When I served in Vietnam, I tended to see the issues concerning the war from my point of view, and only from my point of view. I didn't think much about family and home, at least in terms of the war, because frankly, they were safe and I was the one being shot at.

It took more than a few years for me to realize that life on the home front was not all wine and roses, especially for my mother.

We now are four years into Battle for Iraq in the War on Terror and out across America hundreds of thousands of family members wait out the deployment of loved ones. Some have gone through this several times now as Iraq turns out multi-tour vets, as Vietnam once did.

During the Vietnam War we rarely heard about the multi-tour vets because the media and anti-war crowd wanted America to believe that the troops did not believe in the cause or our successes. Today we hear about the multi-tour Iraq vet quite often because the media wants us to believe they are indelibly scarred by their experiences and running out of steam.

But there are people who are far better equipped to speak about these veterans. Deborah Johns is one of these people.

At the turn of this century Deborah was raising her family as a single parent, and very much wanted her son William, her oldest, to go to college on an athletic scholarship.

This wasn't wishful thinking on her part. He was an excellent athlete, especially in baseball, and was being actively scouted while in high school. But he was injured in his junior year and sat out while he recuperated. It was during this time that William became interested in the military, and after some serious reviews of what each service had to offer, decided he wanted to become a Marine.

Deborah had been a single parent for nearly a decade by then, raising William and his two siblings with no help from her ex-husband, who had left the family for a variety of reasons, all the wrong ones, and was no longer a factor in their lives.

College would have provided her son with a variety of career choices. And although she didn't say it, college would have been a wonderful victory for her, showing how well she had done raising a family on her own. But first and foremost Deborah is a Mom, concerned with her children's safety and futures, and she made no bones about her displeasure with William's sudden interest in the military. But by then the terrorist attacks of 9-11 had occurred and William wanted to serve his country.

Finally, matters came to a head, and William drove Deborah to the Marine Corps recruiting station, asking that she sign a waiver allowing him to join on the delayed entry program. She wasn't happy about it, but she eventually signed and after graduation from high school William left for boot camp.

After he graduated as a Marine and completed his infantry training, William was assigned to a unit in the First Marine Division, and then left for Iraq where he was a sniper. Deborah supported him in many ways, including, well, I'll let you tell her in her own words:

"At Christmas time 2002, I received a letter from the Marines that my son was going to be deployed to the Middle East. When he deployed in February, I gave him a yellow ribbon to keep in the breast pocket of his shirt and I kept one with me every day as well. My friend Colleen Tanenbaum, and I had the first meeting for Marine Moms here in Northern California.

"Moms came from Redding, San Francisco, Reno, Fresno, Santa Cruz, and all over to form a support group for one another while our sons were deployed. We met for lunch once a month in Sacramento at a restaurant called Woody's. The restaurant sat alongside a river. We each had a yellow rose and after we ate lunch, talked about our sons and encouraged one another, we would stand on the dock and say the name of our loved one, their unit, and then throw the rose into the river.

"Everyone in the restaurant would watch, there were a lot of tears, and then a standing ovation. Somehow, throwing the rose in the river made us all feel better that they would return home safely."

But there was more to do to support the troops and Deborah and her new friends found myriad ways. Again, in Deborah's own words:

"I worked with my church, Bayside, and a local radio station, and we held huge donation drives to get supplies of needed items to our troops - baby wipes, toilet paper, beef jerky, q-tips, crackers, candy, anything and everything came in for the donation drives. We also raised over $70K in funds to ship the stuff over to the guys in Iraq. There was a lot of support for our troops at that time.

"I also encouraged everyone to put yellow ribbons on their trees for support for our troops."

Eventually William came home, although his arrival was delayed for three months when he gave his rotation slot to a married Marine so his friend could join his family. But then he got orders for his second deployment. He served again, and again Deborah did all she could to support William, his brother and sister Marines, and by extension all the servicemen and women fighting the War on Terror.

But there was more to it this time, and a difference from his first tour. Deborah continues:

"In April 2004, Casey Sheehan was killed in Iraq. By the middle of May, Cindy Sheehan was making a lot of noise about this war being a senseless war. I received a phone call from William asking me what was going on back at home and did the American people support the troops any longer?

"He said not to listen to the media, as they are not reporting the truth about what is going on in Iraq. William said 'Mom, don't let what happened to the Vietnam Vets happen to us.' I told him I would do whatever I can do for the support of them all.

"I then worked with the California Assembly and had May 22, 2004 designated as California's Yellow Ribbon Day in support of our Military and Military Families. On Memorial Day 2004, we had over 300 people at our luncheon; news media, assemblymen and women all came out and gave us proclamations and resolutions in support of our military. We even had a flyover by the Coast Guard. The day was awesome."

"But in August 2005 when Cindy Sheehan claimed she spoke for 'All of America' that no one supported President Bush and the Administration, that was it for me. I then worked with Move America Forward and did two caravan tours of 'You Don't Speak for me Cindy,' which went to Crawford, Texas, and then across the Midwest to Washington D.C.

"The rally in Crawford, TX was awesome. We had over 4,200 people. These rallies were a way to let our government and the world know that the majority of American people do support our troops and their mission to win this War on Terror. While in Crawford, more than 400 Gold Star Families had e-mailed me to remove their sons' names from the crosses that Cindy had put up in the ditch. As I walked the ditch, I came across name after name. I went to the funerals of some of the names I removed, and it was so personal I just sobbed.

"It was one of the most difficult things I have ever done in my life. My friend, a Gold Star Mom, Debbie Argel-Bastin, asked me to remove her son's name, Derek Bastin because Debbie could not come to Crawford, because she was having cancer surgery. Debbie spoke with Cindy Sheehan personally and asked Cindy not to use her son's name. Cindy told Debbie that if she wanted Derek's name removed she would have to come to Texas and do it herself. Well, Debbie could not do that, so I did it. Then I personally gave Debbie the tag with Derek's name on it.

"Unfortunately, Cindy has not only continued bashing President Bush and the administration, but also our military. She has taken her complaints and disdain to other countries meeting with thugs like Hugo Chavez. She is funded by Code Pink and Moveon.org. She formed her own group, Gold Star Families for Peace, funded by the Democratic party and has continued to gain notoriety by using her son Casey as her excuse and trying to claim she is a grieving mother.

"All the major talk shows have invited the two of us to come on their shows, but Cindy refuses. Then she is invited to speak with Gold Star parents who have suffered the same loss as she has, and she refuses to meet with them stating that if they don't believe her, they have been brainwashed and are crazy.

"In keeping my commitment to my son, I have continued to write articles of the great things that our military is doing in Iraq, continued with the luncheons, continued to speak out on TV and radio for the support of our troops."

William re-deployed on Sept. 11, 2006 for his third tour of duty in Iraq, with 1st Force Recon. Deborah is still every bit as supportive, perhaps even more so, especially with what she sees as back-biting from some in Congress toward the Bush Administration.

She says, "This is only hurting our troops. The question is no longer why are we there, but we are and now what are we going to do about it, and the best possible way to do it. I wrote a letter to the American People which has appeared on the GOP website, Hannity and Colmes, and spread across the country like wildfire that we need to support our troops.

"That is when the third 'These Colors Don't Run,' caravan was formed. It was a 24 city tour across the south, ending in Washington, D.C., where the group joined with the Gathering of Eagles, Free Republic. Com, Move America Forward, Patriot Guard Riders, Vietnam Veterans, Rolling Thunder, and numerous other organizations.

"When the Vietnam Vets got wind that Jane Fonda was going to be in D.C. to speak out against them again, and not support these troops and their effort, as well as possibly desecrate their memorial, "The Wall," it all hit the roof so to speak. In Washington, we outnumbered the 'anti' group 5-1. Jane Fonda did not show up. Good thing for her.

"But the rally in Washington D.C. was awesome. There were veterans from every era there to support our troops and their mission. The only thing, once again was the lack of media coverage. We received a phone call from CSPAN saying that they were not going to give us any coverage, because they felt it is not what the American people wanted to hear.

"The problem since Cindy Sheehan started her back-biting of President Bush is that the media only wants to put her on, but not the positive side of things that are happening."

William Johns is scheduled to come home from Iraq in June. In Vietnam we would have called him a short-timer. He is now one of the most knowledgeable of our countrymen on the situation in Iraq, at least in the areas where he has been assigned. He has joined a small, but elite group of troops who has more combat experience than any other group of veterans in our history, even surpassing the Vietnam Veterans who as a group had far surpassed the average WWII veteran for time in combat.

William's mom is a solid and vocal supporter for her son, the children of all Americans who are fighting to keep us free, and our government. She gets some attention from the media, far more than William, but far less than Cindy Sheehan.

Yet Deborah Johns is truly representative of the families whose children are fighting for us, who believe in the cause, and our ability to win. William holds far more knowledge about the situation in Iraq, from a first-hand standpoint, than virtually any of the people in Congress who are toying with and manipulating his life even as he secures theirs.

But don't expect the media to contact or interview him. They probably wouldn't like what he has to say. And there are some who still say the media doesn't have an agenda.

At first glance there might not appear to be a connection between the most recent tempest in a DC teapot, the living theater production of Kill Gonzales, He Fired Our Friends, and the other engineered phenomena, Al Gore's Opus on Global Warming - but I have found one.

For starters, both are issues that should have little to nothing to do with politics, and yet both are at the center of political storms, or possibly the same political storm.

In the latest Washington diversion, the Democratic Party is attempting to toss Attorney General Alberto Gonzales out on his ear, because he had the audacity to fire 8 federal prosecutors. Federal prosecutors are political appointees, owe their jobs to the prevailing political winds, and are replaced fairly regularly depending on who is in office.

Sometimes they are replaced because the President of the United States, who is their boss, thinks they have different priorities than he does and he wants someone in that post who better reflects his positions. Sometimes they are replaced because they are, after all, political appointees and occasionally that can mean there is something lacking in the capability department.

Sometimes they are replaced because someone owes someone else a political favor, and that political favor will be taken care of in a certain geographical area, meaning a switch in job holders. And every so often a federal prosecutor is replaced because the president doesn't like his or her face.

Regardless, federal prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the president, not the displeasure of the president, and if the president is displeased, off with their heads.

That was the case when Bill Clinton took office and fired 93 federal prosecutors without so much as a peep of protest from members of his party in Congress. Republicans didn't make any noise either because they knew there was nothing they could do about it. President Clinton was well within his authority to fire whomever and however many he wanted. Republicans refrained from wasting their time and the public's tax dollars yakking about something they had no control over and went about their business.

But this latest charade, orchestrated by the Democratic School of Slip-sliding Choreography (Best Little Whorehouse in Texas) has been going on for months now, without an inkling of proof that there was any wrongdoing involved. But that hasn't stopped Congressional democrats and their running dog lackeys from holding non-stop press conferences and hearings in an overkill attempt to convince America that somewhere out there, something is wrong - if we just give them until 2008 to find it. And, if they can't find anything, they will manufacture a process crime similar to the Scooter Libby case.

Now, simultaneous with this charade is the global warming issue. Is the globe warming up? Don't know. I live in New England, and the weather changes here all the time so it is really hard to report or even find the elements of a trend in it. Yesterday it trended dour and drizzly, the day before it trended windy, and on March 16th it trended straight into a really nasty winter storm.

It will probably trend into warm weather for most of the summer and then trend back into colder weather in the winter. Lately, the summers have trended to be cooler than those I remember as a child - very few in which the thermometer goes over 100 degrees F, but the winters have had fewer below zero temps, and the ones we have had haven't seemed to last as long. Then again, when I was young I lived in upstate New York where the wind came down from Canada like a blast from outer space and we were way too far from the ocean to get any warming trends, so what do I know?

I heard the other day that some scientists have reached a consensus on global warming, therefore whatever they say must be true. Well, way back in Galileo's day the scientific community had reached the unimpeachable consensus that the earth was flat and the sun rotated around us, but look where that got them!

Is the earth warming up? Maybe. But it will take hundreds and hundreds of years of painstaking record keeping to come up with anything definitive on it and even that may not be enough to make any declarative statements. I haven't been alive long enough to know for sure, neither has anyone else, but I can say with relative certainty that neither I, nor anyone else is likely to be alive that long either.

So, what do we do about this?

Well, Al Gore said that one of the biggest offenders in his view of the global warming school of theater is carbon dioxide SEE OH TOO. There is too much of it, says he, and we should pass laws restricting the manufacture and disbursement of carbon dioxide.

Oh really? Well, heh, heh. Now we may be on to something. Obviously the genius former Vice President either didn't take grade school science, or has forgotten it, what with his pea brain being overloaded and all, and it is probably buried under multiple layers of intellectual cholesterol.

But way back when, we were taught that two major producers of SEE OH TOO are - plants and humans. Now, we could probably make a big impact on SEE OH TOO production by killing all of the plants. And, Congress being what it is, and Democrats being the acknowledged masters at cherry picking pieces of information out of longer stretches of discourse, you can bet that some are already considering a Scorched Earth measure.

But wait! There's more! Plants produce carbon dioxide at night, but produce oxygen during the day! Far more oxygen than carbon dioxide. In fact, most of the oxygen we get comes straight from the plant world. So, if we chop down the rain forests and all the other forests, fry our lawns and let the deer eat all the ornamental shrubbery we're screwed.

So let's just toss that idea and move on.

Next is humans. Humans USE oxygen, and PRODUCE carbon dioxide. Remember? When we inhale, our lungs take the oxygen out of the air and send it via red blood cells to to the other cells in our body that use it in energy production. Then when we exhale, out goes the carbon dioxide along with all the other gasses that we breathed but didn't need.

So, it would seem to me that a primary way of reducing SEE OH TOO is by limiting breathing. Now, Congress being run by Democrats and all, the first thing that bunch would probably do to limit breathing is to tax it.

But they'd also make sure there is a loophole in the law allowing government employees to enjoy an exemption so what good would it really do?

On the other hand, maybe we as American citizens and voters, the true seat of power in this country, can pass a Constitutional amendment calling for Congressional Democrats to SHUT THE HELL UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP!

Does anyone else see that what is going on in Washington is either a series of diversions, or just one long diversion with different chapters? The Chinese are sneaking up on our ships, planes and satellites, the Russians are fomenting dissent in Iran and other Muslim countries, terrorists are already engaged in open warfare on our city streets, communists are attempting once again to gain a stronghold in Central and South America, but what the hell are our elected representatives doing in Congress?

Today's version of Bust on the President!

Somewhere out there beyond the ability of most lawmakers to understand someone is getting ready to lower the boom on this country. We are either going to suffer an all-out terrorist attack or find ourselves economically strangled, but either way, some way it is coming. But instead of taking a hard common-sense look at the real world, our little boys and girls in Congress are engaged in endless rounds of bull throwing and press conferences.

Don't like the way the War on Terror is being run? I have a suggestion. Hold a closed door hearing, lay it out on the table for a reasonable and logical discussion, with no reporters and no cameras and come to a conclusion about what should be done. That right there should reduce SEE OH TOO emissions by ten percent. No sound bites, no sound. No sound, less carbon dioxide. See how that works?

I calculated that each person exhales on average twice a minute, for a total of one cubic yard of air per minute, each of which contains .02 pounds of carbon dioxide. That comes out to 57.6 pounds of carbon dioxide a day per person, times 365 days a year which equals 21,024 pounds per year per person. Multiply that times 268 - the number of Democrats who voted with House leader Nancy Pelosi on the Screw The Troops Bill last week, plus the number of Senate Democrats - and you get more than 5.5 MILLION POUNDS of noxious gasses produced each year just by Congressional Democrats!

Republicans tend to spend far less time on worthless chatter than their Democratic counterparts so I have determined them to be an non-factor when talking about causes of global warming.

But do you see what a difference it would make if the Democrats would just shut the hell up!? And that isn't even taking into account governors, state legislators and local politicians. My God, man, if the Democrats would just start listening for a change instead of running their mouths non-stop we could be well on the way to solving one of the major issues of our lifetime.

Please feel free to pass this along and use it as a classroom model in institutes of higher learning. This kind of research doesn't come along except perhaps once a millennium and I wouldn't want anyone to miss out. Oh, and if you don't like my calculations, tough. They are as valid as anything Al Gore is using and he won an academy award!

Here endeth today's lecture on Science and Politics. Don't forget there will be a surprise quiz on this material tomorrow!

The mainstream media is dead. The body may still be warm and there are still a few flickering vital signs, but it is dead, and it is just a matter of time until a death certificate is issued and a funeral planned.

This is obvious in light of the total absence of mainstream media coverage of the Gathering of Eagles vigil to protect national monuments from vandalism by Cindy Sheehan/Jane Fonda anarchist forces on March 17 in Washington DC. Since the Gathering was such as smashing success, it follows that coverage, or lack of coverage by the mainstream media is ultimately irrelevant.

Although the pro-terrorism, pro-communist forces headlined by Sheehan, who went out of her way to avoid appearing before the general public, and Fonda, who boycotted the event, had a year or more to plan their failed outing, the Gathering of Eagles was planned and implemented in six weeks.

Although Sheehan, Fonda and their anarchist followers have immediate and near constant access to a fawning mainstream media, the GOE continually ran into a brick wall of silence whenever attempts were made to obtain widespread coverage of the vigil.

Yet, on the day of the pro-terrorist march on the Pentagon, the Sheehan/Fonda forces were vastly outnumbered by the Eagles.

Since the mainstream media was a non-factor, or a negative factor, in the Eagles' gathering, and since virtually all of the communication involved in organizing the gathering was done via the Internet, it follows that the mainstream media has finally, publicly outlived its usefulness.

There have been signs that this is happening for at least four decades, but the GOE gathering certainly puts an exclamation point on the mainstream media's death sentence.

The print media has been especially vulnerable to the forces of the marketplace, and newspapers that continually present a one-sided anti-American point of view have suffered noticeably.

Subscribers, who can turn to the Internet for a wide range of regional, national and international news and opinion, have cancelled their newspaper subscriptions in droves in city after city across the country where the leftist point of view is the only point of view in print. The downturn in circulation, especially dramatic in light of the fast growth in the overall population, in turn creates a downturn in advertising revenues, which are directly tied to circulation.

The downturn in advertising revenues, which are the lifeblood of the news industry, in turn leads to shrinking news holes (the percentage of the paper that is devoted to news stories as opposed to ads) which in turn lead to further decreases in circulation. This leads to further cost-cutting measures, including layoffs, and reductions in coverage through attrition.

Papers all across the country, from international standard bearers such as the Los Angeles and New York Times to regional powerhouses like the Hartford Courant, and Baltimore Sun are scrambling to find new ways to keep current subscribers, and to bring back those who have turned elsewhere for their news. But in many cases the methodology represents the same time worn efforts that have failed so miserably in the past.

Redesign the front page, redesign the section covers, try to be more 'relevant,' run slick ad campaigns to attract new readers, offer a plethora of delivery packages and ads including discount coupons by the reams. But if the news hasn't changed, hasn't drawn back from the liberal, left-wing Democrat, anti-military, anti-troop, pro-terrorism template, the readers simply won't come on board.

The electronic media also has become increasingly vulnerable in recent years. A mainstay of the electronic media's approach to news is the use of 'on-air personalities' - people with great radio voices, or great TV faces to read the news, using the authoritative delivery to also impart a sense of veracity. But listeners and viewers learned that some of the most trusted news readers on the American scene, led in the Vietnam era by Walter Cronkite, known affectionately as Uncle Walter, The Most Trusted Man in America, spent much of their careers delivering politically tainted falsehoods to the their audiences.

It might have worked for individuals, but those who followed Uncle Walter are now suffering the consequences. Viewers and listeners have learned that the easiest way to marginalize the big (biased) voices of the electronic media is to use the OFF button.

Network news readers, who are and paid very, very well for selling their souls, are now becoming a huge drain on the annual budgets of corporate owners that can't generate sufficient ad revenues to cover their costs. The response has been an endless shuffling of personalities in an effort to provide the right combination of appeal and sincerity.

But again, the public has learned and responded accordingly. Since virtually any news outlet has legions of attractive personalities to choose from, and one is arguably as attractive as another, viewers actually turn to those news outlets that give them - news! More importantly, viewers turn to outlets that give them unbiased news, if that is possible.

Again, the best source of information on any issue at virtually any time, is the Internet. Not only can numerous versions of the same incident be found without much difficulty, but legions of writers can quickly be found who are offering their opinions on those stories. Many are actually quite independent of political parties and philosophies!

So, the Gathering of Eagles was an incredible success, and now the organizers are working to create a wider network of people who can be called on for quick response to events such as the pro-terrorism march on the Pentagon and threats to our memorials. The GOE organizers have great chances of succeeding for many reasons, not the least of which are their military backgrounds, commitment to the cause of freedom, and dissatisfaction with the America bashers who have had their way with the mainstream media for decades.

If the GOE can generate the crowds and enthusiasm that were evident in DC on such short notice, on a weekend in which travel to and in the northeast was hazardous, imagine what can be accomplished with a solid network in place and a reasonable time to prepare!

If the mainstream media was truly interested in reviving its failing life signs, it would do well to put aside its old biases and prejudices and find a way to get on board with groups like the GOE. But I don't hold out much hope that this old dog will learn anything new.

Does anyone have some ideas for inscriptions on the media tombstone?

History was made in Washington, DC, on March 17, 2007. Tens of thousands of veterans gathered from near and far to stand united in opposition to anarchists and vandals who had threatened to deface the Vietnam War Memorial and other national monuments during a pro-terrorism march on the Pentagon.

We stood up to them, we stood up for our troops, and we successfully defended our monuments, our sacred ground, and the very ideals on which this country was founded - again.

There were no major incidents of violence although a group of pro-terror anarchists was arrested after hitting a veteran in a wheelchair, incurring the wrath of other vets nearby and the police who reacted immediately and decisively. The worst commentaries the American Terrorist Media could come up with from the pro-terrorist marchers were complaints about losing their anti-American signs and getting their feelings hurt.

American flags vastly outnumbered the flags of foreign nations, veterans and supporters vastly outnumbered pro-terrorism forces, signs supporting America and the troops vastly outnumbered signs promoting socialism, communism, and terrorism. It was a politician's dream. What a photo op!

Get your picture taken with veterans of WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the War On Terror and countless operations in between. Chests full of medals. Flags and pro-America signs everywhere for a backdrop. Can't you just see it on your brochures during the next election campaign?

Well, apparently not. Because the most endangered species on the National Mall in Washington DC on Saturday, March 17, 2007, during the Gathering Of Eagles vigil was the American politician. We had one, California Congressman John Doolittle, who not only voiced support, but appeared with us and spoke on our behalf.

But everyone else was AWOL - UA for the Naval services. Where were the politicians who always show up at the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars conventions, mugging for the photographers with the National Commanders and vowing to make life immeasurably better for the vets?

Where was John McCain of all people? The Gathering of Eagles was strongly supported by the National Order of the Purple Heart which should have been close to McCain's heart!

Where was Joe Lieberman? I was there in Eastern Connecticut last September when veterans confronted Lieberman's opponent, Democrat Ned Lamont. I wrote about it when Lamont scurried away, afraid to face or even speak with the vets, many from his own party who had questions about his lack of support for the troops and the War on Terror

Lieberman made out big time on that encounter and Connecticut's vets turned out for him in droves to give him another term in the Senate. So where was he Saturday? Religious reasons keep him away? OK, I can accept that. Did religious reasons keep him from writing a letter of support for us to be read at the GOE rally?

Where was Rudy Giuliani?

Where were Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama? They all say they support the troops and are pro-America. They say they just disagree with George Bush's leadership style but really do support the troops and veterans. If you believe that I'll let you use it for a bed time story next time you can't go to sleep.

Are we to believe, that on a Saturday morning on the National Mall, within sight of our nation's Capitol, adjacent to the Vietnam Memorial, within a stone's throw of the Korean War and World War II memorials, that not one single US Congressman or Senator was in town? Not one was in a position to drop by for a few minutes and give their support to the very people who have sacrificed, bled and died so they can have a country to govern?

Here's what I think, in addition to the general belief that Congress is peopled by craven cowards and lackeys. I believe that no matter what they have said over the years, our politicians really believed all that media garbage that has been said about veterans in general and Vietnam Veterans in particular for 40 years now. Remember? Walking Time Bombs! Baby Killers! Murderers! Yeah, that crap.

I think they stayed away because they believed our gathering would either falter, or degenerate into a blood fest. I think they are so uninformed, and so spineless, so jellyfish-like in their lack of backbones, and their inability to make a stand on anything without consulting the prevailing currents of public opinion first, that they were afraid to stand up for the very people who stood up for them.

Jellyfish. Spineless, floating jellyfish, moving along at the whims of the currents. Unfortunately, while jellyfish have no spines, no willpower, and little in the way of form, they can sting and can harm if you end up in the middle of them.

Had any politicians made an effort to actually visit the GOE rally site on Saturday they would have seen some pretty tough guys, no doubt about it. Some could even be accurately referred to as intimidating.

But here is a secret. We are supposed to be intimidating. We are war veterans! We fight the bad guys. You don't win against the bad guys by sending people to fight who look and act like jelly doughnuts.

Here is another secret. For every hard ass in motorcycle leathers there were two dozen veterans in ski jackets and winter coats, who are just as tough and just as intimidating, but who would have been indistinguishable from anyone else in another location, absent their medals, badges and military patches.

Vets are representative of the military which is a microcosm of American society. They are big, small, short, tall, men and women of all ethnic and racial backgrounds, social status, economic situations and educational levels. OK, that last one is not quite accurate. Veterans as a demographic in American society are far better educated than the rest of America, despite what geniuses like John Kerry and John Murtha say about us.

So if any of the big talkers in Congress, or on the state level for that matter, had bothered to come to the GOE vigil, they would have encountered - America! But no, that couldn't happen. They were all too busy feathering their own nests, insuring their uninterrupted attendance in the halls of power and talking big, while walking small.

Talking about talking, did you notice the other element of American society that was noticeably absent from the GOE? I mean American conservative talk radio and TV commentators. Where were Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly or any of the other pretty boys of the American right who make millions off the sacrifices of the veterans and our real supporters?

They didn't cover the event beforehand, they didn't cover it during, and they didn't cover it after. Period. Big talk, no substance. You people claim to be all seeing, all knowing, all powerful but you didn't have the good sense to put your mouths where your money comes from. You didn't support the vets. You weren't there, you didn't mention us, and you have shown yourselves to be no go showboats.

Shame on the lot of you.

One exception to the above. Syndicated columnist and commentator Michelle Malkin gave us great coverage, and she showed up! Vets were only too happy to shake Michelle's hand, thank her for the coverage, and pose for pictures and videos with her.

Let me tell you other gas bags something about vets that you obviously have overlooked. We are far smarter than the average demographic, we are acutely aware of what is going on around us, and we don't forget our friends - or our enemies.

We also don't like bulls!*t throwers, and we know instinctively who they are. Michelle Malkin's stock has rocketed upward in the veteran community and she will benefit from it. I hope the rest of you wisely invested the millions that you made claiming to represent mainstream America and the vets. Your stock is plummeting.

Taking on Arnold Schwarzenegger in a phone conversation might sound like a big deal, but showing up to support the Gathering Of Eagles, in word and deed, would have been a real big deal.

Unfortunately, most of America's conservative commentators now must be relegated to a position right alongside most of America's gas bag politicians. Yeah, over there by the wall, under the sign that says Big Talking, No Substance, Cream Puffs.

Let me start by saying that the Gathering of Eagles vigil on Saturday March 17, 2007, to protect the Vietnam Veterans Memorial and show support for our troops fighting terrorism,was an overwhelming success on every possible front.

We had massive crowds, despite frigid weather and a snowstorm that made travel in the Northeast a virtual nightmare for many who made the trip anyway. (Our bus to DC got stuck when we pulled off the highway on a scheduled stop to pick up some veterans in Waterbury, CT. But we got out, and pushed it out of the show drift, and away we went. We are veterans, mind you, we are in the habit of overcoming adversity.)

We made a major statement to America, and to the pro-terrorism forces in our midst, and we did it without any major incidents or violence.

My group arrived at the GOE site at about 9 a.m, under sunny skies but with temps hovering around 40 degrees and a brutally cold wind blowing. I checked in with the organizers, was given my speaker's badge and proceeded to wait out the two hours until it was my turn to address the gathering.

Just before 10 a.m. when the crowd gathered before the speakers' platform was at its largest and mostly densely packed, I took it upon myself to do a little leg work to get an idea how many people were there. I noted the group's boundaries, and twice walked the perimeter's length and width, once then, once later when most people were gone.

It came to approximately 200 feet across by 600 feet deep. I stress here, these are approximate numbers. That gives a total of about 120,000 square feet. I assigned an area 3 feet by 3 feet (9 square feet) per person, which is a lot more room than many people were taking up, but nonetheless means that in that area, at that time, there were approximately 13,000 people gathered.

The GOE website says the Park Service is putting our numbers at 30,000 compared to 4,000 or so for the pro-terrorists.

I don't have access to all their figures, but I do know that in one place at one time we had close to 13,000 people. My methods were general, not scientific, but reasonable.

The media gave conflicting numbers all day, and ended up trying to say that the vets were outnumbered by the pro-terrorism forces, as if that matters. Fact is, just about everyone agrees that all the Fonda/Sheehan forces could muster was about 4,000 demonstrators and terrorists.

If I am wrong by fully half in my estimates, which I'm not, but let's just say if, then we still outnumbered the terrorists by double. Did you hear that, politicians who didn't bother to attend or support us?

Did you hear that National VFW and American Legion officers, who never once made a formal statement or news release supporting our gathering? Both politicians and veterans organizations get their power from the same place, veterans joining and veterans voting.

America's politicians and main veterans organizations failed miserably in this endeavor. But we didn't.

I am not trying to be an expert at crowd estimates here, but the fact is, the media has been downplaying the veterans' presence at the gathering, and overstating our conduct, which we all pretty much expected, and which we got. But the crowd estimates that have come out are pure nonsense, and what surprises me the most is that FOX News is right out there with the Associated Press in handing out this tripe.

FOX apparently did assign a reporter to stop by the GOE site, but the network's remote broadcast truck was stationed on Henry Bacon Drive adjacent to the pro-terrorist rally headlined by Cindy Sheehan that started this whole thing in the first place, and the stand up reporting was done from there all day. One of my fellow veterans listened to one of the live reports in which the lady doing the reporting said that the two camps had equal numbers of people. How do you make that claim when you are hundreds of yards away from the GOE site?

How do you account for all the people on the sidewalks along Constitution Avenue who were protecting our rally site from the pro-terrorism forces who were trying to force their way in, or our members who stationed themselves along the pro-terrorists' march route to the Pentagon, or those who went over to Arlington, or those who stayed at The Wall? How do you? I'd love to hear the answer.

Fox spent precious little time at the GOE, and grossly underestimated the numbers of veterans there, as did the Associated Press, which always intentionally inflates the numbers of anti-American demonstrators and exaggerates the conduct of anyone who opposes them.

For instance, did Fox show any of the foul-mouthed middle aged women who repeatedly passed through the veterans' rally area, three blocks away from the pro-terrorists permitted rally site, trying to incite violence with the vets? Did Fox, the AP, Washington Post or any other news organization quote these vicious foul-mouthed middle-aged freak show candidates when they were deliberately trying to create confrontations with the veterans?

What does the Main Stream, American Terrorist Media, which in this case, includes Fox News have to show for their efforts to promote pro-terrorism? A couple of idiots who tried to inflame the veterans got their stupid signs taken away from them, and a couple others got their feelings hurt in shouting matches.

Oh, the humanity. Too freakin' bad. Bummer. Sorry 'bout that. If you can't take the heat, go live at the North Pole.

FOX has a lot of support in the American military and veteran community because it is the only network that has even made an effort to report that we exist anywhere except in old Rambo movies and anti-war propaganda. But Fair and Balanced seemed to take a tilt over to the Unfair and Unbalanced side on Saturday. I would strongly recommend that the bean counters at FOX take a hard look at the balance sheets of the New York Times and other media outlets that are paying the price for supporting communism and other terrorists.

If it comes down to it, America's veterans can turn on the Internet and turn off the Cable TV just as we started cancelling our subscriptions to the print media and turning off the nightly evening news. Just a suggestion.

A few other notes from the gathering:
Late Saturday afternoon, at about 4 p.m., the pro-terrorism forces came back to DC, in the area of the Vietnam and Lincoln Memorials, after their rally at the Pentagon.

The vast majority of veterans from the Gathering of Eagles had long since departed, but some of us were still there. Our group couldn't start the bus ride back to CT until 5 p.m. due to regulations about how long the driver had to be off the road.

Leading the pro-terrorist returnees was a military-style group of about 100 (police agree with this assessment) carrying a Palestine Authority flag, and marching in a manner reminiscent of the Hezbollah style that we often see on the evening news.

They were chanting in a foreign language, that sounded Arabic, but I am no expert here. The chants sounded very much like those you hear in extremist, anti-American, anti-Israel demonstrations.

The group turned toward Constitution Ave., then suddenly veered toward Henry Bacon Drive, and tried to go over the fences that had been erected to keep their demonstration contained there earlier in the day.

Police later said their intent was to break down three rows of fences and overwhelm the few remaining guards at The Wall and then deface it. In addition to their first strike at the fencing, members of the terrorist group also started heaving bottles at the police.

At this point cops from all over converged on the scene (several hundred, not thousands.) As I said, this was witnessed by dozens of veterans.

The terrorists never got past the first row of fencing. The cops were on them in a matter of minutes, and some of their group ran up side streets with the cops hot after them.

A solid row of cruisers and motorcycle police was formed going down Henry Bacon Drive between the returning marchers and The Wall. The police were unbelievably supportive of the vets, and chatted freely with us.

The rank and file welcomed us back any time and said they would a million times rather have us in DC than the so-called anti-war crowd.

At 5 p.m. my group walked two blocks up to 21st and Constitution, boarded our bus and headed home, one of the last contingents to leave. At that point the wall was secure, but have no doubts, an attempt was made on it, and had we not raised such a ruckus through the GOE efforts, it very well may have succeeded.

In an earlier post I quoted a line from the Magnum P.I. television show in which he was asked, after a return trip to Vietnam and all the problems it caused him and his friends, what would have happened if they hadn't gone.

Considering that I am dead tired, physically and emotionally, the end of my driveway is a solid block of frozen snow, sleet and slush that accumulated while I was gone, my family missed our traditional St. Paddy's Day corned beef dinner, which is a BIG deal in this house, the journey itself through snow, sleet, rain and gloom of night was arduous, and we now have to deal with the lying, manipulating media yet again, I'll borrow Tom Selleck's reply in that episode to answer the question, "What if we hadn't joined the Gathering of Eagles to support our troops and protect The Wall?"

We did.

Many of the thousands of veterans and our supporters who attended the Gathering of Eagles rally and vigil in Washington, DC yesterday, March 17, were out on the sidewalks, at The Wall or countering the pro-terrorist group on Henry Bacon Drive during the formal program.

I have been asked to post the speech I gave for those who could not be there to hear it. Without further ado, I have now done so.

Gathering of Eagles
Veterans! Our first General Order is "to take charge of this post and all government property in view."
We have seized the high ground, physically and morally, and from this vantage point I see tens of thousands of veterans and our supporters carrying out the requirements of our first General Order.

We have gathered here today for many reasons: foremost among these are to protect our Memorials from pro-terrorist anarchists and vandals; and to stand in support of our active duty troops worldwide.

We also are gathered today with a singularity of purpose, and a commonality of goals - to build a bridge from the past to the future - to reverse four decades of lies and misrepresentations about America's military and its veterans, and to set the record straight about our service.

Those of us who served in Vietnam are all too familiar with the phrase, "The only war the American military ever lost." That statement, a convenient sound bite for the evening news, is an outright lie that serves as a cover story for those who helped bring about the tragic events in Southeast Asia after the fall of Saigon.

The Vietnam Memorial we are protecting today reflects the loss of more than 58,000 Americans who died while fighting for our freedoms. But what America rarely hears is that the communists in North Vietnam lost 1.4 million regular troops in that war, more than double the number of their standing army in 1965, and that the Viet Cong were completely wiped out as a military force after the Tet Offensives of 1968 and 1969.

In 1969 communist military leaders, reeling from the pounding we were giving them on the battlefield, pleaded with their political bosses to initiate surrender talks. But political missteps in America, unintentional though they may have been, squandered that opportunity and led to three more years of war - for us.

Despite those missteps, the Vietnamization program progressed on schedule and in 1972, when most American troops had left Vietnam, the north launched a full-scale invasion of the south, using 250,000 troops backed by armor and artillery. But the southern troops, aided by American air power, stood their ground. When it was over, more than half the communist invasion force had been annihilated.

To reward this effort to preserve their freedom the US Congress passed the Case-Church resolution ceasing all support for South Vietnam, and later forced the southern government to accept the unenforceable Paris Peace Accords. This was not an unintentional misstep, this was intentional treachery.

Two years later the communists invaded again, and the US government stood by idly as the south fell. When the communists launched a pogrom of butchery and slaughter resulting in the deaths of some four million inhabitants of Southeast Asia, the American media and Congress, the very people responsible for that debacle, blamed it on the Vietnam Veterans to cover their own duplicity.

These are not the musings of an aging warrior trying to create a more palatable past. These are documented historic facts!

Now we are again engaged in a difficult war against a formidable enemy. And again, members of our own Congress are proving to be our enemies' best allies. And many of the people responsible for the fall of Southeast Asia are still here, attempting once again to engineer another travesty in the Middle East.

As our troops win battle after battle, their successes are repeatedly undermined by some in our own government and the media. But this time there is a difference.

We who have suffered the falsehoods, lies and misrepresentations spread by the people who helped create the butchery of millions of Southeast Asians will not allow a similar tragedy to happen to this generation.

We who have wandered in the wilderness for 40 years, carrying the terrible burden of an unjust blame for the travesty caused by members of our own government, are here today to say this will not happen. We are here to tell the meddlers in Congress, and their anarchist supporters, Never Again!

Never again will the hard-won victories of America's military be nullified by incompetence and treachery in Congress.

Never again will the successes of America's veterans be sullied and discounted by treachery and treason in our government.

Today's gathering represents the end of our trek in the wilderness. Today we have emerged from the darkness, and today we are serving notice on America that Congress must never again be allowed to use short-term political gain as an excuse to undermine our troops and our country.

We have the will, we have the knowledge and we have the fortitude to succeed in this new mission. And we need only to look around us today to realize that we have the manpower. Because above all, this gathering shows that today, America's veterans have finally returned home.

Has anyone heard so much as one word of support for A Gathering of Eagles from any of the legions of contenders for the presidential nomination - from either or any party?

I try hard to keep up with these things, but I can't find a single reference anywhere to one of these politicians, all of whom claim to "Support the Troops," saying they agree with the goals of the vigil planned for this Saturday at the Vietnam Memorial in Washington, D.C.

What gives? Are we to believe that all of our political parties and presidential contenders are so glued to the American Terrorist Media, which has given short shrift to covering our vigil, that they aren't aware it even exists?

For all of their minions who may be reading this and deciding whether to forward it to their bosses, the gathering started as a spontaneous outpouring of concern for the safety of our memorials after anarchists associated with a pro-terrorism rally on the National Mall January 27 spray painted graffiti on the Capitol building.

Many of the groups named as participants in a planned pro-terrorism march on the Pentagon March 17 were involved in the January 27 rally, and some of their number have targeted the Vietnam Memorial for similar treatment.

That concern evolved into a full-fledged peaceful vigil to stand guard at our memorials on Saturday and deny the anarchists free access to them, in addition to showing support for our troops who are fighting the War On Terror. I have heard some people say that they believe this is an overreaction, but the Capitol Police who were ordered to stand back on Jan. 27, and allow the Capitol to be attacked don't share that opinion.

Regardless, the movement has been steadily growing and it has gotten some attention from Fox News and conservative talk radio, but little in the way of coverage elsewhere.

Most of the people I know or have communicated with who are attending are adamant that it is far past time for America to put its collective foot down and make the point that exercising our constitutional right to dissent doesn't extend to vandalism and anarchy.

I keep hearing from some of the pro-terrorism marchers that they really are just a group of middle aged, peace loving Baby Boomers who want to leave this life knowing they have made an effort to bring about a better world.

Nonsense. My mother taught me long ago that you are judged by the company you keep and I fail to see how pro-extremist, pro-terrorism, pro-communist, pro-socialist, anti-American groups can withstand the Soccer Mom test. If you are a peace lover and you want to express yourself publicly, then you should join up with other peace lovers, not anarchists and terrorists.

In addition to the vigil at The Wall on Saturday, some veterans also are planning to stand vigil outside Walter Reed Hospital in DC on Friday night. They aren't doing this because of the deficiencies uncovered there in recent weeks, although we all are appalled at that news.

They are doing it to offset a weekly attack on our wounded troops by members of Code Pink, one of the headline groups in the march on the Pentagon. Each Friday night Code Pink gathers outside Walter Reed to harass and abuse our soldiers whose recuperation has progressed to the point where they are allowed weekend liberty.

So the first thing they see is a bunch of whack jobs and weirdos calling them filthy names and disparaging their efforts to keep our country free. But this week Code Pink will be offset by veterans who have arrived early for the Saturday vigil.

I told this to a man the other day who said that the entire Gathering of Eagles effort is unnecessary. He said that because he hadn't seen anything about anarchists and troop abusers in the media it obviously isn't happening.

I guess if a tree falls in the forest and he isn't there to hear it, it doesn't make any sound, regardless of what the rest of us experience.

But back to our presidential contenders and other politicians. Where are they?

I will refer them to a column I wrote last week about the potential political muscle of the veteran community when it gets riled and votes with one mind. More than 70 million votes are possible out of this community, and that is way more than enough to elect, or eject, any candidate on the national scene.

I strongly advise the political fence sitters and wind vanes to stand up now and show their support. Supporting us after the gathering is way too late. I hesitate to make guarantees on matters of this nature, but there is one guarantee associated with this vigil.

Fail to support the veterans and I can guarantee every candidate out there that it will be remembered. And don't go running to the organized veterans organizations looking for them to bail you out.

They represent only a fraction of the veteran community. This vigil shows the true mindset of the veteran community and the wise man, or politician, will heed the numbers.

I haven't had much time to do anything but keep up with arrangements for the Gathering of Eagles vigil in Washington this coming Saturday, March 17, but I do have something to share on the verdict in the 'Scooter' Libby trial last week.

The Gathering of Eagles is a planned vigil by thousands of American veterans and our supporters on the National Mall to keep anarchists and pro-terrorist forces who are marching on the Pentagon that day away from the Vietnam War Memorial. Some of their number attacked and vandalized the nation's Capitol in January and are threatening to do the same to the Vietnam Memorial. Now, on to other news!

I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby was Vice President Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff until he was indicted in the Joseph Wilson/Valerie Plame scandal. That tempest in a teapot involved the Iraq War and fears by the administration and most of the US Congress that Saddam Hussein was trying to purchase uranium in Africa from which to build nuclear bombs.

President George Bush, in his 2003 State of the Union address referred to British intelligence-gathering evidence that just such a scenario was playing out in Iraq, and that in turn formed the basis for his efforts to convince the Untied Nations Security Council to back a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq.

Unfortunately, most of the governments in the Untied Nations Security Council were on the take from Saddam, raking in hundreds of millions of dollars from the Oil For Food program that was supposed to provide for the basic needs of the Iraqi people. Most members of the Security Council therefore, voted not to stand alongside America and our allies when the invasion began.

When no major stockpiles of nuclear weapons were found, the American Communist Party, also known as the Democrats, went on a media frenzy claiming that Bush cooked the intelligence to cover his blood lust and savage desire to overthrow a benign and peace-loving benevolent dictator, the aforementioned Saddam Hussein. (Yes, that is sarcasm.)

Joseph Wilson, who had been an ambassador to Niger in the Clinton administration, but was out of work after Bush was elected, went to Niger to investigate the issue, and found that yes indeed, Saddam's emissaries had gone there and tried to arrange for uranium purchases. Wilson came back to the US and told that story to the CIA, but then wrote a laundry list of lies in an op-ed piece that ran in the pro-terrorist, pro-communist New York Times, which has replaced Pravda as the official voice of the American Communist Party.

Cheney, who didn't know Wilson from a hole in the wall directed Libby to find out who he was, especially since the American Terrorist Media - ATM - was reporting that it was Cheney who sent him to Niger in the first place. It was then learned that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, who is a glorified Desk Jockey at the CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, repeatedly begged her bosses to send her husband to Africa, apparently to get him out of the house and her hair.

They finally caved in to her nagging, and that is where it all got sticky. When Libby was trying to find out who Wilson was, and who Plame was, another person, Richard Armitage, told a Washington columnist that she was a CIA employee. That columnist, Robert Novak, printed her name, and the American Communist Party, aka, the Democrats, went on a rampage claiming that she was an undercover operative and that the Bush Administration had 'outed' her in violation of federal law. (Armitage worked for the State Department and isn't considered a Bush ally.)

That sparked an investigation which uncovered the truth almost immediately, but that didn't stop the federal prosecutor from proceeding on a witch hunt anyway. Ultimately they found out that Libby had said one thing to FBI investigators and another thing to a grand jury, and whammo! he was indicted.

Libby said he just had a bad memory, as did most of the government witnesses against him, but after a trial before a tainted DC jury, Libby was convicted of lying to a grand jury. The original claim that an undercover agent was outed in violation of federal law was never pursued against anyone, since it didn't happen.

So here were are, and what follows comes to me from a very close associate who had to sit through interminable news coverage of the verdict on the day it was announced:

"I just endured a 4-hour layover in one of our nation's finest airports ... I say this with just a hint of sarcasm because they (airport screeners) just threw out my shaving creme, deodorant, and toothpaste. While they were doing so I couldn't help but laugh at the Rush Limbaugh parody about the federal baggage screeners. I also can't help but wonder if we really are winning the war on terror given the line waiting to step into the puffer machines to insure we haven't carried explosives lately.

"I finally arrived at my assigned gate only to find I'm one of the very few people in this entire terminal for the moment. Unfortunately CNN (Communist News Network) is on the TV and there is absolutely no way of changing the channel, turning down the sound or just shutting it off altogether. The Scooter Libby trial has just come to verdict and Mr. Libby has been found guilty.

"Now, regardless of what side of the political spectrum you stand on, one thing is certain - all Americans should be fearful of what this means. Why?

"Because Scooter Libby was found guilty obstruction of justice and perjury. But obstruction of what investigation you should be asking?

"Why, it's the investigation into who leaked Valerie Plame's name to the press. Originally Democrats accused the White House of playing dirty politics and breaking the law as a revenge tactic to get back at Joe Wilson for his OP-ED piece. But here is where it gets scary for all Americans.

"Within two weeks of the onset of the investigation the Feds knew who released the name. But the feds kept investigating the non-crime of who leaked her name to sabotage the marvelous work of one Joe Wilson (her husband, the out-of-work diplomat.)

"Once the Feds had their information, the inquiry should have stopped and a decision to prosecute or not to prosecute Richard Armitage (the actual leaker) should have been in the works. Instead, one hell-bent prosecutor wanted more or was ordered to 'get' someone from the administration on whatever charge they could. Enter Scooter Libby.

"Mr. Libby had the resources to fight this injustice. Frankly, I think he should have petitioned for a change in venue because a fair trial in DC is an Oxy-Moron! He obviously didn't get a fair trial or an unbiased jury, but at least he has the resources to pursue a new trial or appeal.

"But we have to ask ourselves, If the government can do this to a person who knows the most powerful people in the world, what could they do to us?

"Many people on the left are all too happy with the verdict, because in their view, the ends justify the means. But I would caution them, if your turn ever comes up, remember you helped set the stage that gave the government this type of power.

"Back to our folks at CNN: throughout my layover, I wasn't sure if I was watching CNN, Al-Jazeera, or a live conference for the Democratic National Committee. The giddiness and the venom that was spewing was unmistakable. People were so happy at CNN that they just couldn't contain themselves.

"So-called reporters were voicing their opinion as if it were fact. Actually, they were reporting their opinions as if they were gospel. I know, no one at CNN believes in God but you get the point.

"Those in charge at the almighty CNN decided that this was a vote by the American public for a change in direction at the White House. President Bush better not even think of pardoning Mr. Libby! they thundered.

"Are you kidding? CNN was one of the chief architects of suppressing voter turnout on the right with the Foley scandal. Those of us who identify ourselves as being on the right vote for people who represent us - not for people who play grab-ass at the taxpayers' expense.

"If we can't tell Republicans from the Democrats, then they're out.

"If President Bush wants to insure victory in 2008 for the Republicans, he should start being a leader. Take the bull by the horns and get on with it. DO YOU REALLY THINK THOSE ON THE LEFT WILL EVER CUT YOU ANY SLACK?

In fact I have an even better idea for you. Since no one wants to give Sandy Berger a polygraph, and no one wants to investigate who is leaking top secret information to the NY Times, pardon Berger and Libby at the same time. And do it now! That will give Mr. Libby some real justice, it won't change anything for Berger, it will shut up the whiners on the left, and Bush will be seen as a stand-up guy by most Americans, a trait that is all too rare in Washington these days.

"As for CNN, I know ratings have been eroding and costs are going up so I have a cost-cutting suggestion. Try sharing airtime and co-locating with Al-Jazeera and the DNC. You guys are obviously on the same page so it only makes sense to leverage all your resources.

"And one word of caution Al-CNN - When you spend 7 years telling the American people how bad their government, economy and life is, you better expect to have to work just as hard for the next 7 years undoing your damage.

And there you have it. America has spoken.

One of the best kept secrets on the American political scene is the true political power of the country's veterans.

Oh, you'll see candidates and office holders making the annual pilgrimage to American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars conferences and conventions, pledging support for this or that program, but that only tells a superficial tale.

America now has about 25 million veterans, the vast majority of whom are post-World War II, most in the Vietnam generation, but with strong numbers from the Korean War era, the entire Cold War era, the Gulf War, various smaller operations and incursions, and growing numbers from the War on Terror.

Yet the combined membership of the major veterans organizations, like the VFW, Legion, Disabled American Veterans, AmVets and the Vietnam Veterans of America, taken together amounts to far less than a third of the total. So when a politician seeking veteran support makes a pitch to the organized vets, he is hitting only one of the many outlets that are necessary to really galvanize veteran support.

Here is where the power comes in. Most of the organized veterans groups also have auxiliaries, for their spouses, and "Sons of" organizations for offspring. When these groups are added in, the organized veterans really start showing some political muscle.

Now it gets better. Even though most veterans don't belong to an organized group, they do watch and listen to the leaders in the veteran community and they are aware of what is happening around them, and more to the point, to them.

Veterans by their very nature are aware and involved. We served our country. We vote. We speak our minds. We have been doing this since we were very young, and most continue to do it til death.

Not only do we have solid numbers, but most of us have a spouse or significant other, plus at least one person we influence through our experiences and positions on the state of our community and country. When all of these are taken together, the veterans' voice in American politics can add up, directly and indirectly, to far more than 70 million votes - if we are galvanized, if we are engaged, and if we act.

That is about 10 million more votes than George Bush received in 2004. His total in that election was the highest in US history. Granted, not every single one of us will vote on a given election day, and not every one of us will vote the same. But the power we project if a majority of us are engaged and on the same page is simply awesome.

Why does this matter to the Gathering Of Eagles, the vigil planned for March 17 in Washington, D.C. to protect our monuments from vandalism by pro-terrorism forces who are marching on the Pentagon that day? Because there are a number of efforts underway to draw veterans away from that vigil, some well-intentioned, some which I believe are deliberate acts to minimize the veterans' presence in DC.

Since the Gathering Of Eagles was first conceived, after pro-terrorism forces vandalized our nation's Capitol at a rally in January, it has been growing exponentially. It is billed as and being organized as a vigil to protect our monuments, especially the Vietnam War Memorial, to support our troops serving in the War on Terror and show support for our elected leaders from the President on down who believe we can win this war, and will if Congress doesn't undermine the military.

We hear of new attempts by left-leaning Congressmen and Senators to sabotage the military effort on a near daily basis now, and if the current generation of warriors is to enjoy the continued support of the American populace and its government, these efforts must be quashed. To do this, the Gathering of Eagles must come across as a successful united effort.

The key to success lies in showing up in massive numbers. I realize that there are many who would like to join us in DC but who for many reasons can not. I realize that many of these people want to show their support in some way, even though they are not on scene.

But we must remember one thing about the pro-terrorist forces we are facing. In the Vietnam era they were the pro-communist forces. Many of them are still involved, and are supporting the terrorists because they believe eventually that will help their cause whatever it may be.

But when they first started protesting in the 1960s, they didn't call for nationwide observances, they went to one city where their numbers looked impressive. They appeared to be representing far more Americans than they ever did, but they had the media on their side, and their cause was given more political muscle than it deserved.

The end result was a decision by our Congress to abandon Southeast Asia, which culminated in the communist overthrow of South Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, and the deaths of some 4 million innocents at the hands of the communists. Then the very forces in Congress and the media who helped bring about this travesty shifted the blame to the American military and said the Southeast Asian holocaust was the fault of the Vietnam veterans.

For reasons that are obscure at best, and frankly make no sense to me at all, the pro-communist forces in the US consider this a victory and want to repeat it in the War on Terror.

The Gathering of Eagles will put a huge crimp in their plans if the gathering is successful. We actually have the numbers that the pro-terrorist forces would like to have. We have the votes, but we must prove this by showing up in person.

Thus, for as much as I agree with people showing their support across the country, the gathering in DC must be the only formal vigil, and it must be the one that is attended by every single person who can get there.

If we are successful, and all indications are that we will be, we will have opportunities in the future to organize multiple city demonstrations. But we can benefit from the model developed by the pro-terrorism, pro-communist forces. Gather in DC on March 17, overcome the Mainstream Media's refusal to cover our vigil by sheer force of numbers, show our elected and appointed leaders that we have political muscle, media savvy and we mean business.

If veterans and those who support us want a real voice in what is happening in Washington, if we want to avoid any future debacles such as recently happened to our recovering warriors in Walter Reed hospital, if we want the media and the politicians to pay heed to us and give us results not lip service, we must go to DC on March 17.

Once the gathering is underway, those who can't go to Washington can go to the intersection of the two busiest streets in their area, hold up a sign stating "Support Gathering of Eagles" and make sure the public sees you.

But prior to that, and far more important, is the requirement that everyone who can, goes to DC and stands up for our fellow veterans.

The rest will fall into place naturally. But first, we must gather in DC.

I was surprised to see a television commercial the other day that had aired many times prior to the November election, calling for President George Bush to "end the genocide in Darfur."

Certainly a supportable and worthy humanitarian sentiment, and definitely a job that needs doing. But just how is George Bush supposed to do it, when Darfur has never been a threat to our national security, yet Congress is talking about shutting off funding for the Iraq War, where the terrorists we are fighting do pose a threat to our national security?

How is Bush supposed to rally a country that already is tired of defending itself from people who killed 3,000 of our number with direct attacks on our homeland? What central theme would be the key to convincing the American people to make Darfur a priority over say, global warming, or saving the rain forest, or the global war on terrorism?

I agree with the concept completely. And if you go to the SaveDarfur.org website you will see that much more emphasis is placed on convincing the Untied Nations' new Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon to push the issue to the top of his agenda. So I can't help but wonder just what the emphasis on George Bush has to do with the issue.

If this is part of an international campaign to convince national leaders to join in the effort, the best place to do that would be the Untied Nations, which thus far has shown extreme reticence to get involved in any meaningful way. George Bush already has lent his support to the effort, but he isn't going to get anything done in Darfur or anywhere else unless Congress approves.

Both houses of Congress now are controlled by the Democratic Party, which wasn't the case last summer and fall when this commercial first was aired, so why hasn't it been updated to say "Us Congress, Stop the Genocide in Darfur."

Or how about, "America's Democrats, Stop the Genocide in Darfur."

Either of those commercials would be more realistic, and would have a far better chance of success. If George Bush pushes an international agenda that includes spending American tax dollars and committing American troops to a civil war, he is sure to run into a fire storm.

Look at the facts. In Iraq, some Iraqis are killing other Iraqis, but most of the fighting the US is doing is against Islamo-facists (terrorists,) some from Iraq, and many from other countries. Yet the Democrats in Congress and others are calling the fighting in Iraq a Civil War, virtually ignoring the fighting against both Iraqi and foreign terrorists, and look at the flak the president is taking over that!

Hardly a day goes by that we don't hear of a member of Congress holding a press conference to micromanage the War on Terror and denounce the president. Most of these people never served in the military and wouldn't know the intake from the exhaust of a jet fighter, but that doesn't stop them from claiming a sudden expertise in small-scale warfare. (They remind me of an office seeker in Connecticut a couple of decades ago who claimed he was a Vietnam veteran because he watched the war on TV each night.)

They seem to have as many ideas on how to drop everything and get out of Iraq as soon as possible, consequences be damned, and as many ways to couch these ideas in noncommittal phraseology as they have staff members. But their messages, regardless of how they are delivered, all boil down to leaving the region, abandoning the fight against terror and hunkering down at home until we are all killed or forced to convert, whichever comes first.

So if the president or any group of humanitarian organizations wants to get anything done in Darfur, the place to start is the Congress, and since that body is controlled by Democrats I would strongly recommend putting some pressure on the Democratic National Committee. The DNC in turn can put some pressure on its sitting Senators and Congressmen who can take to the streets and rally the faithful.

This strategy has the best chance of success, and is the least likely to be considered a political ad rather than a call for humanitarian aid. The situation in Darfur has been labelled a civil war, and millions of innocent citizens have been wantonly slaughtered or horribly abused.

This is so similar to the Democrats' description of the fighting in Iraq that the Save Darfur folks are going to have to find a different way to describe the situation there, or show the Democrats how to publicly contradict themselves with a straight face.

After all, there is precedent of a sorts for America's left to involve itself in the political affairs of foreign countries. Look at the money and personnel that the left poured into Australia last year in an unsuccessful effort to alter the outcome of the race for prime minister there.

If it is considered appropriate to interfere in the affairs of a longstanding friend and ally such as Australia, in effect trying to engineer a regime change, then I fail to see why we have a problem with Iraq. I guess there are nuances at work here that escape a cursory review, or maybe are just so convoluted that the logic behind them gets lost in the tangle.

Nonetheless, the fighting and killing in Darfur is a travesty and anyone with a shred of human decency should want it ended. But I believe any organization that truly wants some action in that part of the world has to direct its efforts toward workable strategies, not political gamesmanship.

There seems to be a ton of money behind the save Darfur organization, so reworking their commercial shouldn't be an issue. A couple of 'applied power' scenes of Congressional leaders like Harry Reid, Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, John Murtha, and Carl Levin, intermingled with shots of their myriad speeches on the floor of Congress, would show the world who they are and display the immense power they wield.

That should get the ball rolling toward a real solution. Calling on George Bush to do something he supports, but doesn't have the political power to enact, might make some people feel good about themselves, but in terms of actually effecting change, it amounts to little more than a smoke show at a drag race strip.

There is a lot of noise and a lot of rubber burning, but in the end you only have spinning tires and a dragster going nowhere fast.

I am looking for 1000 supportive Americans. More to the point I am looking for 1000 supportive Americans with $25.

If I can't find 1000 Americans with 25 dollars, then 25 Americans with $1000 dollars will do, or any combination of the two.

This is not for me. I am making this request on behalf of the organizers of A Gathering Of Eagles, the March 17 vigil in Washington D.C. to protect the Vietnam War Memorial and other monuments from vandalism from pro-terrorist forces marching on the Pentagon that day.

A Gathering Of Eagles started out barely a month ago as conversations between a few people who were justifiably concerned that attacks on the Capitol and American veterans at a pro-terrorism event in late January would be repeated at the March 17 march on the Pentagon. The gathering point for the pro-terrorism forces is adjacent to the Vietnam memorial and comments from organizers and participants in that spectacle indicate a willingness by some to resort to anarchy and vandalism.

Initially, individual veterans and some vets' organizations were hopeful that we could muster enough support to ring the Vietnam Memorial with a peaceful yet solid wall of humanity to prevent attacks on it. I figured that 500 to 1000 vets and our supporters would suffice.

But once the word went out on the Internet the vigil mushroomed, and Col. Harry G. Riley, (US Army, Ret.) the point man for A Gathering Of Eagles as the vigil has since been formally named, recently made a request for financial assistance. What started as a relatively few determined vets now has grown to a point where the organizers are confidently predicting attendance in the tens of thousands.

That is great! It also carries logistical headaches and expenses. Permits were needed, transportation details must be worked out, there will be a speakers' platform, sound system, tents, website maintenance and updates, the all so necessary port-a-potties - one for each 300 people, and a daily presence by the organizers to ensure that no detail is overlooked.

The Colonel estimated that these arrangements would cost $25,000 and he was among the first to ante up his own money to help defray the costs. I believe the enormous amount of time and energy that Colonel Riley and the other organizers are putting into this event is more than sufficient and they never should have had to put their hands into their own pockets to make this happen.

They would like to be reimbursed when this is all over and the bills have been paid and they should be. They also have promised to donate to charity any monies in excess of what is needed to fund A Gathering Of Eagles. That works for me.

By contrast, I should point out that most commentators who discuss the pro-terrorism march on the Pentagon say it is "well funded." What does that mean exactly?

What it means is that very, very wealthy people, who got their money off the backs of the very veterans who fought to preserve this country and its freedoms, are putting millions of dollars into the march on the Pentagon. Know what they do with those millions?

They pay the expenses of the 'celebrities' who come to denounce the country that made them rich and famous. They pay for media ads. They pay for transportation, housing, food and other expenses for many of the 'spontaneous' marchers who are bussed long distances to spew filth and hatred. Some of these marchers even get paid for their time!

We, on the other hand, meaning those of us who are attending A Gathering Of Eagles, are doing it pretty much on our own dime. Hotels in the DC area have helped by offering discount rate rooms, and I have found transportation companies that are willing to help too.

Some veterans' organizations are contributing to transportation costs, but overall, the bulk of the expenses incurred by those of us heading to Washington on March 17 will come from our own pockets. I haven't heard a single complaint about that.

All I am asking is that Middle America help out the organizers so this vigil can proceed as envisioned. If 1000 Americans can find a spare $25 in their budgets, and can send it to A Gathering Of Eagles, my faith in humanity will remain unshaken.

Me being me, and my attitude about such things being what it is, I might ordinarily take this time to remind America that only 7 percent of the US population are veterans, less than one percent currently serve on active duty, with an even smaller percentage responsible for fighting terrorism on the front lines. I might have pointed out that the rest of America, 93 percent, gets to go about its daily business unruffled and unconcerned thanks to the sacrifices of the veterans and active duty military.

I might have noted that our politicians and political parties have no problem asking us to help them out in every single campaign cycle that comes along.

I even might have pointed out that America has no problem calling on its veterans to ensure its safety, and once again the vets are standing tall for America. The hatred and destruction spewed on our soil and our citizenry by the pro-terrorism forces in our midst have gone well beyond a nuisance for many Americans.

But like Mark Twain once said about the weather, everyone complains about it but no one does anything about it. In another column under different circumstances I might even have said it is time for Middle America to put its money where its mouth is, because once again, America's veterans are standing up for America and doing something about it.

But I decided not to do that this time. I will try a more persuasive approach. I will simply remind Middle America that the freedoms many take for granted are not free, and usually are purchased with the sacrifices, blood and lives of a very small percentage of the general population.

So I am asking, please, help out. Go to http://www.gatheringofeagles.org/ and click on the donation link. It is easy. It only takes a few mouse clicks. There even is an address and related information if you prefer to send a check.

In case you were wondering, yes, I just made my donation too. So now I only need 999 of my fellow Americans to help out. See how that works? Thank You.