US soldiers in Iraq asked to pray for Bush

They may be the ones facing danger on the battlefield, but US soldiers in Iraq are being asked to pray for President George W Bush.

Thousands of marines have been given a pamphlet called "A Christian's Duty," a mini prayer book which includes a tear-out section to be mailed to the White House pledging the soldier who sends it in has been praying for Bush.

"I have committed to pray for you, your family, your staff and our troops during this time of uncertainty and tumult. May God's peace be your guide," says the pledge, according to a journalist embedded with coalition forces.

The pamphlet, produced by a group called In Touch Ministries, offers a daily prayer to be made for the US president, a born-again Christian who likes to invoke his God in speeches.

Sunday's is "Pray that the President and his advisers will seek God and his wisdom daily and not rely on their own understanding".

Monday's reads "Pray that the President and his advisers will be strong and courageous to do what is right regardless of critics".

The liberals should be ashamed. While our troops fight for their lives in the desert, the left's anti-American carping has had it's desired effect. The Iraqis have hope now, reinforced by the pictures of American city streets clogged with this pack of deluded Stalinists. A unified America would have terrified the thugs who maintain and serve Saddam's regime. Instead, it is clear that the objectively pro-Saddam left has chosen to undercut the work of our noble sons (and daughters) in the desert. Every lost American life should be placed at the feet of those who choose to ignore reality and continue in their childish fantasy of "international consensus".

The people have a choice. They will be judged by that choice in the balance of freedom.

Our commitment to the post-Saddam humanitarian effort will be total, we shall help Iraq move toward democracy, and put the money from Iraqi oil in a U.N. trust fund so that it benefits Iraq and no one else.

WashingtonPost.com: "War Begins in Iraq"

MSNBC.com: "WAR"

FoxNews.com: "U.S. STRIKES BAGHDAD; IRAQ RETALIATES"

NewYorkTimes.com: "Iraqi Missiles Fired at G.I.'s in Kuwait
After U.S. Tries to Hit Saddam Hussein"

CNN.com: "DECAPITATION ATTACK"

This Is The Brink Of War?

If it weren't for the thundering theme music on MSNBCNNFox, it would be hard to tell that this country is less than 24 hours away from an intense military conflict. My grandparent's generation lived through the conflict to end all conflicts, World War II - where even in the small island of Jamaica my grandmother got to know what it was like to black out your windows and hear an air raid siren. In World War II, you didn't know that our side would win. The eventual victory of the allies must have seemed very far off when Londoners sought shelter from the Blitz, Americans were killed at Pearl Harbor, and the Japanese engaged in atrocities in Nanking. Hitler and his army were a force so powerful, they could have won the war and that put the fear of Jesus into the globe.

For a country like America, even with 9.11 a recent memory - there is no such fear, and it strikes me as an unhealthy thing. President Clinton was the first leader born from a generation who saw conflict in the terms of Vietnam and America's subsequent bulking up for adventures in numerous global hotspots. Kosovo showed us that our power was so great we could cower an enemy without even setting foot on his land - we could destroy him from the air. I am of course happy that this force is defending me, but I wonder if in taking our military might for granted that we now see grand military undertakings not in the reverential tone of our forbearers, but as just another thing that happens.

There are 300,000 American soldiers about to break down Iraq's door and we don't think that's a big deal until the door is actually broken. Until then we watch American Idol and Frasier and go to work in our cars or on the subway and come home asking "hey, did the war start yet?" as if it were just another midseason replacement.

There is no way that can be a good or healthy development.

Americans are asking: How will we fight and win this war? We will direct every resource at our command -- every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war -- to the disruption and to the defeat of the global terror network.

This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

Americans are asking: What is expected of us? I ask you to live your lives, and hug your children. I know many citizens have fears tonight, and I ask you to be calm and resolute, even in the face of a continuing threat.

I ask you to uphold the values of America, and remember why so many have come here. We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them. No one should be singled out for unfair treatment or unkind words because of their ethnic background or religious faith. (Applause.)

I ask you to continue to support the victims of this tragedy with your contributions. Those who want to give can go to a central source of information, libertyunites.org, to find the names of groups providing direct help in New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

The thousands of FBI agents who are now at work in this investigation may need your cooperation, and I ask you to give it.

I ask for your patience, with the delays and inconveniences that may accompany tighter security; and for your patience in what will be a long struggle.

I ask your continued participation and confidence in the American economy. Terrorists attacked a symbol of American prosperity. They did not touch its source. America is successful because of the hard work, and creativity, and enterprise of our people. These were the true strengths of our economy before September 11th, and they are our strengths today. (Applause.)

And, finally, please continue praying for the victims of terror and their families, for those in uniform, and for our great country. Prayer has comforted us in sorrow, and will help strengthen us for the journey ahead.

In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.

Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.

Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this year, attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero.

About two weeks ago, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas (R-Calif.) told Republican and Democratic members they could use the $482 million tax bill as a vehicle to add other tax provisions that had failed in previous efforts. Several Republicans responded with targeted tax breaks, including a repeal of the excise tax on fishing tackle boxes, a tax break for the weather-related sale of livestock, and elimination of taxes on foreigners who bet on U.S. horse races. Democrats extended the bill's benefits to Peace Corps volunteers.

The answers to these questions matter at a time when the West is once again fighting an ideological enemy, in the form of radical Islam. If we remembered, truly remembered, why the Cold War was fought and how it was won, for example, we would know that it is unacceptable to alter our liberal democracy in order to fight the war on terrorism either at home or abroad. This week, I heard a university professor tell a television interviewer that he thought the use of torture in the interrogation of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the al Qaeda leader, was acceptable, as long as it is done abroad, and as long as it is not used on U.S. citizens. Elsewhere, Sen. Jay Rockefeller said, "We don't sanction torture," but there are "psychological and other ways we can get what we need" out of him -- whatever that means. Comments such as these have sparked, once again, a mini-storm about whether Americans should be allowed to use torture or not.

Properly understood, the history of the Cold War should lead us directly to the answer: We fought Stalin's system because it was inhuman, not just because it was powerful. Our weapons helped us to win, but our victory, in the end, had far more to do with the moral and material success of Western society and the bankruptcy of communism. On the anniversary of Stalin's death, it is worth remembering that radical Islam will also come to a swifter end if we abide by our own rules of decency at home, and apply them to others as well.

Interrogating KSM

With the capture of top al Qaeda terrorist Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (known as "KSM"), getting him to disgorge the contents of his brain quickly and truthfully is critically necessary before his network has a chance to vanish undercover.

What, then, would the most efficient and effective form of interrogation be? In 1995, the Philippine State Police captured an al Qaeda agent. They knew he was planning some terrorist act, but didn't know what. So they tortured him — the old-fashioned way, right out of the movies with putting out cigarettes on his testicles, breaking his ribs, the whole brutal nine yards. It took two weeks and finally he broke, revealing a plot to hijack 11 airliners. By exposing and unraveling the plot, the torture saved hundreds, perhaps thousands of lives, so it was clearly justified.

The ethics of torturing KSM should not be an issue. As a practical matter, the question is: How to torture him in such a way that it takes hours, not days or weeks, for him to break; and when he does, you know for sure he is telling the truth.

To start, you don't want to use a so-called truth serum like thiopental sodium. It acts by confusing your memory so much you forget who is your friend and who is your enemy. So you think the interrogator is your friend and you talk — except you can't think or remember clearly. No, you want KSM to be thinking and remembering with crystal clarity.

The best lie detector — although it's not used as such — would be a medical brain-scanning device called a functional MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging). Light years in effectiveness beyond a polygraph, an fMRI scan can distinguish — instantly, in real time — when someone is lying as opposed to telling the truth, as different regions in the brain would light up.

So here's what to do.

Fly in from the United States and set up an fMRI at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, where KSM is being held, and do three things: Place KSM under the fMRI brain scanner; put him on a mechanical respirator; and give him an injection of a paralytic drug called succinyl choline chloride (SCC).

SCC, used as a veterinarian anesthetic, causes muscle paralysis by blocking neuromuscular junction. It causes immobilization without affecting the central nervous system, such that KSM cannot move, yet he is fully conscious and there is no analgesia (pain relief). Injection by an M.D. anesthesiologist of SCC into the nerve tracts leading to the diaphragm will paralyze the muscles needed for breathing. KSM can think, remember, and talk, but he cannot breathe. The mechanical respirator breathes for him. Without the respirator, he would quickly suffocate and die.

The respirator is a CPAP, a Continuous Positive Airway Pressure unit used for treating sleep apnea, with a nasal mask. The unit itself is placed in an adjacent room with a long hose, as no metal can be around the huge magnets of the fMRI. The unit will force air via the nasal passageway into the lungs. His mouth is free and clear to talk.

Now the interrogation begins. KSM is asked a series of questions to which the answers are known (e.g., Are you a Muslim? Would you like a drink of pig grease?). If he lies, the respirator is turned off. Few experiences are more terrifying than that of suffocation. After a sufficiently terrifying period of suffocation, the respirator is turned back on, the question is asked again, and the process repeated until he tells the truth. Once you have the regions in KSM's brain clearly distinguished that light up when he is lying or telling the truth, the serious questioning starts. It will not take long, an hour or two at the most, before KSM is singing like a full chorus of canaries.

After all useful information has been extracted from his brain, KSM should be informed that he will now be killed after his body is smeared with pig fat, that his dead body will be handled by women, and all other actions taken that prevent a Muslim from entering heaven upon death so that he dies believing he will never get the heavenly wine and virgins, but will burn in Hell instead. Upon his execution, there should be no physical remains. The body should be cremated and the ashes scattered to the winds.

Then, the word can be spread. All members of al Qaeda must know that once captured, their terrorist brethren will betray their comrades and that their fate will be ashes and Hell. The only way to win the war against terrorism is to terrorize the terrorists into giving up their evil jihad.

Bush's prorities are perfectly clear. He cares more about tax cuts than reducing the deficit. He cares more about controlling the deficit than boosting spending on homeland security. Ergo, Bush cares more about cutting taxes than boosting spending on homeland security.

. . .

Take the president's use of the Department of Homeland Security. When Lieberman first proposed creating such a department in October 2001, the administration opposed it. Then, last June, just as FBI whistle-blower Coleen Rowley finished her testimony about the FBI's mishandling of terror warnings, it announced that it would create such a department after all, even though the White House had only an embarrassingly vague proposal to offer at the time. Bush then seemed to go out of his way to ensure Democratic opposition. He demanded that department employees be stripped of civil servant protections - a surefire way to draw union opposition. Even though Bush himself had categorically opposed the creation of the department just months before, he immediately began telling audiences that any Democrates resisting his version were "not interested in the security of the American people." In the meantime, he spurned overtures from conservative Democrats, such as John Breaux, seeking a compromise. By opposing the department's creation at first, and then resisting any compromise, Bush created the very delay he bemoaned as injurious to the national defense - but gave himself a political issue with which to club the Democrats.