The Cool Blue Blog

Senior Airman Nicholas Worthington

The prevalence of munitions and the repeated use of roadside bombs in the Iraq War make Air Force Senior Airman Nicholas Worthington's skills in high demand on the ground. As an explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) technician with the 377th Civil Engineer Division, Worthington's ability to disarm Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) and other munitions made him an invaluable asset during his tour of duty. From March to August 2006, while deployed with the 447th Air Expeditionary Group near Baghdad, Worthington supported the air assault element of the 101st Airborne Division. He took part in 95 EOD emergency response missions and was responsible for neutralizing 70 IEDs, 2,151 ordnance items and 43,042 rounds of ammunition, as well as locating numerous weapons caches and performing multiple post-blast analyses.                   

Worthington's tasks often placed him in the line of fire. In June 2006, the back vehicle of his convoy hit an IED. As his team assessed the site during a post-blast analysis, they found a wire running from the blast area to a nearby house. While moving toward the house, another IED went off, throwing Worthington to the ground, wounding him and briefly causing him to lose hearing in his left ear.                   

Worthington immediately shook off the shock and provided aid to his team leader and another soldier who was also hurt, before a medic could arrive at the scene. Small-arms fire then erupted from the nearby house. Worthington shielded his team leader from the enemy with his body and laid down suppressive fire, pinning down the insurgents inside the house and giving the team time to regroup and relocate. After twenty minutes, the fighting subsided, as Worthington and his team eliminated the insurgent threat. Worthington then helped carry the wounded to an evacuation helicopter.                   

In another mission, Worthington cleared a substantial weapons cache located between two IEDs while under hostile fire. After a sniper hit his team leader, Worthington fired back at the enemy, and was able to neutralize the second IED and make sure the team safely got out of the battlefield.                   

Worthington also successfully completed a 28-hour rescue operation, as he responded to a shot-down Apache helicopter. Worthington neutralized four IEDs in the area with a Talon robot, while under RPG, mortar and small-arms fire. Worthington's team took no casualties during the operation.                   

For his courage under fire and saving the lives of several Coalition service members, Worthington was awarded the Bronze Star in September 2006.

Rehabilitating the Democratic brand

With the rise in support for the strategy in Iraq, the decline in support for the Democratic Congress and the dismal failure of anti-war films at the box office, the National Security creds of the Democratic party is in desperate need of rehabilitation. Even if they don't recognize this fact, others sympathetic to the Democrats do and are trying to help.

Or at least it seems that way.

Michael O'Hanlon, writing in USA Today tries to get the Democrats to take credit for the recent success in Iraq rather than deny that these successes are occurring

Rarely in U.S. history has a political party diagnosed a major failure in the country's approach to a crucial issue of the day, led a national referendum on the failing policy, forced a change in that policy that led to major substantive benefits for the nation — and then categorically refused to take any credit whatsoever for doing so.

This is, of course, the story of the Democrats and the Iraq war over the past 13 months. Without a Democratic takeover of the Congress in 2006, there is little chance that President Bush would have acknowledged his Iraq policy to be failing, and that Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker would have been accorded the resources and the policy latitude needed to radically improve the situation on the ground.

Right. I mean, they absolutely could make that argument, but the problem is their intention was never to succeed in Iraq as much as it was criticizing Bush. It didn't matter what course Bush took, the strategy was always to criticize it and use it as pressure to get us out of Iraq. So it's no surprise that it hasn't occurred to them to take credit for the success. Success to them would require failure in Iraq.

Democrats were not the authors of the surge and in fact generally opposed it. But without their pressure, it probably never would have happened.

I doubt it. The important difference Bush was looking to succeed and would do what it took to attempt to make that happen, even if it meant reversing course. Democrats, on the other hand, were looking for a way to assure he didn't.

And to claim that they forced the President to succeed in Iraq would necessitate that they take the position that success was a goal. This of course, would rile the net roots.

But getting the meme out there, that Democrats were never against the war, but were against losing the war, is likely helpful. And may yet be taken up during the National Campaign when the net roots are more marginalized.

Another interesting instance of this is the Tom Hank's vehicle Charlie Wilson's War which will be around theater's for the Christmas season. Now this book by 60 Minutes producer George Crile since 2003 and I read it when it first came out. It's is a terrific, well-written story of the unlikely group of individuals that came together, for the most part under the radar of the Regan Administration and the CIAs seventh floor, and conceived and executed a plan that would ultimately result in forcing the Soviets to withdraw from Afghanistan in defeat. Payback, one might say, for Vietnam.

Now the movie is coming out just in time for the election season. Kyle Smith writing for Pajamas Media writes

How strange is this film? .... So strange that Democrats are shown killing Commies. Not calling for sanctions against them; not filing paperwork against them in the U.N.; not calling for investigations of how their prisoners of war were treated: just getting them in the crosshairs, and pow.

Hard to believe but it's all true.

No thriller writer would dare invent Wilson, a six-feet-four-inch Texas congressman,liberal on social issues but rabidly anti-Communist, a boozer, engaged in serial affairs and wheeler-dealer of consummate skill. Only slightly less improbable is Gust Avrakotos, a blue-collar Greek immigrant who joined the CIA when it was an Ivy League preserve and fought his elitist colleagues almost as ruthlessly as he fought the Soviet Union in the Cold War's waning years. In conjunction with President Zia of Pakistan in the 1980s, Wilson and Arvakotos circumvented most of the barriers to arming the Afghan mujahideen-distance, money, law and internal CIA politics, to name a few. Their coups included getting Israeli-modified Chinese weapons smuggled into Afghanistan, with the Pakistanis turning a blind eye,and the cultivation of a genius-level weapons designer and strategist named Michael Vickers, a key architect of the guerrilla campaign that left the Soviet army stymied. The ultimate weapon in Afghanistan was the portable Stinger anti-aircraft missile, which eliminated the Soviet's Mi-24 helicopter gunships and began the train of events leading to the collapse of the U.S.S.R. and its satellites. A triumph of ruthless ability over scruples...

All this while the Reagan Administration was consumed with Nicaragua and "Iran-Contra"..

There is no doubt, that while many issues consume American voters, Security is high among them. To win a National Election for the White House, Democrats have to shake the image of passivity and multilateralism in this area.

Even if they as a party don't understand this, other do.

And even if Democrats won't try to rehabilitate their own brand's image, others obviously are trying.

But ultimately, it is only an image and significant changes in the Party leadership will be necessary before image and reality are even marginally united

Tricky Americans

In response to Osama bin Laden's "Mistakes were made" video, al Qaida in Iraq issued a response. According to the SITE Institute, Emir of the ISI, Abu Omar Al-Baghdadi aired through Jihadist media channels a speech that acknowledges their acceptance of the Terror Leaders rebuke and

...conveys that the Prophet Muhammad and his companions were not infallible, but the tribal leaders and Awakening Council members who combat the Mujahideen today do not have a stronger faith than they.

OBL suggested more leniency in order to keep the Awakening Movement from continuing to draw people away from the Islamists. Al Qaida in Iraq has their own solution

In highlights of the speech, Baghdadi announces the formation of a new brigade, “Al-Siddiq Brigades” to fight every “apostate and traitor”

They also complain that us Americans are a tricky bunch

...Baghdadi references a “new trick” by U.S. military forces in their focusing on the presence of foreign Mujahideen in Iraq and emphasizing that Iraq and its riches are to be for all Iraqis....

Inconceivable.

Bush, Iran, and the NIE

The Institutional Media is currently aflush with stories about a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) released to the President last month. Quotes from Harry (we've lost) Reid are much repeated

Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada and the Senate majority leader, portrayed the assessment as “directly challenging some of this administration’s alarming rhetoric about the threat posed by Iran” and called for enhanced diplomatic efforts toward Tehran.

Not trusting anything that Senator Reid concludes, and little that the Institutional Media concludes, I investigated the report for myself, and I found, of course, that Harry is again wrong.

What did the report say?

• We assess with high confidence that until fall 2003, Iranian military entities were working under government direction to develop nuclear weapons.

• We judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. (Because of intelligence gaps discussed elsewhere in this Estimate, however, DOE and the NIC assess with only moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt to Iran's entire nuclear weapons program.)

• We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.

• We continue to assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Iran does not currently have a nuclear weapon.

• Tehran’s decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005. Our assessment that the program probably was halted primarily in response to international pressure suggests Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the issue than we judged previously.

So what we find is that the consensus is that Iran halted the development of a nuclear weapon back around the time that we invaded Iraq. I wonder how many deem that a coincidence? I don't.

I think it was cause and effect, and no negotiating was involved.

The consensus is also that the development was halted for at least a few years. And most importantly, there is not a consensus that Iran's nuclear weapons program remains quiescent.

Now if I recall correctly, it took a year or so in Iraq before Democrats began calling for a pullout. Do you think that the lack of a consistent voice of resolve had anything to do with Tehran's second thoughts with regards to their weapons program?

But let's assume that the program is still on hiatus. Senator Reid thinks that now is the time for diplomacy.

Reid said he hoped the White House would undertake "a diplomatic surge" to engage with Iran.

But it must be clear even to the dense Senator from Nevada that it wasn't negotiation that got Iran to halt it weapons program in the first place.

It was the demonstrated fact that we were willing and able to take out an enemy dictator in less than a month that likely figured more into their political calculus.

Further, I would point out to the Senator that the US does engage in talks with Tehran, and has repeatedly told the Iranian government that normalized relations with the US is always possible once they become transparent with respect to their nuclear dreams. And the Bush Administration is even willing to let the IAEA be the arbiter of that assessment. But as of today, the IAEA is not satisfied.

Visiting International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said here Monday the body hoped that Iran continues to tackle its nuclear issue transparently to boost international confidence in this.

ElBaradei told the media that the IAEA is continuing to investigate whether Iran's nuclear program is peaceful or not, and that despite the progress in IAEA-Iran cooperation, much work needs to be done to resolve the nuclear issue.

The UN nuclear watchdog, in its latest report on the Iranian nuclear issue, said Iran was cooperating but also pointed out that Tehran was still pressing ahead with uranium enrichment work.

Make no mistake, there is no reason for Iran to not be transparent on this issue, unless of course they want people to believe they are constructing a nuclear weapon: Or are. And until they are transparent, we should not consider that they have abandoned their nuclear weapons program because a mistake in the wrong direction will cost alot of people their lives.

Oh, and one more thing

The AP reports Democrats "did not hesitate to suggest an Iran-Iraq comparison." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Democrats had requested the new Iran assessment "so that the administration could not rush this Congress and the country to another war based on flawed intelligence."

Why is it that Senator Reid and the Democrats have more confidence in this NIE than it did in the pre-war Iraq NIE?

Perhaps because the most recent NIE contains some conclusions they can spin to represent the conclusion they like.

Worried about bias

When Fox News proposed to host a Democratic debate, the net roots howled with disapproval.

Fox has tried twice, without success, to set up a debate with the major Democratic contenders. Both times they failed because of pressure applied by online liberal activists, who consider Fox biased toward Republicans and conservatives.

The first debate, which was to be co-sponsored by Fox and the Nevada Democratic party, had been set for this August but was canceled. Fox then teamed with the Congressional Black Caucus Political Education and Leadership Institute for a Sept. 23 debate that is still scheduled, even though John Edwards, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton all said they won’t attend.

MoveOn.org was relieved when it was finally canceled

Danny Coyle, one of thousands of MoveOn members in Nevada, is on the Executive Board of the Carson City Democratic Central Committee.  This Wednesday, he offered a resolution calling on the state party to drop FOX – it passed overwhelmingly among the grassroots Democrats in attendance.

“I am glad and relieved that the Nevada Democratic leadership has come to its senses,” Coyle said. “Any kind of relationship with FOX is bad for the party.”

“The lies of FOX News and Roger Ailes have no place in public discourse, journalism, or the Democratic Party presidential debates,” said Matt Stoller, president of Blogpac, who wrote about this issue on national progressive blog www.MyDD.com, “FOX   sees truth as the enemy, and misinformation as a tool to hurt their political   opposition.”

Clearly they were worried that Fox News would not ask questions that Democrats were comfortable answering. So they found sponsors that were more acceptable, among them CNN.

Now when CNN offered to host a Republican debate, no Republican or Conservative bloggers, or candidates, for that matter, protested even with CNNs reputation among these groups for anti-Republican bias.

Then CNN proceeded to plant questions by people hostile to Republicans.

CNN has aired the opinions of an avowed Hillary Clinton supporter without telling viewers that the supposedly impartial commenter is an advocate of the leading Democratic candidate for President.

This is bad journalism.

During Wednesday night's Republican debate, sponsored by CNN and YouTube and hosted by CNN's Anderson Cooper, CNN aired a pre-recorded question by retired Brig. Gen. Keith H. Kerr. The general asked whether the candidates supported allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military. But Kerr was not an impartial questioner. He is a national co-chairman of Veterans and Military Retirees for Hillary.

But you know what? Not a single Republican candidate cried foul. You know why?

Because these questions are just as legitimate as any others.

But the very fact that CNN did this reflects badly on them as a news organization. In fact, don't they become the very thing that Democrats and the "netroots" accused Fox of being? Recall the words of MyDDs Matt Stoller

“FOX   sees truth as the enemy, and misinformation as a tool to hurt their political   opposition.”

And then consider this

Clinton was not the only Democratic candidate whose supporters were able to plant hostile questions at Wednesday night's debate. Columnist Michelle Malkin reported yesterday that one questioner was a declared John Edwards supporter and another a declared Barack Obama supporter. Another, who asked about tainted toys from China, works for the United Steelworkers union, which supports Edwards.

The Republican Candidates didn't flinch. They just answered the questions. I mean whoever makes it through the gauntlet of the Republican nominating process will have to address these questions on a national level.

They are prepared.

Can Democrats say the same?

Clearly Democrats are afraid of something....

Army Cadet Clarence Ketterer

One of the creeds of the U.S. armed forces is that they will never leave a comrade behind. In the last several years, coalition forces have also risked their lives to protect Iraqi Security Forces. Army Cadet Clarence Ketterer is one of these soldiers: He successfully rescued numerous Iraqis following a deadly attack two years ago.                   

Ketterer served in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom from June 2005 to June 2006, with the 1st Battalion, 125th Infantry Regiment of the Michigan Army National Guard. While stationed in Habbaniyah, Iraq, he was a Squad Leader responsible for conducting raids, patrols, searches, counter-intelligence and counterinsurgency operations.                   

On October 10, 2005, then-Staff Sgt. Ketterer's platoon encountered a dangerous situation. A suicide bomber had hit an Iraqi patrol in Kalidiyah. Ketterer's platoon arrived to assess the scene, and it became clear that the Iraqi element needed immediate help.                   

Ketterer ordered his vehicle between the bombed Iraqi vehicle and enemy fire, to protect several wounded Iraqis. Disregarding the danger around him, Ketterer left safety to assist a medic on the ground evacuating Iraqi soldiers from the kill zone.                   

Still needing to buy time before an ambulance arrived, Ketterer took the fight to the enemy. He organized the soldiers into a defensive position where they could better target the hostile forces. As the ambulance arrived, Ketterer simultaneously assisted in loading the wounded while laying down suppressive fire against the insurgents. Ketterer also successfully guided the ambulance from the battlefield.                   

For saving the lives of coalition forces, Ketterer received the Bronze Star Medal with Valor. He has also been awarded the Army Commendation Medal and the Iraq Campaign Medal.                   

A native of Warren, Michigan, Ketterer began his military career in 1999 as a member of the ROTC of Central Michigan University. Ketterer sought out a career in the armed forces at an early age, and he credits his grandfather's service in the Korean War as an inspiration. In 2004, he participated in a United Nations peacekeeping mission in Siani, where he oversaw treaty agreements between Egypt and Israel. The Central Michigan University senior currently serves as a Company Executive Officer on campus, and is a double major in sociology and history.