Thursday, November 30, 2006

Mob Rule On College Campuses

Excellent article by Cinnamon Stillwell at I invite all to read and see what academia is teaching our students regarding the freedoms of others to speak their thoughts and values.

America's college campuses, once thought to be bastions of free speech, have become increasingly intolerant toward the practice. Visiting speakers whose views do not conform to the prevailing left-leaning political mind-set on most campuses are at particular risk of having their free speech rights infringed upon.

While academia has its own crimes to atone for, it's the students who have become the bullies as of late. A disturbing number seem to feel that theirs is an inviolate world to which no one of differing opinion need apply. As a result, everything from pie throwing to disrupting speeches to attacks on speakers has become commonplace.

Conservative speakers have long been the targets of such illiberal treatment. The violent reception given to Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project, an anti-illegal immigration group, at Columbia University in October is a recent example. Gilchrist had been invited to speak by the Columbia University College Republicans, but was prevented from doing so by an unruly mob of students. What could have been mere heckling descended into yelling, screaming, kicking and punching, culminating in the rushing of the stage and Gilchrist being shuttled off by security.


Our children attending institutions of "higher learning" aren't learning, they are being indoctrinated by leftist professors and now, the students themselves think it perfectly appropriate to deny others who disagree with them their rights to free speech, but will raise holy hell if they even think theirs isn't honored.

Can we spell "BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION," again?


Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Winning Behind Enemy Lines

November 28, 2006

A little known secret is how the Democrats look upon those of us on the right. Yet, they dare call us the "divisive" ones. In an email received today from Democrat Rahm Emanual, they show just how they really do perceive us by how he titled the email sent to pat each other on the back.

To: "Lew Waters" {lewwaters@i’}
From: "Rahm Emanuel, DCCC Chair"
Subject: Winning Behind Enemy Lines
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:16:22 -0500

Dear Lewis,

Although I wrote two weeks ago, I want to say again just how grateful I and everybody on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) staff are for everything you've done to help us win. In addition to giving us the resources we needed to support our ever-growing list of competitive candidates, I saw first hand how thousands of members of the DCCC community stepped up to knock on doors, make the phone calls, and fight for every vote on the ground.

We've accomplished so much. We will have the first woman Speaker in the history of the United States of America. We helped bring one of the most sweeping change elections in memory, overcoming massive disadvantages in terms of Republican redistricting, Republican special interest money, and a legendary Republican field operation that we managed to surpass in two short years. The American people never lose their zeal for reform, and neither can we. The old era of irresponsibility is over and the new era of real reform has just begun.

Below you will find the official memo we've produced on DCCC successes this cycle. The DCCC did not win these elections on our own, those who worked for it are too many to name, but this memo will help explain what we in the DCCC and DCCC community did to bring about the change that we so desperately needed. This is the difference your contribution made.

Read the DCCC Post-Election Memo .

You've been with us, so you know that memo only scratches the surface of the fight we waged together to take America in a new direction. Thank you again for your dedication, now it is time to govern and fulfill our promises; time to protect and expand our Democratic majority; time to make the progressive vision for America the reality for years to come.


Rahm Emanuel
Chairman, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee

I just love this new spirit of bi-partisanship, even before they assume power in Washington D.C.


Likability poll bad news for US Sen. John Kerry

By Thomas Ferraro
Updated: 7:51 p.m. PT Nov 27, 2006

WASHINGTON - Democratic Sen. John Kerry, considering a second bid for the U.S. presidency, finished dead last in a poll released Monday on the likability of 20 top American political figures.

Among those placed ahead of Kerry were about a dozen potential 2008 White House rivals, including Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

"This is bad bad news for Kerry," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute in Hamden, Connecticut, which conducted the survey.

"Americans know who he is, and have pretty much decided they don't like him," said Brown. He noted the poll found that 95 percent of respondents said they had heard enough about Kerry, who lost the 2004 White House race to President Bush, to rate the Massachusetts Democrat.

Link to story

I can't say I'm surprised. Lurch, you can only trash American heroes for so long before the citizens you're sworn to represent get wise to you. We all remember;

"They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war…"

"We saw America lose her sense of morality as she accepted very coolly a My Lai and refused to give up the image of American soldiers who hand out chocolate bars and chewing gum....We learned the meaning of free fire zones, shooting anything that moves, and we watched while America placed a cheapness on the lives of orientals.."

"The country doesn't know it yet, but it has created a monster, a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence….."

"..there will be some recrimination but far, far less than the 200,000 a year who are murdered by the United States of America….."

"I agree with Sen. Kennedy that we have become the target and part of the problem today, if not the problem."

"And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the – of – the historical customs, religious customs,"

“You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

You might just say, the words are "seared, seared into our memories."


Sunday, November 26, 2006

Democrats Setting the Stage, déjà vu all over again?

November 26, 2006

As January looms before us, newly elected Democrat party members are outlining their plans and strategy’s for the take-over of Congress. Appearing in print and on media TV, step by step they are revealing to us what they are all about and it appears to this aged Veteran, we are in trouble!

First, we had the stunning setback where incoming Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi suffered her first embarrassment when members of her own party selected Steny Hoyer over Jack Murtha for the second spot in the House. They can downplay it as much as they wish, but this shows an already divide within the party.

Next, with promises of the returning ethical values to the Halls of Congress, Pelosi supports impeached federal judge and current Florida Congressman Alcee Hastings to head the House Intelligence Committee, over the more experienced California Democrat Jane Harman.

On today’s Foxnews Sunday program, 3 prominent Democrat leaders appeared with host, Chris Wallace. Charles Rangel (D. NY), John Dingell (D. MI.), and Barney Frank (D. Ma.). In a mildly confrontational interview, something Democrats seem to feel they should never have to face, all 3 laid out their plans for the next two years.

Asked about a “push for a strong liberal agenda,” Congressman Franks replied,

…raising minimum wage has become an issue identified with liberals. I think it's very popular. I think a lot of issues that people are talking about are indeed quite popular. Giving the federal government the mandate to negotiate drug prices as part of the prescription drug program I think has great majority support.
In my own committee, the biggest difference you're going to see is we're going to return to try to help deal with the housing crisis that blights so many parts of our country socially and economically. And again, I think reversing these attacks on housing for the elderly and other forms of affordable housing I think it will really be quite popular.

What he doesn’t address is how he intends to pay for it all. At a time they are complaining of increased jobs heading overseas, imposing a minimum wage increase, which is nothing more than a pandering for votes and really doesn’t help any wage earner, increasing employee costs encourages them to send even more jobs overseas to offset their costs.

Next, Congressman Dingell was pressed about raising taxes on the wealthy, abortion and gay rights, He replied,
We'll do what makes good sense on Iraq, what makes good sense on tax policy, what makes good sense on the environment and on energy, and we'll come up with a package that the people will like and that will make good sense in the middle.
A good vague non-answer, if you ask me.

Chris Wallace, in addressing his call for a return to a Military Draft, then asked Congressman Rangel, “Congressman, in fact, contrary to what you've been saying, isn't the volunteer army better educated and more well-to-do than the general population?”

Rangel replied,
Of course not.” After admitting none of it actually comes under his Ways and Means Committee, he goes on to say, “ If a young fellow has an option of having a decent career or joining the Army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq,” and “…once we are able to get hearings on this, everyone will see what they already know, and that is that those who have the least opportunities at this age find themselves in the military…

Seems to me another recently made a similar statement and was taken to the Democrat woodshed for the remark, “ You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.” Is the above Rangel’s “botched joke,” as was claimed by John ‘F’in Kerry (who I once heard a rumor served in Viet Nam)?

Asking openly gay Congressman Frank about gays in the Military and President Clinton’s ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy elicited the response of,
One of the things I do want to address, yes, is discrimination based on sexual orientation. In fact, what we have is a shortfall in the military. And I think when you have people being fired who can read Arabic and understand Arabic because of what they do when they're off-duty, that that's a grave error.

Misleading viewers, Frank makes a case that gay linguist are being shoved out at an alarming rate. As is shown at Stop the ACLU and at Don Surbers, editorial columnist at the Charleston Daily Mail, this simply isn’t the case.

In defense of impeached federal judge Hastings, Congressman Dingell said, “He was tried later and was acquitted. So — and the people of his district have elected him to serve in the Congress.” He does not state that all 3 of today’s Democrat guests voted for the impeachment of Hastings back in August of 1988. This defense also never stopped Democrats from calling for the ouster of and going after Republicans, Bob Packwood, Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay, Mark Foley, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush and others.

On another recent occasion, Dingell, indicating the investigations he wishes to see listed some as;
• The new Medicare drug benefit. “There are lots and lots and lots of scandals,” he said, without citing specifics.
• Spending on government contractors in Iraq, including Halliburton Co., the Texas-based oil services conglomerate once led by Vice President Dick Cheney.
• An energy task force overseen by Cheney. It “was carefully cooked to provide only participation by oil companies and energy companies.”

Let me assure you that is just for openers.

We also have Rep. Henry Waxman (D. Ca.) calling for his own investigations stating, “"The most difficult thing will be to pick and choose. ” He then says, “ We want to return to civility and bipartisanship. Legislation ought to be based on evidence, not ideology.” This is that same Waxman who desires a Smoking Ban in the Speakers Lobby of the House, based upon the unscientific notion of Secondhand Smoke being responsible for cancer in non-smokers and the last place members of both parties that smoke may do so without having to leave the building.

In revisiting old news, we also have Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, (D. Vt.) demanding classified material to rehash “detention of terrorism suspects, abuse of detainees and other matters involving government secrecy.”

We also see Senator Carl Levin (D. Mi.) calling for 58 Documents on pre-war intelligence from the Pentagon in a bid to reopen investigations into the Bush administrations invasion of Iraq, in spite of the findings of the bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence back in 2004.

Is it any wonder so few believe the Democrats call for “civility” and “bipartisanship” are genuinely sincere? At a time we have men and women in harm’s way in Iraq and Afghanistan, fighting for the very principles our society is formed on and threatened with destruction by a heinous enemy, Islamofascists, all we can see coming is Democrats returning us to a Viet Nam era of snatching defeat from victory as once again, they prep to pull any stunt they can and embrace any call they can to undermine the first President to take the needed steps to combat terrorists and end their menace in 28 years.

They were voted into office, so nothing we can do for another two years, provided Al Qaeda doesn’t succeed in smuggling a dirty bomb into New York or Los Angeles next.

Democrats, here is your chance, let’s see you stop terror while you are blindsiding the very ones fighting to protect your insane childish games of payback over the House voting to impeach B.J. Clinton.

Lord help us


No Lieutenant, You’re a Coward!

November 26, 2006

In what I perceive as a last ditch effort to save his hide, Lieutenant Ehren Watada is claiming “ It Was His Duty To Refuse ‘lllegal’ Orders.” Sorry, it doesn’t wash.

Yes, everyone in the Military has the right to refuse “illegal orders,” but better have their ducks in a row before they do. Otherwise, you have mutineers deciding what they will or won’t do as they deem necessary.

In this time of war, as all others, hard decisions must be made, men must be sent off to face possible death and orders must be followed by those entrusted to give them. Any officer, especially, should know that.

In Watada’s case, he claims that being sent to Iraq is an “illegal order,” based largely in part upon "a surge in popular resistance to the war as evidenced by the recent elections." Did he somehow miss the reelection of Senator Lieberman (I. Ct.), a staunch pro-Iraq War Democrat turned Independent? Did he miss the shift towards the middle of many “blue dog” Democrats that didn’t speak out against the war and are now first termers?

When someone accepts a Commission in the U.S. Army they must take an oath, “ I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

The last I heard, the Constitution grants Commander in Chief over the Military to the President, not a junior grade Army officer. In the case of Iraq, President Bush went before Congress for approval before invading Iraq. In the six month long “rush to war,” he took the matter before the United Nations and received UN Security Council Resolution 1441 by a unanimous vote, 15 to 0. In October 2002 the Senate overwhelmingly voted in favor of the Iraq War Resolution as did the House of Representatives earlier. Only later, in an obvious ploy of partisanship to win the 2004 elections did Democrats now claim they were misled by the Bush Administration, even though several prominent Democrats had called for similar actions against Saddam long before President Bush was in office.

They have succeeded in making the war unpopular, but it is not illegal and it is not the place of a junior grade officer, trained in the leadership of men, to make that decision. Even if he became disillusioned, he accepted a duty that he swore an oath to carry out.

An Army Officer’s first duty in protecting the US Constitution is the welfare and keeping of those men under his command. He is responsible to see they are fed and cared for properly, especially in war. In this case, Watada abandoned his duty to those he was to lead and watched as they were sent off to war without the cohesive leadership he was to give them through training with them. His intent seems to be first to save his own hide and his men be damned. Even in disagreement with Iraq, he could have led his men safely and properly, keeping them as safe as humanly possible. In his first test of leadership, he failed miserably. Although he claims “former colleagues, now serving in Iraq, respect his decision to follow his conscience rather than his orders,” I have yet to see any making such a claim.

In a remarkable ‘Kerryesque’ cry of 1960’s anti-war hippiedom, Watada’s attorney states, “ the best way for the war to end would be if soldiers refused to serve.” An asinine statement if I ever heard one. What he doesn’t fathom is that doing so would not stop our enemies desiring to destroy our lifestyle. It’s much like saying ‘if the National Guard stopped responding to disasters, disasters will stop.'

Throughout American and World History, a small segment of the society has answered the call and stood proud when threats are faced. Be it rushing to relieve disasters or fight wars, they stand and respond, placing themselves in grave danger. They deserve much better than this cowardly Lieutenant in a position of leadership over them.


Sunday, November 19, 2006

The Army We Need? Not So Fast!

November 19, 2006

In a New York Times Editorial published today under the title The Army We Need, and applauding the departure of Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, the editor gleefully tells us, “[Rumsfeld] didn’t like the Clintonian notion of using the United States military to secure and rebuild broken states.”

He then rambles on with such statements as, “So one of the first challenges for the next defense secretary and the next Congress is to repair, rebuild and reshape the nation’s ground forces. They need to renew the morale and confidence of America’s serving men and women and restore the appeal of career military service for the brightest young officers.

In what appears to me to be a bleeding heart rumination longing for the return of the “good old Clintonian era of Military readiness,” he ends the editorial with, “ Rebuilding the Army and Marine Corps is an overdue necessity. But it is only the first step toward repairing the damage done to America’s military capacities and credibility over the past six years.”

Although I was out of the U.S. Army long before Clinton or Rumsfeld either were overseeing it, I have spoken to enough that served under them to realize that Clinton was no friend of the Military, before, during or after his Presidency.

To begin with we have the infamous quote from his December 1969 letter to a Colonel Holmes that was deceived into helping him avoid the draft by enlisting him into an ROTC program, which Clinton never appeared for, in which Clinton has been quoted as saying, “I loathe the Military.” To be fair, those exact words are not in the letter. What he did say was, “ I am writing too in the hope that my telling this one story will help you to understand more clearly how so many fine people have come to find themselves still loving their country but loathing the military, to which you and other good men have devoted years, lifetimes, of the best service you could give. To many of us, it is no longer clear what is service and what is disservice, or if it is clear, the conclusion is likely to be illegal.”

Defenders maintain he never said “HE” loathed the Military, but that “others” did. Clearly, reading the second sentence, he includes himself in with those “others.”

Next we must look at Military actual readiness during his Presidency and how they were used as well as what Military morale was during his “leadership.” With the end of the Cold War before his Presidency some reductions were occurring, but during his time in office, they were drastically reduced in numbers, nearly a half million personnel during his eight years.

Coming into office, Clinton announced Defense Budget cuts that amounted to $60 billion. After in office his cuts grew to a $120 billion reduction in Defense spending between 1993 and 1997. This on the heels of the First Gulf War.
In his 1999 State of the Union address, he proposed a $112 Billion increase in Defense spending citing, "it is time to reverse the decline in defense spending." This was to spread out over six years, into 2005.

During the 2000 campaign, Candidate Bush was saying the Military was "a military in decline." While Vice President Gore countered that the military is the "strongest and the best" in the world.

About this same time, leaked Army documents reported that 12 of the 20 schools that were training soldiers in field artillery, infantry, and aviation had received the lowest readiness rating. Additionally, the Pentagon rated two of the Army's 10 active divisions at the lowest readiness level.

In spite of reducing the size of our Military by some half a million personnel, Clinton deployed the Military 26 times outside of normal training and alliance missions.

Reducing the size of the Military and increasing their deployments while not upgrading weapons and equipment led to a severe morale problem with the ranks. According to an August 1999 U.S. General Accounting Office review, more than half of the officers and enlisted personnel surveyed "were dissatisfied and intended to leave the military after their current obligation or term of enlistment was up."

I can personally relate to their feelings as that is what I did after 8 years in the Army and the election of President Carter in 1976 with his initial act of cutting Military spending and declaring amnesty to Viet Nam draft dodgers, basically giving those of us who went the single finger salute.

Claims have been made that we are winning the War on Terror thanks to "Bill Clinton's military.” Of course, this was stated in 2003 before the more popular stance of defeatism and “we can’t win Militarily” set in. That could be what prompted former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld to answer an outspoken Guardsman complaining of not having the proper equipment with, “You go to war with the Army you have, not the one you wish you had.”

In a post 9/11 world with Islamic extremists bent on world domination threatening to blow up the White House as a mark of their “mission accomplished” and the threat of nuclear suicide bombers within our cities, we cannot afford a return to the Clinton era of Military unreadiness.

Of course, this editorial might also possibly just be a precursor in support of the Democrats call under Representative Charles Rangel for a return to a Military Draft

Either way, we will see what unfolds as Democrats take control of Congress and the Senate this January. For you young people on the left that couldn’t wait to get Democrats in before you might have to go fight, have fun, we tried to warn you.


Saturday, November 18, 2006

Poster Girl (Wrong Side of the World)

November 18, 2006

Not much to say here but to invite all to click on the link and watch and listen to this Australian Singer as she sings an answer to some fan that apparently wrote her a not too nice letter after she arrived back home from entertaining their troops in the War on Terror.

Poster Girl (Wrong Side Of The World)

Can we say the Australian answer to the Dixie Chicks?


Thursday, November 16, 2006

Iraq Survey Group Report Released

November 16, 2006

The weekend prior to the elections earlier this month, a group of American Gold Star families traveled to Iraq to see for themselves how the battles are progressing and if their sacrifices were worth it. At Move America Forward, their report is ready for downloading in pdf format.

"The Gold Star Families Iraq Survey Group has released a new report, "A Brighter Future for Iraq," to help enhance the debate and discussions concerning the United States’ commitment to achieve success with the mission of Operation Iraqi Freedom."

"The authors of this report have all traveled to Iraq since the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Seven of the individuals are known as “Gold Star Families” as they have lost a son in the war effort. Two of the individuals, Gold Star Father Joe Johnson and Marine Reservist John Ubaldi, served in Operation Iraqi Freedom themselves. Additionally, group member Melanie Morgan led a delegation to Iraq in 2005 where she had the opportunity to speak with both U.S. and Iraqi military leaders."

Since the lamestream media saw fit to ignore this historic trip, my guess is they will also ignore the report. Only through the efforts of Patriotic Americans like Melanie Morgan and several other bloggers will this historic event be known.

Move America Forward

See the report as well as pictures and audio files at Move America Forward and be sure to check back as more information is added.


Wednesday, November 15, 2006

Where Do We Go From Here?

November 15, 2006

The elections are over, the Democrats succeeded in painting Republicans as corrupt and vile. Sadly, the spineless Republicans sat back and allowed the Democrats to roll over them, so we now have a Senate and House controlled by Democrats.

No sense in crying about it or demanding recounts, although I’m sure honest recounts just might turn up some irregularities, it would just cause the Democrats to somehow find a few absentee ballots that were temporarily lost, as did the King County Washington Elections Board during the 2004 recounts over the Governors race. Democrats have bragged about being very good at recounts, as history shows.

With no Republicans interested and Democrats already pushing for recounts in the couple undecided contests still outstanding, we are stuck with them as leaders for the next two years.

With Nancy Pelosi as the new Speaker of the House, leadership positions are being filled in preparation for their assumption of power this coming January. In her booklet, “A New Direction for America,” Ms. Pelosi, affectionately known as “San Fran Nan,” promises America, “With integrity, civility and fiscal discipline, our New Direction for America will use commonsense principles to address the aspirations and fulfill the hopes and dreams of all Americans. That is our promise to the American people.”

Integrity? Let’s look at some of her leadership appointments.

For the House Intelligence Committee, sources say she plans on bypassing Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), a six-term member of Congress, who has cooperated with Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee in the past in favor of Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida, an impeached federal judge for accepting a $150,000 bribe. That Ms. Harman is the senior Democrat now sitting on the Intelligence Committee and was responsible for writing the Democrats National Security Agenda for the campaign doesn’t matter to Pelosi.

For Majority Leader she supports Jack Murtha (D. Pa.), an un-indicted co-conspirator in the 1980s ABSCAM Scandal. He is on FBI surveillance tape turning down a $50,000 bribe, “at this time.” He is also on that tape saying he might be interested later on. Murtha is also noted for his anti-Iraq rants this past year where he accused U.S. Marines of “cold blooded murder” even before any were investigated.

This is what Pelosi calls “integrity.”

And now, “civility?” Can anyone actually say the Democrats have been civil at all in the past two years? In an email received this past October, Pelosi said, “The Republicans are desperate. The only thing they have left to offer is fear. And the fear-mongering is turned up to full volume in congressional races all across the country. Their attacks will get dirtier. Their lies will get more outrageous.” Of course, any mention that we are at war and under a still serious terrorist threat is automatically “fear mongering,” according to Democrats. At the same time, they complain because no one did anything to warn the public of 9/11 before it happened.

In September, her email was, “They are taking their fear tactics to the airwaves in an attempt to distract voters from their own miserable record. Karl Rove and his political hatchet men know that Republicans cannot win if they run on their record of failure, incompetence and corruption.” Talking to our troops that have been in Iraq we would learn that Iraq is not a failure. It may not be progressing as smoothly as desired, but it is progressing. No war progresses smoothly, not even on today’s video games.

Since “fear mongering” concerns her, I wonder what she thinks of the following quote. "As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

Also ignored from the Democrat party is, “If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act.” John Kerry (D. Ma.) in a New York Times Op Ed article printed on September 6, 2002.

While Kerry is a Senator and not in the House, his words are indicative of many statements made by Democrats who now accuse President Bush and Republicans of “failure in Iraq” and “fear mongering.”

Pardon me if I don’t hold my breath waiting for the Democrats under Ms. Pelosi’s tutelage to practice “fiscal discipline.”

From her booklet, “A New Direction for America,” we find her promised program “Six for ’06.”

Reclaim American leadership with a tough, smart plan to transform failed Bush Administration policies in Iraq, the Middle East and around the world. Require the Iraqis to take responsibility for their country and begin the phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq in 2006.
Double the size of Special Forces to destroy Osama Bin Laden and terrorist networks like al Qaeda. Rebuild a state-of-the-art military capable of projecting power wherever necessary. Implement the bipartisan 9/11 Commission proposal to secure America’s borders and ports and screen 100% of containers. Fully man, train, and equip our National Guard and our police, firefighters and other first responders. Honor our commitments to our veterans.
Prohibit the Congressional pay raise until the nation’s minimum wage is raised. End tax giveaways that reward companies for moving American jobs overseas.
Make college tuition deductible from taxes, permanently. Cut student loan interest rates. Expand Pell Grants.
Free America from dependence on foreign oil and create a cleaner environment with initiatives for energy-efficient technologies and domestic alternatives such as biofuels. End tax giveaways to Big Oil companies and enact tough laws to stop price gouging.
Fix the Medicare prescription drug benefit by putting seniors first by negotiating lower drug prices and ending wasteful giveaways to drug companies and HMOs. Promote stem cell research that offers real hope to millions of American families who suffer from devastating diseases.
Stop any plan to privatize Social Security, in whole or in part. Enact real pension reform to protect employees’ financial security from CEO corruption and mismanagement, including abuse of the bankruptcy laws. Expand personal savings incentives.

It all sounds pretty good until you ask yourself, how does she plan to pay for it all? My guess is by following the Democrats tired old plan they always resort to, RAISE TAXES AGAIN!!! Every time they do, our economy suffers, jobs are lost, and companies go out of business. That is how I see the Democrats plan for “fiscal discipline.”

She also says they will “double the size of the Special forces.” How? Does anyone actually think our young people will flock to recruitment offices now that Democrats control Congress? The only way I see for them to keep this promise is to reinstate the Military Draft; something other Democrats have been recommending for some time and as late as a week before the elections.

That should set well with the anti-war left that supported Democrats and helped propel them into power.

Add to that the distinct possibility of the far leftist within the party forcing an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Even if not immediate, broadcasting you "withdrawal date" to the enemy just lets them know when to hold back and let you go, while their plans have been all along to wait you out and take over once you are gone. This part alone has the Iraqi people worried.

The only place for conservatives to go from here is to make sure we use their conduct, actions and words to expose them to the country. Unlike what claims were made prior to the election, we don’t need to lie or invent anything, their own words deeds and missteps will expose them for who they are.

First and foremost, though, our party representatives in D.C. need to grow some {bleep} and back bone to stand up for us. We bloggers and voters cannot do it all; those we elect to represent us must do their part back in D.C.

Lead, follow or get the hell out of the way. The safety and future of our country is at stake.


Friday, November 10, 2006

Brave Men, Dedicated to My Fellow Veterans

As our troops now start returning home from the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, they will inevitably by drawn into such groups as Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion. I do not want to discourage any to join them so don’t look upon my words as a discouragement. I respect both groups and belong to the VFW and am considering reinitiating my membership in the American Legion soon.

During the times Veterans get together over a drink, it is inevitable that the discussion will turn to Bravery, some bragging about their own or someone they knew who acted brave in their conflict. Many though, remained in so called “rear areas,” or, REMFs, as they become known. Some shy away from the discussion and others feel left out or inadequate, as they weren’t Infantry and did not have to face an armed enemy on a regular basis. If I discourage anything in this essay, I wish to discourage those Support Troops from feeling this way.

The Military is a team and it takes a lot of Team Effort to accomplish a mission. No Infantryman can perform his mission without being fed, clothed or equipped for the task at hand. If wounded, they will not survive without the aides at a Field Hospital or the Supply system making sure medicines and bandages and equipment are in place and well maintained. They won’t even make it off the Battlefield without someone making sure the Truck or Helicopter is in proper working order and capable of carrying the wounded back for medical help.

With that in mind, the following is a short essay I wrote a couple years ago concerning this very subject with some men I served in Viet Nam with. This subject arose and some felt those of us who didn’t face the enemy everyday, as they claimed they did, made us somehow less brave and less a Veteran.

“The subject of bravery was recently brought up. How do we define bravery? I think we each have our own definition, but ultimately, we normally choose those who fought and often died for our cause, Vietnam, in our case. We all were there, we all survived it, and we all were “Cav.” But, not all of us actually fought, in the sense of going out and shooting at the bad guys each day.

I have heard it said that us maintenance types “didn’t even get shot at.” Is that what makes one brave, getting shot at on a regular basis? Is it even so that we who were assigned to maintenance didn’t get shot at? This is by no means a cheap shot at whoever has said the words above, nor is it intended to diminish the efforts and bravery of those of you who actually got to fly the missions and take on “Charlie” every day. Rather, my effort is to explore and try to explain what it meant to me to be in a war, yet not actually shooting at the enemy. If this offends anyone’s sensibilities, then I offer my apologies in advance. It certainly is not my intent.

When I received my orders to go to Vietnam, I had been in the Army just over 4 months and was just finishing the OH-6A course at Fort Eustis, Virginia. In fact, I think I was one of the last classes to graduate from Fort Eustis, as most of them were moved to Fort Rucker, Alabama, or so I had heard. Besides having the obvious fear associated with being told you are going to war, I also felt a certain sense of relief. There was no more wondering and worrying whether or not I would go. I was going! I had no idea where I would end up, what I would be doing, what unit I would be assigned to. I didn’t even know anything at all about what was happening there, other than there was a “police action” going on, read WAR to me. I had qualified with the M-16 during Basic Training at Ft. Jackson, S.C., but after receiving my orders at Ft. Eustis, we had to attend a three day RVN Orientation, where we were qualified with the M-14, for some reason. I never saw another M-14 after that. Our attitudes were somewhat blasé’. Had we actually been in combat, I’m sure none of us would have lasted the three days the training took.

In July of 1969, I arrived in Long Bin, shortly after that, moved to Nha Trang, then on to Camp Enari in Pleiku, where I was assigned to the 7/17th and ultimately to C Troop. Of course, once I arrived at Lane Army Heliport, I was placed in the 412th TC Det., or Maintenance. Somewhere during this time, I was promoted to Pfc. As I understood it; all Scouts went to Maintenance first, then as openings came about, would be transferred to “the line,” to actually crew a LOH. After seeing how some of them returned, and after one of the favorite guys in the Scouts, Scotty, died, the thought of actually crewing had a certain element of fear about it. I mean, who really wishes to go out and face death? Our Moms taught us different than that, and the Army did it’s best to undo that training. But, we still did what was necessary and went where we were assigned.

Not long after being sent to the 412th, I performed some work on a LOH. Only recently through the resources of Heli-Vets did I attain the tail number and the pilots names. But, I had the tail rotor off for a reason that escapes me today. Within the next day or two, that LOH crashed shortly after take off, killing both pilots on board, from what appeared to be a tail rotor failure. The officers looking into the crash told me all this after the fact. Of course, here I was, fresh out of AIT, new to the unit, a 20 year old Pfc. who had just removed and reinstalled the tail rotor. I wasn’t grilled too hard, but I was definitely looked into. There was enough of the tail rotor left to determine that I had reinstalled it properly, so I was cleared of any wrongdoing. At the time I discovered the Tail Number, I also discovered that witnesses saw the helicopter strike a tree on take off, causing the crash. But, for over thirty years now, I have kept the thought in the back of my head that maybe I did do something to contribute to their deaths. I don’t blame myself, but have always wondered if it went down for a reason that I could have contributed to.

None of this makes me brave, mind you, but I supply it for background in an attitude I developed and have maintained for the rest of my life.

In the normal scheme of things, I watched those ahead of me move on to crewing, Jim Sullivan, Ron Strickland, and others. I received normal promotions, being made an acting Sergeant when Jim Provencio DEROSed and I was the ranking E-4 on the OH-6 squad. I don’t remember what happened, but it came to be my turn to crew. CW2 Al Whaley, the Warrant who was over the LOH’s approached me and asked if I were ready to crew. Before I could answer, he told me I could just forget it. I was too valuable to him in maintenance. You see, after the crash I mentioned above, I made myself a promise that there would never be any doubt of another LOH going down because of maintenance. It didn’t matter that maintenance was not the cause of the crash, the thought that it could have been and that it could have been me, affected me in such a way that I was hell-bent no one would ever lose a life or be injured in any of my helicopters due to sloppy work. I immersed myself into repairing and maintaining the LOHs of C Troop and did my best to make sure the guys flew the best and safest helicopters the US Army had to supply. In fact, I learned a lot at the hands of Mr. Whaley and even though he often came across as an SOB, he was a pretty regular guy who also wanted safe and reliable aircraft.

So, I didn’t get my turn to crew. I watched as my best friend, Ron Strickland, went on to crew and even felt a huge loss when his chopper went in. I didn’t even get the chance to see him in the hospital before he was evacuated to Japan. I watched as others went on to the glory of crewing and actually fighting the war. But, I was doing what I enjoyed, fixing the LOHs. Would I have been as good a crew chief as others? I’ll never know.

To say we didn’t even get shot at, though, is somewhat inaccurate. Of course, we didn’t receive fire each day or even very often. At times we did fill in on some flights and after leaving the safety and security of Lane heliport for An Khe, get shot at we did. We still had to pull guard duty; with me being Sergeant of the Guard, since by then I had actually made it to E-5. When we got sappered those times, it was many of us “rear types” on guard. When the guards were doubled on the flight line due to such heavy loses of aircraft and Charlie went after hooches, even though C Troop was spared, he made no distinction between flight crews and rear types. He could have cared less. It was simply Americans he wanted to do away with.

Whether actually looking for and facing Charlie, or remaining back at Base Camp doing some other work, we were a team. It took all of us to get the job done. And, I can’t think of any unit that did it any better than C Troop.

Who were the brave men? It was the nameless eighteen year old who bought it early in his tour. It was the poor guy that drowned when he fell off a deuce and a half cleaning it at An Khe. It was Scotty, who gave his life and did so much teaching others and looking out for all. It was Bruce Carlson for flying each day, no matter what fear he felt, and doing his duty. It was Ron Strickland for getting to crew and surviving a crash that could have killed him, yet he went on to a career in the Army. In my book, it was every last one of us. We went, and we did whatever duty was assigned us. We griped and groaned, and drank too much, maybe even smoked a little dope. But we got the job done. We fought for a thankless people and for a thankless nation. We faced the condemnation of our countrymen when returning. We cringed every time the next episode of Mod Squad showed the weekly villain was just another deranged Vietnam Veteran. But, we endured. We didn’t ask for any Victory Parades nor did we receive any. We didn’t even receive a welcome home from any top official of the nation until 1981 when Ronald Reagan assumed the office of President. We may have cried when ones like Jane Fonda were honored as heroes. We were disturbed when draft dodgers were made the heroes of the era by being granted total amnesty by the President of the United States. We have endured, silently for the most part, for thirty years now. We love our country but wonder if it will ever love us.

You ask who were the brave men of Vietnam? The only answer I can give is all of us. Each in our own way contributed to the war effort and even though the enemy may have been boredom or a corroded bolt at times, we all faced it and conquered it. I offer my salute to all, Officer, Warrant, or Enlisted, who served there and did their duty to the best of their ability. We are a brotherhood unique to our generation, survivors and courageous.”

Battles are not only won in fighting, some have to be won by unarmed people who rebuild schools, care for the wounded citizens of the countries were are in and battles are won by those who stay back and keep the Infantry able to perform their mission.

From the lowliest Private to the Top General, from the most Gung Ho Infantryman to the tired out mechanic and worn out Truck Driver, it takes everyone to get the mission completed. Add to that now that more females are involved and you see that the effort is spread across the spectrum to keep the Infantry moving and accomplish our mission.

Lew Waters
412th TC; C Troop 7/17th Air Cav
Viet Nam 1969 to 1971

A Pittance of Time

In honor of all my fellow Veterans, please visit this site and download the video and song. Be sure to have kleenex handy, it even brings tears to this crusty old Vets eyes.

A Pittance of Time

Thursday, November 09, 2006

Humor Break

Time for a laugh, ya'll. Turn your sound up and enjoy.

Liberals, fair warning. Don't click on the link. It might make you smile and laugh.

Mark Levin, New DNC Theme


Wednesday, November 08, 2006

L'union d'Etats socialistes d'Amérique*

November 8, 2006

Welcome to the new America. Democrats vowed to “take our country back” and apparently, they have. Of course, it makes me wonder who had it if Americans didn’t. But, we conservatives are the divisive ones with no civility, right?

Under the banner of the catchy phrase, “A New Direction for America,” they have swept into power with expected Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi leading the way and vowing “no paybacks.” Yeah, right!

A comparison is relevant here, I feel.

1. Provisional Government problems
The Bolsheviks succeeded because the Provisional Government was weak and unpopular. When it was attacked, nobody was prepared to defend it.

2. Slogans
The Bolsheviks had good slogans such as ‘Peace, Bread, Land’ and ‘All Power to the Soviets’. Other parties claimed they could never deliver their promises, but their arguments were too complicated for people to understand. This meant that they got the public’s support.

3. Pravda
The party ran its own propaganda machine, including the newspaper Pravda (‘Truth’), which got their ideas across.

4. German money
The Germans financed the Bolsheviks because they knew that Lenin wanted to take Russia out of the war. This gave them the money to mount their publicity campaigns

5. Lenin
A brilliant leader – a professional revolutionary with an iron will, ruthless, brilliant speaker, a good planner with ONE aim – to overthrow the government. The Bolsheviks were well-led.

6. Army
A private Bolshevik army (the Red Guards), dedicated to the revolution, was set up and trained under Leon Trotsky. It gave the Bolsheviks the military power to win.

7. Organization
The Bolsheviks were brilliantly organized. A central committee sent orders to the soviets, who gave orders to the factories. Membership grew to 2 million in 3 months. Unlike the Provisional Government, the Bolsheviks demanded total obedience from their members, so they were well-disciplined (members did what the leaders wanted).

In many ways, we have been witnessing similar actions within the country these past few years. How so?

1. While we don’t really have a provisional government, Republicans abandoned their conservative base and decided to be more like what they felt liberal Democrats were like. As Democrats mounted attack after attack against conservatives, moderate and liberal Republicans just rolled over and allowed it. When a tough stance was required, ones like John McCain formed his “gang of 14” and undermined conservative principles. As Democrats kept attacking, they kept rolling over, trying to “make peace.” As we saw last night, they didn’t want “peace,” they wanted all the power back and Republicans freely handed it to them.

2. Who is better at using catchy slogans than the left? Everything they do is painted in a catchy slogan that ends up fooling the populace into thinking they are getting something better. The current one, “A New Direction for America” is a prime example where everyone is being offered equal everything. No mention of they should work for it, just they are entitled to it. Tax the rich, I feel your pain, responsible redeployment and any other politically correct phrase you can muster would fit the bill.

3. American mainstream media bias is so prevalent they don’t even try to hide it any longer. Publishing classified material while we are at war results in nothing against them. Vitriolic questioning, pro-Democrat editors and journalist fabricating news stories and ignoring other news that might benefit the other party happen every day and goes unpunished. If circulation drops, they just charge more or push to shut down any competition that might contradict their views, soon to be the internet and bloggers, I’m afraid.

Radio personality’s like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity may soon find themselves under some very strict broadcast rules designed to silence them from speaking out about what is going on that the lamestream media chooses to hide from the public.

4. Money? And loads of it, too. For all the cries of stick it to the wealthy, wealthy liberals are abundant. George Soros donates huge portions of his fortune to them. In the last administration, they were caught taking money from foreign governments and again, no one blinked, just asked them to return the money. Corporations, such as Progressive Insurance (the name alone should tell you)donated and backed Democrats and still, any corporation donating to Republicans or their causes found themselves accused of all sorts of impropriety.

5. Brilliant leader? Well, we do have the Clinton’s that apparently can do no wrong, no matter who gets hurt. Pelosi played her grandmother/mother role to the hilt, as if that makes her a better leader? Ma Barker was also a mother; she wasn’t exactly a grand leader.

6. They don’t have quite a separate Army just yet, not in the sense of a Military. But, they do have, DailyKos and some other lesser “progressive” groups that take their marching orders from party leaders and spread out their vitriol everywhere they can. Although there have been charges that Republicans have their groups, that just isn’t so. That doesn’t stop Democrats from pointing fingers while building their own “Army.”

7. They have quietly organized and set themselves up as infallible. Our media barely makes mention of their gaffs and improprieties. Scandals just roll off their backs and are swiftly swept under the rug. Kerry’s comments against the troops, Jefferson’s acceptance of large sums of money, Murtha’s involvement in ABSCAM, Kennedy’s killing Mary Jo Kopechne and more. They just circle the wagons and push ahead.

Under this “New Direction” Speaker-elect Pelosi promises is “Democrats believe that America needs – and Americans deserve – a New Direction that provides security, prosperity, and opportunity for all.” Okay, who was being denied that? Highest stock market in decades, lowest unemployment. Home ownership at its highest and that is a bad economy?

They talk about “responsible redeployment,” and at the same time vow to double the Special Forces. They also vow to stop terrorism by eliminating Osama Bin Laden. But, sentencing Saddam Hussein to death doesn’t change anything. Of course, minimum wage is a big come-on for them. Too bad people can’t see the minimum wage hurts them by raising businesses expenses and when required, that is all they pay.

They vow to tax companies that “outsource” jobs overseas. They neglect to tell you it was they and the Clinton administration that, in 1994 when Democrats controlled both Houses last, that they passed and implemented NAFTA, North American Free Trade Agreement, which set up sending American jobs overseas where labor costs were cheaper.

I could go on and on, but no need. We get the government we deserve. Unfortunately, too many were fooled and now think they have it all.

Thanks to previous Democrat Congresses, we abandoned the Cubans in the Bay of Pigs, Korea is still a hotbed, we dumped on the Vietnamese, bailed out of Lebanon, sold out the Iraqis in Gulf War 1, after encouraging them to stand up to Saddam, ran from Somalia, which is under the control of terrorists now and we are poised to repeat it Iraq again. We disparage the sacrifice of our Brave troops by allowing terrorists, communists and any despot that opposes us to walk all over us. I really can't see any other country looking to "Baby Huey" America for help in their fight for freedom again. We talk the talk, but when the chips are down, don't walk the walk.

But, at least France may like us again.


* Union of Socialist States of America

Tuesday, November 07, 2006

Democrats Pull It Off, It Appears

November 7, 2006

If early reports and calls are to be believed, it looks like the Democrats have either succeeded in fooling enough Americans or stuffing the ballot boxes well enough to have re-stolen control of the House of Representatives. Life goes on.

Of course, now they will have to actually work and do things. We can be the ones nitpicking their every move and opposing every step.

It remains to be seen if they can also steal the Senate.

Something I am gleefully looking forward to with Democrats controlling of the House.

This means that Charlie Rangle (D.N.Y.) will now Head the powerful Ways and Means Committee. As late as last week he was calling for reinstating the Military Draft. I'm giving him all my support to do just that.

Imagine, all the anti-war lefty's that pushed so hard for Democrat Control of Congress getting drafted to serve because a Democrat got his Draft Proposal put through.

They can walk around and whine in their BDU's while I smile wearing my "Don't Blame Me, I Voted Republican" T-Shirt.

You usually get what you ask for, whether you wanted it or not.

For all you Republicans that sat this one out to “teach the Republican Party a lesson,” don’t complain as the stock market goes down, taxes go up, our troops get pulled back and terrorism once again flourishes and we are frozen in time with endless investigations seeking a way to impeach both Bush and Cheney and install Nancy ‘Stretch’ Pelosi as POTUS.


UPDATE: CAUTION, GRAPHIC!!!! Bin Laden thanks America

Monday, November 06, 2006

If There Was Ever Any Doubt;

November 6, 2006

That Democrats don’t take terrorism seriously, we need only look to the campaign trail this past weekend and to former President, B.J. Clinton who, at a rally at ASU for candidates Jim Pederson and Harry Mitchell said, “Republicans will have you believe that Democrats will tax you into the poor house and that you’ll meet a terrorist around every corner and trip over an illegal immigrant on the way there.”

Obviously, at least I hope, he is joking. But, is terrorism and illegal immigration something to joke about? I don’t think so. Unlike Senator John ‘F’in Kerry’s gaff this last week, B.J. won’t be able to say this was just a “botched joke.”

Listening to his words shows one just how he and his party view terrorist and terrorism. To them, it’s all a big joke. Maybe that is why, during his eight years in office, terrorist grew in strength and attacked us several times, once within the U.S. Prosecuting and imprisoning a blind sheik was their answer then and it did not stop them or even slow them down, as subsequent attacks leading up the attacks of September 11, 2001 showed.

Clinton also said that before the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Iraq was a “moderate Muslim Democracy.” Is that why in 1998, he attacked Iraq with cruise missiles, informing the nation,

"I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

"Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world."

"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."

Was it only after he left office and President Bush took office that Iraq became a “moderate Muslim Democracy?”

Was Iraq a “moderate Muslim Country” when addressing the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1998 he said,
"Those who have questioned the United States in this moment, I would argue, are living only in the moment. They have neither remembered the past nor imagined the future."

"So first, let's just take a step back and consider why meeting the threat posed by Saddam Hussein is important to our security in the new era we are entering."


"We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They feed on the free flow of information and technology. They actually take advantage of the freer movement of people, information and ideas."

"And they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen."

"There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us."

And now, terrorism and Iraq are just a joking matter to him and his party?

What about other Democrats? Recently, as I showed, Wes Clark, disgraced former U.S. Army General claimed everything wrong is because of Iraq. Others claim we must leave Iraq and go after terrorist where they really are. Then, they claim there are more terrorists in Iraq because we are there.

If they aren’t currently in Iraq, then where are they? Do they honestly think if we leave Iraq all will be well and peaceful the world over? Do they not think terrorists will follow us wherever we go?

To redeploy our troops elsewhere, besides the high cost involved, leaves Iraq’s fledgling Democracy in peril of an insurgent takeover, as has recently happened in Somalia, another country beset with terrorist that B.J. Clinton decided to abandon early on in his administration.

Terrorism didn’t stop when we left. Somalia didn’t become peaceful and today, terrorists claim to have total control of that country.

But yet, if we just leave Iraq, terrorism will stop, they think.

Bush is accused of not doing enough to stop 9/11 and yet, when he tries to keep us informed of the dangers of returning to pre-9/11 mindset today, he is ridiculed as a “fearmonger.” After he instituted programs to strengthen our law enforcement and intelligence agency’s, to intercede and prevent another attack, it was Democrats that demonized his efforts and once the New York Times starting publishing these secret programs, they were the first ones to cry foul! It doesn’t matter that because of these programs, we haven’t been attacked again.

Today, Democrats whine that Iraq is a failure, it’s a bad policy, it’s mishandled, and on and on and on. Yet, isn’t it they who have desperately kept up efforts undermining the war effort and thwarting every move of Bush’s they can?

The icing on the cake, though, were all of the calls yesterday in favor of Saddam Hussein’s death sentencing. Every one of them also said it changes nothing in Iraq. Yet, all of these same Democrats keep repeating that capturing Osama Bin Laden will change everything. What utter nonsense. If he is even still alive he is ineffective now. He dare not communicate because once he does, we can track him. And, he knows that, if he is still alive.

I shudder to think of our future should this time tomorrow night the Democrats have stolen power back in the election. It’s too late to change ballots for those who have used mail-in ballots. I can only hope those that go to the polls open their eyes to the constant contradictions, undermining and lack of a cohesive plan for the War on Terror from the Democrats.

Cross your fingers, America, its crunch time.


Sunday, November 05, 2006

Wes Clark: ‘Because of Iraq’

November 5, 2006

In yet another gross misrepresentation and exploitation of America’s Veterans, fired General and failed presidential candidate Wesley Clark has released what he labels as “a blunt ad,” showing 3 veterans speaking against Iraq. One says Osama Bin Ladin is still a threat because of Iraq. Another says the Military is spread too thin, because of Iraq. And the third says there are more terrorists in the world, because of Iraq. At the end, Clark, in a very somber voice, tells us that when we hear commercials warning us about terrorists, “it’s all because of Iraq.”

While I normally hold ex-generals in a certain degree of respect, this moonbat leftist has lost any and all respect from me that I may have ever had and I didn’t have that much to begin with.

First off, he is misleading listeners with his “” website. While he may have 5 Veterans of Iraq running for office in an anti-war mood, several thousand more are still serving, voluntarily fighting the terrorists, not trying to make a name for themselves in opening our country back up for another 9/11 style attack.

Secondly, we weren’t in Iraq when Muslim extremists stormed our embassy in Tehran Iran in 1979.

We weren’t in Iraq when the U.S. Embassy was attacked in Beirut, Lebanon in 1983, killing 63.

We weren’t in Iraq when the Marine Barracks were attacked in Lebanon in 1983, killing 242 Americans and 58 French troops.

We weren't in Iraq when a TWA flight was highjacked in 1985 and flown to Beirut where the passengers and crew were held for seventeen days with one hostage, a U.S. Navy Sailor, was murdered and his limp body tossed out onto the tarmac.

We weren’t in Iraq when the Achille Lauro was high jacked in 1985, resulting in the murder of an American Jewish wheelchair ridden passenger, Leon Klinghoffer.

We weren’t in Iraq when Pan Am flight 103 was blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing all 259 on board, in 1988.

We weren’t in Iraq when the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993, resulting in 6 deaths and 1,000 injuries.

We weren’t in Iraq when President Bush (1) was targeted for assassination by Iraqi agents while visiting Kuwait in 1993.

We weren’t in Iraq when our forces in Mogadishu were ambushed and savagely murdered, resulting in 18 deaths and their bodies being drug through the streets in 1993.

We weren’t in Iraq when 2 U.S. Diplomats were murdered by unidentified gunmen in Karachi, Pakistan in 1995.

We weren’t in Iraq when a Saudi Military Installation in Riyadh was attacked, killing 1 U.S. Citizen, several foreign national employees of the U.S. and over 40 others in 1995.

We weren’t in Iraq when the Khobar Towers were attacked in Dahahran, killing 19 U.S. Military personnel and wounding 515 including 240 other U.S. Service personnel in 1996.

We weren’t in Iraq in 1997 when a Palestinian gunman opened fire on tourists on the observation deck atop the Empire State Building in New York City, killing a Danish national and wounding visitors from the United States, Argentina, Switzerland, and France.

We weren’t in Iraq in 1998 when the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were attacked almost simultaneously resulting 40 and injuring thousands.

We weren’t in Iraq in 2000 when suicide bombers maneuvered a rubber raft laden with explosives next to the USS Cole and detonated their bombs, killing 17 Sailors and injuring 39.

We weren’t in Iraq when we suffered the worst terrorist attack in history on our own homeland on September 11, 2001, when 19 suicide high jackers high jacked 4 jetliners and flew three of them into the World Trade Centers and Pentagon, with untold more stopped from completing their mission by the firm action of passengers and crew on United Flight 93, causing it to crash in Pennsylvania and decisive actions by President Bush (2) grounding all aircraft immediately.

We weren’t in Iraq when any of those terrorist attacks happened, Mr. Clark. Since going into Iraq, how many terrorist attacks have their been against U.S Interests?

This new ad, slated to run through November 7, is nothing more than another below the belt hit piece designed to convince voters there is no real terrorist threat as long as we get rid of President Bush and Republicans.

Since 9/11 and President Bush’s decision to take the fight back to the enemy, Democrats have been firmly opposed it, portraying it as a tool to return to power, trying to paint is as another Viet Nam, the other war they undermined at the cost of millions of innocent Vietnamese and Cambodian lives. They claim only Afghanistan is worthy of the fight, but they also were calling it a “quagmire” within days of the invasion there. This after complaining President Bush wasn’t acting fast enough to “get somebody” for the 9/11 attacks, resulting in Bush’s famous quote, "When I take action, I'm not gonna fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive."

Decisive he has been since then, too.

This ad also is misleading in that you are to think Veterans oppose President Bush’s policies and only Democrats have their best interest at heart. Think back to the fiasco of the 2000 Florida election recounts. It was Democrat Al Gore’s campaign that tried desperately to block and deny counting absentee ballots from overseas of our Military personnel overseas by any technicality they could find.

I won’t say that there are no Veterans opposed to the war because that just isn’t so. But by and large, many more support it than oppose it. Three opposed, even including the single amputee he uses in this ad, doesn’t speak for the majority.

Like the misleading editorial recently printed in the Army Times, this is a Democrat inspired “November Surprise” at the last minute to sway those who have yet to vote. It is designed to mislead you into a sympathetic glance at the three veterans opposed and forget the thousands that voluntarily return to finish the good job they are doing every day in Iraq.

Al Qaeda has stated that Iraq is the “Central Front” of this war. Democrats state it is a diversion. If Al Qaeda has flooded into Iraq, should we not face them there, and not here?

Wesley Clark, in my estimation, has openly revealed himself to be another useful idiot of the left. His tactics in Bosnia nearly resulted in World War Three being started, only stopped because of the refusal of a British General to engage Russian troops as they entered the airport there. It is little wonder that President Clinton was compelled to fire Clark, making him the only general ever to be fired by a Draft Dodger.

Clark may come across in this ad as sincere and somber, but don’t be fooled. Return Democrats to power and you can expect them to

“adopt the Clinton administration’s spineless approach to fighting terrorism.”

”They would gut the USA Patriot Act.”

”They would stop interception of calls from al Qaeda to and from the U.S.”

”They would end tracking of terrorists’ financial transfers.”

”They would bestow legal rights on al Qaeda terrorists who are being interrogated about planned plots rights similar to those enjoyed by American citizens.”

”Finally, they would cut off funds to support the war effort in Iraq, handing al Qaeda a win in what the terrorists themselves have described as a crucial battleground in their effort to defeat America and impose their vision of radical Islam on the world.”

As Ron Kessler, chief Washington correspondent of and whose words I have quoted above wrote today in an article titled “Analysis: Election About Stopping The Next 9/11 stated,
“Contrary to what many pundits would have you believe, this election is not about side shows like the meaning of Macaca or Senator John Kerry’s assessment of American soldiers’ I.Q. Instead, voters face choices about the most fundamental issue: our national security and whether we can foil a devastating attack that could kill millions of Americans and wipe out our economy.”

Wesley Clark is dead wrong. Should he convince enough Americans, many of us may just end up dead!


UPDATE: A Satirical sequel to this ad by ScrappleFace is up at
Because of Iraq II

UPDATE: It appears this is an edited version of the original ad which contained another 'Vet,' John Lansdale, making claims of horrors that did not happen, according to many who served with him. Since saw fit to edit the ad, it lends credence to that claim as his comments have been removed. Gateway Pundit

Saddam Hussein Guilty, Sentenced to Death by Hanging

November 5, 2006

Just breaking on Foxnews and other news agencies, Saddam and 7 co-defendants faced their justice today.

Of the 7 co-defendants, one was acquitted due to lack of information, three received 15 years sentences, one received life in prison and three, including Saddam, found guilty and received death by hanging.

Saddam had previously requested a firing squad, claiming to be the Commander of the Iraqi Army, but the Iraqi High Tribunal sentenced him and two others to hanging.

Some had threatened violence upon hearing of a death penalty, but reports are not coming out of any violence just yet.

I certainly hope that once appeals that are automatically granted, cease, this matter can be put behind the Iraqi people and they start working together to secure their country and our forces may come home, victorious.

"Execution is the very least sentence they can hand down to Saddam Hussein," Mohammad Ali Hosseini, the Iranian foreign ministry spokesman, said.

Read more at Al Jazeera

Other links to be added as they become available.


UPDATE: Foxnews reporting violence breaks out immediately in north Baghdad's heavily Sunni Azamiyah district.

UPDATE: Posters on Democratic Underground don't seem to appreciate the sentence and some even say Bush should be the one executed (in other threads). Makes me wonder just who these people are pulling for, the terrorists?

UPDATE: CNN now reporting too.

Saturday, November 04, 2006

Military papers: ‘Rumsfeld must go’

November 4, 2006

Under a very misleading headline, MSNBC has written another hit piece on the eve of our mid-term elections designed to sway undecided voters, undermine our efforts in Iraq in the War on terror and suggesting Military Leaders have lost all confidence in President Bush’s Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld.

Calls for Secretary Rumsfeld’s resignation have been ongoing for a long time. He has offered to step down a few times but President Bush has refused him each time, expressing confidence in his running of the War on terror. Statements within the “editorial” of how incompetent Bush and Rumsfeld have handled the war neglect to mention the constant and ongoing undermining and opposition of the war effort starting shortly after the invasion of Afghanistan and then Iraq by the leftist and Democrat party.

Don’t be fooled this latest attempt at undermining the morale of our troops and bashing President Bush and his administration. This is just the latest attack. This editorial going out under the guise of “Military papers” IS NOT publications by the Military. It is by a Civilian Publisher, Military Times Media Group, a subsidiary of the Gannett Co., Inc. which prints such newspapers as the Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times, and Marine Corps Times.

When I was on Active Duty I eagerly looked forward to receiving the Army Times for news of events in the U.S. Back then, I assumed the publication was unbiased and honest. Looking at what they print today it has very obviously become another propaganda tool of the leftists.

What really outrages me in this is that this same member of the lamestream media has given a total pass to Senator John Kerry and his preposterous statements against our Military, dating back to 1971. Where are the calls for his resignation as he indicated those who join our Military are uneducated and stupid? Where are the calls for his resignation for his statements of our Military “terrorizing Iraqi’s in the dead of night?”

The editorial mischaracterizes Military Leaders confidence in Secretary Rumsfeld so much that the Department of Defense as issued a Response to the Army Times Editorial, setting the record straight on their bogus claims within the “editorial.”

Ask yourself why do upwards of 80% of our Military supports Bush and Rumsfeld. What they think matters and this is an obvious attempt to undermine their will to fight. Editorials as this are nothing more than the left supporting Kerry’s statement of hos dumb our troops are as they ignore what our Military people already know, we are in this fight and we must win it.

Just like Hanoi Jane Fonda's and John Kerry's anti-American stance long ago, the left repeats their outrageous conduct to undermine and defeat America. Unlike Viet Nam, the carnage after we leave will not stay in Iraq. Once we leave, with the terrorists still strong, they will follow us!!

It is my sincerest hope that the Department of Defense bars delivery of these papers to our troops and their families. Our Military people are amongst the most intelligent we have ever produced. They continue to volunteer to stay in the fight and decimate the terrorists numbers enough to give the Iraqi and Afghani people a fighting chance to determine their own destiny. Sadly, not only are we fighting terrorism, we are having to fight the leftist Socialists undermining America to destroy it so they can take over with their elitist agendas enslaving the rest of us as was done towards the end of World War One in Russia with the Bolshevik Revolution that brought about the Union of Soviet States of Russia. Just because it failed there doesn’t stop these leftist from working hard to mislead us and institute in here in America.

We must defeat terrorism! We must defeat the Socialists! We must preserve the free society left us by our founding fathers. Senator Kerry Should Resign


Gold Star Families Surprise Visit in Iraq

November 4, 2006

Don’t expect to see or hear much about this historic trip in our lamestream media. We all know that anything that might come close to a positive report on the War on Terror, especially from Iraq, won’t be reported on.

Through efforts coordinated with Move America Forward , several Gold Star Families, familes of fallen American heroes, traveled to Iraq last evening to show support for the Iraqi people and to counter reports of nothing being accomplished there. They are also showing that recent reports from the New York Times, ostensibly designed as another slap in the face to our President, showed that our troops did break up a WMD program being restarted by the Saddam Hussein regime.

Melanie Morgan, Chairman of Move America Forward, said of the trip, “The American people are shown a skewed picture of the situation in Iraq day after day by the international news media. We felt it was time to allow the families of U.S. troops who died in Iraq to come see the progress being made in Iraq and report it back to the American people.”

Updates and links to articles detailing this historic trip will continue to be posted on their website,

Statements made by some family members about this unprecedented trip:
“I want to see for myself what America has been able to accomplish to help the Iraqis help themselves. I will be asking the Iraqis what message do they want me to give for them to the people back in America. Finally, I came because I wanted to experience the same feelings that my son experienced when he was preparing to go to Iraq, sort of like walking in his shoes.”
“I want to carry a message of love, support and hope to our troops. I want them to know that despite the negative media and despite our loss, we are there for them with all of our hearts. I hope to take some pictures with some of the troops and send pictures and cards to their families when I get home. These cards will help their families know that someone cared to spend a little time with their soldier.”
“This trip is something that I will gain additional closure from. Losing my only son, namesake, and first born, has been the toughest thing in my entire life. I continue to gain strength from Mike Jr. When they say Marines are a different breed, they are right - this kid was as tough as nails, and a force to be reckoned with.
I want tell anybody that will listen, the good that we have done, and are currently doing. We cannot find security by turning a blind eye, or thinking that “if we leave them alone, they’ll leave us alone”. That’s utterly ridiculous.”
“I am proud of my son and his service to this nation. He made the ultimate sacrifice so that each of us may live in peace, blessed with freedom. America has carried the torch for freedom, fighting for individual liberties against Communism, Fascism, Totalitarianism and now once more against Terrorism. If we cut and run from Iraq, that will deal a devastating blow in the war against terrorism. Will any terrorist group ever fear us again, or will they know that they need only outlast us. We must stand by our heroic military men and women in Iraq and the mission they are serving there.”
“I’m anxious but excited...after all, it is still a war zone over there. I want to go see for myself what is going on over there. I have heard from a lot of people, both ways, and I want to be able to say I personally have been there and saw it first hand.”
“I want to be able to tell the troops that there are Americans who still believe we are doing the right thing by being here. We want them to know that there are people back here who are supporting and praying for them daily.”

Follow the progress and updates at


Friday, November 03, 2006

Democrats United Behind the Troops? Don’t Bet On It.

October 3, 2006

Astonishing statement, isn’t it? I too was a bit taken back when I read that in Rep. Jack Murtha’s latest begging email I received today. Of course, claims as what I titled this appear at the very end of his email under a P.S. The rest is the usual distortion and even contradictions we have gotten used to from them.

From his email, we read; “I am sick of this blame game. President Bush blames the Democrats for the quagmire in Iraq saying our approach is helping the terrorists win.”

He’s sick of the blame game? What have Democrats been doing ever since President Bush sent the troops into Afghanistan and later, Iraq? What Democrat, other than maybe Joe Lieberman, has given President Bush any support whatsoever in this ongoing War on Terror?

He adds, “The war in Iraq is the number one concern of American citizens today. Inaction is no solution. And passing the buck is not a strategy.”

Tell me, Jack, just what is the strategy in opposing every single step in the war? What is the strategy in demanding withdrawal of the troops? Or, as you said, ‘redeployment’ some 5,000 miles away for a “rapid deployment force?”

President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, not one of them has passed the buck. They have been striving to succeed against sometime insurmountable opposition from you and your left-winged cronies. From the very beginning each has stated this will be a long fight, a hard fight and a necessary fight.

Pointing out that your constant and very public opposition isn’t passing the buck, it’s trying to get you to bring your head back out into the sunshine to see our enemies are once again seeing the opposition as their way to defeating us again. You served in Viet Nam and saw the effectiveness of the anti-war crowd in causing us to abandon a worthy ally in their time of need. You saw the dishonoring of the 58,000 names of those who paid the ultimate price trying to help the South Vietnamese remain free. You saw as North Vietnamese tanks rolled through Saigon and through the gates of the empty U.S. Embassy and Presidential Palace as the curtain of darkness closed around the South Vietnamese.

In Congress, you read the reports of the “reeducation camps” saw the “boat people,” those who fled Communism, as they suffered and many died, seeking the freedom we decided they weren’t worthy to have. You have the history, Jack, just look at it and see why the Bush Administration keeps telling you how your actions will hurt not only us, but the Iraqi and Afghani people too.

He continues, “Three and a half years with no accountability has left us with almost 3,000 dead, 20,000 wounded, and Iraq on the brink of full blown civil war.”

Jack, did you forget three and a half years of opposition? Three and a half years of undermining? Three and half years of complaining? Three and a half years of politicizing?

Those young men and women volunteered, Jack. They saw something honorable in performing their duty to their fellow man to help them seek freedom. And you would dishonor that again by reverting back to the failures of Viet Nam and abandon another ally?

I grieve for each of those who sacrificed their lives, Jack. I also look upon them with a degree of pride that they felt the same sense of duty and honor I felt 35 years ago, and I assume you did as well, when we were in Viet Nam. They gave their lives for a noble cause, Jack, a cause that you now desire to turn your back on, again.

Is political power so important that you and the other Democrats would spit on their graves again? Have you no shame or sense of duty and honor any longer?

Odd you now say Iraq is “on the brink of a full blown civil war.” Back on January 12, 2006, you outright stated, “[the] Situation in Iraq Is Civil War.”

According to your own words, “It IS a Civil war,” yet here it is some 9 months later and it is “on the brink of civil war?” Isn’t that sort of regressive? Or, did you merely forget your previous assertion?

Maybe your constant rattling and opposition has befuddled your thinking, Jack?

He closes with what I titled this as, “Let there be no doubt that Democrats are united behind the fight against terrorism. Democrats are united behind our troops. And Democrats are united behind a strong America. When Democrats win on November 7th -- we will take America and Iraq in a new direction.”

Yes, jack, you are united, but not behind the war on terrorism. You are united in your quest to re-seize political power in Washington D.C. We have also seen your parties “united behind the troops,” most recently from Senator John ‘F’in Kerry as he stated, “You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.” You and he can try to claim it was a botched joke, Jack, but we all see it different. We see it, along with his many other anti-troop statements, for what it is, just another anti-military taunt.

We saw the “united Democrats” as you accused a squad of Marines of “cold blooded murder,” before they were even investigated, much less charged. We saw it as Senator Dick Durbin compared them to Nazi’s, Soviet Gulags or Pol Pot’s regime.” We saw it as Senator Kennedy said “Saddam’s torture chambers were reopened for business, but this time, under the U.S. Military.”

We saw it as Democrats continued to vote against Military appropriations; voted against new weapons systems, some that they are using today and we especially saw it as the Democrat party, under Al Gore, worked so hard to deny counting absentee Military ballots in the Florida recounts in the 2000 Presidential election. You are “united behind the troops,” alright, but it appears to be against them, not for them!

We have seen the Democrats “direction for America,” too. For 40 years, your party controlled the House and look where we ended up. Outlandish taxes. Restrictions on rights, when it suits you to control others. Demands for civil rights of captured terrorists, while you embrace the wanton slaughter of our unborn. Out of control illegal immigration that even the Republicans have joined you in turning as blind eye.

Your direction reduced the Military to shadow of it’s former self, cut intelligence budgets and opened Veterans care up so even phony Veterans, some who never served at all, qualify.

We’ve had your “new direction” and seen your party’s unitization against the troops, Jack. We got sick of it in 1994 and booted you out of power. Only by camouflaging your true intentions and goals could you regain power.

We will not allow that this time.


Kerry Should Resign

Update: In further proof of Jack Murtha's support and backing for the troops, in January 2006, he was quoted as saying, "I worry about a slow withdrawal which makes it look like there's a victory when I think it should be a redeployment as quickly as possible and let the Iraqis handle the whole thing."

We Have Nothing to Fear But Victory Itself

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Florida Democrats, First Rush, Now Ann Coulter

November 1, 2006

We all sat and watched as Rush Limbaugh was drug over the coals for some two years over his alleged 'doctor shopping' for illegally acquiring prescription drugs. Unable to ever prove anything and making a fuss because Rush was caught with a bottle of Viagra, they settled the matter after their lengthy and costly investigation by asking Rush to periodically submit to urine tests for drug use.

If we thought the Democrat controlled prosecutors in Florida were ridiculous in their witch hunt against Rush, now the Palm Beach County prosecutor is investigating Ann Coulter for the alleged crime of voting in the wrong precinct, a felony punishable by up by five years in jail.

Since investigators released information prematurely to the media there, I assume to besmirch her name, as they did Rush's, she and her attorney are not answering in writing, but will only do so in person.

Prosecutors Eye Ann Coulter Voting Probe

As a displaced Native Floridian, born and raised in Southeast Florida, seeing this nonsense being carried on against prominent conservatives reaffirms to me my decision to leave Florida for good. If allowing the murder of Teri Schiavo wasn't enough, conservatives seem unwelcome down in my home town area (I grew up in Broward County, graduating from South Broward High in 1966).

I realize the three counties of Dade, Broward and Palm Beach are notoriously Democrat, not to mention corrupt, but are they sending a message that prominent conservatives aren't welcome there now?

Florida used to be a great state at one time. The last few years make me wonder just what the hell is going on down there. What I hear coming out of there sure isn't the Southern State I grew up in.

Ms. Coulter, you don't need advice from an old Vet like me, but stick to your guns. Like Rush, don't let these liberals railroad you over something as menial as a voting precinct. Even if you did go to the wrong poll, surely there are drug dealers, murderers, pedophiles and such laughing away as Palm beach County ignores them and pursues conservatives that irritate them.

This old Florida "cracker" is in your corner, ma'am.


Kerry Should Resign

November 1, 2006

The recent gaff by John ‘F’in Kerry (who some think may have served in Viet Nam) is but the latest in series of outrageous comments made by him and directed towards our Military.

I don’t believe he set out intentionally to denigrate our Military, but in his elitist style and manner of speaking, committed a slip of the tongue, revealing what he feels innermost, disdain for our Military Services. Many, including yours truly, have written about his comments over the past 35 years, dating back to his ‘perjured’ testimony before the Fulbright Commission.

Kerry constantly speaks of how he leads the fight for us Veterans in Agent Orange recognition and other benefits. His record speaks differently. When it comes to Veterans Benefits, Kerry voted against an amendment that would have increased funding for veterans' medical care by $650 million in 2001, voted against an amendment that would have reallocated $210 million for veterans' medial benefits, and $10 million for construction of veterans' extended-care facilities and voted against an amendment offered by Sen. John McCain to require equal access to health care for all veterans in 1996 - Kerry was one of only 18 senators to vote against the measure.

Of Veterans programs he actually did support, a careful check of his other proposals reveal recommendations in cutting spending in Defense, which would have led to more disabled Veterans, not having the weaponry they needed at this time.

This basically shows Kerry to be your typical ‘talk out of both sides of your mouth’ politician. Kerry, however, takes it further with his refusal to apologize for his lies told in 1971 about the Viet Nam War as well as secret meetings with representatives of the North Vietnamese Delegates at the Paris Peace Talks, strictly forbidden of any Military Person by the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) and his subsequent return to the U.S. and advocating their position in his anti-war activities.

His self proclamation of “war hero” for his scant 4 months in country and “medal hunting” has propelled him into the spotlight and has been used by him to advance his political career until 2004 when a group of Highly Decorated Viet Nam Veterans, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth publicly opposed him for President.

They were maybe the single most reason he was narrowly defeated, something which sticks in his craw today. Quite possibly that is why, after his misguided statement went public about our troops not being very well educated, he grossly over reacted to the outrage and umbrage thrown his way by so many, taking nearly 3 days to offer a weak and insincere apology, after declaring loudly and publicly, “I APOLOGIZE TO NO ONE!”

If, as he now claims, his words were merely a “botched joke,” why not simply clear the air and apologize immediately? Why get your butt up your back and refuse to accept responsibility for your words and instead, attack ones like President Bush and Rush Limbaugh for his little misstatement?

Even in his ‘apology,’ he can’t help but take a swipe at the man who defeated him in the last election;

As a combat veteran, I want to make it clear to anyone in uniform and to their loved ones: my poorly stated joke at a rally was not about, and never intended to refer to any troop.
I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member, or American who was offended.
It is clear the Republican Party would rather talk about anything but their failed security policy. I don’t want my verbal slip to be a diversion from the real issues. I will continue to fight for a change of course to provide real security for our country, and a winning strategy for our troops.

Typically par for the course, his words were “misrepresented.” We didn’t hear what we heard and aren’t smart enough to know he was really directing his words at President Bush. And, this took almost 3 days for him to utter. In fact, I don’t even think he uttered those words; he had a staffer write them out and place them on his web site. Surely, a sincere apology should be expressed publicly.

As has happened too many in politics, he too was caught in a gaffe that bothered and hurt many members of the Military at a time we have them in Harm’s Way. Unlike others that have been caught in unseemly conduct or speech, his party leadership has not called for him to step down. We have seen this before in the matter of Trent Lott’s expressions to Strom Thurmond on his 100th birthday which the Democrat Party turned into a racial slur, while they gave a pass to Christopher Dodd over his similar comments to Robert Byrd, citing his words as just well wishes while castigating Lott.

From the time President Bush reacted to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 by engaging the enemies of America overseas, calls for resignations of members of his administration have been so frequent that even the lamestream media doesn’t pay that much attention to them any longer. Other than a couple Democrats stating things like;
“No one wants to have the 2004 election replayed,” said Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.
“Whatever the intent, Senator Kerry was wrong to say what he said. He needs to apologize to our troops,” said Rep. Harold Ford Jr
“It was a real dumb thing to say. He should say sorry,” added Claire McCaskill
And Howard Dean, Party leader saying, "Kerry made a blooper. Bloopers happen,"

There has been an almost eerie silence form other party leaders like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Unlike the recent revelations of Republican Mark Foley, resulting in his resignation asked for by GOP party leaders, Kerry’s latest misstatement has been met with silence.

If Kerry’s intent was to make a joke, maybe he better leave comedy up to Jay Leno and other comedians. Especially after his other recent “botched” joke directed at President Bush on the Bill Maher Show, discussing he and his wife’s trip to Vermont to celebrate her birthday;
Maher: “You could have went [sic] to New Hampshire and killed 2 birds with one stone.”
Kerry: “I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone.”

Also met with stone cold silence by party leadership.

Kerry is not a person dedicated to bettering America. He is dedicated to bettering John ‘F’in Kerry.

Like many other Veterans offended by his comments, I do not accept his apology. The only righteous move for him to make at this late date would be to announce his resignation and slink off into a corner of one of is 5 mansions. While America is at war, we do not need any like Kerry trying to direct Congressional matters and undermining our efforts at fighting terrorism.

Senator Kerry, for once in your measly existence, stand up like a real man and accept responsibility for your missteps, RESIGN!


UPDATE: Excellent article from Army Sgt. Major (ret) J.D. Pendry. Kerry'd Again