Wolves in Holy Men's Clothes

By now everyone is, no doubt, aware that last week six imams were removed from a US Airways flight for behavior deemed suspicious. According to a Washington Times article written by Audrey Hudson these holy men were praying loudly in the concourse before boarding the plane bound for Phoenix. Once on the plane, they dispersed from their assigned seats in pairs, with two in the front row of first-class, two in the middle of the plane on the exit aisle and two in the rear of the cabin. Three of the men then asked for seat-belt extenders, which they then placed on the floor at their feet. The imams then allegedly began speaking loudly, in both Arabic and English, criticizing the war in Iraq and President Bush, and talking about al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. A passenger allegedly passed a note to a flight attendant voicing concern over the imams actions and, eventually, the imams were escorted from the plane in handcuffs. The imams, Mahdi Bray who is the executive director of the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, and Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee(D-TX) have now cried foul, suggesting that US Airways' response was not only humiliating and discriminatory, but racist. These honorable citizens have now called on Congress to pass legislation outlawing passenger profiling.

Let's deal with the imams actions as individual events. First, people certainly have the right to pray loudly wherever and whenever they wish. In my Center City Philadelphia neighborhood there are always crack-pots on the corner with megaphones proclaiming that I am destined to burn in the fires of Hell if I do not repent my evil ways. I ignore them routinely. The imams Muslim chants would have drawn more attention than the crack-pots, but by themselves the prayers would probably not have drawn much more that a scornful look. Most likely I would have seen it as self-aggrandizement designed to provoke attention. To what end they would have desired such attention I cannot presume, but in these litigious times a lawsuit is not out of the question.

Second, the seat-belt extenders would have probably gone unseen by me, with one exception. Since 9/11 I always sit in the last row of the plane with my back against the bulkhead. I also inform the nearest flight crew member that I am a former infantryman and that they can call on me in any emergency. So, due to my self-imposed positioning I might have noticed the request, and would have definitely noticed if, once received, the extenders were not immediately utilized. Would this have provoked a response? Probably not, but it would have prompted me to give them the hairy eyeball.

Third, the criticism in Arabic and English of the President and the war, as well as the references to al Qaeda and bin Laden would have set the bells ringing. I live in a very liberal neighborhood though, so I have become quite inured to that type of talk. A 70 year old member of the Granny Brigade for Peace was dining next to me just last night and made similar statements. At this point though, Arabic speaking would have caused me to visually locate each one of the imams.

Finally, having visually located each one of the imams I would have undoubtedly noticed that they had secured all the egress and ingress points of the plane. At that point I would have risen to my feet. I would have immediately notified the nearest crew member that their positioning was nothing short of operational security, and exactly the model of the 9/11 hijackers. You can rest assured that the plane would not have left the ground with them in that arrangement; even if my actions resulted in law enforcement having a conversation with me. As the saying goes, I would rather be judged by twelve than carried by six. Whether or not the situation would have become physical is only hypothetical, but I would not have left the plane voluntarily with the imams still in place.

The imams have said that all their behavior is explainable and innocent. The two who moved to first-class say they were upgraded, but the gate agent reports that the imams had been informed that no first-class seats were available. The imams, when removed from the plane were nonetheless in first-class. Likewise, the request for seat-belt extenders has been explained as a need for comfort. The flight attendants told police though, that the men were not over sized, and anyway they did not use the extenders. The imams also deny speaking in Arabic, or discussing politics, but several witnesses stated that they did just that. The imams, and the aforementioned Mr. Bray and Rep. Jackson-Lee have decried this as nothing more than an example of Islamaphobia and "flying while Muslim."

Nothing exists in a vacuum. We live in a post-9/11 world and, unfortunately for the imams, all the perpetrators of terroristic murder and mayhem have been fundamentalist Muslims. If the imams actions were innocent, and I do not believe they were, they should have known better than to provoke concern. Some have suggested that the imams actions were nothing more than an attempt to shine a light on the the unfair, discriminatory practices of the airline industry. After all the apologists offer, none of the imam's actions were illegal. They may not have been illegal, but they do bear a second look. Until white guys with Irish surnames start cutting people's throats with box cutters, and guys in pink pants and penny-loafers start blowing themselves up in Times Square, Muslims should bear extra scrutiny. I am not suggesting that white guys with Irish surnames, pink pants wearing preppies, or anybody else for that matter be given a pass on screening. I want everybody to take off their shoes at the security checkpoint and pass through the metal detector. Common sense though dictates that those who look like those responsible for the acts on 9/11 be given extra scrutiny. Look at the mugshots of the 9/11 hijackers. They all look the same. It is what it is. Profiling is the basis of all police work, and has been proven to prevent crime. If you are mugged by a one-armed, 5 foot tall white guy you would not want the police to stop the Harlem Globetrotters' tour bus in an effort to secure your wallet.

I have no idea what it will take to awaken the American public to the threat of Islamic fundamentalism. Already Americans are voicing hesitation to report suspicious behavior for fear of being sued. Little old ladies in wheelchairs are being twice-screened at airports for fear of offending anyone. That valuable, and limited resources are being diverted from catching the bad guys apparently means nothing to a certain segment of the population. I am no Constitutional scholar, but the last time I read it I noticed no right to be free from offense. In fact, the First Amendment specifically protects outrageous behavior because normal behavior needs no such protection. You can not yell fire in a crowded movie theatre though, and that is what the imams did, regardless of their intent. I personally believe that their actions were a security probe before a larger operation. I am nearly certain that something on a grand scale is currently in the works by those who would do us harm. I recognize that I am but one, albeit well-trained, infantryman, and not Superman. I could not have hoped to neutralize six men unarmed. I do know that I will not allow any terrorist act to go unchallenged on my watch, and as Drill Sergeant Estrada told me, it's always my watch. I can only hope that other freedom loving Americans would back my play if violence was needed. The passengers and crew on United Flight 93 lead me to believe they would. I am only sad that the politically correct crowd has placed us in the position where such action will someday soon be needed. How many more of my fellow citizens must be lost before we realize that we are in a fight for our survival, and serious action is needed to combat that threat?

View My Milblogging.com Profile

Veteran's Day

Washington, D.C. could not have had better weather Saturday. I had ventured down from Philadelphia, with my 26 month old daughter and her future stepmother in tow, to be amongst my guys. It was a day to put politics, both of war and otherwise, behind us; at least for the day. I met two Iwo Jima Marines, one a 95 year old, wheel chair bound, retired Gunnery Sergeant, who nearly ripped my arm from the socket pulling me towards him for a bear hug. I hung out with a crew of 75th Rangers who were united by their time in Vietnam. They delighted in calling me a "baby." I turned those tables by reminding them that they are now the "old guys." I received a feet off the ground bear hug from a Korean War infantryman who was exuberant to see me because I was wearing my 7th ID (Light) t-shirt. He was with the 7th as an infantryman attached to a tank unit. When the Chinese knocked out all the tanks he and his infantry battalion used them as improvised fighting positions against the Chinese wave attacks. When he finally put me back down on the ground he grabbed my shoulder, spun me towards the Vietnam Veteran's tent, which was manned by a dozen guys who were no stranger to recreational violence I am sure, and loudly questioned, "You guys wanna fight with two REAL SOLDIERS?" I knew we were in for a resounding thumping, but I was somehow cheerfully swept along by this bear. I figured if he could handle the Chinese then how bad could this be. It wasn't to be though. One of the 'Nam vets, laughing, approached us and said, "No Top. Nobody wants to mess with you." "Damn right you don't," was his reply. We all exchanged handshakes and hugs, laughing at our shared bond, which makes such remarks commonplace and, somehow, flattering. With a furious back pounding and arm pumping the Forgotten War soldier wandered off.

The most poignant moment came when I stopped at the Vietnam Wall. As is my practice, I stopped before the panel bearing the name Curtis R. Smoot. I deposited a cigarette at the base of the panel and, with arms outstretched, placed my hands on his name. I held them there for 30 seconds, wished Curtis well and moved on. I had only made it a couple of steps away when a hand fell on my shoulder. "Excuse me sir, but did you just touch Curtis Smoot's name?" I replied that, yes, indeed I had. "Did you know Curtis?" he asked. "No sir, I wore his bracelet for 20 years, until it literally broke in half. I visit him whenever I'm in DC." "Why did you wear Curtis' bracelet for so long?" he queried, looking me directly in the eyes. Looking back at this kind soul I said, "Because he's from right outside New Orleans and that's my hometown. When I joined the Army I was originally in the 4th of the 9th Infantry, but we were redesignated the 1st of the 9th. I figured since Curtis was 1st of the 9th Cav that it was some kind of sign. I just knew he was watching over me." "Would you like to hear the story of the day we lost Curtis?" he asked. "Sir, I've been waiting more than 20 years for someone to ask me that question," was all I could say.

Rich then proceeded to tell me the story of how the Loach, that Curtis was the door-gunner on, had been shot down. It fell into a river in Cambodia, and reports had two men making it out. One, WO1 Houser, had escaped and evaded for several days before walking into a firebase. Houser reported that he had not seen Curtis after the chopper hit, but credible reports had the other survivor as being Curtis. Rich told me how they tracked down every story they could for months afterward, hoping to find a POW camp and rescue Curtis, "but we never did," he said, with watery eyes. By this point I was glad my sunglasses were hiding my eyes. "I've been standing here all day hoping to meet someone who knew Curtis, thank you," he finished. "Well, I never knew him, but he's been a part of my life for so long that hearing that story was just what I needed today. Thank you so very much." We parted company then, with hugs and handshakes, and, wiping away tears, I retrieved my girls. They had been standing in the grassy area surrounded by all manner of activity, not really knowing what to do. When I was once again with them my future wife asked with evident concern, "Everything go okay?" "Yeah, if John Wayne had walked up to me it could not have been better."

That was the point of the day for me. There were Cavalry slouch hats (how in the hell are there always so many of those guys?), various berets, baseball caps emblazoned with bright unit logos, and boonie hats everywhere. Young, and a great many not so young, men remembered a time gone by, and we all stood a little taller. We laughed so hard we nearly cried, and then cried a little. I knew all day that there was no place on Earth I'd rather be, nor anyplace I belonged more. All I've ever wanted as a soldier, and now a veteran, was for my country to love me as much as I love it. I heard the Secretary of the Army say recently, "The military is sustained by the attitude and gratitude of our countrymen." I guess that's true 364 days out of the year, but on November 11th all I want is to be with my guys. So, to all those currently in harm's way, and to all those who have ever served I say: Happy Veteran's Day my brothers and sisters, I am grateful for your service, and proud beyond belief to be a member of what is truly, all at once, the most exclusive and inclusive club on Earth.


View My Milblogging.com Profile

The Winds of Change. Really?

First, let me say that there is absolutely no truth to the rumor that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (God help me I may vomit) plans to convert the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan into a floating abortion clinic. Second, the claim that Sen Chuck Schumer (D-NY) plans to allow male cats and dogs to marry by Constitutional amendment has no basis in fact. Both those reports are nothing more than vile gossip propagated by the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. With that said, I would prefer space aliens to liberal democrats as stewards of Congress, but things are not what some will tell you they are. Most notably, this election was not a referendum on the war in Iraq. If that were so, Joe Lieberman (I-CT) could not have beaten Ned Lamont (D) in the People's Democratic Republic of Connecticut. In fact, the overwhelming majority of the democrats elected to Congress two days ago were conservative democrats. They won specifically because they were not uber-liberals, unlike their leadership. Nearly all of them are moderates. It remains to be seen whether or not the incoming congressional class will be steamrolled by the likes of Miss America, excuse me Speaker Pelosi, and Chuck "my mother did not raise me right" Schumer, or if the freshman class will be able to bring their mandate to bear.

I whole-heartedly believe, and discussion of exit polls seems to confirm, that most people voted because they were sick and tired of Congress. It took some doing, but the honorable men and women in Congress had lower approval ratings than even mean old President Bush. The American public voted to change the culture of polarization, and the republicans, rightly or wrongly, were seen as the worst offenders. I have lamented what a democratic take over would mean to national security, and I still have those fears. I am concerned that Peace With Honor may become the rallying point for Iraq, which may cheer the Birkenstock crowd still fighting Vietnam, but spells disaster for us collectively. I may have to eat those words if this new crop of congressional freshmen can cut their own swath through the party politics. The elections were a triumph over fervent liberalism. Don't think so? Then why were Speaker Pelosi (D-CA), Harry Reid (D-NV) and Ted "I'll drive"Kennedy (D-MA) so absent from the public eye in the last few weeks before the election? It certainly isn't because they are shrinking violets who eschew the world stage. They are not shy, unassuming wall-flowers who recoil when confronted by a bevy of microphones. Now we must see what the newest members in the world's greatest form of government will do when confronted by those honorable members of Congress.

My greatest disappointment came not in the state in which I reside, but rather in neighboring Maryland. I knew Bob Casey (D-PA) would be rewarded for making no campaign events the center of his campaign. Rick Santorum was just too reviled. No, the loss which affected me most was Michael Steele. He is a thoughtful, stalwart, decent sort who was pelted with Oreo cookies for having the temerity to be black, and yet, run as a republican. After all, the democrats have been so good to blacks over the years. They have seen to it that they have been taken care of with welfare, Medicaid and failing, inner city schools. Where were those champions of tolerance when Michael Steele was subjected to hate speech? Oh that's right, that only counts when you have a D behind your name. Or to paraphrase George Clooney, when you are a republican you get what you deserve. That is reprehensible, and the US Senate is the lesser for Steele's exclusion. No other candidate made me think more than Michael Steele. In hindsight that may have been the problem. The Democratic Party has been doing the thinking for all the rest of us for so long that when anyone else challenges that birth-right he is sure to lose. I can only hope that Mr. Steele has not been completely soured on the process and someday makes another run for public office. I would surely understand if he does not, but I certainly hope he does.

I wonder now that the democrats have regained their birth-right if the impartial men and women of the press will hold them to account. I suspect the love fest will continue, but I have been wrong before. After all, even I have voted for a democrat, or four. The democrats, after years of opposing anything put forth by the republicans, must now put forth ideas of their own. Cynic that I am, I believe the economy, which the impartial members of the press have repeatedly informed us is so abysmal, will suddenly be seen as profoundly grand. This without one single iota of handling by anyone. Of course, that cannot happen before January when the democrats officially take control. We may even begin to see some good stories from Iraq. That may be too much to hope for, but a boy can wish. What will have to happen is that the press will be forced to ask the democrats what, exactly, is their plan to combat radical Islam. The democratic leadership will no longer be able to simply pat the impartial members of the press on the head, say "a new direction" and send them, giggling, on their way. Even David "I love hemp" Gregory might have to pose a tough question or, God help us, two, to some token democrat. That, of course, will be more to keep the token in line, than for any desire to edify us as a people.

Whatever happens I can only hope, ( I do not pray, ever), that the alleged support for the troops these elected officials so vehemently espouse translates as true support. I hope that the soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen who have fought, bled and died so valiantly, steadfastly and with such honor, will not now have the rug pulled out from under them. The incoming congressional class number among their members more than a few veterans. I can only hope that those public servants who have worn the uniform in the years since Vietnam will stand the line. I separate them from the Vietnam vets because I firmly believe the 'Nam vets in Congress have had their worldview colored by the utterly horrid treatment they received upon re-entering the "World" after their time in Hell. What else explains Sen. Kerry (D-MA) and Rep Murtha (D-PA) politicizing their service and dishonoring all of us who have served? Stockholm Syndrome? Although they have both made horrible remarks disparaging other vets, both of these honorable men will, no doubt, have their hypocrisy rewarded with positions of influence in the new Congress.

Luckily, as is patently evidenced by my words, I am not bitter. I plan to behave just as all my liberal friends have done. I will festoon myself, vehicle and abode with stickers proclaiming the date when democratic control will be removed. I will yell from the rooftops whenever they exhibit any example of malfeasance, non-feasance or hypocrisy. Oh wait, that's what I have always done, and it apparently means nothing because it is their intentions, not their words or deeds, that matter. Sen Robert Byrd (D-WV) can utter the word "nigger" in the august senate chamber, and nary a peep is heard from the NAACP. Republican voters can be denied poll access by having the vans for their transportation vandalized beyond use, and the ACLU leaps not to their defense. And who can forget former President Bill Clinton. He can treat women with utter, public disdain, use and discard them, and leading feminists will offer him oral satisfaction as a reward. At least, the recounts cannot take very long this year. Oh wait, although there were nearly a dozen races decided by less than 5,000 votes, and several decided by less than 1,500, there were no recounts. Apparently the Diebold voting machines work perfectly well whenever the democrats win. Sen. Schumer even counseled Sen. George Allen to"behave like a gentleman and concede" although his vote count was only 7,000 short Of James Webb's. This out of 2,400,000 cast. Somehow one has to wonder why Sen. Schumer did not counsel Vice President Gore and Sen. Kerry to concede like gentlemen. I no longer seem to fit in the party I've called home for twenty years, and I'll be damned if I'll join the one who behaves as I have described above. Maybe it is time to register as an independent. At least then, the pollsters will care for whom I intend to vote, and hell, I'll be able to swear, with impunity, at them both.

Giving the Troops Their Due

I am already so sick of the uproar, both actual and feigned, over Sen. John Kerry's remarks Monday that I was just going to start ignoring all conversation regarding them. For those of you who have been hiding under a rock, or those who's television watching habits revolve around Dancing with the Stars, Sen Kerry (D-MA) was speaking to a college audience Monday. During a speech, in which he repeatedly bashed President Bush, Kerry said, "If you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't you get stuck in Iraq." When I initially heard just that 10-15 seconds of the senator's speech Tuesday I was irritated, not outraged mind you, because I have come to expect comments such as this from most of those in positions of leadership in the Democratic Party. Some time later in the day I heard a longer portion of the speech. It immediately became evident, to me at least, that he was attempting to disparage the President, and not servicemen of any stripe. Since then though, I have gone over to the outrage camp.

My outrage fuse was prepared when the honorable senator gave an angry, gesticulation filled, refusal to apology. The major theme of his adamant non-apology was that since he was obviously ridiculing the President of the United States, with a poorly articulated joke, no apology was necessary. This, in spite of the fact that the President actually received better grades than him at their cherished alma mater. Sen Kerry angrily denounced the republican spin machine, Rush Limbaugh and the vast right-wing conspiracy as fueling a nonexistent fire. Prominent democrats, most of whom I believe harbor these anti-military sentiments, rushed to label his comments as, in the words of Sen Hillary Clinton (D-NY), "inappropriate." Wow. With such stinging rebukes how could Sen Kerry do anything but what he did yesterday? In a carefully worded statement posted on his website the senator said, "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."

Well a few things are wrong with this apology. First, the apology was at least one day too late. Second, it should have been delivered the same way the initial insult was: in front of television cameras. Third, what exactly was the joke? And finally, it rings a little hollow when he does his politico-qualifying about regretting his words were "misinterpreted." Okay though, apologize he did. Unfortunately the statement does not end as it did in the previous paragraph. It goes on to state, "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." With that final paragraph he undercut the apology by further politicizing his error, and lit my fuse. It became clear to me, as both an infantryman and an American, that the senator does not care if he offends me, or anyone else not joined to him at the hip. Why else would he consider it acceptable to a) post the statement and not deliver it and b) undo any good he had done by reverting to partisan politics?

What everyone on the left, and that includes the Democratic Party's minions in the major press outlets, fails to realize, or in this case chooses to ignore, is that life does not exist in a vacuum. The honorable senator has made disparaging comments for political expediency before. Upon returning from Vietnam he delivered the now infamous, and mostly discredited "Winter Soldier" diatribe. Most people will remember it for the pompous way he pronounced Ghengis Khan, but in it he accused huge swathes of veterans of being murderers, perpetrators of war crimes, rapists and more. I will not revisit it in full, but if you want the entire transcript you can find it here http://www.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/JohnKerryTestimony.html. The good senator has also made remarks where he accused American soldiers in Iraq of "terrorizing women and children in the dead of night." There is more than a pattern here. There is a close- held ideology, shared by many on the left, that the military is intrinsically bad. War is a messy business, so its purveyors must be unenlightened slobs goes the uber-liberal mindset. The senator is simply buying into that idea, whether he wore the uniform or not.

In the last two days I have heard various news outlets refer to Sen Kerry's remarks as, "a badly delivered joke," "unintended slip of the tongue," and parroting the good senator, "a poorly articulated joke." Nowhere, except talk radio, have I heard any indignation, nor even the use of alleged, or the like, before the provided explanations. It seems the venerated, honorable men and women of the press, (so cynical when it comes to the utterances of those evil republicans), have accepted whole hog the senator's explanation and cannot wait to exonerate him. These are the same people who castigated Trent Lott for making a bone-headed comment at a frail Strom Thurmond's 214th birthday party. The press hounded Lott so relentlessly he was forced to resign his leadership post after he had made multiple, public apologies for mis-speaking. Likewise, Rush Limbaugh (no bastion of decorum himself) made less than charitable comments about Michael J. Fox's commercial for a congressional candidate in Missouri, and has been blasted every day for nearly two weeks. The honorable junior senator from Massachusetts even referenced Limbaugh in his non-apology screed, which he delivered before his written apology. The vaunted men and women in the press were nowhere to be found when both George Clooney and Michael Moore ridiculed Charlton Heston's Alzheimer's. In fact, the prevailing wind seemed to be that Moses had brought it upon himself by having the temerity to Chair the N.R.A. When questioned about his references to Heston's Alzheimer's, Clooney reportedly said "I don't care. He's the Chairman of the National Rifle Association. He deserves what anyone says about him." I did not hear the press howl with outrage at the battering of this victim of mental illness. Maybe it is just because Clooney is so damned pretty.

Sen. John F. Kerry is certainly not being treated with kid gloves because of his movie star good looks. So, what is one to think? Obviously, certain groups are fair game for ridicule and abuse, and the press will dutifully report it as the dems being "tough on their aggressive opponents." We have to remember that up until yesterday Sen. Kerry was still the titular head of the Democratic Party. As his party's presidential candidate in the last cycle we have to presume that he still holds some standing in the party. Nobody loves a loser more than the left-wing fringe. Don't think so? Witness Al Gore and Jimmy Carter's unceasing adoration amongst the great unwashed, hippiesque masses. So, when Sen. Kerry says things that are outrageous, outlandish and simply inane I have to think that a plurality of his party agrees. Why else were there laughs at the line which initially got him into so much trouble? What joke did those stellar college students get that all the rest of us missed? Not too long ago Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) compared American soldiers to the regimes of the Nazis and Pol Pot. He eventually provided a "to the extent that I offended anyone I am sorry apology" too. Or how about the senior senator from Massachusetts who, while speaking of the Abu Ghraib abuses (and they were abuses of power, not torture) said, "Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management. U.S. Management." Senator Kennedy's (D-MA) more thoughtful brothers are, no doubt, spinning in their graves. Howard Dean, the Chairman of the DNC, can make all manner of off-color remarks and the press is suddenly too busy reporting on cats in trees and the dangers of trans-fats. If that's not a sign of the press' political leanings I do not know what is.

Sen. Kerry's sin, at least in the eyes of those running for election in his party, was not that he said what he said, but rather that he said it so close to the election. That reason alone is why the apology was finally made. It also explains why he made it in writing. Apparently, even the good senator's hypocrisy has a limit. I do not know why he feels the way he does. I do know he seems to think himself smarter than all the rest of us; this after he wore those atrocious shorts while wind-sailing to prove his masculinity. I do know he has a fondness for saying things like, "I did vote for it, before I voted against it." His slips of the tongue are at least as prevalent as the president's, but no constant ridicule befalls him. I do not think John Stewart, or David Letterman will beat this particular horse. Regardless, the senator did serve honorably in combat, for which I applaud him. I honor equally any man or woman who has ever worn the uniform, whether they saw combat or did their time pushing paper around a desk. Only ten percent of us have ever served, in any capacity, and that does bear recognizing. What the senator seems to have forgotten though, is that his service does not entitle him to carte blanche when it comes to his statements or actions. We are all accountable, and in this case the senator is no different. So, having already banned Heinz products from my house two years ago, I will simply say, one veteran to another, Senator, that you may or may not have left the word "us" out of your prepared statement does not matter. That I truly believe you intended to ridicule the President of the United States does not matter either. It was tacky and tasteless, but so then is all politics. What matters Senator, is that you dishonored all the men and women who have ever served, and you know we deserve better.