President Bush's appointment of Army Lt. Gen. Douglas E. Lute to serve as a new White House "war czar" overseeing the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan was all over the news media this week.

Yet in few if any places, did I find an explanation for just what a war czar does, and why it is deemed necessary. OK, there were the usual 'nut graphs' in the news stories - that being a boiled down explanation of the story - that said he is supposed to be a liaison between the military, the civilian bureaucrats and the White House, but still, just what is this person supposed to do?

The Washington Post reported that "Bush hopes an empowered aide working in the White House and answering directly to him will be able to cut through bureaucracy that has hindered efforts in Iraq.

Ah hah! I see! Well maybe. I wasn't aware that we had bureaucratic inefficiencies hindering our war efforts in Iraq. According to Congress, our military can't get the job done and lost the war long ago. From what I have seen in the international media the Iraqi government itself is none to excited about asserting its independence from America in any meaningful way, such as taking over its own security so our troops can come home, so how does that relate to the bureaucracy?

Yes, I'm being sarcastic, and No, I don't believe these pessimistic or simplistic explanations of the situation in Iraq or the War on Terror in general. But that is the impression you get from the international media combined with non-stop news conferences in Washington. So where did this impasse come from that suddenly requires a 'czar' to resolve?

The appointment has not been met with a whole bunch of support from the military community, nor, and maybe especially from the retired military community. Of special note is that the job was offered to several higher ranking officers first, before Lt. Gen. Lute accepted it.

The Post also reported, "The selection capped a difficult recruitment process for the White House, as its initial candidates rejected the job. At least five retired four-star generals approached by the White House or intermediaries refused to be considered. Lute, a three-star general now serving as chief operations officer on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in effect will jump over many superiors as he moves to the West Wing and assumes authority to deal directly with Cabinet secretaries and top commanders."

I received an email from a retired officer whose views I respect highly, noting that it will be difficult if not impossible for a three star general to tell a four-star general or for that matter five-star generals and admirals, what to do. He can always run to the president and complain that the bigger kids won't let him play in their games, but that won't go a long way toward resolving major issues either.

Another friend, who also is a retired officer, told me he has about a 30 percent understanding of what Lt. Gen. Lute is supposed to do, and how, and about 70 percent questions. This from a man who has a solid understanding of the military, Washington politics and the situation in Iraq.

If he has 70 percent questions about this appointment it doesn't bode well for understanding the issue by the general populace.

Again, from the Post "Until Bush decided this spring to create the position, the highest-ranking White House official working exclusively on Iraq and Afghanistan was a deputy national security adviser reporting to Hadley. Lute, by contrast, will have the rank of assistant to the president, just as Hadley does, and report directly to Bush, while also holding the title of deputy national security adviser.

The new war czar will consult with generals and diplomats in the field each morning, then join Hadley in briefing Bush and spend the rest of the day talking with officials ..."

Well, I sure hope all that planned talking accomplishes something.

The problem I have with all of this is fairly simple. In World War II we were fighting major enemies on two fronts. I am not ignoring the major differences in wars fought against discernible enemies with geographic boundaries, versus terrorists fighting a borderless ideological conflict, but there is a concept here that works regardless of what kind of war we are fighting.

But back then we had Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower in charge in Europe. Adm. Chester Nimitz was Commander of naval operations, and Gen. Douglas MacArthur was in charge of army forces in the Pacific. They were backed by some very reliable subordinates of course, but the fact is, they were the go-to guys. They had the authority and they also shouldered the responsibility when things didn't go right.

So, why, all these years later, considering all the war fighting we've done since, do we now need a man to act as a liaison between two much smaller war zones, and the Washington bureaucracy, and the President?

Some say that Lt. Gen. Lute is taking a mission that others don't want, because the mission itself is so poorly defined that there is no way to tell if it is being accomplished. If you listen to the non-stop press conferences out of Washington, you'd think that there has been zero advancement on the political, and economic fronts in Iraq, and that our troops are taking a horrendous beating.

I don't agree. There has been progress politically and economically, it just doesn't get reported. That's not to say the political situation in Iraq is resolved, far from it, but there has been progress.

On the military front our troops are hammering terrorists at a 10 to 1 rate. Nonetheless, most of the advancements in Iraq have been accomplished by the military, and many critics, skeptics and observers believe that the military has been forced into a job that the State Department should be doing, but either can't or won't.

I have a solution. It may sound simplistic, but hey, I have a reputation for cutting through the B.S. and getting to the heart of issues, show why should today be any different?

Since we are nearing completion of the buildup the media has called the 'surge' in Iraq, and the purpose of this offensive is to knock the terrorists and the warring factions in Iraq into next year, why not use this as a springboard to accomplishing all of our goals at once?

How do we do that? First, we unleash the full power of our military as it exists in Iraq, with no Rules of Engagement, and no hand-wringing over our international image or 'Moral Standing.' We are in Iraq, we are fighting a war, the people who disagree with us do so in many cases because we interrupted the flow of bribe money to their pockets, they aren't going to like us no matter what we do, so let's just ignore them for the sake of preserving our own country.

The military knocks the living crap out of the various factions that are fighting in Iraq, including the terrorists, and for once there is no one on the other side to synchronize bombings, assassinations and ambushes. In the meantime, we tell the Iraqi government in no uncertain terms that when the 'surge' is finished, we are too.

We stabilize, have a nice transfer of power ceremony, then pack our gear and head down the road to Iran, which we're going to have to do anyway. Simple? Maybe, but I bet it works.

Then the War Czar can be promoted, and say with honesty that he did the job he was asked to do, he did it successfully, and if Iraq later deteriorates into anarchy it sure as hell won't be his fault, or our fault, or the president's fault. It will be their fault, and they can deal with it.

Immigration Policy or Outright Fraud?

There is no need for this to be long or involved. The Senate passed a compromise immigration bill yesterday, and now senators from both parties are scrambling all over each other to convince the public that it isn't what we think it is - a sellout.

It is a sellout. It is nonsense. No one with half a brain is buying it, and people with full brains are labelling it as a total crock.

Plenty of commentators with far more time and space than I have are dissecting it on a line by line basis, so I won't do it here.

But the fact is, we have about 12 million people in this country illegally, without benefit of the usual controls that regulate immigration. We are told we need these people to do jobs that other Americans won't do. Nonsense.

When a poultry processing plant in the mid-west was raided this spring and a bunch of illegal workers were apprehended and deported, the line of legal workers applying for the suddenly vacant positions was huge! Maybe legal Americans know better than to work for slave wages, but that doesn't mean that the jobs go begging.

The jobs go begging if they don't have reasonable wages and working conditions attached to them.

I see two reasons why the Democrats and Republicans are joining forces on this. Since most of the illegal immigrants are Mexicans, and many of them are Roman Catholics, the Republicans believe they are getting a bunch of new allies in the anti-abortion fight.

On the other hand, since most will be working in lower level, unskilled jobs, the Democrats think they can sign them up in unions, which traditionally are pro-Democrat and lean heavily toward a socialist form of government. More voters for the Democrats in that scenario.

The reason why both parties are looking for a 'surge' in enrollments is because neither party is truly representing the majority of Americans any longer, if they ever did. The vast majority of eligible voters are non-affiliated, and many simply refuse to vote in national elections because they don't like either candidate from the major parties.

That is why most elections are so close, percentage wise, and why no American president in the last two decades has been approved by much more than one-quarter of eligible voters.

There may be elements of truth to each side's point of view, but the overall truth is that we have been invaded by a foreign army that is 12 million strong, and is attempting to dictate a new concept of America and liberty to the 300 million who got here by birth or following established immigration policy.

Both parties have copped out. Both parties have sold out. Neither party deserves respect or support on this issue.

All I can say is I sure hope Fred Thompson is watching this closely. If he wants to walk a red carpet right into the White House all he has to do is denounce this fraud for what it is, campaign against it and point out at every opportunity that the front-running candidates from both sides supported it.

In 1967 Army Gen. William Westmoreland, commander of all troops in Vietnam, was adamant that if he could lure the North Vietnamese communists and the southern Viet Cong guerrilla troops into a major stand-up fight with American and allied troops, the communists would get hammered.

The media at the time wasn't very friendly to the general, and many mocked him, based on their preconceived conclusion that we could not and would not win in Vietnam.

In late 1967 it was apparent that the communists were up to something, and it seemed that Gen. Westmoreland would be getting the fight he wanted. It has become part of the great myth that is Vietnam, that no one in America or South Vietnam had the slightest idea that the Tet Offensive of 1968, officially launched on the night of Jan. 31-Feb. 1, was imminent.

That simply isn't true, but it also is irrelevant. The fact was, the Tet Offensive was launched, and despite attacks on some 155 cities, villages and hamlets across South Vietnam, the communists got hammered. The Viet Cong strength before the offensive began was about 70,000 troops, many of them kidnapped conscripts who had been forced to serve to save their families from the communists.

But more than half, some 37,000 in all, were killed in the first three days of fighting. In fact with the exception of the Battle of Hue, where two North Vietnamese divisions, about 12,000 troops, infiltrated the undefended city and then staged a pitched battle in which an estimated 8,000 communists were killed, most of the fighting was over in the first 72 hours.

Hue lasted most of the month of February, and the siege at Khe Sanh went on into April with fighting flaring there until mid-summer when the base was officially abandoned as no longer necessary. Nonetheless, in every single phase of the Tet Offensive, including Hue and Khe Sanh, the communists were annihilated.

Westmoreland got his stand-up battle, and it turned out as he had predicted. Some historians now say that the North Vietnamese had actually planned an even bigger battle later in the spring, but had based that plan on their belief that they would score decisive wins over the US and South Vietnamese forces in the Tet Offensive.

It is generally accepted, based on admissions from the North Vietnamese communists since the end of the war, that more than half of all communist forces were killed in action in this period, and that doesn't include the numbers wounded or captured.

The communists were devastated in Tet 1968 and never mounted an effective campaign against the south again, so long as American troops were involved. In 1972, the communists launched the Easter invasion of the south, in which southern troops backed by American air power were the primary fighting forces. The communists suffered a similar defeat, losing up to half of all their invasion forces killed in action. But that is another story.

When it was apparent that the communist offensive at Tet had failed overwhelmingly, their allies in America realized that something would have to be done, and done fast, to offset the devastating battlefield losses. Communists have long been masters of the use of public relations and propaganda to divert attention from their real goals and actions, and the Tet Offensive was an extreme emergency for them, requiring emergency response.

So American newsman Walter Cronkite, the anchorman for the national CBS evening news, known as Uncle Walter, The Most Trusted Man in America, because his on-screen demeanor gave him a knowledgeable and trustworthy appearance, made an emergency visit to South Vietnam to give Americans the benefit of his view on the war.

There, Uncle Walter, who it would later be revealed was a communist sympathizer, if not an outright agent, lied through his teeth. Cronkite called the war "unwinnable" based on his review of the events in the field, a total fabrication and deliberate distortion of the true situation in South Vietnam.

There are many who say the role of the press in the outcome of the Vietnam war was minimal. Bull. The press played a major role, for a couple of reasons, not the least of which was that Cronkite, and some of his peers, were pro-communist and slanted the news over a period of years so that it focused on American troop losses as opposed to the victories that they died to achieve.

Even then, however, America solidly backed the war, and wanted a victory.

But American politicians, starting with President Lyndon Johnson, caved to the media pressure, and refused to acknowledge or didn't have the ability to understand, the battlefield situation. As a result of Cronkite's report and the media pile-on that ensued, Johnson refused to run again and the American political scene was thrown into turmoil at a time when victory was in our grasp and we most needed stability on the home front.

The rest is history and I'm not going to dwell on it, other than to point out the similarities between then and now, and to repeat, that as a result of Walter Cronkite's duplicity and the 'follow the leader' mentality of the American media, some 4 million residents of Southeast Asia were slaughtered by the communists after the fall of Saigon in 1975.

Now, about Brit Hume, the Washington D.C., Managing Editor for Fox News.

In my opinion, he is the single most influential and trusted newsman on the American scene today. This is not to say that he doesn't have some completely capable, knowledgeable and influential peers on the American media screen. He does, many of them colleagues at Fox News including Chris Wallace, Neil Cavuto and John Gibson.

But Brit Hume has the 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. evening news slot, a full hour of news stories, panel discussions, and perspective. He has competition in the networks to be sure, but let's be up front about this, the network news shows don't have the confidence of the American public any longer, and haven't for a long time.

Fox has replaced them in the trust and confidence category, and it is doubtful that any of the major network news shows could stand on their own, based on advertising revenues, if they didn't have corporate funds backing them.

In my opinion, based on his position in the news lineup, his status as the D.C. Managing Editor, and his weekly appearances on Fox News Sunday in which he shares his opinion on the news of the day, Brit Hume is on a par with Walter Cronkite, with one major exception - Brit Hume is honest.

I have seen nothing in the years I have observed his reporting that indicates he is a closet sympathizer for Islamo-fascists or the resurgent communists for that matter.

Thus, it didn't escape my attention this weekend when, on Fox News Sunday, during a discussion of Cronkite's betrayal of America, Hume queried whether another Tet Offensive is possible in the War on Terror.

It was obvious that he means another Tet Offensive in which we are overwhelmingly victorious on the battlefield, but in which the media and Congress portray the terrorists' ability to launch a coordinated attack as a total surprise to our political and military structure. This then would be used as an excuse for immediate withdrawal, surrender negotiations (does anyone know to whom we are supposed to surrender?), and ultimately the downfall not just of Middle East democracies, but the United States too.

Hume has raised a valid point and it is one that should keep us all on the alert. Hardly any news coverage in either Afghanistan or Iraq talks about American victories. In fact, if you only watch network news, or read the mainstream print media, you would probably be of the opinion that we have been getting our heads handed to us in the War on Terror.

The truth is our troops have been winning every time and have killed tens of thousands of terrorists since 9-11. If the terrorists do launch a coordinated attack in Iraq, Afghanistan, both, or even on our homeland, it should be no surprise. It would only mean that our methods to monitor what the terrorist leadership is doing have been compromised.

Remember, these are the people who have been attacking American interests and our homeland since the 1970s. They are ruthless, imaginative and capable.

The constant public waffling and debating in Congress is providing the terrorists with hope, the one thing that they need most to continue the war against us. That hope is useful in recruiting new fighters, new suicide bombers, and in providing the impetus to formulate new tactics.

If another attack, series of attacks, or coordinated attack is launched against us, overseas or at home, the one thing the news shouldn't do is label it a surprise or a defeat, as Walter Cronkite did in Vietnam.

Unfortunately, much of the mainstream media still plays follow the leader, and journalists who are on lower rungs of the network ladder tend to play monkey-see, monkey-do rather than think for themselves.

And, while many of our politicians still are swayed by headlines and haven't grown independent backbones, there are some major differences between now and the Vietnam era. We have the Internet, we have a healthy distrust of the mainstream media, and we have journalists like Brit Hume and they have an outlet to the American public.

It would be in America's best interests if that combination is successful in accurately informing us of the true implications and outcomes of any future attacks.

The slaughter of so many innocents in South Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos was a tragedy of enormous proportions. And if a similar scenario plays out in the War on Terror and the Battle for Iraq, a similar tragedy could well occur again, right here in America where it will be American citizens who are unmercifully butchered.

American troops by the thousands are searching an area south of Baghdad for three of their brothers-in-arms who are presumed to have been captured by terrorist forces during an ambush this weekend.

Meanwhile, news has surfaced that American troops, after meeting with Pakistanis on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, were themselves ambushed by Pakistani forces and there have been American casualties.

These incidents show once again that the War on Terror knows no boundaries or artificial borders, and regardless of the constant din from Congress it is not going to be over any time soon. If anything, these incidents should remind Americans and our representatives in Congress that the terrorists are spread across many countries, and are ideologically inspired.

I firmly believe as I have said in that past that we will be in a shooting war for at least 20 years, and that in each of these 20 years the numbers of terrorists killed by our forces will have to far outnumber our losses. So far this has been the case, but it is difficult to envision our successes continuing with the constant carping from Congress.

Even at the end of a generation of fighting, we should consider ourselves successful only if we have convinced the upcoming generation of potential terrorists that their cause is hopeless, and thus they refrain from further terrorist attacks. That will give us time to use more diplomatic means to convince the unborn generation that a world at peace is a far better place for all of us than a world at constant war.

Despite what we hear on the news daily, we are primarily engaged in fighting terrorists in Iraq, even though one of their tactics is to encourage violence between factions of the Muslim religion to make it appear that the country is in an all out civil war. A terrorist group was responsible for the ambush that killed five or our soldiers and resulted in the missing troops, and you can be sure that terrorists are responsible for the attack on our troops on the Pakistani border.

Our relationship with Pakistan seems tenuous at best, with the president publicly on our side, but also having to answer to many in his country who are at least tacitly siding with the Muslim extremists.

I wouldn't be surprised if the the attack on the Pakistan border was coordinated by the terrorist leaders to coincide with fighting in Iraq, in an effort to further demoralize our Congress and hasten the calls for surrender. I'm not sure exactly how retreating in Iraq where we haven't been beaten by anyone, where in fact, we have been eminently successful in thwarting all attempts by the terrorists to dominate there, will bring an end to the fighting.

I believe it will simply embolden the terrorists to make further attacks on us at home, and it certainly won't change anything worldwide except to make us again appear weak, uncertain, tenuous, and lacking in determination.

If we are to make any headway in this war we need to be firm, overwhelming in our response to attacks, and resolute. But I have concerns, and I am not alone.

What follows came to me in several emails from fellow veterans in recent weeks, regarding an ambush against US Marines in Afghanistan in March.

It is essentially opinion, based on a real event, but the important thing to remember is that many Americans share this opinion.

ANOTHER REASON WE'RE LOSING THE WAR
Author unknown

We are so losing this war.

Here is an example. It has to do with a Marine Corps Special Forces company. In the first place, there shouldn't be one. Marines don't come in different flavors. They're all Marines ... an elite fighting force by their very nature. The concept of the Marine Corps is that everyone is in the Special Forces.

But that didn't satisfy Donald Rumsfeld. So the most dangerous secretary of defense since Robert McNamara forced the Marine Corps to change its organizational structure and core mission so that he could have some more gee-whiz Spec Ops toys. And thus was born the Marine Corps Special Operations Company.

There are now four of them. And the first one went into combat in January. Six weeks later it was relieved of combat duty and given the ultimate disgrace of being pulled from the theater. That's why we're losing the war. Because of idiot moves just like that.

Here's what happened. Somebody forgot to tell the Marines that they weren't allowed to fight back. They somehow missed the briefing in which American forces were told their only mission on the modern battlefield is passing out candy to kids, feeding stray dogs and working on their cultural-sensitivity lessons. Somehow, these Marines thought they were actually supposed to fight a war.

And so it was that on the 5th of March they found themselves, all 120 of them, on a convoy in Afghanistan. It was a Taliban town and they were the freaks on display. And, right on schedule, the Taliban launched an ambush - a fairly sophisticated ambush. It commenced with an explosives-laden minivan ramming into the convoy, making one heck of a loud noise, and it followed up with a crap-load of Third Worlders firing a whole bunch of AKs at the Marines. It was shooting at fish in a barrel and the Marines were the fish.

Unfortunately, they had not yet had the cultural-respect lesson that would have taught them that, in the event of a deadly ambush, American forces are supposed to immediately apologize, toss candy to the kids, promise to build a school and throw their weapons down.

Instead, these Marines fought back. They didn't know they were supposed to be cannon fodder. They thought they were United States Marines in a combat zone. So they fought back. They fought their way out of the ambush.

The company commander kept his men together, they maintained combat cohesiveness, they returned fire and, doggone it, if they didn't win. They won because they shot back.

The buildings in which the Taliban welcome-wagon crew was hiding got shot up pretty good. Now, this was in a town,and the Taliban picked the spot - a spot that was in the middle of a residential area. They did this because they're a bunch of castrati who hide behind women and children.

They did this because the asinine top-down rules of engagement the brass force on our troops essentially forbid them from shooting their guns if there's the slightest chance that anyone will get hurt. But the Marines didn't get the memo that said they were supposed to be patsies. So they shot their way out, and got on down the road, Marines and equipment intact.

Which, of course, ticked off the Afghanis, who were deeply offended that infidels would actually discharge their weapons. So the locals complained and it went all the way up to Afghanistan's president, and he expressed outrage to the Americans.

Seems like a guy who was put in power by the force of American arms wouldn't bite the hand that props him up quite so often. But he complained to the three-star general guy and the general immediately began kissing Afghani keester and selling out U.S. Marines.

The general decided that the Marines had really damaged the relationship Americans had with the local savages and so the entire company was pulled out of Afghanistan. Relieved of combat duty. And, get this, there's going to be an investigation. The Pentagon boys haven't been this turned on since Abu Ghraib.

In the War To Destroy The American Fighting Man, they've found some more scapegoats. And they've shown exactly why this country can't fight its way out of a paper bag anymore. We've taken Frank Burns as the model for the American general corps and turned combat into a game of JAG gotcha.

If the enemy shooting at your front doesn't get you, the comrade shooting at your back will. They've got it worked out so one way you go to Arlington and the other way you go to Leavenworth. And that's ridiculous.

A friend of mine, a fellow Vietnam vet, revealed the other day that the Department of Veterans Affairs has awarded him a 10 percent disability rating for hearing loss suffered when he was a helicopter crew chief and spent the better part of four years in close proximity to jet engines.

That in itself is not so amazing, but what is truly astounding is that he first applied for the disability rating 22 years ago! Worse, his hearing loss was discovered and duly noted during his discharge physical.

Many veterans report that they were given cursory end-of-service physicals that overlooked or simply didn't record injuries that may have caused disabilities that surfaced long after they were discharged from active duty.

Yet, in my friend's case, even though he had the medical evidence all along, the VA continually ruled that his hearing was just fine, there was nothing wrong, all is well! Meanwhile, in the contradiction of contradictions, the VA also paid for his hearing aids!

In recent weeks I also have been seeing a surge of Internet postings from veterans who have had disability ratings for years due to service-connected illnesses, injuries and wounds, saying the VA is notifying them that they must submit to a review or face loss of compensation. The problem is, many vets are receiving notices to report to regional VA offices for review on a specified date, but the date had already gone by before the notice was mailed!

Thus their disability compensation is halted and they must go through a lengthy review process to get it reinstated.

Now, let's combine this with a recent decision by the VA to award bonuses to senior officials. News reports say the budget presented by these same officials fell $1 billion short and is not providing sufficient funds for veterans' health care, but they were given additional compensation because many senior Veterans Affairs employees are paid far less than they would receive for comparable jobs in the private sector.

I am NOT opposed to giving bonuses to VA employees who are doing exemplary work, especially the doctors, nurses and support personnel who do so much with so little. But bonuses should be performance based, and if the performance isn't there, the bonuses shouldn't be either.

Last but certainly not least, I have been hearing in the last few months from the major veterans organizations that of the estimated 1.4 million troops who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan since 9-11, about 300,000 are expected to file claims for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, PTSD.

Put it together and what do you get? The US government setting one generation of veterans against another generation of veterans to take money out of one hand and put it into another hand. Once again, in a deplorable tradition that predates the US Constitution, the government is shortchanging those who helped create and defend this country, while artificially claiming care and concern.

It is obvious that since PTSD has become the marquee disability, and vets are encouraged across the board to at least seek counseling if they have experienced the trauma of combat or lengthy separation, the VA is taking away from the older generation of veterans, in hopes of having enough money to treat the younger generation or veterans.

My question is "Why is there not enough to treat all veterans."

Although severe PTSD cases resulting from intense combat trauma may require hospitalization and long-term therapy, much of the treatment needed for the latest generation of veterans probably can be provided through counseling of the kind that was widely available to Vietnam veterans through the Vet Centers in the 80s and 90s. Those centers gave veterans individual counseling as well as a place to gather and discuss their shared experiences, and also provided an informal support structure through social and professional networking with other veterans.

Yet with the trillions of dollars the federal government spends each year, there suddenly is not enough money to take care of the veteran population without shortchanging one group in favor of another?

Let's get something straight here. I do not support communism, nor socialism. Both are unworkable economic models that conveniently forget the human element, that being, if one group is constantly working its butt off to provide for another group of slackers, sooner or later the workers are going to say 'enough!' Socialism only works when you have the proper balance of sadists, who enjoy inflicting pain on others, and masochists who enjoy the pain!

Nonetheless, I do believe in safety nets, not welfare, not socialized medicine, safety nets! I believe in caring for those who absolutely can not care for themselves, and I believe in support for the veteran community.

My reason for this position is simple. Of the 300 million residents of the United States of America, only the veterans have actually interrupted their lives and careers, gone off to often inhospitable distant lands, and served the remaining population by ensuring our homeland is secure and free from attack.

We live in a brutal world, and in many parts of this world people would love the opportunity to wage war on us, in our homeland, for no other reason than to give themselves what they see as our power, and to take what we have. They can't be reasoned with, they can't be diverted by peer mediation, they aren't diplomats and they see talk as weakness.

America's military has been successful at keeping this part of the human race at bay for more than two centuries. But that can not and will not continue unless America's politicians take a hard look at their spending priorities and realize that shortchanging veterans is ultimately shortchanging America.

We constantly hear about the tax cuts initiated by the Bush Administration and how they have provided the impetus for a booming economy. We hear that even with the high cost of waging the War on Terror the federal deficit is shrinking at a much faster rate than expected.

So why is there no money to treat veterans? Where did it go? Show me the MONEY!

One last point. Out of a (legal) population of 300 million, only about 2.4 million are in the military, active and reserves included. That is less than one percent of the total population, meaning 99 percent are living off of the sacrifices of one percent.

Only about 7 percent of the total population ever served, meaning 93 percent of America enjoys a life of freedoms and opportunities that are unprecedented in human history, due to the service and sacrifices of 7 percent. If that 93 percent can't or won't make sure that medical care and compensation for disabilities is available for those who preserve and defend our freedoms, then you are watching the disintegration of America and setting the stage for its downfall.

I doubt we need more taxes to take care of our veterans. I think we merely need to take a hard look at our priorities and get serious about where we spend our money. Veterans took time, at the risk of life and limb, to make America a priority.

It is high time we end the tradition of veteran abuse, and make veteran care and support an American priority.

Britain's Queen Elizabeth is wrapping up her visit to the United States after official appearances at historic sites, state dinners, entertainment and of course a day at the races.

It is always a treat when the Queen comes to visit the US, bringing with her as she does a touch of the best of the old aristocracy, that being the refinement, the manners, and gentility. I'm well aware that the aristocracies owed their existence to the labors of the lower classes, which is why that form of government has pretty much fallen by the wayside across the globe, yet there still were some aspects of the lifestyle worth saving.

The Queen's visit has given Americans a welcome respite from the non-stop political back-biting, back-stabbing, chicanery and duplicity in Washington - and that is just what the Congress is doing to American citizens. When you add in what they are doing to each other down there it amounts to outright mayhem.

The official reason for the Queen's visit was to mark the 400th anniversary of the founding of the first successful English colony at Jamestown, Virginia, and she also used the opportunity to visit with friends, see the sights and hang out with George Bush.

It's interesting about Jamestown. When I was in grade school and heard only about Pocahontas and John Smith, I wondered why the native tribes that first encountered the English didn't just mass for one major attack and push them off the beach.

As it turns out, they did try, repeatedly. In fact, the Veterans of Foreign Wars Magazine had a great article this month on the early years of Jamestown, reporting that fighting between the native tribes, just those in the immediate vicinity of the colony, and the English soldiers went on for nearly a decade. That was after 20 years of intermittent fighting between English explorers and native tribes. There were many times when the future of the colony was in doubt, and English forces on occasion suffered 100 percent fatalities.

In November 1609 a force led by Capt. John Ratcliffe was ambushed, suffered 66 percent fatalities, with Ratcliffe captured and skinned alive with mussel shells! Things would have been much worse for the settlers if John Smith hadn't been an accomplished military man and formed more effective militia groups. (Did you know that Smith fought the Muslims in Hungary before coming to America, killing and beheading three Turkish commanders in hand-to-hand combat? Effective then, but it would get him a one-way ticket to prison today.)

The fighting in Jamestown colony ended in 1614 when Pocahontas married John Rolfe (not Smith, Rolfe). But up to that point the natives had killed nearly 25 percent of all the settlers who landed in Jamestown beginning in 1607.

It occurred to me that if the natives had been more politically astute they would have gotten on a ship, sailed to London, and impressed on the English Parliament that they couldn't win in America, and it would be best if they cut funding for the colony, and pulled the troops back to Bermuda.

But they didn't, the English were both stoic and persistent, and ultimately the colony succeeded. That was the foundation for a four-hundred year relationship between England and what eventually became the United States, one that overall has been beneficial, despite a few historic moments of unpleasantness.

In addition to marking Jamestown's anniversary Queen Elizabeth attended the Kentucky Derby, where she saw Street Sense, which regular readers of this column will immediately see as an omen, come from way back to win.

And she actually got President George Bush to put on a white tie, and mind his manners at a state dinner in her honor at the White House. It has become a requirement for the mainstream media to make it appear that our president has no social graces, conveniently forgetting that he was born and raised in an environment where white tie dinners are more or less common. It isn't that he can't function with aplomb in that atmosphere, he just doesn't like it. (Most American males agree with him on this point.)

While at the White House, the Queen may have noticed that it is still in good shape after what happened to it in that last moment of unpleasantness, known on this side of the Atlantic as the War of 1812.

Since then, however, there has been plenty of good will between the US and Britain and to this day, most recently through the efforts of Prime Minister Tony Blair's government, we have one solid and dependable ally in the War on Terror.

Prime Minister Blair will be stepping down this month, and while I am sure the British will have plenty of qualified people to vie for replacing him, I think Blair's tenure will be seen by history as one that equates quite well with the Churchill era.

I have written here before that we make it a point in the Winter household to watch the Prime Minister's Questions on CSPAN, a regular meeting, or perhaps time of direct confrontation, between Blair and the Parliament. If you ever want to see a Master of the Art of debate, go online and call up the videos of those encounters.

Regardless of whether you agree with his politics, Tony Blair can be counted on for lively debate, knowledge of the issues, a rapier-like wit, and the ultimate in British good manners, even in the midst of a knock-down parliamentary floor fight. He is a terrific ambassador of goodwill for Great Britain and his presence on the world political stage will be sorely missed.

Which brings me to Harry Reid, Democratic Senator from Nevada and majority leader of the Senate Democrats. In the midst of all the pomp and circumstance, in the midst of good manners, George Bush in a white tie, Laura Bush absolutely resplendent both in dress and demeanor, hosting the Queen of England at the ultimate formal dinner, Harry Reid snubs the Queen! He claims he had something better to do than attend a state dinner with the Queen of England!

What a total horse's ass. What a boor. What a despicable, low, crass example of the absolute worst of guttersnipe behavior. For what? Political points?

Note to Comrade Harry and your fellow communists: The aristocracies are gone. They are merely symbolic, and in the case of Queen Elizabeth the citizens of Great Britain have said repeatedly that they want that symbol to continue. It is none of your business!

The aristocracies as a form of government, the excesses they created, and the power they wielded, which formed the basis of the communist philosophy you adhere to, are gone, as is the reason for your existence. Get a grip. The aristocracies are no longer relevant.

What is relevant is the role the senior American senator plays in international relations and to snub the head of state of one of our most solid and longstanding allies is reprehensible.

Once again, leaders of the Democratic majority in Congress have demonstrated that while they constantly criticize what everyone else is doing, when given the chance to actually show their stuff, they fall flat on their faces. Exactly what is a deliberate snub to the Queen of England supposed to demonstrate? Knowledge of international relations? Where, oh where, is John Kerry when we need him?

Harry Reid and his allies, Nancy Pelosi, Carl Levin, John Murtha, John Kerry, Jane Fonda, Cindy Sheehan, etc. etc. etc., have once again shown that all they really have to offer is mouth, with no substance behind the white noise they generate.

The Queen is heading back to England and Tony Blair will be wrapping up his affairs and going off to a somewhat more private life. I seriously doubt that Reid was missed at dinner, or that the Queen was more than slightly aware of or concerned by his incredible gaffe.

But Americans should be! The Democrats have claimed for years that America is looked upon with disfavor internationally, all because of George Bush. But Harry Reid has shown that the real boors in the American government are not in the executive branch, they are on the Democratic side of the aisle in Congress.

Maybe Reid can take some time during the summer recess to enroll in a finishing school and learn some basic manners.

Today I am posting a column written exclusively for Winter's Soldier Story by an aviation enthusiast who has an insider's view of gas taxation politics as it applies to the aviation industry.

Today we inaugurate an occasional offering From The Flight Deck.

As a pilot I can tell you there is no better feeling than taking off early in the morning from Tampa Bay on a 179 heading to Key West, spending an hour or two in the domain of the Gods, watching your friends stuck in rush hour traffic below, working or relaxing in the Keys for the day, then returning home without even once encountering gridlock or road rage. Days like this are what many of us mean when we say we are living the American Dream.

But the government is working to kill this dream for many who have achieved it, or aspire to it. We are told that the Federal Aviation Administration is in a funding 'crisis' and more money is needed to enhance the air traffic technology system - a process that has been ongoing for years.

So, even though this administration touts itself as being solidly opposed to increased taxes, and wants to enhance opportunities for the small businessman, including those who have discovered that a small plane can open up entire new worlds of business opportunities, the suggested fix is - new taxes, this time by doubling the tax on aviation fuel used by private pilots!

Is this a 'read my lips' moment?

To add insult to injury, we are continually enhancing the air traffic technology system with funds already derived from airlines and passengers paying ever-increasing taxes disguised as 'fees' for one thing or another, every time they buy a ticket.

Could someone explain to me how the government can spend so many years and so much money on air traffic control technology to increase the safety of air travel while reducing the number of people needed to do the job, but still claim to be in a safety crisis and thus needs to increase taxes yet again?

Try that rationale in the business world and see how far you get. Can you imagine the director of IT telling a corporate CEO that even though the IT department has spent tons of additional money to do more work with the same or less staff that they're still coming up short? Well that's the FAA argument.

The government saying that it has been successful in downsizing human costs in air traffic control through the use of enhanced technology, thus it now needs more money, makes about as much sense as saying the French are the best war fighters in the world and we should model our military after theirs!

This would be a good time to fill you in on a couple of important details about flying in America. We have the safest air traffic control system in the world - bar none. To help maintain and improve this system, General Aviation (private) pilots are already paying 30 cents per gallon in taxes on aviation fuel, nearly double the price Americans pay in federal gasoline taxes for their automobile.

But now the government wants GA pilots to pay 70 cents per gallon, a rate that far exceeds the highest automobile gas taxes - state and federal combined - in the country! I should note here, for those whose answer to everything is "tax the rich" that you don't have to be rich to be a pilot or own a plane. You have to be responsible, have dedication, excellent motor skills, depth perception and hand-eye coordination, but the average high-end SUV can cost far more than a good single-engine four-seat private airplane.

So, let's not get into this 'if you can own a plane you have enough money to pay more taxes.' OK?

I have wanted to fly ever since I was a child. My uncle was an F-18 fighter pilot and when I was a teenager he took me to the base at Miramar, California, home of the Top Gun school where he was an instructor, to see that beautiful plane doing "touch and go" maneuvers. I even witnessed a "proper wave off" - a full afterburner climb within 10 feet of the runway. I was so close I could smell the burnt rubber and feel the scorching heat. That experience only added to my desire to fly.

But flying was one of those dreams that seemed as likely as winning the lottery - not because it's impossible, but sometimes life just catches up with you and the next thing you know you have other responsibilities and other priorities. It costs money to rent planes and pay instructors while you study and train for a private pilot's license, instrument rating, and beyond.

But, this is America, the birthplace of flight and if you have a dream, you're one step closer to living it. For me, the dream was there, and the intent was there, so I went out and worked to achieve my dream, complete with multi-engine commercial license with instrument privileges.

But now, through yet another form of taxation, it seems as though the government has come up with yet another way to take away some of our freedoms. As usual, "we the people" didn't get to vote on it either.

Does doubling the taxes on aviation fuel limit the amount of hours some pilots will be able to fly each month? "Tough," says the government, "pay up!"

There is an incredible level of hypocrisy here. The Bush administration says it is working for the small businessman and individual freedoms. But how many jobs will be affected by the reduced hours that many private pilots will fly due to the increased cost of fuel? How many small airports across the country will see less flights, thus less demand for people to do all the jobs that revolve around the aviation industry?

Is this a way to take the ability to fly, unfettered by the limits of highways, traffic and speed limits, out of the hands of the average citizen and relegate it once again to only the rich and privileged? Are we one step closer to being required to obtain permission from the government before heading off to the Keys for a day of work or relaxation?

I recently had a great opportunity to meet with some aviators from an earlier generation, flight crews from B-29 bombers who laid it all on the line for our country more than 60 years ago. These gentlemen were quite eloquent in their reasons for taking such enormous risks back then, so that two generations later people could continue to work in and build this country, on the ground as well as in the air.

The one word they expressed most frequently when asked why they went to war for America was "freedom." It was a pleasure and honor to speak with these heroes, but I could only wonder whether the freedom they spoke of will soon be taxed and regulated to a point where it is only a wisp of a memory in a fading dream.

Let me start out by saying up front that I listen to Rush Limbaugh, and I never listened to Air America.

I used to enjoy Al Franken when he made his living as a comedian, but I never considered him to be a serious politician or even commentator, so when he decided to take up the left-wing point of view I moved on.

I listen to Rush for a number of good reasons, and I also use some of his lectures as the basis for civics instruction in the home schooling I provide for my daughter. (For those of you who are already typing up smarmy commentaries to send to this column, don't waste your time. I won't read them and I won't publish them. I know what I am doing and I don't need your input.)

All that being said, I was more than a little interested in the attempts to create a furor over Rush's parody of the Peter, Paul and Mary song from the 60s, Puff The Magic Dragon, which in the world of Rush became Barack The Magic Negro to the same tune.

Now, for those of you who don't listen to Rush, before you get on the torches and pitchforks bandwagon, Rush Limbaugh didn't come up with that phrase. It actually was written in the LA Times and that was a response to a Sen. Joe Biden comment that Obama was "clean and articulate," apparently an unexpected development in the world of black politicians for Biden.

So, in the wake of that comment, and the expected response from Al Sharpton, the LA Times prints a column about Obama, which included the phrase "magic Negro" basically on the theme that Obama, with a virtual un-Sharpton image, might just be the first black man who could be elected president of the United States.

It didn't take Limbaugh long to put together a parody of that statement, with the singer sounding very much like the Reverend Al singing through a bull horn, Sharpton's trademark from his street protest days.

As could probably be expected, myopes on the left who pretended not to know where the original statement came from started agitating to do something to Rush for having the audacity to say Negro, and especially to say it in a song parody. As it turns out, the myopes have been totally unsuccessful because while they pretend not to know where the phrase came from, just about every legal American citizen who understands English knows exactly where the phrase came from, and there isn't going to be a Don Imus moment for Rush on the Magic Negro issue.

That is history. Here is what I would suggest Sen. Obama should do if he is serious about his run for the presidency.

Embrace the song. Learn it, sing it, hum it, play it every time you enter a room full of potential donors just like Hail To The Chief is done for the president.

Why would he do this you might ask?

For an answer I have to turn the clock back to the late 60s and the anti-Vietnam War movement. During that time I was a Marine engaged in preparing for, fighting, and coming down from fighting in that war, rather than demonstrating against it, because I had an uncanny ability to foresee the future and I didn't want millions of Southeast Asians to die at the hands of the communists. Unfortunately, I was ignored while the anti-Vietnam War crowd got all the attention and millions of Southeast Asians died at the hands of the communists.

During that time there were many, many songs labelled anti-war, sung by contemporary artists who knew where to make a buck even if they were supporting murderous communists who were were hell bent on world domination and didn't care how many people they killed to achieve it.

Two of the more famous of these songs were the I-Feel-Like-I'm-Fixin-To-Die-Rag (also known as the Vietnam Rag) by Country Joe MacDonald who performed with the band Country Joe and the Fish, and the other classic, Alice's Restaurant by Arlo Guthrie.

Now, considering that I and about three million of my best friends were applying our uncanny abilities to foresee the future by fighting to save Southeast Asia, and thus the world, from the murderous communists, you might think that we would have been really, really upset with songs like those. But we weren't.

In the first place, we liked good music. We also managed to keep a collective sense of humor. Instead of getting all bent out of shape over these songs, we embraced them! We learned them, we sang them, the musicians among us learned to play them on various instruments, in fact, my unit, Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron 161 even adopted Alice's Restaurant as "our" song!

We also liked Peter, Paul and Mary very much, especially Mary, and learned all their songs too. The fact was, we, far more than most people who were back in the states protesting against us, truly understood the brutality of war, and while we fought to win, we also understood far better than most protesters just how awful war was as a means of settling disputes.

So we did our jobs, and along the way, sang "Whoopee we're all going to Die!" and "You can get anything you want, at Alice's Restaurant" with total abandon. Whatever intent may have accompanied the decisions to write, record, and perform those songs, if negatively impacting our morale was an objective, it flat out didn't work.

Sen. Obama could have the same result. Here you have a bunch of left-wing myopes, not-so-distant cousins of the Southeast Asian communists who murdered millions of people in their quest for world domination, trying to make an issue out of a non-issue, and along the way making Sen. Obama look like just another thin-skinned, humourless race-baiter.

That second part is a hidden agenda, but if you think about it for a second you'll see that it would work. Sen. Obama could possibly get the Democratic nod if he gets an overwhelming majority of the vote from black Democrats, but if he can't show that he can relate across the entire political spectrum, including all parties and all races, he won't get the general vote, which means he will lose the election.

Personally I think the left-wing myopes are a bunch of racists who really want to keep black people down, all the while they are claiming to be the champions of minorities. But as long as they keep Sharpton and others of their ilk out in front, claiming to be the official spokesmen for the black community, the left-wing myopes know they will always have a division between black and white Americans.

But if Barack Obama takes the opposite approach, and takes Barack The Magic Negro as a theme song of sorts, it will have exactly the opposite affect. It will show that he has a sense of humor, it will show that he doesn't get riled by the small stuff, it will show that he doesn't hold grudges against inconsequential things even if they are parodies of him, and it will show Americans of all other races that he won't be constantly playing the race card.

And it will bring attention to the fact that he just might have the qualifications to be president!

In short, it will make Sen. Obama appear to be a genuinely balanced, human candidate, with a good sense of humor and perspective. It will shoot him light years ahead of Hillary Rodham Clinton, and attract a lot of interest from unaffiliated voters, who really hold the keys to political power in America if they decided to vote.

Think about it. It would work.

As the troop levels in Iraq increase to the number required to fully carry out the current offensive referred to as The Surge, the Run-and-Hide rhetoric from the Democrats and turncoat Republicans in Congress also has risen to a level that can best be described as shrill.

Both houses of Congress have passed bills calling for our defeat in Iraq, which President Bush will rightfully veto, and once again the issue of Weapons of Mass Destruction is the focus of the pro-terrorist arguments. The WMD issue is and has been a diversion, useful for limited political purposes at home, but in the long run harmful to the US, our allies, and our troops who are fighting this war.

So once again, it is time to revisit those halcyon days after 9-11, but before we invaded Iraq, to take a look at what was really going on. First, everyone and their brother, going back to 1990 and the Gulf War, believed that Saddam Hussein had and would use WMDs. He had gassed the Kurds, killing thousands, and was actively working to build a nuclear bomb, leading politicians from the middle of the Clinton Administration onward to call for his expulsion, overthrown or death whichever came first.

But then came 9-11, and our successful invasion of Afghanistan. US troops joined with the Northern Alliance of Afghan fighters which had been actively, but not successfully opposing the Taliban. Together they made short work of the Islamic extremists who had turned Afghanistan into a living hell and had provided a haven for the leaders of the terrorist movement that attacked us on 9-11.

During that fighting, a little known but historically significant event occurred that would have far-reaching ramifications on American politics and unified support for the War on Terror. A Taliban leader, Abu Al-Zarqawi, who was close to the leadership of Al-Qaeda, and would become much closer, was seriously wounded in the fighting.

His wounds required extensive hospitalization in a modern facility for short-term stabilization, long-term treatment, and then would require extensive physical rehabilitation in a secure environment.

Al-Zarqawi was evacuated and transported not to Pakistan, not to Somalia, not to Syria, not to Iran, but rather to Iraq, to Baghdad in fact. (The fact that this occurred should give us a better idea of the extent and resources of the world terrorist movement.) There he was given sanctuary, security, treatment and rehabilitation all under the watchful eyes of Saddam Hussein, whose son Uday ran the hospital where Al-Zarqawi was being treated.

Ultimately he was back on his feet, so to speak, and was released. But Al-Zarqawi did not return to Afghanistan, or follow Osama Bin Laden, the leader of Al-Qaeda, into the sanctuary of the mountains on the border with Pakistan. Instead, he stayed right where he was in Iraq.

Why? Because the Taliban had been effectively demolished in Afghanistan, there was no army to speak of, a major political reform movement followed the defeat of the Islamic extremists, and he no longer had a political or military power base.

But in Iraq, Saddam Hussein gave him sanctuary and training camps to mold a new generation of suicidal extremists along with the security and financial support to carry out his mission. It was obvious to anyone who was monitoring world-wide terrorist activity that Iraq would be the launching pad for the next wave of terrorist attacks on the US.

George Bush was given this information and decided that it would be best to take out Iraq, including its leader Saddam Hussein and any terror groups he was supporting, before we were attacked again.

Bush had enough support in America to carry out his plan. We had been enforcing no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq since the Gulf War, international sanctions had been in place, but strangely enough, not working for the better part of a decade, and Americans were in no mood for diplomacy anyway. Bush had promised to track down and "smoke out" the terrorists who had attacked us, wherever they were hiding, and if that was Iraq, so be it.

But somewhere along the way someone convinced Bush that we needed an international coalition supporting us to effectively carry out an invasion of Iraq without harming our international standing. Here is where the WMDs came in.

Bush and his administration created a list of reasons why we needed to invade Iraq for presentation to the international community. Saddam's pursuit of WMDs was on that list, although pretty far down from the top. But since WMDs in Iraq would be more of a danger to his neighbors, and even our so-called allies in Europe, than they were to us since Saddam didn't have the delivery capabilities to reach the US, they became the focus of the drive for international support.

Unfortunately, the center for international support was in New York City in the Untied Nations building. But in that building, dozens of alleged diplomats who should have been solidly on our side, were secretly taking huge bribes, hundreds of millions of dollars in bribes, from Saddam Hussein through the UN administered Oil For Food program, to let him circumvent the economic sanctions, which is why they weren't working.

As later investigations would show, these diplomats included representatives from France, Germany, Russia and China, all of whom were on the UN Security Council that would have the last say in whether that august body would support Bush. Surprise of surprises, they voted to "get tough" with Saddam, and to enforce even more sanctions, but no way would they support an invasion.

So we went ahead, with huge support from the United Kingdom, Poland and dozens of other countries across the globe that fully understood the ramifications of letting Saddam go unchecked - and weren't a bunch of bribe-taking thieves and charlatans.

But in the eyes of the American Left, also known as the Democratic Party, it wasn't the right coalition, therefore it wasn't valid, and the criticisms began - small at first, but growing over time. These same critics, by the way, were saying that a successful invasion of Iraq and overthrow of Saddam would take three years and cost tens of thousands of American lives.

We all know how wrong that prediction turned out to be. Our troops devastated everything in front of them from the southern border of Iraq to Baghdad, and were poised to destroy Saddam's northern army, which turned south from Kurdistan and headed toward Baghdad to do battle with our forces, but mysteriously melted away into nothing on the way south.

And right there, amidst a stunning victory, the criticisms began. We didn't use enough troops, we didn't anticipate such a quick victory, we didn't plan for the aftermath, we didn't secure the borders, we didn't have enough MPs, we didn't stop the looters, we didn't secure weapons caches, we didn't do this, we didn't do that. The fact that we had overthrown, and eventually captured Saddam and his murderous, rapist sons, and in the process had totally disrupted Al-Qaeda's plans for further attacks on us, was disregarded as inconsequential.

Then, horror of horrors, it was revealed that the much anticipated (or dreaded) WMDs were nowhere to be found. Suddenly, WMDs became the only reason why we invaded Iraq, and suddenly George Bush and his administration had become world-class liars.

Frankly, I think that response had far more to do with our shutting off the bribery pipeline than anything remotely involving real criticisms of progress in the War on Terror.

I believe, based on hard experience that can't be learned in any formal school setting, except for the University of Hard Knocks, that when you encounter a potential adversary, the extent of the weapons he may use is NOT the first thing you need to know. When you are facing a potential adversary, the first thing you need to know is whether he is in fact an adversary - in other words you need to know intent.

If you leave an office building late at night, your car is on the far side of the parking lot, in the dark, and you suddenly see a hulking figure between you and your vehicle, you don't ask yourself whether that person is armed, and with what. You ask yourself what that person intends.

For all you know, it may be a security guard, assigned to walk you to your car safely. But if he is not, if he is in fact a mugger, your first responsibility is to ascertain intent, not weaponry.

Prior to the invasion of Iraq, Saddam Hussein and Abu Al-Zarqawi's intent was evident all across that country. So we went in and took them out before they could carry out their plans.

Yet, from the point it became evident that we couldn't immediately find WMDS, regardless of the fact that a new political system was born in Iraq, regardless of the fact that we are helping rebuild an army that serves its citizens rather than murdering them, regardless of the efforts to bring an end to age old hostilities that have constantly kept the Iraqis from even dreaming of, much less achieving, their full potential nationally and internationally, and regardless of the fact that we have killed tens of thousands of terrorists elsewhere, rather than here, our efforts in Iraq have been portrayed by America's Democrats and the mainstream media as an unworkable mistake.

Nonsense. I don't know if I am more surprised by the outlandishness of the claims by the Run and Hide proponents, or that so many Americans seem to be unaware of just how difficult and dicey any military campaign can be. There are no slam dunks.

We won WWII, but not without costly and lethal mistakes. Take some time to review the battle history of the North Africa campaigns, the battle at Anzio, the Battle of the Bulge, the Battle for Leyte Gulf, just to name a few. Major mistakes were made on all of those fronts and cost lives in numbers that Congressional Democrats and the media would salivate over today.

But each time we recovered, and drove on to victory. If a Republican sitting in the White House had been presiding over a war rife with the kind of mistakes that occurred on FDR's watch, the calls for impeachment would be deafening.

I don't agree with everything that the Bush Administration has done, and I shouldn't be expected to, nor should anyone else. But it is important despite occasional disagreements to keep the war in perspective, and not take our eyes off the ultimate goal which still is to keep our borders secure and defeat world-wide terrorism.

Our troops have helped create a new Iraq whose citizens have a chance for freedom and democracy. This new Iraq can be a real ally to the US, a stabilizing force in the Middle East, and a deterrent to further terrorist attacks against us.

Not everything that was done in Iraq was done perfectly, yet we still are showing tremendous progress on all fronts. To arrive at these conclusions we must view the war from historic and military perspectives, and above all we should listen to the troops.

One reason I dedicated this column to the HMM-161 Greyhawks, who are again serving proudly and effectively in Iraq, is because I served in 161 when I was in the Marines. In fact I spent most of my active duty time in that unit.

I heard from two current members of my former unit within the last week, both deployed to Iraq, both career Marines. When you communicate with the people who are actually tasked with doing the fighting for the 99 percent of America that is not in the service, and the 93 percent of America that has never been in the service, one word comes across consistently.

"Motivated."

There are things these Marines, and by extension all our service members, know because they are in the middle of the fighting. They know we are winning, they know the other side is taking a horrendous beating compared to our casualties, they know Iraq is progressing to democracy and sustainable freedom, and they know the biggest threat to achieving an overall victory is not the terrorists, but the US Congress.

I heard a Democratic Congresswoman say on Fox News last Saturday that 60 percent of the Americans believe we should withdraw from Iraq immediately. Bull! I'd love to see the poll that she is quoting, and I don't mean the results, I mean the methodology. I'd love to see how the questions were worded, who was polled, and what choices they were given for answers.

Even polls that are done honestly are going to be skewed since the media reports only on car bombings, suicide bombers and American casualties, thus skewing our knowledge and thus our opinions. It takes time and effort to find out what is really going on in Iraq and the answers aren't in the mainstream media or polls.

What Americans really want in Iraq is evidence of progress and victories. Based on what I hear from the people actively engaged in the fighting there is plenty of progress and there are plenty of victories but the media has no interest in reporting them.

So I will pass this on to all who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, especially my Marine brothers and sisters, particularly to those in helicopters, and especially the Avionics personnel of the HMM-161 Greyhawks. Regardless of what you may have been told, your predecessors who fought in Vietnam didn't just win every battle, we crushed the communists, and twice they were ready to surrender until they were bailed out by communist sympathizers in the US Congress and the media.

Ultimately South Vietnam fell not because we ever lost anything, or did anything wrong on the military front. South Vietnam fell because our government was infiltrated - and some who are responsible for the debacle in Southeast Asia 30 years ago are still in Congress today - and they pulled the plug on an ally who demonstrated in 1972 that they could stand pretty much on their own if we still supported them.

The same thing is happening today, but there is one huge difference. The Vietnam vets got no support from the general populace and far too many Americans willingly believed every lie they were fed by the media.

But we are still here, and we know the truth. As the Gathering of Eagles in Washington, D.C., on March 17 showed, we can and will stand up for our country, ourselves, and most especially our troops. We don't need the mainstream media because we have the Internet. We can communicate with each other, we can communicate with you, and we are doing it.

We will not let the same thing happen to you that happened to us. We will not desert you as previous generations of Americans did to us. We fully understand the enormity of your task, but we also understand and support your ability to carry it out.

For those of you in 161's Avionics section I would also pass on one last point. When I served in 161 in Vietnam, and flew gunner in addition to my regular duties, we lost three members of the Avionics section KIA, and five more wounded, out of the 20 killed in our deployment.

Not one day has gone by that I don't think of my friends from back then, those who survived, and those who did not. It was difficult to say the least, the conditions were atrocious, and many of us refined 'bitching' to a high art form as a way of relieving the tension.

In the years since, your predecessors have gone on to many other endeavors - teachers, small business owners, entrepreneurs, writers, farmers, fishermen, builders, administrators and managers to name just a few. Most married and became parents, raised families, contributed to their communities. In short, we achieved the American dream and made contributions on many fronts.

But for all of us, regardless of what happened in the US Congress, and despite our complaining while in the combat zone, (I admit I was one of the biggest offenders) our time together in the Marines, especially as members of the HMM-161 Avionics section, was an unparalleled experience.

So take a moment when you can, and absorb every facet of your current deployment. Commit to memory the faces, the names, the sounds, the smells, the sensations of where you are, and what you are doing. If you are a writer, take notes. Keep copies of your orders. Get home addresses for your friends in 161 and other units.

The day will come when this will end, and you will understand what I am saying now. You will be the victors, you will be the ones who put terrorism down. You will want to reunite. You will want to remember, not forget.

Above all, stay 'motivated' and dedicated to the task. You are winning over there. Those of us who did serve, and did fight, know and understand this.

America pulled the rug out from under us and our allies three decades ago. We will NOT let that happen to you. Remember that 25 million veterans and our families, regardless of political affiliation, are on your side and are fully supportive of you.

As difficult as it may seem, try not to pay attention to the nonsense you hear from Congress or in the media, and don't let it get you down.

Concentrate on winning the war over there. We have your backs over here.

Semper Fi

In 1958, when I was very young, then-Vice President Richard Nixon visited South America and along the way his motorcade was stoned in Caracas, Venezuela's capital. Nixon and his wife Pat were spat upon.

I remember seeing the incident on television and reading about it in the local papers. I also remember that it made me sad to think that the vice president of the United States of America, my country, was treated so poorly by one of our neighbors. But at least back then, members of America's executive branch had to travel outside the country to experience anarchy, street riots, out of control politics, and sheer lousy manners.

Nearly fifty years has passed since that unfortunate incident, and now our country has deteriorated to the point where an American president can be treated like a doormat without ever leaving the Oval Office. If you were to believe the daily talking points hammered out by the Democratic Party, run by left-over communists making one last stab at world domination, and their public relations agency, the Associated Press, you would think that America is one step away from sliding into the ocean and joining the Lost City of Atlantis.

Since I care about politics, and the state of our military, I often am tuned in to a variety of news outlets, but all I hear from the vast majority of them is bad news.

Even when the news is great, it is portrayed as bad news. If our guys win a battle in Iraq or Afghanistan, we don't hear that they won, or how many terrorists they killed, captured or wounded. We only hear about our losses, which, while regrettable, are usually minimal in comparison to the victory we won - but you don't hear that.

Case in point - I wrote recently that the AP makes a big deal of it if Taliban fighters cross the border from Pakistan to Afghanistan, attack a village, kill some local police and take over the village square for a few days. But when NATO troops or the Afghanistan army attack, kill hundreds of Taliban and send the battered remnants limping back over the border, you hear nothing.

Well, on Thursday a Taliban army unit attacked a small village in Afghanistan, and it took them five hours in a pitched battle against the local police to overrun the village square. Two police and the mayor were killed, and 10 Taliban were killed.

The AP reported that the Taliban took over the entire district, and what an embarrassment this was to the Afghan government! Yet when the Afghan army units got there - to the village, not the district - the mighty Taliban had run for the border to lick their wounds. That didn't get very much play from the AP, which should be of no surprise to anyone.

On the domestic financial front, when the stock market tanks for a couple of days, the media claims it signals the end of the capitalist economic system. When it reaches new highs, it simply means the rich are getting richer, while the poor are being used as step ladders.

When unemployment drops to historic lows, it barely gets a mention. When hundreds of thousands of new jobs are created, they aren't the right kind of jobs. According to the media and the Democratic party, every single job created in America since George Bush was elected is a menial, minimum wage embarrassment that proud and capable people would never stoop to if they weren't in dire straits.

When the minimum wage issue arises, which is used to create an artificial benchmark from which unions boost their wage and benefit demands, it seems that every single minimum wage earner is an uneducated, single parent with 12 children who will never get promoted or take advantage of adult education opportunities.

And every single one of these issues is George Bush's fault! Or so the media would have us believe.

Global Warming? George Bush, even though it has been going on for more than a century. American dependence on foreign oil? George Bush, even though he at least is promoting alternative fuel use and development.

Gas prices? Bush. High cost of chain store coffee? Bush.

Lousy date last night? Bush. Bad hair day? Bush.

Crime? Bush. Weather? Bush. Gun Control? Cheney. (Hah, just checking to see if you're reading.)

Aside from the War on Terror and the Battle for Iraq, the number one issue on most Americans' minds is illegal immigration. While we certainly have to come up with a cohesive national policy on that issue, let's face it, the issue exists because millions of people are trying to get in to the United States. Why? Because things are so much better here than in most of rest of the world!

Are there things George Bush does that I don't agree with? I certainly hope so! I don't vote in elections from the local to national levels to put puppets into office. I want to hear ideas that are different from mine, I want to debate issues, and I want to see that creative thinking is going on all along the political process.

If you want lock-step, mindless, bureaucratic governments, go to communist or socialist countries and see how you like it there. I guarantee you, not one of them has an immigration problem. Most of them have human rights issues and armed guards to keep the labor force in, otherwise all they would see is the heels of their citizens as they run for the borders to get out!

I saw Jesse Jackson on TV this morning, getting ready to march in New Orleans because that city hasn't been cleaned up or rebuilt after Hurricane Katrina despite the US Congress providing billions of dollars in aid to do just that! So whose fault is that? George Bush? Hardly.

He isn't responsible for the ineptness and corruption in New Orleans any more than he was responsible for keeping federal troops out of Louisiana during the emergency. Unfortunately, far too many Americans have no idea that the section of the federal code detailing how and when federal troops can be deployed for law enforcement purposes in national emergencies - formally known as Posse Comitatus - requires that the governor and legislature of affected states approve the deployment except in cases of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons use, or insurrection.

Personally, I think the president should have invoked the insurrection clause when Louisiana's governor, Kathleen Babineaux Blanco refused to allow the military to be deployed for nearly a week in the aftermath of Katrina, while the residents of New Orleans suffered. I also think President Bush was far too lenient on her and should have been screaming from the rooftops that she was the primary obstruction. But that is one of those areas where I disagree with him and it isn't a matter of national security.

As far as the current situation in New Orleans, Jackson said his real concern is that the former residents of that city won't return, and that will upset the voting demographics and Congressional representation there, which is the real reason he is marching there. The money is there, the aid is available. If New Orleans and Louisiana's government bureaucracies are too inept or corrupt to handle it properly, investigate yes, prosecute if necessary, but don't blame it on George Bush. There is only so much he can do.

In Iraq, I have had my disagreements with the president. I think we were far too lenient with the militias, especially the militia run by Muqtada Al Sadr, right from the start. I disagree with Rules of Engagement, and I vehemently disagree with the way our service people have been arrested and treated for claims of wrongdoing that aren't standing up to scrutiny.

If someone is shooting at our guys from a mosque or other 'holy' building, we are not the ones disrespecting their religion. They are, and the building should be leveled if that is what it takes to get the bad guys at minimal exposure to our guys.

If terrorists are hiding in neighborhoods and the residents of those neighborhoods are cooperating with them, it should be a free fire zone. I don't like it any better than anyone who has never gotten closer to a war than their TV or movie screen, but it is the best way to ensure the safety of our troops.

If you can drop a bomb from an airplane or a shell from an artillery battery without holding the gunners responsible for innocent deaths - in a war - then the same conditions should apply to the infantry. Other than provable incidents of troops deliberately targeting the civilian populace for crimes not involving split-second decisions in combat, the Rules of Engagement should be tossed!

Al Sadr should never have been allowed to build his militia and we never should have agreed to stay out of Sadr City. If you want to bring security to Iraq you start out by being the baddest guy on the block and you make sure that any anarchists who challenge you are flattened, immediately and irrevocably. That is how you create a secure environment out of chaos.

Those points aside, I am happy that the president has changed commanders in Iraq and is embarking on an offensive designed specifically to bring stability there long enough for the Iraqis to get their feet solidly on the ground. I am happy that he is standing firm in the face of some outright treasonous comments from Congress - Democrats and Republicans alike - and I am confident that given full support from their commander in chief, our troops will accomplish their mission.

On the political front, I was told by a very well educated Republican operative the other day that we have to be "civil" in our dealings with the Democrats. Really? Where is that written? Who said that?

Are the communists who run the Democratic Party being civil to anyone who disagrees with them? Check it out. They attack people in or running for office on every single level of the political process from local to national, and even international if they don't like our UN ambassador.

Every day America is forced to sit through interminable accusations and hearings in Washington, none of which has accomplished anything, but which perpetuate the appearance of chaos in our nation's capital.

Vice President Dick Cheney and President Bush are portrayed as murderers who engineer wars just to keep their friends rich, but no one talks about how successful they have been in preventing further terrorist attacks on our shores since 9-11. They both have lost valuable members of their staffs because the communists running the Democratic Party have targeted them for disposal, and say outright they intend to "get" this or that staff member. Karl Rove is the name they use most often.

Meanwhile, no one says squat about leaks to the media from within Congress on our surveillance, detention or financial tracking methodology. If those leaks had occurred in the World War II, the perpetrators would have been caught, tried and most likely, shot.

If I had one suggestion for President Bush it would be to take a good hard look at the people who are surrounding him inside the DC beltway. It is nice, it is absolutely wonderful, to have highly educated staffers and operatives and telemarketers.

But if they have only formal education and have no life experiences that give them the ability to apply that education, the result is ineffectiveness - in other words, you lose elections, you lose Congress and your life becomes infinitely more difficult.

A highly educated, Washington-based staffer who doesn't know that the Gathering of Eagles is not a Republican fund-raising unit, and who worries more about what his liberal Democratic friends will be saying over cocktails after work than whether we are effectively combating efforts to dismantle our form of government, is not being helpful.

This is a hard time for America, and overall George Bush is doing well, despite what is said about him on the political front. But he and Vice President Cheney have far more to worry about than constant belittlement and distractions from their political opponents.

Instead of running for cover and hiding away as they are doing now, the Republican fence-sitters and even the Republican turncoats in Congress should be standing up and taking on some of the fight so the executive branch can function as it should. Otherwise, they can expect to see their seats move from the R to the D category in coming elections.

Remember, I live in Connecticut, where the state Republican Party was dominant a decade ago and now is an endangered species. It didn't happen because the Democrats were so much better, it happened because our party was infiltrated, distracted, and rendered ineffective.

All the while people who were in office did nothing, said nothing, and now are on the outside looking in.

Harry Reid, Nevada's Democratic Senator, the grand poobah of the U.S. Senate, the man who is sending U.S. troops to their deaths daily through his unchallenged support of terrorists in Iraq, says he doesn't have to respond to Vice President Dick Cheney's criticisms because Cheney has a 9 percent approval rating.

Aside from the stifling hypocrisy of a man leading the U.S. Senate at the same time he has gone over to the side of the enemy in the War on Terror, and has a second job as a cheerleader for Islamo-fascists, Reid's claims that he doesn't have to answer for his actions are the best example yet of his disdain for the American system. Reid obviously has forgotten that he is a public servant, not a tyrant or dictator, and as such he is required to explain himself regardless of who is questioning his actions.

But I'd also like to get a look at the polling sample that says the VP has a 9 percent rating. Since I work in public relations I am familiar with polling and how it can help potential clients.

What I have found is that you can do an honest poll and get some real results that are helpful in directing your marketing and advertising efforts, or you can be a political hack and turn out poll results that were scripted beforehand and serve only to give you what you wanted in the first place. (In my firm we only do honest polling.)

The methodology for skewed polling is pretty straightforward. If you want to get an overwhelming result against the death penalty for instance, your best bet would be to do a sampling of death row inmates. If you can't get access to enough of them to give you a "fair" sample, then you get a mailing list from an active anti-death penalty group and use those people for your sample.

But polling has become far more sophisticated than that. Professional pollsters know that they can predict the results of their questioning based on how they frame the question, the potential answers provided, who they question, the population demographic they sample, and even when the people polled are questioned.

In my little corner of the universe, when I am in the company of people I consider friends and allies - which by the way includes Republicans, Democrats and Independents, veterans and non-veterans who nonetheless support the military - people generally like the VP. Far more people like him than dislike him, and they think he is doing a great job of speaking up and out for America.

Some people think Vice President Cheney is the only Washington figure speaking out for America and while they are royally frustrated with the Republican Party in general, their dissatisfaction doesn't extend to the VP.

So if I ran a poll today of let's say 100 acquaintances, and threw in maybe a dozen staunch Democrats who would say they hate the VP even if the VP was Mother Teresa, I could turn in an approval rating well in excess of 80 percent. I guess that would mean I can approach Reid and MAKE him answer why he is supporting the terrorists who are killing our troops.

This over-reliance on pre-engineered polls is dangerous, not to mention ridiculous. We send people to Congress to represent us, but we also give them the opportunity to let us know what is going on in places like Iraq where the average citizen has little to no access.

But instead, we have Congress continually using supposedly objective polling data to support political positions that actually have no resemblance to reality. The polls not only are skewed themselves, but the information given to the public by the media, on which the polls are then based, is also skewed.

So we end up with a constant cycle of decline, rather than an informed populace. This could not happen if the mainstream media wasn't just a propaganda arm of the Democratic Party, but unfortunately most Americans still get their news from people who have their own political agenda.

For instance, if a bomb blows up in Iraq, according to the Democrats, the communist media and especially Harry Reid & Associates, it means we have failed for that day, that week, and that month in that area, especially if bombs have blown up in that area before.

But what these bomb blasts really mean is that the terrorists have failed at intimidating the residents of that area, and we are still there, and they can't mount anything remotely resembling an offensive that has a chance of succeeding.
It means they are failing. They haven't defeated us, they haven't defeated that neighborhood, they haven't cowed anyone and they have to return repeatedly using the most heinous, cowardly means possible to try yet again to make their point.

This type of terrorism has failed time and again. It failed when used by communists, anarchists, Nazis, and now Islamo-fascists, yet we see Reid and the Congressional Democrats using their version of these events to push their 'Run and Hide' philosophy.

There are many things wrong with the way the war in Iraq has been handled, and virtually all of them come from political interference from people who have never been in a knock-down, drag-out fist fight, and have no idea how to proceed to victory in that arena.

We let enemies like Muqtada Al-Sadr go, when we had him in our grasp, which allowed him to turn his 'army' from a group of a few hundred to several thousands, all by use of terror tactics.

Today, the whole world knows that we are in the middle of an offensive against Al-Qaida in Iraq, as well as Sadr's army, and that we don't even have the troops who will be engaged in this 'surge' up to full strength. Why? Why do we know so much about what is happening today, and is intended for tomorrow and beyond?

One reason why the allied invasion of the German empire succeeded on D-Day, June 6, 1944, was because the Germans didn't know where our troops were going to land. It was brutal fighting, and we lost more than 4,000 killed in a few hours that fateful morning, but the landing in Normandy succeeded because some of the German Army's best troops and equipment were elsewhere.

We didn't alert the Japanese as to which island the Marines would be hitting next in the Pacific campaign during WWII, so why do we alert the terrorists not only that we are starting an offensive, but where it will happen, the timetable involved and even how many troops will be there?

Muqtada Al Sadr heard we were coming to his neighborhood even before this 'surge' got underway, and took off for Iran where he was giving sanctuary and the ability to maintain lines of communication with his troops. That ladies and gentlemen, is just plain stupid of us.

Lately, Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the multi-national force in Iraq, has been called to Washington to brief the Congress on the progress of this offensive, that still isn't up to full steam. Why?

If he is in charge of the fighting in Iraq, and our troops are in the middle of an offensive, his place is in Iraq, doing his job. If Congress needs yet another bogus round of hearings to micro-manage the military, then the uninformed among them should charter a plane, go to Iraq, and sit around the Green Zone cooling their heels until the General or his aides have a moment for them.

They he can brief them all at once, and get them the hell out of his hair and get back to fighting the war.

This appearance in Washington not only took him away from his post during combat, a court-martial offense for anyone below the rank of General, unless his name is John Kerry, it was counter-productive at worst and meaningless at best.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi refused to attend the General's briefings, and instead talked with him on the phone. But then we get a skewed version of what the general said.

Pelosi claims he agreed with her and Reid that the war in Iraq can't be won. That isn't what I heard the general say. I heard that he says a military victory is only one facet of ultimate victory there, the others being political, social and economic stability.

If Gen. Petraeus believes we can't score a military victory in Iraq then he should have been screaming it from the top of the Capitol building as well as in the halls of Congress. He should have been telling Congress to get us out of Iraq right this minute and the consequences be damned! That is his job and he should say so.

But he didn't say that, and it was disingenuous of Pelosi to imply otherwise.

But you watch. Reid and Pelosi, abetted by the media, will continue to claim that the war not only can't be won, it already has been lost. They will repeat the big lie, their accomplices in the media will continue to spread the big lie, and ultimately polls will show that some majority percentage of Americans believe the big lie.

But it still will be a big lie. And we can only hope that Dick Cheney will continue to expose it for what it is, and understand that out here in the real country called America, his approval rating is far higher than 9 percent, and we don't like Harry Reid at all.

Al-Qaida-in-Iraq, the Islamic-extremist group that lately is enjoying an elevated status in the world of terrorism thanks to Senate Democrats Harry Reid and Carl Levin, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, is claiming 'credit' for a suicide truck bombing that killed nine U.S. paratroopers and wounded 20 in Iraq Monday, April 23.

It was the deadliest attack on ground forces since Dec. 1, 2005, when a roadside bomb killed 10 Marines and wounded 11 on a foot patrol near Fallujah, and marks an escalation in tactics used by the terrorists.

According to numerous statements from Reid and his cohorts in Congress, US troops have been wasting their time in Iraq, fighting people who aren't Al Qaida terrorists, but instead represent competing factions within the Muslim religion, in short, a religious civil war. However, news reports said the statement taking credit for the attack came from The Islamic State of Iraq, an insurgent umbrella group that includes terrorists such as Al Qaida.

The statement said it sent "two knights" in explosive laden dump trucks into the base, a highly unusual action for terrorists fighting America's armed forces. The first truck exploded, knocking a hole in the building's defenses, and the second truck then drove into the building before it too exploded.

"The first knight exploded his truck on them and he was followed by his brother in the second truck, exploding it on what remains from the soldiers inside the headquarters," the terrorists' statement said.

The victims were all members of the Army's 82nd Airborne Division. Military spokesmen have said that 15 of the 20 troops who were injured returned to duty.

"Almighty God has guided the soldiers of the Islamic State of Iraq to new methods of explosions," according to the statement on the terrorists' web site. Apparently Reid and Almighty God have been collaborating on how to employ new tactics to best advantage in Iraq, and when to use them for maximum political impact in the US.

It doesn't take an expert on military tactics to figure out that recent statements from Reid, Levin and Pelosi that the war in Iraq has been "lost" by America and its allies, emboldened the terrorists to use the new and more dramatic tactics. Congressional Democrats use near daily press conferences to showcase every enemy action and bombing as proof of their point of view.

In fact, virtually all of the discussions on the conduct of the war including the number of American casualties, the number of troops America is employing, where they are to be stationed, and when, are held at news conferences or Congressional hearing rooms rather than closed-door meetings where terrorists would not have access. Rather, what should be classified discussions on the conduct of the war are broadcast live to a world-wide audience including the terrorists who use them as intelligence gathering opportunities.

The use of a suicide bomber in a direct assault against U.S. forces was unusual because terrorists, who according to reliable reports are being killed at a rate at least ten times that of coalition forces, usually rely on remotely detonated roadside bombs and hit-and-run attacks. Superior firepower and tactics used by Americans and other coalition forces regularly result in heavy terrorist casualties.

However, it is rare that the news organizations covering the fighting in Iraq reveal any information on terrorist casualties. Print, electronic and Internet news reports from Iraq over the past week have discussed numerous clashes and bombings and are pinpoint specific about coalition casualties, but contain no information on terrorist casualties.

There is no doubt in my mind that the renewed vigor and change in tactics by the terrorists is a direct result of Congressional interference in the conduct of the war. This includes messages of support directly to the terrorist forces in the near-daily news conferences, ongoing efforts to undermine America's current offensive by attempting to set withdrawal deadlines and funding cut-offs, and issuance of statements that discourage troop morale while simultaneously invigorating the terrorists.

There is no doubt in my mind that the non-stop pro-terrorist rhetoric from Reid, Levin, Pelosi, their supporters and Republican turncoats is working to invigorate and inform the terrorists. When the ongoing offensive began for instance, terrorist forces, including their leader Muqtada Al Sadr, fled as fast as they could, with Al Sadr going into hiding in Iran.

But Congressional Democrats have waged an intense disinformation campaign ever since the so-called "Surge" began, giving the impression that American troops will soon be gone, and in recent days attacks on Americans, other coalition forces and Iraqi civilians have intensified.

Reid, Pelosi and Levin can spin this any way they want and employ an army of apologists to try to deflect blame from them. But I have no doubt that the attack on the 82nd Airborne troops and the recent escalation by the terrorists is a direct result of their public statements.

Maybe when the bodies of the brave paratroopers who died in Iraq Monday are brought home for burial, Reid will tear himself away from the Washington media spotlight, or his vast real estate holdings in Nevada to attend every single funeral. There he can explain to the troops and the families of the deceased exactly why he is sending regular messages of support and encouragement to the enemy that caused their deaths.

I have visited Fort Bragg where the 82nd Airborne is based, and knew several members of that elite force many years ago. If today's paratroopers are anything like their predecessors, I am sure that Senator Reid, and anyone who accompanies him, such as Levin, Pelosi and their supporters, will be greeted and dealt with appropriately.