Far too often lately, when I hear someone with no military experience talking about Iraq, even those who say they support our presence there, they morph into the wafflers' talking points by agreeing that the war is a "mess" and we are "stretched too thin."

But every time I talk to someone who has actually been fighting in Iraq, or who understands the needs and structure of the military, they say we are making phenomenal progress in Iraq, it just doesn't get reported by the World Terrorist Media and its homegrown subsidiary, the American Terrorist Media. Those who are in the military or have a working knowledge of the military don't understand where these 'mess' and 'too thin' claims are coming from, except of course from the wafflers and WTM/ATM.

But my question for the wafflers is, "What do you think you will get if you are successful? A peaceful world where everyone goes about their own business and ends centuries of violence, subjugation of women, enslavement, and repression?" Talk about being in denial.

I have been in regular contact with Marines and soldiers who have spent multiple tours in Iraq and they are unanimous that the Iraqi people overwhelmingly support the US, and want us to stay until they are capable of having a stable country of their own.

This may seem like a contradiction, but I believe that if you were to do a poll today and ask Iraqis only one question, "Do you want the US out of Iraq?" most respondents would answer 'yes.'

However, if you followed up the first question with "Do you want the US out now, or when Iraq is capable of providing its own security," the latter choice would be the overwhelming response.

I ran into this same issue in Vietnam a generation ago. Everywhere I went in I Corps, the locals would say they wanted the war over and the US gone, but quickly followed that up with the statement that they were defining a long term goal, and they did NOT intend to substitute American troops with communists.

But the anti-war media in the states, which by then was just about the entire American media, only reported the first half of those sentiments. It stands to reason that most people would prefer that their own armed forces and police keep the peace. It stands to reason that few if any citizens want an occupying army permanently in their land.

But you have to ask both parts of that question to get a real picture of the mood, and unfortunately, the WTM and ATM keep coming up short when they do their polling. Apparently they are losing advertising dollars at such a fast rate that they can only afford to hire pollsters who ask half a question.

When the WTM and ATM report on every car bomb that goes off in Iraq as the only news of the day it doesn't take long for people to get the impression that the country is a mess. But what if the same tactics applied here in America?

What if every single day the ATM reported on every car accident and related death in say, Greater San Diego and Greater Los Angeles instead of Baghdad and Fallujah, and extrapolated from the reporting that the entire state of California was in danger of sliding into anarchy? The people living the farming areas, other cities, and the mountainous regions outside of Sacramento would be justifiably and understandably angry over such lopsided depictions of their state.

Yet that is what we get. When was the last time you saw anything reported out of Basra, except when the British troops saw military action? Months ago probably. Is that because there is nothing happening in Basra, or because most of the sectarian violence is taking place in Baghdad, and Basra is actually improving all the time?

You can bet there are good things happening all over Iraq that simply aren't being reported. That is what our troops tell me, and I'd believe an Army or Marine private over anyone in the WTM and ATM anytime, even if the alleged journalist swore on a stack of Bibles - or Korans for that matter.

As far as stretched too thin, let's take a look at the numbers.

We have a standing military of just under 2.4 million people, including reservists, with about 1.4 million consisting of regular active duty personnel. Of that number we have about 140,000 in Iraq and some 20,000 in Afghanistan.

That means that if you only count the active duty forces, rathering that comparing it to the total number in the service, we still have only about 11 percent deployed in the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters.

But even giving the edge to those who say we are stretched too thin, it still means we have nearly 90 percent of our active duty forces stationed elsewhere. I can't think of another place, with the exception of our border with Mexico and our troops in South Korea, where so many members of the military are absolutely, positively necessary for security or combat duties that if they were really needed elsewhere they couldn't be moved out.

Lately the wafflers also have been making the claim that we aren't doing enough in Afghanistan because of the disparity in numbers of American troops there versus those in Iraq. That is simply a disingenuous comparison since NATO has taken over military duties in Afghanistan, and done very well in smashing resurgent terrorists by the way.

I guess the wafflers are counting on the American public being stupid and uniformed even if we are in the Information Age.

The reason behind this is obvious. If the wafflers make the military appear weak, overloaded, ill-equipped and incapable of success, fewer Americans will want to join. Ultimately the terrorists and probably the communists who are backing them, will be able to take us over, which seems to me to be the real goal of the wafflers and hand wringers.

Am I wrong here? I don't think so. If I go down to the stop sign at the end of my street and take a right, I know exactly where I will end up. Same goes for if I take a left.

If you continue down the road the wafflers and handwringers want us to take, you end up with a disemboweled America where extremists from other countries rule by the gun and impose their versions of government, religion and society. I guarantee you, if that were to happen the wafflers and hand-wringers would be the first to pule and cry that "someone should do something." But by then it will be way too late.

The wafflers also are trying to make it appear that the military is falling short on recruiting efforts. Not true in the overall, but even more importantly, the combat job codes are full. Marine recruiters recently revealed that there is a waiting list to get into the Marine infantry.

Technical jobs and aviation jobs are open. But the boots on the ground, faces in the mud guys have to wait their turn to get a shot at the terrorists. Don't hear much about that do you?

What we have here is an outright attempt to regain lost political power by any means at hand, even if it means weakening the country and leaving us vulnerable to terrorist attacks. You really have to wonder about the mental abilities of someone who favors that route.

HP and government leaks

I heard a pundit on TV the other day saying it is impossible to stop the leaks of classified, meaning Top Secret, national security information. The New York Times has been publishing Top Secret information for years now, deliberately setting the stage for millions of deaths of innocent civilians in Southeast Asia, putting our troops at risk, and now putting the country at risk of further terrorist attacks.

This apparently is to get back at President Bush in the current situation, and was to get back at other Republicans in previous times. Apparently to the Times and other members of the WTM, revenge for perceived wrongdoing, like being a Republican, takes precedence over the lives of millions of people.

But while one pundit was claiming that it is impossible to stop the leaks of Top Secret information, a Congressional panel was holding hearings into Hewlett Packard's methodology for stopping leaks out of the corporate boardroom, which incidentally were totally successful.

But the pundits are saying HP invaded the personal privacy of individuals who violated their employment contracts by leaking sensitive inside information to the media, which then affected company fortunes on the stock market.

Who does that sound like?

I think the Justice Department should put in a request to have a private meeting with HP execs, and former execs, and then apply what they've learned. Then let's see how long it really takes to stop leaking Top Secret information.

I would like to speak today about quail hunting, specifically its connection to Iraq and international politics.

OK, OK, get it out of your system - the reference to the vice president and that unfortunate incident in Texas. I'm not talking about that, nor about Dan Quayle, remember him? But please go ahead and get it out of your system so we can get on to the real issue. Ready? One, two, three. BWWWAaaaaahahaha, BWWWAaaaaahahaha. Yeah, good joke, I saw it too.

Right. Now what I am talking about is what happens when a predator in the wild comes too close to a nesting quail. The quail invariably sees the predator first, because it is hidden and eternally vigilant.

As soon as the quail is certain that the predator is heading straight to the nest, it slips into the brush, then appears a short distance away directly in the predator's sight and creates a commotion, appearing to be injured. This gets the predator's attention, and it begins stalking the quail figuring it has an easy meal.

But when the predator gets within striking distance the quail miraculously regains its flight abilities and flies away from the nest, landing within the predator's sight, again feigning injury. The predator resumes stalking, further from the nest all the time. This ruse is repeated as often as necessary until the predator has been led far away, at which time the quail "recovers" and by a circuitous route returns to the nest.

Now let's talk about Iraq. In 2001, more than two decades of increasingly devastating terrorist strikes against the US and the free world by Islamo-fascist extremists culminated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, leaving nearly 3,000 people dead in a matter of two hours, and thousands more injured. Unfortunately, the previous two decades had been marked not by eternal vigilance, but by a form of denial whereby Americans maintained a false sense of security, thinking the battle would never be joined on our shores.

Rather than guarding our own nest, America also conducted a futile and ill-conceived search for a latter day Wyatt Earp who would hit the terrorists over the head with his pistol and throw them into the hoosegow for the night to teach them the error of their ways - the law enforcement vs. military option.

Didn't work.

We finally responded to the 9-11 attacks by taking the fight straight to the terrorists' lair, Afghanistan, and put a beating on most of those directly responsible. But some of them slipped away to Iraq, where they were given sanctuary, medical treatment where necessary, and aid to begin rebuilding their terrorist network prior to launching new strikes against us.

But this time, we went to Iraq, where we have been playing the wounded quail for three years. Instead of flying further away when the predators come near, however, we draw them into a fight where we kill them by the thousands. We have in effect drawn the predators far from the nest, but unlike the quail that can use only flight in its defense, we unleash our military on them.

Some say we don't have enough troops in Iraq and that we should have sealed off all of Iraq's borders, and formed a police force to patrol all of Iraq's cities. Aside from the fact that those tactics would have required millions of troops (just check the length of Iraq's borders with Iran and Saudi Arabia for example)it would have been such an overwhelming show of force that the terrorists would have avoided direct confrontation and adapted their tactics to ambush us elsewhere.

Although casualty figures are often cited by critics of the present policy as reason why we shouldn't be in Iraq, those figures actually show that our troops are far better armed, trained, and equipped than the terrorists, and far, far more capable. Yet, the terrorists see the whining on the home front, and continue to stalk, thinking that just by showing up we will fold and they will have an easy meal.

Rather than folding under the criticism of people who know nothing about warfare, street fighting or quail hunting, America has continued the fight in Iraq and has continued to draw the extremists into our trap where they are captured or killed.

I have said in the past, and will continue to say, that I feel every death of every American service member as I would my own family, and as I did the deaths of my fellow Marines in Vietnam. But I also know that if we weren't there, creating just enough of an impression of vulnerability to the Islamo-facists that they continue to confront us, and continue to die, they most certainly would have attacked us on our shores again by now.

When they come at us again, it will be with biological or chemical weapons, you can count on it. A more remote likelihood, for the time being, is the use of a nuclear weapon. But whichever weapon is used, the extent of the devastation will be biblical in scope.

To prevent this, we must continue to draw the terrorists away from our nest, even if it means fighting them in someone else's country. I expect that in time the Iraqi people will come together to stop their attacks against each other, and will kill or expel the outsiders who come to their country to build bombs and murder innocents.

By then, the toll on the terrorists and their organization will have been devastating. By then, we can only hope that America's politicians, as well as the public, will understand that our shores will never again be totally safe, and we must always guard over the nest.

Did the NY Times Get Suckered on the NIE Report?

Did they? Who cares? Some say the Times printing a partial except from a six-month old National Intelligence Estimate report, and inaccurately portraying its conclusions, was a stroke of genius and malice, either by someone in the intelligence community or presidential adviser Karl Rove.

Again, who cares? The Times screwed up royally because of its zealotry and its blind impatience to sink the Bush Administration.

When I was an investigative reporter we were required to confirm all controversial information not only by complete documentation, but also by three independent sources who would verify its legitimacy.

Obviously the Times has long since forgotten the tenets of good investigative journalism. The NIE report didn't say that the war in Iraq has caused an increase in global terrorism, as the Times claimed, and if it had every thinking journalist in America should have jumped all over it as being implausible.

OK, we don't have that many thinking journalists, point taken. Nonetheless, in days gone by, that story would never have seen the light of day without being checked and counter-checked at multiple levels throughout the Times system, including its lawyers.

But the extremism that is so evident in that paper is and will be its downfall. Some in Washington now say that Rove deliberately leaked a part of the report knowing the Times would leap on it and print anything that is unflattering to President Bush.

But President Bush released all the report's conclusions yesterday, which still doesn't satisfy his critics, and now Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid wants all of it released, including the parts that show what methods we use and the sources of our information. Breach of national security here, just plain stupidity, or both?

And another Democratic leader on the Intelligence Committee says she "heard" that another report is floating around somewhere that the White House won't release because it says what the report that was just declassified was alleged to have said in the NY Times story on Sunday.

This is a true conspiracy theory in the making.

As far as I am concerned, the Times reaped the fruits of its own labors. It abandoned all the provisions of solid investigative journalism, and if it further loses prestige, readers and advertisers, tough. The Times got what it asked for and whether it was a genius of a move by Karl Rove or just sloppiness by the Times is irrelevant.

A regular source of wisdom and input on the corporate viewpoint of life tells me that former Pres. Bill Clinton exhibited all the symptoms of a classic henpecked husband when he went into a tirade over Chris Wallace asking him about Osama Bin Laden on Fox News Sunday.

"Every boss I have ever worked for, who made life miserable for his subordinates, invariably had a lousy home life and used his position at work to make up for his frustrations," my source tells me. "In short, if he was an asshole at work, he was henpecked at home."

Well, if that doesn't describe Bill Clinton's behavior on national television I don't know what does.

All you have to do is take a look at his long and stormy marriage to see that this is a perfectly plausible explanation. Why else would you have such a history of allegations of Clinton making passes at other women, assaulting other women, having affairs with other women?

And can you imagine for just a second, if that is what happens to a guy who was PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES what will happen to our country if his wife were to be elected to the same job? Uh-oh. What happens when an entire country becomes henpecked?

You think we have trouble with the Islamo-facists, neo-communists, third world dictators and Jock Chirac now? Try imagining the world situation after three years of the entire country being nagged to distraction. Whew!

And while we're on the subject, let's talk for just a moment about Clinton's (the former president, not the pretender to the throne) explanation that he should be forgiven for not putting the smack down on Osama-baby because "I tried."

Man, that is classic Rush Limbaugh parody material! That my friends, is the end result of elitist upbringing and education. That is what happens when someone teaches you from day one to the present that it is OK to fail, to not do your best, to not succeed, to not really, really compete on the world stage, as long as you "try."

I have something else for him and those who believe that way to try. Try putting that over in any emerging country, in any military unit, in any corporate entity, in any marriage, in fact in any other endeavor anywhere.

"I tried to close that contract, sir, but the other guys were just too good. Can I have my paycheck now?"

"I tried to take that hill, Sir, but the enemy wouldn't let me. Yes, sir, I know they are now raining fire down on our heads because they have the high ground and we don't, but I tried! Can I have that promotion now?"

"I tried to ignore that other woman's perfume, and cleavage, and slit skirt and supple thighs, and come-hither look, dear. I did try. Can we skip marriage counseling and just go to bed now, honey?"

Yeah, try that crap out in the real world. I dare you. Next time the taxi takes me within 10 blocks of skid row I'll have the driver stop so I can give you a quarter.

When Bill Clinton was in his second term he tried to put an end to questions on the Monica Lewinsky scandal -- right after the "I did not have ..." commentary, by saying that he was going to get back to working for the American people.

I have news for all presidents past, present and future. The American people did not, do not and will not elect you to TRY. Those elected to the highest office in the most advanced and powerful nation ever to exist on this planet are elected to SUCCEED!

Anything less than success is unacceptable and if that bar is set too high for you then you might remember Ted Knight's line from the movie Caddyshack. "The world needs ditch diggers too."

Even Clinton's whining about Richard Clarke and his tenure as America's only terrorism expert being demoted by George Bush smacks of this philosophy. Clinton makes the point that Clarke was on board from the Reagan administration through Bush I, both of Clinton's terms, and then was demoted by the current President Bush.

Clinton says this was not fair because under Clarke's tutelage "We probably nearly got Bin Laden?"

"We probably nearly got?" What the hell is that? Probably nearly? Is that some form of New English verb conjugation?

If Clarke was the preeminent American terrorism expert for all those years, and those years were marked by increasingly daring, increasingly effective and constantly escalating attacks on Americans at home and abroad, and we were no further along in stopping it, then RICHARD CLARKE SURE AS HELL SHOULD HAVE BEEN FIRED!! Either he didn't know what was going on, or he didn't have the communications skills to get the attention of people who could take appropriate action. Either way the end is the same and it was time for new blood and new thinking.

But Clinton runs on about how unfair it was to Richard Clarke.

Somebody call the WAAAAAAMBULANCE!!! (Thanks to Bruce Willis in The Kid.)

I don't think we have ever had a better example of the type of thinking that got us attacked in the first place. With representation like that in the world arena it's no wonder every two-bit punk and bully in every backwater hell hole on earth thinks he can kick sand in our face and get away with it.

It is time for Bill Clinton to take a long hard look at his life and make some drastic changes. Forget marriage counseling it is way past time for that. It is time for him to get his own place, start cultivating his own friends, get a gym membership and start working out.

A new outlook, some real accomplishments and regular exercise-induced endorphins will do wonders for his mental state. And America will be safer for it.

Former President Bill Clinton was interviewed on the Fox News Sunday show today by anchor Chris Wallace, and Clinton went right off the deep end when asked about his efforts, or lack of efforts to hunt down and kill Osama Bin Laden.

I mean he really went off the deep end. Fox News Washington Anchorman and Sunday panelist Brit Hume said he has seen Clinton's temper tantrums before, but they usually blow over as soon as they erupt. But not in this case.

If you are to believe the former president, it would seem that he moved heaven and earth to hunt down and kill OBL, but was screwed over by the CIA and FBI. Uh-huh. Would these be the same agencies that were handed over to the Bush administration essentially gutted of their intelligence gathering and enforcement capabilities after nearly eight years of Clinton's meddling?

I see. And now Clinton says they shafted him?

And everyone is OK with this?

The former president seemed especially prickly, and actually quite petulant on this subject, and was so irate about the questions posed by Wallace that he (Clinton) actually said the media treated him unfairly. I wasn't aware that Fox news was the only media outlet in the United States, and to be honest with you, sometimes they bend over backward so far in their efforts to be "fair and balanced" that they actually appear to go way too far.

Sometimes the things I hear said on Fox from Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Hillary, Dean, Pelosi, Reid, et. al. and their supporters are so outlandish, so incredibly impossible to be true that I wonder why Fox even airs that nonsense.

And there are plenty of other media outlets, electronic and print, that many Americans believe go to extremes to paint everything the Bush Administration and the Republican Party do as wrong, dumb, ill-conceived and poorly executed.

Clinton would have done much better if he had just said, "Look, I tried. I believed we could make the hunt for terrorists a legal thing, rather than a military thing, and I believed that if we were successful in that endeavor the United States would have been regarded as a progressive beacon in a world filled with darkness. In hindsight, I had no idea Osama was planning so much devastation and I might have handled it differently, if I did."

Instead he got in Wallace's face, came across as arrogant, dismissive and trying to rewrite history. Clinton saying that Fox in particular, and the media in general, have been unfair to him truly comes across as paranoid, and just a bit suspect.

The ex-president even accused the Sunday anchor of being elitist, condescending, and having a 'smug' smirk. If Clinton was even close to being right on that account, which he wasn't, but if, I bet Wallace got it from watching reruns of Clinton looking the American public dead in the eye and saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman!"

China, Russia benefit from misrepresenting the Pope

I had a nagging thought for the past week or so, ever since the world blew up over the Pope allegedly making remarks that the Islamo-facists took umbrage too, that there was something essentially wrong with the whole story.

I kept wondering how it was that one sentence out of an entire speech, given in a German theological university, could gain so much attention and cause such a deadly reaction.

Well, the answer came to me yesterday through the blog at http://www.atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/.
Pamela Oshry, the blog's author, referred her readers in turn to research that others have done tracing the story on the Pope's statements back to its roots.

First, I will give you meat of the Pope's commentary, then let you in on how the story developed:

The Pope was speaking of how, in decades past, the University of Regensburg where he was giving his speech on Faith, Reason and the University, had hosted dialogues and debates within the university structure allowing a free flowing interaction between the students and faculty. In that time, the Pope noted, one professor had even chided the university for having two schools of thought on the proper way to worship God, when no one had ever proved that God actually exists.

Here the Pope continues:

I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between - as they were called - three "Laws" or "rules of life": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole - which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason", I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.

In the seventh conversation edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah (chapter, WSS edit) 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the surahs of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness which leaves us astounded, (emphasis added, WSS) on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry.

At this point, as far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we are faced with an unavoidable dilemma. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true?

First and foremost, if you are not a religious scholar you probably are going to find the daily TV listings more interesting than the Pope's speech. Which in fact was the reaction of just about everyone on the face of the earth, until about three days later.

Then the BBC, according to the research cited above, carried the first story indicating that the Pope had said something offensive and that Muslims were angry even though no significant demonstrations had yet occurred.

Then the New York Times got on the bandwagon (why are we not surprised) which then got the rest of the lemmings in the World Terrorist Media and its subsidiary the American Terrorist Media, moving on the story. Within another 48 hours the allegations that the Pope had insulted Islam had made it into the deepest darkest corners of Islamo-facism and the hoped for demonstrations actually were occurring, along with burning, breaking, destroying churches in the Holy Land, and the murder of a nun in Somalia.

So what did we get from this coverage: A real news story, or a self-fulfilling prophecy?

I believe it is the latter, and once again, as I reported in July when the Chief Muckety-Muck of North Korea was throwing missiles around and sniffing butts with the leader of Iran, who stands to gain from this?

Once again, the Chinese and the Russians, who are still desperately trying one last time to create a World Communist Empire before education, technology and transportation make them obsolete and irrelevant. Think I'm wrong? Prove it!

The communists would be the biggest benefactors of a religious war, and my read on this says they are hoping the Christians and Jews line up against the Muslims and all three get the Holy Crap beaten out of them.

Then the commies move in, paint themselves as the voices of reason and order in an unreasonable and disordered world, and once again the cry will come down from on high, "Let the Pogroms begin!"

Nancy Pelosi and Charlie Rangel, Democratic congresspeople, jumped up in defense of President George Bush and went on the attack against Huey Chavez Thursday after Chavez made a fool of himself at the Untied Nations by calling President Bush the devil among other things.

Be still my beating heart. Can I believe this? Two of the most atrocious Bush bashers in the US Congress suddenly find a streak of patriotism and stand up for the good ol' US of A, and the president all at once!?

Sorry. I'm not buying it. This is an election year, we are six weeks out from Election Day, the polls are going against them despite near frantic efforts by the American Terrorist Media (ATM) and there is no way I am won over by their sudden urge to hold hands, sit in a circle, touch toes and sing We Shall Overcome or Kumbayah.

This is a not so subtle effort to make America temporarily feel a sense of oneness, a sense of unity, a sense of Us Against the World and it did not work. Temporary as in, until just after Election Day. Maybe if they also weren't saying, "Hey, Huey, we can kick the Republicans all we want, and especially Bush, but you have to stand in line!"

Yeah, wait your turn Huey! Bush bashing is a mostly American pastime, and you'll just have to stand by until all the Americans are done.

Maybe if they hadn't just spent the last eon bashing the daylights out of Bush and anyone who works with or for him, they might have been more believable. Maybe, just maybe we could have believed that they really meant it if they hadn't been on the Personal Attacks Defines Politics bandwagon. But you can't undo eight years of open hostility in one day. Nope. Not buying it.

Pelosi wasn't even all that aggressive in her statements, and Rangel went on to thank Chavez for providing low-cost heating oil to the residents of Harlem. So it wasn't all that convincing.

Besides, if Chavez wanted to really impress Americans, he would have made low-cost heating oil and low-cost gasoline, say, along the lines of a quarter per gallon, available to all of us! I may be a country boy from the farm belt, and yes I do know how to cut, split, stack and burn my own cordwood to take the edge off the winter heating costs, but one five-hundred gallon tank full of heating oil sure would have made my winter easier to bear.

Yeah, Chavez baby, want to impress the mainstream of the good old US of A? Drop the bottom right out of the gas prices. You were waving that book around about communist economics when you were up at the Untied Nations podium, gagging from the stench of sulfur. Do what it says. Give everything away. Abolish wages, abolish prices, just do what needs to be done for free because it is the right thing to do.

Like giving me all the gas I need this year for free, shipping and handling included! Do that and you will capture the attention of all Americans, who will be only to happy to take your gas and then laugh their rear ends off as they watch your country sink into a morass of international debt and local chaos.

Actually, that's not such a bad idea now that I think of it. But other than a full-fledged giveaway, anything else just smacks of manipulation.

So, Huey, Dewey and Lewey, thanks but no thanks. Love to. But Can't. Buy into this nonsense that is.

Oh yeah, once again, abolish the Untied Nations. That place is a bad joke and it is smelling up New York. Get rid of that eyesore and those drunken freeloaders. Let Donald Trump build something. At least it will be a revenue producer instead of a money pit and an eyesore.

In recent comments about pending legislation defining exactly what American troops and intelligence operatives can and can NOT do to extract information from terrorists, retired General and former Secretary of State Colin Powell said that "as a soldier" he opposes the Bush administration's efforts because they would make things worse for our troops in combat.

I'm not sure how anything can get much worse than someone trying to kill you by any means possible, or the torture that American troops have been subjected to for more than a century of warfare against enemies who don't have rules, but that is his opinion and he's stuck with it.

What I am stuck with is the image evoked by the phrase "as a soldier." Gen. Powell obviously still considers himself a military man even though he is retired and has served the administration as a civilian. But since the general brought it up, I have another question I'd like to see him answer, 'as a soldier.'

Recently it was revealed that after two years of constant barrages at the Bush Administration over the alleged leaking of the identity of a CIA desk jockey, the "leaker" was not a member of the White House inner circle as widely claimed, but was Richard Armitage, US Deputy Secretary of State, second-in-command at the State Department, working directly for Powell.

It was then revealed that Powell himself knew Armitage was the leaker, and had known it all along. But Powell kept silent even though a federal prosecutor was named to investigate whether laws against revealing the identities of undercover spies were broken; even though a grand jury was convened to assist the federal prosecutor; even though the reputations of administration officials were dragged through the mud; even though members of the media were jailed for upholding their interpretations of the First Amendment; and even though one administration member who had nothing to do with the issue is now facing federal charges arising from the investigation.

My question is: Did General Powell, 'as a soldier' violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice by not informing his commander in chief, President Bush, of what he knew, as soon as he knew it? Since a federal investigation was launched, did the general have an obligation to fess up immediately, and did he violate regulations on obstruction of justice by keeping mum?

I don't pretend to be an expert on military law. I lived and worked under the dictates of the UCMJ for eight years, but that was long ago. However, I can still read and interpret and one thing I found that strongly indicates the general is subject to the provisions of the UCMJ is the following:

802. ART. 2. PERSONS SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER
(4) Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.

So, even though he is retired, since he draws retirement pay, the general apparently still has some obligations.

I have no animosity toward Colin Powell on any level, and I have the highest respect for all he has done, and all the sacrifices he has made for our country. But nobody gets a free ride here.

Scooter Libby, the Chief of Staff for Vice President Dick Cheney lost his job and has been charged with lying to a grand jury that never should have been convened in the first place. He could face jail time if convicted.

Former New York Times reporter Judith Brown already has gone to jail and lost her job over her refusal to name her source on the issue, even though she never published a word about it.

Karl Rove has been attacked across the spectrum as the supposed engineer of a dastardly plot to destroy the reputation of an administration opponent, Joe Wilson, husband of the hobbit who was so aggrieved by the revelations on her key placement in the defense of the free world that she was forced to flee to the media and pose for cover photos. Hopefully, her fragile psyche has been shored up by all the media hugs she has received since. Otherwise, maybe the settlements from all the lawsuits she has filed against God and everyone else will do the trick.

It is clear from here that the American people deserve an explanation of the general's role and responsibilities in this matter. If one is not forthcoming we deserve an answer to whether the general should have to face the same type of disciplinary action that I am sure he would order for any soldier in his command.

Bush Has a Moment in the Sun

President Bush gave a terrific speech before the UN Tuesday and I would say that even if the losers I now can compare him to hadn't been born.

Bush went to the greater populations of the countries around the world where the leaders are opposed to the US. He called out the leaders by country, and by executive style, and let the general populace know we want a world at peace.

He spared no dictators and he offered comfort to every populace. He made it clear that the US will not tolerate terrorism, Islamo-facists, or any other form of repression. He offered hope, and tolerance, and peace to those countries that will join us in working for those goals.

Bush showed that he has grown considerably over the years in office and that he has mastered the podium on the world stage. He gave a speech that all Americans can be proud of, and for once it would be great to see the World Terrorist Media's subsidiary, the American Terrorist Media, report it as it was, not as their political masters wish it would be.

Green Bean at the Untied Nations. HO-Hum

Several hours after President Bush stood at the UN's General Assembly podium and called Green Bean Almandine, the titular head of the Iran, the Country Formerly Known as Persia, and his henchmen in Syria and the Wide World of Terrorism on the carpet for attempting to impose their Culture of Cowardice on the world, Green Bean also appeared at the Untied Nations.

I don't know what Green Bean said, even though the World Terrorist Media was gushing all over him, because I have better things to do than listen to the insane rants of a deranged Hitler wannabe. The man is a pathological liar, has made no secret of his intent to develop a nuclear bomb and vaporize Israel, and nothing he could ever say would make up for the level of vitriol he has launched on the world in the past three decades.

So I took a cue from the comedian Lewis Black and spent the evening shoving sharpened pencils into my eardrums because dealing with that level of pain was still better than listening to the filth spewing from that terrorist jerk.

But Chavez is a Fanatic Freak!

On the other hand, this generation's Che Guevara wannabe, Huey Chavez, Grand Poobah and Ruler for Life of Venezuela was an absolute hoot and I recommend his speeches for any serious student of international politics.

He started out by calling President Bush the devil and went on to claim that he could still smell the sulfur from Bush's appearance at the same podium a day earlier. He continued that Americans are racist, hypocritical, and tyrants.

I say he should be required listening because first, Venezuela wants to be on the Security Council. Then, and far more importantly was the reaction of the assembled UN minions and cocktail slurpers. They applauded! They applauded this madman's ravings loudly and enthusiastically!

This is the Untied Nations! This bunch of losers couldn't find their own rear ends with both hands and a map, and they break into sustained applause for Chavez!

They clapped! They clapped enthusiastically for this jerk! Toss those SOBs out and toss them out right now!

That moron calling Bush the Devil tells us again and again and again and again and again that we no longer have any reason to be a part of that slime pit. The UN is nothing more than a welfare job for brain dead, coke-sniffing, bottom-feeding, mouth-breathing Neanderthals and we gain absolutely nothing from letting them hang out in a great city like New York.

Want to see the IQ of New York City increase by a factor of 10? Throw out all the foreign UN reps, except our allies of course.

But for their sake, our allies that is, we should get the rest of those losers out of here so the good guys don't get tainted by the idiocy of the rest. I don't know if idiocy is contagious but why take a chance?

Get that bunch of freaks the hell out of New York and do it yesterday!

Lamont Supporter Sighting
Seen on Rt.10 in suburban Connecticut, West of Hartford recently, a guy dressed like Osama Bin Laden, looking exactly like a recruiter for the Taliban.

This guy in full terrorist uniform, robes, beard and all was holding a sign. Upon closer inspection it was revealed to say:

Support Lamont. We Do!

Senator John McCain is rarely referred to in public, particularly when the subject is the military and the War on Terror, without mentioning that he was held captive and tortured horribly by the North Vietnamese during the Vietnam War.

McCain's former POW status arose on Sunday during a Chris Wallace interview with National Director of Intelligence John Negroponte about a schism with the White House on a bill regulating our treatment of captured terrorists (not detainees, TERRORISTS). Wallace also referenced the military background of Virginia Senator John Warner and former Secretary of State Colin Powell as reasons why their positions on this issue might carry more weight than President's Bush's point of view.

I'm not sure exactly how one follows the other. Yes, Colin Powell is a retired general and was wounded in Vietnam. John Warner joined the Navy at 17 to fight in WWII, and then reenlisted in the Marine Corps during the Korean War where he was trained in aircraft electronics, Avionics, the same as I was in Vietnam.

In each case they served honorably in the defense of our country, but what exactly about that service makes their opinion more important on this issue?

The issue being debated concerns how the language in a bill working its way to the president's desk compares to an article in the Geneva Convention regulating treatment and interrogation of POWs, and whether other nations that have signed on to the Geneva Convention will see the new legislation as a departure from previous commitments to that agreement.

Let's remember folks, McCain was tortured by an enemy that did not, and DOES NOT adhere to the Geneva Convention, and he was not a terrorist! We are capturing and interrogating terrorists who have but one goal in their pea brains, the downfall and destruction of the entire free world, starting with the US. They have not, do not and never will adhere to the Geneva Convention!

In fact, if you research the history of the Geneva Convention going back to its beginnings in the late 1800s, you will find that the only countries that have signed on to and adhere to its provisions are the US and its allies. Did Germany adhere to it in WWI when it unleashed mustard gas? How about WWII when Germany and Japan wantonly murdered POWs or worked them to death in slave labor camps, or used them for bizarre and obscene medical experiments?

Keep going. The Chinese in the Korean War? The Vietnamese Communists in the Vietnam War? The Russians during the entirety of the Cold War? The Muslims who have murdered thousands of Jews, call for the total destruction of that country based on religious differences, and been fighting us in one form or another ever since the oil embargo of 1973?

I know, somewhere out there in the blogosphere someone is rattling off instances where members of the US armed forces violated the Geneva Convention. Of course that happens. War is brutal, people who have seen their comrades' bodies after the Islamo-fascists, the North Vietnamese or the communist Chinese or North Koreans got through with them are not the same elitists who sit at polished teakwood tables in posh office suites debating human philosophy.

The guys with mud and blood all over them see war right in their faces, in its most brutal, thus most human form, and their concepts are simple and straightforward. Kill or be killed, and use whatever means necessary, fair or unfair, legal or illegal, to get an edge on the enemy and stay alive.

The difference between us and those we have defended ourselves against for the past century and more is that we arrest and prosecute members of our armed forces who are deemed to have violated the so-called Rules of Engagement.

We have not fought a single enemy in over a hundred years who even has Rules of Engagement, much less adheres to them. We make occasional mistakes and atone for them. Our enemies apply what we call mistakes as matters of policy.

In the case of McCain, Warner and Powell the argument that their service trumps the president's is specious. Based on that argument, do I trump Senator Warner, since when he was in the Marines in Korea he served on fixed wing aircraft behind the lines, whereas I flew gunner on helicopters and was often right in the middle of the fighting?

I guess that since Powell was wounded he trumps me, and I guess that because McCain was a prisoner he trumps us all, but then again, I know lots of guys who were wounded and are decorated for outright heroism who trump all of them!

Of course my opinion doesn't carry more weight than Senator Warner's. He has a long and distinguished career as an elected public servant, and that in itself should give his voice considerable weight. But see where this argument ends up if you carry it to its logical conclusion?

The fact is, out of all of us only one person has been elected to make the final decisions on how best to protect this country and determine how it proceeds in the international arena. President Bush has the position that trumps all else. He has the final authority, but he also has the final responsibility, and at the end of the day, McCain, Warner and Powell can go home, say they made their point, and turn to other matters.

Only the president will live with each of these decisions for the remainder of his days.

Muslims Piss Off The Pope!

Remember that old saying that someone is so obnoxious that "He could piss off the Pope?"

The point is that the Pope is considered the most holy and most Christ-like leader of the Roman Catholic Church and you really have to go to incredible extremes to get him to act in any way other those taught by Jesus Christ.

My apologies for using gutter language in my analogy but sometimes that is the best way to get a point across. In this case we are talking about the Pope's recent reference to a medieval text that said Islam was being advanced at the point of a sword.

Pope Benedict XVI was reading from the text in a speech last week and as soon as word got out the Muslim world went berserk. People took to the streets, burned stuff, broke stuff, killed people, vowed once again to destroy Israel, chanted Death to America, and even threatened to unleash suicide bombers on the Vatican.

The Pope ultimately apologized in a way, not by saying he was sorry someone wrote that Islam is spread by violence and intimidation six centuries ago, nor that he mentioned it in his speech, but that he was sorry people took it so personally and so violently.

UNACCEPTABLE the radical Muslim world roared. Churches are burning in the Holy Land, and a Christian nun is murdered in Muslim Somalia to show that they mean it!

Wow. Let's step back and review this. We are at war with Islamo-fascists who want nothing less than the total destruction of the entire world that is not them starting with Israel, the font of the Judeo-Christian beliefs, and then moving to the US and other free world countries. They want to impose the most brutal and extreme version of their religion on the entire world. They want everyone subservient, they want women to exist only as slaves, they want what they want, they want it now and they have shown repeatedly that they will torture and kill anyone who disagrees with and has the misfortune of getting caught by them.

So a world religious leader reads a centuries old text that says the Muslim religion at that time was being spread at the point of a sword by people who wanted to impose the most brutal and extreme version of their religion on the entire world. They wanted everyone subservient, they wanted women to exist only as slaves, they wanted what they wanted, they wanted it right then and they showed repeatedly that they would torture and kill anyone who disagreed with or had the misfortune of getting caught by them.

And the modern response is an eruption of hatred and threats against the Pope and his followers, destruction of religious sites, and the murder of an innocent woman of the cloth.

I refer you to a recent column about the fallacy of turning the other cheek. No responsible person in my world has suggested that we ban the Muslim religion. What we do in my world, and in my country, is allow the free expression of religious beliefs and the freedom to practice individual religions without fear of repression.

But we draw the line at any religion that says we have to follow that belief or face torture and death. It is long since past the time to draw the line.

We are at war with a religion that has the temerity, the audacity, the effrontery to murder people and burn religious sites because a leader of one branch of Christianity read from a text that said Islam was being spread and enforced by violence.

The reaction from the world of Islam is more violence and death. So, perhaps the Muslims didn't like what was said about them centuries ago, and repeated last week, but exactly where is what was said inaccurate.

Coverage of the recent upsurge in fighting in Afghanistan has generally been of the gloom and doom variety with the World Terrorist Media mimicking Eeyore, AA Milne's character in the Winnie the Pooh books.

Woe is us, the terrorists are back, they're shooting again, we've lost, the sky is falling, all is lost, we can't win, woe is us.

Actually, the renewed fighting is evidence of an overlooked but very important victory in the War on Terror. Historically, after the attacks of 9-11 we went to Afghanistan because we had direct evidence that Al Qaeda, headed by Osama Bin Laden, directed the attacks.

They were headquartered in Afghanistan, were in league with the Taliban, the Muslim extremists who were running that country at the time, and we had some allies in the Northern Alliance who desperately needed our help in fighting against the Taliban. So we teamed up with the alliance and beat the living tar out of the Taliban, setting the stage for the first popularly elected government in Afghan history.

As the tide of battle turned against them, which was virtually from the time we fired our first shot, Al Qaeda fighters quickly migrated to Iraq where Saddam Hussein's regime gave them sanctuary, medical treatment, and training camps to rebuild their terrorist network and launch new attacks against the west and the US.

So, George Bush authorized the invasion of Iraq. This went against the wishes of most European governments, as well as China and Russia, at the Untied Nations, primarily because high level officials in most European governments, as well as China and Russia, and the Untied Nations, were being handsomely bribed by Saddam Hussein.

But we went in anyway, knocked the tar out of Saddam's army, including its terrorist brigades and its vaunted Republican Guards. To counter this second victory, the Islamo-facists began sending terrorists to Iraq both to fight the US, and to stir up ages-old animosities between Islamic factions inside the country.

But we persevered, kept killing the terrorists in huge numbers, and set the stage for Iraq to create its own democratically elected government, which now is in place and rebuilding a national army and police force.

Even though the WTM focuses on daily car bombings and sectarian violence, the fact is, Iraq is moving ahead, problems are being solved and it also has become a dangerous place for the Al Qaeda terrorists and their loosely knit alliance of similar-minded nut jobs.

So they are leaving Iraq and heading for greener pastures in ... Afghanistan?!

This is a victory simply because if the terrorists had been succeeding in their quest over the past five years they would have their pick of countries where they could relocate. So far, the only option they have, other than trying to hide out in the rugged mountains in Afghanistan, is Somalia, which has to be hell on earth.

Even though there is renewed fighting in Afghanistan, it is not going well for Al Qaeda or the remnants of the Taliban. They kill a couple of soldiers or policemen, then lose a hundred. They don't have that many fighters to begin with and losing them at that rate is a dangerous and flawed strategy.

Apparently, Osama, or whomever is running the strategy for Al Qaeda these days, is hoping that renewed fighting will not play well politically in America, will be portrayed by the WTM, the ATM and the opposition party as a defeat, resulting in the election of politicians who advocate disengagement.

It isn't working, and the death of any terrorist (or guerilla) organization is to engage in head-to-head fighting against conventional forces, especially if the terrorists don't have the support of the populace. Al Qaeda does not have popular support, and the absence of options in other Muslim countries is prima facie evidence of that.

I guess I should excuse the WTM and America's opposition party for their ignorance. As it stands now, if you include all the active duty military personnel, as well as all American veterans, we only constitute about 7 percent of the populace. That means 93 percent of Americans, including most of the opposition party, have no first-hand knowledge about military matters, especially strategy and tactics.

But rather than continually trotting out tired, worn out, discredited no-nothings who glory in saying the first thing that comes to mind, it would help if the WTM and the ATM occasionally interviewed someone who has real military knowledge and no political axe to grind.

Novel concept or what?

The President used his speech for political purposes.

Good grief, when the hell are these sub-human, brain dead, moronic, drivel-spouting lumpen going to shut up?

Of course the president's speech had political overtones, he is the PRESIDENT! He is the PRESIDENT of the most powerful nation in the free world, thus the most visible member of the REPUBLICAN PARTY and anything he says and does in public is going to have a political overtones!

This is what constitutes news these days? The president speaks on the anniversary of 9-11 and the Democrats pitch a hissy fit because it had political overtones? He spent the entire day visiting the sites where the planes went in that day, hugging and grieving with survivors, reliving a level of sadness we all still feel - at least those of us who actually have feelings.

Then he gives a speech talking about our continuing efforts to combat the terrorists who did this and he isn't supposed to say "Iraq?" He isn't supposed to mention those who continually undermine the war effort by leaking secret information to the media, and hence to our enemies? He isn't supposed to mention cases of outright treason that would have resulted in well-deserved executions a generation ago?

And all this carping comes from the so-called leadership of the national Democratic Party. What do they call what they have been doing for the past three years, bipartisanship?

Let's get it straight. The whole concept of national unity in winning the War on Terror in the wake of the 9-11 attacks is and has been a farce from Sept. 12, 2001 onward.

Want a trip down memory lane?

Let's revisit the Sen. Jay Rockefeller memo, suggesting how to get the most advantageous spin off of intelligence data leading to the war against Iraq. The memo, dated Wednesday, November 05, 2003, was first aired by Fox News. A partial transcript follows:

We have carefully reviewed our options under the rules and believe we have identified the best approach. Our plan is as follows:

1) Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by administration officials. We don't know what we will find but our prospects for getting the access we seek is far greater when we have the backing of the majority. (Note: we can verbally mention some of the intriguing leads we are pursuing.)

2) Assiduously prepare Democratic "additional views" to attach to any interim or final reports the committee may release. In that regard, we have already compiled all the public statements on Iraq made by senior administration officials. The Democrats will then be in a strong position to reopen the question of establishing an independent commission.

3) Prepare to launch an independent investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority.


Frankly, I think the response to this kind of manipulation is far, far too kind and gentle. I know the president is a devout Christian and I know he is a living example of his belief. But I long since have been of the opinion that turning the other cheek, which I also learned when I was a child, has gotten old, domestically and internationally.

I think it is time to strike back, much, much harder than we have thus far. For example, I heard a woman caller on the Rush Limbaugh show today ask that he refrain from using the term Islamo-fascists, because the terrorists may be fascists, but they aren't following the true dictates of the Koran and they aren't true Muslims.

Limbaugh was firm, yet very kind and gentle to her, and asked why other Muslims don't speak up. The caller said they do but don't get news coverage.

That may be true, but I kept wondering why the leaders of the Muslim countries in the world, especially the Imams, Mullahs, and Ayatollahs haven't risen up en masse to denounce these criminals. Why haven't there been mass excommunications from the Muslim religion? Why haven't the Islamic leaders railed against the terrorists for making false claims about their faith?

We'll stop using the term Islamo-facists when the leaders of Islam show that they are willing to take an open and aggressive stand against them too.

In the meantime, we have loyal American servicemen rotting in brigs and stockades on what may well be trumped up charges of murder in a war zone. Meanwhile the real terrorists are living the life of luxury in Guantanamo and their supporters in Congress pule and mewl about the terrible conditions they are enduring, and "What will the world think of us?"

Who the hell cares? I for one am sick of the US turning the other cheek because all we get is hit on the other cheek.

I think it is time to go back to the Old Testament. Remember that passage? "Saul has slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands.

Now those were leaders who knew how to deal with an enemy.

Every September, just after the Labor Day weekend, the small town of Hebron, Connecticut sees a twenty-fold population increase as visitors from all over New England attend the annual four-day Hebron Harvest Fair.

Here, in addition to the normal country fair attractions, they can watch demolition derbies, listen to entertainment at the bandstands, wander among hundreds of food and vendors' booths, ride on the midway attractions, and greet old friends.

Here too, the annual election season kicks off for area politicians. Long ago the office seekers figured out that the popularity of the fair gives them a far better chance of being seen and pressing the flesh than going door to door in a rural district.

There are only two political booths at the fair, both located among the four rows of fixed booths near the bandstands where permanent vendors have held sway for decades, and you can find more of the district's voters. The politicians don't spend much time at the midway or the animal booths where out-of-towners are likely to be the dominant demographic. They roam the aisles between the fixed booths, and then head to the bandstand area, the better to be seen by likely voters.

The Hebron Republicans and the Hebron Democrats each maintain a food booth in these permanent rows and man them every year, raising funds for their campaigns, giving visibility to their candidates, and providing a satellite office of sorts for visiting office seekers.

The Republicans have sold pulled pork sandwiches as their chief fund raiser for years. The Democrats sold chips, salsa and pickles last year. This year the focus was on giant pretzels. The Dems seem to be searching for an identity in the fair food arena.

Make what you will of that.

Less than 30 feet from the Democrats, and two rows of booths away from the Republicans is one other booth that is as important to office holders and office seekers as their party headquarters.

At the end of the main aisle, square alongside the main drag where most fairgoers eventually wander by, in a quadruple booth that enjoys extensive counter space and exposure on two sides, Hebron's veterans spend four days each September cooking hamburgers and cheeseburgers, sauteed onions no extra charge. They work, they cook, and they use the expansive views provided by their giant booth to keep an eye out for neighbors, their children, and politicians.

Every astute politician who comes to the Hebron fair knows it is important, perhaps even a necessity to visit the veterans' booth. There are many Republicans in this booth, and quite a few Democrats, but mostly independents. Most vote, as do their families.

Although the burger booth is rented each year by the local American Legion, inside you'll also find representatives of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans, the Sons of the American Legion, and the Legion Auxiliary. Inside that booth they are veterans first, but they watch the politicians as closely as they watch the girls passing by.

Local office seekers come to Hebron, but so do those seeking statewide office. Lowell Weicker came the year he was elected Governor. Republican Governor Jodi Rell has been here, although she skipped it this year. Her Democratic opponent, New Haven Mayor John DiStefano made an appearance, as did Republican U.S. Congressman Rob Simmons, and Linda Roberts, Republican candidate for state Treasurer.

But it was Ned Lamont, Democratic candidate for US Senator, opposing incumbent Joe Lieberman who is running as an independent Democrat, that garnered the most attention. This was a choice opportunity for Lamont. The vets who are registered Democrats want to know who he is, as do the independents, and even many of the Republican vets say they won't be voting for their party's nominee.

Most candidates come to Hebron on Saturday. The crowds are huge, the fair is bustling, the booths are manned by throngs of volunteers and the atmosphere is upbeat. Lamont strode into this setting and made straight for the Democrats' booth, less than 30 feet from the Hebron vets.

He could have been excused for not noticing the veterans' booth as he first entered the row. He was a newcomer, looking for something familiar. But it was his return trip, as he headed out with local Dems in tow to do the meet and greet that caught the vets' attention.

These veterans, who have served from World War II to the present, are an aware and organized group. Most are Vietnam vets, or Vietnam era vets, and many have served in the Gulf War or the War on Terror. They understand their place in the country, in the community, in the eyes of the voters, and in electorate demographics. They can ensure a candidate is elected if they come out in force and vote of a similar mind, or that a candidate goes down to defeat if they stay home or decide not to pull the lever by that candidate's name.

So when the word passed down the line that Ned Lamont was in the area and moving their way, the vets moved to the counter on that side of the booth, keeping an eye on the pretty girls and awaiting Lamont's arrival with equal vigor.

Until Ned Lamont ignored them for a second time.

He set out from the Democrats' booth, waved hello to the folks in the adjacent french fries booth, but then was ushered on a diagonal away from the vets, moving instead toward the booth across the way where the local high school music club sells milk shakes.

The vets saw this and another type of music erupted, a spontaneous chorus of boos, that stopped many fairgoers in their tracks, looking to see what had caused it. And then Ned Lamont squandered the opportunity of his campaign.

He refused to look at the vets, he refused to retrace his steps and visit the vets, he refused to acknowledge the vets. Instead he scurried away, with campaign workers and local Dems in tow, out onto the main drag where he was quickly lost in the throngs, invisible and unremarkable.

The word spread quickly throughout the fair community. Lamont had insulted the vets! The vets in turn had booed Lamont! Lamont had run away!

A short time later Congressman Rob Simmons, highly respected as a fellow Vietnam vet, and especially as one who does not try to embellish his service, came by on his tour. "What would you have done, Rob?" vets asked.

A crowd, including an internet blogger who was taking pictures and notes, had gathered. "In infantry leadership school they taught us to face toward the gunfire and advance," he responded.

The tactic works well in politics too. Simmons acknowledged that all politicians are booed on occasion, but "I go to talk to them. It usually is based on misinformation. I use it as an opportunity to set the record straight and convert another voter."

Someone should have told that to Lamont.

For the next eight hours the fairgrounds were abuzz with the news, and the rumors. Democrats and Republicans alike came by to see if it was true. "But there are Democrats in this booth," the Dems exploded. "Didn't he know that?!"

There are Republicans and independents too, they were reminded; all waiting to see who Lamont is, what he is made of, and whether in their opinion he would make a good senator.

Late that night, after the fair had closed and the crowds had left, a few vets were cleaning the booth, preparing it for the breakfast crew. A local Democratic leader came by, apologized, took the fall, and blamed himself.

The local post commander would hear nothing of it. "Lamont has a mind of his own," he said. "He could have come back to see us."

Lamont is a political neophyte the commander was told. It didn't matter. His refusal to talk to the vets, and his decision to scurry away gave the vets all the information they needed on Lamont's core character.

Another veteran shook the Democrat's hand, thanked him for coming by and apologizing. Nonetheless, "It was a bad move," he said, "a bad move."

Lamont wasn't the only candidate to ignore the vets that day. Democratic State Senator Edith Prague had refused to even approach the booth, but her anti-veteran stances are well known to the area vets and her boycott was no surprise, even to the Democrats in the booth.

The next day DiStefano came by, chatted with the vets and moved on. A lesson had been learned, but not by Lamont.

Ned Lamont wants to stride through the halls of the capital of the greatest nation on earth. He wants to be a major player in the world's preeminent democracy, taking a leading role in world shaping and nation-steering decisions.

He wants to take leisurely strolls along the green expanse of lawn on the National Mall by the Washington Monument discussing issues of great weight with the important people of his time.

But everything that voters need to know about Ned Lamont's ability to take on that challenge was displayed Saturday on a few square yards of well-worn turf at a country fair in a small town in Eastern Connecticut. It was played out in seconds near the booth housing the veterans of Hebron, Connecticut, who cook hamburgers and cheeseburgers, watch pretty girls and keep a very, very close eye on politicians.

In their opinion, if Ned Lamont goes to Washington, it should be as a visitor.

Wow, what an onslaught!

ABC puts together a docudrama about the Clinton Administration's failure to act on opportunities to put a smackdown on Osama Bin Laden and suddenly the Democratic Party is mobilizing heaven and earth to keep it off the air.

I wasn't even going to watch it until all this effort to keep it off the TV blew up. Clinton wants it edited, or should we say censored, to keep it from looking too much like he had his mind on Monica instead of terrorist attacks. But, he did have his mind on Monica instead of terrorist attacks. Maybe he can change the film but he can't change history.

Nearly simultaneously, my favorite dartboard target, Democratic Sen. Carl Levin, jumps up screaming "Bush lied, Bush lied. He had bad intel. (You know, the gutted and compromised agencies he got from Clinton) there was no link between Saddam and Al Qaeda before 9-11."

I can actually visualize this guy jumping up and down on the Capitol steps "over here, over here, TV people, look at me, look at me, I'm talking and saying things and making an ass of myself, over here. Don't pay attention to Clinton. Bush lied, do you hear, Bush lied?! Over here, please, focus on me not Clinton!"

Pathetic or what?

As I recall, Bush used 16 words in the State of the Union address that said British Intelligence had developed information that Saddam was seeking materials in Africa to make nukes. British intelligence to this day says Saddam was seeking materials in Africa to make nukes. So exactly what about that is lying?

Joseph Wilson, who has spent more than two years pimping his wife Valerie Plame to the world media as an outed CIA agent, even though the law he says was broken covers undercover spies, not cocktail party circuit matrons, has been exposed as the real liar even by the World Terrorist Media. All Wilson has proved is that whores come in all sizes, shapes and genders, and from all social classes for that matter.

But if you check the nuances, you'll notice that the Dems keep saying Saddam had no connection, or no intent to exploit the connection that actually existed, in terms of joining the attack on 9-11. If I recall correctly, Bush didn't say Saddam was in on the 9-11 attacks.

What the White House has been saying is that Saddam was allowing Al Qaeda operatives, including, or especially Abu al Zarqawi, to use Iraq as the next launching pad for further terrorist attacks against us, AFTER we had slapped them around in Afghanistan. Big difference. Big, big difference.

What a pathetic little bunch of losers who can't get over the fact that they screwed up and the public knows it.

Well, I for one am not paying attention to the media circus. I know what happened out there, you know what happened out there and trying to rewrite history isn't going to change any of that.

I'm getting a good supply of popcorn and keeping an eye on the TV listings. I hear there's a good docudrama coming on soon. Something about this Clinton guy. Remember he had a good job in the White House but he blew it? Oh, did I write that out loud? Sorry.

I have absolutely nothing against the people of the hamlet in Saskatchewan that carries the name in the title, nor in the province of the same name in Afghanistan, but I am of the opinion that it would be far better for the world if the current Secretary General of the Untied Nations was in one of those locations instead of New York City.

It is no secret anywhere in the world, except perhaps inside the UN building, that Annan is incompetent, anti-Semitic, hovering around single digits on the IQ scale, and now we find he is gullible too.

For some reason that only highly placed diplomatic personnel who are so, so much brighter than the rest of us can fathom, Annan made a trip to the Middle East and The Country Formerly Known as Persia last week to meet and greet, and occasionally do the grip and grab. He met leaders and dictators and other assorted terrorists and then went on a Jew bashing diatribe against Israel.

Basically he is claiming that Israel, the country that was attacked by cross-border raiders, had troops killed by Hezbollah terrorists while others were kidnapped (and are still in custody) is guilty of human rights violations by protecting itself. Simultaneously, the vicious Islamo-facists, this generation of Nazis, Hitler wannabes, and Holocaust re-enactors are not only entitled to spread the filth they espouse, and murder as many innocent people as possible, primarily Jews, but they are justified in doing it.

Among this brain dead lemming's proclamations this week are his opinion that when Green Bean Almandine, the dictator of the Iran, The Country Formerly Known as Persia, says "Trust Me" we should trust him. Any teenaged American girl who has received "The Talk" from her mother prior to her first date knows better than to trust anyone who says "trust me."

But our little Annan, the Secretary General of the Untied Nations, hears it from a guy who wouldn't know the truth if he fell over it in the gutter, and right away buys its.

Then, our international genius, New York's official representative to Mensa, heads off to another terrorist nation, Syria, and OKs a plan whereby the Syrians will police themselves to make sure that no weapons move down to the border with Lebanon where they will be disbursed to the Islamo-facists known as Hezbollah to kill more Jews.

Boy, I can't wait to see the punishment that comes down when the Syrians catch themselves violating that little agreement. I hear that punishment in Muslim countries is pretty severe! Maybe they'll televise it, kind of like a Nazi reality series!

Annan is nearing the end of his Reign of Terror at the UN, it is up in December, and the free world will be happy to see him toodle off to a remedial human relations course somewhere. But until then, it is clear we need to put this Bozo on a shelf where we can keep an eye on him but he can't hurt anyone else. He isn't just dangerous, he is dangerously uninformed, especially about his own capabilities and he has bought into the myth that just because he has a diplomatic job he is automatically smart.

He isn't, the world is a more dangerous place because of it, he is emboldening and spreading terrorism, and he needs to be somewhere else right now.

American Jihadist

America's own jihadist wrapped himself in dish towels earlier this week and went on international TV to give President Bush and the rest of us a chance to repent and convert before we are destroyed.

Most of the talking heads on the TV circuit blew it off as a desperation ploy by Al Qaeda to keep morale up among the suicide bombers' brigade. I'm not so sure.

When you get ready to go into battle you have a checklist of things that are essential. First is your weapon, then ammo, then water, first aid equipment, etc.

There was some talk, not much but some, that the 9-11 Nazis who flew into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a Pennsylvania field violated a major precept of the Muslim religion by NOT giving us an opportunity to join in on the Gunpoint Conversions before killing 3000 people. That, I am told, has negated their martyr status and instead has consigned them to Muslim Hell for all eternity.

I guess that means they are in an alternative universe that looks exactly like Israel, everyone there but them is Jewish, and their job is to wait hand and foot on everyone else forever and ever and ever, Amen. Kind of a nice way to deal with Nazis, don't you think?

Anyway, America's Jihadist, another loser who can't get a job or a date, now is warning us to convert or else. That says to me that another shot may be in the offing. He isn't pushing propaganda so much as checking his list.

Bombs. Check. AK-47. Check. Ammo. Check. Offer Conversion to the Infidels. Check. Squared with Allah. Check.

I'm not trying to be an alarmist, but if I was on Manhattan Island for the next few weeks I'd be especially watchful.

It is popular in Democratic circles these days to denounce Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and growl threateningly that when Nancy Pelosi takes over the House of Representatives in the fall Rumsfeld will be censured, possibly even fired.

This is assuming that the Democrats win the elections in November and that there are enough Democratic House members to handle the censure procedure at the same time they are impeaching President Bush, which they also are threatening.

Apparently the Dems think this all is possible because the American public will have bought into their oft repeated, never proven claim that the War on Terror is going badly, Iraq is a mess, and the entire effort has been screwed up due to Rumsfeld's incompetence. A list of further charges will be developed as time and circumstances dictate.

But what exactly has Rumsfeld done wrong and by what measure is the war effort screwed up?

Let's start with American casualties, which now number more than 2,500 deaths, heading toward 3,000. First, I feel every one of these deaths the way I felt the deaths of my brother Marines in Vietnam.

But we of the military mindset know when we sign up that war, violence, injury and possible death are a significant part of the equation. Some anti-war types try to make it appear that the military sugar coats the risks of joining and downplays the potential for violence.

In truth, no one ever joins the combat arms, regardless of which service they choose, wearing rose colored glasses and anticipating a tour in La La Land. We know the score, we know the risks, we understand the benefits that are supposed to be waiting for us if we make it through, but we are not misinformed.

The number of casualties we have taken since 2001 has not yet reached the number inflicted upon us in one morning by the terrorists who started this. And when the Democrats and their Public Relations consultants, the World Terrorist Media, concentrate solely on the casualties we suffer without mentioning the impact we are having on the other side, they not only are disparaging the memories and sacrifices of those who have died in the fighting, they also are ignoring a far larger number.

That is the number of American citizens who would be dead from additional terrorist attacks if our armed forces hadn't taken the fight to them in Afghanistan and Iraq. How high the casualty rate would be by now is not something I'd hazard to guess, but you can bet it would be simply awful. This country was wide open prior to September 11, 2001, but it isn't any longer.

I would be the last person to declare that we can't or won't be hit again, but I will say it has been much harder to get at us because we have taken the fight to the terrorists rather than letting them dictate the pace and nature of the battle.

Next, the battle in Iraq. First the Dems said Bush and Rumsfeld lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction, although everyone, including the Untied Nations Security Council members knew Saddam had them before the invasion. Then when they started showing up in scattered locations around Iraq recently, the media ignored the issue altogether and started on the Rumsfeld is incompetent issue instead.

But media assertions aside, I have yet to hear one person who has fought in Iraq blame one death on Rumsfeld for anything he did or did not do for our troops. He put the number into the field that the generals asked for, equipped them with the type and amount of weapons and supplies the military requested and has gone above and beyond at every juncture to see that the troops have the best of equipment, clothing food, weapons and medical care.

Compare Rumsfeld, if you will, to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, appointed by Lyndon Johnson in the Vietnam era. First, McNamara orders the construction of a line of barriers and fortifications across the DMZ between North and South Vietnam, supposedly to block the flow of communist troops and equipment. It was to be impenetrable, just like the Maginot Line between Germany and France in WWII.

But just like the Maginot Line, one end of the McNamara Line ended at the border with a third country, in this case Laos. And just like the Germans who skirted the Maginot line by invading the Netherlands and then drove into France, the communists in Vietnam avoided the McNamara Line by running their supply routes through Laos.

Then, while Marines assigned to these outposts are slugging it out with North Vietnamese gunners in horrendous artillery duels, McNamara orders a cessation of bombing of North Vietnam, taking away one of our military's most potent weapons -- the ability to eliminate an artillery battery from the air.

That is the description of an incompetent Secretary of Defense. That is the description of a man who should have been fired long before it happened, not just censured. That is the description of a Secretary of Defense who had no idea what a fight was all about and due to his ignorance and incompetence Marines by the hundreds died as a result of his policies.

Compare Donald Rumsfeld to McNamara in an open debate by people who really know the military. Go ahead, I dare you.

Want more? Remember the criticism about the Humvees not having enough armor? The Humvee was rolled out in the late 1980s to replace the venerable Jeep that had been around since WWII. Like the Jeep, the Humvee was essentially a transportation vehicle, and like the Jeep could be armored to some degree.

But like the Jeep, the Humvee was vulnerable to artillery, mortars, small arms and most other types of weapons, because both vehicles were designed for transportation with other uses added on a "need" basis. But neither the Jeep nor the Humvee was appropriate for use as an armored assault vehicle.

This was all too apparent after the Humvees started taking small arms fire during urban patrols and the troops discovered that the armor wouldn't stop AK-47 rounds. Where was this, Baghdad in 2003 or Fallujah a year or two later?

Nope. This was discovered in 1993 in Mogadishu, Somalia in the infamous battle involving Army Rangers and Somalian warlords. The Humvees were used as ambulances to get troops out of the battle zone, but in doing so were ripped to pieces by small arms fire.

This little piece of information was essentially ignored by the Clinton Administration and not picked up on in Afghanistan where the Humvees were not in an urban warfare environment. They next time they were used in that scenario was after the fall of Saddam Hussein, but from Bill Clinton on down his administration was silent until the armor issue arose again eight years after Somalia.

Rumsfeld moved decisively and swiftly to correct the problem, but the WTM, as is to be expected, blamed the vehicle's shortcomings on the Bush Administration.

Why are we in Iraq? Not because of WMDs as most pundits claim. As reported in the book The Connection by Stephen Hayes, we are in Iraq because the number two operative in Al Qaeda, the late Abu Al Zarqawi, made a beeline for Baghdad when he was wounded on the battlefield fighting us in Afghanistan.

There he was treated, recuperated, and enjoyed a lengthy recovery period in one of Baghdad's best hospitals on Saddam's dime. (The hospital was run by Saddam's son Uday.)After he recovered, he headed right out into the Iraqi desert where Saddam had prepared terrorist training camps, and even had a mockup of a jetliner available for practicing hijackings.

The first thing you need to know when you face a potentially hostile situation is not the weapons held by an adversary, but the intent of that adversary. In the case of Al Zarqawi, intent to cause further harm to the US was written all over the Iraqi desert.

The Taliban and Al Qaeda were getting hammered in Afghanistan and looking for an out. They found it in Iraq, and that country was well on its way to being the launching pad for a new round of attacks on the US. Intent. It was there and the evidence was widespread.

It isn't just simplistic and intellectually dishonest to blame the shifting nature of the War on Terror on Donald Rumsfeld. If he wasn't able to adjust our tactics to meet and overcome theirs, perhaps, or if our generals were so afraid of him that they couldn't tell the truth about the war, I'd say maybe, depending on the situation and the general involved. But that isn't what we are hearing is it?

Targeting Rumsfeld for replacement in the middle of a war is no less despicable or treasonous than leaking government surveillance information to the media. And it is equally harmful to our troops. Think our programs are excessive? Hash it out behind closed doors and get it resolved. Think our equipment isn't up to date, or our generals are being ignored, same deal.

But whining, hand wringing and spewing false allegations based on ignorance and inexperience are not patriotic, or even good politics. They are childish tactics used by spoiled brats who are still angry because they haven't had their way in an election in eight years.

I recommend to Ms. Pelosi, and Mssrs. Reid, Dean, Kennedy, Kerry, and the rest of that ilk that it is long since time to pick up your toys and go play in a different sandbox. A child's sandbox preferably, because you have shown that you have no intellectual or social skills to co-exist in an adult environment.

And if you get feeling lonely and ignored, you can call your mommies and maybe, just maybe they'll fix you up with a nice, warm, comforting mug of Shut The Hell Up!

The news division of the Communist Broadcasting System, known in Amerika as CBS, ran an item out of Iraq the other day under a headline that said Vietnam veterans are seeking REDEMPTION by serving in Iraq.

CBS interviewed a former Marine and a former soldier, both now doing civilian work supporting the war effort, and in each case made it appear that they were in Iraq to atone for misdeeds in Vietnam. But neither the reporter, nor the interviewees ever say that they are working to help the War On Terror in Iraq because of something specific that they did decades ago in the jungles.

The Marine says helping the Iraqi people achieve democracy and stability may offset mistakes of the past in Vietnam, but that is a far cry from saying he is atoning for military errors and misdeeds. In fact, I got the distinct impression that if the Marine's full comments were broadcast it would show he was talking about the American Government abandoning the South Vietnamese people and setting the stage for the slaughter of more than 3 million residents of South Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.

I haven't watched the propaganda CBS passes off as news in decades now, ever since Dan Rather bad-mouthed the Marines in Lebanon in 1983. But CBS got my cable provider to run the piece with the news videos they offer for view on the home page when I log on, where I saw it.

The reason there is a web page at this site, the reason why I write this blog column every other day, is to draw attention to the successes of the American military in Vietnam, and how America's servicemen and our allies in Southeast Asia were sold out by the US Congress, the State Department, and the media. Obviously I hope that people who read my columns will also buy my book, but if they don't, at least they know there is an alternative viewpoint out here.

I don't do this as an aging soldier reliving my glory days. I do this because we are involved in another war, against another enemy bent on world domination, and again we have people in the State Department and the US Congress attempting to subvert the war effort. In many cases they are the same people, pulling the same tactics, aided and abetted by the American Terrorist Media, of which CBS is a charter member.

The American media may not have been completely against the Vietnam War and the military early on, and certainly hadn't been the most important weapon in the communist arsenal. That changed in early 1968 when the US crushed the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese in the Tet Offensive in late January and February. The American media inaccurately portrayed the fighting as a major US defeat, but it soon became clear that the Viet Cong had suffered horribly and never achieved a single military objective.

In fact the Viet Cong, numbering about 70,000 fighters the day before the offensive was launched, lost about half that number, some 35,000, killed in action in a matter of a couple of weeks, most in the first 96 hours of fighting. The NVA lost an estimated 15,000 troops when they surrounded the Marine base at Khe Sanh and thousands more in fighting at Hue City and other battle sites. But the media focused on American casualties, which were a fraction of those suffered by the communists, and in Khe Sanh, the amount of incoming the Marines endured, rarely if ever talking about how much punishment Marine artillery, riflemen, and American air power were unleashing on the communists.

These days, reports on the Tet Offensive always say it was a military victory for the US, but a Public Relations Defeat! Well, you can't have a public relations victory unless you have a public relations agent working for you. Guess who was the number one public relations agent in Amerika working for the communists in 1968? Walter Freakin' Cronkite!

By April 1968 it was clear that the communists had suffered greatly, but rather than report this, Cronkite, the preeminent television reporter of the time, anchor man for CBS, went to Vietnam and did a report with artillery booming in the distance, in which he said the war was "unwinnable."

Unwinnable, after we had just won the most crushing, lopsided victory of the war!

For those of you who don't know about Cronkite, he was called "Uncle Walter" by his fan club in the American media, because he had "the look." He was fatherly, trustworthy, with a deep voice, the kind of guy who sits at your family table on Thanksgiving and always says a warm, heartfelt, all-encompassing Grace before the meal.

Uncle Walter. You could trust him, America believed.

Yet he went to Vietnam and lied through his teeth!

Oh sure, he couched his report as an editorial, saying it was his opinion. But at that time in America, Uncle Walter's opinion was far more bankable than anything that came out of the government.

What American didn't know, but was revealed after his retirement through speeches he gave in the public venue, was that Uncle Walter may not have been a card-carrying communist, but he sure was a far-left leaning communist sympathizer. As it turns out, Uncle Walter had far more in common with Uncle Ho (Chi Minh) than with Uncle Sam.

As a result of that report, President Johnson refused to run again, the Secretary of Defense was replaced, (a long overdue good move,) and ultimately Richard Nixon became president.

But while that was happening in America, our military was kicking ass in Viet Nam. I know, I was there. In the year following Tet '68 the remaining Viet Cong were decimated, as were the NVA, in a series of battles from the Delta to the DMZ. As was the case before Tet, and throughout the war, the American military never lost a single major engagement.

That doesn't mean the communists were pushovers, or that we didn't take our losses. We did. But there were no retreats, no defeats, no surrenders on our part. By early 1969 according to documents that were released after the 1991 fall of the Soviet Union, communist military leaders were imploring their political leaders to approach the US with an offer for a limited surrender.

The US troop strength finally matched the communists, they were afraid we were going to invade and take over North Vietnam, and they hoped to get out of the war with their half of the country still under communist domination. Then American politicians announced they were going to begin troop reductions and the communist politicians ordered their military to stay the course regardless of the cost.

Later in 1969 President Nixon announced the Vietnamization program which was intended to train and upgrade the South Vietnamese military until it could take over for allied troops. A little-known fact about the Vietnamization program is that it worked!

In what has become known as the Eastertide Invasion of 1972 North Vietnam launched a three-pronged armored invasion across the DMZ in the north, through the central highlands, and in the delta region, coming in from Cambodia.

The communists had 250,000 troops in the invasion. Originally it was thought they lost 75,000 killed in action, which in itself is a crushing defeat. Lately, more documents from the Soviet KGB have been circulating indicating the communists lost 150,000 troops, in addition to half their armor and half their artillery. Their top general, Vo Nguyen Giap, who is referred to by the American media as the "Architect of the American Defeat," was fired by his communist bosses for running such a complete screw up!

This was accomplished by South Vietnamese ground forces aided by US air strikes, but no American troops after the initial assault at the DMZ. The response by the US political structure in the next two years was to cut off all aid to South Vietnam, accede to communist demands at the peace talks in Paris, and announce to the communists that we would not help out if South Vietnam was invaded again.

In April 1975, taking their cue from America's politicians, the North again invaded. This time there was no air power, the South Vietnamese president fled to France, the government collapsed, the Army disintegrated, and millions of innocent people were murdered.

There is no way this has anything to do with the US military. Long afterward it was disclosed that in addition to annihilating the Viet Cong, the US and its allies killed 1.4 million northern communist troops, which is even more astounding when we consider that the standing northern army was about 600,000 in the mid-60s. Their army was wiped out twice over, and then some!

There is nothing for which American troops from that time must atone. But there is plenty for which American politicians should atone. Maybe some of them who are still sitting on their well upholstered butts in Congress undermining the War on Terror can go to Iraq and try to do some good for a change. Yeah, I know, fat chance.

I should point out that it isn't likely you'll ever see the information in this column on CBS, or even Fox News for that matter. There are too many people in government and the media who have had great careers after they shafted the Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians. There are far too many of them who still exist almost entirely inside the Washington, D.C. beltway or on Manhattan Island.

It's not likely any of them will ever have the courage to face this information head on and make sure the mistakes of that time are not repeated this time. But there is one facet of this column that is inescapable.

It is true.

Semper Fidelis