eat more bugs

Drawn to the Dark Side of True Religion

2011-07-09T20:08:00.001-04:00

For the better part of 10 years I have worn Lucky Brand jeans exclusively. As a tall, wiry guy they fit me without making me seem stick-figurish. I recently read an article in "The Wall Street Journal" about True Religion brand jeans and, since the stores are in the same block, I decided to drop in and try on a pair of American made jeans that retail for between $240-320.00.

I admit to being somewhat high maintenance and possessing more than a bit of metrosexual DNA. It's an interesting dichotomy for the members of my veteran's motorcycle club that I ride a Harley, have been in my share of street fights, and revel in transitioning from shanty Irish to Lace Curtain, (only difference is that Lace Curtain Irish take the dishes "out" of the sink "before" they pee in it) but still care about designer jeans and hair care 'product'.

While lunching outside on pate and salad Nicoise I decided that I HAD to have a couple pairs of True Religion jeans. Of course spending $569.00 on two pairs of jeans may seem outrageous to more than a few people, but who am I to argue with the price of American made products? After all, I can wave the flag with the best of them. God bless America I always say.

Okay, so by now you've all figured out a few things about me, so it will probably come as no surprise that I am a city kid born and bred. I don't like nature, windy country roads, dirt, fresh air or trees. In fact, if I never saw another tree unencumbered by concrete I'd be perfectly content. So, lest someone decide to comment that $300 jeans are worthless as work wear, please note that I do not intend to wear them anywhere but out on the town. I am an urban, rather urbane sort and True Religion and I are well matched for a lasting relationship. After all, my penchant for black coffee (the same as I like my women, hot and bitter) and Marlboro Red cigarettes needs some refinement. I am Truly Lucky to have found jeans that completely fill that niche.

But what about the Lucky Brand you say? Well allow me to assure you that they will not be relegated to Goodwill or engine repair. Thank goodness because I truly don't like getting dirty. My Lucky jeans will remain in the rotation. So, if you see me ambling about town or roaring around on my bike you could wager that I'd "probably" be clad in Lucky Brand. That is, unless I hit the lottery which will find a new mistress, 7 for All Mankind jeans to mesh with the others. Just think of me as a crazy "Big Love" kind of Mormon and designer jeans as my wives. For now though, True Religion will become the expensive girlfriend to my Lucky Brand wife. Ah, it is good to be so free.

Fare Well My Brother-in-Arms

2011-03-11T23:27:00.001-05:00

Back in early February 2007, before GoE was even remotely what it has become, I received a phone call from a Vietnam veteran who had somehow gotten one of my emails about the impending A.N.S.W.E.R./ Code Pink, et al announcement that they had plans to "occupy" the Vietnam Wall. In one of the last sentences of that email I said something to the effect of I have always thought of The Wall as mine too because my father took me there over the Christmas break of my senior year in high school. I remember my old man pointing at The Wall and saying, "You wanted to be in the infantry. That's the infantry. Do not f@#k this up." Immediately after that I bought the POW/MIA bracelet I still wear today. Coincidentally, the date Curtis R. Smoot was reported missing is March 10, 1971. Well, yesterday March 10, 2011, that Vietnam veteran who accidentally got into my email string, Sal Lanzetta, 4th ID US Army, Vietnam, passed away do to complications from A.L.S.

In the email that Sal had gotten I also said something to the effect of, "If I have to stand at The Wall all by myself to keep these bastards from desecrating the memorial marker to our dead, I will, but I know I won't be alone." Sal called to say, "Well Chris I guess if it turns out to be just you and me we'll go down fighting." As you all know, it didn't turn out to be just us. Literally tens of thousands of veterans and troop supporters turned out that bitterly cold St. Patrick's Day in 2007. We stood as one and reversed the 40 year trend of the anti-American forces being the only ones yelling in the streets, and Sal stood within an arms length of me nearly all day.

Since then Sal has been at every event GoE has undertaken from the counters of Code Pink at Walter Reed to the support of the Coast Guard Academy to the defense of the A.E.C. He was never far off my six and told me once, "Don't worry brother. I won't ever let charlie creep up on you. You just worry about what's in front of you. The Ivy's on station." All of you know of my deep respect and unmitigated love for my 'Namies. As much as I love the men and women serving now, the 'Nam vets will always be my Gold Standard for warriors. Sal Lanzetta was the embodiment of the true American spirit and patriotism of the Vietnam veteran. He told me once that he volunteered to serve in Vietnam, "because the country has given me so much. How could I not give back to her?"

When I received the call of his passing, and as I write these words, I find my self getting more than a bit misty eyed. No GoE action will be quite the same without Sal just off my left shoulder and several paces to the rear. I shall miss him terribly, but have to believe he will be greeted on the other side with a hearty WELCOME HOME from our brothers and sisters who have gone before. Second Brigade MC will be riding escort for Sal on Tuesday, March 15, 2011, and we welcome anyone who would like to ride with us. If any of you are in the neighborhood, please stop by and say goodbye to one of our own. I believe his family will appreciate it and know that I will. All the details are below and, as I said back in 2007, if I have to stand alone to wish Sal fare well I will, but I know I won't be alone. Good bye Sal. Thank you for your service, both in Vietnam and after, and, as always, WELCOME HOME. Manchu

Relatives and friends are invited to his Funeral Mass on Tuesday, March 15, 2011 at 10:30 AM at St. Anthony of Padua Church, 259 Forest Avenue, Ambler, PA 19002. The viewing will be held on Monday evening from 6:30-9 PM and Tuesday from 8:30 – 10 AM at the Emil J. Ciavarelli Family Funeral Home, 951 E. Butler Pike, Ambler. Interment will be in Rose Hill Cemetery, Ambler. Donations in Sal’s name may be made to The ALS Association of Greater Philadelphia Chapter, 321 Norristown Road, Suite 260, Ambler, PA 19002. Condolences may be made at www.ciavarellifuneralhomes.com

A Muslim Terrorist Named Nidal Malik Hasan

2009-11-10T13:23:00.004-05:00

The murders at Ft Hood have provoked all manner of response from people. Nearly everyone is united in a feeling of horror, but many have been hesitant to call this what it was; an act of terrorism. Merriam-Webster defines terrorism as: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. I have heard all manner of people from our Commander-in-Chief, to senior generals, to media pundits caution us to wait until we have all the facts before we rush to judgment. Well, I for one have enough information. An American Muslim, of Jordanian parents, (no he's not Palestinian, even though he listed himself as such), committed, by definition, an act of terror, while screaming Allah Akbar. That makes him an Islamic terrorist. That he did so while in uniform on an American military reservation only makes it all the more jihadist.

Hasan, the beneficiary of all that is good about the United States decided that his God was more important than his oath to defend the Constitution of his birth country. He cared not that the soldiers he gunned down were unarmed, nor that the United States military has "liberated" tens of millions of Muslims in Bosnia, Kuwait, and yes, Iraq and Afghanistan and provided humanitarian relief to hundreds of thousands more in Somalia, Indonesia and elsewhere. Hasan was apparently following a strict interpretation of the Koran, although I have my doubts that there is any other interpretation. Before anyone reads me the riot act about the Bible's viciousness, know two things, 1) I'm an agnostic at best and 2) when discussing the fire and brimstone passages the Bible details events that have happened, whereas the Koran gives instructions as to how a Muslim should act for all eternity.

I am personally acquainted with an American Marine who is Muslim and currently serving in Afghanistan. A more stellar human being one could not find. He is my personal definition of an American fighting man. He, and many like him in uniform, have gone about the business of war with honor and professionalism. I am not calling for the internment of Muslims or for them to be removed from the ranks of the military. I am saying though, that just like when several ardent white supremacists were dishonorably discharged from the Army for espousing their hatred, so too should have Hasan been similarly treated. Had the culture of the military not been so penetrated by political correctness I am certain 13 of my fellow Americans, murdered at Ft Hood, would still be alive today.

When Professor Gates had his run-in with the Cambridge Police Department, our President informed us all, without anything approximating the facts, in total, that "the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home." I didn't agree with the reasons the Cambridge Police used for arresting Professor Gates, but that does not diminish the notion that the President could not have known all the facts when he made his remarks. Somehow though, he wants the rest of us to refrain from labeling a Muslim terrorist as such, apparently less we offend any more of the followers of the religion of peace.

I am sick and tired of tip-toeing around the sensitivities of the Muslim community. They have rioted over cartoons and they danced in the streets of the West Bank after 9/11, but I cannot call into question their apparent disregard for human life. It is high time that the American Muslim community at least rallies together publicly, and in substantial numbers, to decry the acts of jihadists everywhere. I want to see Muslims in the streets carrying the American flag proudly, as opposed to burning it. Then, I will consider the notion that most Muslims simply want to live their lives peacefully.

American Muslims are not fully to blame for their startlingly sensitive natures, although CAIR and its Islamaphobia campaign are a large part. Media personalities such as MSNBC's Chris Matthews are also to blame. On his 9 November broadcast of Hardball, Matthews said, "See - we have a problem. How do we know when someone like Hasan is going to make his move and do we know he's an Islamist until he's made his move? He makes a phone call or whatever, according to Reuters right now. Apparently he tried to contact al Qaeda. Is that the point at which you say, ‘This guy is dangerous?' That's not a crime to call up al Qaeda, is it? Is it” If we have truly reached the point where the President of the United States won't immediately respond to a Muslim terrorist attack inside the United States, a TV journalist doesn't know if it's illegal to call al Qaeda, (note to Matthews: It is!) and the Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey Jr. can say, “As horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse,” then the country as a whole cannot stand.

A Muslim monster used the uniform of the United States Army to murder 13 soldiers in cold blood and to wound 30 more. Hasan became, by definition a jihadist and a Muslim terrorist. This after his parents had immigrated here to find the American dream and he benefited from our education system. I no longer care what his problems were, or that he had been picked on for his faith. When I was a child we all learned, "sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me." That is still true today and any attempt to make Hasan into a victim is not only disgusting, but beyond rational comprehension.

The one highlight from this entire event is that this Muslim terrorist, who considered women to be so far beneath him that he would not even have his photograph taken with them at functions, was himself brought down by Sgt. Kimberly Munley, 34, a civilian Department of Defense police officer at the base. Even after being wounded by Hasan, Sgt Munley pressed the attack and stopped Hasan's murderous rampage. There are two things to say about that: 1) I hope Hasan recognized that an American woman brought him down, and 2) I only wish she had double-tapped Hasan to the head after dropping him and finished the job. That is better than any Muslim terrorist deserves, and Hasan is nothing more than that.

A Hollywood Good Guy Makes Good

2009-08-04T13:10:00.002-04:00

Back in February I had the high honor to meet an Iraq vet who lost a
leg while serving with the 1/25 Marines in Al Anbar Province. Neither
he nor the triple amputee who accompanied him to a Fischer House
Benefit as the guests of Second Brigade and Viet Nam Vets MC exhibited
anything other than the warrior spirit. In fact, they insisted that
the first drink of the evening had to be drunk from their prosthetic
legs. Now that was a sight to see.
Several months later, that same vet approached me for an assist. He
has been fighting with the V.A. over medical bills related to his
wounds. Bills were mounting. I put him in touch with Al Gambone, an
attorney I’ve mentioned on this site to get that problem in check.
Unfortunately, he was also behind on his mortgage through no fault of
his own. I tried various avenues to come up with cash to prevent the
foreclosure, to no avail. This morning I was listening to Dennis
Miller’s radio show and he mentioned his participation with USA Cares
as a spokesman and proponent (http://www.usacares.org/). Figuring I
had nothing left to lose, I ponied up the $18.00 to join the DMZ,
Miller’s premium subscription package, so I could email him
personally.
In my email, I explained about our wounded Marine and the trials he
has been forced to withstand since returning home. I explained how we
had found an attorney, but had to prevent this Hero from losing his
home. I simply asked him to put me into contact with someone from USA
Cares and let me plead the case. If this fails I said, “We’ll have to
start selling blood,” because there’s no way I’m letting one of my
heroes lose his home, especially with a new baby on the way.
Anyway, within an hour, the retired Sgt Major who started USA Cares
called me personally. He took down our Marine’s phone number and
promised to help. The Sgt Major also insisted that in the future GoE
and USA Cares would collaborate to reach and assist more of our
heroes. Dennis Miller, who was on the air at the time, had read my
email, contacted the Sgt Major and my phone rang. While all this was
happening, Miller’s show never missed a beat. In this day and age
when we have come to expect Hollywood celebrities to kick us when
we’re down, Dennis Miller took up the colors and charged into the
fray.
I urge you to recognize both Miller and USA Cares for this wonderful
act. Our Marine’s house was set to go into foreclosure on 12 August.
Thanks to two very good men that will not happen. God bless you both
gentlemen and know that our veteran’s community owes you one for the
solid you did one of our own. That debt is payable upon demand, just
yell out. Thanks, you guys. Manchu.

On "Taking Chance"

2009-03-10T05:49:00.003-04:00

The photo is of L Cpl. Chance Phelps who was killed by enemy fire outside Ar Ramadi, Iraq on 9 April, 2004. He is the subject of HBO's movie Taking Chance. I had resisted watching the movie for several reasons. I mainly resisted because I had absolutely no faith that HBO would treat the subject matter with the dignity it deserved. I was also afraid that HBO would take the opportunity to put in multiple anti-war digs. Then, when uniformly good reviews started coming out I resisted because I was afraid of how it would effect me. The first couple of reasons turned out to be unfounded, and the last was exactly as I knew it would be. All of which is a reason to watch it.

Kevin Bacon plays the part of real-life Lt. Col. Michael Strobl, whose account of the escort was the genesis for the movie. I freely admit that there were multiple occasions when tears literally streamed down my face as I sat watching the movie. It was a pleasant surprise to see America's warriors treated with the reverence they all deserve. It was also moving to see Col. Strobl portrayed as multi-dimensional and not some automaton. There were many times when I was moved by what, to some, would be the inner workings of the military.

In one scene Col. Strobl is told that Chance will stay over-night in a hangar and a taxi has been called to take him to a nearby hotel. Col. Strobl responds that he will spend the night in the hangar with Chance because, "I don't want him to be alone." The airline workers aren't quite sure how to respond, but they understand and do what they can to make the Colonel as comfortable as possible.

In a later scene, Col. Strobl is at a VFW talking to a Korean War Marine. The Colonel tells his fellow Marine of his guilt at not being in Iraq. How he is nearly ashamed that he is safe behind his desk, while men such as Chance are in the fight. The Korean vet tells him that his feelings are unfounded because he had his day for that and what he is doing now is all the more important because of it. The scene resonates with me because I have shared that feeling since both our current wars have commenced. Not a day goes by that I don't feel as if I should be in either Iraq or Afghanistan. No amount of conversation with other veterans can change my mind on that, and I'm fairly certain that Col. Strobl feels likewise. It is a version of survivor's guilt and not a little envy, at least on my part. All I ever wanted was a C.I.B. and there's no way that will ever happen.

Taking Chance made me remember another 19 year old patriot who was killed too young. He was a friend of mine and one of the sweetest people on the planet. We went to Basic and A.I.T. at Ft. Benning, GA together, caroused together and he was killed providing covering fire so that others would live. I know he believed in what he was doing, and that he loved being a soldier. I also know he would not want me to feel guilty that all these years later I am here, while he isn't. I know he would want me to live happily, secure in the knowledge that I did my part. That doesn't make me miss him any less, nor wish that I could trade places with him. I miss my fiend and think of him at least every week.

I never knew L Cpl. Phelps, and have never met Lt. Col. Strobl, but I have known them all my life. I was a soldier at five and will remain one until I die. I hope everyone who has ever worn the uniform sees this movie. I further hope that they all remember their own Chance, for it is through memories that they live on. The movie concludes with a passage that will stay with me forever, "Chance Phelps was wearing his Saint Christopher medal when he was killed on Good Friday. Eight days later, I handed the medallion to his mother. I didn't know Chance before he died. Today, I miss him." - LtCol Michael R. Strobl, USMC (Ret.) Semper Fi Sir, and for what it's worth, though I never knew Chance either I miss him too.

Nation of Cowards

2009-02-20T11:31:00.005-05:00

In case you missed it, our newest Attorney General, Eric Holder recently spoke at an event for his staff in honor of Black History Month. In part, he said, “Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial, we have always been, and we, I believe, continue to be, in too many ways, a nation of cowards.” In case you doubt the veracity of that quote you can find the full transcript at the Department of Justice website. Of course, many will say I have taken the quote out of context, but before any of you prepare the pitchforks, proverbial rail or burning oil know that I agree with the quote; just not for the reasons the esteemed gentleman suggested.

I attached the editorial cartoon above precisely because I agree with Attorney General Holder. We have become a nation of cowards. We are afraid of charlatans like Al Sharpton who posture and preen the second there is any chance for him to display his plumage to a camera. And yes, I am well aware that I gave Mr. Sharpton no title. I've never seen him in a pulpit and in this age of you tube everything I am fairly certain something would have presented itself by now if any such footage existed. No one can say anything in the least related to race if you do not believe the way Mr. Sharpton does. I'm not certain exactly who made him the arbiter of all things concerning liberal Black America, but that is as it is.

Mr. Sharpton, in his normal style, rounded up 500 people to protest outside the offices of the The New York Post until he extracted an apology of sorts for suggesting that our new President is a chimp. That the editors of the newspaper meant nothing of the sort is besides the point. What is important is that Mr. Sharpton has once again earned his Rolex watches and $1,500 suits. Somehow I always thought men of God were supposed to be less flashy, but as an agnostic I could be mistaken. I am all but certain Mr. Sharpton knew that the Post meant no disrespect to President Obama, but intended to ridicule the United States Congress for coming up with the inanely named Stimulus Package. Unless of course Mr. Sharpton believes that President Obama sat down at his desk in the Oval Office and composed better than 1,000 pages of nonsense. Whatever I think of Mr. Sharpton I do not believe him a fool, and nor should you.

For the record, if I were on the Editorial Board of the Post I would have said this in response to the false uproar over the cartoon: In so much as we have heard the repeated race baiting epithets over our recent editorial cartoon, we would like to explain it to the rest of you. You may not know, because it was passed and signed so quickly that no one could have read it all, but Congress recently passed a bill they wishfully call a Stimulus Bill. The bill is nothing more than nearly $800,000,000,000 (looks amazing with all those zeroes doesn't it?) in pet projects and political payoffs and will do very little, if anything to stimulate new jobs. We were certain though that everyone had heard of the 200lb chimp who recently chewed the face off of an unsuspecting woman. Putting two and two together we were convinced that everyone who saw this cartoon would rightfully get the point: All the clowns in Congress who signed off on the gargantuan bill, which our grandchildren will be paying off, are nothing more than crazed primates. In fact, our mistake was in attributing that much cognitive development to the likes of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. So, too all primates everywhere we say, "We are wholly apologetic for likening you to humans who are obviously so far beneath you intellectually."

Unfortunately, the newspaper chose not to publish my apology as written, or anything close to it because Mr. Sharpton, once again used the bullying tactics which keep him in such nice attire. There have been all manner of truly offensive editorial cartoons suggesting that former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice was nothing more than an Aunt Jemima caricature or that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is an Uncle Tom. Of course those cartoons are not truly offensive because neither Secretary Rice nor Justice Clarence believe as Mr. Sharpton does. You have to be "down with the struggle," (read his struggle) to be worthy of Mr. Sharpton's outrage on your behalf. If you are in any way at odds with what Mr. Sharpton believes concerning the plight of Black Americans then you are simply part of the problem. Remember, Free Speech is only a guaranteed right if you spout the ultra-left party line. Otherwise, you are an imbecile, just don't get it, or a racist.

All that leads me back to my initial comment agreeing with Attorney General Holder. We have become a nation of cowards regarding race because we allow sham artists like Mr. Sharpton to dictate the parameters of any discussion regarding race. Black men are still being incarcerated at a rate higher than their numbers in the population would dictate. In all our nations' cities, black men are more likely to die violently and ever younger at the hands of other black men. Black females are having more and more children out of wedlock, with less and less men around to provide any means of support. That means more and more black children are suffering below the poverty line and the cycle repeats. Mr. Sharpton doesn't care about that though. What he cares about is face time in front of network cameras and we are all too cowardly to call him on it because we don't want to be called racist. Well, since I am certain I am not a racist I will call him on it. Mr. Sharpton you are a fraud who is making a very comfortable living off those you pretend to defend. You are intentionally keeping people ignorant to benefit your own selfish ends. You do not have any one's best interests, besides your own at heart. You sir are part of the reason, a very large part why we cannot come together as a nation in the greatest country on Earth. Shame on you Mr. Sharpton, and those who knowingly assist you in this travesty. The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr must be rolling over in his grave at the way you have perverted The Dream of many of us, both black and white.

Farewell to A Good Man

2009-01-15T20:25:00.003-05:00

I have just finished watching President George W. Bush's final address to the nation. I have not always agreed with his decisions; most noticeably on illegal immigration and the failure to control government spending. I have though, always thought him to be a good man who was doing what he thought was right. I was honored to meet him on the White House lawn and felt like a kid at Christmas when he knew my name. He shook my hand and thanked me for my service as an infantryman and as a veteran's advocate. I was cheered to see him defend himself, finally, last night for the things he did get right. Whatever else the Bush haters will say, we have not suffered another terrorist attack on U.S. soil in 2,684 days.

That is absolutely not a coincidence. Should the veracity of the statement be called into question I would suggest that we simply listen to the President-Elect's current positions. He has decided to keep SecDef Robert Gates. He has said it will take time to close Gitmo and that we need to move cautiously in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those are all positions maintained by President Bush. Gone is President Elect Obama's rhetoric concerning a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. Why? Because he has finally seen the intelligence reports that President Bush has been privy to for all these years.

I did not vote for President Elect Obama. In fact, I worked hard for his opponent, Sen. John McCain. I, like most American citizens, though will be proud and cheered to see President Obama sworn in next week. It will, indeed, be a good day for the country to have a black man become President. It will go a long way to soothing wounds that have long festered. I can only hope that the smooth transition, which has been solely because of the outgoing President, gives our new President pause for thought.

I know President Elect Obama is a bright man, and I believe he will be thoughtful. I only ask that as his days get ever harder that he look back on the man he replaced and realize that the tough decisions will have to be made, regardless of public opinion. I am certain W has told our incoming President to call and I hope he will. I am hopeful for the country because I am on our team: the United States of America's team and I support my Commander in Chief. On the day after the election, I got up and saluted the Flag as I do every other day. Next Tuesday will be no different. So, as one President goes home to resume his life and another begins the hardest task on Earth I say to them both: Thank you for shouldering the responsibilities gentlemen. Goodbye Mr. Bush, private American citizen, and Hello President Obama. Remember our brave men and women in uniform because they belong to you both now.

Miss Alaska Hell, She's Mrs. America

2008-09-03T22:36:00.002-04:00

Okay, so let’s just for a second forget the truthfully important aspects of Governor Sarah Palin. After all, she must be the only woman in the country with a pregnant, unmarried daughter and a wife with a husband who has a DUI on his record. As important as those things are, let’s just for a moment examine the trivial aspects of only the second woman to ever be nominated to the post of Vice President. She is governor of the geographically largest state in the Union. A state that has as its largest trading partner a foreign country, namely Japan with exports of over a billion dollars annually. In addition, Alaska has to negotiate frequently with Russia over fishing and drilling rights. I am not suggesting that Japanese Prime Minister Fukuda or President Putin have ever faced Governor Palin from the other side of a oak table with the balance of power at stake, but the nature of any state’s chief executive is to safeguard their state’s best interests. That Governor Palin has done. Okay, so that’s not National Security expertise, but it is more foreign policy experience than registering people to vote.

In addition, as trivial as it may be, Governor Palin is the Commander-in-Chief of the Alaskan National Guard; a guard unit which has deployed to varying degrees in the Global War on Terror. No, Governors do not equip, fund or oversee the battle plans of deployed troops, but they do have oversight on those that remain. State issues still arise and Governor Palin has deployed the troops in her charge to fight forest fires and in various support roles. The logistics of deploying troops anytime, yes even domestically, are daunting. Don’t think so? Ask the Governor of Louisiana, Kathleen Blanco. My mistake Governor Blanco didn’t even deign to run for a second term after botching the troop response to Hurricane Katrina. President Bush and the feds were demonized for their tepid response, and rightly so. The President should have federalized the Louisiana Guard as soon as it was evident that Governor Blanco was not up to the job. I am from New Orleans and was in the hurricane-ravaged area three days after the levees broke. I saw Army National Guard troops awaiting orders from their commander, the Governor of Louisiana, and people suffered. She also recognizes the sacrifice of our brave warriors having traveled to Kuwait to visit her troops while they were deployed, and on the return trip found time to visit the wounded at Landstuhl. Ask any of our wounded warriors what it means to receive such a visit. Being Commander-in-Chief of a National Guard unit inside the confines of a state is not the same as putting those same men and women into a “hot zone,” but it is more command experience than editing the Harvard Law Review.

As trivial as energy concerns are Governor Palin responded to high gas and oil prices by taking the high budget surplus created by the influx of petroleum cash and gave every citizen of Alaska a $1,200 rebate, eliminated the state gas tax and proposed giving grants to electrical utility companies in order to lower customer’s energy bills. She has personally taken on big oil companies in Alaska, and has the approval ratings in Alaska to prove it. She governs a state with 24,000 employees and an annual budget of $11,000,000,000, which amazingly is not in the red. She has cut waste at every level of government, as trivial as that seems, even selling the state’s Westwind II private jet on eBay. Now those ideas may be too revolutionary to succeed on a national scale, but they are more creative than suggesting the way to combat $4.00 per gallon gasoline is to properly inflate our tires.

None of this truly matters though when choosing the person who will hold the second highest office in the land. What matters is that Governor Palin has five children who need their mother at home. After all, that is a woman’s place isn’t it? Of those five children, Track, the oldest is deploying to Iraq as an infantryman next week on September 11th. The Governor’s second oldest child, her 17 year old daughter, is knocked up and getting married. She and her soon to be 18 year old husband will be setting up their own home soon, so Governor Palin will have more time to donate to the other three. Whatever caused two teenagers to believe that both parents are more likely to raise a well-adjusted child has not been paying attention to this election cycle. Governor Palin has done an admirable job raising her children, regardless the mistakes one has made. She has not only made a home for her family, but also helped her husband on his commercial fishing boat. Pretty uppity of a woman to want to work outside the home, but she just wanted to make sure her bills got paid. After all, left to his own devices her husband probably would have squandered the family’s funds on another hunting rifle. Oh wait, the Governor hunts and eats caribou, moose and other wild game. I guess another rifle might not be such a bad thing for a gun toting, Lifetime Member of the N.R.A. Being able to literally bring home the bacon, and fry it up in the pan may not count for much when super markets will deliver foie gras and arugula to your house, provided you live in a civilized area of the country, but it is more honest work experience than voting “present” 160 times while in a state Senate.

So, what’s the end result here? Governor Sarah Palin is an independent woman who has chosen her own path in life. She has tackled both politically and personally tough issues head on whenever they have confronted her. She is a mother, wife, homemaker, career woman and a good role model. What she is not is a Democrat, and as we are all too well aware, no woman who really cares about women, the planet or children could ever be anything other than a Democrat. Real women are the likes of Speaker Pelosi and Senator Clinton, not bumpkins from the backwoods like Governor Palin. If Governor Palin is elected Vice President she will have risen higher than either of those two aforementioned paragons of femininity, some could even argue just being nominated elevates her above them. After all, neither Speaker Pelosi nor Senator Clinton has been nominated to a national position. Of course all these things are trivial when you really consider them because she has never published a best selling book. All she’s done is make her own way in the world in the best traditions of America. Now what could possibly make her think that something like that could prepare her for either Vice President, or God forbid should something happen to Senator McCain, President? Doesn’t she know that the only way to get ahead in this world is by having all your wants and needs met by those who know better than you? Of course not. How could she? After all, no graduate of the University of Idaho could ever expect to understand the real world. You would have to attend a prep school and at least one Ivy League school, if not two, before you could understand what those of us out here in the real world really need.

Mike Belongs to the Nation Now

2008-05-13T10:27:00.003-04:00

In a driving downpour, with wind gusts up to 60 mph, 8 motorcycles, 65 private vehicles and a 54 passenger bus departed suburban Pennsylvania to transit a true American hero home to Arlington . Cpl. Michael J. Crescenz, Medal of Honor recipient, was escorted by three hundred of us. There were a couple of minor glitches. Two members of the Leathernecks Motorcycle Club went down at 50 mph, but were only banged up and bruised. One of them even got back on the bike and finished the ride. At another point 5 vehicles and the bus were separated from the pack by inconsiderate drivers who cut in on the funeral procession. Everyone made it to the grave site in time though.

The Old Guard did their normal stellar job and Mike now belongs to the entire nation, as is fitting. Kudos to the PA and MD State Troopers and the Special Events section for DC Metro. They did an above average job of shepherding a truly unwieldy convoy across busy highways in the most inclement of weather. I was afforded the honor of safe guarding Mike’s Medal of Honor all day. I literally carried it on my shoulder in a leather bag for about six hours. Just having it in my possession made me feel like… well, I’m not sure I can fully explain what it felt like, but you get the idea. It was, without a doubt, the highest honor I have ever been afforded.

Finally, in a day replete with awesome experiences, special praise must go out to Inspector Tony Boyle of the Philadelphia Police Department. He rode a Philadelphia Highway Patrol bike with a Medal of Honor guidon flying. He rode directly in front of the hearse through all manner of bad weather and unruly drivers, even functioning as an extra road guard when the need arose. Tony is a Vietnam vet who told me a couple weeks ago that nothing would stop him from helping to take Mike home. He is a man of his word and I personally wish to offer him my thanks. As the rain poured down on us just seeing the lights flashing on that bike, with the guidon flapping in the wind, caused my chest to pound with excitement. Mike belongs to the nation as a whole now, as is fitting. Sleep well brother. You are finally home. Manchu.

Primary Day

2008-04-23T11:41:00.004-04:00

I have been gleefully watching the back and forth of my liberal friends. The moaning and gnashing of teeth as they decry the Clintons has caused me unmitigated delight. "How can they do this to Barack?" they cry. First, no one has done anything to Sen. Obama, because it's not allowed. You cannot lean too hard on the black guy without hearing the charges of racism. Former President Clinton learned that, when he referenced Sen. Obama and Jesse Jackson in the same breath. As much as I find the machinations of President Clinton despicable, I do not believe anyone could rightfully accuse him of being a racist. The forces on the far left have though, and will continue to, because it matters not who is best qualified for the job of President of the United States. What matters is how we feel about ourselves, and our choices; at least if you reside on the far left of any issue. Secondly, where have all you people, who are just now discovering the evil genius of the Clintons, been for the past 15 years? These two have always been reprehensible self promoters who always feel your pain; unless of course they were the ones who caused it.

As I watched the antics of the Hillary and Obama supporters at my polling place yesterday, I was moved to outright laughter on a number of occasions. One sweet, young, college student approached me with an earnest look and a reporter's notebook. "May I ask you some questions?" she asked with a bright smile in place. "Depends. Where are you from?" I responded. "U of W, Seattle and we're observing the election process," she bubbled. Now my smile grew brighter and I agreed to bear her questions. "Did you vote today?" she queried. "I did," I said. "And who did you vote for?" she followed up. Knowing full well for whom she had voted, I said "I'm an R." Mildly perplexed she said, "You guys have a primary today? Who'd you vote for?" At this point, the Firefighter Lt., with whom I was conversing when this delightful creature approached, broke out into laughter. Ah, but it was only to get better. "We truthfully only had the one choice," I told her as politely as possible. "Who's that?" she asked. By now we were drawing a crowd of uniformed firefighters from inside the firehouse polling station. "Why, Sen. McCain already has enough delegates to be our nominee, so it's not worth the effort to vote for either of the others," I told her. "Hmm," she processed before turning to the firefighter Lt. "And have you voted today sir?" she asked. "Not yet," he said before continuing, "but I'm an R too." "And why haven't you voted yet," she said with a straight face. "Because I'm working," he retorted.

At this point the entire episode became bizarre. Did I mention he was a uniformed Lt. in the Philadelphia Fire Dept., standing in front of a Philadelphia Fire Dept firehouse, complete with big, red fire engines? Anyway, with no sense of irony, and pen poised to take notes she looked him right in the eye and said, "And where do you work?" At this point, convulsing with laughter, the assembled firefighters literally ran from the area. Pointing at the firehouse, the fire trucks and, finally, the uniform, in my best spokes-model mode, I asked her, "Do you see all these fire department things?" And the Lt asked, "Did you miss the big red trucks?" "I'm sorry," she said. "I'm working on three hours sleep." Yeah, that's not quite going to explain it.

After that exchange I questioned her about why she was voting for Sen. Obama. The answers were, predictably, Hope and Change. As to what, exactly, that change was, she admitted she had absolutely no idea. "I've seen Barack three times and his speeches are wonderful, but they aren't very substantive," she told me. Apparently, if you feel good enough about something, that it is more than enough. I guess I don't have to tell you this young girl was lilly white, nor do I need to tell you that so were most of the people sporting Obama buttons. We've all seen it. The phenomenon of the fainting, and messianic status of Sen. Obama has, at last, begun to wane, but not the adoration. Nothing can stop this fight from continuing, and Sen. Obama will probably still be the candidate for the democrats come November. I recognize that my experience was nothing more than anecdotal evidence of what I have always suspected, but it was great fun to be proven right; at least in the most microcosmic of examples.

Regardless of the outcome of the General Election, I am, now and forever, on our team. I would mourn for a day or so if Sen. Obama were elected. I would mourn for the days to come, and for the brave men and women in uniform; all of whom are my kids, regardless their age. I would mourn for them because their valiant sacrifice would be for nothing, if Sen. Obama were to stick to his talking points and begin withdrawing them before the war in Iraq is won. I would have to move on and begin doing what the warriors would need from me after an Obama presidency. I would still salute the flag. I would still be proud of my country and its people, but I would not be happy with their lack of reason. Sen. McCain was not my first choice, or even my second, but he is my choice now for one simple reason: he will let my guys in uniform put lead on target until the mission is done. I need nothing else at this point in time. We are engaged in a battle for the safety of the world against a foe with whom we cannot barter. Sen. Obama may doubt that, and I am certain the lovely young lady from Seattle knows it isn't true, but Sen. McCain knows differently. Sen. McCain takes Zawahiri at his word when he says, "I urge all Muslims to hurry to the battlefields of Jihad (holy war), especially in Iraq," Zawahiri said in the message, the second in a two-part series to answer about 100 questions put to him via online militant forums. "The situation in Iraq heralds an imminent victory of Islam and the defeat of the crusaders and those who stand under their flag," he said. Some on the left will gladly reference bin Laden or Zawahiri when it suits, but never will they reference when it doesn't. Voting for change and hoping for peace with Al Qaeda won't make it so. And to that young lady from Seattle I say, remember, even you know there's no substance to Sen. Obama. Keep your rock heroes on the posters on your wall and let a grown-up govern the land.

Sorry, I Expect Better

2008-03-24T12:01:00.002-04:00

The Right Reverend Jeremiah Wright's anti-American rhetoric caused, as we all know, Presidential candidate Sen. Barrack Obama to deliver a speech distancing himself from the rhetoric, but not the reverend. Now, nearly a week later, polling data has been released stating that 7 out of 10 people who heard the speech have a favorable opinion of it. How that can possibly be is beyond my comprehension, but it does not surprise me. Today's general electorate is all about feeling good, not substance; the ultimate example of form over function. A careful reading of Sen. Obama's speech bears that out, but who has time for that with American Idol and Dancing with the Stars beginning anew?

I have heard Sen. Obama's speech called "the greatest speech on this issue in American political history," and a "stunning address." It was, indeed, an extraordinary speech, delivered beautifully, and that is what the candidate is banking on. My reading of the speech finds it to be all emotion, with no direct, substantive proposals for actual change. The senator made no reference to past behavior, nor explained specific policies he would implement. Worse yet, he does not seek to distance himself from Rev. Wright, but rather only to convince us that he does not agree with the reverend when it comes to the more 'inflammatory comments." Since Sen. Obama has repeatedly told anyone who will listen that Rev. Wright's church does remarkable, good, and heroic work in the community, we must presume he agrees with everything except the You Tube moments. We also are expected to accept the senator at his word that he never heard, nor heard of, the reverend's remarks. That they were an open secret in Chicago apparently escaped both the senator's exploratory committee and his opposition research team.

For me, that is where Sen. Obama's speech becomes disingenuous. I am used to politicians talking at length, while saying nothing, but to suggest that Rev. Wright's statements were unknown to him and his advisers just strikes me as purely false. I have reached the conclusion that we must either accept Sen. Obama when he says that he had no direct knowledge of the statements, or conversely, we must conclude that he lacked the courage to confront the reverend regarding them. Either way the senator is not ready to lead the nation. Considered through that prism, a reading of the speech just makes it sad. A sad recitation, made by a man who fully expected to receive no ill treatment at the hand's of the Fourth Estate. Granted, he was mostly right that the honorable men and women of the press would be so enamored of him that they would not seek to scratch the surface of his polished oratory. Unfortunately for Sen. Obama the internet is not a fluke, and everything everyone does and says is posted somewhere in all its gory infamy.

Another disturbing portion of Sen. Obama's facade is the notion of such a strenuous upbringing. He was raised by a single mother, but not in anything approximating destitute conditions. For the most part Sen. Obama was reared in Hawaii and attended prestigious schools, which eventually led him to acquire degrees from Columbia University and Harvard Law School. In many ways he is the embodiment of the American dream. That is the most galling aspect for me. Nowhere else in the world could Sen. Obama even expect to reach the heights he has achieved, much less the one's he covets. For him to turn his back on that legacy angers me. For 20 years he ignored the anti-American rantings of a radical reverend. Sen. Obama admits that Rev. Wright was his spiritual advisor and one of his closest friends. Are we to believe that Rev. Wright said these inflammatory statements in public, but did not once reference them in private? That notion seems improbable, if not impossible, at best.

So, where does that leave us? It leaves me expecting more. I expect better from Rev. Wright, a Marine rifleman, and Navy Corpsman. I expect him to remember the oath he took. Dissent is patriotic. It is what our nations is founded upon, but to incite anti-American emotion is unacceptable. I expect my fellow Americans to challenge our government, but to repeatedly scream God Damn America! to state that the U.S. is the largest state sponsor of terrorism, and affirm that 9/11 was nothing more than chickens coming home to roost is beyond the pale. It is the equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded movie theater, and any good the reverend did is wiped from the slate because of it.

I also expect more from Sen. Obama. I expect him to embrace the country which gave him opportunities many of us desire. I expect him to wear the American flag lapel pin if he truly wishes to be the United State's public personification. I expect him to chastise and cut off the reverend for his actions. Remember what every one of our mother's said, "People judge you by the company you keep." It is not unfair to suggest that because if someone continues to associate with men of low caliber we can only expect that they approve of them; even if only tacitly. In the words of George Washington, "Associate yourself with men of quality if you esteem your own reputation, for it is better to be alone than in bad company." I also expect the senator to not reduce the reverend's statements to "controversial" or "fiery statements." I expect him to stand on the principle he espouses. I expect him to unabashedly love the country which has given him and his family so much. I expect him to differ on politics, but not the notion that the United States is the best country on Earth. And yes, I expect him to admit when he is wrong. Unfortunately for him he need not do any of those things. The race division he claims to abhor is exactly the wedge he wields. I, and many of my friends and family, proudly wore our nation's uniform so that the senator could be afforded the opportunity he now possesses. I guess it is simply too much to ask that he exhibit a little recognition of that.

A Woman Scorned

2008-03-03T12:42:00.004-05:00

Under a cloudless, crystal clear sky, I had the distinct honor and pleasure to be at the christening of the New York (LPD 21) on 1 March, at Ingalls Shipyard outside New Orleans, LA. Her bow was made with 15,000 pounds of steel salvaged from Ground Zero. She is specifically tasked with fighting terrorism, and can carry various configurations of Special Ops forces, as well as her normal compliment of 800 Marines and their landing equipment. As soon as I saw her berthed dockside, festooned with signal pennants, I involuntarily held my breath and my heart began pounding. Being a soldier, I had never completely understood how my brothers and sisters in the Department of the Navy could get so attached to what I perceived as an inanimate object. I can assure you that New York is no inanimate object. She is the living embodiment of the sacrifice and courage exhibited by so many on 9/11.

There were, literally, thousands of people in attendance at the christening. The crowd ran the gamut from Department of Defense personnel, to sailors from the WWII battleship who shares the name New York, to ship builders, to veteran's organizations, to an assortment of New Yorkers. Amongst the New Yorkers were several 9/11 survivors and a half dozen firemen from FDNY. All the fire-fighters were at the WTC on 9/11, and I can tell you that watching them be so moved by the ship will stay with me forever. I sat next to a 23 year old Lt. Junior Grade, who is shepherding New York through her various stages of construction. His warmth, good humor and desire to answer questions made the experience more personal somehow. Before the formal ceremony of speakers, a short film was shown. It documented New York's ship builders meeting with 9/11 survivors at Ground Zero before her keel was laid. I can tell you that as the film rolled there was not a dry eye in the house, and later, when the National Anthem was performed, every spine was a little straighter and every salute was a little crisper.

I defy anyone to tell the firefighter pictured with me that the War on Terror is not worth fighting, and, yes, that includes the Al Qaeda magnet, Iraq. He, and the six men with him, were all at Ground Zero on 9/11. They witnessed terrorism close up and did not blink. These men, on both 9/11 and this past Saturday, exhibited everything that is best about the United States and Americans. New York is a stark reminder of 9/11 and she made me proud to be an American. It was as perfect a day as can be had
and I look forward to seeing New York commissioned next year in the harbor that bears her name. The saying goes that Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, and, with the motto of "Never Forget" New York will undoubtedly exact our revenge. Fair winds and following seas New York. May you get some vengeance for us all.

Can We Just Get on with the Business of Winning?

2008-02-28T20:06:00.007-05:00

"There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq before George Bush and John McCain decided to invade," so said Senator Obama at a recent campaign event. He followed that statement with the proclamation, once again, that he would pull all the troops out of Iraq were he elected President. The obvious problem with the Senator's statements are three-fold. First, Al Qaeda was in Iraq before we invaded. They were afforded a safe haven in the Kurdish region after we invaded Afghanistan; according to captured documents, and as reported by ABC News, Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein did meet before the invasion to discuss attacking Saudi Arabia; and Zawahiri, the now deceased leader of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, was treated at a Baghdad hospital after being wounded fighting American forces in Afghanistan. Second, George Bush did not invade Iraq; the United States invaded Iraq, with the full backing of Congress. Third, Al Qaeda is in Iraq now, and will not leave Iraq, nor cease their murderous tactics, both there and abroad, because US military forces are withdrawn precipitously. It does not matter to me why Al Qaeda is in Iraq. They are there now and we have no choice but to destroy them, or cede to them not only a base of operations to wage their murderous campaigns of terror, but rather an entire country.

It is a juvenile, and ill formed thought that pulling the troops out of Iraq will somehow cause Al Qaeda to summarily cease their reign of terror. Just because we decide we are no longer at war does not mean Al Qaeda will decide likewise. Senator Obama also stated that if Al Qaeda establishes a base of operations in Iraq after we withdraw, as President he would recommit the military. Is it just me that finds that to be the most illogical of statements? Senator Obama apparently believes that everyone in the world, regardless of public proclamations, is worth trusting, except of course the evil men and women of the Republican Party. I have news for this erudite, big hearted, Ivy League graduate, you cannot trust Al Qaeda. If we pull our troops out of Iraq before the job is done, Al Qaeda will take over, and a slaughter of innocents to rival any seen before will ensue. Al Qaeda will torture and murder everyone even remotely suspected of aiding the American forces. Al Qaeda is the most evil adversary we have ever faced; more evil than the Third Reich and the Soviets because they would gladly butcher billions if it would give them control of the world.

It also bears mentioning that is has been 2,362 since 9/11. Some of the reason for that has to be that the terrorists are otherwise engaged fighting our professional warriors in Iraq. Were the terrorists not fighting in Iraq would they not be plotting further death and devastation here in the United States? On 9/12/2001 what else did any of us want but no more terrorist attacks on American soil? I know Senator Obama and his acolytes will say that we should not sacrifice our American warriors for a nation thousands of miles away. The death of every American service member hurts my heart, but it has taken years for the terrorists to match the number they killed on a single Tuesday morning in September. That is because it is always better to have our professional warrior class fighting the terrorists, than to allow them time to attack soft targets here.

There has also been much talk out of Senator Obama's camp on the fiscal cost of continuing the fight in Iraq. I would suggest that the cost to the Treasury of the United States pales in comparison to the costs of another 9/11. All of us remember exactly where we were that crisp, Fall day in 2001; though some of us have forgotten how we felt. You cannot negotiate with abject evil. Senator McCain has his failings. If elected, he will probably close Guantanamo Bay; a grievous mistake I believe. Senator McCain will also probably make it more difficult for our intelligence services to extract intel from captured terrorists, by limiting tough interrogation methods. Those too, are less than well formed responses to his own personal experiences, but Senator McCain has seen evil up close. He looked it in the eye and has not forgotten neither where he was, nor how he felt. He is reminded of it every day when he realizes that he still cannot lift his arms above his shoulders because of the torture he underwent. Senator McCain was tortured. What we have done to a very few, high value targets was not torture. All that said, the main difference between the two senators is that one knows that carnivores are loose in the world, and one does not. I am certain the gazelle out on the African Savannah would sorely like a time-out as the hungry lion sinks his teeth into the gazelle's haunch, but no amount of wishing on his part will make it so. Senator Obama would benefit by remembering that the plains of Africa are a brutal, unforgiving place to the prey, when the predators are hungry. Unfortunately, until freedoms of human rights and expression replace theocratic despotism in the Middle East, all the world is the Serengeti during a drought, and nothing but the brave American fighting man stands between us and the sickening snap of incisors.

I Have Always Been Proud of My Country

2008-02-21T12:16:00.009-05:00

I am not from a "silver spoon" background. I'm a working class kid from honorable, but low, economic roots. I proudly admit to being moved by the strains of the National Anthem, and the fluttering of Old Glory in the breeze. I tear up slightly when I hear the Anthem, whether at the ball park or in my living room; and yes, I stand up in my living room when it plays. I salute the flag wherever, whenever I encounter it. I do this specifically because I am proud of my country, and for all that it stands. I enlisted in the Army, generally because I wanted to serve. I joined the Infantry specifically because I wanted to kill bad guys. I have been less than enthused by some of our leaders, and appalled at some of my fellow American's actions; whether elected officials, or the simple rank and file. I have never though, waivered in my pride of country.

I had the distinct honor to revisit Ft. Benning, GA a couple weeks back to see a friend "Turn Blue." For those of you unfamiliar with the ceremony, it is when an infantryman receives his distinctive Blue Cord. The cord is placed on the infantryman's Class A, or dress uniform, on the combat shoulder; so called because we wear our combat patch on the right shoulder. The cord is the color of the sky, because God loves the infantry. We are the Queen of Battle, and no battle, big or small can be truly finished without us. I not only had the honor of putting the cord on my friend, I also was able to welcome the other 184 infantrymen in his class into my club. I was so proud of them, and my country, that I kept my sunglasses on to maintain my tough guy image. To a man these heroes all expressed thanks for my service, and exhibited public pride of self, and yes, country. None suggested they had joined the infantry for any reason other than the one for which I had joined. For all time we will be linked to the men from Valley Forge, Omaha Beach, Pork Chop Hill, Hamburger Hill, Fallujah and all the nameless places in between. That, makes me proud not only of myself, but of my country.

I understand that for those who have never served, the country is a different place. It can seem shallow and trite. It may even seem less than honorable on occasion. It is never anything less than the best place though, and never less than the world's last, best hope. We have had our share of problems here, and we have stumbled on occasion, but we have never failed. I say that because I once heard failure expressed as "staying down after you fall." The United States of America has always managed to get up off the mat, and has always answered the bell. I admit then, to not a little bit of anger to hear the wife of a candidate for President of the United States say, "Before now I have never, in my adult life, been proud of my country." I would suggest that someone who feels that way, whether Freudian slip, or intentional flippancy has no business urging her husband to be Commander-in-Chief; let alone campaigning for him.

Do not misunderstand me. This is not a shameless plug for Sen. McCain, nor a castigation of Sen. Obama. It is a reminder that the president, to much of the world, is the United States. He need not be jingoistic to secure a place in my heart, nor do I require that he be nationalistic. I do require though, that he remember the pride of the new infantrymen I referenced above, and feel it himself, at all times. That may seem shallow to some, and downright awful to others, but it is what I expect from my President. I accept that the man who inhabits the Oval Office is human, and subject to the foilbles of humanity. I accept that he will make mistakes, and only ask that they not be those of a juvenile nature, nor ones that will squander my faith. I also accept that the needs of the world will very occasionally come first, and that we, as a country, will shoulder more than our share of the world's burdens. What I cannot accept is a President who is not stirred by the strains of the National Anthem, nor one who is embarassed by his country of birth; regardless of cause. My President must face the flag, whenever he sees it, and feel a pounding of pride in his chest. My President must see the infantry walk by, and know that they are all that is best about this country. My President need not have worn the uniform himself, but must always remember that many men have granted him the office, through sacrifice of life and limb. If the men currently running for office cannot meet those requirements I have only one question: If these conditions seem onerous sir, why would you want the job?

Is This A Great Country, Or What?

2007-11-29T13:13:00.000-05:00

It was a couple months ago that I had the honor of being in the presence of the President of the United States. The event was a breakfast on the South Lawn where Gathering of Eagles, National Alliance of Families, Move America Forward and the Vets for Freedom were feted. I admit that I ate nothing because I feared ingesting anything would lead to me vomiting on the White House lawn, so awe struck was I by being an invited guest on the grounds of the White House. It was nice to be honored that way, and to be surrounded by people who were similarly moved. It is proof positive to me that this is the greatest country on the planet. After all, prior to that day in September I was not personally acquainted with anyone who had been invited to the White House, nor had I been able to converse with the sitting President and Vice President of the United States as if we were regular folk.

There is nothing wrong with fervently loving the good old US of A. These days many people will tell you that America is the cause of all of the world's ills. Nothing could be further from the truth. We, as Americans, are everything that is good about the world and the reason why the world is still a place where millions of people can live freely. A great part of that ability to let people live freely comes at the point of a weapon. A weapon cradled with both tender loving care and exacting precision. A weapon cradled by those among us who choose to wear the uniform of the United States Military. The mostly young warriors who currently serve are what is best about us. It has always been that way, but these kids, and their elder NCOs and officers, are special. They are truly golden.

The Ayatollah Khomeini once said, both in word and print, that there are no jokes in Islam. That is but one of the differences between the United States, and not just radical Islam, but the majority of the world. We have always had a somewhat self-deprecating sense of humor. The wry smile that comes before a side splitting joke at our own expense has always been one of our hallmarks. A nation that cannot laugh at itself cannot survive the trials and tribulations that a Super Power must endure; not for long anyway. The Soviet Union and the Third Reich have proven that. What we, as Americans, have been able to accomplish is nothing short of the greatest country the world has ever produced. We are the most caring, most imaginative, most giving people on the planet, and, when roused, the most capable of sustained military operations. We have proven to be unyielding in the prosecution of evil foes, and the current climate is no exception.

Many will say that we are fighting at least one unjust war, if not two. These are the same people who will laugh uproariously and protest loudly when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says, "There are no homosexuals in Iran," but pass away his comments about wiping Israel of the face of the planet as if they are just the utterances of a deranged homeless person. We are engaged in a war with radical Islam precisely because we can laugh at ourselves, and because we can allow those among us to disagree. It is not because we are occupying the Holy Land of Islam, nor because we support Israel. It is because we are the greatest nation on Earth, and we are the greatest because we are free. Freedom is not free, and no one knows that better than those who have worn the uniform.

I have ranted too many times in this arena about the political posturings of the anti-American forces on the left in this country. Likewise, the inane mutterings of Reps Pelosi and Paul, and Sens Kennedy and Reid have taken up too much space here already. I think anyone who reads my writings knows where I stand on those imbeciles. I am sick though, of all the bashing of the country I love. I have heard often that all Islam needs is a Reformation and the moderates will rise up to carry the standard. Unfortunately, I believe the Reformation is underway, and the radicals are winning. Those on the extreme American left cannot see that evil, but witness American ills at every availability. The "I Support the Troops, but Not the War" crowd cannot even find it in their hearts to publicly condemn the public lashing and subsequent jail term of an Islamic rape victim in Saudi Arabia because it would undercut their position on Iraq. They will, however, applaud the likes of Brian DePalma and Mark Cuban when they make a movie that depicts the rape and murder of Iraqis by American servicemen. Never mind that the movie seeks to be allegorical in nature.

I am tired of it. I no longer wish to dialogue with those types of people. I no longer wish to make them understand that we are engaged in a world-wide battle for our very survival. I have, instead, decided to channel all my efforts into supporting the brave men and women who currently wear our nations' uniform. I choose instead to back those valiant warriors with all my might, so that they may complete their mission; a mission I fully support and one which is, finally, going in the right direction. I support the troops and the mission because they support us. They support the country I love, my country, the United States of America. They fully know the stakes and, yet, still shoulder the burden and soldier, or sailor, or airman, or Marine, or Guardsman on. I love these kids because they are my country. So, this time of year do something kind for the men and women in uniform. Send them some love in the desert, and tell the next person who says I Support the Troops, but Not the War to just shut the hell up.

Culture of Mythology

2007-08-29T13:29:00.000-04:00

With the near constant back and forth of our political leaders it occurred to me that American culture may quite rightly be at fault. After all, American Idol gets higher audience share than nearly everything else. News programs devote sizable portions of their air time to the trials and tribulations of Paris Hilton and Owen Wilson. I am not without sympathy for spoiled millionaires who get whatever they want, whenever they want it. I would, I am sure, have behaved in a similar fashion were I suddenly bequeathed millions at age 21. The constant fascination with their lives is what irks me. We are coming up on the 6th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, are simultaneously fighting two hot wars, and several warm ones too, and this is what people want to watch? Maybe al-Qaeda is justified in hating, if not all of us, than at least a simple majority of Americans.

While I am on the topic of al-Qaeda let's dispel a few myths there. Osama bin Laden has been characterized as a 6 foot 5 inch Saudi billionaire, dying from kidney disease. He has never been worth more than 20 million, is, at best 6 foot 1 and probably has Addison's Disease. I mentioned those things to someone recently and was asked, "How the hell do you know?" "Read a book," I responded. Lawrence Wright's exquisitely researched and foot-noted book The Looming Tower should be required reading for American school children, and the honorable men and women of Congress. Maybe then these superhuman qualities attributed to a psychotic, militantly Muslim madman could be replaced with the truth. Now I know the truth is not easily chopped into sound bites, but it is where we should all start. I have read the book a couple times and it was just released in paperback this week, so consider this a plug. If you're interested in the "real" story about al-Qaeda and militant Islam pick it up.

Another myth that needs dispelling is that the war in Iraq is a losing issue. First, we never lost a battle in Vietnam, but the media decided that was a loss because they forced our brave Vietnam vets to slink home with their tails between their legs. The same thing is being tried with our brave Middle Eastern Conflicts vets. Our warriors are ruthlessly hunting down and killing al-Qaeda and their cronies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both bin Laden and Zawahiri have released multiple tapes calling Iraq the "central war for dominance." Somehow though American mythology keeps replaying the WMD track. Let me say it once and for all, "IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW WE GOT THERE. WE ARE IN IRAQ NOW AND MUST WIN."

This week the Democratic Party took righteous indignation at the notion that President Bush would reference Vietnam and Iraq in the same breath. Vietnam has always been their stock in trade after all. The liberal left believes they won Vietnam by marching, banging drums, smoking pot and supporting the troops by calling them "baby-killers." The liberal left did win the Vietnam War. They just won it for the wrong side. That is the same model alive and well today for the left. They chant and sing, bang pots and support the troops by calling us, variably, "baby-killers," "war criminals," and the new and improved "bomb throwers." The similarities to Vietnam are real; just not in the way the left would have us believe. The left is helping our enemy maintain fighting strength and recruit new members to their culture of death. The left is actively trying to demoralize our brave men and women in uniform. The left is trying to bring about the overthrow of a democratically elected government, both here and in Iraq, and, most importantly, they are invested in us losing, at all costs.

The main difference between Iraq and Vietnam is that the NVA had no intention of visiting murder and mayhem on American cities. Al-Qaeda has, and will if given the safe haven an unstable Iraq will provide. Afghanistan under the Taliban will look like Canada in comparison to how a destabilized Iraq will look. Al-Qaeda and every associated cause will not only have a safe haven, but a revenue stream of petroleum. Iran has no interest in seeing a stable, democratic Iraq and the overwhelming number of foreign terrorists in Iraq are still Saudis. Iran provides arms and Saudi Arabia cannon fodder. Seems like Saudi Arabia has an inexhaustible stream of young men ready to die for Allah. Saudi Arabia wants no part of democracy in Iraq because it might give the locals back home some ideas. How could a region lousy with Maserati driving, yacht owning princes manage to maintain that lifestyle if democracy took hold?

The greatest myth being perpetuated on the American public though is that we are at war. The Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard are at war. The American public is at the mall watching the latest, mindlessly juvenile Will Ferrell offering. Next month I will be in the nation's capital, Washington, DC, a number of times. I will be visiting Congress on 10 September both to twist arms and slap backs. I care not for party affiliation. A number of democrats will receive an "atta boy" for recognizing that The Surge is working, and a number of republicans will be reminded that they work for us. I find it surprising that people who just a few months ago who had said Iraq was lost now say, well the strategy is working, but we still need a political answer. As if a political answer is possible without a military solution to precede it. I will also be in Washington, DC to counter the likes of International A.N.S.W.E.R., Code Pink, The World Workers Party, and various, assorted communists du jour. These groups plan to tell Congress to "do the people's bidding and end the war in Iraq." The American people have no bidding. As I already mentioned, they are at the mall. I, Gathering of Eagles, Move America Forward, Military Order of the Purple Heart, Vets for Freedom and other like-minded organizations and individuals will stand up to the loud mouths of the liberal left. We will tell them, in no uncertain terms, that we want our men and women home too, but as victors, not painted as losers. We will not allow these communist sympathizers to do to this generation what they did to those fine men and women who fought in Vietnam. We will tell them that their myths do not fool us. We know we are on the side of good.

I understand that there is a freedom of speech and an alleged free exchange of ideas in this country. I enlisted at 17 to help guarantee it. I also understand though that, like it or not, we are at war with radical Islam and they are not going away. We can disagree on the politics of war, and even the direction. I do not believe, for one, that the first few years of the war in Iraq were fought effectively. We should have been fighting under the proverbial "black flag" from day one. This is where we are now though and we are winning, even al-Qaeda says so. It is Walter Cronkite telling us that Tet was a loss, once again. The model has not changed. I will tell you this. I am a life-long republican. I registered 6 days after my 18th birthday and have not looked back. I registered late because I was in Infantry School at Ft. Benning, by the way. So, I am a life-long republican, but I'm not on the republican side, or the democrats side. I'm on our side. The United States' side, and will be regardless who the next President of the United States is; although I admit I would probably soil myself if a certain senator from New York were to win. The question I have to ask though, "Is that too much for me to ask of everyone else?" I sincerely urge everyone of you who can be in Washington, DC on 15 September to do so. Stand with me and say, "Enough. The sixties are over and our brave men and women in uniform deserve to be treated like the heroes they are." While you're at it tell one of our brothers from Vietnam Welcome Home. They, maybe above all others, deserve it.

No Retreat, No Surrender

2007-07-27T12:47:00.000-04:00

I know that there are many good people on the democrat side of the proverbial aisle. I can even make the leap of faith to think that some of the anti-war protesters are kind, caring people who mean well. Unfortunately, the world is full of cannibals who want to eat us and no amount of wishing can make the bad guys go away. It seems though, that the leadership of the Democrat Party are willing shills for the anti-America movement organizations Code Pink, A.N.S.W.E.R. and United for Peace and Justice. These organizations are anything but well-meaning. They all have their roots in the American Communist Party and their leadership have been bashing the United States in general, and the American serviceman in particular, for better than 40 years. Simply put, these organizations, and the democrat elite are invested in a US defeat in not just the war in Iraq, but in the larger War on Terror in general. It is the only way for them to prove to their satisfaction that they have the ability to influence events in the US and the world.

I have made mention of the anti-America movement attempting to draw parallels between Iraq and Vietnam. They have used the Tet Offensive and the current Surge in Iraq as evidence that we are an immoral, imperialistic, war-mongering bunch who needs to become more sensitive to the world's needs. Forget for a moment that Tet was a win for the US forces. I have blogged extensively on the historical inaccuracies of the Left's portrayal of the "loss" we suffered during Tet. Walter Cronkite said it was a loss, so it must have been. Actually, it was a monumental defeat for the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese; General Giap said as much at the time. Giap also is on record as having said that the American anti-war movement was the only reason for optimism after Tet, and was a resource to be harnessed. Giap and his staff listened daily to reports by the American media and decided that North Vietnam could win the war, not through force of arms, but by force of will. he reasoned that if the North could simply hold on long enough the American left would win the war for him.

Much the same is happening now in Iraq. Even though Bin Laden and Zawahiri have both released Islamic diatribes explaining the historical context of Iraq through the Vietnam prism, the anti-war left refuses to publicly accept complicity in defeat. Any rational human being would be expected to hear Bin Laden and Zawahiri's statements regarding the assistance anti-American rhetoric provides to them and immediately be chastised. Al-Jazeera routinely plays video of A.N.S.W.E.R.'s anti-war rallies and statements from the likes of Sen Harry Reid (D-NV) and Rep. Jack Murtha(D-PA). If a person was well-meaning and truly had the country's best interests at heart that would be cause for them to self silence their rhetorical protestations. Since it has only fueled the accusations and moronic comments by the democrat hierarchy and their attendants one has to presume that the statements are designed to cause a loss in Iraq.

The Surge in Iraq has been characterized as the Tet Offensive, or a holding action that cannot be sustained. The problem with that logic is quite evident though. Someone wiser than I remarked to me today that "To compare Tet to the Surge is dishonest. First, Tet was the enemy's last gasp effort pushing against us and we broke them. The Surge is us pushing against them and revealing that Al-Qaeda is the true Paper Tiger." Think about that for a moment. If the left insists on saying, as Sen Reid recently did, that the war is lost, are they not, in effect, saying that the American military, with all its vaunted might, is incapable of defeating a rag-tag bunch of terrorists? How could a person, in good conscience, say our military is the greatest to ever take the field and then say we have lost? The answer must lie in political machinations. Either the left-most wing of the Democrat Party has deluded themselves, or they are liars. No middle ground exists.

Somehow the American public has been lulled into complacency by American Idol and the trials and tribulations of Paris Hilton. The healthy skepticism we have always displayed has been replaced with partisan lines in the sand. If you are a democrat and a republican says something it must be a lie, and vice versa. An email I have received numerous times has a white-board in a Marine Corps barracks which reads: America is not at war. The Marine Corps is at war. America is at the mall. That notion could not be more accurate and it is a sad commentary on the state of the American public. Barack Obama, one of the leading contenders for the Democrat Party nomination is on record having said that, if elected, he would sit down with middle-eastern dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This in the same week that news reports linked Iranian Special Forces to American combat deaths. It was also the week that the US military reported there is no Al-Qaeda in Iraq. It is just Al-Qaeda. Apparently the left is prepared to believe anything the terrorists and dictators say, but nothing the Americans utter; unless it helps their cause. What it comes down to is this: either you believe that we should confront our Islamic enemies and kill them or you think we should talk to them. If you picked the talking route, you are also signing on to give up some more of your money to the public coffers, which won't matter for long because some man who wants to meet 72 virgins will eventually blow you up or cut off your head.

I, personally, am against talking to anyone who believes that flying planes into buildings full of civilians is a negotiating tool. I am for killing them, wherever and whenever we can. Iraq may not have had weapons of mass destruction and did not have any direct operational control over the events of 9/11. Iraq is now, however, the magnet for jihadists and, in the words of Bin Laden and Zawahiri, the "central front in the battle for worldwide supremacy." Iraq is the front lines in the battle for a worldwide caliphate and I have no desire to pray to Allah five times per day. My solution is simple: Unleash the dogs of war and let our men in uniform kick ass. The job of the Army is to win wars, not police streets. It is time for some good old fashioned military action, which will be borne by those who volunteered for it; the infantry. We may have chosen the venue, but we did not choose this fight. If Al-Qaeda and their compatriots want a return to the 6th Century so badly I say we accommodate their wishes and go medieval on them. Anything less is aiding and abetting the enemy. This is a fight we must win, or sacrifice all that we hold dear.

Never Hit Softly

2007-07-11T11:25:00.000-04:00

This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
William Shakespeare

The Senate Majority leader, Harry Reid, has called for a time table for troop withdrawal in Iraq. This is, ostensibly, because the Iraqi government has not met the benchmarks we have set for them. I say we, but, truthfully, it is the micro managers in Congress who have set these goals. I will not bother to reiterate the myriad of reasons why pulling our troops out precipitously is a bad idea for the country as a whole. The Left just ignores the very real threat radical Islam poses to the country. In their defense though, they do have Global Warming threats with which to contend. Now that's really scary stuff. I also will not spend much time on the civilian casualties that will result from a Coalition Troop withdrawal before the country is stabilized. Let's just say, be prepared for film of terrified civilians being cut down by jihadists. Picture the Iraqi citizenry begging to be allowed to cower on tanks or prostrating themselves on airfields as the American helicopters lift off. Think the Fall of Saigon and you'll have some idea of what to expect. The real casualties will be among American men, and yes women, and it will be brutal, bloody and, possibly more than we can bear.

As an Army retreats from a hostile force it moves in a nearly straight line. It is hard to protect the flanks and, frequently, small elements are cut off from the main body. All the while Al-Qaeda and militant jihadi opportunists will snipe at them, detonate IEDs and confront lightly armed units. You could very well witness an entire platoon of Americans butchered on the evening news. The terrorists will not hang back and wait for us to leave. They will press the attack everywhere at once, and soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and coast guardsmen will pay the price in blood.

The Left will gleefully talk of their victory as our troops are pulled out, but if you mention the civilians left behind they will be more sanguine. "Oh well," they will say "they brought it on themselves. We were there long enough for them to stand up. It's not our fault." Never mind that these self same hypocrites are the ones calling for action in Darfur to end the genocide; a genocide perpetrated by militant Islamists. That's different, will be the argument. Darfur is a humanitarian effort. Last time I checked, no one in Darfur had attacked the United States and there was no imminent threat of attack, so I cannot see how they can use that argument for Iraq, but still proselytize for Darfur. I, of course, not being a liberal am probably not bright enough to figure it out. More likely, hypocrisy is the liberal stock in trade because after all, they are down with the struggle for oppressed people; just not oppressed people freed by a republican President.

The millions of civilians that will perish will be seen as just so much collateral damage caused by a rogue cowboy who over-stepped his bounds. "Not our fault," our liberal friends will say as they prepare another round of organic carrot juice. What will be harder to ignore, but just as easy for them to disavow, is the American military losses. For years now I have witnessed the ultra-left call soldiers "baby-killer" and have seen vitriolic signage exhorting soldiers to shoot their officers. This though comes in tandem with people swearing they support the troops. How these two things are mutually possible is beyond my limited cognitive power.

What is not beyond my cognitive powers though, is the fact that a precipitous withdrawal, under fire, puts our troops into a special kind of harms way. Many more mothers will receive their Gold Stars should this reach fruition. It will be more than I can bear. I have listened to these blow hards in Congress, shaken their hands at ceremonies and watched them kiss babies. All the while they plot the betrayal of men and women they put into battle, only to cut the legs from under them when it became politically expedient. I loathe that type of bovine excrement and the lemmings in the nation who follow them, gleefully, are simply too much for me to tolerate. We need to convince these honorable men and women of the Legislative Branch that, whatever the reason we went there, we are in Iraq and we need to win. Al-Zahahiri, Al Qaeda's number 2 man, released a 90 minute video tape only yesterday calling Iraq the central fight for Islamic sharia law dominance. Yet Harry Reid sees only a civil war. This is the fight of the ages and we are in danger of losing our way of life. This war must be won. I promised a Gold Star mother recently that I would not let her son's, Sgt Brian Romines, sacrifice to have been in vain. I am prepared to do whatever it takes to support our brave men and women over in The Box. We have not lost Senator Reid, and I, for one am offended that you would say so. I would bleed on the flag to keep the stripes red. Is that too much to expect of an elected official? Sadly, the answer to that is probably yes.

Honoring Our Own

2007-06-13T12:27:00.000-04:00

People who know me are familiar with my affinity and respect for Vietnam veterans. I have spoken and written many things detailing how, and why they are my personal Gold Standard for warriors. I do not need to articulate the broader reasons again. I will, however, take this opportunity to pay special attention to the Delaware Valley Vietnam Veterans, or DV3, as they are affectionately known. I have witnessed many things undertaken by ordinary people to honor others, but DV3 rises to a special level in that regard. This past weekend the members of DV3 erected their 22nd Annual Flag Memorial in Bucks County. It is truly an experience that causes me to look for the good in people.

Over 58,000 American flags are placed in the ground by volunteers. The flags are arranged so as to exactly mirror the Vietnam Wall in DC. Each flag represents one service member killed or missing in action in Vietnam. This year the flags were placed in the ground by a tireless group of volunteers on a day when the thermometer reached 92 degrees. With no shade to protect them, a dozen or so hardy souls braved the direct sunlight and placed the flags in exacting detail. The memorial has been set up for 22 years to mourn and honor those valiant men, and nine women lost to the Vietnam War.

This year the memorial was expanded to include all the conflicts of the 20th and 21st Centuries. Stations were set up along the edge of the Flag Memorial. At each station a description of a particular war was provided and the casualty numbers were totaled. Plastic-coated sheets of paper were placed in binders for ease of use. The grim statistics of each conflict were in stark contrast to the flags which bordered them, and the green grass which enveloped them. From World War I through Enduring and Iraqi Freedom the totals for those who have made the ultimate sacrifice were meticulously annotated. Surprise greeted many visitors when they saw how large the numbers were. More than a few people expressed shock at the number of non-combat deaths associated with each conflict.

For the most part, Vietnam veterans came home to scorn and derision, or, if they were lucky to apathy. The Delaware Valley Vietnam Veterans have channeled that treatment into something good and noble. They have developed a memorial that is at once honorable and apolitical. In a time where everything related to the military is politicized, DV3 has managed to remind us all that those who have given everything for the rest of us deserve not only remembrance, but respect. I was moved by the memorial. For those of us who have served there is no higher reward than the respect of our brethren. I started this post with a statement reiterating my love and respect for the noble warriors of Vietnam. DV3 and their Flag Memorial just reminded me why. Good job brothers and WELCOME HOME.

History Revisited

2007-06-08T13:39:00.000-04:00

Lately I have noticed that the war in Iraq has decided parallels to the war in Vietnam. No, not the quagmire comment bandied about by the Left; nor the notion that all the warriors in Iraq are there because they had no other viable alternative. Well, maybe that is the correlation. The far-Left in America is always reminding the rest of us that they are smarter and more creative than the rest of us. It seems though that they have accepted the notion of "it ain't broke, don't fix it" when it comes to opposing American national security issues. I say that because while reading Whitewash/Blackwash: The Myths of the Viet Nam War something I have long believed was put forth in a more learned way than I have been able to muster. Simply put, the extreme-Left in America is helping our jihadist enemy kill United States soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and coast guardsmen by extending the war in Iraq.

"The North Vietnamese government paid close attention to all of this, listening every day to world news on the radio, tracking the progress of the antiwar movement. They considered the antiwar movement essential to their strategy and rejoiced in visits to Hanoi by American public figures condemning the US involvement. They acknowledged privately that Tet had been a staggering defeat, but took heart from realizing that they had gained a political advantage, as shown so clearly by Johnson's decision to not run for office again. At that point they became supremely confident that all they had to do was maintain a level of conflict in South Vietnam long enough and the US would pull out, not because of lack of ability to wage the war, but because steady erosion of the will to fight would force an eventual withdrawal." pgs. 19-20

If that sounds eerily familiar it is because the jihadis have been doing the same thing the North Vietnamese did. If anything, it is easier for the jihadis to follow the news and plant their own stories. The 24 hour news cycle, ability to post anything, anytime on the internet and the complicity of a world-wide media that sees no good in anything the US undertakes outside our borders, and precious little inside, all make it easier for the bad guys to shape the war. The anti-American Left, most noticeably A.N.S.W.E.R. and Code Pink, have taken a page from the playbook of the 60s and 70s antiwar movement. In fact, some of them are one in the same. Code Pink sent hundreds of thousands of dollars to Fallujah, while the US Marines were fighting in Fallujah. Ramsey Clark defended Saddam Hussein in his war crimes trial. The politicians who owe their job security to the most radical elements of the American left trumpet the notion that "The War in Iarq is lost," or "The Americans are the real terrorists." The newspaper of record, The New York Times does its part and places Abu Ghraib photos on the front page for 6 straight weeks, but relegates an uncovered plot to blow up fuel tanks at JFK International Airport to page 30.

People have been conditioned to think that the antiwar movement is considerate and compassionate and simply wants the suffering to end. The truth is that for the hard liners among them the opposite is the truth. I have stood on the street and been called a war criminal and baby killer. The far left does not like soldiers, much less support them. They feel we are somehow less evolved than they are. If it were not for the virulent antiwar movement here in the US we could have conceivably struck hard enough that the jihadis would have chosen to abandon this particular battlefield. At the very least the jihadis would have been denied as much positive recruitment and little, to no, public support among the rank and file Iraqis.

I am still a firm believer in the American spirit. I know the American fighting man cannot be defeated in battle. I am not the first to say that the only way we can lose is if we are defeated here at home, but it is more than factual. It is a historical precedent. It is time to stand up and refuse to accept a revisitng of bad behavior. It is time for those of us who care to simply say: enough.

A Difference in Kind

2007-05-24T12:58:00.000-04:00

The good looking gent with the winning smile and the Medal of Honor around his neck is Command Sergeant Major Jon R. Cavaiani, US Army Special Forces. I had the distinct honor and pleasure to hear him speak at a Support the Troops rally in Philadelphia recently. The citation for the actions which resulted in his being awarded the Medal were also read aloud. The Sergeant Major could not have been more humble concerning the award. In fact, in his speech he referenced it not at all. He spoke of the valiant young soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines currently fighting for the country, and the importance of supporting them fully. He spoke of emigrating to the United States from his native Ireland as a young boy. He spoke of the greatness of the United States and the love of country exhibited by all those who have worn the uniform; in peace time or in war. Sergeant Major Cavaiani spoke of making the ultimate sacrifice, and remembering those who have. The Sergeant Major did not tell those of us assembled in Northeast Philadelphia that the United States is a great country, in grave danger, in a dangerous world where carnivores are intent on destroying us. The Sergeant Major did not have to tell those of us standing there that information because we already know. The too small crowd assembled was nearly all veterans, with a handful of ardent, long-time supporters. We get it. We know that threats do not go away because we might wish it so.

The second and third photos were taken less than a week after the first. They were taken in New London, CT outside the gates of the Coast Guard Academy. The people holding the signs are supporters of A.N.S.W.E.R., a militant anti-American group that hides behind a facade of respectability. A.N.S.W.E.R. trumpets their concern for the troops, and a desire to eradicate racism. As the signs so decidedly demonstrate though, what they are truly concerned with is forcing an anti-American, politically correct, ultra-leftist agenda down the throats of the rest of us.

A couple hundred of us, once again mostly veterans with ardent supporters interspersed amongst us, stood across from A.N.S.W.E.R.'s assembled supporters as they waved Che Guevara flags and hurled insults at us. We were called "baby-killers," "war-mongerers," "bomb-makers," "sexist, racist, homophobes," and "hicks." We were chastised for not enlisting; never mind that 90% of those present have served. We were excoriated for being too dense to understand that if we just love people, war will go away. We were informed that they support the troops. Of course, as the Coast Guardsman and their families made their way past the A.N.S.W.E.R crowd not one hand was extended, nor was one greeting offered.

The assorted speakers on A.N.S.W.E.R.'s side of the street sceeched foul comments about the President and Vice President. They accused them both of war crimes. They called them liars and criminals and demanded that they be impeached. All the while repeatedly shouting that it is A.N.S.W.E.R. and its supporters who truly support the troops. It apparently has escaped these people that you cannot call the President of the United States a terrorist and say you support the troops doing his bidding. You cannot separate the Commander-in-Chief and his charges. They are by definition and nature mutually inclusive.

Gathering of Eagles was formed in response to concerns for our War Memorials in DC, specifically the Vietnam Wall. We were concerned that it and the other memorials would be defaced during yet another anti-everything American rally that A.N.S.W.E.R. had planned in Washington, DC. "Oh no," the assembled leftists cried, "We would never deface a memorial." Well, do a simple Google search of their actions at New London, CT and you will most certainly find a photograph of the Coast Guard Academy's sign receiving some anarchist sprucing up. "It's only chalk," they said. "What's the big deal," they continue. "Don't you want peace?" The point is that it goes to respect. Respect for country and those who serve it; something the overwhelming majority of this group seems to be lacking. The kids among them can almost be forgiven, and the 60's holdovers are simply pathetic, but they are all clueless as to what threats we, as a country, face. A more disparate group than white, Republican males were killed on 9/11.

A sign that was prominent in its size, if not its artistic character caused me to smile. In single line, marker lettering on a piece of large, yellow cardboard had been written, "Draft Young Republicans." Many of us recognized the irony and responded with something to the effect of, "You don't have to draft us, we enlist." Better than 80% of registered voters in the active duty military are republicans. Not because we hate liberals, but because we cherish the American tradition and the Republican Party more closely mirrors that; although lately the Republican's actions have been questionable on that score. What unites the Gathering of Eagles and our supporters is not a political ideology, but rather a love of, and for, the country. We see not a cause for shame, nor a reason to apologize when we see the flag. That's why American flags proliferate on our side of protests, and drag the ground or fly upside down, if they even exist, on A.N.S.W.E.R.'s.

I know not where we will go from here. I do not know if the Gathering of Eagles will become the vehicle for positive change I envision. I do know though, that as long as it exists I will champion the cause, and counter A.N.S.W.E.R. wherever and whenever they congregate. The reason I know I will do this leads me back to where this post started; back to the Sergeant Major. In more than 600 days of captivity as a POW of the North Vietnamese, after helping to extract his men at the cost of his own freedom, the Sergeant Major never lost his love, nor faith in the greater good of the country. If after all he has sacrificed, and after hearing him say he would gladly endure it again if it would make a difference in the lives of those serving now, how can I do anything but stand up, salute Old Glory and give it my all?

Always Faithful

2007-04-23T11:17:00.000-04:00

I had the distinct pleasure and honor to be at the homecoming for the 3/14th Marine Regiment on Saturday, 21 April. As the Patriot Guard Riders, looking more like a Mongol horde than the completely altruistic group they are, came tearing around the corner astride their big, loud, mostly Harley Davidson motorcycles the crowd assembled in the armory parking lot broke into wild cheers. As each bike rolled past, the crowd chanted and yelled. The noise was overwhelming and infectious. I did not think it could get any louder, but then the first bus carrying Marines turned into the street in front of the armory. The assembled mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, sons, daughters, wives and just plain folks went wild with delight. Young Marines climbed out of the air hatches to stand atop the buses, waving both the American and Marine Corps flags. I yelled myself hoarse screaming WELCOME HOME! to these very young warriors. I am tougher than the average bear, but I admit that tears filled my eyes as the 19 and 20 year old Marines posed atop their buses.

I had spent nearly four hours at the armory awaiting the return of the Marines. I spoke to family members and friends who could not wait to see their loved ones. To be sure, there were a number of people present who were not related to any of the Marines. Men and women like me who have served previously, and a few who, though they never served, just wanted to let the Marines know they are loved. It was a funny thing though, all those A.N.S.W.E.R. types who march so vociferously and so passionately for an end to the war because they truly support the troops were absent. Not one A.N.S.W.E.R. shirt, or the like was visible; Not inside the armory grounds and not out on the route where thousands had lined the streets to welcome the Marines home. In fact, the Marines were so moved by the masses of people all along the route from North Carolina to Pennsylvania that they fairly gushed, repeating over and over how good it made them feel to see the outpouring of support. Not one of the dozens of Marines with whom I spoke related any recollection of the peace protesters. Granted, some of the people who have marched for peace may have been present somewhere along the route, silently standing by as the buses and their motorcycle escort roared by, but none were visible and none were in Philadelphia.

I have posted before on my belief that you cannot truly be in support of the troops if you do not support their mission. You can believe the mission has been botched, but you cannot be against it because the troops and their mission cannot be separated. They are one in the same. I now know that the A.N.S.W.E.R. crowd is disingenuous in their mantra that they support the troops. If they truly support the troops they would have been out in force to welcome them home. In fact, if we are to believe that those against the war are the majority of Americans, then their numbers should have dwarfed ours. And yet, in the nearly 500 mile route the Marines took home, not one peace protest was in evidence. What greater opportunity for a peaceful protest exists than to welcome the Marines home?

I recently received the best analogy for this nonsense of supporting the warrior, but not the war. I cannot take credit for it, but I have used it numerous times since. Imagine if you will that it is 1965 and I said, "You know I support this Dr. King guy, but I just can't get behind his Civil Rights mission. People are getting hurt down South. Police dogs are being sent against the people demonstrating for Civil Rights, and water hoses are being turned on them. Why, there have even been people killed for these Civil Rights. I just can't support something where innocent people are killed." What would be the response? First I would be decried as racist for not wanting equality for all, and then I would be berated for not understanding the importance of Civil Rights. Now I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but it seems to me that the logic is equally false when applied to the war in Iraq. My Dr. King analogy is the same logic the far-left is using for pulling out of Iraq, and yet, it is accepted as logical in some quarters.

I would further posit that the notion that the war is lost is equally illogical. If you were to ask 1,000 random people what country could defeat our military, 99% of them would respond "No country can defeat our military. It is the best in the world." Well, if the latter statement is true, how can the former be anything other than laughable? The two things are mutually exclusive. Now I may be accused of over simplifying a complicated situation. If that's true though, let me ask another question: If our military can, indeed, be defeated by an insurgency, who will protect us here in the United States when the terrorists come? The police? Police don't stop crimes, they solve them. They certainly are not prepared to combat terrorists in the streets of our cities and towns. I know that police officers all across the country would charge valiantly into the fray against terrorists were they to appear on our shores as they have in Iraq. I also know we would lose a great many brave officers were that to happen.

So, I started this diatribe relating how moving it was to welcome the mostly teenage Marines home from the war in Iraq. I have committed to attending welcome home ceremonies all across the region until the war is won. I will drive for hours, wait more and yell myself hoarse greeting them upon their return. I will also refuse to accept the "I support the troops, but not the mission" mantra any longer. I see it as utterly disingenuous and completely false. You can, intellectually and with good conscience, opine that the war in Iraq began on a faulty premise, and continue that it has not been handled well, while in my presence. No longer though, will I allow the notion that it is illegal, or worse, that the mission and the warriors can be torn asunder. I will challenge that rhetoric with words and deeds. Dissent is patriotic, sedition is not. For someone to suggest that they support warriors prosecuting what they consider an illegal war is fallacious. No one can do that, not with any degree of honesty.

The war may not have been necessary when it began. That is for historians somewhere in the future to decide. What is definable now though, is that our enemies believe that this arena is a battle for supremacy. Anyone who suggests that the war is lost, or suggests that there is no recourse left but complete withdrawal is helping the enemy. I am through questioning those people's judgement. I am now questioning their patriotism. When the inevitable response of "How dare you question my patriotism? I am a patriot!" comes my way, I will simply say, What would you do differently if you weren't?

Burn the Bridges

2007-03-30T09:30:00.000-04:00

Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock.
Will Rogers

Will Rogers also famously said that he did not belong to an organized political party; he considered himself a Democrat. Well the current Democrat Party leadership definitely has no relationship to the Will Rogers mode of diplomacy, and precious little relationship to any actual organization. They have sold the country out for political expediency. Before you begin screaming about the Republican Party contradictions hold on. I will get to them in turn. The Democrat Party however, is worthy of particular scorn and derision. They have sold their souls to a malingering group of America-haters and 60s radical holdovers. While American warriors are in the field Congressional Democrats dither over how much pork to add to a bill designed to fund those American warriors. The Congressional Democrats seek to micromanage a war that nearly all of them authorized, while soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines fight and die to protect freedom. Of course the Congressional Democrats will say the warriors are not protecting freedom. They are caught in the midst of a Civil War they say. The Democrats will also tell you that they are trying to prevent more American deaths, but the truth is much more pernicious. The war, in Iraq at least, could be over by now were our warriors not hamstrung by political correctness and asinine rules of engagement. Had all those people "marching for peace" and supporting the troops by burning them in effigy, simply got behind the war effort it would be over. The Congressional Democrats, and their unwashed masters in the peace movement, have caused the deaths of American military men and women by prolonging the war, and preventing it from being waged in the only way it can be won.

There are only two ways to win a war. The first requires a Nagasaki/Hiroshima type response. The second requires a Sherman or Patton approach. No one would support the prior absent a WMD attack on the United States, so the latter is the only means available. We have to kill the enemy wherever and whenever we can and we must destroy his means and will to resist. That means denying safe haven, and relocating sympathetic civilian populations. You simply cannot allow the enemy to melt back into the community after an attack; nor can they be afforded sanctuary on holy ground. We cannot hope to effectively prosecute a war as long as our fighting men, the sharp end of the spear, remain fettered. We must release the hounds. Don't bother me with Vietnam notions of the hearts and minds approach either. The only thing Iraq has in common with Vietnam is poor management. In World War II we chose to defeat Germany before Japan, although it was the Japanese that attacked us at Pearl Harbor. We did not try to win hearts nor minds with either, and that worked out quite well. The frame of reference should be all out war, not some kinder, gentler act of aggression.

The Congressional Republicans, as well as the administration, bear responsibility for poor planning and then lackluster prosecution. They had the luxury of several years to truly go after the terrorists and clean house, but opted instead for some video game desire of war. Predator drones, cruise missiles and Stealth bombers are the hallmarks of modern warfare, but once infantry touch down the Queen of Battle cannot be asked to perform the tasks of a county sheriff. The infantry's job is killing bad guys and they should not be deployed anywhere unless they are free to do so. The Surge seems to be having a good effect. It may be too little, too late though. The media and Congressional Democrats will ignore good news at this point, and the Congressional Republicans are, for the most part, too weak to be effective.

So, who suffers? The infantryman, whether he be Army or Marine, and his brothers in the combat arms branches of the military bear the brunt of the political machinations. Men who, by nature, temperament and career choice are against politics as practiced in Washington, D.C. sweat, bleed and die for men in $1,500 suits who bicker about spinach harvests earmarks before they go on Easter break. Maybe it has always been this way, but I for one will not stand idly by. A generation of warriors fought honorably in Vietnam, only to be sold out by the suits in Washington. Those Vietnam vets came home to derision and hate-filled speech from their fellow Americans. Americans who wallowed in luxury because of the sacrifice of men who chose to proudly wear the uniform of the Armed Forces gave no thought to from where their security came. I will not sit idly by and watch this generation of warrior get treated that way. This then, is a call to action. It is time for those of us who have served to be heard. Call your Congressman. Refuse to be shouted down by the Birkenstock wearing miscreant, and stand up to be counted. The soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines need actual support, not yellow magnets on your car. Stand up for them now. Not only would they do it for you, they already are.

Ignoring Victory

2007-03-21T05:52:00.000-04:00

On a blustery, but sunny St. Patrick's Day, tens of thousands of veterans and their supporters gathered on the Mall in Washington, D.C. They had come from nearly every state in the union and by nearly every vehicular conveyance to stand together in defense of the war memorials. International A.N.S.W.E.R., a coalition of far left organizations, had two months earlier sponsored an anti-war rally at the Navy Memorial in D.C., after which the steps of the Capitol building had been spray painted. So, when this self-same organization announced plans to stage a protest march on the Pentagon out of the Constitution Gardens, with the Vietnam Wall as a backdrop, veterans of all ages were understandably worried. Posts on Indy media sites referenced spray paint and the Vietnam Wall, as a means to call attention to the anti-war movement. Fast and furious emails between individual veterans became the Gathering of Eagles, and a movement was born. As A.N.S.W.E.R.'s supporters trickled into the Mall they were greeted not only by Washington, D.C. and federal police, but also Park Service and metal detectors. Most surprisingly to the anti-war crowd were the number of veterans ringing not only the Vietnam Wall, but all the war memorials.

I began my day with a security detachment at the World War II Memorial. Code Pink's supporters were rallying on the hill adjacent to the memorial before joining the protest march on the Pentagon. As their supporters trickled into the memorial we shadowed them about the perimeter. We never barred their way and we did not attempt to intimidate them into leaving the area before they were ready, but we did make our presence known. We engaged in no dialogue with them. Our very high-profile presence said all we needed to say. After several hours of that Code Pink moved off to Constitution Avenue and we moved down to the Lincoln Memorial.

My duty at the WWII Memorial, while completely worthy and necessary, had sort of made me feel like it was 1968 and I was stationed in Okinawa, champing to get into the action. Well, as we moved into the Lincoln Memorial area we found the action we had desired. My Marshall unit was placed along the street in between the veterans/supporters and the A.N.S.W.E.R. march. Our job was not to protect the veterans from A.N.S.W.E.R., but rather to prevent our guys from getting to close to them. From the beginning our mission had been described as non-confrontational. To be sure, we would have defended ourselves and the memorials from any aggression, but even these miscreants apparently had more sense than to challenge us physically.

Unfortunately, while in the presence of all manner of law enforcement the marchers showed their true feelings for us. Statements such as, "You guys don't look like America we look like America," and "Why don't you enlist if you support the troops so much? We support the troops, not you," rained down on us. Of course our responses of "Support the troops? We are the troops," fell on deaf ears. To be told that those of us dressed in various combinations of military gear were not representative of America, and that we did not support the troops stung, but the anti-war/peace rally crowd was just getting started.

"MURDERERS!! BABY-KILLERS!! and various hateful, expletive filled rants erupted from the advocates of peace as they slowly walked by. They referred to us as fascists, compared us to Nazis and informed us repeatedly that we were the problem for the country, not the answer. I have to say that I never thought I would hear words like this from my fellow countrymen. It angered me, and saddened me all at the same time. Our side responded to their hate-filled rants, giving as good as we got. Nothing could have prepared me for the appearance of the A.N.S.W.E.R. marchers carrying an upside-down American flag. Veterans howled and the crowd prepared to surge. Truthfully, had anyone moved to grab the flag from further desecration, I would have abdicated my responsibilities and joined the mass. The police moved in-between us and them and, of course, we allowed the rabble to exercise a foul representation of free speech. As the flag moved out of site I watched a wheelchair bound WWII Purple Heart recipient cry soundlessly. Rage welled up in me, and still we let the peace march walk by unmolested.

Eventually, the marchers had all moved off and we were able to visit amongst ourselves. I had organized a bus from Philadelphia and South Jersey, but had not met most of the riders. While waiting for the bus to return from its parking place I took the opportunity to visit with them. It was at this point that the only physical confrontation nearly occurred. A 40-something, goateed, L.L. Bean wearing "radical" and his wife passed immediately in front of us; on their way to their to a Volvo station wagon festooned with "Free Tibet" and "Ben and Jerry" stickers no doubt. Anyway, he began to philosophize about war in general. Having had enough I told him an expletive enhanced statement to move along and be quiet. When he continued his monologue I charged him, and with a heavy-handed chest bump I told him, "Get out of here now before I hand you your ass. These Vietnam veterans have suffered enough of your bullshit." For his wife anyway, discretion was the better part of valor because, as my Vietnam guys ushered me one way, the rabble's partner ushered him in the other. As the bus arrived I stood at the door and hugged each vet as they climbed aboard. Tears welled up in my eyes and I have never felt more a part of anything.

That day and the next found various accolades coming my way. Different units presented me with cards, coins and patches. The Vietnam Veteran's Memorial Society made me an associate member, which means more to me than a Silver Star. The most moving thing though was not a physical expression. It was a statement. I was asked if I knew why nobody moved to stop me from challenging the protester who dared denigrate my Vietnam vets. My response was something on the lines of I moved too fast, blah, blah, blah. "No," I was told. "It was because nobody ever defended us before. It has always been us, taking our side, while everyone else either attacked us or ignored us. Nobody stopped you because we all think of you as one of us now." I have always considered the Vietnam warriors as the Gold Standard. When I joined the Army they were my senior NCOs. To be considered among their number is, to me, the greatest award I could attain. Brothers, I will always defend you. That I promise. The media ignored our victory that day, but we know we out-numbered the other side. We know we did our duty as we always have, and I will always do mine by you.

Consequences? What Consequences?

2007-02-05T11:38:00.000-05:00

The past couple of weeks have been ripe for opinion. The US Senate voted 81 to 0 to confirm Lt. Gen David Petraeus as the new Commander, Multi-National Forces-Iraq. Along with the command comes his fourth star, and a host of well wishes from the honorable men and women in the Senate. Of course, these self-same hired hands are also planning to vote to condemn the proposed troop "surge" that Gen. Petraeus has endorsed as the proper solution to the current problems in Iraq. Apparently the seeming disconnect, if not outright hypocrisy, of these two positions is lost on the stellar intellects who grace us with their presence in the upper chamber of Congress. The esteemed members of congress behind the non-binding resolutions currently making the rounds, have decried this disconnect as immaterial. They are not proposing "peace with honor," just dialogue, they argue. Of course, not more than a couple of months ago the same politicians were decrying the war effort in Iraq as simply supporting the status quo. Now, with a new plan led by a new commander (who wrote the book on counter-insurgency), the anti-war contingent in Congress is telling us that the non-binding resolutions are nothing more than a means to make the President wake up to the fact that we must find a way to withdraw from Iraq.

When the Baker-Hamilton Group released its report, the anti-war caucus trumpeted its findings by way of every media venue that would have them. "We must use diplomacy in the region" was the standard mantra. The Baker-Hamilton Group also endorsed a temporary surge, and both James Baker and Lee Hamilton testified as such before Congress last week. That part of the equation does not fit the current mode of attack though, so it has been routinely ignored. The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), which was released last week was also cherry-picked by Congress. Statements concerning the "dismal" situation in Iraq were made ad nauseum, but the statements refuting the characterization of Iraq as a civil war were ignored. In case you missed it, the NIE referred to the current imbroglio in Iraq as follows, "The Intelligence Community judges that the term "civil war" does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq, which includes extensive Shia-on-Shia violence, al-Qa'ida and Sunni insurgent attacks on Coalition forces, and widespread criminally motivated violence. Nonetheless, the term "civil war" accurately describes key elements of the Iraqi conflict, including the hardening of ethno-sectarian identities, a sea change in the character of violence, ethno-sectarian mobilization, and population displacements." The estimate continues, "Coalition capabilities, including force levels, resources, and operations, remain an essential stabilizing element in Iraq. If Coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly during the term of this Estimate, we would judge that this would almost certainly lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq, intensify Sunni resistance to the Iraqi Government, and have adverse consequences for national reconciliation." The portion of the report that was released continues on its bureaucratic path for a couple more pages, detailing the potential for intervention from neighboring countries. None of that information comports with the political machinations though, so it may as well not exist.

The anti-war legislators have picked up the support of leftist actors who have "patiently" held their tongues until their "consciences" demanded they speak. At a self-proclaimed "peace protest" in Washington, DC, 10,000 people listened to Tim Robbins explain that our current occupation in Iraq is leading us down the "path to ethnic cleansing." Sean Penn decried the military use of "heavy armament to kill civilians," and Hanoi Jane herself, responding to a question concerning the 3,000,000 people who were murdered after we precipitously left Vietnam, said, "it's a shame our intervention there caused it." These people are the public face of the anti-war rhetoric. They routinely call for immediate withdrawal from Iraq, regardless of the consequences. These actors and their allies in Congress should cease calling themselves a "peace movement" and should begin to call themselves what they are: a withdrawal movement. That, at least, would be honest. Neither the actors nor the members of congress care that peace will not return if we leave Iraq. Both the members of congress and the actors have continuously attempted to frame Iraq in the Vietnam mold. For the most part it is Vietnam that defined their opposition models, and, in the case of Jane Fonda, solidified her role in the hearts of the No War For Any Reason! crowd.

So, what is to be done? It is the highest of folly to think that a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would result in anything but further, more intense turmoil in the Middle East. It has already been proven that Iran has been meddling in Iraqi affairs, and may be directly responsible for American deaths. At the very least they have provided material support and border entry to insurgents. Iranian agents have been captured inside Iraq. Until a Presidential order was issued last week, these agents were held for three days and released. American forces may now capture and/or kill any Iranian agents found to be operating inside Iraq. Were we to leave before the Iraqi government could fully implement security and law enforcement controls, Iran would undoubtedly attempt to foment further violence in the hopes of setting up a totalitarian Shia regime friendly to Iran, if not an outright puppet state. The Sunni, already feeling marginalized, would have no choice but to openly oppose such an arrangement. Ethnic cleansing could then result, as could a spreading of the hostilities across regional borders. No one can say for sure what would happen, but we have to admit it would not be good for us, or the rest of the world, let alone the Middle East.

It would seem then that there is no choice but to give Gen. Petraeus the chance to implement the plan of which the surge is but one part. That may not be possible though. With anti-war momentum growing and becoming more emboldened everyday, Congress may act to cut off the funds for military action. Many members of Congress have said that the non-binding resolutions are not a precursor to that, but enough Vietnam-style rhetoric is popping up that cutting off the money cannot be far away. Senators Kennedy and Feingold have called for an immediate cutting off of the funds necessary to sustain the war effort. Perennial presidential candidate Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) has called for a cessation of war funding and an immediate withdrawal. Even Senator Clinton remarked that when she becomes President in January 2009 that she will end the war. Funny how none of these stances make any reference to planning for peace; something that they excoriated the current administration for failing to do. It seems that Vietnam is the rallying cry. Forget that when we pulled out of Vietnam neither the North Vietnamese Army nor the Viet Cong followed us home. The same cannot be said of Iraq. Bin Laden has referenced both Vietnam and, more recently, Somalia as examples of American "cowardice." Bin Laden concluded that, "Americans love life so much that they are not willing to risk it." What makes any rational individual think a precipitous withdrawal would have any effect but to further that notion, and the radical Islamic cause?

Unfortunately, the cause for withdrawal has gathered momentum and the Vietnamization of Iraq has begun. I recently saw a "mock graveyard" arranged on the campus of the University of Pennsylvania. The names of civilians killed in Iraq were listed on placards nailed to posts in the ground. Most of these were attributed to ambiguous actions such as "tank attack" or "mortar attack," but a couple stated that the victim had been murdered by American soldiers. Those particular "tombstones" were removed rather quickly, but the slippery slope has been reached. The call for cutting off the troops in the field has begun, and before you know it all who have ever served will, once again, be baby-killing rapists. The far left has ceased blaming the politicians and has moved on to the soldiers and marines fighting for the Left's right to slander them. If I remember Newton's 3rd Law of Motion from 9th grade correctly, every action has and equal and opposite reaction. Pulling the troops out of Iraq before the country can successfully govern itself would provide an opposite reaction to that which we desire. It would not provide peace, nor would it promote security here.

We have not suffered a terrorist attack on US shores since 9/11 partly because we have been lucky, partly because some of our intelligence services are good, and partly because the jihadist focus is elsewhere. With no American devils to kill in Iraq the militant Islamists will seek out us and other democracies. That means bombs on subways in Manhattan, or buses in Los Angeles, or something much worse in Phoenix. Those events may still come to pass, whether or not the ship of state that is Iraq rights itself. No one can predict the future, not with any certainty. What can be predicted though is that actions have consequences; no matter what the immediate-withdrawal crowd tells you. The radicals will be emboldened by a withdrawal. They will see it as an American defeat. The hand-wringers among us have shrilly declared the war in Iraq to be a "recruiting" tool for radicals. A loss there would be the biggest recruiting tool al-Qaeda and its brethren could ever dream of. Everybody loves a winner. That's why the winning team of each year's Super Bowl sees a spike in its merchandising. Al-Qaeda recruitment after an American loss would be the exact same brand of marketing, on a nefarious scale. Nowhere in the world would it be safe to be an American. At this point I am uncertain if the anti-war momentum can be stopped, or even slowed down. I do not profess to know with any certainty what will befall us if we were to pull out tomorrow. I do know however, that the end result for the country I hold most dear will be one for which we are not prepared. I do know that such action will result in many more of my fellow citizens being murdered and maimed by terrorists who hate our freedoms. Most importantly, I know that we will simply have to fight them again on their ground, or lose our way of life. It may be years before that happens, but that will not make it any easier. Life is full of tough decisions, and the right ones are usually the toughest. The right decision now is to give the President's plan, with Gen. Petraeus walking point, a chance to succeed. I am not optimistic that that will happen, but in my heart I know it is the type of tough decision that Americans have always been called upon to make. I only hope it does not take another 9/11 before we all decide to make it.

The Stomach for Battle

2007-01-09T07:48:00.000-05:00

The President of the United States will address the nation in prime time tonight. The smart money is betting he will lay out plans for a "surge" of troops in Iraq. The perceived reasoning for the surge is a desire to pacify the capital city, Baghdad. Ahead of the President's address I would like to offer my plan for stabilizing Iraq once and for all.

The first thing that needs to be done is that the borders with Iran and Syria need to be locked down. This will require two divisions of integrated infantry/armor. The Army's 3rd and 4th Divisions fit the bill. Both divisions would then have to be supported by a minimum of one squadron each of Spectre gunships, Apache attack helicopters and A-10 close support aircraft. The armor units, with the infantry in support, would engage any, and every, enemy group attempting to gain entry into Iraq. When these enemy insurgents are caught in the open the attendant aircraft would then kill them without mercy. If terrorists were killed just inside either Syria's or Iran's borders, so be it. It is important that the flow of insurgents and material support be stopped as completely as possible. The cost of attempting entry into Iraq across either border must become so high as to be prohibitive. Without this action no stabilzation is possible.

Once the borders are closed to insurgent reinforcements, US Army and Marine infantry, as well as combat-ready Iraqi Army units, could begin the push from the interior of Iraq. In a classic hammer and anvil action, conducted on a large scale, the American and Iraqi units would relentlessly push the Sunni insurgents, al-Qaeda forces and Baathist holdovers back toward the borders, and smash them on the anvil of the 3rd and 4th Infantry. Both infantry divisions boast high-profile Medal of Honor recipients, Audie Murphy from the 3rd and Teddy Roosevelt Jr from the 4th. Neither unit will shirk the responsibility, and both divisions will comport themselves like the tigers they are. The line will hold in the face of the undisciplined terrorists who run into it. The fighting would be ferocious, aggressive and bloody, but more so for the enemy, which would be treated to a "no quarter asked, none given" type of warfare to which they are unaccustomed. It is an unassailable fact that when actual battles are fought our troops always win. It will be no different here. The added bonus will be that the accompanying Iraqi units will earn respect and confidence. The majority of these Iraqi forces, once bloodied, will learn the invaluable lessons that cannot be taught through rehearsal. Some of the Iraqi troops will have no stomach for it, but those who do will eventually become the much-needed NCO corps of the still nascent Iraqi Army. The majority of Coalition casualties have been from IEDs, not major engagements. We would take casualties, to be sure, but this type of action would reward the aggressive, highly disciplined nature of both our Army and Marine infantry. With the Sunni insurgency thus destroyed or rendered, at the very least combat ineffective, the political situation could then be addressed.

At this point, the Sunni insurgency would be largely destroyed. We could then turn our attention to the Army of the Mahdi. An American surge, coordinated with Iraqi Army units, could then push into Sadr City and the other problematic neighborhoods of Baghdad. It would be bloody, door-to-door fighting and the US Marines would have to bear the brunt of the action. The Marines are, by nature and design, "shock troops." Need a beach taken? Need a perimeter breakout? Call the Marines. This would be the Marines' beach. Invoke the name of Chesty Puller and the Marines will fight like caged lions. Fighting this way would best utilize the Marines as a force, and give the Iraqi Army units a reason to stand and fight. Soldiers the world over will fight for their flag, but they die for their friends. I have no reason to believe the Iraqi soldiers are any different. The Devil Dogs would have to be unleashed for the operation to succeed. If enemy forces, of any stripe, seek shelter inside buildings, and that includes mosques, the full weight of American firepower should be brought to bear. We should not sacrifice a squad of brave Americans or Iraqis to neutralize a sniper hiding inside any building. Any structure used as cover or concealment should be unhesitatingly destroyed by all available means; several high-explosive shells fired from an Abrahams tank would end most engagements. The Geneva Accords are very specific on the illegal use of religious houses of worship, and it is high time we recognized that. In the long run, denying the enemy safe harbor, at the expense of infrastructure, will save American military and Iraqi civilian lives. On Sherman's March to the Sea he laid waste to the Southern countryside with very little loss of Union or, for that matter, Confederate, life. This had the effect of breaking the backbone of Southern resistance, and it will work in Iraq equally well. We have paid too much attention to buildings, cultural sensitivities and our public image. The American military and Iraqi civilians have paid the price for that misguided policy.

Once Muqtada al-Sadr's militia is fully engaged, Prime Minister Maliki will be able to publicy denounce al-Sadr for the thug that he is. With the Sunni insurgency on the run and the Shiite militias being crushed the democratically elected Iraqi government will be able to stand on it's own and make the tough decisions necessary to stabilize the country; that includes the arrest and trial of any group in armed defiance of the government. If any group, or it's members, attempt to resist arrest through armed revolt they will be terminated. The Iraqi National Police could then be purged of the bad apples. Local communities could begin to constitute their own police forces, which would be beholden to their citizenry, and not the local warlord. Business as usual would cease, and Iraqi civillians could begin to go about their daily lives without fear of retribution for collaboration. They would also be free from indiscriminate bombings designed to foment sectarian strife.

While all this ground action is going on, al-Qaeda would probably attempt to divert resources through a terror campaign. This could manifest itself in any number of ways. That is why it is important that the USS Eisenhower and its battle group be tasked with rapid response to any threat in the Straits of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf. The Ike, and her guided missile cruisers, destroyers, frigates and attack submarines would have to be reinforced, at least temporarily. The battle group would have to have, at least two guided-missile cruisers, two to three guided-missile destroyers and one ASW frigate, as well as her normal two attack submarines. Any attempt to close the Straits and/or sabotage oil platforms, refineries, and pipelines would have to be met with immediate, overwhelming force. This means, if necessary, helicopter insertions by the Marine forces and lightning quick retaliation against any attempt to attack oil tankers. The protection of international sea-lanes has always been the primary mission of the US Navy, and they are good at it; better, in fact, than anyone in the world when they are allowed to do it.

My airborne qualified friends are by now, no doubt, wondering how I have left the 82nd and 101st out of the fight thus far. Those two units would have to remain on alert as a rapid response force. Their "light" nature would best be utilized whenever and wherever a little extra muscle was needed. If the 3rd or 4th Divisions need some assistance drop in a brigade of paratroopers to give them a quick boost. Marines a little out-numbered in Anbar, or while defending a port from terrorists? Nothing like death from above to cause a reversal in fortune. My grandfather, a veteran of the 82nd and Merrill's Marauders in WWII, would tell the story of an 82nd Airborne specialist. During the Battle of the Bulge, US forces were retreating en masse before the German Panzers. A US tank commander heading away from the "bulge" noticed a soldier digging in alongside a road . When the tank commander questioned what in the hell the specialist thought he was doing the response he received in reply was, "Sir, I'm 82nd Airborne and this is as far as the bastards are going." Thus chastened, the tank commander turned his tank command around, and the line held. The 82nd and the 101st have earned their reputations. Involving the paratroopers as a quick reaction force will give them ample opportunity to showcase why that reputation is so well deserved.

This will not be a 100 hour series of engagements. The border phase would take at least 6 weeks, and maybe as long as 10 to 12 weeks. The hammer and anvil component, in conjunction with the push into the Shiite neighborhoods currently dominated by the militias will take roughly the same amount of time. We are, therefore, looking at a minimum of 6 months of major combat. I know some of the opponents to the war will trot out the old "Mission Accomplished" photos and decry the further loss of life. The UN will assuredly hold conferences, and the French will wring their hands at the lack of humanity involved. Cindy Sheehan will call our fighting men terrorists, Hugh Chavez will label it imperialist aggression, and The New York Times will gleefully report it all. We, as a nation, will have to ignore them all. We will have to respond to the nightly news footage of dead and dying Americans with the bitter resolve our grandparents did during World War II. We will have to flood any lawmaker with phone calls who dared to suggest a pull-out or cut-off of funds to our troops, until the deeds were good and truly done.

The end result would be a relatively stable Iraq able to support the assured growing pains any democracy must endure. Without daily suicide bombings and IEDs to distract them, the civilian administration branches of our uniformed military could then do what they do best; train police, build roads, repave airfields, etc. The Marshall Plan worked specifically because then retired General Marshall utilized military and civilian forces in coordinated projects. He did not see the plan to reconstitute war-devastated Europe purely as Secretary of State, but rather as a general overseeing the military improvising, adapting and overcoming all obstacles. It would be no different in Iraq. Without the daily threats of terrorim, job creation would accelerate, oil pipelines would begin to operate at near capacity, and the Iraqi government could go about its bureacratic business. The problem of Islamic terrorism is not going away. The exit strategy for Iraq is either we win and rebuild the country, or lose and fight somewhere else on as grand a scale as Iraqi Freedom, soon. The Islamists see the United States as a "paper tiger" to use bin Laden's words. If we prove them wrong in Iraq, continue to assist Afghanistan with its problems, fill in the military gaps for countries like Ethiopia as they battle Islamic extremists, all while taking the fight to terorists in lightning fast raids whenever they rear their heads, we can make both our country and the world a better, safer place.

Peace only works when both sides want it. Islamic terrorists have no reason to want peace, while shedding the blood of innocent people gets their demands heard and met. We must show the al-Qaedas of the world what the force of democracy means, and it must be merciless. No sympathy was shown for Emperor Hirohito. No tears were shed for Hitler. We must make those who would destroy us pay, and pay dearly every time they attack us. It must be done now in Iraq, so that we do not have to fight on a larger scale a generation from now. I do not expect that my plan will be the one the President puts forth tomorrow night. I doubt he will have the time to read my blog today, but I hope that tonight's speech has elements closer to mine than to those elucidated by Rep. Murtha or Sen. Feingold. The plan I have laid out is not chimerical, nor are the threats to our country. My plan for victory is strategic in nature. Tactical decisions must be made by the commanders on the ground. The field commanders must know that if they do not achieve their objectives they will be immediately replaced by their deputies. It worked for Patton, and it will work in Iraq. If the soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen know we, as a nation, are behind them, they will succeed. Many have accused President Bush of being a trigger-happy cowboy. Well, my heroes have always been cowboys. I just hope that tonight the President is more Wyatt Earp at the OK Corral than JR Ewing on the North Forty. All our lives depend on it, whether we wish it so or not.

View My Milblogging.com Profile

Random Thoughts

2006-12-29T07:58:00.000-05:00

As the last week of the year brings an end to 2006 some bits and pieces have occupied my thoughts. Chief among my decidedly scatter-shot, cerebral meanderings is the wonderful news that the Ethiopian Army has whipped the Islamist forces in Somalia at every turn. I would like to extend warm, well-wishes to the Ethiopians for taking the fight to the world's enemy. The spate of military victories cheers me on a number of levels. It proves to me that our armed forces could do the same thing if they were just released from the political leashes that bind them to some perceived notion of humanitarianism. I have, therefore, come to a decision on what should be done to stabilize Baghdad, if not Iraq as a whole. We should borrow 20,000 Ethiopian troops and allow them to be the proposed "surge". This would satisfy the President's perceived desire to add troops, while adhering to the democrats wishes that no more American troops be put into harm's way in Iraq. When the Ethiopians were finished kicking the proverbial hind ends, and taking the proverbial names we could then offer Ethiopia some form of remuneration. Of course, this would take a large portion of the Ethiopian Army out of the fight in Somalia for some time, so we could donate a squadron of F-16s and a Specter gunship to Ethiopia, as a means of filling the gaps until the ground forces return. We could even throw in a herd of beef cattle, a boat-load of grain and whichever female, B-list celebrity the Ethiopians wish.

Of course, the obstructionists in the Democratic Party would howl that we were outsourcing American jobs and further oppressing the African people, but they would get over that soon enough. We could then speak to the coalition building we performed by including the Ethiopians in the fight for freedom. It would also serve as a reminder that the American military can win this war, if they are allowed to fight unfettered. I am not proposing unlawful action on either the Ethiopians or our part, but let's remove the ties that bind. During the American Civil War, Sherman's famous "March to the Sea" was accomplished with a remarkably small number of casualties, on both sides, but broke the back of the Confederacy. Sherman attacked the, heretofore untouched, infrastructure of the South and laid waste to the wealthy plantation owners possessions and property. Since these wealthy planters drove the secessionist movement, at little sacrifice to themselves, Sherman rightly assumed that bringing the fight to what they held most dear would end the war. Patton's Third Army accomplished nearly the same feat after the Normandy invasion. Had Patton not been plagued by the institutional jealousy of his superiors the Third Army could have probably ended World War II in the European theater much sooner, and thus spared both American and Jewish lives. A "scorched earth" surge in the problem ares of Iraq would have the same effect.

For too long we have allowed terrorists to hide amongst the civilian population in Iraq. Al-Sadr has become powerful because we allowed him to remain alive, when all signs pointed to removing him by whatever means were necessary. We should push into Sadr City and tear out the cancer which plagues the Iraqi civilian population. With all the talk of American casualties, scant notice is payed to the death toll among Iraqi civilians. It is no wonder the population harbors the terrorists. We have done absolutely nothing to show the Iraqis that we will ruthlessly destroy the enemy, so why should they help us? CNN broadcasts into Iraq. With talking head after talking head shouting for a pull-out of American forces, the Iraqi population does not trust us to protect them. You would not inform on the terrorists either if you believed that sometime next year you would be left alone with them. The Taliban came to power in just that way. The Afghans, tired of a decade of war with the Soviets, decided that stability, even of an extremist nature, was better than more civilian bloodshed. Could you honestly blame Mohammad of 416 Ali Baba Ln, Baghdad, for just wanting the random killing to end? After all, he has a family and just wants to see them grow old. Informing on the bad guys when the good guys apparently will not be around much longer is no way to see that desire become a reality.

I also spent not a little time this week thinking about President Ford. With the cable television apotheosis going non-stop who didn't? By all accounts the private citizen who was Gerald Ford Jr. was a decent, loving father and family man. That deserves to be recognized, but should be separated from his decidedly mediocre term as President of the United States. He pardoned not only the Vietnam draft dodgers, but also military deserters. He also gave us the Helsinki Accord, which made the Soviet Union's hold on eastern Europe "inviolate." He paid virtually no attention to inflation. WIN buttons, Whip Inflation Now, were his only real response to that crisis. In addition, he gave us John Paul Stevens; the majority opinion writer of the US Supreme Court eminent domain decision. Not much has been debated concerning those things, but much has been made of his desire to be a healer. I would argue that healer-in chief is not a position, and that desire was at the expense of being a leader. All of that paints a pretty dismal picture. His term is destined to be consigned to the Millard Fillmore category, at best.

Some may have noticed that I did not include President Ford's pardon of President Nixon among his foibles. That is because I feel it was the right thing to do. Unless the President of the United States commits murder, or sells top secret documents to the Russians while in office, I believe his successor owes him that. It should be recognized that President Ford actually pardoned two presidents. One in particular, and one with the blanket statement I mentioned earlier. William Jefferson Clinton was himself a draft dodger, although no one mentioned that fact during his presidency. That means President Ford is responsible not only for President Carter, but President Clinton as well. Is it any wonder that Helen Thomas speaks so highly of him? As egregious as the pardoning of draft dodgers and deserters was, (as a volunteer veteran I will never forgive him that transgression), the worst thing he did was speak to Bob Woodward, and allow him to tape the conversation. This has been described as "courageous" by various people on the Left. I would argue that it is akin to breaking up with someone via email, or maybe Post-it note. President Ford had to know how Woodward would use the information, and yet he went ahead with the interview, with the proviso that it not be released until after his death, or whenever Woodward published the Ford biography, whichever came first. That Woodward had typed transcripts ready for public airing on The Larry King Show before the late president was even cold speaks to his Machiavellian machinations. President Ford was publicly on record earlier this year as supporting President Bush on the Iraq War. Bob Woodward would have you believe otherwise. A thorough, careful reading of the former president's words seems to suggest that he only disagreed with the main rationale for going to war. President Ford believed the WMD characterization was the least important offense. His own words suggest that we should have highlighted Hussein's multiple violations of the UN resolutions. Up to the end President Ford voiced support for the military action which removed Saddam Hussein. No one will remember that now though, thanks to Bob Woodward. So, whatever the reasoning, it was a contemptible act on the former president's part, and questions both his decency and his cognition.

That may seem a overly harsh characterization to some, but ever since President Carter's whirlwind tour of Leftist dictators commenced presidents have lost some of their decorum. The Presidency is the most exclusive of clubs. They should not talk ill of the predecessors, nor their successors. They can, and should, disagree with actions that trouble their conscience, but that should always be tempered with the grace and good taste their position demands. I believe it was Alexander Hamilton who rightfully said, (or at least I have always seen it attributed to him), "When [ex-president's] leave office, they should leave the country as well, or else they will haunt like ghosts the new one." Obviously, the world was a different place then. In the 18th century, words an ex-president might utter in some far flung land might never make it back to our shores. That is not the case now. Ex-President's Carter and Clinton have both made disparaging, offensive comments while in other countries. These utterances are not only in bad taste; they are potentially damaging to both our national security and our world standing. Ex-presidents should recognize that, and, figuratively, leave the country once their term(s) is done. President Bush 41 has done exactly that, and has been widely praised for it. President Ford would have done well to emulate President Bush. It would not have saved his presidential standing, but it would have secured his private position as eminently decent.

Finally, Saddam Hussein's appeals have run their course. He has been ordered hanged by the neck until dead, within the next four weeks. It cheers me to hear the news, and causes me to wonder at the judicial proceedings. Scores of eye witnesses testified, multiple judges and defense lawyers were seated, and a comprehensive appeals process was undertaken. All that delivered a court order that the sentence of death be served, and served quickly. There may indeed be unbridled sectarian strife in the Sunni Triangle, but Saddam will be executed for his crimes before January is done. Meanwhile, convicted cop-killer, and left-wing darling, Mumia Abu-Jamal sits unrepentant on Death Row in Pennsylvania. 25 years after he murdered Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner, Jamal is still writing pseudo-scholarly articles, and addressing college graduations, while the likes of Danny Glover and Ed Asner call for his retrial. No matter that both Glover and Asner are on record as never having read the transcripts of Jamal's original trial, or the appeal documents since. They believe Jamal innocent because it assuages their liberal guilt. Well, I have read the transcripts and Jamal did it. If you need more information to sway you to that argument go to www.danielfaulkner.com. Iraq may have more than it's fair share of problems, both large and small, but they do know how to deal with a convicted murderer. Maybe we could petition the court in Iraq to hear Jamal's appeal. I will gladly help pay the airfare for him when the sentence is confirmed.

View My Milblogging.com Profile

Historical Context

2006-12-27T08:31:00.000-05:00

"Once you are sounfortunate to be drawn into a war, no price is too great to pay for an early and victorious peace. All economy of soldiers or supplies is the worst extravagance in war."
Sir Winston Churchill

The assorted major media outlets are all agog that combat deaths in Iraq have eclipsed the number of Americans killed on 9/11. What, exactly, one death toll has to do with the other escapes me. The argument of these esteemed, ever-so learned, honorable men and women seems to be that a war is only worth waging if it is relatively bloodless. For the most part, those bleating this news have never served, nor even know anyone who has. They inhabit a strata of society that is insulated from sacrifice, and the messy business of war. The rough men who stand ready in the night to visit violence upon our enemies are not welcome at the polite dinner parties at which the Fourth Estate holds court. Seen in that light, how these honorable men and women can persist in claiming to support the troops is beyond my limited comprehension. "Support the Troops! Bring them home!" they bellow; this despite the fact that the military is an all volunteer force. The combat troops know exactly for what they are fighting. It does not concern these valiant soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines that deaths in combat have exceeded the number murdered by Islamic extremists on 9/11. Those killed in action were their friends and brothers-in-arms, not the faceless number the press so avidly touts. The supposed rationale for marking the occasion of each warrior's death is to honor them, but it is, in fact, just the opposite. It cheapens their passing, and ignores the larger historical significance of their sacrifice.

2,117 American servicemen were killed at Pearl Harbor. During the course of our campaign to avenge that cowardly attack, 405,399 men were killed in action in the various theaters of operation. That number includes 1,465 killed on the beaches of Normandy; 6,821 killed taking the island of Iwo Jima; and an estimated 19,000 killed during The Battle of the Bulge. If we accept the current logic, we should have given up the fight for freedom sometime in 1942. Wait, wait, the respected men and women of the press will scream when confronted with these numbers. You can't compare Iraq to World War II. This despite the fact that they do just that when discussing the time we have spent fighting in Iraq. How many times have you heard some talking head say, "We have already spent more time in Iraq than we spent winning World War II." Yet, when you compare the sacrifice we expended to win that war somehow the paradigm shifts. "Iraq didn't attack us!" Neither did Germany. "Hitler declared war on us." So did bin Laden. "Al-Qaeda wasn't in Iraq when we invaded." They are now, and Saddam Hussein did have material ties to various terrorist organizations, if not operational one's. "Hussein didn't knock down the towers on 9/11." No, but he would have given any terrorist group that asked for it material and/or financial support. In fact, a November 3, 2006, New York Times article reported that as late as 2002 Hussein was still working on a nuclear weapons program, and had acquired the trigger for a nuclear device. How did they know that? It was on a website set up by the federal government. The feds had posted 48,000 boxes of documents captured during Operation Iraqi Freedom, and asked for help translating them. Upon being given notice that the Times intended to publish an article about the trigger, the feds took down the site. That was just another example, in a long string of actions, of the hallowed Paper of Record seeking to influence public opinion and policy. They effectively denied us another tool to fight the terrorists who would destroy us. One wonders how these same gentlemen of the press would report the D-Day, or Battle of the Bulge casualty figures today.

The Fourth Estate seeking to influence the opinion of the masses is not new. During the Civil War, newspapers routinely called for restraint, and are even credited with helping to instigate the draft riots in the Northeast. President Lincoln was excoriated by the press on a daily basis. In fact, he would probably recognize some of the rhetoric currently aimed at President Bush. It has not changed much in 142 years. What has changed is the notion of hope. By portraying the current killed in action figures almost in a vacuum, the major press outlets have undermined hope. Many people and entities deserve the ignominy of dividing us, but none more so than the press. They have reported the figures without the greater historical context they demand. Each death of an American service member pains me, but seen through the prism of history they pale in comparison. During President Lincoln's term in office more Americans were killed in combat than in all the wars the country ever fought combined; up to, and including Vietnam. Think of that in the context of the number lost during World War II. Most Americans still do not anyone killed in combat. During World War II, everyone did. That fact alone begs the question: why then does the press report on the war the way it does?

All Americans, regardless of social position, or political stripe, have opinions and will, in the right circumstance, act in their own best interests. This is not always a bad thing, but in the case of a supposedly objective press it is anathema to our principles and ideals. At some point, the major media outlets became brazenly convinced of their own importance. They ceased reporting the who, what, where, when, and how of news, and concentrated all their energies on the why. The front page of nearly every newspaper has become a repository for what the editors believe we should think. This has come about not through some nefarious cabal of media moguls, but rather through the reporters all being graduated from the same type of school. Gone is the hard-boiled, ham-fisted, hard-drinking newsman who wanted to get the scoop. He has been replaced by the perfectly coiffed, impeccably tailored celebrity who wants to "make a difference." These journalists are, for the most part, left leaning; never mind that they are all registered independents. Poll after poll has shown that they vote in favor of democrats disproportionately, and at all levels of government. From that set of ideals comes the mindset that American military force should not ever be utilized beyond humanitarian relief, and the very occasional limited show of force. Overwhelmingly, today's working journalists believe the United States is deserving of international disdain and scorn due to our "imperialist" transgressions. Forget that we have never set up an empire that even remotely resembles the world's previous super-powers. Over a hundred years ago, with limited forays into the Far East and the Caribbean we conquered the Philippines, Cuba and Puerto Rico. Subsequently we gave those lands back to the inhabitants; to our own detriment some would suggest.

At the conclusion of World War II, the United States stood poised around the globe with the greatest armed force the world had ever seen. Over a million soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines could have been strategically deployed to annex large swaths of the world. We could have, some would argue should have, challenged the USSR for immediate supremacy. Instead, as is the nature of great democracies, we disbanded our citizen soldiery and went home. The United States is now, and has always been, the shining city on the hill, which serves as a beacon of hope for the rest of the freedom loving world. It is our responsibility not only to defend ourselves wherever and whenever the need arises, but also to defend those, whenever possible, who cannot defend themselves when the forces of oppression would subjugate them. The Founding fathers envisioned us as a nation where good, hopeful men and women could make their way in the world. They cautioned against needless involvement in foreign affairs because they all came from a continent which had always fought needless wars for Empire. The brave men who stood against the mightiest nation on Earth did not see the United States of America as a place where we would isolate ourselves from the world. Those brave Founding Fathers saw us as a place where freedom could emanate to encompass the entire world; not through force of arms, but rather, through force of ideals. They would not have shied away from combating evil wherever it arose. They saw us as a nation "endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." They also envisioned a free press as one of the bulwarks against tyranny. They did not see freedom of the press as absolute, nor did they see it as means to determine opinion. Instead, they saw the right of freedom of the press as a means for the common man to acquire knowledge by which he might draw his own conclusions. I am not for limiting the scope or breadth of the press, far from it. I proudly wore the uniform of the US Army as an infantryman because I cherish that right, as well as it's attendants. What I am for though, is a free press which returns to what the Constitutional framers considered of paramount importance: report the news, not your personal, or institutional bias. I honor the hard-working men and women of the press who braved hardship, combat and strife so that we, the public, could be informed. All I ask is that they remember that they are not the intelligentsia tasked with telling us, the proletariat, how and what to think. I would further ask that their reporting be given the historical context it deserves. No historical event exists in a vacuum, and Iraq, as well as the larger war on Islamic extremism, does not either. Ladies and gentlemen of the press, with rights and privileges comes responsibility. That responsibility is not to your personal ideology, nor your agency's bottom line. It is to those whom you serve: the American public. Reporting events to political advantage damages us collectively, and you would be well served to remember that. Islamic terrorists killed nearly 3,000 Americans in under an hour on 9/11. In five years of fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq they have only just barely matched that feat. Civilians were murdered indiscriminately on 9/11, but volunteer warriors have died since then battling Islamic extremists; both to avenge their murdered countrymen, and to secure our blessings of freedom. No matter what your personal opinion is on this war, or any other, the historical context and significance of our combat deaths belongs to those last three sentences, and those sentences alone.

View My Milblogging.com Profile

Peace in Our Time

2006-12-17T19:49:00.000-05:00

On the heels of the Iraq Study Group report some simple things occurred to me. Immediately, I can only express my dismay at a world, and time, gone by. No war has ever been concluded effectively by diplomacy. One need only look to the past fifty years, or so, to see that diplomacy is what should occur after we have forcefully, and completely, vanquished our foes. The Korean and Vietnam Wars were ended by diplomacy. Neither resulted in a satisfactory conclusion of hostilities. American troops may have been removed from immediate harm's way, but the killing did not stop. At least in those instances we faced a foe who wished to end conflict; if only on terms more favorable to them. Our present battles find us engaged with a series of foes who have no desire to negotiate, no one with whom to negotiate and no means to enforce any treaty. It is the nature of the asymmetrical war in which we are currently embroiled that no central command exists. Those with whom the ISG would have us negotiate, Iran and Syria, have in mind radically different ends than do we. Freedom, democracy and justice do not factor into their plans for Iraq, or the larger Middle East. The only way to ensure that our jihadist enemy does not visit war on the scope, if not exactly the scale, of Hiroshima to our shores is to defeat them resoundingly everywhere they attempt to hide. Negotiating with Iran and Syria from a point of weakness will not accomplish that end. Stabilizing Iraq, and killing the terrorists therein, will. Simply put, Iraq is the central front in the battle against Muslim extremism, no matter what some more political minded beasts may say.

To that end, Iraq must be stabilized and many more of the enemy there must be killed. That includes Muqtada al-Sadr, and his reported 60,000 militia men. We must break the spirit of the militant Islamists by reigning down fire and brimstone upon them. They respect nothing else. We are currently seen, in the words of bin Laden, as a weak horse and/or paper tiger, unwillingly to accept casualties. As it stands now we are not actively taking the fight to the terrorists in Iraq. The ISG would have us do less. The esteemed men and women of this Blue Ribbon panel would have us fight this war as Vietnam in reverse. We would now, after three and a half years of fighting in Iraq, remove the main combat forces and embed advisors with Iraqi troops. After all, goes the argument, "the Iraqis have been training for three years. American soldiers are routinely deployed to combat after several months of training." That neglects the fundamental strength of the US military; namely the Non-Commissioned Officer corps. When I joined the 7th Infantry Division (Light) as a fresh-faced 18 year old straight out of Basic and AIT, my squad leader had six years service under his belt. My platoon sergeant had 14 years service to his credit and my 1st Sergeant had twenty. All three were combat veterans. Every platoon cadre was similarly comprised of, to my young eyes, crusty, old veterans. Most of them were younger then, than I am now, but they seemed so old. They inspired respect, and not a little fear. Human nature is to seek cover, or run away from the sound of gunfire. Surviving close combat demands just the opposite. Only the respect for, and fear of, a seasoned veteran can instill the instinct required to over-come basic human emotion. The Iraqi army does not have that cadre of leadership yet. You can make a soldier in a few month's time, but you cannot make a leader without years of experience. NCOs are experts because they have made more mistakes than the average soldier, and lived through it. They therefore know what not to do.

As of yet, there is also no banking system to speak of in Iraq . This means soldiers, upon receiving their pay, must return to their home towns to deliver the money to their families. At any given time no combat unit is at full strength. There are also infiltrators in their midst. By some accounts, 20-25% of recruits are terrorist sympathizers at best, and terrorists themselves at worst. The purging of the Baath Party left a power vacuum, and nature, abhorring a vacuum, filled it. Unfortunately for us, those that filled it were not always to be trusted. Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki is thus in a more than dangerous position. In addition, he receives contradictory messages from our leaders. President Bush has absolutely no intention of removing combat troops until the region is stabilized, but his political adversaries would have us bring them home now. Maliki therefore, cannot go after al-Sadr because if American troops are brought home precipitously, al-Sadr's militia may be the only thing left to keep him alive. Daily, Maliki receives mixed messages on our intentions. CNN, and The New York Times scream for immediate withdrawal. Faced with uncertainty from the US, Maliki has retreated into tribal allegiance with the only Shiite leader strong enough to prevent the Sunni insurgents from rolling over the country. Seen in that light I ask, what would you do? Iran and Syria have fomented the violence by arming and supporting terrorists on both ideological sides. This is mainly because Iranian President Amadinejad seeks the return of the Mahdi; the Koranic savior who can only return after the world is thrust into Armageddon. It matters not if we believe in the Mahdi's return, Amadinejad does, and is openly attempting to hasten his return. Al-Sadr's militia, Jaish al-Mahdi, the Army of the Mahdi, highlights exactly how confusingly opaque the entire situation is.

So, what are we to do? Numerous sources have screamed that the military is nearly broken, over-extended and in a deep malaise. None of those things are true. Young men do not volunteer for combat arms jobs thinking they will not go to war. As a 17 year old I volunteered for the infantry, when I was offered every job available. My grandfather and father, both former infantrymen, tried to talk me into Flight School, to no avail. So it is with the current crop of soldier and marine. Their average age is 20. They could not have volunteered before they were 17, so they knew for what they were volunteering; if not exactly the specifics. They knew war was in the offing and gladly accepted that mantle. The Army and Marine combat arms units are also re-enlisting at higher rates than normal. Recruiting as a whole may be down some, but it is by no means dismal, nor dire. So, neither morale nor malaise would seem to be anywhere, but in the minds of those who are safe here in the US. As for being over-extended no such thing is true. We do need more combat troops, but that has always been true. In the last months of World War II Gen. Patton's Third Army had around 350,000 men, but no more than two battalions of infantry in reserve. It was the same on all fronts. All available infantry units, as was the case then, need to be utilized, and that includes the National Guard and Reserves.

The National Guard is just that, a national guard. The National Guard has fought in every war since the American Revolution. The militias that battled the British at Bunker Hill, Concord and Lexington were overwhelmingly part-time soldiers, and the ancestors of the present Guard. Ask any liberal what he thinks about the 2nd Amendment and he will tell you that it was meant for the militia, or our current National Guard, not individuals. How then can anyone say the Guard should not be deployed in a combat role? It either is the direct offspring of those storied militias of the Revolutionary War, or it isn't. Since the 18th century the National Guard has been deployed to bolster active duty units. It is their primary mission. Flood relief and other state calamities are tertiary goals. They are called the National Guard because they guard the nation first, and serve at the discretion of the Commander in Chief. They should not take the lead when Regular Army units are available, but they should fight. Do not get me wrong, I am not in favor of deploying hundreds of thousands of troops to Iraq. I agree with Gen. Abizaid that troops in that large a concentration would provide too many targets and too large a footprint. In fact, I am not even in favor of a surge unless they will be allowed to do what they are constituted to do. War is a messy business, undertaken by hard men. It means fighting, and that means killing, and, yes, dying. We must recognize that Americans will die, but more will die, with no result, if we allow the present conditions to persist. In historical context, in just over three months fighting 90,000 men were killed during the Battle of the Bulge. It is the nature of war that a full out assault on your enemy causes less casualties than letting the foe pick the time and place of battle. The enemy always gets a vote, but it should not be the only vote, nor the most advantageous one for him.

We must take the fight to the enemy. Currently that arena is primarily Iraq. Instead of worrying about an "exit strategy" we should concern ourselves with a very simple plan: We Win, They Lose. The comparisons to the time spent fighting WWII are sophistry, at best. There was no exit strategy in December 1944, in fact Eisenhower and his staff were hoping the war would be over by 1946, or 1947. They had no idea of an "exit strategy" because nothing but utter, total victory would suffice. It is the same now, but too many of us do not recognize it. Our enemies are, in the words of Winston Churchill, a gathering storm. If we do not defeat them, and defeat them decisively, in Iraq it will be nothing more than a matter of time before the free world is lost. It may not be that the US will succumb in our lifetimes, and it will not be due solely to force of arms. Our financial markets are globally connected in such a way though, that our enemies can, and will, collapse our economy, gleefully, if given the chance. The US, for good or ill, is the world's economic hyperpower, so if our economy falters the entire world is impacted. Nothing would cheer our jihadist enemies more than to have another Great Depression visited upon us. The way to prevent that is to take the fight to the jihadists whenever we can, and wherever they are. That means al-Sadr in his mosque, if necessary. The jihadists use mosques liberally when it benefits them, and scream bloody murder when we defile them. We must refuse to accept that as legitimate. If they wish to trumpet Geneva Convention rights for armed combatants we should remind them that those same conventions make exception for the destruction of holy places when they are used as battlements.

We must also continue to export that which is best about us. What's best about us is not McDonald's cheeseburgers and Britney Spears CDs. What's best about us is our true, unassailable love of freedom, and the belief in our fellow man. We cannot negotiate our way out of this fight, and we cannot fight it piecemeal. We must fight it aggressively, brutally, with no quarter asked, and none given. Only then, as has always been our practice, can we disband our democratic warriors and let them come home to lead their lives. That is what democracies have always done. For better or for ill, we are now the pre-eminent democracy and we cannot, should not and must not do anything but defeat the evil extremists loose in the world. This may not have been the best time to fight this fight, but then again it is seldom the right time to fight. Had the jihadist proliferation in the region been left unchecked, we would have had to fight this battle by 2020, or 2025 anyway, and with an assuredly more horrific cost in human lives. And to those who would say we are creating terrorists and causing a proliferation, I say two things: 1) If that were true we would have created Nazis by killing them in WWII and, 2) good, they are congregating in a place where we can kill them more effectively, and with less loss of American life.

In his book, The Soul of Battle, Victor David Hanson, quotes a passage from former World War II Supreme Allied Commander, and President of the United States, Dwight D. Eisenhower's memoirs, "Daily as it [the war] progressed there grew within me the conviction that as never before in a war between many nations the forces that stood for human good and men's rights were this time confronted by a completely evil conspiracy with which no compromise could be tolerated. Because only by the utter destruction of the Axis was a decent world possible, the war became for me a crusade in the traditional sense of that often misused word." As Hanson further notes, Thomas Macauley once wrote, "the essence of war is violence, and that moderation in war is imbecility." In the same book Hanson references a speech by Lt. Gen. George S. Patton to his troops in 1944, when absolute victory in World War II was anything but assured, "We'll win this war, but we'll win it only by showing the enemy we have more guts than they have or will ever have." Those three men belong to a different time and age, but their words resound now with urgency. In fact, were I to remove the names and the Axis reference, and simply attribute Hanson's research, most would be hard pressed to differentiate them from the battle in which we are now engaged. That is the point. The battle which currently threatens to consume us is one of time immemorial, namely democracy versus evil. No ideology, once aroused, is as dangerous to its enemies as a democratic nation, because free men know exactly what they stand to lose. I can only hope that we still have the time, and wherewithal to wake up. We did not choose this fight, no matter what some may say, but we must win it. Peace in our time is only possible through a military victory. To paraphrase Churchill, we can no longer, feed the crocodile in the hopes that he eats us last.

View My Milblogging.com Profile

Wolves in Holy Men's Clothes

2006-11-29T09:27:00.000-05:00

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

2006-11-14T13:58:00.000-05:00

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?

2006-11-09T13:01:00.000-05:00

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

2006-11-02T09:17:00.000-05:00

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.

Pulling the Lever

2006-10-27T06:50:00.000-04:00

It is the highest of hypocrisy and partisan demagoguery to suggest that the democrats are in favor of the Islamic terrorists winning this war, or any other. It is not, however, a stretch to state that the terrorists are in favor of the democrats winning. The reasons for this have been addressed by me in earlier posts, but simply stated, the dems and their allies in the press think that the way to end terrorism is to negotiate with the bad guys and use law enforcement resources when transgressions occur. Obviously the terrorists would prefer that tactic, rather than the one currently being endorsed by the republicans. The political landscape is not black and white. There are shades of grey. Joe Lieberman, a former democrat and current independent, is in favor of taking the fight to the terrorists militarily. Republican senators Chuck Hagel-NE, and John Warner-VA are both on record as saying the current policy does not work, and have suggested exploring some sort of phased withdrawal. For the most part though, the republicans want to continue the fight militarily and the dems want to withdraw and negotiate. Negotiate with whom exactly, is still undetermined. Most of the press is with the dems on this, and the media savvy terrorists cannot help but see this everyday.

All the news out of Iraq is bad. Daily we are treated to images of IEDs, blood in the streets, exhausted soldiers and marines humping ever heavier equipment loads, and, just this week, video of an Islamist sniper firing on American troops. The sniper video was given to CNN by a terrorist group. As it opens, Arabic writing fills the screen and we see soldiers and HUMMVEEs in the background. I openly admit I changed the channel at that point. What came next were images of American soldiers running for cover from the unseen attack. CNN defended their actions as simple news reporting, "painful" as that might be. CNN dismissed criticism of the airing by stating that journalistic integrity demanded it be shown. This is the same line of thought offered up by The New York Times when they revealed secret programs designed to thwart and/or capture/kill terrorists. Now, I am not trying to suggest that there is some conspiracy afoot in the media. There is no secret cabal directing the actions of the three networks and the nation's largest newspapers, but there is an underlying mindset. For the most part, those who pursued journalism from the mid 60s on were, and are, liberals. Just like a certain segment of society pursues law, or pipe-fitting, or yes, soldiering, most of those currently engaged as journalists have a certain viewpoint of the world. That viewpoint is, in most cases, liberal or secularly progressive. They, therefore, favor the Democratic Party line. Hence, all the news out of Iraq is bad, which helps the democratic candidates currently up for election, which, in turn, helps the terrorists.

That does not mean I think either the liberal press or the Democratic Party want to help the terrorists. It is ridiculous that I have to state that, but in these polarized times I have to, or risk the scathing, ill-informed comments that are sure to appear. That neither group wants to help the terrorists matters not. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. The press and the dems honestly believe that their course of proposed action is the best; even though reams of historical evidence contradicts them. Neville Chamberlain famously delivered the "Peace in Our Time" speech in 1938. The irony of that was underscored the following year when the German Blitzkrieg slammed into Poland. In 1994 Yasser Arafat and Shimon Peres shared the Nobel Prize for Peace. What a boon that has been for Arab-Israeli relations. And who could forget the negotiations that allowed U.S. forces to leave Vietnam. Millions were slaughtered in the aftermath, some even before all the U.S. helicopters had left the Embassy's roof in Hanoi. I could go on ad nauseum, but I believe these recent historical references prove my point: You cannot negotiate with pure evil. Cessation of hostilities under a cease-fire agreement only gives the evil forces time to regroup and rearm.

Vietnam is worth revisiting for a moment, if only because the major press outlets, and their political masters in the Democratic Party, insist on comparing it to our current operations in Iraq. The comparison is sophistry at best. As retired Colonel Oliver North recently reported, "In Vietnam, U.S. troops faced nearly a quarter million conscripted, but well trained, disciplined and equipped North Vietnamese Army regulars and upwards of 100,000 highly organized Viet Cong insurgents on a daily basis from 1966 onward. Both the NVA and the VC "irregulars" were well indoctrinated in communist ideology, received direct aid from the Soviet Union, communist China and the Warsaw Pact and benefited from logistics and politico-military support networks in neighboring countries. During major campaigns against U.S. and South Vietnamese forces--of which there were many each year--both the NVA and the VC responded to centralized command and control directed by authorities in Hanoi. None of that is true in Iraq." Some may quibble that Syria and Iran are, indeed, politico-military support networks, but the rest of the Colonel's reasoning is unassailable. We have all been lectured to, numerous times, by both the press and liberal democrats on the nature of the insurgency in Iraq. The insurgents operate in cells, independent of each other, so they are particularly hard to counter say the omnipotent one's on the left. The insurgents won't stand up and fight they say. We have to bring the boys home because the insurgents will never fight us symmetrically, left-wingers say. They will continue to kill Americans with IEDs, so we might as well leave them to their business and come home. The American casualty rate is just unacceptable given the insurgents unwillingness to fight us like men, the left avers. If they cannot even bear to call the evil doers what they are, terrorists, how can we expect them to fight them the way they must be fought?

None of that has anything to do with Vietnam, and precious little to do with Iraq. Roughly 2,800 men and women have been killed in Iraq. At least 104 of them this month alone. Over 6,800 were killed during the battle for Iwo Jima during World War II. Frequently Iraqi Freedom opponents will cite the fact that we have now been in Iraq nearly as long as we fought in WWII, but few mention that the casualty figures pale in comparison. Colonel North added in the piece referenced above, "During the Tet Offensive in Vietnam there were more than 2,100 casualties per week." Now consider those numbers and tell me how the casualty rates even compare. Do not get me wrong. As an infantryman, past, now and forever, every soldier's, marine's, sailor's and airmen's death touches me. I make a point to look at The Washington Post's Faces of the Fallen section every day. There are short biographies, synopsis of the action that resulted in their death and photos of every servicemember killed. It never ceases to make me teary-eyed, but the casualty rates are simply picayune compared to the number in every war we ever fought before venturing into this desert. To suggest that we must pull out before the job is done because too many volunteer warriors have lost their lives cheapens not only their deaths, but the deaths of all those who's mothers received telegrams during WWII and Korea, or chaplain's visits during Vietnam.

Michael Smerconish, a local radio show host in Philadelphia, recently took a trip to the Middle East under the aegis of the Department of Defense. He traveled to CentCom and met with everyone in the chain of command. He started with Secretary Rumsfeld, worked his way through various generals and admirals, and eventually wound up with 19 and 20 year old enlisted men. Smerconish, no "stay the course hawk," told his radio audience the thing that most impressed him was how proud these "kids" are of their service, and how much they believe in the mission. To pull them out now, before the Iraqis can stand by themselves, cheapens these brave servicemen's sacrifices, but also the sacrifice their families back here have borne. Not to mention the sacrifice the Iraqis have borne. Hundreds of thousands have been killed by the terrorists. Are we to abandon the rest to the slaughter that is sure to follow any ignominious exit? If so, we should be prepared for a bloodbath that will make the Killing Fields of Cambodia, and the genocide in Rwanda look like a street fight between the Sharks and the Jets in comparison. Does anyone honestly believe that the departure of U.S. forces before the democratically elected Iraqis are ready will stabilize the region? So, if no one actually believes our departure will stabilize the region then what's really being said is: We do not want to wage war against the terrorists who would kill us all. We only want to prosecute them, in U.S. federal courts, when they break American laws.

Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA's Alec Station, was the man most intimately tasked with killing and/or capturing Osama bin Laden. During a recent radio broadcast on 1210 am in Philadelphia he was asked by the host Michael Smerconish, "Which party do you think bin Laden wants to win the Senate and House. Does he care?" Without hesitation Scheuer responded, "The best possible situation would be for the democrats to win both houses." He explained further that with President Bush still in power the recruiting potential for new Islamic terrorists would continue, and the democrats in Congress would prevent the President from undertaking further military actions to combat what would be then an ever-growing threat. So, in effect Osama bin Laden needs President Bush as a bogeyman of sorts, but doesn't want him to be able to act unabated. A democrat controlled House and Senate would slow the President's efforts to combat terrorism. That is not to say that the democrats are any less patriotic, but their oft stated policy of a less forceful approach to combating terrorism is just wrong. In many ways that policy is the more American approach. We, as Americans, want to think the best of everyone. We want to believe that everyone can see the beauty of us as a people, if only we give them the chance. Unfortunately, that is a very narrow world-view, and it is potentially deadly to us as a people, and a country. At the tail end of the interview I referenced above Scheuer was quick to point out that he was not trying to tell people for whom they should vote. "Vote for whomever you want, but you have to understand how your vote hinders or helps the Islamist terrorists." That statement is what this mid-term election is about.

By now, having cited Colonel Oliver North, Michael Smerconish and Michael Scheuer some of you are, no doubt, cursing me for being a republican ideologue who truly hates liberty and peace, puppies and small children. I am certain to be accused of fear mongering and, once again, xenophobia. I am sure I will be considered nothing more than a desperate Kool-Aid drinking hack, shrilly trying anything to keep my team in power. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is not a single, solitary social issue with which Rick Santorum and I agree; at least not one I have ever heard him articulate. I truly wish there was a candidate that shared my liberal social values, my libertarian economic positions and my somewhat hawkish national security concerns. That candidate just does not exist, not now, and maybe not ever. So, what is one to do? Everyone draws their line in the sand somewhere, and for me that line comes down to the fight for U.S. survival. Whether or not we want to accept it, the Islamists are intent on ruling, at least, the entire Arab world, and have a desire to bring us to our knees. They wish for us to be unable to intercede on the world stage so they can bring back the bygone age of the Caliphate. They want to institute sharia laws in every land that was ever, or is now, inhabited by Muslims. That is not my opinion. That is the oft stated goal of Islamists everywhere, from bin Laden to Iranian President Amadinejad. The question then becomes: Do we give our best weapons, hope, democracy and freedom, a chance? Or do we once again bury our heads in the sand and hope the bad guys leave us alone? If we pull out of Iraq, as the democrats want, before the country is truly stable, we risk allowing madmen not only opportunity, but means to destroy us. Billions of dollars from oil revenue will sponsor all manner of terrorist acts, all over the world. A nuclear explosion in one, or more American cities will no longer be theory. At that point it will be too late for me to say I told you so. I'll be too busy trying to save my daughter from the ravages of a ruined world. Am I then saying vote republican or the world will blow up? No, I am saying vote for the man or woman in your district, republican, democrat or independent, who understands the threat we face. In my state that is Rick Santorum. I am voting for him Tuesday, but, should his social stances not soften with time, I will gladly help you throw him out when the work of war is good and truly done.

The Great Divide

2006-10-17T06:27:00.000-04:00

I do not make a habit of responding to the comments posted in response to my blog musings. Mainly this is due to the fact that the comments I agree with need no response, and the one's I disagree with would have been written in crayon before the advent of computers. Recently though, several have caught my eye in subtle ways. They concern my opinion that the Left is soft on terrorism. I believe I have explained my position to refer to the Social Progressives amongst us, and not rank and file Americans who identify themselves as democrats, or even liberals. With the elections only 3 weeks away I am concerned that a loss of both houses of Congress by the republicans will spell doom for the country though. I do not think that the repeal of tax cuts, impeachment proceedings, which have been promised by several upwardly aspirant congressmen, or the expansion of even more social programs will spell the end of civilization as we know it. Those things go in cycles, and the pendulum will eventually swing back. No, what concerns me is the notion that the ruling elite of the democratic party, and their attendant Birkenstock wearing fringe element, believe that terrorism is a law enforcement issue or worse that it can be negotiated away and that the invasion along our south-western border is somehow good for our country.

If the democrats win both houses of Congress the terrorists hell bent on killing us will be afforded even more rights. The rights the Social Progressives want to grant terrorists were meant for American citizens, and no one else. We are different. We are citizens of a country that was well-founded and does good things. Of course we make mistakes, but in the end we are a noble, decent, good people. A sizeable minority of the democratic party believes that none of those things are true, and that the only way to rectify the ills the U.S. has visited upon the world is to surrender our way of life to the Social Progressive agenda. We must surrender to those things in the interest of diversity and compassion the SPs say. Nothing else will suffice. The SPs hate the country because they feel we do not deserve the high standard of living we enjoy. Witness Lynne Stewart Esq. She was sentenced to 2 1/2 years yesterday for helping the mastermind of the first World Trade Center bombing, Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, communicate with his followers in an Egyptian-based terrorist organization. After her sentencing she greeted 150 supporters outside the federal courthouse, in Lower Manhattan no less, and said, "This is a great victory against an over-reaching government." That she may have American blood on her hands matters not to Ms Stewart. Far too many people, including Ms Stewart, her supporters and the sentencing judge, apparently do not understand that we are in a battle for our very existence; or maybe they do and are simply hoping for the end to come quickly. Stewart deserved at least 10 years, if not the 30 sought by the prosecution. We can expect more actions such as this, and the attendant slaps on the wrist, if the democrats take power. The Democratic Party of FDR, Harry Truman and JFK, who's photograph hung on my grandmother's wall for 40 years, is gone, and I would say we are all the worse for it. Howard Dean, Russ Feingold and yes, Hillary Clinton, have replaced the intestinal fortitude of those brave men, with rhetoric and some misguided notion of guilt. The Democratic ruling elite's 'flying monkeys' are the conspiracy nuts living in their parent's basements, who will mobilize at a moments notice to wave signs and chant slogans. I believe in my heart that most of us are aghast at the change which has occurred in the Democratic Party, whatever your political stripe.

The invasion across our south-western border is the other issue that will be neutered by legislation, if not out-right ignored, should the parties swap power. The republicans have done precious little to stem the flow of the largest invasion in recorded history, and the democrats will do less. Each side has their reasons, but both truly just want voters. Already in the more liberal communities it is against the law to confront illegal aliens. Whole cities have set up zones where illegal immigrants are free to live without fear of legal repercussions. Students at Columbia University, one of the jewels of the Ivy League, physically attacked the Minutemen who had been invited to speak on campus. Brandishing signs saying things like No One is Illegal, they chased two military veterans from the stage, men who's only offense was having had the temerity to exercise their right to free speech. Free speech at Columbia is apparently only for the students whose rich daddies gave them a pampered existence, which they now abhor. Spanish speaking Mexicans, who have no interest in becoming American citizens, are conquering large swathes of the American landscape simply through raw numbers. They consider themselves to be Mexicans, send the majority of the money they earn home, while sucking up every morsel the welfare state has to offer. Anchor babies abound and the social services available to Americans shrinks more each day, as the federal and state budgets balloon. The middle class has already disappeared in Los Angeles. With nothing but the affluent, pretty people, and their landscapers, bus boys and nannies left, the city is in dire straits. Somehow this makes us a better, more diverse society, at least if you listen to the far left fringe.

I am no xenophobe. Nor am I an isolationist. I have no desire to institute Fortress America. I do not want my civil liberties extremely curtailed in the interests of security, nor do I want to prevent honest, hard working people from immigrating to our shores. I have been friends with Sheldon, a Sunni Muslim for years. Ace Martinez, a self-styled Chicano, and I were as thick as thieves during my stint in the infantry. I have gotten into more than my fair share of trouble with both these guys and yes, those are their real names. The point is not that some of my best friends are Mexican or Muslim. The point is that what makes us stronger as a people is not our diversity, that just makes us more diverse, and more adaptable. What makes us stronger is our shared love for the country and a desire to be Americans and nothing else. When we grant rights afforded to us by the Founding Fathers onto people who care not for freedom, or American values, it limits us all. When we refuse to acknowledge that we are different-more noble-and that there is nothing wrong with that, we risk losing all that for which so many have sacrificed. We risk seeing the day when the streets will run red with the blood of patriots, apologists, heroes, cowards, conservatives and liberals alike. At that point, it will make no difference what letter is behind your name on your voter's registration card. At that point, we will all be nothing but Americans, and by then it will simply be too late to unite.

The Roman Empire ruled the world for centuries. The Romans did so by ferociously guarding their borders and by demanding that those desirous of Roman citizenship be willing to die to attain it. When they ceased doing those things, Rome was sacked, repeatedly, and soon the barbarians were ushering in the Dark Ages. If you think this analogy is too forceful then you are wrong. We are nearly at that moment in history. We are at the most perilous point in our nation's history, and that includes the darkest days of all the wars we have collectively fought. This does not mean I think we should rule the world. Nor does this mean that we cannot dissent with the current presidential administration, or any other. Dissent is patriotic. In fact, we were founded by dissenters. What is not patriotic is sacrificing the safety and security of the country for political expediency. We simply cannot afford the luxury of allowing people, any people, to receive rights reserved for citizens. If you are not desirous of, in the words of Teddy Roosevelt, "one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people," then there is no room for you in the discourse.

So, what is to be done. These days everyone seems to be able to fix the blame, and sometimes even identify the problem, but no one seems prepared to present a solution. My solution is that first we must construct an impenetrable barrier along our southern flank, and at least a virtual one across the northern flank. We must then pressure the honorable men and women of the US Congress to enact draconian laws regarding the use of illegal labor. If a business or individual is found to be profiting from illegal aliens they should be fined within an inch of existence for a first offense, and bankrupted and jailed for a second. This would have the effect of drying up the labor market, which causes people to constantly risk life and limb to get here, and force those already here to either come out into the light, or go home. The immigration issue would thus atrophy on the vine. We would not need to deport millions, nor would we need to grant them amnesty. Those of us proposing these things must also refuse to be labeled racists by the Social Progressives. The Social Progressives respond to the poll numbers that suggest fully three-quarters of the US population want a fence by saying, "Yeah, well in 1840 three-quarters of the US population favored slavery. Do you support that, too?" Laugh at that comparison, and turn the tables by vociferously accusing the SP community of supporting the near-slavery conditions illegals currently endure. Tell your foe you would gladly pay more for lettuce, or eat less salads if it would spare these poor illegals the indignity of the hardships they bear. Everything has become about race and nothing will change if we allow the Social Progressives to frame the conversation.

The second issue, terrorism, is a more difficult nut to crack. The democratic leadership is correct about one thing: we have created too many terrorists, but not for the reasons they suggest. We have created too many by not killing them fast enough. We must unleash the proverbial hounds of hell upon them, whenever and wherever they proliferate. Iraq is currently a magnet for their misguided jihad. By Al-Qaeda's estimates we have killed 4,000 foreign fighters there. That number should be dramatically higher. If they are going to stream there to fight then so must we. It is time to actively take the fight to them, and stop allowing our troops to be used as political pawns in a game of one-upmanship. If we need more soldiers, airmen, sailors and marines on the ground to effect this change, so be it. There can be no negotiating with thugs who cut the heads off defenseless people, or torture captured American soldiers by dragging them to their deaths behind trucks. You can rest assured the Islamist terrorists are laughing at our political angst over the use of torture, and are smiling to themselves at the "Paper Tiger." The Islamists respect nothing but strength, and it is time we showed the resolve our grandfathers showed during World War II. This will be difficult, and it will require time and the stomach to endure when everything seems bleak. It will require the resolution to remember that, "we have nothing to fear, but fear itself." It can be done though, and only by a truly United States of America.

We must forsake our political jerseys. I firmly believe that 15 percent of the country is made up of crazy, New World Order type right-wing zealots, and 15 percent is comprised of the maniacally apologist, left-wing fringe. That leaves 70 percent of us who have at least some common ground. We must, for now, put aside our social differences and unite to battle the forces who would kill us all. We must table abortion and gay marriage arguments, both of which I support by the way, until we have defeated our common foe. Likewise, the flag burning amendment and affirmative action, positions which I oppose, can wait. When I was an under-graduate at the University of New Orleans, Stephen Ambrose was fond of relating the story of millions of Americans who were against FDR's social policies, but united to fight the greater evil facing them. So must it be now. We must work together, at the grassroots level, neighbor to neighbor and friend to friend, to elect men and women who get it. Then, when the threats of illegal immigration and Islamic terrorism have been vanquished, we can restart the game clock on all manner of social discourse. We can then resume the particularly independent brand of republican democracy that gave our two major parties their names. A specific type of sacrifice is required. We must put the country above ourselves. Winston Churchill once said, "Sometimes it is not enough to do your best. Sometimes you must do what is required." Unfortunately, whether we like it, or not, that time is now.

Whistling Past the Graveyard

2006-09-15T07:56:00.000-04:00

By now, most people have seen this photo which purports to be 100-200 Taliban fighters attending a funeral in Afghanistan. The black images superimposed atop the men lined up in neat formation is a gun sight from an armed Predator drone. With the simple touch of a button two AGM-114 Hellfire, laser guided, air-to-surface missiles could have sent these Islamists to their appointment with Allah. Unfortunately, the trigger, for whatever reason, was not pulled. Conflicting reports have emerged. The latest explanation given is that it could not be determined with a reasonable degree of certainty that these were, in fact, all or mostly Taliban fighters. The initial reason given by the Department of Defense spokesman was that protocols in Afghanistan prohibit attacking enemy combatants in cemeteries. It is worth noting that this alleged cultural sensitivity is not adhered to by the Taliban, who recently attacked rivals gathered for a funeral in a very similar circumstance. Simply said, this is just another example of politics tying the hands of those trying to win the war against the Islamists. If we truly want to win this war we need to realize that we must kill the enemy whenever, and wherever he is, and cultural sensitivities can be attended to in the aftermath. That is the only way to assure victory.

Before I delve into the minutiae of the legal opinion on attacking enemy combatants in a cemetery, I must say that I believe we are in a global war with radical Islam. I offer that opinion based on the number of countries in which Islamists have carried out, or attempted, attacks in the last five years. The United States, England, Turkey, Syria, Egypt, Yemen, Chechnya, Sudan, as well as Afghanistan and Iraq have all seen violence wrought by Islamists in pursuit of their avowed goal of converting the world to Islamic rule. We are in a war of cultural ideals and to posit otherwise is, at best, overly simplistic, and, at worst, naive. That being the case we, as a democratic society, must hold ourselves to a higher standard than the Islamists, but we need not stretch to accommodate some perceived morality. On a local radio show this morning Scott Silliman, Professor and Executive Director of the Center on Law, Ethics and National Security at the Duke University School of Law, and former Air Force JAG officer, was questioned about the rule of law involved in shooting at the assembled Taliban. He stated in response, "The standard applied was moral, not legal, cemeteries alone do not constitute protected areas." When questioned further he continued that the standard must "include a degree of certainty that you are firing upon a combatant and not a civilian. Collateral damage is allowable under law as long as it is not excessive to the value of the targeted area."

I am not a legal scholar, nor am I versed in the particulars of the international rule of warfare. I am, however, a thoughtful person and a former infantryman. Those two attributes make me well suited to accept the good professor at his word, and allow me to state unequivocally that had I been the one making the decision whether or not to fire upon the neat rows of terrorists I would have left behind nothing more than a smoking crater. Too often the statement that we must win their "hearts and minds" is bandied about as if it were a well tried and factual adage. Well, it did not work in Vietnam and it will not work here. We must make promises, not threats, and then follow through as ruthlessly as we can. You cannot make an enemy love you through the limited application of firepower. You can, however, make him fear you through the overwhelming application of the same. In World War II we dropped two atomic weapons on Japan knowing that in the end, although we killed tens of thousands of civilians, we were lessening our own number of casualties. By most estimates at the time we would have lost hundreds of thousands of soldiers and marines in any assault on mainland Japan. That same mindset must be the standard now.

Do not misunderstand me. I am not calling for the use of nuclear weapons, on cities, or anywhere for that matter. What I am calling for is unrestrained warfare within the boundaries of international law. Shock and Awe worked because it was just that: shocking and awful. Our mistake was not following through with the exchange. When it became evident that we would not be met wholesale as liberators we needed to respond with all the military might we could muster until we had pacified the entire region. Only then could we go about the business of winning the hearts and minds. We dropped the most devastating weapon available in the world at the time on the civilian population of Japan, and now they are one of our best friends and largest trading partners. Why? Because after they surrendered we exhibited the compassion for which Americans are rightly known. We rebuilt their infrastructure and economy. We set them on the path to democratic self-rule and then left them alone. That is what we must do in Iraq and Afghanistan if we are to defeat the Islamists.

Finally, we must remember that the tradition of Islam to which the radicals adhere is not the one of peace of which we are constantly reminded. It seems no one can make a statement about terrorism without stating that theses miscreants have hijacked a religion of peace. I have my misgivings about the veracity of that statement having read the Qur'an, but nevermind. I know the Islamists wish for a return to the 12th century, as well as knowing that the only element they recognize is might. They take kindness for weakness and attack at our soft underbelly. It is no coincidence that Hezbollah, al Qaeda and the like all make reference to Muslim victories of centuries gone by. They fervently believe that only through the forceful reinstatement of Islamic Sharia law can the messiah return. They adore death because they have been conditioned into believing in the virgin-filled afterlife. They will accept no negotiation. They fully expect to die in droves to advance their cause of removing Israel from the map, reconquering Europe and destroying us, as a people and a country. Do these sound like people who would respect us for not firing on them just because they happened to be assembled in a cemetery? Quite the opposite. All over the world Islamists are gathered together discussing the foolishness of us not killing our enemies. All over the world Islamists are laughing at our fecklessness and plotting the murder of civilians. Men who will decapitate prisoners, and fly airplanes into buildings for their god, cannot be negotiated with. They must be ruthlessly exterminated. Nothing else will suffice, and if the American public could just tear themselves away from yet another season of American Idol I know the spirit that tamed a continent would return. I only hope that the spirit somehow materializes before it is too late.

Sissy, Ninny, Girl-Boy, Muffins

2006-09-13T13:12:00.000-04:00

I have, of late, adopted a different course of action regarding my political views. A very learned friend of mine suggested that I try to be less strident and angry so as to reach a broader audience. Since she is smarter than I am, and I value her opinion, I have given that the old college try. The last few posts have been more nuanced and less direct than usual. The events of the last few days though have me back into attack mode. I am simply sick and tired of the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party and their lunatic fringe. That fringe, while still not an outright majority, are approaching a serious plurality and, if left unchecked, will eventually swallow the party as sure as a boa constrictor eats pet-store rabbits.

I have witnessed the former president and his senator wife rant and yell about perceived factual inaccuracies in The Path to 9/11, a movie. Did either of these paragons of peace and light object to Death of a President or Fahrenheit 911? After all, the former contains scenes of the current president being assassinated, and the latter was rife with intentional distortions and misleading sound bites. No, neither of these champions of the people cared one whit about these works of art. You cannot stifle free speech they say; unless of course that speech is directed at them. Sandy Berger and Madeleine Albright also objected strenuously to the way they were depicted. Well, they should. They spent years employing smoke and mirrors to generate a legacy and this film, even if it is a docudrama, lets in the light of day. Mr. Berger must have forgotten that he stole federal documents by stuffing them in his socks, and Madame Albright has obviously blocked out the knowledge that she negotiated the treaty with North Korea that gave them fissionable materials. Some legacy.

It does not end there though. Minority Leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid reacted with outrage that President Bush had the audacity to mention Iraq during his address to the nation on 9/11. They demanded equal time of the networks to respond to this partisan, political use of 9/11. They were shocked that he would dare to mention Iraq on such an somber day. It matters not that had the President not mentioned Iraq they would have accused him of glossing over it. The honorable members of Congress seem to have forgotten the Paul Wellstone and Rosa Parks funerals. Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and various members of the NAACP took the time to pontificate over Ms Parks' casket, and yet, no member of the left castigated them for it. Far from it. In fact they attempted to equate Rosa Parks' heroic act with their completely unpatriotic and selfish, power hungry buffoonery.

That's right. You read that correctly. I just accused the lunatic left of unpatriotic acts, and I mean it. I have tried to suggest over the years that, though I disagreed with them, their actions and words were only in contradiction to mine. They were not inherently unpatriotic. I am no longer of that view. House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) responded to the left's vexation with an observation that they were more concerned with terrorist's rights than Americans. Of course, this caused howls of protest at the contemptible display of partisan politics. Not a peep was heard though when Democratic Whip Richard "Dick" Durbin (D-IL) compared American servicemen serving in Iraq to the Nazis and Pol Pot's regime. Likewise, no one screamed when Senator John Kerry (D-MA) accused soldiers of "terrorizing innocent Iraqi civilians." Not a voice was raised when Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) characterized the Marines in Haditha as having"killed innocent Iraqi civilians in cold blood." All those statements prompted calls to my congressman, but as a good democrat he remained moot; even though he serves on the House Armed Services Committee.

I personally witnessed Alex Jones, the conspiracy theorist radio show host, and the originators of Loose Change attempt to make a mockery of the 5th commemoration of the 9/11 tragedy. With several hundred black t-shirt clad supporters, these patriots swarmed around Ground Zero, handed out documentaries, shouted at the news cameras, assembled mourners and uniformed men and women. The 60's hold-overs and teenaged wanna-be hippies who still sleep in their mother's houses, held signs, chanted trite little slogans and offensive epithets, while the widows of 9/11 recited, in heart-breaking detail, the names of all those killed that day. Did Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), or Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) complain about, or even mention, these miscreants attempting to make a mockery of the murder of nearly 3,000 of my fellow Americans? Even though that question was patently rhetorical I will answer it for you: they did not. Senators Schumer and Boxer reacted to the president's use of Iraq on 9/11, while Sen. Feingold argued semantics over the use of the term Islamic Fascists. Very erudite and nuanced responses all.

So, by now my use of the term unpatriotic must have rankled. What else can it be called though when the perceived enemy of the Democratic Party leadership, and at least (by their own estimates) 30% of the rank and file, is the President of the United States? Shouldn't they have at least as much animus for al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden? Shouldn't they want us wiretapping suspected terrorists, outside the US? Shouldn't they want us secretly tracing the terrorist's financial dealings? Shouldn't their support for the troops extend to something more than lip service. Why do they not extol the virtues of the heroic acts many soldiers have performed, instead of beating the drum constantly over the relatively few abuses. Everyone knows who PFC Lynndie England is, but how many have heard of SFC Paul R. Smith? You will not hear about Sergeant Smith's heroic actions, which posthumously earned him the nation's highest award for valor, because he acted above and beyond the call of duty while serving in Iraq http://www.army.mil/medalofhonor/smith/. As we all know, Iraq is only a republican war.

I have come to the conclusion that years of control have proved the old maxim, "absolute power corrupts absolutely." That adage has been used multiple times to refer to the current administration, but in my case I am referring to the democrats perceived right to power. The forty years they controlled congress have ingrained in them the feeling that power is theirs by want of their left leaning birth-right, and they will do anything to get that power back. It matters not that good, brave men, and yes women, have died to preserve their right to yell offensive things about them and their president. Yes, their president. Fully 85% of those voters in the Armed Forces who voted in the last election voted for President Bush. President Bush has been called an idiot, a despot, and a tyrant by elected officials and their granola crunching minions. Somehow their willing partners in the major media have not seen anything wrong with this, but hell they will divert all manner of resources to the Clinton's outrage. President Bush has been pictured on t-shirts as an International Terrorist, been targeted in a book(and now a movie) for assassination, been called every reprehensible word you can imagine and, yet, he does not cry foul. He simply soldiers on. I have not agreed with him on every issue, far from it, but he is no thin-skinned dilettante. He is what he has always been, a cowboy, and that is why the left hates him. After all, the Indians, excuse me Native Americans, were all but exterminated by the cowboys.

One wonders what Harry Truman, the plain-spoken Missourian who had to make the most difficult of decisions, and John F. Kennedy, a true Navy hero, would make of the current climate of the democratic party. President Truman, in my opinion, ranks as one of the top five president's of the 20th century, and JFK's picture hung in the wall of my grandmother's house for better than 40 years. I can only surmise that in the current environment that is the Democratic Party neither man would have a political home. When the leader of the DNC can suggest that the President of the United States intentionally let black people die out of a desire to change the political landscape, and no one in the party challenges him, something is wrong. When the sitting Senator of Connecticut, a three term democrat and the last presidential cycle's Vice presidential candidate, is ousted unceremoniously from the party because of his support for both the troops and the War against Islamists, something is drastically wrong. So, I started this posting with the title Sissy, Ninny, Girl-Boy, Muffins, a direct reference to the most vocal of the Democratic Party. I say that because they are. They can dish it out, but cannot take it. They can call names, but will sue you if you return the favor. None of them would have lasted a week in my childhood neighborhood, let alone Afghanistan or Iraq. They are not patriots. They are not even men; not even Hillary. My only slender glimmer of hope regarding the Democratic Party is that I know many of them. I even love a few, and, while they may not be completely on board with events in the world, they are not appeasers. One has even suggested that she could not shoot terrorists, but would have no moral quandary against reloading weapons for me to do so. So, my slender hope is that those types of democrats somehow grab back the reins of power from those that see this war as simply a chance to explore diversity of other cultures, before it is too late.

9/11 Five Years Later

2006-09-12T12:18:00.000-04:00

I love New York. In fact, although I was born and proudly raised in New Orleans, I have always considered myself to have been separated at birth from Manhattan. My first visit there was as a child and I instantly fell in love with both the city and the Yankees. I would rather live no place else on Earth. I do not live there, but I still wish I did. So, five years after the heart-breaking events of 9/11 I once again stood outside the security fence at Ground Zero, and, with tens of thousands of strangers, relived the pain of that day. I leaned against the fence and listened to the widows recite the names of those murdered that day, and heaved as they added their personal comments to their lost loved ones. I personally thanked firefighters and police for their service. I embraced servicemen, both active and veterans, for the same. I consoled civilians who cried unabashedly, and wiped tears from my own eyes constantly. There is no place I could be but at Ground Zero on 9/11.

The spectacle was not without contention. The boys from Loose Change were there, as were a number of other associated conspiracy theorists. They ranged from teenagers and twenty-somethings who still live in their parent's houses, to ex-hippies still fighting the Vietnam War. Several hundred of them wore black t-shirts espousing the myth that the events of 9/11 were an inside job. They passed out the supposed documentaries based on half-truths and distortions, all the while berating passers-by for being sheep to the current administration. In a sickeningly ironic twist of fate, members of the NYPD had to shield the knuckleheads from mourners, so as to prevent things from escalating to violence. Men and women in blue had to safeguard people who openly minimized their friends and colleagues murder. Inside I seethed and hoped for an excuse to react badly to their nonsense, but finally decided, with some difficulty, that I would honor no one lost that day by validating the conspiracy idiocy with any vocal or physical response.

It was not easy for me to stand outside the fence and do nothing but listen. I am prone to action. Do something, even if it is wrong, has always been my mantra. I wanted nothing more than to lash out at those responsible, and hold those that had lost so much. A baby-faced combat veteran of both Afghanistan and Iraq echoed the sentiments of a marine who served in Vietnam when he gestured at the protestors and said, "They're just kids. Don't let them get to you. What matters is that those who still suffer know you care." This soldier, still a kid himself, then hugged me and thanked me for my service as an infantryman nearly twenty years ago. The dichotomy was striking, and poignant. I admit I watched him walk away in his desert camouflage and distinctive red beret with pride swelling in my chest for the connection he and I share.

Finally, after many hours spent walking the fence around the site, I headed back to my hotel room with a heavy heart. A couple of blocks away I encountered a white-haired, obviously Irish Captain of the FDNY, resplendent in his immaculate dress blues. I approached him and said, "Captain I wish I had something profound to say to you, but all I can think to say is thanks. Somehow that just doesn't seem like enough." With a light in his eyes that I could not have managed on a good day, he took my extended hand, embraced me and said, "Your presence and thanks are all any of us have ever wanted. Thank you, sir, for having served." Even now, recounting the exchange, I am choked up with emotion. I am never prepared for the resolve New York's Bravest exhibit. I am never prepared for the strength the now single mothers show. I am never prepared for the emotion I, and those like me, experience when in the presence of such strong souls. It pains me to be there and witness the grief of those who have suffered personally, and profoundly. It cheers me to know though, that men and women, Americans all, such as this exist, and come next year on 9/11, and the year after, and the year after that, there is no place I would rather be than in the company of heroes both alive and lost. For me, come 9/11, there is no place I can be but in New York.

For me, it is not so much about the nineteen Islamists terrorists who caused the death and destruction, but rather about the memory of those we lost. I will never forget them. In my wallet I carry a piece of paper with the name Dennis Mulligan written on it. He was a firefighter with Ladder 2 who rushed into the burning towers because he had been trained to save lives. When everyone else was running away he, and the brave men of his ilk, ignored the orders to retreat because they knew scared people, unprepared for disaster, needed help. I never met Firefighter Mulligan. I do not know where he was when the towers collapsed. I do not know his family, nor who he was with when he died. I do not need to. I saw his spirit in the aging veterans, the young paratrooper, the old man wearing the God Bless America t-shirt, and a woman wearing a dark business suit who leaned against the fence, quietly, throughout the recitation of names. Firefighter Dennis Mulligan embodied all that is good about us that day, and, though I cannot pick his face from the sea of those we lost, I will never go a day without thinking of him. Fare well brother. You, and those with you, will never be forgotten. http://nyc.gov/html/fdny/html/memorial/wtc/mulligan_dennis_ff_lad002.shtml

What Would the Duke Do?

2006-09-01T09:31:00.000-04:00

Death of a President is a movie scheduled to debut on September 10, 2006 at the Toronto Film festival. It depicts, in documentary style, the assassination of President George W. Bush, and the ramifications for the United States afterwards. Calls to ban the movie have rung out pillar to post before the movie has even been seen. Apparently, President Bush's face is digitally imposed on an actor in such a way as to be nearly seamless. This has, understandably, caused outrage in certain corners, and, more disturbingly, glee in others. I will not go see the movie, but not for the reasons you might think. I also do not want the movie banned, though I consider its subject matter more than reprehensible given the times in which we live. In my view no movie should ever depict a sitting president in any light which detracts from the office, and that includes former President Clinton being characterized poorly in Primary Colors.

Okay, by now my right wing credentials are probably being called into question. The times in which we live require blind adherence to the party flag, or else you risk excommunication. We are told by the powers that be that we must suit up in our respective jerseys and take one for the team. Well, I have never been much for blind allegiance, and this case is no exception. I put this movie in the same category as the proposed flag burning amendment. I was against the amendment. I did not soldier on as an infantryman to have outrageous speech limited. Quite the opposite. I carried a rucksack and rifle to defend the right of Americans to say anything which does not cause actual harm to others. After all, it is outrageous speech which needs protecting, not it's more civilized cousin.

That said, though I respect the right, as Senator John Kerry put it, for "Americans to act like idiots," I do not condone burning the flag for which so many good men have died. I am uncertain exactly how I would respond were I to witness some moron burning the flag on an American street. You can be assured that I would behave badly, uncivilized even. I think there is a better than average chance that I would behave violently. I like to think that I am an evolved human being, a bit older and wiser than the young man who carried the weapon in defense of the country. When it comes down to it though, I am still the kid who joined the Army (that's right the evil republicans did not draft me). I am still the kid that believes in truth, justice and the American way; even if I have always thought of Superman as too much the Boy Scout. I am still the same kid who believed that there are right things and wrong things, and not that much grey. John Wayne and Lou Gehrig are still heroes of mine; as is Flannery Lewis. None of them would have burned a flag, nor brooked the nonsense of witnessing one burned.

All of which leads me back to D.O.A.P. I am not against edgy, artsy movies. I enjoy them to the point where most people I know make fun of me for it. In fact, I went to see Brokeback Mountain, then reviewed it on this blog. I am against D.O.A.P. for the same reason I would not like to witness a flag burning; I am uncertain how I would react. But wait, you say. It is nothing more than a movie. What can a movie do to you? Well, I am certain that in movie houses in some of the bluer regions of the country the scene of the assassination will be met with hoots, hollers and probably applause. That is not only repugnant to me. It truly hurts my heart. It is simply more than I can bear. You can rest assured that I would, more likely than not, resort to violence. I would revert to that hot-headed, Irish kid, from one of the rougher neighborhoods of New Orleans, who only sees through the prism of the black and white world of Sunday afternoon John Wayne movies.

So, with a heavy heart I will not join the chorus calling for an outright ban of what I consider a despicable act of film-making, but I will hope that this will rally us all, left and right, to recognize that no matter what else we are, we are all Americans. Our cause is just. Our cause is good. It is who we are, as a people, and I hope that somehow this helps to bring us together. It is time for us to tell the world that Americans are independent minded. Our political differences are our business. This is a family affair and everyone else should mind their own business as we get on doing that which needs to be done to safeguard our rights. That means, as an aging infantryman, I will ask everyone to please stop the bickering. Put aside your petty differences and come together in the face of a fight for survival. Don't burn a flag. Don't go see this movie, and, oh yeah, cross the street to thank that soldier, marine, sailor or airman for his, or her service. It will only take you a minute and they will carry it with them all day.

The Good News on 9/11

2006-08-15T14:42:00.000-04:00

World Trade Center is a very good movie well worth the price of admission. I had read all the pundits and critics words concerning the movie before I paid for my ticket. I thought I was prepared. I was wrong. The first view of lower Manhattan before the planes hit the towers punched me in the gut. I rode along with the Port Authority cops as they struggled to wrap their brains around the events of the day. I remembered, through them, how I felt that sunny, Tuesday morning five years ago. I was captivated by the acting, but what really stood out was the direction, and the sets. Oliver Stone made me feel that day all over again, and the sets seemed as real as if I were walking around the WTC campus. In fact, the only thing with which I took any umbrage was a scene where a Wisconsin cop is feeding workers inside "the pit." As he hands an EMT a knockwurst he says, "These bastards." That's it. No mention of who the bastards were.

I was not expecting the ever conspiracy minded Stone to take the Islamists to task for their actions, but one line in a more than two hour movie does not seem too much to ask. By the time the supposed conversation took place we knew who the bastards were, and one can only presume that a member of law enforcement standing in the smoking pit would have been a little more....colorful, shall we say with his ire. Other than that gripe though, I must say Stone stayed mostly away from politics; preferring instead to paint his picture through the eyes of both the survivors and their families. It was if we were all waiting for the rescuers with them.

Multiple times I caught myself breathing heavily to stave off tears. I ached for the officers buried beneath 3 stories of rubble, and held my breath when the men tasked with digging them out wormed their way beneath the unstable mountain of twisted steel and concrete. My heart hurt for the wife of one officer who, while awaiting word of her husband's fate, smells the sheets on which they slept. As the two officers struggled to stay awake amidst their broken bones, internal injuries and constricted lungs, that accompany being buried beneath tons of debris, I consciously urged them to hold on just a little longer.

This is no United 93. In that movie I found fuel for anger, and tears for courage. In this one I found.........something else. I found reason to believe, once again, that at base the United States, whatever our disagreements, is a family. A family that squabbles amongst itself, but one that pulls together when the chips are down. A family that reminds those who would intrude on our internal strife that this is a "family affair." I remembered the pain of that sunny Tuesday in September, but I also remembered strangers hugging each other on street corners. I remembered how we came together, black and white, Republican and Democrat, and stood a little taller. I remember the resolve of all of us to avenge the ones we lost that day. I remembered the seemingly endless walls of flyers advertising for missing loved ones, and I remembered Rangers jumping into Afghanistan with those same flyers affixed to their rucksacks. I do not know where all that togetherness went. Maybe it was simply too much to sustain, but I miss it. In many ways, for good or ill, it was us against the world that day, and in many ways it still is. So, go see World Trade Center and when it is done maybe we can all find our way home again.

Who Killed the Children of Qana?

2006-08-01T12:10:00.000-04:00

Sunday an Israeli airstrike killed 56 people in the southern Lebanese town of Qana. I, like everyone else, was saddened to see image after image of children being carried lifeless and broken from the rubble. As the father of a precocious, 22 month old, high-energy daughter I was troubled more than most. I could not help but feel pangs in my heart for these dead children's parents. That's where my sympathetic relationship for the Lebanese civilians ends. That may seem a harsh statement, but the truth of the matter is that when women and children die in Lebanon, the Israeli's grieve. When Jewish women and children are slaughtered though, these self same Lebanese dance in the streets. Remember the videotapes of the Lebanese celebrating 9/11? Former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Mier said, "I can, perhaps, forgive them for killing our children, but I can never forgive them for making us kill their children." That, is the true focus of Sunday's airstrike. Hezbollah killed those women and children as surely as if they had lined them up against a wall and shot them; Israeli air power was only the method they chose.

We have all seen the photos and film of the dead in Qana. What has been less prolific is the footage recently released by the Israeli military. It shows the building subsequently struck by the Israelis being used as a firing platform for a Hezbollah rocket launcher. When the two images are shown together an analogy put forth by Harvard Law professor, Alan Dershowitz, seems particularly apropos. Professor Dershowitz likens the terrorists of Hezbollah to an armed bank robber who takes a teller hostage in an attempt to make his getaway from the scene of the crime. "If the bank robber fires indiscriminately at officers outside the bank and his hostage is then killed in the crossfire we still see it as a tragic event, but we recognize that the robber is to blame." That is a decidedly apt analogy for what Hezbollah has been doing in southern Lebanon.

For all too long Hezbollah has been shielding its murderous rampages behind women and children. The United Nations recently castigated Hezbollah for the practice and the BBC has reported it, but yet, the Israel-bashing continues. Hand wringers the world over weep and beat their chests at the inappropriate response of Israel. Never mind that Israel could lay waste to the entire country without risking a single soldier's life, but has chosen instead to expose their soldiers to risk so as to limit civilian loss of life. Nations align against Israel and yet another cease fire commences. Israeli military forces retreat, and Hezbollah, now unencumbered, refits, rearms and rests in preparation for their next unprovoked attack on Israeli civilians. In the meantime, Islamists the world over bleat and cheer another defeat of the west. Somewhere, Osama bin Laden is applauding Hezbollah for making martyrs of their children, and praising their scrupulous attention to the Islamist "culture of death."

Israel, to her credit, has refused to knuckle under to international pressure. They recognize that as long as any of their citizens remain captive to a terrorist group, they all remain captive. Remember this latest Israeli act of aggression began after Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers, and then a third. Hezbollah has refused to return them even in the face of mounting military might. Those 56 women and children would be alive if not for Hezbollah's actions. We should always seek to remember that. Hezbollah knows something that the rest of the world has seemingly forgotten. No war has ever been settled conclusively until one side or the other has had their means, and will, to fight eliminated.

The Israelis, if they truly want safety and peace, must destroy Hezbollah. That means that not only will terrorists die, but Hezbollah will see to it that women and children die. You might want to consider why no men, of any age, were killed in the Qana strikes. Hezbollah understands that pictures of dead women and children incite their followers to further mayhem. Hezbollah knows too, that the world press will help their cause, at least as much as Iran and Syria. Finally, Hezbollah also knows that Israel can only be stopped by world opinion. Negotiating with such monsters is absurd; regardless that they hold seats in the Lebanese parliament. Israel must continue to press the military advantage. The terrorist organization that is Hezbollah must be decimated; its criminals killed and weapons destroyed. The Islamists respect nothing else.

Many will read this and gnash their teeth. "Why can't we just give peace a chance?" they will cry. To them I say, "Not only have we given peace a chance, they do not want it." Lebanon is the most visible front in the war against militant Islam. Israel will be rebuked, criticized and upbraided no matter what they do, so they may as well finish the job. My only regret is that we have not been able to provide more support for their actions. Israel is used to this though. "Never again" is their motto, and for good cause. We may have forgotten that a third of all the Jews on the planet were murdered by Hitler, but they have not. They may be forced by world condemnation to reign in their operations before all the Hezbollah fighters have been exterminated, but they will never completely give up the fight against those who would destroy them. I, remembering that, will stand by them, and can only hope you will too.

A Battle for Sand and Rocks

2006-07-23T19:59:00.000-04:00

The deaths of civilians is "collateral damage and a necessity of war." That sentence will, no doubt, raise the hackles on some of the more peaceful among you. Some are certain, given the recent events in Lebanon, that the statement must be a precursor to a defense of Israel's actions regarding Hezbollah. Well, you would only be half right. The quote comes from the website of one Mohammed al-Massari, a Saudi who established the Committee for Defense of Legitimate Rights in London. On the website he justified the assassination of President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair. He also called for attacks on coalition forces and "apostate" Muslims who helped them in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is these "civilians," amongst others, that he considers collateral damage and a necessity of war. Al-Massari has claimed that the CDLR is the "ideological voice" of Al-Qaeda. It is then, that statement which leads me back to my defense of Israel's recent actions, and the extraordinary restraint the Israeli Defence Forces have shown.

Over the course of the last 10 years Israel has bargained land for peace in good conscience. Under President Clinton's administration Yassar Arafat was the most common guest in the White House. Several Israeli Prime Ministers negotiated ever broadening truces, which culminated in the dismantling of West Bank settlements by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Sharon, himself a veteran and architect of multiple campaigns against united Arab armies intent on wiping Israel from the map, oversaw these operations, apparently believing the time had come for peace between the nation of Israel and its Arab neighbors. Unfortunately, Hezbollah, Hamas and their nation-state sponsors, Iran and Syria, saw this as an opportunity to once and for all remove Israel from existence. Suicide bombings proliferated in Israeli cities, rockets, provided by Iran, rained down on Israeli cities and, as the Jewish death toll mounted, the terrorist organizations rearmed themselves for the coming struggle. For at least the last eight years Hezbollah, which translates as the Party of God, has been refitted with modern armament through Iranian and Syrian complicity.

It is then that Israel showed its remarkable restraint. They, like most of us, want to see the good in people. The dismantling of the West Bank settlements was a divisive issue in Israel. It pitted friends and neighbors against each other, but finally the divisiveness had somewhat ameliorated. At that point Hezbollah, a terrorist organization in root and deed, made itself known. Members of Hezbollah kidnapped two IDF soldiers and demanded that Israel release scores of political prisoners or the soldiers would be summarily executed. Hezbollah referenced Al-Qaeda actions in Iraq, and elsewhere, as to what would befall the soldiers were their demands not met. Israel then, having no other option in my opinion, began to rain the proverbial fire and brimstone down upon suspected Hezbollah strongholds. At the time of this writing airstrikes have continued unabated for twelve days. IDF armor and infantry have massed on Lebanon's border with intentions of taking the fight to those entrenched elements of Hezbollah who have so desperately sought this confrontation. Israel has demanded that the two soldiers, plus another recently kidnapped, be returned, or Hezbollah will face the consequences.

As a former infantryman I was reminded of a speech given by my First Sergeant. In it he affirmed that although he could not promise we would all come back from any deployment alive, we would all come home. For those who have never served this most seem somehow.....less than comforting, but to a soldier, an infantryman who recognizes death may visit him, this is great comfort indeed. It is, in fact, the highest comfort we can expect. We will sacrifice any number of ourselves so that our fallen brethren can return home with us, even if that means they come home in a flag-draped casket. Israel, as a nation, is exercising that discipline. They have promised to never desert their citizens, soldier or otherwise, no matter the cost. In this response, Lebanese civilians have, undoubtedly, been killed. None were targeted, and most were being used as shields of one sort or another by men such as Al-Massari. Even the venerated BBC has recently reported that "it is becoming increasingly difficult to separate Hezbollah from legitimate civilians." The Lebanese people have suffered from Israeli airstrikes, which have rendered their power stations and airports unusable. Meanwhile, Syria and Iran, who could stop the bloodshed with one message to Hezbollah, have beat their chests and demanded that the suffering of the poor Lebanese cease immediately. All the while, Israeli soldiers remain in terrorist captivity. One wonders if they are being afforded the much publicized abuse detainees at Guantanamo receive. I somehow doubt that the Islamists are allowing them to pray unmolested, eat kosher food, or observe the Jewish Sabbath.

As an American of Irish descent many would say I have no dog in this fight. I beg to differ. I see this as just more of the same in the unraveling of the Islamist desire to world domination. They will not stop until sharia law rules in every country in which Muslims live. Not all Muslims support this obviously, but all too many do. It is these Muslims, and their logistical supporters, that must be brought to justice, and I do not mean the sympathetic justice of The Hague. No, they must be brought to the only form of justice they understand: they must be ruthlessly hunted down and exterminated. Only then, can the supposedly moderate Muslims, who we have all heard so much about, be free to raise their children in safety and peace. The only countries in the Middle East where Muslims can freely vote and exercise democracy are Iraq, Afghanistan and, yes, Israel. It is time for all the Muslims who truly want peace to stand up and cast off the bonds of Hezbollah, Hamas, al-Qaeda, Iran and Syria. It is time for them to extend a hand to the democracies of the West, and that means Israel too. I am currently wearing a "Blue String" around my wrist. I received it from a website called www.iloveisrael.org. It symbolizes my support for Israel, now and forever. When these strings, thin and somewhat tenuous, begin to appear on Lebanese civilians arms I will consider their plight differently. Otherwise, I can only consider them complicit, in the same way the citizens of Tokyo were complicit when we firebombed the city during World War II. The moderate Muslims have done nothing to stop western civilian deaths at the hands of these monsters masquerading as both an army and a political party. Until they do I will support Israel and can only hope that you will too.

Reaching Across the Aisle

2006-06-29T09:24:00.000-04:00

I am a proud veteran of the US Army's 7th Infantry Division, Light, a Ronald Reagan Republican, and a card-carrying member of the vast, right-wing conspiracy. There are shades of grey in my political opinions, but for the most part I stand the line with the Republican Party. That's why it comes as no small surprise to me that I am so enamored with my current girlfriend. She's a liberal democrat, with a cat named Mao, who thinks that my right wing, meat eating, military t-shirt wearing, SUV driving lifestyle is anathema to all that is good and pure in the world. In fact, she is in direct opposition to 90% of that which I hold dear. Believe me when I say that Matlin and Carville have nothing on us, and yet, something about us works surprisingly well.

In the current political climate it is not unusual to have friends and family on separate sides of nearly every issue. Heated discussions erupt over dinner tables and through closed bathroom doors all across the country, probably more often than any of us like to think. Recently, my inamorata and I were strolling lazily down South Street in Philadelphia when a long-haired, DNC t-shirt and Birkenstock wearing, self professed Socialist approached us about donating to the Cause. Apparently, we republicans, who are responsible for all of the world's ills, need to be combated at the grass-roots level, and this "peaceful warrior" was part of the legion sallying forth to do so. I informed him that I was on the opposing team and stepped away, but the communist in my ladylove would not let her pass without at least some street-level commiseration. I watched, with no little amusement, as they decried the malfeasance of the evil republican machine. When she had sympathized enough with her kindred spirit, she grasped my hand in hers and we went upon our merry way.

We have had two more than irate arguments, each of which resulted in one of us refusing to speak to the other. One concerned immigration, and one the veracity of the reasons for going to war in Iraq. I would love to be able to tell you that we found a middle ground, or listened with an open mind to each other's position, but in these cases we did not do much more than fume at each other. In that, we seem to be a nearly perfect microcosm for the country as a whole. There is some overlap of political consideration. After all, 90% of politics is local, but on a wide variety of issues we will seemingly never agree. In my mind this makes her naive to the notion that there are carnivores loose in the world who would do us harm. To her, I am simply a lost, misguided soul.

In the end, for us, it all comes down to good, old-fashioned boy/girl stuff. I love her gentle touch and she swoons at my kiss. She champions me and I hold doors for her. She laughs at my jokes and I listen to her when she speaks, even if it is the bottom of the ninth with two out. She recently received a new credit card and, when they did not have available the emblem for the college where she teaches (yes she is part of academia in addition to everything else), she chose instead the symbol for my first love: the New York Yankees. Lest you think she has somehow come back from the dark side due to me, you should know she has, of late, decided to cheer for France in the World Cup. She even attempted to trick me into drinking Evian last night. In fact, she recently developed the tactic of using t-shirts of mine she finds offensive as sleep wear, assuming that this will cut down on my ability to sport them. I guess she does not realize that seeing her in an "I Love Halliburton" t-shirt, whatever the reason, cheers me to no end.

Life is a strange and wondrous thing. It is fraught with strife and turmoil, beauty and love. It alternately angers and exhilarates me. I am amused and aghast, seemingly every day. Why then should my closest relationship be any different? Seen in the context of life as a whole, shouldn't we all be "sleeping with the opposition", as it were? Isn't close proximity to those who disagree with us the only way to affect change? If we are going to solve any of the problems currently bedeviling the country, do we not have to start with discussions on a personal level? All liberals are socialists, and all socialists are communists, but since my vegetarian (of course) sweetheart was persuaded to eat a BLT (on white bread, no less) for dinner the other night, can a boycott of the hippie bastion of Whole Foods be far behind? So, the end result of dating the other side is bringing them over to the tent where, hopefully, they will stay for barbecue, and who knows, maybe even cast, under protest no doubt, a vote for McCain in '08.

Death of A Salesman

2006-06-13T10:17:00.000-04:00

The death merchant, known as the Prince to Osama bin Laden, is dead. His safe house destroyed by two 500lb bombs, the leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq lived for 52 minutes before expiring. The man who believed it acceptable to cut off the heads of those he deemed apostates suffered nowhere near enough to atone for the acts of terror he both committed and inspired. Die he did though, and the world is better off for it. Alone in my living room at 4:00am last Thursday morning, I cheered the news that Musab Abu al-Zarqawi had been killed by US forces. I cheered not only because one of the most vile, murderous, loathsome, evil creatures ever spawned had received his just due, but because his death is sure to have lasting effects, out of context with the death of one man, on the global war on terror.

Much has been made recently of the notion that his particular cell of Al-Qaeda was small, and barely more than a regional player. Pundits from far and wide have weighed in to pontificate on how this will have little to no impact on the war in Iraq, much less the global War on Terror. What is neglected in that opinion is the charismatic, iron-fisted nature of Zarqawi. He ran Al-Qaeda in Iraq with a no nonsense attitude that brooked no dissent. His goal of repelling the infidels from the Middle East was to be accomplished three ways: first, he was an instigator of a rabid, radical Islam that demanded the faithful attack the US and its allies at all points of the globe; second, he trained terrorists in Iraq, (some 300 according to Jordanian security forces), who were then sent back to their home countries to await the time when fomenting terror could exact the most casualties; and third, to attack US forces himself whenever and wherever he could.

His handiwork has been seen in Jordan and in Chechnya. Western intelligence forces confirm that dozens of young, militant Muslim men have been intercepted on their way to fight in Iraq, or stopped while planning to do so. His death, if nothing else, momentarily arrests that flow. His successor, allegedly named yesterday, does not yet hold the charismatic sway among the radicals that Zarqawi did. In the internecine fighting that is sure to develop, considering the vacuum he left behind, his force will be broken into factions and weakened through death, attrition and neglect. When these new factions rise up to make names for themselves they will be forced to crawl out from the cracks that currently shelter them, and it is then that US military force can make its mark. More will be killed, and the remnants will be that less able to wage war.

It is not simply that he led what has been termed a splinter group of Al-Qaeda. Zarqawi was poised to challenge bin Laden directly for, if not operational control, then spiritual control of the worldwide network that is Al-Qaeda. Bin Laden does not specifically order many attacks, but he inspires a great number; one need only look to the recently uncovered plot in Canada to see aspects of both men. To the young would be jihadists Zarqawi, not bin Laden, exemplified the current fighting spirit. Bin Laden, while still revered as a sheik, is seen more as the elder statesman, with Zarqawi as the Islamic warrior on the frontlines. His death, then, leaves the movement without a warrior prince in the mold of Darius. Someone that could physically take the throne from the heretics and infidels is suddenly absent, and no talk of virgins and martyrdom can replace that.

Surely, Zarqawi's death is not the end of anything. In fact, it is sure to spawn a spate of violence that will spike in the coming weeks. What his death changes though, is the dynamic of the conflict. By pushing the advantage, US and Iraqi military forces have a narrow window in which to turn the tide against the less experienced members of not only Al-Qaeda in Iraq, but the network as a whole. It is time to begin the fight we should have started years ago, namely one of no quarter asked, none given. Special Operations forces have started that directive pointedly. Some three dozen raids on suspected terrorist hideouts have been carried out since Zarqawi was killed. It is time to send the message that the sleeping giant is awake. Putting Zarqawi's head on a pike alongside the road to Baghdad may be too much to ask of the Iraqi and coalition forces, but, to take a page from Gen. Black Jack Pershing, we could send a more poignant message. We should, quite publicly, butcher a hog and wrap Zarqawi's remains in its skin, before unceremoniously dumping his body in an unmarked grave. We should then announce that this is the fate that awaits any radical Muslim who attacks us, or our allies. This would directly address terrorists all over the world. You can still play the game, if you wish, but no virgins nor martyrdom await you. You will be revealed to this world, and the afterlife at once, as what you have always been: an unclean, low-rent thug who has done nothing but pervert a religion for your own ends. Only then will we stem the tide of terror and allow freedom loving people everywhere the right to pursue happiness. Only then can we, and those like us, truly be free.

Lead the Way

2006-06-06T10:06:00.000-04:00

Rudyard Kipling famously described what was once the job of a journalist in his poem The Elephant's Child. It reads, in part

I keep six honest serving men
(They taught me all I knew);
Their names are What and Why and When
And How and Where and Who.

That stanza encapsulates the supposed ends of a hard news story. Apparently though, the major American newspapers have come to redefine who. The New York Times and The Washington Post have done stories in the past few days detailing a plot uncovered by Canadian police this weekend. In the event you were busy watching American Idol reruns On-Demand, 17 Muslim men were caught red-handed in the act of attempting to secure three tons of ammonium nitrate, or three times as much as Timothy McVeigh used in Oklahoma City. They ranged in age from their late teens to one in his early forties. They were all Canadian citizens, who had been nurtured by the state, all men and all, as described by both the Post and Times, of Southeast Asian descent. Not until the second page of the story, in either paper, did we learn that they all belonged to the same mosque.

Today being the 62nd anniversary of D-Day I could only wonder what the boys of Pointe du Hoc would think of that. On that day 225 US Army Rangers jumped off British landing craft and, braving hails of machine gun fire, ran to the bottom of a nearly sheer, ten story cliff, atop which supposedly sat a battery of naval guns capable of wiping the attackers from both the beaches and the seas. These guns were defended by battle hardened German soldiers intent on kicking the landing force back into the sea. As the German soldiers rained grenade and automatic rifle fire down upon them the Rangers began to climb. When one Ranger fell another would take his place. They climbed, returned fire and, eventually, captured the land at the top of the cliff. Of the 225 Rangers that started the ascent, 90 remained able to fight on in the battle to recapture Europe.

What does one cowardly act nipped in its nascent stages have to do with one of the most heroic missions ever undertaken by soldiers you ask? The answer is simple: the 2nd Ranger Battalion's men climbed because they recognized that there was no choice. They were not ambivalent about the idea that they were fighting consummate evil. It was do or die, and they did both. Sadly, neither writer of this week's Post and Times stories shares that emotion. Both journalists have forgotten, or choose to ignore, that who someone is carries weight. It is the basis of all police work, and once was the basis of journalism too.

The Toronto Star got it right though, in today's edition. In a city that was arguably a target for terror, the major daily newspaper called this what it is: terrorism perpetrated by Islamic fundamentalists. The editorial stated, "Clearly, there are simple truths arising from the weekend events, most notably that all 17 of the people arrested are Muslims. Our important efforts at cultural understanding cannot disguise that fact." In a country awash in political correctness our neighbors in The Great White North, at least on the Star's editorial staff, recognize that the only way to defeat evil is to target it. All 17 of those arrested were Muslim, just as all 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Muslim. We can disagree as to whether they were acting in direct contravention of the Qur'an's teaching, or not, but we cannot disagree that they were all Muslim.

Why then did two of the United State's most prestigious newspapers choose to bury this fact? Sadly, it appears they wish to cloak these acts in some sort of aberrant cape. It is here that we are constantly reminded that not all Muslims are bad people. In fact, most are hard working, honest, decent people who just want to raise their kids. I cannot disagree that most Muslims are such, but I can disagree with the notion that these terror attacks are an aberration. They are premeditated, fundamentalist visions for an all Islamic world. Up until I see massive street protests, like the one excoriating newspapers for printing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad with a bomb in his turban, from these supposed moderate Muslims, I can only presume that the rank and file Muslim, both here and abroad, believes these acts to be, if not tacitly okay, than at least understandable; something we, and Britain, Spain and Canada, brought on ourselves through our failure to heed the Prophet's words.

The Rangers at Pointe du Hoc were not the only Rangers who acted heroically on the beaches of Normandy. The 5th Ranger Battalion gave the regiment it's motto. While literally thousands of men were pinned down on the beaches of Normandy 62 years ago, General Norman Cota spotted a group of men armed with equipment for blowing holes in the maze of obstacles arranged on the beach. "What unit is this?" he shouted. "5th Rangers, sir!" came the reply. "Well, god-damnit then Rangers, Lead the Way!" Without hesitation these Rangers, like their brothers on the cliffs, jumped up and, under murderous heavy weapons fire began inching up the beach. One wonders what these men would think of the notion that we might hurt some unoffending Muslims feelings if we identified terrorists by their religious affiliation. I can only presume that the sheer lunacy of it would be unfathomable to a group of young men, many unable even to shave, who behaved so majestically under the toughest of conditions. As then, we are at war with an enemy bent on world domination. Unlike then though, our enemy does not wear a uniform to readily identify himself. They hide in crowds of civilians and cowardly attack those least able to defend themselves, while cloaking themselves in the garb of god.

There are no fortifications for brave men to storm, or cliffs for them to climb in the war in which we are currently engaged. We are at war with an enemy who seeks to conceal himself until he strikes, not at soldiers, but at civilians. We will never defeat this evil among us until we learn to accept, and acknowledge, our enemies commonalities, of which the most prominent feature is a shared belief in radical Islamic domination, by any means. If we are going to defeat this enemy, freedom loving people, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, here and in Britain and in Canada and, yes, in Iraq and Iran must realize that we are, like those Rangers on the beaches of Normandy so long ago, in this together. Otherwise we are simply sacrificial lambs waiting for the slaughter, and unworthy of the history of those Rangers, and men and women throughout our past, who have spilled their blood so that we could be free.

A Suitable Memorial Day

2006-05-30T07:16:00.000-04:00

Nearly twenty years ago, the kindest, most caring, compassionate soul it has ever been my pleasure to know, was killed by a bullet to the throat. His life literally drained out of him. He was no victim of street crime. He was a soldier serving proudly in the uniform of the United States Army. At 18 he volunteered for the 7th Infantry Division (Light) and the Rapid Deployment Force. At 20 his life was snuffed out by an insurgency group that believed their god had called them to kill infidels. While many people I know were thinking of barbecues and beer, my Memorial Day was spent thinking about that young man as I made the rounds of the area War Memorials. During my weekend of reverence I was assaulted by numerous major media outlets, most prominently The New York Times, and their coverage of an atrocity allegedly committed by United States Marines in Iraq. On a day supposedly set aside for us to remember those who came home with a funeral escort, the major media decided that the story that should lead their coverage was best served by scenes of dead civilians.

For those who have been hiding under a rock, the allegation is that a number of Marines killed as many as two dozen, unarmed men, women and children in Haditha, Iraq last November. After the killings they then attempted to cover up their nefarious deeds by suggesting that the dead civilians were either harboring insurgents, or were insurgents themselves. I wasn't there, so I do not know what happened. The New York Times had no reporters there, nor did ABC, CBS, CNN or any of the other major outlets. Congressman John Murtha (D-PA) was not there either, but not being there has not stopped him, or the aforementioned news agencies from trumpeting the guilt of the Marines. The Marines have been convicted of murder in the press, before the report is even completed. Gleefully, newscasters trot out the abysmal events of My Lai, and Rep. Murtha goes on any news program that will have him and proclaims the Marines killed civilians "in cold blood."

Meanwhile, an alleged cop killer, Solomon Montgomery, recuperates in a Philadelphia hospital. He was shot by Philadelphia detectives as he allegedly reached for one of the two handguns he was carrying. The allegation is that he executed a Philadelphia police officer who responded to a bar where the suspect was supposedly carrying out an armed robbery. Officer Gary Skerski died from a shotgun blast alleged fired by Solomon Montgomery. The coverage, which was front page news until Montgomery was arrested, has slipped from the top spot. Philadelphia officials have been careful not to taint the ongoing investigation by carefully wording their responses to press questions. In fact, Montgomery was not even immediately charged with the homicide. A suspect with numerous, violent, felony arrests, and even an acquittal for another armed robbery, is being given the presumption of innocence, in direct accordance with the rule of law. Videotape of the holdup and numerous witnesses abound in Montgomery's case, and yet, the District Attorney's Office has not released an inflammatory statement remotely close to the one's leveled at US Marines serving under fire in a combat zone. Rep. Murtha has not seen fit to weigh in on the loss of life of a Philadelphia cop, and by all accounts a good guy, but convicts fellow Marines absent any evidence other then anecdotal responses from people who may, or may not, have an axe to grind.

Can events such as the one the Marines are alleged to have committed occur? Not only can they occur they have, ever since the first caveman clubbed an unarmed opponent's family to death with a sharp rock. That is not truly the question here; not yet. For the record, as an infantryman the activities ascribed to the Marines does not pass my smell test. Nuances only another infantryman would notice are visibly apparent. The timelines and actions simply do not fit with what I know to be the inner workings of small unit tactics. I personally believe that what is being reported as happening did not happen the way it is being portrayed. That said, if even one scintilla of the story being presented is accurate I want the offenders punished severely, but what I want more than anything is for these military volunteers to be afforded the same respect we give alleged cop-killers; I want them presumed innocent until the investigation is complete.

On Memorial Day I am somewhat subdued, as a rule. I along with literally millions of veterans and active duty personnel paused for a moment of silence at 3:00pm yesterday. I turned off all the noise makers in my house, came to attention and for a full minute saluted the flag which flutters from a neighbors wall. I felt the presence of men and women all over the world doing the same thing, and a tear trickled down my cheek as I thought of my friend Rob. The New York Times, as well as other broadcast outlets, profaned that moment. In their rush to judgment they painted all veteran's with a broad brush, because if one could do this, the supposition is that we all have. Why else did a national network broadcast a 30 year old piece on My Lai at 3:30am today, if not to remind us of the inhumanity of soldiers everywhere? The major media, at least in this case, has an axe to grind, and no compulsion at sacrificing what they see as the expendable among us.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Marine General Peter Pace, when questioned Sunday about the alleged incidents said, "it would be premature for me to judge" the outcome of a Pentagon investigation. I respect the General, and I respect the 99.9% of men and women of the armed forces who have performed their duties honorably, under great duress, with no fanfare for a job well done. It hurts my heart to think that any of my brothers-in-arms could do anything even approximating a war crime, as I am sure it does veteran's everywhere. What hurts more though, is that on a day set aside to remember the truly valiant among us, those who have given their lives to secure freedom, the nation's largest newspaper and several major broadcast networks decided that it was more important to use that freedom to cast, to this point unsubstantiated heinous aspersions, upon men serving in a combat zone. Why these media bastions thought this was the right thing to do is open to conjecture. What is not open to conjecture though is that the 25,000,000 veterans and active duty personnel, on this day above all others, deserved better.

Graduates Acting Badly

2006-05-23T07:43:00.000-04:00

In the past week Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and Senator John McCain were invited to be commencement speakers at prestigious universities. They were both treated badly by the assembled graduates. They were heckled and subjected to juvenile acts of vanity by the students who are widely praised as the best and brightest among us. As the press coverage roiled I was brought back to my own personal experiences at a graduation last week. Two-time Academy Award winner Jodie Foster gave the commencement speech for the 250th graduating class of the University of Pennsylvania. In her speech, which she read, she touched on the nature of academic elitism and rolled into the political part of her statements. On a blustery, rainy day at Franklin Field, I suffered through the party line of squandered world sympathy after 9/11, and the 20/20 vision of the mistakes made in Iraq. I considered it par for the course. I was moved to action though when she focused on the aftermath of Katrina. As she began a Kanye West-like version of events I rose from my seat and made my exit from Franklin Field. I hurled no epithets, or angry gestures at the dais. I simply excused myself to those seated near me and removed myself from the offending remarks.

Secretary of State Rice and Senator McCain were, no doubt, bothered by the actions to which they were subjected. I have been in the presence of both of them and have found them to be careful, considerate individuals. I am sure that they were both given pause by the ridiculous antics of those whom take themselves too seriously. I am certain, however, that neither lost any sleep over the unpleasant encounters. Secretary Rice grew up in a segregated South and was acquainted with the little girls incinerated in a Birmingham church bombing. That reprehensible act of racism formed and shaped her desire to achieve, and achieve she did. She is an accomplished pianist, a PhD holder and former Provost of Stanford, among other things. Her struggle to rise to her present position could not have been easy, and one can only imagine that the silly tactics she endured while speaking must have seemed trivial compared to a barefoot childhood spent in a pre-Civil Rights Alabama.

Senator McCain was subjected to imprisonment and torture in the vilest of places, the infamous Hanoi Hilton. Daily he, and his fellow POWs, withstood beatings and deprivations so callus and nefariously vulgar that most of us cannot even imagine the strength needed simply to draw breath. In a place of no honor, and less humanity, then Commander McCain exemplified both. When, after years of such treatment, he was offered a release by his captors due to his father's position he chose to allow another to leave in his place saying, "We go out in the order we came in." Who among us could summon the fortitude required to make such a decision?

I did not think of either of these people as I left Penn's graduation ceremony. I did think, however, of the friend I was there to support. A friend of whom I am immensely proud. I pictured her sitting in the rain in her cap and gown, dreaming of a bright future, aglow with pride for her none too easy accomplishments. I thought of Ms Foster's so glibly delivered remarks about a situation she only knows via a, no doubt very nice, television. I then allowed my anger to burn at the thought of my friends and family fleeing headlong from the wrath of a killer storm. I remembered how powerless I felt at not being able to contact any of them for days and, in several cases, weeks. I remembered a 30 hour drive to the disaster area in a truck laden with bottled water, my then 11 month old daughter belted in the back. I remembered the emotion I felt when I hugged my brother who then thought he had lost everything. I remembered the look in the eyes of strangers who hugged me with thanks for the trip, and the woman who collapsed tearfully into my arms in a rest area in Tennessee.

It takes no courage to heckle and taunt from the safety of a crowd, nor is it in anyway gritty or heroic to address such statements from the refuge of a dais. It is, in fact, quite the opposite. Courageous, heroic, stalwart and brave are words that are all too often these days bandied about by those who trumpet positions that make them popular in coffee houses and dorm rooms. These words are used to describe actors who hold forth on complex geopolitical issues, while surrounded by sycophants and the adoring masses. True courage comes from making calm, nuanced arguments and statements when those around you will try to forcefully yell you down. True heroism comes from registering to vote in a district scarred by sectarian violence. True stalwartness comes from walking a street in that same sectarian, scarred district as a scared soldier thousands of miles from home because the mission demands it. True bravery comes from knowing that the way to effect change is to be the best person you can be, always, regardless of what those about you say. So, as I stomped out of the ceremony last week I did not hurl curses or rain scorn upon Ms Foster. In fact, my only comment came when a security guard asked me where I was going. "Where are you from?" I asked. "West Philly," came the prideful reply, followed by a somewhat scornful "Where you from?" Standing up a little straighter I looked him in the eye and simply said, "New Orleans." Keeping me in his eyeline, he turned slightly to look at Ms Foster, looked back at me, nodded at Foster and said, "She don't know nothin'." And, Madam Secretary and Senator, neither did those who offered taunts. We can only hope that somehow that changes.

Hugs, Bugs and Tears

2006-05-10T10:32:00.000-04:00

Dozens of people, from a bartender that had to stand on a beer cooler, to a female cop in uniform to a 60 something year old man in a truly appalling Hawaiian shirt, hugged me this past weekend. It happened in airports and at a festival, in bars and, in the case of the officer, in a trailer, which temporarily houses the Deputy Chief of the New Orleans Police Department. I received the same level of affection from friends, family and strangers alike. The only commonality we shared was birthplace. We were all native New Orleanians. In every case it was soothing and in every case I got weepy eyed.

I spent six days spanning the end of last week, into the beginning of this week in New Orleans. I hadn't been home since a few days after the levee broke. This was the first time in too long that I walked the streets of my youth and danced in the sun at Jazz Fest. Much has changed. Fully one third of the geography of New Orleans resembles a George Romero movie. No lights, not traffic, street or home breaks up the eerie stillness of empty streets. Houses stand vacant, as often as not with doors hanging open, windows broken and roofs in various stages of disarray. Not even a feral cat breaks the still of the night. With no electricity to be had in the hardest hit areas, mom and pop establishments and corporate megaliths like HomeDepot and WalMart remain vacant. I had to traverse this wasteland twice daily, once in the daylight and once in the dark of night. I still don't know which view effected me most adversely.

The heart of the city was up and running, fully open for business. Although, every single restaurant, bar and retail outlet had help wanted signs posted. It was a grim reminder that life was happening in the normal New Orleans way, but that there are not enough people to staff it adequately. The French Quarter was it's usual gaudily lit and garishly decorated self. The immediate neighborhoods rollicked with the Jazz Fest crowds, though spray-painted x's and o's on buildings proliferated. Even the most boisterous crowds reverently passed these markers of less lucky fates; some even furtively caressing them in homage. I admit to doing so myself on a number of occasions. No one had to explain the significance of the various markings, and no one asked.

The Uptown neighborhoods, the Irish Channel and the Garden District seemed resigned to life going on, at all costs. Local watering holes had music and people spilling into the street. A palpable vibrancy echoed everywhere. Trees, shrubs and bushes blossomed and you would be forgiven for forgetting, if only for a moment, that the Storm had occurred. The only sign of things amiss here was an armed sheriff on duty in an all night Rite-Aid, and the absence of the constant clickety-clack and iron bell of the St Charles Avenue street car. I didn't venture all the way up the line to the Carrollton neighborhood, I just couldn't take seeing one of my favorite areas different than I remembered it. That notion nearly kept me from enjoying the best night of the trip. A bar/restaurant I worked in for years had changed names and design and designation so I had decided not to go in. Then the band started to play and I was sucked in. Before I knew it I was dancing and singing with people from New Orleans, nine states and three countries. The band kept it up until way into the hours when civilized folk are supposed to be in bed. I left there, in sunglasses, happy and cheered that, although the place had changed, the spirit had not.

A friend I brought along with me was introduced to the glories of a crawfish boil at my brother's house. My brother's roof had only been recently repaired; half blew away in the storm. Everyone of his friend's in attendance had some storm damage, from the brother-in-law who lost it all, to the coworker who lost two cars. None of that was discussed more than perfunctorily though. On this particular Sunday it was all about seafood and sun, laughter and lagniappe, music and moxie. Mounds of steaming, bright red bugs, mixed with corn, potatoes, sausage and mushrooms, graced a newspaper covered table, while fried catfish and grilled tuna competed nearby. No one left hungry or anything other than happy, and my friend became part of the extended tribe.

The high water mark, if you will excuse the metaphor, came while I was standing in the infield of the New Orleans FairGrounds with Little Feat playing behind me. Talking to a man from Vermont, by way of California, awash in a sea of people from all over the world, I had an epiphany. At that moment, and for every moment from then on, there was no place in the world I would have rather been, and no place else that will ever, truly be home.

Let's Roll

2006-05-02T12:01:00.000-04:00

With screams of Allah Akbar! echoing about the cockpit United Flight 93 rolled over and nosed into the ground outside Shanksville, PA. Thus ended the final phase of a reprehensible plan of terror executed by Islamic fundametalists on 9/11. The reason this plane crashed into an empty field, instead of reaching it's intended target, was that ordinary American men and women, warned of that day's earlier attacks, fought back, tooth and nail, against trained militants bent on exacting their god's vengeance. The passengers , male and female, black and white, gay and straight, young and old proved that the events of Valley Forge, the Alamo, Pointe du Hoc and, most recently, SFC Paul Smith's posthumous Medal of Honor actions outside a dusty village in Iraq, were not aberrations, but rather the indomitable spirit of the average American when he, or she, is confronted with extraordinary events. Knowing that their odds of surviving any counter-attack against armed, trained terrorists were less than slim, they still chose to fight back, rather than go like lambs to the slaughter. In sometimes gruesome, gut wrenching detail the latest movie to weigh in on the day's events, United93, depicts the actions of these ordinary heroes.

United Flight 93 departed the Newark International airport on September 11, 2001 bound for San Francisco. A 40 minute delay on the tarmac probably saved target number 4 from the fate of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The best evidence points to The Capitol as the intended target. The delay gave the passengers valuable time to make phone calls to numerous friends and family. Those calls alerted them to the fate that awaited them, and in a moment of pure understanding they bonded together and said, "not on my watch." It is also important to mention that Flight 93 was one terrorist short of the other planes because of the quick thinking of an INS agent named Jose Melendez-Perez. Jose turned back what the 9/11 Commission concluded was the twentieth hijacker one month prior to the attacks. Would the outcome have been the same had the terrorists had the extra muscle? We'll never know thanks to Jose's quick, street smart approach to law enforcement. What we do know of the the event's that transpired aboard United 93 has been gleaned from family members, airline employees and the cockpit voice recorder.

All that said, United93 is a work of fiction: one based stringently upon the known facts, but a movie nonetheless. The director does an admirable job of filling in the blanks without resorting to political rhetoric, in either direction. Those deserving blame get it, and the passengers are seen as a group, rather than a collection of individuals. No one passenger is singled out for special attention, and no marquee stars grace the screen. What we see are the known facts of the struggle, with the best guesses available to fill in the blanks. Family members will recognize their own, and we all will recognize some, but what truly stands out is the spirit of the passengers. I was glued to the screen for the entire two hours. I never once consulted the time, nor did I eat popcorn or drink soda. Nor should you. I did not learn anything new, and yet, I still inwardly cheered for these brave Americans. I went in knowing the outcome and came out a little taller. I entered anxious, and left saddened, enraged and proud.

The events portrayed in United93 did not just happen to the passengers and crew, they happened to all of us. I have seen the two earlier movies that depict the things that occurred on Flight 93. I have been to the makeshift memorial in Shanksville. I have read every credible source about that day, and still I left moved in a way I've never experienced before. I was so moved that, immediately after leaving the theater, I had a tattoo permanently inked into my bicep with Todd Beamer's last words imposed above the sentence: For the heroes of United Flight 93. No higher praise can I give. Whatever your political stripe, whatever you think about the events of that day, go see this movie, shed a few tears, utter a few curses, and, when you leave the theater, stand up a little taller. Do not ponder the issues that divide us these days, because on that plane, on that day, there were no republicans and no democrats. There were only Americans, and they have proven that the spirit that defines us as a people, still burns inside us all.

Parsing the War on Terror

2006-04-24T08:10:00.000-04:00

I have, of late, had a number of conversations with my left-leaning friends on the progress and nature of the War on Terror. First, let me say that errors, numerous ones in fact, have been made. Second, every Presidential administration since Jimmy Carter, has failed us in the battle for our very existence. Even one of my personal heroes, Ronald Reagan, bears fault in this regard. That all said, that we are at war is not in doubt, although Kool-Aid drinkers from both sides of the political spectrum differ as to what can now be done to combat Islamic fascism. The political right apparently believes that we can contain the spread of this abhorrent evil without protracted killing, and the political left seems to think that this is a job for law enforcement, which will dissipate if we just bring the troops home. The right is populated by people who are afraid to do the killing that needs to be done for fear of seeming to be unmitigated warmongers. Meanwhile, the left has what appears to be a majority of people who are very smart, well-meaning compassionate souls who are simply unaware that there are carnivores loose in the world who cannot be assuaged with niceties of any sort.

Many people, I am sure, will take umbrage at my statement that this war has been going on for at least 30 years. As a quick refresher let us remember that the Iranian hostage crisis was undertaken by radical mullahs. The Beirut bombings of embassies and, later, a USMC barracks were ordered by militant Islamists. Five years later an Islamic insurgency group occupied the Philippine island of Mindanao, and American forces from the Rapid Deployment Force fought protracted battles to unseat them. As the nineties dawned the World Trade Center was bombed, and as it ended US embassies in Africa were leveled. This was followed by the attack on the USS Cole and, finally, and most spectacularly, the events of 9/11. This is by no means a comprehensive list. It leaves out the various airline hijackings, and, in one case, an act of piracy, that made headlines, as well as the reprehensible actions at the Munich Olympics. I listed them as I did so as to highlight direct attacks on US interests and personnel.

The administrations of Carter, Reagan and the first George Bush seemed to think that the emerging threat was something that would prove to be bothersome, but that it could be contained. By the early nineties the official policy had become one of tracking, catching and prosecuting these miscreants as if they were bank robbers. That notion effected the Clinton administration response to the multiple terrorist attacks which occurred on his watch. He ordered cruise missile attacks on sites at times that would minimize casualties, but still send a message. Most notably, he specifically turned down two or three opportunities to capture or, I would argue more reasonably, kill Osama bin Laden. The official word was that before the '98 embassy bombings there was not sufficient evidence to convict him in a court of law. This attitude apparently reached its zenith when a secret data mining operation uncovered evidence of a cell operating inside the US before 9/11. Mohammad Atta, and several other 9/11 hijackers, were raised as persons of interest by the members of Operation Able Danger, but were allegedly told to forget that because no legal right existed to investigate them. No response, not even a perfunctory one, was made to counter the attack on the Cole.

George W. Bush took office after an election that divided the nation. Save your crayon letters about the vote count. The New York Times undertook an extensive, exhaustive investigation and determined Bush won Florida by about 1,000 votes. That did not make multiple front pages, or any at all in fact, because it wouldn't sell papers. So, anyway, the Bush administration took office and proceeded to do absolutely nothing about the Cole. Word is that any response would only be seen as wagging the dog. The two sides can not seem to agree if material gathered in FBI investigations, that uncovered suspicious instances of Middle Easterners taking flying courses, was passed along to the incoming administration. The FBI dropped the ball in some form, whatever the outcome, because people wanting to learn to fly, but not land, airliners should have sounded every alarm bell we have. The most prolific, if albeit asinine statement I have heard, is that 9/11 happened when Bush was president, so it's all his fault. That's akin to saying multiple people stepped over a crime victim lying in the street, but the doctor who saw him in the ER hours later is solely responsible for his death from blood loss. I am not arguing that focus was lost by the Bush administration, it was, but they do not bear all, or even most of the responsibility for the mess we are in. They oversaw the tragic events of 9/11, botched an opportunity to deliver a knock-out blow in Afghanistan and then compounded that mistake by refusing to fight the war we are in, the way it must be fought, in Iraq.

I do not pretend to have all the answers, nor, even, a plurality of the questions. What I do know is that the finger pointing, for political advantage, must stop if we are to survive as a nation and a people. If those who vociferously avow hatred for President Bush would focus that animus at our common enemy, in more than just a yellow ribbon kind of way, we could defeat this all encompassing threat. And if those who religiously parrot the republican party line would begin holding all our elected officials responsible, not just the ones across the doctrinal aisle, we could unite. Sadly, the amount of killing which must be done is unpalatable to those in power, on either side, and the liberal apologists somehow have failed to learn history's lessons regarding appeasement. Winston Churchill famously said, "Appeasement is feeding the crocodile in the hopes that he eats you last." I can only hope that it is not too late for the loyal opposition to learn that lesson, and that the party in power accepts the heavy-lifting, much as Harry Truman did, and does what must be done.

Generals Gathered in Their Messes

2006-04-17T14:02:00.000-04:00

In the past week, six flag officers have come forth to express the desire that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld be fired, or, failing that, forced to resign. These generals come from the Army and Marines. All served honorably, several with distinction. Between them they served for a total of more than 200 years. They number among their ranks the former commander of US Central Command, Marine General Anthony Zinni, Lt General Greg Newbold USMC, the former Director of Operations for the Joint Chiefs, Army Maj General John Riggs, formerly the Pentagon's Objective Task Force director, Army Maj General Paul Eaton 2003-2004 commander of Iraqi troop training, Maj General Charles Swannack Jr, former commander in Iraq of the storied 82nd Airborne Division and finally, Maj General John Batiste, former commander of The Big Red One in Iraq. They are all patriots, and they are all wrong.

The liberal legislators, and their attendant members of the press, touting these former servicemen have forgotten two things: first, being a general does not make you a gentleman anymore than being elected to congress makes you honorable, and second, prior service, even above average service, does not make you infallible. Of the six only Maj General Batiste has any true credibility. It has been widely reported that he turned down a third star to protest the Secretary of Defense's strategy, or lack thereof to be more precise. He told USAToday that Rumsfeld should step down because, "he ignored sound military advice about how to secure Iraq after Baghdad fell." If his words had come as he retired, and suggestive of conscience, they would have carried possibly significant worth. Coming after the words of longtime critics, his animus comes off as merely expediency towards some as yet unnamed goal.

Longtime critic General Anthony Zinni's goal is anything other than unnamed. He has been a vocal opponent of the streamlined military Secretary Rumsfeld has long proposed, and now has a book to hawk. Maj General Swannack has suggested the Secretary should resign because "Rumsfeld had micromanaged the war." Maj General Paul Eaton, echoing general Batiste, wrote in The New York Times last month that Rumsfeld was, "incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically." Lt. General Newbold voiced disdain for the Secretary of Defense because he considered Iraq an "unnecessary war." Maj General Riggs only suggested that "Rumsfeld and his close aides should be cleared out." Seemingly tough words from truly tough guys when first they are heard, but empty rhetoric when inspected closely. That's because these men do not exist in a vacuum, contrary to CBS News, and their ilk. Over 4,ooo other flag officers, including Colin Powell, have offered no comment, and those best able to judge, Generals Tommy Franks and Richard Meyers and Lt General Michael DeLong, have made unqualified statements of support for Secretary Rumsfeld.

The major news outlets have acted as if this small percentage of generals is unheard of in recorded history. In fact, world history, not just American history is littered with such examples. In just the last 50 years of the last century multiple high-profile cases made headlines. General Curtis LeMay feuded with JFK, while President Truman relieved Medal of Honor winner General Douglas MacArthur of command. Even the media darling Wesley Clark was removed from command by President Clinton, albeit more diplomatically than MacArthur, for voicing displeasure with his civilian bosses. The military, especially generals who are used to getting their own way understandably, always believes they can manage a war, any war, more effectively than their civilian overlords. Read 1776 by David McCullough and you will see generals and their civilian masters feuding even before we were a country. President Lincoln removed General McClellan for much the same offenses, and Custer was demoted and sent west to meet his destiny for exactly the same infraction. This is not new, nor is it, in this case, systemic or coordinated. It simply is what it appears to be: a group of disaffected men expressing displeasure that their brilliance was not better recognized. If these six generals felt so strongly that the Secretary of Defense was incompetent wouldn't their honor demand that they resign publicly? It would, but tellingly none did.

Secretary Rumsfeld has made mistakes, to be sure, but he has also done an admirable job fighting two wars simultaneously. My gripe is that he has not allowed the military to fight the war that needs to be fought, on the "no quarter asked, none given" terms by which it needs to be fought. That too, is not his fault, or rather not his alone. That is the fault of the culture of a government that does not have the stomach to suffer the attacks that would come if we were to fight a war that means killing the enemy and destroying his land until he can no longer fight, or forces his civilian leadership to surrender. Dresden and Hiroshima, or even Omaha Beach are politically unacceptable today. That is fodder for another column though. Secretary Rumsfeld's transgression, at least in the eys of the "flagged six" truly is that he rocked the proverbial boat. He took over the Department of Defense as an executive, not a legislator, and the military, which abhors change, balked. These generals are just the vocal manifestation of that. When Colonel H.R. McMasters writes his next book you can be sure he will make note of this period of time, and the "flagged six" are merely using the political acumen they acquired to seem to be on the right side of it. Time will tell, I am sure, that the Secretary of Defense was trying to fight the next war, and the "flagged six" were stuck in the last.

What Would Jose Do?

2006-04-13T12:06:00.000-04:00

On August 4, 2001, a Saudi national, Mohamed al-Qahtani, arriving on a flight which originated in the United Arab Emirates, was referred for secondary inspection upon landing at the Orlando International Airport. He was referred to the screening because he had not correctly filled out a mandatory customs form, due to a purported inability to speak English. The Immigration and Naturalization Services inspector with whom al-Qahtani then came into contact admitted that a search of al-Qahtani's luggage turned up nothing suspicious. Likewise, a check of the relevant watch-list data bases turned up no evidence of wrong doing. The inspector, Jose Melendez-Perez, a 26 year honorable, combat veteran of the US Army also agreed that the suspect's answers to his questions were not, in and of themselves, enough to deny him entry to the US. However, after an exhaustive interview Melendez-Perez denied al-Qahtani entry, against the advice of co-workers, and escorted him to a Dubai-bound plane. As al-Qahtani stepped into the waiting plane, he paused, turned to Melendez-Perez and, in perfect English, said, "I'll be back."

Mohamed al-Qahtani is indeed back. Well, not quite. He is currently a guest of the US government at Guantanamo Bay. You see al-Qahtani was captured in Afghanistan, while fighting US ground forces. Under interrogation he has admitted that he was to be the 20th hijacker on September 11th. A review of the cell phone records of 9/11 hijacker Mohammad Atta seems to bear this out as he was at the Orlando Airport at the exact time al-Qahtani was being interviewed by Jose Melendez-Perez. In fact, before al-Qahtani decided to stop answering questions he told Mr Melendez-Perez that someone was there to pick him up, but refused to answer who. We now know that Jose's instincts were correct and that his actions undoubtedly saved numerous lives. The valiant, heroic passengers of United Flight 93 might not have been able to thwart the hijacker's plans if their plane, like the other three, had had 5 terrorists aboard.

We now know for a fact that the passengers of Flight 93 caused the plane to crash before it reached its intended target. Whether that target was the Capitol or the White House is still unknown, but tapes played during the sentencing stage of Zacarias Moussaoui's trial forever put to bed any doubt that the ordinary, everyday passengers of Flight 93 fought back against their hijackers. Tapes played to a packed courtroom proved that, even knowing the odds against them, they banded together, men and women from disparate backgrounds, and fought in the finest traditions of the American citizen soldier. They repeatedly rammed a drink cart against the locked cockpit door. At least one hijacker was dispatched to his date with Allah by Americans who, warned of the earlier 9/11 attacks via cell phone conversations, refused to go like sheep to the slaughter. They had to know that they had scant chance of surviving the confrontation. And yet, armed with pots of boiling water, a beverage cart and accumulated odds and ends they attacked their hijackers and fought, literally, to the death.

Zacarias Moussaoui originally asserted that he was to be the 20th hijacker on 9/11. Since then he has declared that he and "shoe-bomber" Richard Reed were to be the hijackers in another 9/11-like attack. What he was honestly here for, we will probably never know. What we do know is that after he was captured the FBI found phone numbers for 11 of the 19 hijackers in his possession. We also know that while taking fight training in Minnesota he expressed no desire to learn how to land. He has, in open court, pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden and admitted being an Al-Qaeda member, with prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. It is worth noting that he has since recanted the statement regarding prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks.

By now you are, no doubt, wondering why I have combined the events of August 4, 2001, and April 13, 2006. The answer is simple: instead of being given a forum to smirk at the family members of 9/11 victims, Moussaoui should have been denied entry to begin with by an observant INS inspector. We need more men such as Jose Melendez-Perez guarding our points of entry. Had Jose been present when Moussaoui attempted to enter the US I have no doubt he would have been turned away. I have met Jose, twice. He is an unassuming man who, when greeted by a 600 person standing ovation at a luncheon given in his honor, said simply, "I wish my father was here to see this." Jose exhibited common sense and, due to heroic efforts of other patriots, part of a larger plan was altered. We now should exhibit common sense as a nation and alter the future plans of these miscreants who would cut our throats. Any person suspected of ties to the Islamic insurgents should be immediately sent to Guantanamo Bay. Likewise, anyone captured on the field of battle should be remanded to the custody of the military there, or some other such place. There they should stand trial before a military tribunal and, if convicted, summarily executed. No more should we treat the threat from Islamic fascists as if it were a matter to be solved by the FBI and the federal courts. War means fighting and fighting means killing, to paraphrase one of our greatest Civil War generals. You would think that a lesson so dearly learned then, would resonate now. I can only hope that the verdict of death is awarded Moussaoui, even though the appeal process will undoubtedly continue to play out in our living rooms. Instead of seeing terrorists on multiple segments of the nightly news we should see them for who, and what, they are, and send them to the afterlife they so desperately desire.

The Aforementioned Tired, Poor and Huddled Masses

2006-03-28T14:55:00.000-05:00

I am a proud American of 100% Irish extraction. I fly the Irish Republic Tri-Color from the ramparts of my deck. I wear a kilt on St. Patrick's Day, and whenever else I can justify it. My ancestors arrived on these shores at various times. On one side my great, great, great-grandparents made it to New York, nearly starved to death from the after effects of The Famine. On the other side, my great-grandmother, who was sixteen and pregnant, nearly died on the ocean voyage. We have, without a pause in any generation, been soldiers in every conflict since The War of Northern Aggression, which some of you may know as The Civil War. We have worked at hard, thankless jobs, both before and after serving in the military. We have picked cotton and scrubbed floors. We have been victims of scurrilous discrimination, and hurtful, taunting speech. To this day, various members of my family, me included, struggle to provide for our offspring. We band together in times of need, and weather the storms apart. Through all these trials and tribulations one thing has remained constant: We have never wanted to be anything more than we wanted to be Americans. To prove that, all my ancestors shared one thing in common as they alit on these shores: they signed in. They acknowledged that they were here, and asked to become citizens.

Apparently though, times have changed. This past weekend saw demonstrations in the hundreds of thousands of, presumably, illegal aliens. They are not immigrants, no matter what the PC climate. Nor are they undocumented aliens. They are exactly what they appeared to be: illegal inhabitants of the United States of America. Many covered their faces and waved Mexican flags as they demonstrated for, demanded even, rights they have not earned and do not deserve. They are thieves in the night who have sneaked in under the cover of darkness, refusing to acknowledge our laws, and spitting on our proud combined heritage and tradition. They want to set up as Mexicans, here in the United States, while absorbing every social service imaginable. They want all the rights they can grab, while accepting none of the responsibilities. They do not, in many cases, even try to learn English, relying instead on the ACLU to sue for the right to have all manner of services provided in Spanish.

Do not get me wrong. A great many Hispanics have been a wonderful boon to this nation. I recently witnessed several hundred service men and women sworn in as citizens after completing tours of duty on the frontlines in the War on Terror. I have seen Cuban-born American men and women march in the streets for various causes, and those self same patriots have helped countless thousands of legal immigrants to register to vote. I have collaborated with an Hispanic outreach program to teach underserved members of the community; bringing literature classes to adults with elementary school reading levels. I know that there are hard-working latinos and latinas who want nothing more than to be Americans, and raise their children to have more than they had. I recognize these groups and I applaud them. These are not the people I would stuff into Greyhounds and send home.

You see that's because those I would send back to Mexico, and El Salvador and Honduras, still see those places as home. They have no desire to be citizens here; not if it takes any effort or sacrifice. Sure, a great many would take advantage of an amnesty program if it guaranteed them citizenship at the end. Few, however, would draw breath at the notion of contributing to the common good unless they were sure to be let in. Need proof? Why would they sneak across the border if their intentions were pure? Is Mexico a hostile nation? Are they on the short list of allowances? No, Mexico is an ally and a friend, and her citizens have more legal means of emigrating to the United States than do most countries. A large number, as many as TEN MILLION, have therefore decided that the laws of the United States are not worth the effort, or cannot meet the scant guidelines involved in becoming citizens. They simply do not deserve the blessings that my, and, presumably, your ancestors have afforded immigrants from every country on the planet.

What to do then? Pennsylvania's senior senator Arlen Specter has said that the problem is too big. We can't send them all back; not anymore. Yeah? Well maybe not, but we could start trying. We could also construct a fence along the entire length of the southern border for a fraction of the cost of providing the aforementioned social services collected by millions of illegal aliens. We could station more Border Patrol agents, and, in limited instances, the National Guard along the southern frontier. That would stem the tide while we started throwing back the refuse who have deemed our laws unworthy of acknowledgement. The argument to these ideas is always the same: What message does this send to the rest of the world? I'll tell you what message it sends: The United States is a nation of laws, and of kind and generous men and women who will gladly offer you a hand, provided you sign in.

Why then won't the honorable men and women in congress do something more substantial to stop this ongoing invasion? Because both see Hispanics as the new base in their voting blocks, and a politician's job is, first and foremost, to get reelected. So, will anything truly happen? Probably not. Legislation will get enacted, with much posturing and gnashing of teeth from both sides of the aisle. Speeches will get made. The flag, the American flag, will be waved, and in the end nothing much will change. In the end, the naturalized Jamaican-American with whom I work, and whom I adore, will tell her niece that unfortunately she did not make the cut and must now return to the Caribbean. The Indians who pump my gas, while proudly flying the US flag, will sadly inform their wives that they cannot come over here, not yet. The Pakistanis who run the bodega where I buy The Washington Post, will call the old country and tell their friends and families to keep trying. These good, honest, hard-working Americans will suffer for doing the right thing, but hey, you and I will have cheap lettuce, and Barbara Striesand will have inexpensive domestic help. Sounds like a case of, I've got the pistols, so I'll keep the pesos. Yeah, that seems fair.

Wanna Bet?

2006-03-20T14:21:00.000-05:00

Resplendent in County Limerick kilt and sporran, I spent the evening hours of St. Patrick's Day, and a goodly portion of the wee hours of Saturday, in and about several casinos in Atlantic City. I am Irish 365 days a year and had no desire to surround myself with the green beer drinkers, or worse, the 'yearly Irish.' So, although my only venture into gambling is a few dollars here and there for lottery tickets, or a friendly game of Texas Hold'Em at someone's house, I spent an enjoyable time amidst the bells, whistles, lights and sirens of A.C.'s finest. The kilt generated some interesting, and some not so interesting, conversations. I saw a couple bands, drank a few non-alcoholic beverages and, fully sated, came home. I adore casinos, in limited doses. That is why it may come as quite a shock to hear me say that the slots parlors soon to dot the Philadelphia landscape are an abomination and an evil incarnate. Organized 'gaming,' outside of areas created for it, like Atlantic City, Las Vegas and maybe a few of the Native American-run resorts such as Foxwoods, are a scourge on the population from which no good can come.

I grew up in New Orleans. As a high schooler I skipped class to go to the man-made, powder white beaches of Mississippi. Summer evenings I made the hour and a half drive, with a friend or two and our scantily clad teenage consorts, to frolic in the phosphorescent surf. Long Beach, Biloxi and Gulfport were then sleepy little towns, wholly dependent on the beaches for tourist dollars. Cheesy storefronts, selling sharks teeth and tie dyed t-shirts, competed with beautiful, antebellum style homes along the beachfront. It was somewhat backward, slow, and perfect as a respite from the city; at least for me. Now though those same beaches are littered with casinos. Huge monolithic, monstrosities proliferate up and down the coast. Originally, the law was written to say that only floating "river-boat style" casinos would be allowed. Nine zeroes in a corporate bank account cured that malady though. Of course, the ususal promises were made: property taxes will be lowered, schools will benefit and seniors will reap rewards. Property taxes have not gone down, student scores are still nearly last in the nation and, last time I checked, seniors were not rushing to embrace the Gulf Coast; except for when their assisted living communities organize bus trips that is.

The same thing was promised in New Orleans when Harrah's came to town. The blueprint was the same. A few "riverboats" would be allowed to dock for a while before they would be forced to set sail for a given amount of time. The result was predictable. The corporations realized they were losing money everytime they set sail, so the nine zeroes in the bank accounts once again made their presence known. Before you knew it, a landmark in New Orleans, The Rivergate, was being demolished for a giant casino, which would forever alter the city's brief skyline. The same promises of community assistance were made, and the same outcome was had. No relief was given to anyone. Well, that's not quite true. The most popular governor in recent Louisiana history, Edwin Edwards, received bundles of cash. A practice which, when $500,000 was discovered in his freezer, eventually sent him to federal prison, from where he is scheduled to be released in 2011. One of the principle owners of a profitable water-side casino, Edward DeBartolo, is said to have paid the governor hundreds of thousands of dollars to secure a gaming license. Mr. DeBartolo escaped jail by testifying, but was forced to divest himself of his controlling interest in the San Franciso 49ers.

What the casinos do not ever promise, but always deliver, is trouble. The crime rate immediately around the properties escalates. The local police become defacto security guards for the cash cows, but the price of their overtime still comes from the same place: you and me. Our taxes pay for cops to watch over the properties at the expense of other areas of town. Infrastructure has to be improved; roads widened, fences erected, and we foot that bill too. The promised tax relief never materializes because the new costs outweigh the old notices. Taxes go up, crime goes up, public assistance goes up and the city wonders how it got there. It is a fact of life that those least able to afford it are the biggest bettors. When the end of the month comes and there isn't enough money to pay the bills, no worries we'll go the casino and win the rent. The lower levels of society plug away hour after hour, and day after day, hoping against hope to win their way out of the hole they are ever deepening.

It is not all bad though. A handful of men will become obscenely wealthy. Usually a high-profile community leader is drafted to lend credibility to the endeavor. Here it is former 76ers President Pat Croce. He is a rock solid member of the community, and, by all accounts, a good guy. He is teamed with "The Donald" and no doubt believes that good will be done with the proceeds. Nothing could be further from thr truth. The money men's pockets, and a few of their politician friend's too, will be lined, both legally and illicitly. Some will walk away wealthy and some will walk away in cuffs, but in the end they will all walk away richer than they came. Don't get me wrong. I don't pity the poor and I don't hate the rich. Nor do I think it is the government's job to protect us from ourselves. What I do believe though, is that it is the government's job to promote the general welfare, while securing the blessings of liberty, neither of which is possible when you are shackled to the overwhelming monument of greed.

Can You Define That?

2006-03-07T11:50:00.000-05:00

"Life is tough, but it's tougher if you're stupid," so said Sgt. John Stryker, as portrayed by John Wayne in The Sands of Iwo Jima. Apparently that sentiment is in short supply everywhere in the good ole US of A, but nowhere is that more obvious than in the rarefied air of our college campi. The institutes of higher education, from the ever liberal Ivy League, to the supposed mainstream of the genteel South, have seemingly lost their dictionaries. They can no longer define simple words, much less impart any true knowledge without the prerequisite dose of indoctrination. Three events, which together generated less coverage than Vice President Cheney's hunting accident, prove that point in sobering, saddening, maddening detail.

According to the The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, terrorism is defined as: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. Pretty straightforward, at least to my decidedly simplistic ego. Yale, the bastion of waspish scions and Jodie Foster, has evidently concluded otherwise. I say that because they have accepted Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi, former ambassador-at-large for the Taliban, for admission into a non-degree program for special students. Let's forget for the moment that his formal fourth grade education and high-school equivalency degree preclude him from entry into one of the world's top universities. Let us remember instead that he was the public face of the Taliban, the regime that dynamited the 1,000 year old Buddhas of Bamiyan, allowed female school-children to burn to death inside a elementary school because no male relatives were present to escort them away, and, oh yeah, harbored those directly responsible for destroying the World Trade Center towers on 9/11. Why would he travel thousands of miles to audit a class titled "Terrorism: Past, Present and Future?" Could it be because he needs a primer, or did he hope to continue his recruiting amongst the intelligentsia?

Discrimination is what Yale, and a coalition of law schools, stated they were against when they filed suit to keep the United States military from recruiting on campus. They affirmed that the "don't ask, don't tell" policy was just too onerous for their refined sensibilities. Banning recruiters from campus was the colleges' way of protesting this policy, and nothing more. Yeah, the fact that nearly all these hotbeds of liberalism are in opposition to any war in general, and the one we are currently engaged in, in particular, never entered into the equation. Ironic that this furor was never directed at the President who signed the policy into law. And yet we are supposed to see this as proof that the modern university is striving for an open, inviting, diverse experience; just not one that encourages pride in country, duty or honor, or the hayseeds who cherish such things. One wonders what the position of Yale will be when Ambassador Hashemi begins recruiting in the Quad. I doubt very sincerely that they will object so strenuously that the case will wind up before the justices of the US Supreme Court. Luckily for us all, even the esteemed Court's most liberal members voted against the nonsense the universities sought to avow. The Court decided that the universities could, indeed, bar military recruiters, but they must forfeit all federal funds if they do. In the case of the University of Pennsylvania this amounts to $600,000,000. Yes, you read that right. It remains to be seen if they have the strength of their convictions.

Finally, on Friday a University of North Carolina graduate was arrested for running down nine students with an SUV. Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, who, it will come as a huge surprise no doubt, is a Muslim originally from Iran, told investigators, numerous times, that he intentionally hit people to "avenge the deaths of Muslims around the world." In a 9-1-1 call immediately after the event he said he wanted "to punish the government of the United States for their actions around the world." Funny how he never attempted to protest the actions of the Taliban as they tortured and killed Muslims, by running down Ambassador Hashemi. Funny how he never attempted to ram the gates of any Iraqi diplomatic station, to protest the gassing of the Kurds. More surprising still, is the fact that a student organization had to stage a rally to protest this overt act of terror, while the university was oddly silent. I can only wonder what the university response would have been had the Chapel Hill basketball team been mowed down on the eve of "March Madness." Would that hypothetical act have risen to the level of terrorism?

I love this country, warts and all. I recognize, that as Winston Churchill once opined, "Democracy is the worse form of government; except for all the others." I cannot for the life of me though, understand what it takes for the cultural elite to understand that there are people out there who intend to destroy us, and our entire way of life. Do they not remember that their darlings of armed struggle, from Che Gueverra to Hamas, execute the teachers and poets as soon as they take over? Have they forgotten the lessons of history so soon? I can only conclude that in their rush to purge the ivied towers of academia, of all manner of white, European male oppression and discrimination, that all the books, not just the dictionaries, have been removed. I can only conclude that when the Islamic hordes once again descend upon our shores that they will accept their fates and go peacefully to the slaughter. One thing is certain, 9/11 proved that ideas have consequences, and I can only hope that the country I love awakes before the ideas of radical Islam burn us down. I can only hope that the cultural elite recognizes, before it is too late, that dissent is patriotic, but aiding and abetting the forces aligned against us is not. I can only hope that somewhere amidst the Ward Churchill's and the John Bellamy Foster's there still exists a professor or two that became teachers because they want to open minds, not close them to any ideas but their own.

the beads

2006-03-03T09:45:00.000-05:00

Three days before my last day of school as a senior in high school I was hauled into the principal's office for an infraction involving orange wine coolers, Bacardi Dark Rum and two teenage girls, who shall remain nameless. The principal, Mr. Bordelon, scolded me for a full ten minutes before saying, "The only reason I am not expelling you right now is because I don't want you back here next year." Fast forward nearly ten years. I walk into a high school Civics class at a girl's Catholic high school where I am the teacher. The third person on my roll sheet is, you guessed it, Mr. Bordelon's daughter. Now, it should be said that I was definitely involved in more than my fair share of expellable offenses while in high school, but that does not prevent me from feeling, to this day, unreasonable vitriol for Principal Bordelon. Obviously my position of authority presented all manner of opportunity to settle the score, as it were, with Principal B. I could, well within the rules if not the spirit of the position, have made his daughter's time in my class uncomfortable, at the very least. I opted not to. I did that not out of any altruism, or even maturity, but because I took my position as a teacher seriously. To me, it meant that I would present my course materials as objectively as possible, with no proselytizing, and no bias. Apparently high school teachers are no longer constrained by such ethical chains, as is evidenced by the case of Sean Allen, and Jay Bennish's high school geography class.

By now you have no doubt heard the tape Sean made. The day after the State of the Union Address Jay Bennish subjected his 1oth grade geography class to a twenty minute screed on the evils of the Bush administration. According to my dictionary, geography is defined as: the physical characteristics, especially the surface features, of an area. I seem to recall, from my college geography class, that some attention was paid to the effects of human activity on the planet, but even that discussion did not rise to the level meted out by Mr. Bennish. He, in succession, compared coca farmers in South America to tobacco farmers in North Carolina, framed capitalism as a system at odds with human compassion and caring, argued that the war in Iraq would have been for profit even if weapons of mass destruction had been found, characterized the United States as the "most violent nation on planet Earth," compared the country of Israel, as a whole, to Hamas, and, in one meorable quote, suggested that President Bush and Adolf Hitler possess "eerie similarities."

Knowing as I do that a great many of the people who read these postings are inclined to favor these views I will not seek to argue the veracity of Bennish's positions. Do not bother to send me what would, in a different technological age, be letters written in crayon. The point of this column is not to refight these particular battles. The point is that high school geography class is not the venue for this rant, for a number of reasons. The main reason is that teachers hold a position of authority. Just as it would have been wrong for me to make the daughter of Mr. Bordelon suffer for his perceived and/or real transgressions. It was wrong for Mr. Bennish to direct his anti-American bombast to, what is in effect, a captive audience.

Tustin Amole, a spokeswoman for the Cherry Creek school district said, "After listening to the tape, it's evident the comments in the class were inappropriate. There were not adequate opportunities for opposing points of view." That is the issue with which I, personally, take umbrage. I served, proudly, in the 7th Infantry Division (Light), in part, so that Mr. Bennish could bluster any bone-headed, outrageous point of view he wishes. The First Amendment specifically protects outrageous speech because mainstream speech needs no such protection. The error here is that suggesting Mr. Bennish's actions constitute free speech. What he did was wrong, partially because he offered no counterpoint, but mainly because he interjected his own opinions into a venue where they have no business. Education is about us finding ourselves through exposure to the facts of the world. Mr. Bennish violated the trust that comes along with the position by offering his viewpoints as the only facts. In a college setting these comments would have been odious, but in a high school setting they become indoctrinal. He became the thing he pretends to decry: a tyrant.

Sadly, all too many people will argue that the things Jay Bennish said are accurate and worthy of public debate. That may have weight, and, in a coffee shop that sells hemp products, he is welcomed to posit any dimwitted, misguided, communistic rhetoric he can cull from the Democratic Party talking points. What he should not do though, is use his position of trust to expound on these themes. What he should not do is violate the sanctity of the teacher-student relationship by offering personal opinion as classroom content. In one portion of his philippic he paused to allow note taking. Any excuse thereafter that this was all to stimulate discussion becomes nothing more than sophistry, and anyone who truly cherishes the right of free speech should recognize the difference.

I truly hope that the Cherry Creek school district fires Mr. Bennish. I do not believe, in these politically charged times, that they will, but I hope they do. He has hired the same attorney who currently defends Ward Churchill, so this will, no doubt, become an issue of political expression, and they will seek to represent Bennish as the victim. Nothing could be further from the truth. Children, and 10th graders are children, deserve the opportunity to develop their own positions and views about the world. Mr. Bennish would, no doubt, disagree because, seemingly, to him, and to all too many like him, free speech means freedom to say whatever you want, provided you agree with him. I wonder what Mr. Bordelon would think about his daughter hearing, in my classroom, twenty minutes of my thoughts on him. Shame on you Jay Bennish, and to you Mr. Bordelon I can only say, wherever you are, that I am grateful for the lesson I learned the day your daughter walked into my class.

Any Port (Operator) in a Storm

2006-02-21T14:19:00.000-05:00

The recent flap concerning the sale of U.S. ports may have escaped your notice this past week. After all, the Vice President tried to assassinate an attorney the same week the news broke that British world port operator P&O was bought by Dubai Ports World, an entity based in the United Arab Emirates. Well, truth be told, DPW has not bought any ports, nor can they. The physical ports are owned by the Ports Authority in the various regions. What DPW has bought, with their purchase of the last British owned port operator (there are no American operators left), is the rights to terminal space at six ports in the United States: New York, Port Elizabeth NJ, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami and New Orleans.

Let me stress the fact that I am not in favor of the ports being operated by any Arab nation, let alone the one that laundered funds for Al Qaida, and recognized the Taliban as sovereign before U.S. military might made that a moot point. What I am in favor of though, is the end to all the posturing and rhetoric espoused by self-serving politicians from both sides of the political divide. Republicans and Democrats alike are racing for the television cameras to avow their adamant opposition to "sales of American ports." As I mentioned above, what was sold by the merger of P&O and DPW are the rights to operate dock side services, including shore electric power, cleaning, waste disposal and storage. DPW has purchased the rights to physical space, and the opportunity to charge for services, and nothing more. This is akin to any of the various big city apartment management companies operating dozens of buildings for absentee landlords, for a small percentage of the take, of course. The building in which I live is just such a residence. A maintenance man takes my trash to the curb, fixes my plumbing, and handles minor improvements. He is too, ostensibly, at my beck and call around the clock. That is what DPW is interested in becoming: a maintenance man for the world's ocean going trade here in the United States.

Romania, Germany, Djibouti, Puerto Cabello in Venezuela, Adelaide in Australia, 5 ports in China, including Shanghai, and 3 in Hong Kong are just some of the ports operated by DPW. In fact, DPW is one of the world's fastest growing port operators. It is a concern that is vying for preeminence in a world which lists Maersk-Sealand of Norway as one of the major players. What the sale of P&O effectuates is the replacement of British upper management with UAE upper management. The CEO, CFO and COO will simply start sporting kaffiyahs, instead of staid Saville Row suits. The local Ports Authority will still patrol the ports. The US Coast Guard will still ply the waterways. The US Customs Service will still inspect the pitifully inadequate 5% of containers they inspect. In other words, nothing will change except the destination of the profits.

That's what rankles me. Although Dubai has become one of the safest ports of call for the US Navy, a tourist attraction for most of the Far and Middle East and a public denouncer of Al Qaida activities, it is still the home of two of the 9/11 hijackers and the source for illegal funds transfers by Al Qaida before 9/11. That they are now considered a partner in the War on Terror, both by their administration and ours, does nothing to cool my ardor. I simply do not trust them, yet. Let them continue to build bridges and things can change. My grandfather, a World War II veteran of the Burma-India campaign, did not live to see the immense friendship we developed with the Japanese. He would have been stunned to see US Army infantrymen being handed water and foodstuffs by Japanese support personnel, in a combat zone no less. In time maybe, just maybe, the UAE can become a friend and valued trading partner. I will go on record as saying I doubt it, but stranger things have happened. We did, after all, drop an atomic bomb on two cities in Japan.

The end result of the brouhaha has been twofold: true discussion of the deal on its merits has been stifled, and the Democrats in congress have been forced to admit that we are, indeed, fighting a war against a serious enemy. This is in direct contradiction to their previous positions. If they were consistent they would welcome this deal with open arms. After all, we are the ones creating terrorists in Iraq. We caused the majority of the world's ills. This deal would go a long way toward healing those wounds. That even the obstructionist Chuck Schumer, (D) New York, sees this deal as ill advised should gladden the hearts of many, but it does not gladden mine. What it does is sour my stomach to know that he, and those like him, through self-aggrandizement, will today rail against "selling our ports to foreign nations unfriendly to us," and tomorrow complain about unauthorized wiretaps, which actually do combat terrorism. In retrospect, my opinion of the whole mess is, to paraphrase Sun Tzu in The Art of War, when you cannot make your enemies your friends, kill them with bullets.

Taking Aim at the Vice President

2006-02-14T12:18:00.000-05:00

It is a peculiar coincidence that sensational murderers seem to use all three of their names more often than the average American does. Think John Wayne Gacy, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Wilkes Booth. It's as if their mothers are perpetually castigating them for some transgression. It is then, only a matter of time before the Vice President will be publicly known as Richard Bruce Cheney. He has been roundly berated by the major media outlets for "nearly murdering" someone, when the truth is more benign. The Vice President erred, and had his error compounded by another's carelessness, which resulted in a friend of his being wounded by bird shot. Any injury by firearm is, by definition, serious, and the Vice President made the wrong choice when he neglected to inform the national press immediately. As Henry Kissinger once said, "What will come out eventually, must come out immediately," but that does not change the fact that nothing the Vice President could have done would have changed the mishap, nor the inevitable media excoriation.

In a New York Times article titled, "No End to Questions in Cheney Hunting Accident" it was reported that "The incident provided a wealth of material for Democrats, gun control activists and critics of the Bush administration, not to mention late night comedians." Apparently it escaped the attention of the self-proclaimed Newspaper of Record that those groups are all one in the same. John Dickerson, writing for the online magazine Slate reported, after poking fun at Texas, "Vice President Cheney shot a man in the head on Saturday, and 21 hours later you had to be looking at the web page of the Corpus Christi Caller Times to find out about it." Later in the article Dickerson ruminates, "When you nearly commit homicide as a public official shouldn't the honor of your office compel you to stand up and explain yourself in some fashion, at least say something in a press release and not just whisper it to a Texas rancher?" Evidently, monsieur Dickerson believes that offenses by public officials are to be judged by what the "honor of the office" demands. Lucky thing for President Clinton that Dickerson was not available to comment on his honor in office. There's also no escaping the fact that he is beside himself with glee that this occurred in the far away land of Texas. In neither of these things is he alone. No major outlet has missed the opportunity to zing the Vice President when reporting what happened.

In the county where the incident took place the Sheriff's Office released a statement that said, in part, "Sheriff Salinas was informed shortly after the incident by Secret Service Agents by phone due to incompatibility of radio equipment." So there was no attempt at a cover up, but rather a disregard for the always antagonistic press. The Kenedy County Sheriff's Office knew of the incident minutes after it happened, as did any number of staff at the hospital where Harry Whittington was flown for treatment. It seems then that the problem, as the press sees it, is not one of a cover up, but rather, as the venerable Washington Post put it, "Cheney waited 14 hours after the shooting to disclose it publicly." Therein lies the Vice President's true contravention: he neglected to inform the honorable members of the press in a fashion they deem timely.

Well, why should he? The major press sources have done nothing but ridicule the Vice President at every turn. Nothing has been off limits. Not even a major surgery escaped their scorn. More than one news source opined at the irony of a "heartless man" receiving cardiac care. His daughter's sexual orientation received scrutiny reserved only for those on the right. Can anyone imagine former President Clinton or Chelsea receiving this kind of attention? No, and that's why this story will not die. The story is not about the Vice President's mistake, nor his failure to issue a press release. The story is about the press feeling slighted. They hate the man, and the administration, and will not stop until their term has expired in 2008. All this from a supposedly impartial media.

In the opening paragraph of this article I stated that the Vice President erred by not disclosing the incident quicker, and I mean that. Not because I believe that wider, faster dissemination would have resulted in any sequence of events other than what happened. The press would have simply found something else about which to carp. The failure of the Vice President to purchase a $7.00 supplement to his hunting license has already been cited numerous times, in numerous places. No, it was a done deal the second the shotgun pellets hit Mr. Whittington. The reason Cheney should have had his office release a statement earlier is simply because that's what anyone of us should do when we screw up: own up to it. I am certain the Vice President is hurt more by the knowledge that he injured a friend, than by the jibes and barbs of a partisan press. He is many things, but thin-skinned is not one of them. He still should have owned up to it, and moved on to suffer his private penance. When this will all end I am uncertain, but one thing I do know: it is still much safer to hunt with Vice President Cheney, than it is to ride over bridges with Senator Kennedy.

The Behavior of Cartoons

2006-02-06T13:49:00.000-05:00

Miscreants armed with the righteous wrath of Allah, that oh so peace-loving deity, burned the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus last week. This followed days of demonstrations where the flags of those countries were burned. Apparently one has to work oneself up to major acts of arson. In the event that you have been hiding under your bed for the last week the reason was thus: a series of political cartoons, printed last month in Denmark, depicted the Prophet Muhammad in a less than charitable light. Well, that is not quite accurate. Allegedly any depiction of the Prophet Muhammad, or any other prophet for that matter, is blasphemous. We can, therefore, assume that it is only a matter of time before Rolling Stone's offices are burned due to Kanye West's recent cover appearance in the guise of Jesus Christ.

Now lest you begin to think that I am soon to be up in arms about Kanye, rest assured I care not. I am an avowed agnostic. No, what causes me angst is the disingenuous nature of the supposedly pious leaders of the Islamic faith. They complain bitterly of the defilement of the prophet's likeness, while turning a blind eye to the depiction of Jews, published all over the Middle East in ostensibly reputable journals, as cannibalistic blood-drinkers. Not one indignant voice was raised when the Bamiyan Buddhas were dynamited by that oh so pious group, the Taliban. No religious leader castigates Saudi Arabia for putting to death anyone who converts to a religion other than Islam. No fingers are wagged, in that inimitable Arab way, when women are forced to wear burkhas under penalty of death. Most tellingly, not one imam, mullah or self-appointed Islamic holy man stepped forward to publicly condemn the actions of 19 men who flew planes into buildings on 9/11. Those actions were a direct response to a murderous call to kill infidels in the name of the Prophet Muhammad, and Islam was largely silent.

The cartoons, in case you could not actually see them, showed the prophet in various roles. One had his turban replaced by a fused bomb of the sort Natasha and Boris routinely threw at Bullwinkle. Another had his holiness in Heaven informing suicide bombers that he had temporarily run out of virgins. There were others, but you get the gist. The fact that these were political cartoons meant to stimulate dialogue, much like the Washington Post's depiction of a quad-amputee serviceman, was apparently lost on the Arab street. No, this was proof of the Western world's perfidy, righted only by profuse apologies from the heads of government, and changes in laws that would prevent future transgressions. Bridges from west to east, it seems, are in need of construction.

Why these bridges need to be constructed solely by the West remains a mystery. Apparently, Islam, having had the good fortune to arrive last amongst the world's major religions, has no room for improvement. Non-Arab women being forced to wear head coverings while in the Arab world, under penalty of assault, sexual and otherwise, is evidently what is meant by "Islam is a religion of tolerance and peace." Wild celebrations in Lebanon, Syria, and elsewhere on 9/12/01 were, I presume, nothing more than expressions of grief that the words of the prophet had been corrupted in such a detestable way. Yes, the poor, downtrodden adherents of a 6th century bloodthirsty, power-hungry brigand are doing nothing more than peacefully requesting their place at the world's table when they blow themselves up in Tel Aviv, while on a bus crowded with women and children.

Unfortunately, all too many will see these actions as just nothing more than the powerless using the only weapons at their disposal in order to call attention to their plight. We, as a nation, have already largely forgotten that all 19 hijackers on 9/11 shared a deep, abiding faith in a strict interpretation of the Qu'ran. We, as Americans, want to think that their actions were aberrations, not the actions or thoughts of the rank and file. We, desperately, want to believe that Islam is a noble religion of peace and tolerance. Actions speak louder than words though, and there have not even been words. Until the professed silent majority of the Muslim world rises up, shakes off the shackles of the murderous legions like Hamas, which was recently elected to office, and bin Laden, we can only conclude that either their silence is tacit complicity, or else they simply do not exist.

the beads

2006-02-02T10:09:00.000-05:00

As we all know, it means the world to liberals that they not be offended. They cannot be called into question for making comments that, were they made by others, would be deemed racist, homophobic, misogynistic or downright crude. The reason for this is simple: liberals are all spirit and light. Anything they say has to be taken in the context of the wonderful things they have done for the downtrodden. It does not mean anything to them should they offend someone because, after all, anyone they offend deserves to be offended.

Well, I am offended. I am not, however, thin-skinned. So, when a member of the Pennsylvania state congress referred to his colleagues as "crackers," I was irritated, but not offended. When the Mayor of New Orleans promised that the city, in which I was born and raised, would once again, someday, be a "chocolate city" I was annoyed, but not offended. When anti-abortion protestors call me a "baby killer" and "racist bastard" and "Satan" as I volunteer my Saturday mornings to escort patients through their vitriolic phalanx, I am piqued, but not offended. I am offended, however, when liberal cartoonist Tom Toles uses a drawing of a wounded service member, sans arms and legs, to make his anti-war statement. I can only presume that is what is meant by "I support the troops, but not the mission."

Therein lies my offense. You cannot with good conscience support people who are doing something with which you disagree so strenuously. It is intellectually dishonest to say you do. I am not here to fight that particular battle though. If you do not support the war against Islamic facism, on whatever front, that is your right as an American. I support your dissent. I bled for it as a member of one of the most storied units in the United States Army. What I do not support is the reprehensible, foul use of the likeness of the wounded. Liberals have made great hay of the fact that President Bush and Vice-President Cheney are "draft dodgers" while John Kerry was a "war hero." Forget that he was a participant in a war in which they did not believe. Forget that the liberal messiah, former President Bill Clinton, was himself a "draft dodger." When President Clinton ran against a bona fide war hero, Bob Dole, there was no moratorium on casting aspersions on "war heroes." No, that particular caveat only came about when they finally had a veteran publicly support what they so cavalierly espouse.

The liberal left needs to be held accountable by all the rest of us. It is time that their hypocrisy be exposed. All those who profess to support the troops, while shouting about war crimes and lies need to admit what they have been thinking all along: the military is the problem. If the military would just go away, or, better yet, only be used as a response to natural disasters, the world would be a better place. If, while wearing your Birkenstocks and eating your granola, you truly believe that, stand up proudly and admit it. Of what are you afraid? Is it that all that noise about, "the majority of Americans support my position!" might be just that, noise. Are you afraid that people will turn against your point of view in droves once they see in what you truly believe? I, personally, have no qualms about revealing that I am a republican; a pro-choice, socially moderate, gay-rights fan, but a republican nonetheless. So, to all those liberals who hate the military, and everything for which it stands, stand up and simply say so, and quit picking on those who cannot, at present, defend themselves. The heroic combat wounded have given you the right to say any inane, disgraceful, ignoble thing that you can conjure up. Be honorable enough to recognize that truism, and leave them alone.

Who's Calling?

2006-01-23T14:53:00.000-05:00

Usama Bin Laden is, by the best estimate, hiding in the region of the Afghanistan/Pakistan border known as Waziristan. The best estimate of American intelligence is, as we are all too well aware, not something on which we can bank unconditionally. Waziristan is a cold, rocky, barren region know for lawlessness and tribal rule. It has been inhospitable, both personally and physically, to outsiders for millennia. It is isolated, and Islamic. In other words, it is the perfect place for an Islamic sheik with millions, both on his head and in his pockets to hide. It is here that many believe Bin Laden is holed up in a cave, shaking his fist at the West, apparently reading books by miscreants, and plotting our demise through Islamic Jihad.

Waziristan cannot be taken by military force. Of that there is no disagreement. We cannot then, get at Bin Laden now. We must fight, and kill, his terrorist minions as they go about their murderous master's pursuits. Terrorists do not wear uniforms, and they announce their dissatisfaction with the way of the world via explosives, not government decrees. They alternately inhabit the sunlit expanses of the world, and the seedy, shadowy underbelly of criminal refuge. They are not, usually, as they seem. They walk among us plotting our violent demise. We must be able to eavesdrop on their conversations, casting ever widening nets if we are to catch them before they kill innocents. That is what has, as of late, been called into question by the leftist fringe. Specifically, the recently revealed NSA electronic eavesdropping program. "Intelligence agencies can't spy on citizens," they stammer, self-righteously; forget that we do not even know if citizens are involved. Quoting Ben Franklin they scream, "Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither." A wonderful part of our history, to be sure, but a part that ignores 21st Century concerns. Simply put, if Al-Qaeda is calling someone in the United States it is crucial, inescapable, and obligatory that we know who they are calling, and why.

The same people who are currently decrying the electronic eavesdropping are the same one's who complain we have not found Bin Laden after four years. They ignore the fact that Eric Rudolph, the murderous right-wing fanatic, hid in North Carolina for five years, while every law enforcement agency in the U.S. searched fruitlessly for him. They want us to catch Bin Laden, but do not want us to do anything unseemly. Unseemly is what the NSA program is. Illegal it is not. The law so casually espoused was written in a different age, technologically speaking. That it needs to be addressed by Congress is not in doubt, that the program it seeks to cover should be stopped, is. We simply cannot move forward in this global war without every tool at our disposal.

Let me say that I do not believe the membership of the Democratic Party is unpatriotic. I believe that we, as a nation, are stronger for diversity and legitimate dissent. What we must not do though is allow ideological differences to prevent us from fighting a war against those who would destroy us specifically because of our freedom to dissent. I believe this war can be won, but only if we are united as a people. The Democratic Party must leave the lunatic fringe behind in the fight against the evil of Islamic Fundamentalism. If someone had been listening to overseas calls on 8/11/01, maybe, maybe, we could have prevented the attacks that occurred a month later. Balanced against the lives of 3,000 of our fellow Americans, isn't maybe enough?

Usama Speaks

2006-01-20T12:34:00.000-05:00

It is a peculiar condition in the United States that when murderers speak in the media everyone is rapt with attention. No mass murderer conveys that notion better than Usama Bin Laden. After his latest vitriolic speech was released yesterday it seemed that everyone, from the postman to the girl behind the counter at the deli, had an opinion on what it meant. The substance of the speech could have been written by Michael Moore, MoveOn.org and the rest of the far left apologists here in the US, but the spirit was meant, I am sure, to warn us of an impending attack.

It is an historical maxim that Muslim warriors from Mohammed, to Salah-ah Din, to Bin Laden, have always offered these types of statements immediately before attacking. The statement sent to Constantinople right before its fall in 1453 mirrors Bin Laden's language. So, the offer of a truce is more than disingenuous, it is an established tactic of lies and deceit; a practice the Quran specifically allows when dealing with infidels. Funny how Bin Laden fails to mention that when he speaks of being, "a nation to which God has disallowed treachery and lying." Moreover, when Bin laden quotes polls in the US he is, in effect, talking to the far left, "Keep it up. Convince that thick-headed Bush to quit Iraq." This, too, has always been a tactic of the Muslim warrior. They believe in fanning the fires of dissent to tear apart confederations they could not otherwise dominate. That's exactly how they took parts of Europe in the 15th century; by fostering animus between the Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

I am certain the hand-wringing set of the fringe left will shortly take up the call to negotiate. "You see," they will say, "it's all our fault. He really wants peace." Well, his own words belie that notion in spirit, and deed. He leaves no doubt that he would consider it a win if we were to leave Iraq now. Bin Laden himself calls the war in Iraq, "a point of attraction and recruitment of qualified resources." Are we to believe that a pull-out now of American forces would send those resources back to the bazaars and date farms? He also mentions attacks that are currently in the planning stages here in the US. Would those resources pack up and leave if a truce was offered? If you did not have a reason to back the NSA program which was revealed to be tapping phone calls of foreigners here in the US, you should now. Some citizens may have had their phones tapped too, but only those calling persons of interest in other countries. Of course, reasonable discourse is impossible with those who believe that there is never, ever a reason to go to war. So, convincing them of this fact is not worth the air I would expend trying, but for those who truly understand that there is no way to negotiate with these monsters this speech should be the final piece of the puzzle. We cannot negotiate a truce with monsters. We must kill Bin Laden and his followers. Bin Laden is a murderer who, no matter what Michael Moore tells you, murdered 3,000 of my fellow Americans because they had the temerity to go to work on time one sunny Tuesday morning in September. Not that you should need a reason beyond that why we should not negotiate, but if you do, here it is: murderers do more than kill, they also lie.

the beads

2006-01-19T11:52:00.000-05:00

I was planning to start this post by mentioning how difficult it has been lately for me to work up any outrage. The truth though, is that I have been inundated with outrage. The conduct of the honorable men of the US Senate during the Alito hearings nearly caused me to blow a vein. The self serving comments of John Murtha on 60 Minutes all but caused me to stroke out. Mayor Ray Nagin's racist, sanctimonious, rambling, Almighty-invoking statements almost caused the television to leave my apartment via the window. And those were just the highlights of the outrage that has caused me to recognize the general, appalling, illiteracy of the masses, and the propagation of the same by supposedly objective members of the press. Before any of you reading this consider dashing off a vitriolic diatribe know this: I am a Pro-Choice abortion clinic volunteer, US Army Infantry veteran who hails from New Orleans, so save the otherwise crayon written missives you feel are warranted for someone who does not have a vested interest in all the things mentioned.

I could dissect every one of the points I mentioned with calm, reasoned responses that would provoke dispassionate comments from those predisposed to such dialogue, but I know that no such animal exists any longer. 40% of people are wearing republican party jerseys, and anything not espoused by the party leaders is anathema to reason. 40% of people are wearing democrat party 100% hemp t-shirts, and anything not sanctioned by George Soros is, well, the byproduct of a maladjusted mind. That leaves 20% of us who have a foot in either camp, depending upon the issue. Well, dear friends that just does not make for any sort of genteel conduct.

A friend and I were teaching a combined class recently when he said something that perfectly encapsulates my thoughts on this subject. He related how, while watching one of the 345,912 episodes of Law and Order that are broadcast daily, one episode caught his attention in a profound way. The episode revolved around the death of a rather dour, mousy, high school teacher who apparently functioned as a dominatrix in her off hours. When one of the detectives questioned how these two things were even possible, a student of the victim responded candidly, "Hell, people ain't just one thing." That statement fuels my friend's teaching style, and, probably, his off hours too. Unfortunately too many people cannot, or will not, remember this, but prefer to get caught up in the rhetoric of whomever they currently fancy. Al Gore and Ted Kennedy rant about things they are personally complicate in, just not today, and DeLay and his boys circumvent the rules, albeit probably not illegally, to enrich themselves. Scooter Libby is indicted as a "leaker" and the NSA is revealed to be tapping phones by a "whistle-blower." I am personally just sick of it all. I am sick of the rhetoric and sick of the rank and file who popularize the demagoguery of the elected few. All I can say is, when I take over, things are going to change.

Baby's Blood, Sweat and Tears

2006-01-09T15:07:00.000-05:00

My 15 month old daughter required a visit to the emergency room last night. She attempted to leap 3 feet from a kitchen chair to the kitchen table. She missed. In the split second my wife and I took our eyes off her, she fell to the floor with a resounding THUMP! This was followed immediately by high-pitched wails of pain and gushing fountains of blood, flowing over her lips, onto her, and me. I live less than three blocks from a hospital which bills itself as "One of the Nation's Best." So, wrapping my daughter in a blanket, with my wife in tow, I sprinted to the emergency room.

I would like to say that Pennsylvania Hospital in Philadelphia, PA lives up to it's motto, but nothing could be further from the truth. As I entered the emergency room, bloody, with a bloody, swaddled baby in my arms I had to interrupt the person tasked with patient registration. A nurse directed me to the triage area, while my wife began the paperwork process. The triage nurse then took my daughter's pulse, while telling me, "She probably just bit her tongue. They tend to bleed a lot." I seethed. "Obviously she has a pulse. Check her out." After collecting the most perfunctory of information on her he sent me back to the waiting room. Ten to twelve agonizing, angst filled minutes later I approached the check-in desk. My bloody daughter and I once again interrupted a 'patient registration specialist,' this one reading a book, to question when my daughter would be seen. She visibly started at our appearance, and hastily retreated to find out her status. At this point I directed my attention to the other registration window where a uniformed security officer was surfing the web. Before I could utter a word he soundlessly slid the glass separating us closed, without once taking his eyes from the computer screen. Mercifully, for all involved, the door to the inner snactum opened and we were taken back to an exam room. You know the ones, hospital white walls, gurney, steel cabinet with medical supplies and the required "Biohazard" bin.

After some forty minutes of attempting to console a quietly sobbing, anxious baby, a nurse wandered by with two stickers, which she offered my daughter. At this point, nearly losing any semblance of composure, and with blood staining my shirt and hands, as well as boiling in my ears, I said, "I want a doctor in here now." She replied, "There aren't any available right now." Well, as I had just seen three MD emblazoned lab coats saunter by, I checked my Irish rage and said, "What about the three who just went to check their portfolios?" "Them. They're just interns." "Well Get One Of Them In Here To Do The Preliminary Exam. NOW." Seconds later a second nurse was plying my daughter with toys, and then, magically, an MD emblazoned lab coat materialized. She apologized for the absence of a "doctor" explaining that she was just a med student. She did, however, begin the first physical exam of my daughter some 80-90 minutes after I entered the hospital. Gritting my teeth I said, "Doc, I'm not upset with you per se, but this is unacceptable. I am furious that you would all leave a BABY to suffer. Unless there's a gunshot wound, or a heart attack there's no excuse for this delay, and there's no gunshot wound or heart attack. Since you are all educated people I know you can read. So my now bloody shirt probably hasn't escaped your notice." The shirt I was wearing was a, you guessed it, PENN medical tee. You see I am employed by the hospital system at another site.

Eventually, this well meaning intern, or med student, I do not remember which she identified herself as, got my daughter to suck on an ice-filled glove,while apologizing for the under staffing. Eventually, the attending did arrive, and after a slightly more than perfunctory exam she pronounced my daughter fit, albeit with a split tongue. Then, with no attempt to clean her off, we were told we could leave. A stop at the counter on the way out to ascertain the name of the offending security guard provided, no big surprise, responses of, "I don't know his name."

I should say that my calls to the hospital the next day were not all unpleasant. Three people, none of them doctors, were compassionate, empathetic and sincere in their apologies. From the medical staff I contacted, it was more of the same. Apathy and disdain apparently rule the day once you have gone to medical school. The mission statement of the executive director of the hospital, who was too busy to speak to me, states, "Another key area of focus is to ensure that all of our patients have a positive experience at our hospital." Well, those certainly are nice sentiments, but they are not backed up by practice. The next time I need a hospital, even though I work for the system, I will simply use the competition. After all, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital is only three blocks away.