.

"I want to be president of the republic," he said.  .

As you can see, The Congo is a country rich in natural resources with absolute corruption, child labor, child abuse and God only knows what else existing without any check or balance on it at all.

So what is the UN's answer?  Create a "court" comprised of  children 16 and under that renders "verdicts" with no legal authority, which the authorities can enforce or not enforce randomly.

The utter devastation of the country?  The hopeless corruption?  The rampant abuse of children?  That's someone else's problem, we're too busy setting up the children's court which may make young people like Kayumba feel more important but does exactly nothing to address what is wrong there.  Zero. 

Maybe it's not a coincidence that his name is an anagram for kumbaya.

Useless, ineffective and futile, but heralded as some kind of wonderful breakthrough.  THAT is what we get when we "Let the UN do its work". 

Do you like it?


DISGUSTING PIGS DON'T APOLOGIZE

Ken Berwitz

Here is a superb article written by Ben Johnson at www.frontpagemagazine.com .  In it, he reminds us of the sickening judge/jury/executioner comments made about 8 of our marines by the ethically challenged, unindicted ABSCAM co-conspirator john murtha.  Murtha, you may remember, told us the marines were guilty of "cold blooded murder".  He did so without benefit of hearing one word of any marine's side of things.

Johnson then outlines what has transpired since, how dead wrong this judgment was and (though he doesn't say it in so many words) what a disgusting pig murtha is:..

"Innocent" at Haditha

By Ben Johnson
FrontPageMagazine.com | 8/10/2007

ITS BEEN MORE THAN A YEAR SINCE JOHN MURTHAcharged that U.S. Marines killed innocent civilians in cold blood in Haditha. Yesterday, a military commander lifted Murthas preemptive conviction.

Last May, John Murtha held a press conference accusing our soldiers of slaughtering 24 Iraqis including women and children in the town of Haditha in late November 2005. He guaranteed an investigation would determine [o]ur troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood. His words ricocheted around the Arab world, as Al Jazeeradutifully quoted him. This pressure, Murtha said, could be ended by bringing troops home. The government eventually charged four men with unpremeditated murder.

On August 9th, the militarydismissed all charges against one of the remaining three Marines accused of murder.[1] Indeed, Lt. Gen. James Mattis went further than finding Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt not guilty; he called the 22-year-old innocent. He concludedhis statement by noting Sharratt has always remained cloaked in the presumption of innocence, with this dismissal of charges, he remains in the eyes of the law and in my eyes innocent.

All the accused have claimed they engaged in a battle with terrorists, who hid inside a home, and the civilian deaths were unintentional. Mattis verified this claim, adding a fact that seems to elude Murtha: our nation is fighting a shadowy enemy who hides among the innocent people, does not comply with any aspect of the law of war, and routinely targets and intentionally draws fire toward civilians.

The ruling is merely the latest indication that the governments case against the three is crumbling. In June, Lt. Col. Paul Waretold the prosecution flatly, The account you want me to believe does not support unpremeditated murder. Your theories dont match the reason you say we should go to trial. Relativeswould not allow doctors to autopsy the bodies, and the house in question had been freshly repaired and painted before investigators could retrieve additional evidence. (Ware also doubted Iraqi witnesses would travel stateside to testify.) However, photographs of the scene revealed the curtains and walls wereriddled with bullet holes indicating a firefight had taken place.

In April, the government dropped charges against Sgt. Sanick P. Dela Cruz in exchange for his testimony and provided immunity for several others. A defense attorney states Dela Cruz has alreadychanged his story five times.

Two others remain charged with murder: Lance Cpl. Stephen B. Tatum and Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich. Tatums Article 32 hearing a military-style Grand Jury, which determines if the case proceeds to a court martial trial wrapped up late last month. Prosecutorsaccuse Tatum of not following the Rules of Engagement, which state the Marine must identify that each specific target has hostile intent before firing. Which sounds like a terrific way to end up in the Memorial Day eulogy rather than the Veterans Day parade.

Tatum nearly broke down into tears when he recounted that he may have killed a child; yet he maintains after an explosion, he heard someone rack an AK-47 and could not clearly see the targets through the smoke. The prosecutions star witness, Lance Cpl. Humberto Mendoza, testified Tatum ordered him to murder the innocents, then Tatum did it himself when he refused.

There are, however, significant reasons to question Mendozas veracity. While Tatumpassed his lie detector test, Mendozafailed his. Mendoza admitted shooting two unarmed people, and confessed to lying and withholding evidence for more than a year. His testimony conflicts with that of every other witness, and with itself. Oh, and Mendoza is trying to get his application for U.S. citizenship released by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, which is holding up his papers. Mattis has yet to rule in this case.

Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich has yet to have his Article 32 hearing.

If Murtha genuinely cared about the troops, he would have protested theconditions of their interrogations. Investigators refused to provide attorneys to those who asked, questioned the men for 12 hours at a time, and did not give them bathroom breaks. (The men had to relieve themselves into bottles.) Had this treatment taken place at Guantanamo Bay, Congress would have already held a dozen hearings on the issue. When this treatment is accorded to enlisted men instead of terrorist murderers, the Democratic Lefts outrage seems to wane.

The media, too, lost interest when the proceedings no longer portrayed the enlisted men as brutal babykillers. True to form, Murthas blood libel made front page headlines. The proceedings were largely passed over except when Mendoza testified. News of the exoneration has yet to make a ripple. Murtha demonized Sharratt and the others in front of the entire world. Tatum and Wuterich may yet prove guilty, but if they are acquitted, they may well join Sharratt in asking, Where do I go to get my reputation back?

Sharratts good name was the first casualty of Jack Murthas Iraq policy. If the Left succeeds in following all his advice, future casualties will not be figurative.

ENDNOTES:
1. He also threw out separate charges against another GI in the Haditha incident.
.
.

Would it be asking too much of the ethically challenged, disgusting pig Murtha to say something about this?  Maybe something like "Y'know, I shouldn't have opened my big stupid mouth before I knew what the hell I was talking about"?

Don't hold your breath waiting for it to happen.  Disgusting pigs don't apologize.


DISGUSTING PIGS DON'T APOLOGIZE

Ken Berwitz

Here is a superb article written by Ben Johnson at www.frontpagemagazine.com .  In it, he reminds us of the sickening judge/jury/executioner comments made about 8 of our marines by the ethically challenged, unindicted ABSCAM co-conspirator john murtha.  Murtha, you may remember, told us the marines were guilty of "cold blooded murder".  He did so without benefit of hearing one word of any marine's side of things.

Johnson then outlines what has transpired since, how dead wrong this judgment was and (though he doesn't say it in so many words) what a disgusting pig murtha is:..

"Innocent" at Haditha

By Ben Johnson
FrontPageMagazine.com | 8/10/2007

ITS BEEN MORE THAN A YEAR SINCE JOHN MURTHAcharged that U.S. Marines killed innocent civilians in cold blood in Haditha. Yesterday, a military commander lifted Murthas preemptive conviction.

Last May, John Murtha held a press conference accusing our soldiers of slaughtering 24 Iraqis including women and children in the town of Haditha in late November 2005. He guaranteed an investigation would determine [o]ur troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood. His words ricocheted around the Arab world, as Al Jazeeradutifully quoted him. This pressure, Murtha said, could be ended by bringing troops home. The government eventually charged four men with unpremeditated murder.

On August 9th, the militarydismissed all charges against one of the remaining three Marines accused of murder.[1] Indeed, Lt. Gen. James Mattis went further than finding Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt not guilty; he called the 22-year-old innocent. He concludedhis statement by noting Sharratt has always remained cloaked in the presumption of innocence, with this dismissal of charges, he remains in the eyes of the law and in my eyes innocent.

All the accused have claimed they engaged in a battle with terrorists, who hid inside a home, and the civilian deaths were unintentional. Mattis verified this claim, adding a fact that seems to elude Murtha: our nation is fighting a shadowy enemy who hides among the innocent people, does not comply with any aspect of the law of war, and routinely targets and intentionally draws fire toward civilians.

The ruling is merely the latest indication that the governments case against the three is crumbling. In June, Lt. Col. Paul Waretold the prosecution flatly, The account you want me to believe does not support unpremeditated murder. Your theories dont match the reason you say we should go to trial. Relativeswould not allow doctors to autopsy the bodies, and the house in question had been freshly repaired and painted before investigators could retrieve additional evidence. (Ware also doubted Iraqi witnesses would travel stateside to testify.) However, photographs of the scene revealed the curtains and walls wereriddled with bullet holes indicating a firefight had taken place.

In April, the government dropped charges against Sgt. Sanick P. Dela Cruz in exchange for his testimony and provided immunity for several others. A defense attorney states Dela Cruz has alreadychanged his story five times.

Two others remain charged with murder: Lance Cpl. Stephen B. Tatum and Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich. Tatums Article 32 hearing a military-style Grand Jury, which determines if the case proceeds to a court martial trial wrapped up late last month. Prosecutorsaccuse Tatum of not following the Rules of Engagement, which state the Marine must identify that each specific target has hostile intent before firing. Which sounds like a terrific way to end up in the Memorial Day eulogy rather than the Veterans Day parade.

Tatum nearly broke down into tears when he recounted that he may have killed a child; yet he maintains after an explosion, he heard someone rack an AK-47 and could not clearly see the targets through the smoke. The prosecutions star witness, Lance Cpl. Humberto Mendoza, testified Tatum ordered him to murder the innocents, then Tatum did it himself when he refused.

There are, however, significant reasons to question Mendozas veracity. While Tatumpassed his lie detector test, Mendozafailed his. Mendoza admitted shooting two unarmed people, and confessed to lying and withholding evidence for more than a year. His testimony conflicts with that of every other witness, and with itself. Oh, and Mendoza is trying to get his application for U.S. citizenship released by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, which is holding up his papers. Mattis has yet to rule in this case.

Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich has yet to have his Article 32 hearing.

If Murtha genuinely cared about the troops, he would have protested theconditions of their interrogations. Investigators refused to provide attorneys to those who asked, questioned the men for 12 hours at a time, and did not give them bathroom breaks. (The men had to relieve themselves into bottles.) Had this treatment taken place at Guantanamo Bay, Congress would have already held a dozen hearings on the issue. When this treatment is accorded to enlisted men instead of terrorist murderers, the Democratic Lefts outrage seems to wane.

The media, too, lost interest when the proceedings no longer portrayed the enlisted men as brutal babykillers. True to form, Murthas blood libel made front page headlines. The proceedings were largely passed over except when Mendoza testified. News of the exoneration has yet to make a ripple. Murtha demonized Sharratt and the others in front of the entire world. Tatum and Wuterich may yet prove guilty, but if they are acquitted, they may well join Sharratt in asking, Where do I go to get my reputation back?

Sharratts good name was the first casualty of Jack Murthas Iraq policy. If the Left succeeds in following all his advice, future casualties will not be figurative.

ENDNOTES:
1. He also threw out separate charges against another GI in the Haditha incident.
.
.

Would it be asking too much of the ethically challenged, disgusting pig Murtha to say something about this?  Maybe something like "Y'know, I shouldn't have opened my big stupid mouth before I knew what the hell I was talking about"?

Don't hold your breath waiting for it to happen.  Disgusting pigs don't apologize.


INTIFADA? IN BROOKLYN? FUGGEDABOUDIT

Ken Berwitz

What do you think would happen if someone proposed a public school in Brooklyn, New York, dedicated to Christian culture?  How fast would the separation of church and state people be jumping on that?  At warp speed, that's how fast.

And if someone proposed a public school in Brooklyn dedicated to Jewish culture?  Same jump, same speed.

Ok, now what if someone proposed a public school in Brooklyn dedicated to Arab culture?  Do you think there would be an identical reaction?

If so, you are woefully unacquainted with PC.  Exactly such a school WAS proposed and is about to open.  Not only that, but the principal of that about-to-open school just had to resign, because she was overseeing the sale of  T-shirts within the school that said (so help me, I am not making this up) "Intifada USA".

And the separation of church and state crowd?  Nowhere to be seen.  A quasi-madrassa in Brooklyn, apparently, is ok with them.

Could this possibly be more nuts?  Could this possibly be less acceptable?

Here is how the New York Post framed it in their lead editorial today.  See if you agree with them (as usual, the bold print is mine):.

August 11, 2007 -- First the good news: Dhabah "Debbie" Almontaser yesterday quit as principal-designate of the city's new Arabic-themed public school - though not without blaming her resignation mostly on The Post (not by name, of course).

But here's the bad news: The Department of Education says it still plans to open the Khalil Gibran International Academy. And Almontaser herself will remain on the DOE payroll in an undetermined role.

After she defended the sale of T-shirts emblazoned with the slogan "Intifada NYC," and then issued a quasi-apology that only made things worse, it was inevitable that Almontaser would have to step down as head of the Arabic academy she'd first proposed.

Her words had brought a sharp rebuke from, among others, teachers-union head Randi Weingarten (until then a strong supporter of the Gibran school), who said, "Parents and teachers have a right to be concerned" about a school run by someone who didn't seem to understand the difference between "peace and war-mongering."

Chancellor Joel Klein's office refuses to release Almontaser's resignation letter. (Why not? Did she write something that would embarrass the department even further?)

But it did issue a statement attributed to Almontaser in which she complained, "This week's headlines were endangering the viability of Khalil Gibran International Academy, even though I apologized."

That is, she's blaming the media - in this case, Post reporters Chuck Bennett and Jana Winter and this page - for reporting and commenting on her foolishness.

Now she's been severed from any connection to the Gibran Academy, according to DOE. So what useful role can she continue to serve at the Department of Education?

As for the school itself, we continue to believe that it's a bad idea - one that runs counter to the notion of public education, which should be about pluralism, not self-segregation and separatism.

City Hall continues to defend the school: Deputy Mayor Dennis Wolcott yesterday insisted it's meant to "prepare students for the global community" by "exposing them to different cultures in our city and the world."

Indeed, he pointed to the fact that the city has more than 60 schools that focus on a single language and culture, including French, Chinese, Spanish, Russian, Korean and Greek.

Now, why the French, Chinese, Spanish, Russian, Korean and Greek kids aren't immersed in English and American culture - remember the Melting Pot? - remains a mystery.

Beyond that, however, Almontaser said the Gibran Academy is meant to focus primarily on the need for "creating cultural understanding of the complexity of Arab history and the diversity of Arab culture."

We don't have a problem with teaching students Arabic language, or even Arabic culture and history - as part of a regular public-school curriculum.

But we think it's wrong-headed to create an entire public school, supported by taxpayer dollars, that stresses a single language and culture - one aimed principally at fostering cultural pride, rather than simply providing instruction in a foreign language.

Yes, students need to be exposed to different cultures. But only to prepare them to be part of an integrated community - not members of an ethnocentric communal enclave.

DOE would do well to shelve the whole idea as a painful lesson learned.  .

It's bad enough public schools are not at all serious about teaching things like civics and history anymore (ask a teenager who was the president in any random year, starting, say, 20 years ago and I bet you won't even get a guess, let alone an answer.  Ask that teenage who either US senator or his/her congressperson is and you're likely to get either a blank or insolent stare for your trouble).

But do we have to dedicate schools to teaching foreign languages and culture- not as part of a curriculum (which would be fine with me) but as the education itself???????? 

Do we have to make it harder, not easier for these children to assimilate into our culture?

I asked this at the beginning and I'll ask it again now:  Could this possibly be more nuts?  Could this possibly be less acceptable?


Buy Our Book Here!


Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.


About Us



Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.


At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!