Tuesday, July 31, 2007

Bush, Biden Turn Tables on Iraq War Lies; Gathering of Eagles, Move America Forward Building Momentum

In just one short week the tide of anti-war rhetoric in both the mainstream media and among Democratic presidential candidates has done a 180 degree turnabout, with former doom and gloomers now saying a military victory just might be possible!

To what or whom do we owe this sudden turn of events?

First, let's give credit where it is due, to the troops who are taking the fight to the terrorists and doing it with obvious success. In that light we should also give a big chunk of credit to Gen. David Petraeus and his revised strategy dubbed The Surge. The troops actually have been whacking terrorists in massive numbers ever since the war began, but the Surge seems to give the media a chance to change direction without being overly obvious.

With an influx of troops working in conjunction with increasing numbers of Iraqi forces, and a clear and hold strategy now in place, our forces also are keeping the newly pacified neighborhoods free of returning bad guys.

But this has been ongoing for some time now, too. So why the sudden change of heart?

Two words. Political expediency.

Last week President George Bush gave a speech in Charleston Air Force Base, S.C. that was reminiscent of the speech he gave at the Coast Guard Academy in New London, CT in June. In both speeches the president outlined in great detail just who we are fighting, how, why, and the efforts the terrorists have been making to wreak havoc on our country since 9-11, so far unsuccessfully.

In Charleston the president tracked the movement of the late terrorist leader Abu Al Zarqawi from the Taliban forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan where he was wounded fighting against the US, to Iraq and the welcoming arms of Saddam Hussein where he was setting up a new terrorist network in conjunction with Al Qaeda. President Bush showed exactly how the Al Qaeda terrorists are and were established in both places well before we invaded Iraq.

As I have written here numerous times before, the terrorists shifted their base of operations from Afghanistan to Iraq after coalition forces beat the stuffing out of them in Afghanistan. Some commentators said the president was releasing newly declassified information to explain why they hadn't written this before.

Actually, all of this information was in author Stephen Hayes' book The Connection several years ago.

This information also was available to any news sources that chose to print or broadcast it rather than the WMD mantra that was so easy to repeat and so irrelevant to the real reasons we were in Iraq. The connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime was well known and openly discussed prior to 9-11 but then conveniently forgotten when it was seen as an opportunity to attack the Bush administration.

Right on the heels of the president's speech came Democratic Sen. Joe Biden's honest appraisal of the war during the last Democratic 'debate,' the one where questions were asked by a bunch of UTube contestants, some of whom were dressed in costumes reminiscent of the old Gong Show.

Biden, and only Biden, had the courage to state outright that regardless of which party wins next year's presidential election no one can, nor will, be able to drop what we are doing in Iraq and suddenly withdraw all our troops as the Democrats in Congress have been screaming for several years now.

Faced with irrefutable evidence that their main claim against invading Iraq was false - that there was no link between Saddam and Al Qaeda - and a realistic appraisal of what we are going to have to do in Iraq for the next two or three years, and how, the position taken by the Democrats and some turncoat Republicans in Congress folded like a house of cards.

The last place any candidate wants to be is on the losing side of a winning war. It is obvious that many candidates who only a week or so ago were claiming the war is lost and unwinnable now want us to forget that and see them only in their newly created aura of pro-troop patriotic zeal.

I should note that not every Democrat and turncoat Republican has jumped on the victory bandwagon - yet. Or maybe not every Democrat and turncoat Republican in Congress got the memo in time.

For instance, even as the New York Times was reporting successes in battle, Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold was saying on Fox News Sunday that he had access to secret information showing our side is getting its ass kicked something fierce. He couldn't reveal the source of this information, or course, and there is nothing other than his word to support it, but he said it and he is stuck with it.

When pressed hard by Chris Wallace, Feingold said he is willing to listen to Gen. Petraeus's report to Congress in September, but since he has numerous other, and presumably contradictory, sources of information, they will be the factors that have the most impact on his point of view. In other words, regardless of what is happening in the war in Iraq, Feingold and his buddies, like New York Sen. Chuckles Schumer, fully intend to give the General a fair trial, and then they'll hang him.

But the General has a hole card. The Gathering of Eagles, Move America Forward, Purple Heart association, and many other veterans organizations have again joined forces to sponsor a huge pro-troop rally in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 15, to coincide with the General's report to Congress.

The pro-terrorist, communist and anarchist group ANSWER also is staging a pro-terrorist rally the same week, complete with a scheduled 'die-in' on the Capitol steps to commemorate all the terrorists killed fighting against coalition troops or or who committed suicide while murdering thousands of civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, and numerous other countries around the world.

In March at the first Gathering of Eagles vigil to support the troops and protect our nation's Memorials from planned acts of vandalism by ANSWER participants, the the Eagles vastly outnumbered the pro-terrorist faction in a wildly successful peaceful event. That was without the support of the mainstream veterans organizations or so much as a word of pre-publicity by the mainstream media, and damn little mention afterward.

But a major statement was made by the Eagles, Move America Forward and the other pro-troop groups in March and they are working hard to have even more Americans attend the September 15 rally. Move America Forward will again host a caravan of pro-troop forces, the Fight For Victory Tour, from California to DC, and will be hosting a series of pro-troop rallies along the way.

This time, the gathering also should be able to expect support from the major veterans organizations including the 3 million member American Legion, which did a major article in its monthly magazine on the March gathering. Presumably, having been duly exposed for its pro-terrorist agenda by its lock-step non-coverage of the Eagles in March, the mainstream media just might do an occasional news brief.

Regardless, the Internet is again buzzing with information on the Sept. 15 gathering, and conservative talk radio hosts are gearing up to provide heavy coverage.

The goal is to again hold a peaceful pro-troop vigil in D.C., to show the country and the world that the pro-terrorist point of view is not the only point of view in this country.

Personally, considering that Gen. Petraeus is walking point position for the rest of us, I want him to be able to look over his shoulder and see not a squad, not a platoon, not a company, regiment or even division. I want Gen. Petraeus to look over his shoulder and see an entire army of patriotic pro-troop, anti-terrorist supporters, providing a visible and effective backup for his words and his winning strategy!

Who knows, maybe he'll even see a few presidential candidates supporting him too!
Sunday, July 29, 2007

The Fix Is In! DC Pundits Say its Giuliani vs. Clinton. Everybody Else - Go Home!

I've been keeping close track of numerous television and radio talk shows over the past couple of weeks, (yes, I know, I have to get a life) and the trend is crystal clear - most of the DC and Manhattan-based pundits have decided that the only viable matchup of presidential candidates pits former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani against current New York Senator Hillary Clinton.

Regardless of the candidates' finances, positions on matters that matter, stance on the War on Terror and the Battle for Iraq, performances in these nauseating made for television 'debates,' or even popularity with the voters, if you put any faith whatsoever in the pundits' opinions the only candidates who can or should run for president are the two New Yorkers. (Should we call this the Subway Campaign?)

Personally, I don't buy it. This race marks a major departure from previous campaigns in that the candidates have gone straight into the full campaign mode a year earlier than had been the norm, giving us virtually non-stop campaigning from election to election.

The concept that you never really stop campaigning for the office you are seeking certainly isn't new. Ronald Reagan targeted the presidency years before he achieved it, and those years weren't spent sitting by the fireside wishing and hoping.

But seeing a full complement of candidates on both sides of the political fence waging full-scale campaigns a full year before they even start the state level primary votes to select the party candidate is not the norm. Frankly, it has become so loud, so raucous, so intense that it has blended into background noise and I seriously doubt that most voters will really start paying attention until just before their own state's primary next year.

Did anyone note for instance, that Delaware's Democratic Sen. Joe Biden was the only one to answer honestly in the Dems debate last week when asked about withdrawing from Iraq - that it simply can't happen, and won't happen under the conditions constantly being discussed by Democrats and turncoat Republicans in Congress?

Score one for Biden! But how often do you see or hear of him on national television?

Has anyone taken a serious look at former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's position on replacing the Income Tax, Social Security tax, Medicare/Medicaid tax, gas tax, cigarette tax, beer tax, and tax taxes with the Fair Tax? It is a viable proposal that could drastically scale back what we all pay in taxes each year without negatively impacting government operating funds, but Huckabee is making little to no headway in getting his message across.

Then we have the Fred Thompson phenomenon. Voters like what they see and hear so far, and he is right on Giuliani's heels even though he hasn't officially declared his candidacy. So the DC and Manhattan insiders and elitists are closing ranks around Giuliani to make sure Thompson doesn't upset their well-ordered little world.

First the left takes shots at Thompson's wife Jeri, a lawyer and accomplished political strategist, for being too attractive. Then, on Saturday night's Beltway Boys commentator Mort Kondracke literally sneered that the macho-appearing Thompson is letting his wife run his campaign.

Well, we just can't have that now can we? It's fine for Elizabeth Edwards to have a major role in her husband's campaign, and there is no question that Hillary Clinton should be running her campaign, amid debates on whether she is the most manly of Democratic candidates.

But Jeri Thompson? Having a say in her husband's campaign? Doesn't sound MANLY to Mort!

But answer this please. If you are running for president and your wife not only is smart, is an accomplished political strategist, has a shot at being the First Lady, and is attractive, who would you defer to on matters involving your campaign? Your closest associate who has nearly as big a stake in your victory as you do, or a paid consultant who may or may not have alternative political ideals and agendas?

The smart candidate would defer to his wife in those situations. And smart campaign staffers would make damn sure that one way or another they are on the same page as the potential First Lady! But when Thompson reveals another facet of his makeup that probably will appeal to the voters, suddenly he isn't manly. Yeah.

I have a suggestion. How about if Jeri Thompson arm wrestles Mort Kondracke on national television and if she wins, every pundit who has criticized her looks or her husband's manliness has to shut the hell up for the next 18 months?

My money is on Mrs. Thompson.

I did see one glimmer of hope on the horizon this week on Fox News Sunday and in an update from NewsMax.com.

About two months ago I sent an email to a DC Republican strategist who is working on the Thompson campaign. I have corresponded with her since before the presidential election in 2004 on issues of mutual interest, and this time I suggested that perhaps Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich could discuss running as a team.

I think Gingrich is probably the most intellectually capable of all the candidates, and that is not taking anything away from the other candidates. I am just making the point that Gingrich is brilliant and has an encyclopedic knowledge of government, society, economics and history.

But Gingrich is pulling major baggage behind him from his years as Speaker of the House during the Bill Clinton Administration. Whether he will run for president has been widely discussed for some time now, but I think he would have a long difficult campaign, despite his enormous capabilities.

Gingrich made the point himself on FNS that the system for selecting presidential candidates and by extension the president, is broken. I agree, but it is what it is, at least for the moment and that is what has to be considered.

This week news started leaking out that Gingrich had met and dined with the Thompsons. Whether that meeting had anything to do with my email from two months ago is probably known to only a few insiders, and whether they discussed running as a team was not addressed on FNS.

Gingrich neatly sidestepped the issue when queried about it by Chris Wallace. But it is at least obvious that they are talking, and frankly I see that as a good thing.

San Francisco radio talk show host Lee Rodgers on KSFO, who can be, how should I put this, caustic, in his assessment of politicians on the entire political spectrum, made the point last week that we shouldn't "fall in love with a politician." That, he said, can and usually will end in heartbreak.

He is right and his advice is well heeded. But I am not about to throw in the towel on Fred Thompson, or Mitt Romney, or Mike Huckabee, or Joe Biden any of the other candidates for that matter, based on the opinions of a group of professional commentators who both geographically and politically have a vested interest in seeing their favorites leading the races.

There are issues arising with the Thompson campaign to be sure, but most of them appear minor and seem to be centered on the decision not to make a formal announcement until Labor Day. I don't see that as a bad move. It is still July, a virtual dead zone for politics as NPR commentator Mara Liasson pointed out on FNS this week. The only people paying close attention to the races are the people involved in them, the political media, and party workers.

Waiting until September may not set well with the commentators, but it is a smart move politically. Thompson has gotten far more press in the past two weeks than anyone else except Clinton and Barack Obama. That is not working against him.

I haven't decided who I will vote for yet, and it will be some time before I do. I like what I see in Thompson, I want to see what Gingrich is going to do, Romney still is a contender and I don't give a hoot about his religion, and I'd like to see some more coverage of the undercards on both sides.

But for the moment, I'll leave you with one burning question that we all must answer for ourselves before election day 2008. Would you rather have Jeri Thompson as First Lady or Bill Clinton as First Husband?
Friday, July 27, 2007

US Congress is Al Qaeda's Chief Recruiter

Congressional celebrities, comprised primarily of Democrats and turncoat Republicans like Reid, Pelosi, Murtha, Kerry - the usual suspects - made a mad dash for the cameras this week when a report was released saying the world's primary terrorist organization, Al Qaeda, may be more robust in Iraq than it was in previous years.

And we are surprised by this ... why? The report I mean, more so than the guppy-like schooling before the cameras.

For the better part of three years now, as our troops have won victory after victory over the terrorists, members of Congress and their accomplices in the American Terrorist Media have ignored every single success and instead disgorged a non-stop flood of sewage labelled news, always claiming we are losing.

Even as our troops have killed tens of thousands of terrorists and are succeeding in turning public opinion in the Muslim world against terrorists and their tactics, Democrats and turncoat Republicans in Congress are in a frenzy attempting to force the withdrawal of our forces just as they are on the cusp of victory.

The US Congress is sending the same message to terrorists worldwide that it did in the 70s - in fact many of the same people are involved in the current PR effort to help our terrorist enemies. In the 70s they aided and abetted the communists, and succeeded in forcing abandonment of our South Vietnamese allies just when they had demonstrated that they could stand up to the communist armies so long as they could count on our air support.

The result was the domino effect in Southeast Asia whereby South Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos fell to the communists, initiating a wholesale slaughter of holocaust proportions, with some 4 million murdered in the next several years.

Now they are aiding and abetting the terrorists, and I am very suspicious that the end goal now is the same as it was in the 70s.

There is such an obvious disconnect from reality here that one must wonder what on earth these people - the Democrats and Republican turncoats in Congress - are thinking, if they are capable of thought, and what they expect will be the end result of their duplicity.

If you follow their treasonous actions to their logical conclusion, America will be driven from the Middle East, cut off from its primary sources of energy, unable to duplicate those energy sources at home due to decades of restrictions, ultimately isolated economically and militarily, and forced to capitulate to Muslim extremists who will take over our government and immediately execute the current crop of rulers and their sycophants.

Hold it, maybe we're on to something here. Oh, sorry, did I write that out loud?

Seriously though, I have written before and nothing has changed my mind, that the traitors of the 70s were working for the communists, and while claiming ownership of some sort of intellectual superiority, and living large compared to the average American, couldn't see that they would have been the first to go if the communists had succeeded in their drive for world domination.

The communists always kill off their supporters. Their primary method of operation is to convince disaffected residents of a host country that if they work to overthrow their current leaders, and install a communist government, then a workers' Utopia will replace their current misery.

So the gullible recruits help overthrow their government, which to be honest, usually isn't the best of worlds either, and then install the communists. But instead of the workers' Utopia they get a communist police state where all thoughts and actions are controlled by a very small and extremely paranoid group of overseers.

When the people who helped attain this dismal state of affairs complain that what they got was not what they expected, they quickly learn the communist methodology for dealing with dissent. That includes arrest, imprisonment, labor camps, torture and death. Worldwide the communist movement is estimated to have executed more than 100 million dissenters since the Bolshevik Revolution succeeded in 1917, and huge numbers of the dead were people who originally supported the communist takeover.

So once again we have a bunch of stooges in the US Congress, once again - or still - working to overthrow our government, still working for worldwide communism which is again expanding through the efforts of China and Russia, as evidenced by recent events in Venezuela as well as other areas of South America, and while no one is looking, in Africa.

To see this you need only to take a close look at Russia's leader Vladimir (Ras)Putin and his rollback of democratic reforms, military expansionism in China including probes against US naval and space assets, and you can see that the ultimate strategy is to help the Muslim extremists in their fight against the west, hope that both sides beat each other to a pulp, and waltz in and take over when the war weary populaces on each side are too sick of war to resist.

Not convinced? Well maybe I'm wrong, but I'll tell you this. If I walk out in the woods behind my house, and come across bear tracks, I know that a bear is in the area. I might not see it, but I can see the signs it left, and I know it is nearby.

On the world stage, I see tracks of communist expansionism everywhere I look. They may not be right in my face each and every day, but the signs are there if you know where to look and you understand what they mean. The communists suffered a major defeat in the 80s and 90s, but they haven't given up and they are attempting a comeback, using the Muslim extremists as a tool.

Mistakes have been made in the War on Terror to be sure. But mistakes are made in every war. We certainly haven't had any of the fiascoes such as we had in WWII like the Bataan Death March, the Battle of the Bulge, the slaughter of US troops at Anzio, and the lack of preparation for fighting in the French countryside after D-Day.

But this is a new and different kind of war, against a different kind of enemy, and overall we have learned from these mistakes. We have continued to refine our tactics, which is also part of the overall process of fighting a war.

One of the most visible signs of the success of the military effort in Iraq, as I wrote in a column last week, is the change of tactics by the Congressional Democrats and turncoat Republicans, altering their focus to the political situation in Iraq rather than the military and security issues.

In fact, it should be no surprise to anyone that Al Qaeda is doing everything it can to boost its forces in Iraq. Unlike the propagandists in Congress, the terrorists have declared that Iraq is the focal point of their war against us. Why wouldn't they do everything in their power to send as many troops there as possible?

And why wouldn't they be successful in recruiting new fighters and suicide bombers to their warped viewpoint, when the US Congress in continually providing fresh evidence that all they have to do is wait us out, regardless of the extent of their losses?

Meanwhile, Congressional leaders are throwing every conceivable stumbling block in the path to victory. They are attacking the administration for non-existent issues from every angle, leaking top secret tactics and strategies to a media that is only too willing to pass our secrets on to our enemies, and holding hearing after pointless hearing hoping to discredit administration officials.

Democratic Senate Majority leader Harry Reid even bragged to the cameras the other day that he and his lackeys have held 100 hearings since they took over Congress and will gleefully hold 100 more. He failed to note that not one of these hearings has resulted in a damn thing of consequence, other than a hope that they can trip up someone during sworn testimony and then charge them with perjury for not remembering what they said in hearing 17 and how it may have differed from hearing 27, 42, 66, 84 and 92.

That ladies and gentlemen is a prime example of your federal tax dollars at work. Unrestrained spending by the court jesters, who look like clowns on the surface, but underneath are working non-stop to bring down our government and our way of life.

There is a gleam of hope though. In an entirely unscientific survey of voters who are keeping track of these buffoons and their treasonous activities, I find that the Democrats lose at least 1000 votes nationally for every single nonsense hearing they call.

How many votes did they lose Ohio by in the last Presidential election? Keep going Reid, keep going. You're going to legislate your party right out of the running. Yeah have some more hearings, that will show us. But please, please don't throw us into that briar patch.

Democratic Senator Harry Reid et al. What a classic group of mooks.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Jeri Thompson "Trophy Wife," Not First Lady Material? NPR Commentators Way Out of Line

One of the mainstays of the liberal philosophy is the concept of equality for all humans from all walks of life.

That is a starting point that most of us can agree upon, as long as you further define it as meaning equality "under the law," rather than an assumption that all humans really are equal in intelligence, abilities and energy.

So far that makes me a liberal.

The concept further dictates that we should all have equal opportunities to aspire to whatever segment of the American dream most appeals to us, and that people shouldn't be denied employment, promotion, wages, raises and other benefits based on gender, race, religion, ethnicity and myriad other defining factors.

Still with you on that one.

But then we have to put these concepts into practice. Here is where it all comes unravelled and the practice of the liberal philosophy goes off on a tangent. The concept in practice dictates that it isn't enough to merely legislate that everyone should have equal opportunities under the law to succeed or fail, or muddle along at the pace their own abilities dictate.

In the liberal mindset all kinds of special requirements have to be included in the law to restrain some segments of society while others are given special treatment. This is called 'leveling the playing field' when in reality it amounts to hobbling the majority so others can 'catch up.'

This in practice assumes that anyone who by gender, religion, race or other defining factor can be considered a minority is simultaneously less able than the 'majority,' and thus not only deserving of special incentives but in fact requiring special incentives to give them true "equality." I see this as subliminal elitism and racism rather than inclusive.

The feminism movement, which enjoyed a renewed popularity in liberal circles during the 60s, was supposed to be one of the support pillars of this mindset. There is no question that women have historically been relegated to second-class citizenry or less, and there is no question that there still is a long way for females of all races and ethnic backgrounds to go to achieve true equality.

Unfortunately, in the 60s this often was defined as sexual rather than economic equality, and burning bras took on more significance than promotion to CEO. Nonetheless, many women worked to improve their lot in life, their choices, and the laws preventing discrimination based on gender.

But even though many women did work for true equality, the most visible spokeswomen for feminism had a limited definition of what it meant to support 'their' movement. Only some women were deemed to be suitable for support by the feminist community, primarily those who espoused a far left socialist mindset, if not outright communism.

Women who chose to follow more traditional wife and mother roles were not included in the new sororities, and were looked down upon as lacking intelligence and backbone. If they enjoyed being a mother, they were something less than desirable. If they enjoyed being married they similarly were ostracized.

Having children wasn't totally cast aside as a tenet of femininity, so long as career came before marriage and motherhood, and the children were raised by state-sponsored day care and public schools.

Only those who totally cast aside the old in favor of the new were allowed admittance. All others were relegated, in the eyes of the new feminist sororities, to a status far less than the second-class citizens they had been originally.

We saw examples of this attitude during the Clinton administration when numerous women who made claims of abuse against the former president received virtually no support from their 'sisters,' and in many cases were disparaged by the very segment of the community that should have been supportive. They weren't the 'right' kind of women, and they didn't even wear approved hairdos.

Evidence surfaced this week that not much has changed in liberal land since the last days of the Clinton administration.

A glaring and truly unfortunate example reared its ugly head this past Sunday when National Public Radio and Fox News commentator Juan Williams made a demeaning, disparaging comment about Jeri Thompson, wife of former senator, actor and assumed presidential candidate Fred Thompson.

Williams is a regular panelist on FNS and during in an up-to-that-point tongue-in-cheek discussion on the viability of having a debate between the spouses of presidential candidates, particularly Democrats Elizabeth Edwards and Bill Clinton, Williams opined that such a debate should include Ms. Thompson whom he then labelled as "the trophy wife."

For the record, Ms. Thompson is an attractive woman, who at 40 is 24 years younger than her husband. By all accounts, she also is a highly effective political strategist with a grasp of communications methodology that has been described as brilliant. This was showcased recently when she arranged an immensely popular Internet video appearance by her husband to rebut the latest lunacy from left-wing nut case Michael Moore.

But based on comments by Williams and far too many others on the liberal left, you would think that Mrs. Thompson is little more than eye candy, rather than a valuable and respected member of his campaign team. God forbid the woman should become the First Lady and have good looks in addition to a keen intellect.

I have been watching the Thompson non-candidacy closely for some months now and what I have seen is an uncanny knack for garnering publicity, and thus support, while many of the declared candidates are beating themselves right out of the running. People close to the non-campaign say that Mrs. Thompson is deeply involved in setting its direction and priorities.

In the last several weeks there have been a number of hits on Thompson, questioning his strength of character, his leadership skills, his intelligence, and the viability of his campaign. All this tells me that both the extreme left and the extreme right fear his candidacy, and that just makes me want to know more about him.

I am fed up with extremist commentators telling me who I should be voting for and who I should be rejecting. The sudden attacks on Thompson from the ultra-conservative right, with a simultaneous attack on his wife from the ultra-left's Juan Williams just shows that he has more to offer than extremists from either side.

So far the attacks on Thompson have been of the ho-hum variety. He was too involved against Nixon in the Watergate scandal, he wasn't involved enough, he got a job for his son, he fired a campaign staffer who clashed with his wife, who also happens to be too pretty! I have no idea how he will survive these attacks on his integrity!

I don't often agree with Juan Williams' point of view, although I do have a healthy respect for his efforts to boost America's black middle class through personal initiative rather than welfare handouts. But his remark on Sunday is demeaning to all women, including his wife and daughter, not just Jeri Thompson.

National Public Radio is represented by two of the four panelists on Fox News Sunday each week, the other being Mara Liasson, so the left side of the aisle gets more than its fair share of the input. But this is the second time in recent weeks that disparaging comments have come from that duo in the form of incisive opinion.

Just after the ill-fated immigration bill went down in flames, Liasson opined on FNS that it was a result of anti-Mexican racism. Although she was sternly countered by Brit Hume who noted that he had heard the word illegal many times, but not racist commentary, the damage was done. Her biased point of view toward those of us who are not racist and yet have strong reservations about the contents of that bill resounded loud and clear.

I realize that NPR is only partially funded by the taxpayers, but even so, I expect some semblance of balance from its commentators. Liasson's 'racist' remark smacks of the 'your momma' comeback that we used in school when someone insulted us and we were struggling for a response. Apparently Liasson has nothing left with which to debate the immigration issue other than labelling those who disagree with her as racists.

Meanwhile, Williams fears a Fred Thompson candidacy so he resorts to the basest and most demeaning commentary he can find about the man's wife, that she is an object, a dalliance, a mere 'trophy.'

I don't for a minute believe that our political process is suddenly going to become mannerly and based on respectful disagreements about the best way to reach the same objective. Our country didn't start out that way, it hasn't been that way for more than 200 years and it isn't likely to go through a sudden transformation any time soon.

Nonetheless, Americans of all cultures and backgrounds have been working to eliminate racism and sexism and have been making great strides on many fronts. While it is obvious that there is much work to be done, NPR commentators are the last people who should be name calling and backbiting using race and gender as a springboard. For that matter, we shouldn't encounter those comments and tactics on Fox News Sunday either.
Monday, July 23, 2007

Did Golda Meir have Cleavage? Margaret Thatcher? Who Cares?!

Much of the focus of the news this weekend was on Hillary Clinton's cleavage, and yes, I fully understand that many people absolutely don't want to go there, but it was in the Washington Post Friday thus we all have to deal with it now.

The estimable Senator from New York gave a speech on the Senate floor Wednesday, captured by C-SPAN, on something, the usual blather, and her outfit for the event was a stunning, low-cut, daring V-neck affair. Yes, I am stealing fashion show commentary here on purpose.

Then the Post ran a story Friday about her apparel, which just goes to show you what constitutes news at the Post. In no time at all it became a national issue.

It even was brought up on Friday's broadcast of Hardball, in which Melanie Morgan, the San Francisco radio hostess at KSFO and chair of the pro-troop organization Move America Forward who was there to debate a liberal fluff muffin on another issue, was asked about it.

(Just in case you are keeping score, the fluff muffin, whose name I can't remember and don't care enough about to look up, failed miserably at attempting to intimidate Ms. Morgan. You'd think they'd learn by now that Morgan really knows her subject matter, is tougher than nails, and if they want to ambush her they should at least get someone with a little more than a double digit IQ. But they don't and the result is what Hardball got on Friday.)

Anyway, this issue got me to thinking about how Mrs. Clinton wants to go from former First Lady to current President, which got me to thinking about other major world leaders who were female. Meir, Thatcher, and Indira Gandhi came immediately to mind, and whether you liked them or not, agreed with them or not, you have to admit they were strong, principled leaders and their cleavage was never, ever an issue.

So what do we conclude when we hear Mrs. Clinton going on about women's rights and women's issues and how she will be the candidate who does the most for women? First, when we hear that 'women's issues' means flexible hours at work, day care assistance, and similar matters we can conclude that what she really is talking about are 'family' issues, not women's issues, that already are being addressed all across the corporate spectrum, so once again she is spewing spin, not substance.

Then we look at the horrors women are subjected to in many other areas of the world - rape, slavery, abuse, death for merely wanting to live as something other than handmaidens and second-class citizens - and we realize that these women have major life-and-death issues hanging over them. Compared to what are termed women's issues in America, and the current debate on Mrs. Clinton's fashion wear, it's not unfair to conclude that we are being spoon fed shallow, superficial claptrap.

There are REAL issues in this world. There are REAL issues in this country. But we are having a debate on whether Hillary Clinton should reveal her cleavage?! Am I the only one who is outraged at this? Am I the only one who sees this as a national embarrassment?

My God, what is wrong with our politicians and the people they hire to research issues for them? It is once again all too obvious, considering the fact that this issue was raised - please don't insult my intelligence, she wore the outfit on purpose, she knew it would be broadcast on C-SPAN and the Post was in on the "unveiling" - and that the media pushed it, that our politicians and their advisers have no respect for the American voter.

This is why in every single election the candidates increasingly play to issues that are of interest only to smaller and smaller segments of the voting public - because larger and larger segments of the voting public refuse to vote for any of these buffoons. I don't know whether this is a planned effort to undermine our form of government by getting so many people turned off that they no longer care to be involved, or it is mass stupidity.

Either way the result is the same.

If you take a look at the careers of the other women I mentioned in this article, not the Va-va-voom Mrs. Clinton and her Oh, So Remarkable Cleavage, but Thatcher, Gandhi, and Meir, you will see that they dealt with major issues both on the domestic and international fronts, and they did so in the style of real leaders. They didn't play to the lowest common denominator in their cultures, and they didn't insult their constituencies by pandering instead of leading.

I often take issue with the Democratic Party in this column when matters of this nature arise, but today I'd like to make another point. Many of my Democratic friends, and yes I have them, make no more claim to issues of this nature than I do to the concepts put forth by right-wing extremists who identify themselves as Republicans.

I believe the Democratic Party has been so completely hijacked by the extreme left-wing sect that the bulk of issues being discussed and tactics being used are an embarrassment to many far more sensible people in their party. But only the fringe element seems to have access to the media so we are left debating whether cutting and running is really a military tactic, and whether a dipping neckline proves better leadership qualities.

When we are inundated with non-stop publicity stunts masquerading as action on important national issues, when Congress can't pass a single meaningful piece of legislation because each and every one is bogged down in a quagmire of publicity stunts and self-interest amendments, when what someone wears on television is deemed more important than what they are saying, when matters of the utmost secrecy involving our troops and national security are routinely leaked to the media and openly discussed in Congress instead of in closed door sessions where they belong, we must conclude that it is long, long past time for direct action.

The most direct action that comes to mind at the moment is term limits. This country has shown repeatedly that we have an abundance of intelligent, patriotic, capable leaders who can and will do what is best for America and world democracy.

Unfortunately, we see fewer and fewer of them actually inside government. We have to change that.
Friday, July 20, 2007

"Bubba" Kerry, The Ultimate Sociopath, Please Define "Massive Bloodbath!"

In what has to be the peak of chutzpah or the depths of stupidity, wannabe self-anointed Vietnam war 'hero' and Democratic Senator from Massachusetts John "Bubba" Kerry is once again proclaiming that there was "no bloodbath" after he and his communist friends engineered the fall of Saigon in April 1975.

Kerry, who likes to play act that he is an international intellectual, and probably dresses up like Little Bo Peep when he thinks no one is looking, originally made the "no bloodbath" claim in 1970 when he was debating Swift Boat veteran John O'Neill on the old Dick Cavett show.

Kerry said then that if the communists took over, a few thousand - perhaps as many as 5,000 - South Vietnamese would die as a result, making the point outright that the deaths of 5,000 orientals was of no consequence in the overall scheme of the universe. Well, maybe to him, but to those who were facing the communist execution squads not only in Vietnam, but in Cambodia where an estimated 3 million were slaughtered, and in Laos as well, it was a pretty big deal.

By the way, the American Terrorist Media has been trying to downsize the enormity of the slaughter in Cambodia for decades. But in the mid-1990s a team from Yale University went to Cambodia and began unearthing mass graves. They found so many graves, with so many bodies in them, that they upped the estimates to the 3 million plus mark, which is where I get my figures.

Kerry repeated that unbelievably stupid "no bloodbath" comment this week when he was being interviewed on C-SPAN and a caller told him she never would vote for him because his true expertise in the adult world is undermining American troops. She pointed out that Kerry sneaked over to Paris when he was still an officer in the US Navy in the early 70s and met with his communist sponsors which is wildly against the law, gave himself fake awards for self-inflicted wounds and non-existent heroics, using his higher up friends to sign off on them so he can say they were legitimate, and of course making the "no bloodbath" claim.

Just for the record, I didn't hear the actual interview on C-SPAN, but it was replayed on the Rush Limbaugh show Thursday where I did hear it, and he also posted the transcript on his website. I don't want to be accused of taking someone else's material without properly crediting them.

Lately Kerry has modified his position somewhat, inserting the word "massive" in front of 'bloodbath,' apparently to make believe that the communist takeover was relatively benign. I have been debating for some time now whether it is more infuriating that Kerry is this stupid, and this much of a liar, or that he thinks the rest of the free world is dumber than he is and will buy this line of horse manure.

Even his supporters have to be able to see through the hypocrisy, inconsistencies and outright racism of claiming that millions of deaths in Southeast Asia were of little to no consequence but the deaths of 3 thousand American troops in Iraq is a tragedy.

I mourn the deaths of every single American killed in combat in the War on Terror in the last 30 years, and the thousands of innocent victims here and world wide. But I also believe that the wholesale slaughter of so many innocents in Southeast Asia was another Holocaust, and using the 'Big Lie' form of communist propaganda to explain it away might work for a racist sociopath but most normal people are appalled by it.

Kerry, who tried to portray George Bush as the stupid one during their presidential campaign, apparently is so intellectually challenged that he thinks he fooled people by saying the concentration camps that housed hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese political prisoners in horrific conditions, some for more than a decade, weren't so bad. He neatly sidesteps the reported deaths of some 60,000 of these political prisoners in those camps - he uses the communist label "re-education camp" instead of "concentration camp" - obviously because that would prove the lie of his "no bloodbath" statement, regardless of whether he inserts the word "massive" in front of it.

Kerry also declined to answer to the charge that he illegally conspired against the US government when he went to Paris and secretly met with the communists while he was a Navy officer - which would get anyone else who didn't have highly placed government accomplices executed for treason. Instead he wimped out claiming that he merely stood up back then and exposed the US government's lies - which totally avoides the question and only serves to prove that Kerry isn't smart, but he can be deceitful.

A common tactic used by communists to sway public opinion is to privately review their own shortcomings and then publicly accuse their opponents of the same lapses. It is obvious that Kerry had major insecurity issues with his own level of intelligence, since he worked so hard to make it appear that Bush was his intellectual inferior.

However, while IQ test results for the two have not surfaced, their ratings on US Navy intelligence tests are in the public domain and they show that Bush scored significantly higher than Kerry. This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who has watched or listened to Kerry for any length of time.

But why take my word for it. Here, is a verbatim rendering of his bloodbath comments:
"Let me just say to the first part of your question with respect to boat people and killing, everybody predicted a massive bloodbath in Vietnam. There was not a massive bloodbath in Vietnam. There were reeducation camps, and they weren't pretty and, you know, nobody, you know, likes that kind of outcome. But on the other hand, I've met lot of people today who were in those education camps, who are thriving in the Vietnam of today."

Scratching your head yet? Feel a bit nauseous? You didn't vote for this baboon did you? Shame on you! He's a dolt.

By the way, the boat people he referred to aren't the members of his Swift Boat crew. They are the estimated one million South Vietnamese who fled their country in terror at the carage inflicted by the communists, most taking to the South China Sea in anything that would float. Some estimates put the number who were killed by sharks, pirates or drowning at 300,000. Kerry ignores that little issue too, but then what's the big deal about 300,000 South Vietnamese deaths if you don't care about 3 million Cambodian deaths?

There is one other matter to address here, that beng Kerry's false claim about deserving the medals he picked up off the ground in Vietnam. His phony Purple Heart claims are well documented, but I'd like to focus on his Silver Star which he was awarded after he supposedly left his post and ran up on the beach of a village where Viet Cong had fired on nearby Swift Boats.

A VC who is said to have been hiding in a spider hole at water's edge had jumped up when Kerry's boat was about 10 feet away, pointed a rocket launcher at the boat, but then turned and ran. The boat's bow gunner mowed him down with a burst of machine gun fire.

The wounded VC, who by now was unarmed, was crawling around to the back of a nearby hooch when Kerry left the boat, ran up on the beach and behind the hooch where a shot was fired and the unarmed, wounded VC was killed. Kerry claims that he was under fire at this time, but still ignores the prohibition against killing unarmed, wounded combatants. (If Kerry had been in Haditha and made a claim like this he'd be confined to a Navy brig for life.)

Here is the point that most people who didn't serve in the military miss when discussing this issue. When you are in the service, and you are assigned a job, especially a combat job, you are supposed to do that job when under fire. Leaving your post and going off to do something else is not just a no-no, it is a court martial offense, possibly punishable by the death penalty depending on the circumstances.

Kerry was commander of a Swift Boat. As such, his first, last, primary and only job was to ensure the safety of the boat and its crew, and the completion of its missions. There simply was nothing in Kerry's area of responsibility that included leaving his boat!

Kerry's boat's mission that day was to aid in suppressing sniper fire. When his boat came under fire it was Kerry's job to make sure his crew was actively engaged in suppressing the fire, taking out the snipers, and maintaining the safety and integrity of the vessel. In no way, at no time, for any reason, was it his job to abandon his post, leave his vessel, run up on shore behind a building, out of sight of his boat and crew, and shoot an already wounded, dying combatant.

His actions that day, if they actually happened, are akin to a helicopter pilot flying into a hot zone while his gunners are exchanging fire with enemy forces on the ground, and upon landing, running out into the jungle to shoot a wounded enemy leaving his helicopter and crew exposed to additional fire and possible ambush.

How did Kerry know, for instance, that a squad of VC wasn't hiding in the brush along the river's edge, waiting for an opportunity to board and capture his vessel? It is common to develop a sort of tunnel vision when under fire, and gunners tend to keep an eye on their own fields of fire, which is why someone is supposed to be watching the overall situation and warning of danger from other directions.

Kerry certainly couldn't do that when he was on the beach behind a building, leaving his vessel vulnerable to attack with no one in command. How do we know Kerry wasn't just running away in fear and hiding behind the hooch in case his boat got hit? How do we know he didn't just fire his pistol into the ground to give the impression he was involved in - what would you call it when you shoot a wounded unarmed guy? Murder?

A wounded, unarmed, dying man posed no threat whatsoever to Kerry's vessel, and thus there was no reason for anyone on the crew to leave their assigned position. The entire premise behind the Silver Star awarded for this action is false and mocks the sacrifices of the thousands of real heroes who were awarded that medal for true acts of courage, some at the cost of their own lives.

In any case, Kerry either deserted his post under fire, or if there was no firing, which others on the scene have said, then all he did was leave his boat, desert his post, and shoot a wounded man. In either case what he did never deserved a medal, and quite possibly deserved a court martial.

In either case Kerry was never a hero, but rather is a thoroughly despicable individual who has brought disgrace onto himself and his family name. His recent comments on the "no bloodbath" also show a total disregard for humans of other races and ethnic backgrounds, and that he is either a consummate prevaricator, in total denial, or an unmitigated racist.

Which would you pick? Or would it be a combination of the three?
Wednesday, July 18, 2007

On Tap - Crushing Communists! Gathering of Eagles to Reconvene in DC Sept. 15

Just when the anti-American, pro-terrorist communists and anarchists at ANSWER thought it was safe to crawl out from under the sewer sludge they call home, and again attempt to intimidate our government into giving up the fight against terrorism, the Gathering of Eagles is primed to again offer a counter point of view in Washington, DC, in September.

The GOE, backed by numerous organizations including Move America Forward, is expanding beyond its wildly successful pro-troop vigil in March to once again bring thousands of veterans and our supporters to Washington. The purpose is to again show Congress, the President, and especially our troops, that the vast ocean of Americans who are never contacted by polling organizations support our efforts to win in Iraq and the wider War on Terror.

Just as a reminder, the Gathering of Eagles advocates a non-violent vigil to show support for our troops and our country. As can be found at the GOE website, wwww.gatheringofeagles.org the GOE credo reads in part:

Gathering of Eagles is non-partisan. While each member has his or her own political beliefs, our common love and respect for America and her heroes is what brings us together.

We are a non-violent, non-confrontational group. We look to defend, not attack. Our focus is guarding our memorials and their grounds.

However, we are adamantly opposed to the use of violence, vandalism, physical or verbal assaults on our veterans, and the destruction or desecration of our memorials. By defending and honoring these sacred places, we defend and honor those whose blood gave all of us the right to speak as freely as our minds think.

The original gathering in March was supported to a huge degree by the pro-troop group, Move America Forward, which sponsored a nationwide caravan that started in California and ended in DC in time for the March 17 event. Move America Forward is again sponsoring a caravan which is timing its arrival in DC to coincide with the September Gathering.

According to the Move American Forward website, "Supporters of Operation Iraqi Freedom will conduct a nationwide caravan along with more than 2-dozen rallies calling for continued support of U.S. troops based in Iraq ... .

From September 3, 2007 through September 15, 2007 the nation's largest grassroots, pro-troop organization, Move America Forward www.MoveAmericaForward.org will lead thousands of supporters in a cross-country effort called the "FIGHT FOR VICTORY TOUR."

"We'll launch the cross-country caravan Monday, September 3rd with rallies outside the offices of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in California," said Melanie Morgan, Chairman of Move America Forward.

"During the cross-country caravan we will stop and conduct pro-troop rallies that will be attended by thousands upon thousands of patriotic Americans who believe that our leaders cannot be allowed to undercut our troops who are bravely serving on the front lines of the war against Islamic jihadism," said Robert Dixon, Executive Director of Move America Forward.

More information on the caravan also can be found at www.MelanieMorgan.com.

In addition to the Gathering of Eagles organization, others who were active in making the original gathering such an overwhelming success are again working on the September gathering, including Ret. Army Col. Harry Riley, who is rallying support through his web site www.eaglesup.us.

Bloggers including Iraq War Today, http://iraqwarnews.net/ also are reaching out to their readers. By the way, Iraq War Today has been sponsoring an effort to send email sympathy cards to the family of Navy SEAL PO1 Jason Dale Lewis, of Brookfield, CT, who was killed in action in Iraq this month:

If you log on you can show some direct support to the family of a fallen hero.

According to Col. Riley's website, the goals of the September gathering are similar to those of the March gathering including:

We will engage the Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER) rally/march, scheduled for the same day, which is viewed as an anti-American, anti-troops, destructive, movement. This engagement will be conducted in non-violent, non-confrontation, non-partisan, non-political, lawful freedom of speech manner ... this implies we will not be run over.

Protect hallowed memorials from violence, vandalism, desecration or other form of destruction or dishonor. Demonstrate to our troops that America has their backs, will accept only victory, surrender not an option.

Confirm to the families of our warriors that we honor their loved ones, pray for their safety, and acknowledge their sacrifices. Encourage the vast number of patriotic Americans to stand up for America, show love for America, have faith in America, and that America is worth fighting for.

Confirm to the enemies of America that wars we fight are not lost until America speaks ... America is saying loud and clear, "We've never lost and we're not starting now."

Once again, the GOE will need help funding the event. In March the entire enterprise was put together in 6 weeks for a fraction of the money spent by ANSWER, with ZERO support from the American Terrorist Media and major veterans organizations.

Of the nationally known columnists and commentators, Melanie Morgan and Michelle Malkin were our biggest and most enthusiastic supporters. It would be nice to see the rest of the media and talk show hosts give us a nod this time. Donations can be made directly at the Gathering of Eagles website, as well as at Move America Forward.

Aside from the fact that in March we vastly outnumbered the ANSWER forces, headlined by Cindy Sheehan and the other usual communist sympathizers, prevented any damage to our memorials, and completely blunted their anti-military, anti-American messages, the part I liked the best was when an ANSWER supporter whined to the New York Times, which up to that point made believe we didn't exist, to have been "intimidated" by the veterans.

I loved reading that. I saw it as kind of a vindication of our status as America's defenders, the real ones, not the self-anointed blowhards. And in that vein I have one message for the ANSWER forces who are planning to go to DC in September.

Prepare to be intimidated again.
Sunday, July 15, 2007

Congressional Turncoats Shift Iraq Criticism Focus to Political; Best Little Whorehouse in DC?

Michigan Democratic Senator Carl Levin, appearing on Fox News Sunday this week made a big deal that the Iraqi government has made little to no progress - so he says anyway - toward meeting the political goals that will enable it to operate independently of the US.

This is a marked departure from previous comments by Levin, other Senate Democrats and turncoat Republicans who have been hammering away at America's military for years, claiming that it can't or won't get the job done. Now, when their hypocrisy is revealed in claiming the Surge a failure only a month after its actual onset - historically similar to calling the D-Day invasion of Normandy a failure in July 1944 - they suddenly switch tactics and say the political goals aren't being met.

My, my. Aren't we just the most adaptable group of nay-saying, hand-wringing, appeasing, little communist sympathizers the world has ever seen?

By all accounts, now that the major offensive called the Surge is actually underway - it kicked off at full strength a month ago this week - terrorists are being mowed down at an even higher rate than in the past, which is saying something considering more than 40,000 have been killed worldwide since 9-11.

So, since the Senate Democrats and the Cowards of the Country across the aisle who obviously have no faith in our military leaders or our troops, can't point their fingers and say "I told you so, it will never work," they simply drop that tactic and move on, so to speak, to some other equally vapid form of criticism.

Now, even though the whole world has been saying since Day One that the security situation in Iraq has to stabilize long enough for political progress to have a chance, we suddenly are hearing that the political 'benchmarks' aren't being met, even though the full-force effort to improve security is barely underway.

What is ironic about this is that Levin, in response to some pointed questioning from Brit Hume, not only can't come up with a plan to fix what he says is wrong in Iraq, he can't even articulate what the Surge is all about or when we can take an objective review of its effectiveness. In a news conference last week, Levin said the Surge is now complete and is a failure!

Doesn't this guy watch the news? Does he exist in a bubble? Or is he just a paid puppet for Move On and other pro-communist left-wing fringe groups?

Levin's moving target form of political opportunism would be remarkable if it wasn't so predictably political! Remember Charles Durning doing The Sidestep in the movie version of the Best Little Whorehouse in Texas? If you have a little time, go watch the movie and pay close attention to The Sidestep - especially the chorus that goes:

Ooh I love to dance a little sidestep,
now they see me now they don't - I've come and gone
and, ooh I love to sweep around the wide step,
cut a little swathe and lead the people on.

Then go back and check out Levin's constantly changing commentaries on Iraq, or national security, or global warming, or the attorney general, or whatever else has been in the news for the past few years. The similarities are astounding!

In nearly the same breath that he declares we must leave Iraq immediately, Levin also says "It's not that there's military chaos!" Wow! This is the first time I have heard one of the lockstep Congressional Democrats actually saying the military is getting the job done. At least that is my interpretation of that statement.

Then, in the next breath, he returns to the theme that he wants to begin a troop withdrawal right now, with virtually all troops out by the end of next April. Can you figure out what this guy is saying? And if you can, does it matter, considering that translation to generally acceptable forms of communication is fleeting since he says and means something entirely different only a nano-second later?

Then to really throw you off, Levin says he and Rhode Island Senator Jack Reed, both of them absolute geniuses at planning and executing military strategies, have co-sponsored a bill to begin the troop yank immediately. But they don't want all the troops out now, just the overwhelming majority of them.

However, when Brit Hume points out that the acceptable missions that Levin and Reid say still should be carried out in Iraq will need troops, Levin can't say how many because he doesn't want to get bogged down in minutiae, like actually planning these things out.

Phew! Makes your head spin doesn't it?

Fortunately, for people who enjoy Fox News Sunday and appreciate the forum's efforts to give more than one view of a situation, Levin's appearance was followed by Frederick Kagan a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and former professor at the US Military Academy at West Point.

Kagan has provided considerable input to the makeup and goals of the Surge, and spoke at length about Levin's misconceptions. But the word that he used several times, and which I believe best explains the Levin-Reid et. al. point of view is "nonsensical."

I agree. Nonsensical. That pretty much sums up Levin, Reid, Pelosi, Feinstein, Boxer, Schumer, and the rest. Nonsensical. Yes. I like that.
Friday, July 13, 2007

Congress Shows Yellow Stripe, Back Stabs Troops; Recall Murtha

Collaborators and infiltrators in the US House of Representative are again attempting to deny American troops a hard-fought and well-deserved victory in Iraq.

The Democrats passed a measure in the House on a 223-201 vote, which included four Republican turncoats who should be redesignated as Cowards of the Country. The measure requires U.S. troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by spring, which itself is a joke because there is every reason to believe that American forces can begin to draw down by that time anyway.

Ever since the Bush administration announced that a new offensive would begin in Iraq, we have been told that there was a starting date, but no finite end date. People who actually served in the military know that you never make a hard fast prediction on how long something is going to take, because the unexpected is the rule. It takes as long as it takes and it's over when it's over.

We also were told that we would get a progress report from the field sometime in September. That is fine by me, aside from the fact that we never should have announced the so-called Surge ahead of time because it tipped off the terrorists. But a progress report is a good time to take measure of what has happened so far and determine what needs to be done in the future.

Regardless of what the September report says, it has always been understood that September is not considered to be the end of the offensive, just a time when we will get an update on its progress.

However, a new, so-called interim report, that was generated in Washington, using benchmarks determined by politicians, was used this week to say that we aren't getting the job done in Iraq so therefore let's get out now. What a joke. What I keep hearing from Iraq is that we are mowing down terrorists in huge numbers, and meeting the security goals that always were the primary requirement before we started working on political goals.

Whether Iraq, which was formed from three disparate ethnic groups by the British after WWI, will ever be able to work as a unified nation is up to the Iraqis. But they will never have a chance to find out if the Al Qaeda terrorists are allowed to dominate that country. I believe firmly that Saddam Hussein was more than willing to let the terrorists reform in Iraq after we beat them in Afghanistan and use his country as the new terrorist base.

That plan was eliminated when we toppled Saddam, and while I have said before and repeat now, many mistakes were made after his government fell, the fact is we have been killing terrorists in huge numbers there ever since.

As far as the Run Away Measure that the House of Representatives passed, it has a snowball's chance in a forest fire of ever becoming law because it passed on such a slim margin, nowhere near enough to override a presidential veto which is a certainty if the Senate passes it too.

But that doesn't alter the fact that members of Congress are voting to pull the rug out from under the troops at the exact moment they are locked in combat. Saying we should begin a withdrawal in the spring is not only playing right into the terrorists' hands, it is cowardly since even our military commanders have been saying that meeting our military goals should be accomplished in that general time frame.

Want to debate the success of the Surge? Do it in the spring when we can see what has transpired and whether we have met the goals as stated. Doing it now, when the offensive has barely begun, is not only premature, it is treasonous and endangers our troops.

This measure is the most disgraceful example ever of congressional interference in our country's military, surpassing even the murderous example set by cowards like John Murtha and Ted Kennedy when they refused to authorize help for South Vietnam in April 1975. They, supported by slugs like Henry Kissinger, Jane Fonda and John Kerry set the stage for the slaughter of millions of innocents in Southeast Asia.

But even then, American troops were no longer in the country and hadn't been for years. That doesn't excuse the betrayal of our South Vietnamese allies, but in this case, Congress is trying to sabotage our military while our troops are under fire!

The word reprehensible doesn't even begin to meet the definition of what Congressional Democrats and the Cowards of the Country are trying to accomplish.

Speaking of cowards, I notice that John Murtha, the big-mouthed Pennsylvania wannabe war hero is absolutely mute on the report I wrote about yesterday that all but exonerates the US Marines who have been charged with murder after a firefight with terrorists in Haditha. Remember, Murtha declared them cold-blooded murderers in a news conference, even though he hadn't seen a scintilla of evidence to support that statement?

These charges stem from a battle in the insurgent held town of Haditha, Iraq on November 19, 2005. Marines were alleged to have executed Iraqi civilians and that their officers were involved in a "cover-up" of the incident.

Lots of people are calling for an apology. I hope my friends don't hold their breath waiting for it.

Ironically, or tragically, my Marine brothers on the Together We Served website contacted me almost immediately to let me know that the commanding officer of the unit involved has been referred to a court martial for dereliction of duty at the same time that his Marines have been shown to be innocent.

Many Marines are saying that Lt. Col. Jeffrey R. Chessani is actually asking for a General Court Martial, which could be a good thing because there a jury of his peers, in other words, combat Marines rather than pencil-pushing careerist REMFs (you'll have to look that up, but caution, it is not for children) would review his actions.

Considering that Lt. Col. Chessani was not on the scene of the shooting, and a review of the actions of the Marines who were directly involved says they should be exonerated, it seems to me that any charges in this case should be immediately dismissed with prejudice, meaning they can never be reinstated.

Richard Thompson, the President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center which has been representing Lt. Col. Chessani since January, says in a recent article on the case, "This recommendation deals more with political correctness than criminality. Lt. Col. Chessani is chastised in the report because he had more confidence in his men than in insurgent propaganda. It glorifies paper pushing over fighting and has the unintended consequence of dampening the spirit of the most ferocious fighters on Earth.

The article adds, "This case is the consequence of Congressman Murtha's politically motivated statements against Lt. Col. Chessani and his Marines, as well as the terrorist inspired story in Time Magazine."

This is despicable. It is the ruination of a fine Marine's career - believe me, regardless of the outcome, his career is over - for doing exactly what he was supposed to do, field highly trained, competent Marines who can and did close with and kill our enemies.

I don't hear Murtha running his big mouth on that either. For those who are waiting for Murtha to apologize, I have another suggestion, recommended by a TWS brother.

President Bush should intervene as commander-in-chief, overrule the decision that Lt. Col. Chessani face court martial, and order dismissal of all charges against all Marines involved in the case. I don't care if there is no precedent for this, he is president and commander-in-chief, he can establish one.

Then he should recall Murtha, who claims to have been a Marine, to active duty. The President then should initiate an intensive review of Murtha's claims to have been wounded in combat, plus his comments prejudging a squad of Marines who obviously did nothing wrong.

Then he should refer Murtha to a court martial for conduct unbecoming, and when he is found guilty, which he assuredly will be, Murtha should be reduced in rank to private, stripped of his self-awarded decorations and drummed out of the Marine Corps in disgrace.

Murtha is a wannabe, or poser, as my friends at TWS call it, and should be exposed as such. He is a disgrace to the centuries of honorable, patriotic men and women who have upheld the highest traditions of the Marine Corps, and he should be stripped of any pretense of sharing the title Marine.
Thursday, July 12, 2007

Haditha Marines Glimpse Reprieve

The first glimpse of hope in a nearly two-year nightmare came this week for some of the US Marines being held in a California brig on charges that they murdered Iraqi civilians in Haditha in 2005.

A senior military judge has issued a preliminary ruling that the charges lack substantiation, are inconsistent with observable forensic documentation, and should be dropped.

The incident occurred on November 19, 2005 when Lance Corporal Justin Sharratt and other members of the squad he was assigned to entered a house in Haditha and encountered four Iraqis who were armed with AK-47 rifles pointed directly at Sharratt. The lance corporal emptied his pistol into three of the Iraqis and his squad leader finished off the fourth.

The shootings came at the end of several hours of fighting in the area, which started when a roadside bomb was detonated by terrorists, killing one Marine. Subsequent firefights had erupted throughout the town as the Marines sought to flush out additional terrorists who were hiding among the civilian population.

Things had quieted down somewhat and Sharratt and members of his squad were ordered to man an observation post and keep an eye out for resurgent activity. It was then that they saw the four men peering at them over a wall in a nearby courtyard. They ordered the men to leave, which they did after a warning round was fired, but then they came back.

The Marines were concerned that the men were a terrorist advance party scouting out areas for new attacks. Members of the squad entered what they thought was one house, only to find that it was actually two houses with a small courtyard between them.

Several women and children were evacuated to one of the houses where one Marine was assigned to keep watch on them while the others entered the second house. Here Sharratt encountered the four men and a firefight ensued. An important facet of this issue is that Sharratt used his pistol in the firefight. He was the only squad member armed with a pistol, while the others had M-16 rifles.

Several months later a terrorist propagandist filed a report with an outlet for the American Terrorist Media falsely claiming that the Marines had actually ushered the terrorists out in the street and executed them at point blank range. The ATM immediately ran with the terrorist propaganda, reporting it as factual, and the Marines were branded as murderers without so much as a minute's worth of investigation.

But now we have the first true overview of the situation and we find that not only did the forensic evidence support the Marines' version of the events, but also that the Iraqi claims contradict each other and the physical evidence. In addition their testimony was given in their language to an American who didn't understand it and relied on a translation provided by an interpreter.

A key facet of the testimony is the claim that the women and children were watched over by a Marine with a pistol, while others entered the second house. Testimony also claimed that the Marine with the pistol gave orders to the rest of the squad, but didn't participate in the shooting.

This is where to a trained eye, the testimony was coached. Normally, Marine officers and senior NCOs carry a pistol as their primary weapon and would be giving orders. But in this case, the relatively low-ranking Sharratt was assigned to carry an automatic weapon, but also had a sidearm as a backup weapon.

Beside the evidence showing that three terrorists were killed with a pistol, it is also important to understand that others in the house significantly outranked Sharratt and in no way would a Lance Corporal be giving orders to a sergeant and staff sergeant.

Obviously the testimony was given by people who don't understand the Marines' rank structure and thought that Sharratt carrying a pistol was an indication of higher rank. By claiming he was guarding them and issuing orders when the shootings occurred they obviously were trying to show that a high ranking Marine was ordering the 'executions.' Instead they proved that they didn't see the firefight and had no idea what really happened.

According to the report, the Iraqis were coached during their testimony by a lawyer who specializes in coercing American authorities to pay them for 'wrongful deaths.' After they testified they were paid at least $10,000, by our government, which amounts to four years' worth of an average Iraqi salary.

The final recommendation in the report puts all of this into clear perspective. It reads: "Ultimately there is only one statement by an eyewitness to the events, LCpl Sharratt, and his version of events is strongly corroborated by independent forensic analysis of the death scene."

But there is one other section of the report that really puts the nail in the coffin of the government's case as far as I am concerned: "Finally, to believe the government version of events is to ignore clear and convincing evidence to the contrary and sets a dangerous precedent that ... may encourage others to bear false witness against Marines as a tactic to erode public support of the Marine Corps and (the) mission in Iraq. Even more dangerous is the potential that a Marine may hesitate at the critical moment when facing the enemy."

As I said this is a preliminary finding that must go higher up the scale and while it doesn't have to be accepted, it should be. Finally, nearly two years after a squad of Marines put their lives on the line to do the job they were asked to do by their country, someone has stood up and shown this entire situation for what it really is, a travesty.

Behind the scenes, supporters have complained that the Marines charged in this incident have been treated unbelievably harshly, and their families have been under extreme pressure from the government as a means of coercing the squad members to testify against their brother Marines. They would have considered Guantanamo Bay where terrorists are held to be a country club compared to a Marine brig.

But there is more here. Officers who were no where near the scene have been charged with dereliction of duty, and careers have been ruined. Government investigators have been shown to be either horribly incompetent and incomplete in their work, or to have submitted reports that ultimately may be ruled falsifications.

When this is all said and done there are a number of things that should be undertaken at the direction of President Bush, the commander-in-chief.

First, the 'work' of the investigators that led to false charges against these Marines should be reviewed. In cases where incompetence is found, which shouldn't be too hard, the individuals involved should be charged with dereliction, demoted, and fired without benefits. In cases where outright falsification or unlawful methods of interrogation are found, the individuals should be charged with criminal acts and confined in a Marine brig for every second as long and under the exact same conditions as the Marines they falsely charged with murder and associated crimes.

The officer who reviewed the case makes a good point about the potential for Marines hesitating when they are in combat if they fear retribution from their own country for their actions. The counterpoint is that politically motivated investigators in the future should absolutely hesitate, to the point of inaction, when they are considering filing false charges against combat servicemen.

Those who would sacrifice the true fighters just to enhance their own careers should understand without question that if they put themselves above their duty and their country they should and will suffer severe consequences.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Let's Talk About Sex, and Congressmen

If you want to spice up a slow news day on any level, run a story that someone in a public position went out and paid for sex.

Washington, D.C., and the national media are all atwitter over the latest "scandal" that a REPUBLICAN Congressman's phone number showed up on a just released list of clients who patronized a - how shall we say this delicately in a family oriented column - prostitute! God Forbid! A man PAYING a woman to be nice to him.

The audacity! The effrontery! How dare he PAY? Doesn't this guy have any charisma? Hasn't he heard of marriage?

OK, OK, I know, let's get all the "marriage means having to pay for it for the rest of your life" jokes out on the table right now so we can get on with the serious business of sex talk.

And while you're at it go ahead and get a good laugh over the dearth of Democrats on that list, or at least on the part of it the media releases. According to the American Terrorist Media the only people who have illicit sex are Republicans. Except of course for Bill Clinton, who apparently had enough illicit sex during his wilder and younger years - back when he was president - to make up for the rest of the Democrats in Congress and the Democratic National Committee.

Done? Good.

Now, why do you suppose that every time we turn around, someone on the national scene with a major league public profile is found to have been skulking around in the seedy underbelly of human existence having sex? Well, let's start with the obvious - testosterone.

The two primary driving forces of human existence are physical hunger and the need for sex, and the two are inextricably linked. You may not know this, but since I am a weightlifter and personal trainer I do and I'll share it with you.

If you don't get enough to eat, you can't have sex. Not as in you aren't allowed to, but as in you physically can't do it. The sex drive has its base in cholesterol, the bad word of the diet world.

We always hear about having too much cholesterol, especially the bad kind, but we rarely hear about not having enough. You see, cholesterol is a precursor for testosterone and estrogen, the primary male and female sexual hormones. If you don't have enough cholesterol, your body won't produce testosterone or estrogen and your sexual functions will shut down.

The theory goes that long, long ago, back in the days of primordial mists, when humans were just emerging from - well, wherever - there was only so much food to go around because most of it was alive and mobile. If there were too many people in the tribe, and not enough to eat, then the tribe starved.

So, the wonderfully adaptable human body would shut down the sex drive whenever there was not enough food, ensuring that there wouldn't be too much competition for scarce resources.

However, there was a constant war between the need for food and the need for sex, because right after eating, the next most important aspect of human existence, at least on an evolutionary scale is survival of the species. If you don't procreate, the species doesn't survive.

So here we are, all these millions or thousands of years later, with our bodies still at war over eating or fornicating, fornicating or eating. But, and here comes the big but, so to speak, we now have thousands of years of civilization on top of us that have created all kinds of rules about who has sex, when they have sex, where they have sex, and even how they have sex.

(I was told by a reliable source that the missionary position is the one that is talked about most, but doggie style is the one practiced most. That's where the man sits up and begs and the woman rolls over and plays dead. Get it? Laugh a little will you? That was a joke.)

Some of these rules are absolutely necessary as in those that serve to punish predators who prey on children, or rapists who force themselves on the unwilling.

But I swear, some of these rules seem to exist just to exist, or maybe to give women a shot at equality on the playing field of life. You see, in ancient times, males had numerous partners, which can be explained by the overabundance of sperm, while women were more selective, which can be explained by the limited number of eggs.

This combination ensured that the males would be doing their best to impregnate the females and that the females would be highly selective in who got to impregnate them, thus ensuring a constant upgrade in the gene pool.

But now we have all these rules, the basis of which is that men have to change their natural, time-tested, evolutionary habits and give up the practice of having multiple partners, while women get to stay the same as always and be selective, even after they're married. Doesn't seem fair does it?

But there was one other factor in play along the way. Competition. In the good old days it was pretty straightforward. The biggest, strongest and eventually the smartest, got the girl, she got the sperm, and they got offspring that had the best chance of making a real contribution to the tribe and continuing the species.

Instead of producing non-productive layabouts who couldn't hold their own, or help in the survival of the tribe, the combination of competition and selectivity ensured that little matters such as hunting and defense would be high on the list of survival priorities. These people ultimately became known as conservatives, or Republicans.

But that was then, this is now.

Over time, an occasional clinker was born, and instead of contributing to the overall survival of the species, these offspring cried a lot, whined when they weren't crying, didn't produce anything, and spent their lives trying to convince like-minded offspring to form groups to lobby the tribe's producers to give them the leftovers. After many centuries this character trait evolved to a point where willingness to accept the scraps and leftovers was no longer enough, and this subspecies started pushing its way to the front of the line demanding first choice in everything that someone else captured, hunted or produced.

The only exception to this rule was in the area of human defense where this subspecies always drifts to the rear and talks about the strategy, or tactics, or the necessity of the warriors taking defensive postures. They sometimes even try to give themselves false badges of honor to fool the real warriors into believing they truly do make a contribution, but usually their falsehoods are discovered and they are banished to the fringes of society.

This subspecies became known as liberals, or Democrats.

You never hear about them in sex scandals, not because they are shielded by the American Terrorist Media, but because they simply don't have enough cholesterol, and hence, testosterone, to be as sexually active as the Republicans. Bill Clinton was a rare exception to this rule. I know of some others too, who call themselves Democrats and don't fit into this category, but for the sake of their families I won't reveal their names here.

So, that is history, evolution, politics and sexuality in a nutshell. But what does it have to do with members of Congress?

Everything. You don't get to be a member of Congress, especially a Republican member of Congress, by having too little testosterone. The process of becoming a Congressman is a grueling competition, at least by modern standards, and while candidates don't have to bite each other and tear one another to pieces, they still have the same competitive spirit and exult in their victory when they win.

When they go to Washington, especially when Republicans have a majority year, they find themselves awash in a testosterone tidal pool that serves to keep their competitive senses honed to a fever pitch.

Unfortunately, many of these walking oceans of testosterone go to D.C. alone, without their wives, and once there find that there also are many females of the species in the area who are similarly blessed with high levels of estrogen. In the middle of this we toss all the trappings of power, and the aphrodisiac affect they have on the libido and voila, the mix is inevitable!

Now, let's get serious for a minute. Many spouses work hard to keep the home running smoothly and the marriage on the front burner while the Congressperson is away dealing with affairs of state. But sometimes the pressures of the job, two lifestyles, separation and myriad other factors are overwhelming and someone strays, either in D.C., or at home.

Let's face it, there also are plenty of marriages of convenience out there where the career is the driving factor and the dutiful wife, and sometimes dutiful husband, knows that there is a strong likelihood of extracurricular sex. But it is tolerated and it isn't discussed, so long as it doesn't become public, doesn't lead to divorce or loss of the coveted Congressional seat, or involve spreading around one those increasingly virulent, incurable sexually transmitted diseases.

But this brings us back to the rules. The rules say that regardless of what you really do in your private life, no one is ever supposed to find out about it, especially if you are a Congressman and especially if the latest revelation concerns sex.

Personally, I find this to be the most unwarranted type of intrusion into human privacy. It appears that the good Congressman in question this time had already come clean with his spouse a long time ago, and the matter was dealt with in the home. Which is where this issue belongs.

It wasn't after all, as if this guy was caught doing something out in public or was indiscriminate about his activities. It took a federal investigation and a holier-than-thou news media to get this into the public domain. And please, don't get me started on the sexual proclivities of the news media. Talk about hypocrites.

But that is what sells papers, or gets viewers and listeners tuned in, so that is what leads the news hour. It used to be blood and gore, but sex trumps mayhem every time. I don't like it, and I suspect most other people don't either, but that is the way it is.

So that is today's lesson boys and girls. Sex and power go hand in hand, and where you have one you usually have the other. It has always been that way and I for one will be horribly disappointed if it every changes.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go kiss a grizzly and wrestle a pretty girl. Hey, what did you expect? I'm a Republican.
Saturday, July 07, 2007

FISA Ruling Victory for all Americans! Are Rules of Engagement Treason?

The ruling this week by a federal appeals court that the Bush Administration did not violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) when it monitored phone calls by suspected terrorists in foreign countries, including those who called into America, was not just a Bush Administration victory.

The ruling really was a victory for all Americans, at least those who want to continue living in a free, democratic society. The court tossed a lawsuit brought by a handful of liberal apologists for the Democratic Party who claimed that eavesdropping on terrorist suspects amounted to warrantless wiretapping of domestic phone calls.

The problem, as the court saw it, was not only that the plaintiffs couldn't prove their claims, they couldn't even prove that they had been the victims of phone taps by the federal government. That meant they lacked standing to bring the lawsuit in the first place, so the court told the plaintiffs to hit the bricks.

All patriotic Americans should rejoice over this ruling, because it emphasizes what most people with an ounce of intelligence and a pound of common sense already knew, that if we want to keep terrorists from attacking us again we have to use every means at our disposal to stay ahead of them.

But this then raises the question, why did the New York Times and the liberal tools for the Democratic Party who filed the lawsuit publicize this program in the first place? They had to know they weren't going to win in court once they got away from a pre-selected judge at the district level. So why spend all that time and money on a lost cause?

Perhaps because the lawsuit was never the goal, it was only a means to achieve an end, that being to publicize and thus render ineffective the program's existence in the first place.

Let's take a quick trip down memory lane to put this into perspective. At the outbreak of World War II the United States and its allies were monitoring Japanese and German radio transmissions, much as they were monitoring ours. But what the Germans and Japanese didn't know was that the allies had broken their codes early in the game, and were privy to all sorts of inside information that helped chart our efforts against them.

Breaking the Japanese code enabled American naval leaders to successfully evade a planned Japanese trap at the Battle of Midway. But that was just the beginning of the advantage America gained.

For instance, in April 1943, the US discovered through monitored radio transmissions that the top Japanese admiral, Isoroku Yamamoto, was travelling to bases in the South Pacific by plane. Our side found out when, what type of plane, and even his route. The admiral's plane was shot down and he was killed.

A little more than one year later, in the Battle of Leyte Gulf, 23-26 October, 1944, Admiral Yamamoto's skill and expertise were noticeably absent. The Japanese navy had successfully lured American Admiral William 'Bull' Halsey and his task force far from the scene of the main battle, leaving American forces horribly outmatched and outgunned by a huge Japanese battle force.

The picture accompanying this article is an official US Navy photo of the USS Princeton burning after being struck by a Japanese bomb during the Battle of Leyte Gulf. My father was serving on board at the time.

But just when it appeared the Americans would be overpowered by the Japanese, exposing Gen. Douglas MacArthur's vaunted return to the Philippines to an attack from the rear, the Japanese admiral in charge of their task force inexplicably disengaged and withdrew taking his battleships, heavy cruisers, destroyers and massive firepower with him.

It is safe to project that if Admiral Yamamoto had been in charge, the Japanese would have carried the day and inflicted untold casualties on American ships and troops.

But what if the New York Times, Washington Post, and members of the opposition party in Congress had publicized that we broke the Japanese code, leading them to change it? Yamamoto's trip would not have taken place, or we wouldn't have known about it, and the fighting in the Pacific at the very least would have gone on longer with even more American casualties.

Interestingly, Adm. Yamamoto never expected to beat America at war. His plan was to inflict sufficient early casualties to demoralize the American populace, forcing the US Congress to negotiate a peace that would have been highly favorable to the Japanese. Sound familiar?

Of course, had the Times, the Post or any members of Congress been stupid enough to reveal military secrets during WWII, they would have been charged with treason, tried as spies and shot.

But we aren't in World War II now, are we? Now, many in the American media and government obviously believe that we shouldn't win any war.

This is easily discerned by news stories that serve to demoralize troops and the populace, while boosting the morale of our enemies, and near daily press briefings by legislative bigwigs that reveal military plans, troop movements and what they see as flaws in our strategy. All are instantly available to the terrorists we are fighting.

It is obvious that there are many in America, some of whom were blatant communist sympathizers during the Korean and Vietnam Wars, and support the terrorists now, who don't want America succeed. They see our country as bad, rather than a beacon of hope and an example for the rest of the world, and do whatever they can to subvert our anti-terrorism efforts both in the military and civilian sectors.

Many Americans have roundly criticized the Bush Administration for not pursuing treason charges against those who reveal our military and intelligence secrets, and work to demoralize our troops and populace.

But why would this administration take action against its critics, or how could it, when it has imposed restrictions on our military that are leading directly to the deaths of our troops who are fighting terrorism face to face while shackled with inexplicable and lethal Rules of Engagement?

A prime example of this is related by former Navy Seal Marcus Luttrell in his new book Lone Survivor: Eyewitness Account of Operation Redwing and the Lost Heroes of SEAL Team 10. In Lone Survivor Luttrell reveals that his SEAL team was on a behind-the-lines mission to take out a major Al Qaeda leader in Afghanistan last year when they were discovered by three Taliban supporters, who happened to be herding goats at the time.

Luttrell told KSFO radio hosts Lee Rodgers and Melanie Morgan on their show Friday (you can listen on the Internet if you don't live near San Francisco) that he knew if they let the terrorists go the Taliban would be alerted. But the Rules of Engagement prohibited them from shooting the men. The SEALs then, and I'm not kidding here, took a vote on whether or not to shoot the terrorists. They voted not to, and in short order the 4-man team was under fire from some 180 Taliban.

Luttrell was the only survivor from his team, but beyond that, a rescue helicopter with relief forces was shot down too, and in all 23 Americans died so that three terrorist supporters could live. All because our troops now have to VOTE on whether their actions to save their own lives will ultimately land them in prison as a result of rules imposed by their own government!

I am not being critical of Luttrell or the SEALs here, but I am highly critical of any administration that puts our military personnel in a situation where they have to VOTE on how they will proceed in a war!

I strongly believe in the 26 Rules of Warfare, labeled A through Z. Rule A is: Do whatever is necessary to survive and win. Rules B through Z are; See Rule A.

So I guess that even though when viewed in an historic perspective much of what goes on in Washington and in the media can reasonably be viewed as treasonous, we can't expect much from a Commander in Chief who is part of the problem, not the solution. Interesting isn't it, that the bulk of the people who impose the rules on others never intend to live by them?

I am not joining the call by some for President Bush's impeachment. But if this is really a global conflict and the greatest challenge that our country faces, then lets get serious.

Putting our troops out for target practice is not what the American people want. That is why people think we are losing the war in Iraq and on terror.

Not because we can't win but because political correctness has run amok. I believe, and I have plenty of support for this, that those who sit in nice, safe comfortable places, and then have the audacity to second guess the decisions made in combat, should be given an all inclusive tour of the front lines.

I bet the troops would be ever so accommodating.


hypoctite sm

Granny Snatching


Signed author copies


NEW! e-Book Available on Amazon

Masters of the Art

Masters final cover
Personalize inscription


NEW! e-Book Available on Amazon and Barns & Noble

Blog Archive





Popular Posts