Some thoughts regarding AG Holder

Let me begin by saying I had hoped Eric Holder would have been a competent Attorney General, given the gravity of the Gitmo detainees awaiting their trials. After all, the man came into an administration that, on the campaign trail, had not only vowed to close Gitmo, but to usher these detainees through the tribunal process.

So color me unimpressed by his decision to try KSM and three of his confederates in federal court. After watching his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, I'm even more non-plussed with him. While he enjoyed the softball questions from Democrats, the substantive questions from the Republican members of the committee flummoxed him. He treated their questions like they were journalist-inspired "gotcha" questions. There is nothing "gotcha" about Senator Lindsey Graham challenging AG Holder to name one case where an enemy combatant has been tried in federal court. There is nothing "gotcha" in Senator Graham asking AG Holder that if we were to get Osama bin Ladin tomorrow, would he be mirandized?

What I witnessed in these proceedings is the incompetence of a man that either A) Doesn't know what his job entails; B) Is overwhelmed by the job; or C) Is treating his job much in the same vein that Barry is treating his.

We've already seen AG Holder's thoughts on the "rule of law" when he dropped the voter intimidation case against the Black Panthers in Philadelphia. He refused to pursue that case and never fully answered the questions as to why he didn't want to pursue it. What I saw this past week in his testimony was the same sort of rambling answers about trying the 9-11 plotters in federal court as we saw in him explaining why there would be no prosecution for the Black Panthers.

In short, there was no there there. His answers were as empty as his suit (and apparently his head).

Eric Holder is the Attorney General for the United States of America. He knew this issue -- the detainee tribunals -- would be the biggest challenge he faced when he was confirmed by the Senate. And in his testimony, he claimed to have not been briefed by his staff or fellow lawyers in the Justice Department. That, folks, is a cop out. As Attorney General it's his job to know as much about these cases as possible. Yes, the military should be handling the prosecution, but in AG Holder's "infinite legal wisdom" he has chosen to give them their day in court.

This sets a dangerous precedent. We have never tried an enemy combatant in federal court. It's simply not the venue to prosecute these people in. They are combatants in a war -- whether legal or illegal combatants doesn't matter. In giving them the federal court avenue of prosecution, they'll be entitled to the same rights we, as citizens, have. (I actually had a debate with someone who stated that we have done this before, in the case of the soldiers charged with murder for the Boston Massacre. The problem with that logic is that: A) The soldiers were tried under British law, and B) America wasn't an independent nation at the time, hence the trial under British law. In short, I still stand by my statement in that debate that the Framers are rolling over in their graves at this idiocy from AG Holder.)

The only person who can stop this insane idea is the president, and we don't see Barry forcing AG Holder to change his mind. Why? Because both men feel that this is the right thing to do. This trial will take years to prepare and execute. Worse, AG Holder feels that a jury can return a guilty verdict. (Of course, any sane person on the jury would return a guilty verdict given the admissions of these men already. However, we have a system of justice that one is innocent until proven guilty, and KSM and company now have that same burden of proof to be established.) What we find appalling about AG Holder's statements (and the statement from Barry) is that even if they're found not guilty, they're not going anywhere. Are you kidding me? First you claim that they'll receive justice in our court system, then you say even if a jury returns a not guilty verdict, these men won't be set free?

Was it the Justice Department's overall goal to put on a show trial?

This decision is a disaster from the word go. AG Holder should be urged to reevaluate his decision. These men should be tried under the military tribunals, set up by the Congress, and approved by President Bush; the same tribunals the Supreme Court urged the administration to enact. The system is in place, and the Justice Department should follow the guidelines laid out.

Publius II

Lynne Stewart ordered to jail

Anyone remember this piece of trash? She was the lawyer representing Omar Abdel Rahman, AKA the Blind Sheikh. In 2005 she was convicted of conspiracy and providing material support to terrorists. she had been funneling messages from Rahman to al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, and back again. (Rahman was the group's spiritual leader.) Yesterday, a federal appeals court upheld her conviction, revoked her bail, and ordered her back to jail:

Disbarred radical lawyer Lynne Stewart is going to jail - maybe for a lot longer than she thought.

An appeals court Tuesday upheld her conviction for smuggling messages to her jailed terrorist client and said she deserves more than the 28 months she got because she may have lied at her trial.

"I will go on fighting," Stewart, 70, told about a dozen supporters outside Manhattan federal court Tuesday.

"I'm no criminal." The ruling said Stewart was to surrender to U.S. Marshals immediately, but her lawyers won her another day of freedom - until at least 5 p.m. Wednesday.

They hope to convince the feds to let her surrender after she goes for minor surgery for what she called "plumbing problems" on Dec. 7.

The Brooklyn resident, free on bail since 2006, said she is prepared to be locked up.

"Visit me in jail," she told supporters. "Send money to the commissary!"

Stewart was sentenced to two years and four months in prison in 2005 for helping Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman talk to militants from prison after his 1996 conviction for plotting to blow up New York City icons and assassinate Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

Prosecutors, who wanted her jailed for 30 years, appealed, calling the light sentence "a slap on the wrist" for someone convicted "of a crime of terrorism."

The appeals court said the trial judge, John Koeltl, should have determined at sentencing if Stewart committed perjury when she testified.

"Any cover-up or attempt to evade responsibility by a failure to tell the truth upon oath or affirmation at her trial would compound the gravity of her crime," the court said.

We're glad she's joking about this, but this is hardly a laughing matter. she knowingly abetted with a known terrorists, a recognized terrorist organization, and she firmly believes she was acting in the best interests of her client. I won't go into how many ethical rules she broke in acting this way. She willingly broke the law, and she bloody well knew it.

Andy McCarthy squared off against Stewart in the Rahman trial and he weighed in on the three-ring legal circus surrounding her:

By the way, since my topic in today’s column is Attorney General Holder’s sudden concern over delays in the military commission system, it’s worth pointing out that, for conduct that started around 1999, Stewart was indicted in 2002; her trial did not begin until mid-2004 and took about eight months; after that, they dawdled for over a year before finally imposing sentence in October 2006; now, a decade after the conduct, seven years after arrest, four years after trial, and three years after sentence – and mind you, she’s been free on bail since 2002 – the appeal has at long last been decided, and it has resulted in … a remand for further sentencing proceedings. And, after they someday occur, there will surely be another trip to the Second Circuit, and then an appeal to the Supreme Court. After that, the habeas corpus petitions start …

This may be far from over, as Mr. McCarthy notes, but for the time being her butt is going back to jail where it belongs. And should the judge determine she did commit perjury then the sentence had better be extended. The thirty years would have been fine with us, and should have been imposed. And let's hope that this time around she doesn't use her breast cancer treatment as an excuse to delay the sentencing like the first time around.

She was disbarred immediately upon conviction, which was appropriate. The 28 month sentence is a joke, and she deserves to be put in jail. Her supporters claim she is being persecuted for freedom of speech. Not true, she broke the law. She breached legal ethics. There is no excuse for this sort of action except the fact that she's a radical activist that dislikes the government, and supports the actions of known terrorists.

HT to Captain Ed

Publius II

Stonewalling on Hasan

HT to Captain Ed

On 5 November Major Nidal Hasan proceeded to his post at Fort Hood and opened fire on his fellow soldiers. Dressed in the martyr's garb of a Pashtun fighter, this man shot and killed thirteen soldiers, and injured thirty more soldiers. (There is a fourteenth victim in the unborn child of one of those soldiers.) He's in custody, and is facing, now, fourteen counts of first-degree, premeditated murder. (I'd love to take up the language of the media, and mention he's the "alleged" shooter, but there's no "alleged" about this. He did it, and should be facing the death penalty.)

Now there are literally tons of questions about this man. He supposedly was either a wanna-be jihadist, or firmly believed he was one. He had business cards printed with "SoA" on them; the acronym has been confirmed by terrorism experts as "Soldier of Allah." He had regular communication with Anwar al-Aulaqi, an imam who headed up a mosque that two of the 9-11 hijackers attended, and a man who was a known al Qaeda sympathizer. He constantly, according to his colleagues at Walter Reed, attempted to "witness" to his patients about the glories of Allah, and even attempted to hand out Korans to them.

The public deserves to know some answers as to how this man was allowed to stay in the Army, despite his jihadist sympathies, and how he was allowed to continue treating combat troops as a psychiatrist. As Ben Pershing of the WaPo notes, the Congress isn't getting any sort of help from the White House:

The first public congressional hearing on the Fort Hood attack will not include testimony from any current federal law enforcement, military or intelligence officials because the Obama administration “declined to provide any” such witnesses, according to a Senate committee source.

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has released the witness list for its hearing “The Fort Hood Attack: A Preliminary Assessment,” scheduled for Thursday at 10 a.m. ET. The list includes four experts on terrorism and intelligence issues: retired Gen. Jack Keane, the former U.S. Army vice chief of staff; Brian Jenkins, a senior advisor at the Rand Corp.; Mitchell Silber, the director of analysis for the New York City Police Department’s Intelligence Division; and Juan Zarate, a senior advisor for the Transnational Threats Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

But the list does not include anyone actively involved in investigating the Fort Hood attack, or anyone who might have been responsible for decisions made by various government agencies before the attack about whether to investigate the shooting suspect, Nidal Hasan. The Senate committee source said HSGAC Chairman Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) had hoped to have witnesses from the FBI and the U.S. Army, but was rebuffed in his requests. ...

President Obama has already ordered a federal review of the circumstances that led up to the Fort Hood attack, and how government agencies handled intelligence related to Hasan. But in his weekly radio and Internet address Saturday, Obama urged caution on Capitol Hill.

"I know there will also be inquiries by Congress, and there should," Obama said. "But all of us should resist the temptation to turn this tragic event into the political theater that sometimes dominates the discussion here in Washington. The stakes are far too high."

Pardon us, Mr. President, but we're getting a tad tired of this "let's not jump to conclusions" BS. NO ONE in the administration is giving satisfactory explanations how this man was allowed to even stay in the Army considering his outspoken attitude regarding the Army, and its actions in this war. It's been uncovered by ABC this morning that he sought to have his patients brought up on war crimes charges which, at the very least, breeches the doctor/patient confidentiality rules as well as undermining the Army's ability to prosecute this war.

The public is owed some answers and so is Congress. Barry may act like he's the "king" of America, but he's not. He's the president -- the chief of the Executive branch -- and Congress is a direct check on him. They have the authority to conduct investigations on a host of issues, and this happens to be one of them. Barry stated this would be the most open and transparent administrations this nation has ever seen, and it's clear that he's not willing to play ball on this. He's told the congress that the administration will conduct its own internal investigation. To those who think this sounds like the fox guarding the hen house, we share your suspicions. This smells more like an attempt to cover-up for Hasan (for whatever reason*).

If Barry continues to stonewall on this issue, Senator Lieberman and Congress have an option they can utilize. It's called a congressional subpoena, and Barry would be stupid to ignore such an order from Congress. The president owes it to the Congress, and to the nation, to be as open on this issue as possible. Justice needs to be handed down on Hasan, and we need to know what heads should be rolling for allowing him to stay in the Army. It's clear the man had issues and those issues lead to the murder of fourteen fellow soldiers before he was shot by a civilian law enforcement officer. (A female -- Sergeant Kimberly Munley -- shot him and stopped his attempted massacre, which is likely something that will stick in his craw given Islam's disdain of women.)

If the administration doesn't want to play ball, Congress should force its hand. Being president doesn't mean one can blow off the other branches of the government especially when it comes to investigations. The Left seethed over President Bush's use of executive authority when it came to members of his administration. Right or wrong, the president has that authority. Not so in this case, and Barry would be wise to remember that.

(* Let's not throw around fever swamp theories as to why the WH is covering this up. No "Barry's a Muslim" or crap like that, please? Remember that we don't jump on conspiracy theory bandwagons here.)

Publius II

New Issue Up!!

It's the 16th of the month, folks, and that means Common Conservative's newest issue has been published.

The Chief reflects on the recent special elections held across the nation.

Larry Simoneaux takes a look at the monsters that live among us, in society, and the politically-correct attitude used towards them that affects society, as a whole.

Marcie and I analyze the Obama presidency to date, and notice that he seems to have embodied the worst attributes of presidents past rather than the best.

John Lillpop kicks off the guest pieces with an enlightening look at racial profiling, and how for some it's not always a bad thing.

George Damroth wonders if the Republican party, and conservatives, in general, are smart enough to recognize the opportunity in front of them in the wake of the special election victories they experienced.

J.J. Jackson looks at the recent story of the Planned Parenthood director who quit her job after witnessing an abortion through an ultrasound.

Ralph Reiland examines the real stimulus numbers that the Obama administration refuses to acknowledge.

Robert Owens gives the nation a much-needed slap in the face regarding Obama's change, and the legacy the Framers left for us.

Carolyn Hileman rounds out this issue with her own, personal Declaration of Independence; independence from this out of control government being run by the Democrats.

Enjoy reading!

Publius II

DeMint takes aim at "permanent politicians"

Senator Jim DeMint introduced a constitutional amendment yesterday that calls for term limits in Congress:

Sen. Jim DeMint says Washington politicians are like fruit on the vine: the longer they hang around, the more rotten they get.

The South Carolina Republican - hearkening back to the days of the party's "Contract with America" - on Tuesday offered a fix to the corrupting influence of "permanent politicians," introducing an amendment to the Constitution that would limit Senate members to three six-year terms and House members to three two-year terms.

"As long as members have the chance to spend their lives in Washington, their interests will always skew toward spending taxpayer dollars to buy off special interests, covering over corruption in the bureaucracy, fundraising, relationship building among lobbyists, and trading favors for pork - in short, amassing their own power," said Mr. DeMint, who is running for a second term next year.

Senate leaders and longtime Washington watchdogs said Mr. DeMint's bill had a zero chance of becoming law, mostly because of a general lack of interest and the high hurdles to amending the Constitution.

"It's a great issue to talk about, but it's not going to happen," said Sen. Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the Democratic majority's second-highest ranking leader.

Mr. Durbin said he didn't know whether the bill would even get a vote.

Term limits have not been a cause celebre on Capitol Hill since the issue featured prominently in the "Contract with America" that helped the Republican Party win control of Congress in 1994. House Republicans brought three versions of constitutional amendments for term limits to the floor in 1995 and each failed to win the two-thirds majority needed to pass.

Melanie Sloan, executive director of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), disagrees with Mr. DeMint's premise that politicians get more corrupt the longer they serve.

"There are plenty of bad members who have been there a short time and plenty of bad members who have been there a long time," she said. "Length of service just isn't telling enough. It doesn't make a great member or a terrible member."

With all due respect to Ms. Sloane, Senator DeMint is correct in his assertion about those congress critters that have decided to make themselves permanent politicians. The Founding Fathers never wanted those who serve in Congress to make a career out of it. They knew that the best way to ensure the life of this republic was to make sure there was fresh blood and new ideas in Congress, standing up for the founding principles.

And while Ms. Sloane's point is understood (about those being in Congress a short time could be as bad as those who serve a long time) there are those that have been there too long. Charlie Rangel (serial tax evader), John Murtha (king of pork spending from Pennsylvania), Barney Frank (helped perpetuate the falling of Fannie and Freddie), Nancy Pelosi (ruling the house like she's the queen), and the list is endless. And for those who think I'm just picking on Democrats, I'm not. It's time for people like John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Orrin Hatch to call it quits, as well.

So long as these politicians continue to serve in Congress, they're susceptible to corruption and complacency. Take a look at how well Congress listened to us this year alone. During august, people flocked to town hall meetings where not only were they not listened to, but at a few of them, they were attacked by the politicians holding the meetings. People are seeing that there is a distinct disconnect between those who enjoy the perks of being in Congress and the general public, and quite frankly we're fed up. Talking with friends and associates, I've noticed that a movement is beginning to form to vote out all incumbents this year. (Problem with this is those incumbents need to lose in their primaries; we're not simply going to vote for the other guy just because. We want those new and fresh ideas going to Congress, not the same old song and dance in a new suit.)

Does this have a chance of passing? Not bloody likely. The monkeys in Congress aren't going to vote themselves out of office voluntarily. It's possible Senator DeMint can get this to the floor for a vote, but it will fail just as it did back in 1995. It's sad, really, that the people in Congress care more about their cushy job than what's best for the nation.

Publius II

Happy Veteran's Day

Today is Veteran's Day -- the day where we should remember all veterans from all conflicts. The men and women that serve in our military have a tough job to do, day in and day out, and we should thank these people for their sacrifice to keep America safe and secure from our enemies. I have relatives who have served in the military. My great-grandfather served in the trenches of World War I. My grandfather served as a Navy transport pilot during World War II. My father served in Vietnam as a company clerk. My uncle served in the Marines in Vietnam. My other uncle joined the Navy in 1981, and put in 26 years in the Navy in naval intelligence. Marcie's brother is in Afghanistan now; an Army Ranger that signed up to serve on September 13, 2001. So it's not like we don't have the utmost respect for the military.

I ran across this video not too long ago, and it still chokes me up seeing it. They have a duty to serve this nation, and at the very least we should show them our appreciation whenever the chances come up. Also, Project Valour-IT ends today through Soldier's Angels. They help our wounded soldiers when they come home so drop by and give them a contribution.

If you see a soldier today, thank them for their service. If you feel bold enough, buy them lunch, or dinner, or even a beer. Tell them how much you appreciate their service, wish them good luck, God-speed, and may they be safe in the execution of their job.

Also, don't forget to fly your flag today in honor of those who serve, have served, and have given the ultimate sacrifice. Thanks to these people we are a safe and secure nation. The job ain't easy, but they're up to the task.

Publius II

Semper Fi and Oo-rah!! Happy Birthday USMC; 234 years young!

Happy Birthday to the United States Marine Corps. Today marks the 234th anniversary of the formation of the Marines. The ages-old adage for the Marines "no greater friend, no worse an enemy" has served the Marines well. They have a rich and storied history that most are unaware of. Below is a brief history of the men and women who have served the Marines honorably for 234 years. If you know of a Marine, or meet one today, buy them a drink in honor of their sacrifice and service. Thank God for the US Marines. They are called on when we need them most, and perform spectacularly when that call comes in.

On November 10, 1775, the Continental Congress meeting in Philadelphia passed a resolution stating that "two Battalions of Marines be raised" for service as landing forces with the fleet. This resolution, established the Continental Marines and marked the birth date of the United States Marine Corps. Serving on land and at sea, these first Marines distinguished themselves in a number of important operations, including their first amphibious raid into the Bahamas in March 1776, under the command of Captain (later Major) Samuel Nicholas. Nicholas, the first commissioned officer in the Continental Marines, remained the senior Marine officer throughout the American Revolution and is considered to be the first Marine Commandant. The Treaty of Parris in April 1783 brought an end to the Revolutionary War and as the last of the Navy's ships were sold, the Continental Navy and Marines went out of existence.

Following the Revolutionary War and the formal re-establishment of the Marine Corps on 11 July 1798, Marines saw action in the quasi-war with France, landed in Santo Domingo, and took part in many operations against the Barbary pirates along the "Shores of Tripoli". Marines participated in numerous naval operations during the War of 1812, as well as participating in the defense of Washington at Bladensburg, Maryland, and fought alongside Andrew Jackson in the defeat of the British at New Orleans. The decades following the War of 1812 saw the Marines protecting American interests around the world, in the Caribbean, at the Falkland Islands, Sumatra and off the coast of West Africa, and also close to home in the operations against the Seminole Indians in Florida.

During the Mexican War (1846-1848), Marines seized enemy seaports on both the Gulf and Pacific coasts. A battalion of Marines joined General Scott's army at Pueblo and fought all the way to the "Halls of Montezuma," Mexico City. Marines also served ashore and afloat in the Civil War (1861-1865). Although most service was with the Navy, a battalion fought at Bull Run and other units saw action with the blockading squadrons and at Cape Hatteras, New Orleans, Charleston, and Fort Fisher. The last third of the 19th century saw Marines making numerous landings throughout the world, especially in the Orient and in the Caribbean area.

Following the Spanish-American War (1898), in which Marines performed with valor in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines, the Corps entered an era of expansion and professional development. It saw active service in the Philippine Insurrection (1899-1902), the Boxer Rebellion in China (1900). and in numerous other nations, including Nicaragua, Panama, Cuba, Mexico, and Haiti.

In World War I the Marine Corps distinguished itself on the battlefields of France as the 4th Marine Brigade earned the title of "Devil Dogs" for heroic action during 1918 at Belleau Wood, Soissons, St. Michiel, Blanc Mont, and in the final Meuse-Argonne offensive. Marine aviation, which dates from 1912, also played a part in the war effort, as Marine pilots flew day bomber missions over France and Belgium. More than 30,000 Marines had served in France and more than a third were killed or wounded in six months of intense fighting.

During the two decades before World War II, the Marine Corps began to develop in earnest the doctrine, equipment, and organization needed for amphibious warfare. The success of this effort was proven first on Guadalcanal, then on Bougainville, Tarawa, New Britain, Kwajalein, Eniwetok, Saipan, Guam, Tinian, Peleliu, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa. By the end of the war in 1945, the Marine Corps had grown to include six divisions, five air wings, and supporting troops. Its strength in World War II peaked at 485,113. The war cost the Marines nearly 87,000 dead and wounded and 82 Marines had earned the Medal of Honor.

While Marine units took part in the post-war occupation of Japan and North China, studies were undertaken at Quantico, Virginia, which concentrated on attaining a "vertical envelopment" capability for the Corps through the use of helicopters. Landing at Inchon, Korea in September 1950, Marines proved that the doctrine of amphibious assault was still viable and necessary. After the recapture of Seoul, the Marines advanced to the Chosin Reservoir only to see the Chinese Communists enter the war. After years of offensives, counter-offensives, seemingly endless trench warfare, and occupation duty, the last Marine ground troops were withdrawn in March 1955. More than 25,000 Marines were killed or wounded during the Korean War.

In July 1958, a brigade-size force landed in Lebanon to restore order. During the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962, a large amphibious force was marshaled but not landed. In April 1965, a brigade of Marines landed in the Dominican Republic to protect Americans and evacuate those who wished to leave.

The landing of the 9th Marine Expeditionary Brigade at Da Nang in 1965 marked the beginning of large-scale Marine involvement in Vietnam. By summer 1968, after the enemy's Tet Offensive, Marine Corps strength in Vietnam rose to a peak of approximately 85,000. The Marine withdrawal began in 1969 as the South Vietnamese began to assume a larger role in the fighting; the last ground forces were out of Vietnam by June 1971. The Vietnam War, longest in the history of the Marine Corps, exacted a high cost as well with over 13,000 Marines killed and more than 88,000 wounded. In the spring of 1975, Marines evacuated embassy staffs, American citizens, and refugees in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, and Saigon, Republic of Vietnam. Later, in May 1975, Marines played an integral role in the rescue of the crew of the SS Mayaguez captured off the coast of Cambodia.

The mid-1970s saw the Marine Corps assume an increasingly significant role in defending NATO's northern flank as amphibious units of the 2d Marine Division participated in exercises throughout northern Europe. The Marine Corps also played a key role in the development of the Rapid Deployment Force, a multi-service organization created to insure a flexible, timely military response around the world when needed. The Maritime Prepositioning Ships (MPS) concept was developed to enhance this capability by prestaging equipment needed for combat in the vicinity of the designated area of operations, and reduce response time as Marines travel by air to link up with MPS assets.

The 1980s brought an increasing number of terrorist attacks on U.S. embassies around the world. Marine Security Guards, under the direction of the State Department, continued to serve with distinction in the face of this challenge. In August 1982, Marine units landed at Beirut, Lebanon, as part of the multi-national peace-keeping force. For the next 19 months these units faced the hazards of their mission with courage and professionalism. In October 1983, Marines took part in the highly successful, short-notice intervention in Grenada. As the decade of the 1980s came to a close, Marines were summoned to respond to instability in Central America. Operation Just Cause was launched in Panama in December 1989 to protect American lives and restore the democratic process in that nation.

Less than a year later, in August 1990, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait set in motion events that would lead to the largest movement of Marine Corps forces since World War II. Between August 1990 and January 1991, some 24 infantry battalions, 40 squadrons, and more than 92,000 Marines deployed to the Persian Gulf as part of Operation Desert Shield. Operation Desert Storm was launched 16 January 1991, the day the air campaign began. The main attack came overland beginning 24 February when the 1st and 2d Marine Divisions breached the Iraqi defense lines and stormed into occupied Kuwait. By the morning of February 28, 100 hours after the ground war began, almost the entire Iraqi Army in the Kuwaiti theater of operations had been encircled with 4,000 tanks destroyed and 42 divisions destroyed or rendered ineffective.

Overshadowed by the events in the Persian Gulf during 1990-91, were a number of other significant Marine deployments demonstrating the Corps' flexible and rapid response. Included among these were non-combatant evacuation operations in Liberia and Somalia and humanitarian lifesaving operations in Bangladesh, the Philippines, and northern Iraq. In December 1992, Marines landed in Somalia marking the beginning of a two-year humanitarian relief operation in that famine-stricken and strife-torn nation. In another part of the world, Marine Corps aircraft supported Operation Deny Flight in the no-fly zone over Bosnia-Herzegovina. During April 1994, Marines once again demonstrated their ability to protect American citizens in remote parts of the world when a Marine task force evacuated U.S. citizens from Rwanda in response to civil unrest in that country. Closer to home, Marines went ashore in September 1994 in Haiti as part of the U.S. force participating in the restoration of democracy in that country. During this same period Marines were actively engaged in providing assistance to the Nation's counter-drug effort, assisting in battling wild fires in the western United States, and aiding in flood and hurricane relief operations.

During the late 1990's, Marine Corps units deployed to several African nations, including Liberia, the Central African Republic, Zaire, and Eritrea, in order to provide security and assist in the evacuation of American citizens, during periods of political and civil instability in those nations. Humanitarian and disaster relief operations were also conducted by Marines during 1998 on Kenya, and in the Central American nations of Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala. In 1999, Marine units deployed to Kosovo in support of Operation Allied Force. Soon after the September 2001 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C., Marine units deployed to the Arabian Sea and in November set up a forward operating base in southern Afghanistan as part of Operation Enduring Freedom.

The Marine Corps has continued its tradition of innovation to meet the challenges of a new century. The Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory was created in 1995 to evaluate change, assess the impact of new technologies on warfighting, and expedite the introduction of new capabilities into the operating forces of the Marine Corps. Exercises such as "Hunter Warrior," and "Urban Warrior" were designed to explore future tactical concepts, and to examine facets of military operations in urban environments.

Today's Marine Corps stands ready to continue in the proud tradition of those who so valiantly fought and died at Belleau Wood, Iwo Jima, the Chosin Reservoir, and Khe Sanh. Combining a long and proud heritage of faithful service to the nation, with the resolve to face tomorrow's challenges will continue to keep the Marine Corps the "best of the best."

Ladies and gentlemen of the Marine Coprs, thank you so very much for your proud and honorable service to the United States of America. We, the people, are forever indebted to you for your sacrifice. May each and every one of you enjoy this day, and may each of you continue the traditions laid out by those who came before you. Your service is a debt we will never be able to repay fully. Thank you very much.

Publius II