At the December 8th, 2007 West Chester Victory Rally I had the opportunity to meet and discuss politics with John Bruhns. It was your typical Saturday rally at the steps of the West Chester Courthouse with my favorite veterans. The peace protesters had retreated from the steps and relocated to a distant corner. We waved our American flags and they waived ‘other’ flags – but they support the troops..don’t you know?
Who is John Bruhns? Good question. John Bruhns an Iraq war veteran who until recently was a staunch crusader for 'special interest' anti-war organizations such as, AAEI,where he was their legislative representative from May to October 2007.(source)
His public disagreement with AAEI caused some media stir as did some minor disputes with Blonde Sagacity and Free Republic over precisely how many times he visited Walter Reed. (SOURCE)
John volunteered to join the Army Infantry soon after 9/11/01 hoping to get to Afghanistan, but found himself liberating Iraq. He returned home from Iraq strongly opposed to this venture. He sought out organizations that he believed would actively work on his concern about the war in Iraq.
This individual may be former Marine and Army but the boy can curse like a Sailor:
After several years of expounding his opinion, he came to this conclusion (source): "I traded my convictions for 'special interest' groups who sometimes seem to be in place simply to smear those whos disagree with their political agenda. But the agenda is not anti-war. The war is used by these organizations as ammunition against political foes - primarily Republicans." A November 28th article in the Hill.Com quoted Bruhn: “The groups I worked for would not spend a dime to promote legislation considered outside the mainstream of the Democratic Party” I agree with these points, however, it did not take me years to come to this conclusion.
After visiting with the good folks of the Chester County Victory Movement, sat down and penned an entry detailing the day’s events for Huffington Post. (SOURCE) His essay recycles the same tired ad hominen attacks to describe anyone who actually supports the United States and her troops. This style of writing is not conducive to thoughtful, reasoned discussion, just superficial commentary.
One statement caught my attention: “I replied “excuse me sir?” when a former Marine, who was standing above me on a ledge waving a sizeable Marine Corps flag, looked down at me and said ‘listen douchebag, you are a traitor and a John Kerry deserter.” I came very close to losing my cool when I noticed I was still being filmed.”
Interesting. To my knowledge, I was the ONLY videographer that day. I’ve reviewed my tapes and have no footage of this exchange. It would have been good to catch this exchange on film, if only to put this allegation to rest. If John Bruhns or anyone else present can produce this mysterious video – I will gladly post it on MidnightBlue
Let me take this time to make it clear that I don’t consider John a traitor. A traitor is an individual who chooses an action based upon full consideration of what they are committing and the repercussions of their actions. That is not the case with John Bruhns. A more meaningful term that I would use would be: Useful Idiot. Wikipedia has a great great description of this word: “The term is now used more broadly to describe someone who is perceived to be manipulated by political movement, terrorist group, or hostile government, whether or not the group is communist in nature. John is quoted as saying “I feel duped [of the democrats 2006 election promises]”
I think now is a good time to remind my readers that not every soldier back from Iraq feels quite as duped as John:
John mentions in his HuffPo essay, “While I won’t be a regular attendee I wanted to show my face there at least once to see what it is all about.” I suspect we might see him again since he has returned to the reservation as the newest member of VFP (Veterans For Peace) Chapter 31. This is a good match, I believe, since members of the VFP like to curse as well.
Some thoughts for my readers to dwell on...
1. What is the connection between Saddam/Iraq and 9/11?
Why is it that those who were against the liberation of Iraq have, from the very beginning, become almost violently angry over any suggestion that Saddam was in any way connected to the events of 9/11? Despite their angry protests at the mere suggestion of any connection, there IS evidence of a link between Iraq and the 9/11 hijackers, enough to prove in a US district court that Saddam's government trained the 9/11 hijackers at Salman Pak.
"Judge Harold Baer ruled Wednesday that the survivors of two people who were killed in the World Trade Center terrorist attack had presented enough evidence, "albeit barely," to be awarded $104 million in damages against the state of Iraq, Osama bin Laden, and his terrorist network."
SOURCE
Captain Sabah Khalifa Khodada Alami said that as late as 1998 he trained an elite commando team, Fedayeen Saddam, in airline hijacking and sabotage. Through a translator, Mr. Alami described, according to the Wall street Journal, a daily regimen of exercises on kidnapping, assassination, and -- using a Boeing 707 parked inside the complex -- how to hijack a plane or bus without weapons. He said that a separate group of non-Iraqis were being similarly trained by Saddam's intelligence service, the mukhabarat SOURCE
Where is the evidence America's enemies surely must have that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, since they dismiss this evidence and testimony so quickly? Can they explain all the circumstantial evidence away, like why Saddam's entire military went on the highest state of alert in ten years just two weeks before 9/11? The main objection from most anti-war supporters is that Saddam is a secular Sunni, and Osama is a religious Shi'ite -- and they FEEL there's NO WAY two ideological opposite could ever cooperate in such a way. Perhaps they are saying they don't believe Arabs are capable of cooperating in spite of ideological differences as well as Caucasians.
More resources on this subject can be found HERE
1a.President Bush claimed there was no connection between Saddam and 9/11.
On 9/21/01, the President was given a PDB that said, we just don't know. Later, he repeatedly said we don't have evidence of direct involvement. Now, skip to the docs that are constantly pointed to by people attempting to dismiss the issue of regime ties and 911 ties: the 911 Commission report, and the Sen IntelCom investigations into pre-war intel on Iraq. In both cases, the intel community says what the President said, there wasn't enough evidence. What those same detractors won't tell you is that there was no evidence because there was almost no intel gathered!
This line of questioning leads into the importance of Iraq in the GLOBAL war on Terror - but don't take my word for it - OBL (whom John and I both agree is public enemy #1) has clearly stated the importance of Iraq in the war:
Osama Bin Laden - 12/28/2004: Baghdad is "the capital of the caliphate."
"The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this third world war … raging in [Iraq]." "I now address my speech to the whole of the Islamic nation: Listen and understand. The issue is big and the misfortune is momentous. The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War, which the Crusader-Zionist coalition began against the Islamic nation. It is raging in the land of the two rivers. The world's millstone and pillar is in Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate."
The leader of AQ calls Baghdad the capital of the new caliphate. What better place to strike at a global terrorist organization - into a place that is sacred to them. Delivering a physical and psychological blow that brings the scattered terrorists to one place - Iraq. This tactic eliminates the need to have soldiers crossing the globe chasing down individual cells.
Michael Yon sums up the situation perfectly by saying "AQ is committing suicide in Iraq."
Flashforward to 2007...OBL continues to press for the withdrawl of US forces out of Iraq, and expressing disappointment in Democrats for not accomplishing this task on his behalf:
OBL 09/06/2007
People of America: the world is following your news in regards to your invasion of Iraq, for people have recently come to know that, after several years of tragedies of this war, the vast majority of you want it stopped. Thus, you elected the Democratic Party for this purpose, but the Democrats haven't made a move worth mentioning. SOURCE
Earlier this year, John Bruhn is quoted espousing a similar message. Makes one wonder who is wagging the dog? Not that I am singling out John, I could also have listed the entirety of the DNC leadership and their similar quotes on Iraq.
"SGT. JOHN BRUHNS: I would like Congress to draft binding bipartisan legislation that requires President Bush to bring our troops out of Iraq. SOURCE
2. US arming former al-queda operatives?
This is a double edged sword, and a tactic used in every armed confict in human history. What better weapon to use against an enemy but their own disillusioned supporters. Even Sun Tzu gets it: "To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself."
Consider this: If the Sunni/Shia in Iraq are former AQ operatives, then it proves that the war in Iraq is part of the war with AQ (war on terror) and thus cannot be retreated, redeployed, withdrawn from, or walkedaway. However, there IS a distinction made between those who get arms, and those who do not. Supposedly, the groups are individually evaluated, and even the Iraqi govt won't arm groups that are AQ, and many former regime groups won't take arms or support from the Iraqi govt (particularly those led by Izzat Ibrahim al Douri, Saddam's VP and successor since 12/03).
3. Why haven't we captured OBL?
Because he got away.
The book JAWBREAKER is a great first hand account of the US ops in Afghanistan.
Basically, OBL made it out of Afghanistan about a week before the US could get any forces into the Tora Bora area. In fact, there were multiple reports of where he was and where he was going until mid Dec 02, and the CIA tried to get more intel by sending teams to investigate all the good reports. By the time they found out he was headed for Tora Bora, it was just too late. Why hasn't the US gotten him since? It's disappointing, but understandable given the terrain of the region, the Pakistani ISI support for him, and the cultures there. We could send 10 million troops in there, and it'd still not be enough ("more troops" or "less troops" is typically the only military tactic that political opponents of the Bush administration understand). In that area, more troops is a tactic as effective as sending carriers to Afghanistan: absolutely useless,and ineffective tactic. The right tool for this job is more counter insurgency groups, more spies, more collaborators.
Speaking of OBL, given the recent whine about waterboarding from the left since it was used on the 911 planner and leader. All OBL did was authorize the plot (btw, he did that-per the 911 Comm and several other investigations-right after US op Desert Fox and in response to it at the urging of other AQ leaders). So, I wonder, if it's wrong to have used waterboarding on the man who planned and led the 911 attacks, would it be immoral to use waterboarding on OBL, or sleep deprivation, etc?
In the end, OBL will be found dead or alive. In the meantime, his global network is shattered, his top tier leaders are either dead or detained, and funding is not as easy to come by - well - he could hit up Code Pink and Global Exchange for a few bucks. His contribution to his global Jihad these days is to send out a carefully edited video once or twice a year where he whines about the Democrats not doing the job for him and global warming. With such pressures, the remaining 'terror cells' around the world are composed of "D" Team members - poorly trained, underfunded useful idiots. AQ is global insurgency running on empty, unless Democrats and their supporters allow AQ time to recoup and refuel. In doing so, they will be creating what they obsess over - a never-ending war.
|