|
Politically Incorrect
and
Proud Of It!
"I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her commodious harbors and her ample rivers - and it was not there . . . in her fertile fields and boundless forests and it was not there . . . in her rich mines and her vast world commerce - and it was not there . . . in her democratic Congress and her matchless Constitution - and it was not there. Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great." -Alexis de Tocqueville
"The choice before us is plain: Christ or chaos, conviction or compromise, discipline or disintegration. I am rather tired of hearing about our rights and privileges as American citizens. The time is come, it is now, when we ought to hear about the duties and responsibilities of our citizenship. America’s future depends upon her accepting and demonstrating God’s government."
-Peter Marshall
Several of my readers have noted that I believe America was better off a hundred years ago or even at its founding that it is today. These people have expressed their firm disagreement that it is not; in fact, that it was quite a bit worse off and that America is getting better all the time.
Let me say this: how you view America today or at any time in history depends on your moral beliefs. If you consider rampant crime more acceptable than slavery, then of course you'd rather live today than a century ago. Anyone can outline the problems this country had at its start, and yes, it did have some. But what of its morality? What of its backbone and character?
In this area, all societal indicators show a gradual (though it started to accelerate in the 60's) but constant decline. Watch the Andy Griffith Show from the 50's and then The Simpson's. Come on, you can't pretend we haven't completely given up our moral foundation, or convince me that Hollywood and this country in general hasn't changed - for the worse.
Crime is up; decency is down. Obesity has skyrocketed; military enlistment has plunged. More men and women are just living together rather than getting married. Children are not trained properly because spanking could be considered abuse, and they watch movies (and play video games) that would have horrified adults in the past. Women rebelled and left the home to join the workplace in the "liberation" of "women's rights". I do not imply whatsoever that a woman working out is wrong at all, but women who work full-time because they refuse to be crammed into the homemaker's mold are self-serving feminists. With neither parent at home, the children became more neglected and more undisclipined. The cycle continues.
TO BE CONTINUED
General Douglas MacArthur
"You couldn't shrug your shoulders at Douglas MacArthur. There was nothing bland about him, nothing passive about him, nothing dull about him. There's no question about his patriotism, there's no question about his courage; and there's no question, it seems to me, about his importance as one of the protagonists of the 20th century."
Historian David McCullough
MacArthur On The Steps of West Point
Douglas MacArthur lived his entire life, from cradle to grave, in the United States Army. He spent his early years in remote sections of New Mexico, where his father, Arthur MacArthur Jr., commanded an infantry company charged with protecting settlers and railroad workers from the "Indian menace". As a teenager, Arthur had served with distinction in the Union Army, eventually earning the Congressional Medal of Honor for leading a courageous assault up Missionary Ridge in Tennessee. But he soon discovered that life in the post-Civil War U.S. Army held little of the glamour he knew during the war.
 These years were even harder for Douglas' mother, Mary Pinkney Hardy MacArthur, whose upbringing as a proper Southern lady had done little to prepare her for raising a family on dusty western outposts. But seen through a boy's eyes, life at a place like Ft. Selden, New Mexico, was heady stuff. "My first memory was the sound of bugles," Douglas Mac Arthur recalled in his book, "Reminiscences." "It was here I learned to ride and shoot even before I could read or write - indeed, almost before I could walk or talk."
When Douglas was six, Captain MacArthur was assigned to Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas, where "Pinky," as his mother was known, could finally introduce him and his older brother Arthur to life back in "civilization." Three years later the family took another step in that direction when they moved to Washington, D.C., where Arthur took a post in the War Department.
During these formative years, Douglas was able to spend time with his grandfather, Judge Arthur MacArthur, a man of considerable accomplishment and charm. As his grandfather entertained Washington's elite, Douglas learned another valuable lesson: a MacArthur is a scholar and a gentleman. Douglas, who had always been an unremarkable student, first started to reveal his own intellectual gifts when his father was posted to San Antonio, Texas, in 1893.
 There he attended the West Texas Military Academy, thriving in an atmosphere which combined academics, religion, military discipline and Victorian social graces. By virtue of his excellent record there, his family's connections and top scores on the qualifying exam, Douglas received an appointment to the United States Military Academy at West Point in 1898. Over the next four years, he would achieve one of the finest records in Academy history, graduating at the very top of his 93-man class.
General Arthur MacArthur, back from the Philippines, where he had helped defeat the Spanish and served as military governor, looked on proudly as his son graduated first in the class of 1903. What became a lasting connection with the Philippines began with Douglas' first assignment out of West Point, when the young Lieutenant sailed to the islands to work with a corps of engineers - which is, coincindentally, exactly the same as Robert E. Lee's first assignment when he was fresh out of West Point.
While on a surveying mission there, he recalled being "waylaid on a narrow jungle trail by two desperados, one on each side." MacArthur responded without hesitation. "Like all frontiersmen, I was expert with a pistol. I dropped them both dead in their tracks, but not before one had blazed at me with an antiquated rifle."
Soon after this first brush with physical danger, MacArthur enjoyed excitement of a different kind, when he was assigned to accompany his father on an extended tour through Asia, where the General would review the military forces of eleven countries. The MacArthurs, Pinky included, were treated like royalty, and Douglas came away from the trip firmly convinced that America's future - and his own - lay in Asia.
 One of Douglas's next assignments included service as an aide in Theodore Roosevelt's White House. When he found himself in a tedious engineering assignment in Milwaukee in 1907, his performance dropped and he received a poor evaluation. But Douglas made amends in his next assignment, at the staff college at Leavenworth, and when his father died in 1912 he was transferred to the War Department in Washington, so that he could care for his mother. While there he was taken under the wing of Chief of Staff Leonard Wood, a protege of his father, and his career was again firmly on track.
In 1915 MacArthur was promoted to major and the following year became the Army's first public relations officer, performing so well that he is largely credited with selling the American people on the Selective Service Act of 1917, as the country moved ever closer to joining the war in Europe.
Even though his record to that point had been excellent, World War I gave Douglas MacArthur his first real measure of fame. Quickly promoted to brigadier general, he helped lead the Rainbow Division - which he had helped create out of National Guard units before the war - through the thick of the fighting in France. With a flamboyant, romantic style matched only by real feats of courage on the battlefield, MacArthur became the most decorated American soldier of the war.
While his peers were demoted to their pre-war ranks, MacArthur kept his through a brand new assignment as Superintendent of West Point. He also made good on his mandate to drag the moribund Academy into the 20th century, enabling it to produce officers fit to lead the country in the type of "modern" war he had just experienced first hand.
 In this time he married Louise Cromwell Brooks. MacArthur was shipped from West Point to a makeshift assignment in the Philippines. Although disappointed, he was glad to be back in his beloved islands; Louise, used to the glamorous society of cities like New York and Paris, was not pleased. She was the symbol of the roaring twenties, social and stylish; he was dedicated to his job. Even after their return to the States in 1925, their marriage continued to deteriorate. Louise filed for divorce in 1928. Once again, MacArthur found solace in the Philippines, where he took command of the Army's Philippine Department and renewed a friendship with the island's leading politician, Manuel Quezon, whom he had known since 1903.
Although he and Quezon failed in their bid to have MacArthur named governor of the Philippines, President Hoover helped take the sting out of it by naming MacArthur to the Army's top job, Chief of Staff, in 1930. But the early '30s were a trying time to be Chief, when the Great Depression made Americans deaf to MacArthur's warnings about the rising tide of world fascism.
Despite his able leadership, the Army fell to all-time lows in strength under his watch. This made MacArthur receptive to other opportunities. Once again, he was drawn to the Philippines. In 1935, his old friend Quezon, President of the newly created Philippine Commonwealth, invited him to return to Manila as head of a U.S. military mission charged with preparing the islands for full independence in 1946.
The next few years were among the happiest in MacArthur's life. On his way to Manila, he met, fell in love with and married Jean Marie Faircloth from Murfreesboro, Tennessee. When Pinky died shortly after their arrival in Manila, Jean helped fill the void, and her devotion remained as a source of strength for the rest of his life. After the birth of their son, Arthur MacArthur IV, the general proved a doting father. But their blissful life in Manila was slowly overshadowed by the growing threat posed by an expansionist Japan.
MacArthur, despite the able assistance of top aide Dwight Eisenhower, would not have enough time or money to build a force capable of resisting the Japanese. When war finally came with the blow at Pearl Harbor, the Philippines was doomed: MacArthur's air force was quickly destroyed, his army shredded, and by January his forces had retreated to the Bataan peninsula, where they struggled to survive. From his command post on the island of Corregidor at the mouth of Manila Bay, MacArthur watched his world fall apart. He had written about the attack at Pearl and of the Philippines:
 "At 3.40 on Sunday morning, December 8, 1941, Manila time, a long-distance telephone call from Washington told me of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, but no details were given. It was our strongest military position in the Pacific. Its garrison was a mighty one, with America's best aircraft on strongly defended fields, adequate warning systems, anti-aircraft batteries, backed up by our Pacific Fleet. My first impression was that the Japanese might well have suffered a serious setback.
We had only one radar station operative and had to rely for air warning largely on eye and ear. At 9:30 a.m. our reconnaissance planes reported a force of enemy bombers over Lingayen Gulf heading toward Manila. Major General Lewis H. Brereton, who had complete tactical control of the Far East Air Force, immediately ordered pursuit planes up to intercept them. But the enemy bombers veered off without contact.
When this report reached me, I was still under the impression that the Japanese had suffered a setback at Pearl Harbor, and their failure to close in on me supported that belief. I therefore contemplated an air reconnaissance to the north, using bombers with fighter protection, to ascertain a true estimate of the situation and to exploit any possible weaknesses that might develop on the enemy's front. But subsequent events quickly and decisively changed my mind. I learned, to my astonishment, that the Japanese had succeeded in their Hawaiian attack, and at 11:45 a report came in of an over- powering enemy formation closing in on Clark Field. Our fighters went up to meet them, but our bombers were slow in taking off and our losses were heavy. Our force was simply too small to smash the odds against them."
But despite MacArthur's poor showing in the Philippines, President Roosevelt knew he couldn't let America's most famous general fall to the enemy, and ordered him to withdraw to Australia. Although it ran counter to his notion of a soldier's duty, MacArthur left his men facing sure destruction, comforted only by the belief that he might lead an army back to rescue them. For the next three years, the world watched as his personal quest - "I shall return" - became almost synonymous with the war in the Pacific.
He wrote, "The President of the United States ordered me to break through the Japanese lines and proceed from Corregidor to Australia for the purpose, as I understand it, of organizing the American offensive against Japan, a primary objective of which is the relief of the Philippines. I came through and I shall return." Although MacArthur's path through the dense jungles of New Guinea was hardly imagined in the initial war plans, his singleminded drive and resourcefulness made it one of the two prongs in the Allied drive to roll back the Japanese.
Simultaneously fighting a two front war - one with the Japanese, the other with the U.S. Navy, who saw the Pacific as theirs - MacArthur slowly gained momentum. In October of 1944 the world watched as he dramatically waded ashore at Leyte, and in the following months liberated the rest of the Philippines.
On September 2, 1945, he presided over the Japanese surrender on board the U.S.S. Missouri, bringing an end to World War II. His place as a leading figure of the 20th century already secure, MacArthur may have made his greatest contribution to history in the next five and a half years, as Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers in Japan. While initiating some policies and merely implementing others, by force of personality MacArthur became synonymous with the highly successful occupation. His GHQ staff helped a devastated Japan rebuild itself, institute a democratic government, and chart a course that has made it one of the world's leading industrial powers.
Yet by the late 1940s, MacArthur was increasingly bypassed by Washington, and it seemed his remarkable career might be over. But in June of 1950, the sudden outbreak of the Korean War, described by him as "Mars' last gift to an old warrior", thrust MacArthur back into the limelight. Placed in command of an American-led coalition of United Nations forces, he reversed the dire military situation in the early months of the war with a brilliant amphibious assault behind North Korean lines at the Port of Inchon. On September 15th, he landed American and South Korean Marines at there, 200 miles behind the North Korean lines. The following day he launched a counterattack on the North Koreans. When they retreated, MacArthur's forces carried the war northwards, reaching the Yalu River, the frontier between Korea and China on 24th October, 1950.
The Democratic President Truman and Dean Acheson, the Secretary of State, told MacArthur to limit the war to Korea. MacArthur disagreed, knowing that China was simply looking for an excuse to aid North Korea. He favored a nuclear attack on Chinese forces, and warned of an imminent, crushing defeat if they did not act, saying, "There is no substitute for victory". Truman disagreed, fearing it would draw the Soviet Union, China's allies, into the war. Unwilling to accept the views of Truman and Acheson and angered by Truman's handicapping of himself in a "limited war", MacArthur began to make statements indicating his disagreements with the United States government.
MacArthur gained support from conservative members of the Senate such as Joe McCarthy, a Republican Senator from the state of Wisconsin, who highly disagreed Truman's administration: "With half a million Communists in Korea killing American men, Acheson says, 'Now let's be calm, let's do nothing'. It is like advising a man whose family is being killed not to take hasty action for fear he might alienate the affection of the murderers."
MacArthur's approach to the Chinese border triggered the entry of Mao's Communist Chinese, and as 1951 dawned, they faced what he called "an entirely new war." In April of that year, Truman removed MacArthur from his command of the United Nations forces in Korea.
General Matthew B. Ridgway was put in charge of the military situation near the prewar boundary at the 38th parallel, and MacArthur's months of public and private struggle with the Truman administration only worsened. In March of 1951, after a relentless U.N. counterattack commanded by Ridgway that turned the tide of the war in the U.N.'s favor, Truman alerted MacArthur of his intention to initiate 'cease-fire' talks. Such news ended any hopes the general had retained of leading a full-scale war against China, and MacArthur issued his own ultimatum to Red China. His declaration threatened the expansion of the war. Such an act qualified as rank insubordination, and was so contrary to MacArthur's long and distinguished military service that General Bradley later speculated that MacArthur's disappointment over his inability to wage war on China had "snapped his brilliant but brittle mind."
On April 11, 1951, Truman relieved General MacArthur, triggering a firestorm of protest over our strategy not only in Korea, but in the Cold War as a whole. As the last great general of World War II to come home, MacArthur received a hero's welcome. After his address to a joint session of Congress, the issue died quickly.
 MacArthur returned to Washington (his first time in the continental US in 11 years), where he made his last public appearance in a farewell address to the U.S. Congress, interrupted by thirty ovations. In his closing speech, he mused: "Old soldiers never die, they just fade away. And like the old soldier of that ballad, I now close my military career and just fade away - an old soldier who tried to do his duty as God gave him the light to see that duty. Goodbye."
MacArthur had also recieved the Medal of Honor "For conspicuous leadership in preparing the Philippine Islands to resist conquest, for gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty in action against invading Japanese forces, and for the heroic conduct of defensive and offensive operations on the Bataan Peninsula. He mobilized, trained, and led an army which has received world acclaim for its gallant defense against a tremendous superiority of enemy forces in men and arms. His utter disregard of personal danger under heavy fire and aerial bombardment, his calm judgment in each crisis, inspired his troops, galvanized the spirit of resistance of the Filipino people, and confirmed the faith of the American people in their Armed Forces."
On his return from Korea, after his relief by Truman, MacArthur encountered massive public adulation, which aroused expectations that he would run for the U.S. presidency as a Republican in the 1952 election. However, a U.S. Senate Committee investigation of his removal, chaired by Richard Russell, contributed to a marked cooling of the public mood. MacArthur also said that the media portrayed him as "dictatorial, insubordinate, arbitrary, harsh, disloyal, mutinous and disrespectful" of his superiors.
Besides, MacArthur, in his book, Reminiscences, repeatedly stated that he had no political aspirations.
President John F. Kennedy solicited MacArthur's counsel in 1961. The first of two meetings was shortly after the Bay of Pigs fiasco. According to White House staffer Kenneth P. O'Donnell, MacArthur was extremely critical of the Pentagon and its military advice to Kennedy. MacArthur also cautioned the young President to avoid a U.S. military build-up in Vietnam. Kennedy was said to have come out of the more than three-hour meeting 'stunned' and 'enormously impressed'.
 MacArthur spent the remainder of his life quietly in New York, except for a spectacular "sentimental journey" to the Philippines in 1961, when he was decorated by President Carlos P. Garcia with the Philippine Legion of Honor, rank of Chief Commander. During one of his visits, the Pan-Philippine Highway was renamed to MacArthur Highway in his honor.
True to his word, the old soldier "faded away" from the public eye, living quietly in New York until his death in 1964. He is buried with his wife in downtown Norfolk, Virginia.
No soldier in modern history has been more admired - or more reviled. Douglas MacArthur, liberator of the Philippines, shogun of occupied Japan, mastermind of the Inchon invasion, was an admired national hero when he was suddenly relieved of his command. He is a portrait of a complex, imposing and fascinating American general. Douglas MacArthur was one of the old breed.
Listen to and/or read MacArthur's speech at West Point - "Duty, Honor, Country"
Listen to the end of the final address to Congress - "Old Soldiers Never Die"
Read "Old Soldiers Never Die" in full
 Marquis de La Fayette
French soldier to American Revolutionary - and back again
"...Lafayette is a young man of royal birth, with what Jefferson later called 'a canine appetite for fame.' Someone said he was 'a statue in search of a pedestal.' But he was intoxicated with, [had] a rather theoretical love of, liberty. It was theoretical because liberty wasn't known to many Europeans. [Lafayette] was a great romantic and he fell in love with America, the concept of America that the French had. This wild new world where you could start the world over, to use Tom Paine's phrase."
-Scholar Richard Norton Smith
Marie-Joseph-Paul-Roch-Yves-Gilbert du Motier, or Marquis de La Fayette (or usually simply known as "LaFayette"), was a was a French aristocrat most famous for his participation in the American Revolutionary War and early French Revolution. LaFayette is considered a national hero in both France and the United States and is one of only six people in history to become an honorary U.S. citizen. Many places in the United States are named for him.
LaFayette was just under age two when his father was killed at the Battle of Minden in 1759, during the Seven Years' War. When he was eleven years old, his mother and grandfather died, leaving LaFayette a very wealthy orphan. While a member of the King's Musketeers, at age 15, the duc d'Aven was so impressed with the boy he made him a lieutenant and arranged for Lafayette to marry his daughter Adrienne. The marriage took place in 1774, when Lafayette was sixteen and the bride a year younger, at which Lafayette immediately became a captain and joined the Army (after attending the Military Academy in Versailles). Eventually he and Adrienne had one son and two daughters.
LaFayette entered the French Army at the age of 16. At 19 he was captain of dragoons when the British colonies in America proclaimed their independence. He later wrote of the revolution in his memoirs, "My heart was enrolled in it." The comte de Broglie (aide to the king), whom he consulted, discouraged his zeal for the cause of liberty.
But, finding his purpose unchangeable, he presented the young enthusiast to Johann Kalb, a German soldier who fought for the new Americans in the Revolutionary War, who was also seeking service in America, and through Silas Deane, an American agent in Paris, an arrangement was concluded.
On December 7, 1776, in disguise and before a second letter from the king could reach him, he was afloat with eleven chosen companions. Though two British ships had been sent in pursuit of him, he landed safely near Georgetown, South Carolina on June 13, 1777 after a tedious voyage of nearly two months, and traveled to Philadelphia, then the seat of government of the colonies.
This young lad, with the little English he had been able to pick up on his voyage, presented himself to the Congress with Deane's authority to demand a commission of the highest rank after the commander-in-chief. His reception was chilly. Deane's contracts were so numerous, and for officers of such high rank, that it was impossible for Congress to ratify them without injustice to Americans who had become entitled, by their service, to promotion. LaFayette understood the situation as soon as it was explained to him, and immediately expressed his desire to serve in the American army upon two conditions—that he should receive no pay, and that he should act as a volunteer.
These terms were so different from those made by other foreigners. They had been attended with such substantial sacrifices, and they promised such important indirect advantages, that Congress passed a resolution, on July 31, 1777, "that his services be accepted, and that, in consideration of his zeal, illustrious family and connections, he have the rank and commission of major-general of the United States."
The next day LaFayette met George Washington, who became his lifelong friend. Congress intended his appointment as purely honorary, and the question of giving him a command was left entirely to Washington's discretion.
His first battle was Brandywine, on September 11, 1777. In this battle he showed courage, and though wounded, managed to win the battle. Shortly afterwards he secured what he most desired -- the command of a division --which was the immediate result of a communication from Washington to Congress of November 1, 1777, in which he said:
"The Marquis de La Fayette is extremely solicitous of having a command equal to his rank. I do not know in what light Congress will view the matter, but it appears to me, from a consideration of his illustrious and, important connexions, the attachment which he has manifested for our cause, and the consequences which his return in disgust might produce, that it will be advisable to gratify his wishes, and the more so as several gentlemen from France who came over under some assurances have gone back disappointed in their expectations. His conduct with respect to them stands in a favourable point of view—having interested himself to remove their uneasiness and urged the impropriety of their making any unfavourable representations upon their arrival at home. Besides, he is sensible, discreet in his manners, has made great proficiency in our language, and from the disposition he discovered at the battle of Brandywine possesses a large share of bravery and military ardour."
In the first months of 1778 he commanded troops detailed for the projected expedition against Canada. His retreat from Barren Hill (May 28, 1778) was commended as masterly, and he fought at the Battle of Monmouth (June 28) and received from Congress a formal recognition of his services in the Rhode Island expedition (August 1778).
The treaties of commerce and defensive alliance, signed by the United States and France on February 6, 1778, was immediately followed by Great Britain declaring war on France. LaFayette asked leave to revisit France and to consult his king as to the further direction of his services. This leave was readily granted; it was not difficult for Washington to replace the major-general, but it was impossible to find another equally competent, influential and devoted champion of the American cause near the court of Louis XVI. In fact, he went on a mission rather than a visit. He embarked on January 11, 1779, was received with enthusiasm, and was made a colonel in the French cavalry. On March 4, 1779, Franklin wrote to the president of Congress: "The marquis de La Fayette is infinitely esteemed and beloved here, and I am persuaded will do everything in his power to merit a continuance of the same affection from America." While there, he persuaded the French government to send aid to the new Americans.
LaFayette was absent from America about six months, and his return was the occasion of a complimentary resolution of Congress. From April until October 1781 he was charged with the defense of Virginia, in which Washington gave him the credit of doing all that was possible with the forces at his disposal; and he showed his zeal by borrowing money on his own account to provide his soldiers with necessities.
The Battle of Yorktown, in which LaFayette bore an honorable if not a distinguished part, was the last of the war, and ended his military career in the United States. He wrote, "Humanity has won its battle; Liberty now has a country." He immediately obtained leave to return to France, where it was supposed he might be useful in negotiations for a general peace.
He was also occupied in the preparations for a combined French and Spanish expedition against some of the British West India Islands, of which he had been appointed chief of staff, and a formidable fleet assembled at Cádiz, but the armistice signed on January 20, 1783 between the belligerents put a stop to the expedition. He had been promoted (1781) to the rank of maréchal de camp (brigadier general) in the French army, and he received every token of regard from his sovereign and his countrymen. He visited the United States again in 1784, and remained some five months as a guest of the nation.
After 1782 LaFayette became absorbed with questions of reform in France. He was one of the first to advocate a National Assembly, and worked toward the establishment of a constitutional monarchy during the years leading up to the French Revolution of 1791. These efforts cost him much of his support from the French nobility. As commander of the French National Guard, LaFayette had to use force to put down crowd violence. By the 1791 he had lost most of his popularity with the people.
In 1792 he tried unsuccessfully to curb radicalism against the monarchy. The King and Queen would not accept his assistance, and the troops he tried to turn on the Paris mob would not follow his orders. He was denounced as a traitor and fled the country. LaFayette returned to France in 1800 and found his personal fortune had been confiscated. In 1815 he was elected to the Chamber of Deputies. As one of its vice presidents, he worked for Napoleon's abdication after the Battle of Waterloo.
LaFayette became a focal point of resistance to the Bourbon kings. In 1830 be became the leader of a Revolution that dethroned the Bourbons. He refused the popular demand that he become president of the new republic, and instead helped make Louis Philippe the constitutional monarch of France. Just before his death in 1834 he began to regret his support of Philippe and support the move to a pure republic in France.
LaFayette also freed his slaves while in America, purchasing an estate in French Guiana (somewhere in/near Nigeria) and settling them there. He wrote, "I would never have drawn my sword in the cause of America if I could have conceived thereby that I was founding a land of slavery."
 It's almost Valentine's Day... Show your love for balanced and conservative media with a purchase from the EIB Network!
Using Wounded Warriors To Make Political Points
2/05/06, The Spitfire
(This was the subject of Bill O'Reilly's "Talking Points" yesterday). Crime of crimes... The bad boys at the donkey barn have done it again. Number one cardinal sin in the world of politics - and the soldiers are the ones who suffer for it.
Really, it's been tried on a number of guinea pigs, i.e. circumstances, which are used to manipulate public opinion in the favor of a particular candidate or political figure. Doesn't matter if it's the economy, natural disasters, or - the all-time favorite - a war. Nixon's opponent did this too. The war in Vietnam was going badly, or at least the general American population was getting tired of it, so he said, "Elect me, and I'll bring 'em home!" It didn't work that time, but it has in the past. That's what Clinton did with everything, wasn't it?
"Yes, the economy is terrible! Elect me and your troubles are gone." "Gotta show the American people I can be a tough guy", at least when they call for blood, so he goes over to Somalia to set things right with some half-hearted "plan". Things go wrong; our dead American soldiers are dragged through the streets and Americans react in horror. Now it's time for the condolences. "I feel your pain!! Oh, I feel your pain...." So what do we do? Pull them out before they get the job done!
It is a GAME to them. Stick a wet finger in the air, i.e., polls, and see which way the wind's blowing. NOT because they want to know what the American people want, but to get a popularity reading. And if they ain't popular, then they use any means - and I mean ANY - to turn it around. Insulting and lying about one's opponent; promising nonexistent goodies; playing on the grief of widows; the list is endless. Our nearly perfect system has now dissolved into a state of chaotic battling of the Republican and Democratic parties.
No longer do we elect the man who will do what is best for us no matter what -- we elect whoever can do a good enough act and fool us enough that he will stuff our pockets with shekels and our mouths with food. It was Alexis de Tocqueville who said this when he came to America - this was his observation and he had no idea how right he would be! "The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money." That was entirely prophetic.
But to get back to the subject. This is what Kerry tried in 2004 and it didn't work -- quite. However, it was far too close for comfort and I am afraid that in 2008 it will work. In 2004 we hadn't been in Iraq that long, and the American people had some common sense as well as some confidence in what we were doing over there. In 2008 we will have been in Iraq for 5 years.
These days, the American public is, I am sad to say, fickle and impatient. While our soldiers have said time and again that this could take years upon years - which they are willing to sacrifice for - the American public is so childish. They want what they want, and they want it NOW. That is what this society and way of living has produced. Americans are not acccustomed to waiting. It's a shame they can't tell the difference between waiting for their pizza to heat in the microwave and waiting for a war to end, but that's where we are now.
So, I am warning you. In 2007-2008, whoever is the leading Democratic presidential candidate - likely Hillary Clinton - will try this again. She will use the grief of a few families who lost loved ones in the war, neglecting the other 99% who believe their son/father/husband died in a legitimate cause - one they still believe in. There will be lies; there will be bloodshed; and it will get ugly. But just remember one thing: you heard it here first.
Alexis de Tocqueville - America's Future Foretold
In 1831, two young Frenchmen -- Alexis de Tocqueville and Gustave de Beaumont -- received permission to travel to the U.S. for the purpose of studying the U.S. prison system. Both were at odds with the new government of Louis Philippe, and they were looking for an excuse to leave France. They were also intrigued with the notion of American democracy and eager to see the country. So Tocqueville, then only 25, and Beaumont, 28, spent nine months traveling throughout the U.S. in search of America's essence. They ventured as far west as Michigan where guides led them through the unspoiled wilderness. They headed south to New Orleans, risking their lives to travel during the worst winter in years. But the majority of their time was spent in Boston, New York and Philadelphia; they were warmly received and had little difficulty arranging meetings with some of the most prominent and influential thinkers of the early 19th century.
Tocqueville interviewed presidents, lawyers, bankers and settlers and even met with Charles Carroll of Carrollton, Maryland -- the last surviving signer of the Declaration of Independence. He also recorded his thoughts and observations on America's social and political institutions, and reported meticulously on the structure of government and the judicial system. Democracy in America, the book that resulted from his journey, set the stage for discussions about democracy that are still being carried on today. Tocqueville and Beaumont also fulfilled their original assignment; The U.S. Penitentiary System and its Application in France, their assessment of the prison system (based on interviews with prisoners and prison officials) received wide acclaim and was influential among prison reform circles in Europe.
At the time of his observations, Democrats and Republicans shared such basic values as character and morality. As he stated, "There are many men of principle in both parties in America, but there is no party of principle." That, of course, has changed drastically. Likewise, "Two things in America are astonishing: the changeableness of most human behavior and the strange stability of certain principles. Men are constantly on the move, but the spirit of humanity seems almost unmoved." At the time, men could progress without leaving their morality behind.
Democrats, fanatical liberals and NPR hosts of today love to point out the one thing Tocqueville found wrong with America - which was slavery. They ignore entirely his studies and findings which, as he wrote in his book, proved that America's greatness was founded on morality. And, later in the book, Tocqueville said that what he feared for America, more than a sort of tyranny by the majority which one could say existed when slavery did, was tyranny by the minority, which we have today!
He also advocated private charity rather than government aid to assist the poor, cautioning against big government (and obviously Bill Clinton didn't listen to it, what with his and Hillary's dream of a socialist America. Never mind Jane Fonda's dream of Communism...) Does the following sound familiar? "It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights— the 'right' to education, the 'right' to health care, the 'right' to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery— hay and a barn for human cattle." Or, we could re-phrase: The Department of Education, The Department of Health and Human Services... The Department of Childhood Obesity, lest we forget!
Along these lines he said: "Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." Exactly. More laws, more regulations, more amendments to the laws already in place; more restrictions. This is something that socialism imposes upon a people, REGARDLESS of whether they can control themselves or not. And at this time in America, with morality being thrown to the wind, people are indeed needing more and more laws.
Again on the subject of big government leading to socialism, he warned against what could forsee. "After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the government then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small, complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence: it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd."
Tocqueville warned us that this was coming. He warned us that our politicians would try to bribe us, but we took the bait anyway. He warned us that the greatness of America would only last as long as its goodness, yet still we threw off the "chains" of morality, choosing to follow the selfish path to Hell - and to national ruin.
The link between morality and liberty - or, more accurately, between faith and morality, was obvious to him: "Despotism may govern without faith, but Liberty cannot. How is it possible that society should escape destruction if the moral tie is not strengthened in proportion as the political tie is relaxed? And what can be done with a people who are their own masters if they are not submissive to the Deity?"
And again: "By the side of these religious men I discern others whose looks are turned to the earth more than to Heaven; they are the partisans of liberty, not only as the source of the noblest virtues, but more especially as the root of all solid advantages; and they sincerely desire to extend its sway, and to impart its blessings to mankind. It is natural that they should hasten to invoke the assistance of religion, for they must know that liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith; but they have seen religion in the ranks of their adversaries, and they inquire no further; some of them attack it openly, and the remainder are afraid to defend it." He reaffirmed, "In the end, the state of the Union comes down to the character of the people."
And where does character come from? Morality. Where does morality come from? Faith in God - what many call "religion". This was, in particular, a point which stuck with him. "The best laws cannot make a constitution work in spite of morals; morals can turn the worst laws to advantage. That is a commonplace truth, but one to which my studies are always bringing me back. It is the central point in my conception. I see it at the end of all my reflections."
It is amazing how much Tocqueville knew and prophesied! He could have told us that without self control we would get soft and spoiled - "Nothing is quite so wretchedly corrupt as an aristocracy which has lost its power but kept its wealth and which still has endless leisure to devote to nothing but banal enjoyments. All its great thoughts and passionate energy are things of the past, and nothing but a host of petty, gnawing vices now cling to it like worms to a corpse." He even wrote of the desensitization sure to come. "Authors will strive to astonish more than to please, and to stir passions rather than to charm taste."
He could have told us about suicide bombers and our inevitable struggles in the Middle East, as well: "I studied the Koran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammed. So far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself."
Likewise, at the time we were not too proud to repent and he recognized the value of that. "The greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults." If we would take a good look at ourselves, see the immorality that has befallen us, and repent, we could turn this country around. But I am afraid that America has grown proud, soft, blind, comfortable and unchangeable, and only with the second coming of Christ will there be real and lasting change.
MORE PROOF THE MEDIA LIES TO YOU
If I've said it once I've said it a thousand times: the media cannot be trusted (except in the case of Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and a few others)! You didn't believe me and now I've got a little bit of proof.
With this new "Bush spying" "scandal" that has the liberals drooling like they haven't since Watergate, the media has made it sound as though Bush is a Gestapo member, listening to every American's each and every word over the phone lines. They also make it sound as though Americans agree with them on his wrongness.
Not so!
According to NewsMax and their recent poll:
1) Has President Bush been justified in tapping the conversation of U.S. citizens? [only a FEW Al-Qaeda members who happen to be U.S. citizens!!]
Justified - 80%
Not Justified - 20%
2) Do you believe the President must have a court-approved warrant to conduct a wiretap? [Of course not.]
Yes - 23%
No - 72%
Not Sure - 5%
3) Do you believe President Bush's claim that he undertook this action to protect America? [You betcha.]
Yes - 83%
No - 17%
4) How would you rate media coverage about President Bush's actions? [The media is biased, 99.9 % of the time.]
Fair - 20%
Unfair - 80%
 You don't believe it? Ask Osama bin Laden.
NEWS FLASH:
The Democrats DO have a plan for Iraq! RETREAT and DEFEAT.
"The idear that we're gonna win this war is an idear that is unfortunately, it's just plain wrong." -Howard Dean
"There is no reason, Bob, that young Americans soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis, in the dead of night, terrorizing kids, and children, uh, uh, uh, women..." -John Kerry
There's no specific time frame but I would say the withdrawal ought to start now, right after the elections, December 15th."
Our country is at war. Our troops are watching these politicians spew this on TV. And our enemies are too.
Articles by The Spitfire
(Articles at the top are the most recent)
A U.S. soldier cradles a wounded Iraqi child
(Note: the child was wounded by the blast of a suicide bomber.)
To Cut and Run, or Not to Cut and Run
Alright, here's the sitrep ("situation report"). As reported by Fox News, which I would like to add is not conservative, but simply balanced (sometimes it's even left-leaning): WASHINGTON — Rep. John Murtha's call to pull all U.S. troops out of Iraq within six months continued to draw emotional comment from Republicans, Democrats and members of the military Friday. Republicans in general were highly critical of the Pennsylvania Democrat's position, saying U.S. troops must finish the job. Democrats largely defended the Vietnam War veteran's patriotism but declined to support his call for a quick withdrawal.
"Here on the ground, our job's not done," Army Col. James Brown, commander of the 56th Brigade Combat Team in Iraq, said Friday. "We have to finish the job that we began here. It's important for the security of this region and certainly it's important in the vital interests of the United States of America." If anyone should know, it would be them. You politicians can pull your hair out and fight like cats and dogs on Capitol Hill til eternity runs out, but don't turn a blind eye to what the fellows who are there are saying. Anyway: Brown spoke to Pentagon reporters from a U.S. logistics base at Balad, north of Baghdad, via a video link.
The traditionally hawkish Murtha has introduced a resolution in Congress that would require Bush to order the withdrawal of all 153,000 troops; he thinks they can be out of Iraq within six months. The GOP-run House was expected to vote Friday to reject the amendment before Congress breaks for Thanksgiving.
"We'll let the members debate it and then let them vote on it," said Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., the acting majority leader. "We want to make sure that we support our troops that are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan," added Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill. "We will not retreat."
The GOP-led Senate this week defeated a Democratic proposal to require President Bush to offer a timetable to withdraw troops from Iraq. The Senate eventually passed a statement saying 2006 "should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty" to offer the phased withdrawal.
Murtha, who voted to give Bush authority to use force against Saddam Hussein in 2002, has in recent months grown increasingly troubled with the direction of the war and with the administration's handling of it.
"We cannot continue on the present course," Murtha said Thursday. "Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. It's time to bring them home."
Wait a moment. "2006 should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty"? Of course it should. That's what they have been trying to build up to over there. On the one hand it's a good idea to have an end in sight and not blindly stumble along, but neither can you put a precise time limit on these things. The insurgents are unpredictable and they are everywhere. There is a lot we have yet to learn there, and as so many soldiers have said, the road to an Iraqi democracy is going to be a long one and we are not there yet. They feel they aren't finished there; I say we should listen.
Tell me something: when you're taking a long trip somewhere, do you just decide, after several hundred miles, that you are too tired of traveling and the gas costs are just too much, so let's turn around and go home? Worse, do you ever put a deadline on it and say, "I know it's 1,500 more miles to our destination, but I want to get there within the hour. And if not, we're heading home."? That would be very foolish, because although you would indeed save money by not continuing, all the money you spent on gas to get as far as you did - and to get back, by the way - would be wasted because you did not get to your destination. Spent in vain. Died in vain, in the case of our soldiers. Isn't this what happened in Vietnam? Of course, with Vietnam, it was much more than that, because it did indeed drag out.
This is simple logic. A child can understand it. You don't take the cake out of the oven before it's done; you don't take the car off the jack before the tire's been changed; you don't put a time limit on wars; and you don't cut and run before the job has been finished, especially when you are gambling with people's lives.
Is this what politicians have become? Doing anything that will further their own personal political agenda. But the American people, lest we forget, generally do not agree. As reported by CBS News, only 2% of Americans want us to pull out of Iraq. There you go.
At this point, it does not matter whether we went there for the right reasons or whether there were WMDs. To tell the truth, I believe that there were WMDs and that we had to try. But regardless, we are there now, and to pull the troops out would harm them more than you know. Lt. Kevin Brown of the United States Marine Corps wrote a letter called "Dear America" which I will post below this article, but this is what he said about those who sent them to war: "History will judge the success of their actions and the purity of their intent in a way that is impossible at the present moment. In your disagreement and debate about the current conflict, however, be very careful that you do not jeopardize your nation or those who serve. The best time to use your freedom of speech to debate difficult decisions is before they are made, not when the lives of your countrymen are on the line."
What can I say? No one could say that better. It is a terrible thing for a soldier to be sent to a war wrongly; one that we did not need. But even worse than that is being sent to one you are allowed to dabble in but never allowed to finish. All you people see is what it is costing us in money, resources, even lives. What they see is that their comrades have died for NOTHING. For a gamble; for a game with politicians as the referees! This is why we must stay the course and win! Don't you see?! People say we are wasting lives every day we are there, but we have a chance of making them count for something if we emerge victorious. If not, it is all for nothing!
Another thing. He said, in reference to whether to vote for Bush or Kerry: "The question of which candidate will 'get us out of Iraq sooner' should not be a consideration in your mind. YOU SHOULD NOT WANT US OUT OF IRAQ OR AFGHANISTAN SOONER." (capital letters by him). Further, "The bottom line is this: Republican or Democrat, approve or disapprove of the decision to go to war, you need to support our efforts here. You cannot both support the troops and protest their mission." Logical; simple. Common sense. What did I tell you. But what do I see? "I support the troops" stickers and "Impeach Bush" stickers on the same bumper! Yellow ribbon magnets and "Kerry 2004" magnets on the same car! The truth of the matter is that they DO NOT support the troops. They just don't want to sound like the hippies who hated the military in Vietnam. They have simply gotten smarter since then and changed their strategy. Their intent is still the same: to undermine what our troops are doing.
Lt. Brown's last words in his letter are these: "Support them, and their mission."
I could blow hot air until the end of the world and some people still wouldn't see. But this is very important. When a nation goes to war, there is no longer anything casual about it. The bullets have started to fly, the blood has started to flow, and the coffins have begun to come home. Using this for personal political agendas is more criminal to me than the suicide bombers in Iraq or the murderer on the streets of Chicago. He may kill a few people, but these politicians, in my mind, personally destroy the lives of every soldier who is killed there when they tamper with this war so they can have their power and money. Please read the letter below. It is not short, but it is worth every second of your time and more. Also, I think his letter can be summed up in a few words from the end of the poem, "In Flander's Fields":
"Take up our quarrel with the foe! To you, from failing hands we throw the torch. Be it yours to hold it high. If ye break faith with us who die, we shall not sleep though poppies grow in Flander's fields."
"Dear America"
Received this from Seamus via Col Myers. JDL is a retire two star who forwarded this letter from Lt. Brown in Iraq. It's another must read.
This letter was written by Lt. Kevin Brown, USMC, a Marine Cobra pilot and 2001 graduate of the United States Naval Academy. He expresses a basic thought that is becoming a common thread in emails sent by those serving in Iraq.
Those who are serving there are smart enough to detect a basic fallacy in the words of many. Simply stated, one cannot say that one is supporting the troops in Iraq while saying that one does not support what they are doing. In the words of Lieutenant Brown, "you cannot both support the troops and protest their mission".
What they see coming is another version of Vietnam...eventually the charade will be played to its natural conclusion and neither the troops nor what they are doing will be supported. With the rug pulled out, they will then become a latter day version of the Vietnam Veteran. Those who had the Vietnam experience know exactly what I mean. It is our duty to do our best to make certain that it doesn't happen to our successors. Which, of course, is why this email, one that was provided by a major retired Marine circuit, is forwarded to so many.
What they are also seeing is that a large segment of the public has forgotten who attacked whom on 9/11 and who suffered more casualties that day than were suffered on 7 December 1941.
JDL
Dad, you asked me what I would say to America from Iraq on 9/11 if I had a podium and a microphone. I have thought about it, and here is my response.
Your Son,
Kevin
September 11, 2004
Dear America,
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." -George Orwell
The Marine Corps is tired. I guess I should not say that, as I have no authority or responsibility to speak for the Marine Corps as a whole, and my opinions are mine alone. I will rephrase: this Marine is tired. I write this piece from the sands of Iraq, west of Baghdad, at three a.m., but I am not tired of the sand. I am neither tired of long days, nor of flying and fighting. I am not tired of the food, though it does not taste quite right. I am not tired of the heat; I am not tried of the mortars that occasionally fall on my base. I am not tired of Marines dying, though all Marines, past and present, mourn the loss of every brother and sister that is killed; death is a part of combat and every warrior knows that going into battle. One dead Marine is too many, but we give more than we take, and unlike our enemies, we fight with honor. I am not tired of the missions or the people; I have only been here a month, after all. I am, however, tired of the hypocrisy and short-sightedness that seems to have gripped so many of my countrymen and the media. I am tired of political rhetoric that misses the point, and mostly I am tired of people "not getting it."
Three years ago I was sitting in a classroom at Quantico, Virginia, while attending the Marine Corps Basic Officer Course, learning about the finer points of land navigation. Our Commanding Officer interrupted the class to inform us that some planes had crashed in New York and Washington D.C., and that he would return when he knew more. Tears welled in the eyes of the Lieutenant on my right while class continued, albeit with an audience that was not very focused; his sister lived in New York and worked at the World Trade Center. We broke for lunch, though instead of going to the chow hall proceeded to a small pizza and sub joint which had a television. Slices of pizza sat cold in front of us as we watched the same vivid images that you watched on September 11, 2001. I look back on that moment now and realize even then I grasped, at some level, that the events of that day would alter both my military career and my country forever. Though I did not know that three years later, to the day, I would be flying combat missions in Iraq as an AH-1W Super Cobra pilot, I did understand that a war had just begun, on television for the world to see, and that my classmates and I would fight that war. After lunch we were told to go to our rooms, clean our weapons and pack our gear for possible deployment to the Pentagon to augment perimeter security. The parting words of the order were to make sure we packed gloves, in case we had to handle bodies.
The first Marine killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom was in my company at The Basic School, and was sitting in that land navigation class on September 11. He fought bravely, led from the front, and was killed seizing an oil refinery on the opening day of the war. His heroism made my emergency procedure memorization for the T-34 primary flight school trainer seem quite insignificant. This feeling of frustration was shared by all of the student pilots, but we continued to press on. As one instructor pointed out to us, "You will fight this war, not me. Make sure that you are prepared when you get there." He was right; my classmates from Pensacola are here beside me, flying every day in support of the Marines on the ground. That instructor has since retired, but I believe he has retired knowing that he made a contribution to the greatest country in the history of the world, the United States of America.
Many of you will read that statement and balk at its apparently presumptuous and arrogant nature, and perhaps be tempted to stop reading right here. I would ask that you keep going, for I did not say that Americans are better than anyone else, for I do not believe that to be the case. I did not say that our country, its leaders, military or intelligence services are perfect or have never made mistakes, because throughout history they have, and will continue to do so, despite their best efforts. The Nation is more than the sum of its citizens and leaders, more than its history, present, or future; a nation has contemporary values which change as its leaders change, but it also has timeless character, ideals forged with the blood and courage of patriots. To quote the Pledge of Allegiance, our nation was founded "under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." As Americans, we have more freedom than we can handle sometimes.
If you are an atheist you might have a problem with that whole "under God" part; if you are against liberating the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Asia, all of Europe (twice), and the former Soviet bloc, then perhaps the "liberty and justice for all" section might leave you fuming. Our Nation, throughout its history, has watered the seeds of democracy on many continents, with blood, even when the country was in disagreement about those decisions. Disagreement is a wonderful thing. To disagree with your neighbors and your government is at the very heart of freedom. Citizens have disagreed about every important and controversial decision made by their leaders throughout history. Truman had the courage to drop two nuclear weapons in order to end the largest war in history, and then, by his actions, prevented the Soviets from extinguishing the light of democracy in Eastern Europe, Berlin. Lincoln preserved our country through civil war; Reagan knew in his heart that freedom is a more powerful weapon than oppression. Leaders are paid to make difficult, sometimes controversial decisions. History will judge the success of their actions and the purity of their intent in a way that is impossible at the present moment. In your disagreement and debate about the current conflict, however, be very careful that you do not jeopardize your nation or those who serve. The best time to use your freedom of speech to debate difficult decisions is before they are made, not when the lives of your countrymen are on the line.
Cherish your civil rights; I know that after having been in Iraq for only one month I have a new appreciation for mine. You have the right to say that you "support the troops" but oppose the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. You have the right to vote for Senator John Kerry because you believe that he has an exit strategy for Iraq, or because you just cannot stand President Bush. You have the right to vote for President George W. Bush if you believe that he has done a good job over the last four years. You might even decide that you do not want to vote at all and would rather avoid the issues as much as possible. That is certainly your option, and doing nothing is the only option for many people in this world.
It is not my place, nor am I allowed by the Uniformed Code of Military Justice, to tell you how to vote. But I can explain to you the truth about what is going on around you. We know, and have known from the beginning, that the ultimate success or failure of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the future of those countries, rests solely on the shoulders of the Iraqi and Afghani people. If someone complains that we should not have gone to war with Saddam Hussein, that our intelligence was bad, that President Bush's motives were impure, then take the appropriate action. Exercise your right to vote for Senator Kerry, but please stop complaining about something that happened over a year ago. The decision to deploy our military in Iraq and Afghanistan is in the past, and while I believe that it is important to the democratic process for our nation to analyze the decisions of our leadership in order to avoid repeating mistakes, it is far more important to focus on the future. The question of which candidate will "get us out of Iraq sooner" should not be a consideration in your mind. YOU SHOULD NOT WANT US OUT OF IRAQ OR AFGHANISTAN SOONER. There is only one coherent exit strategy that will make our time here worthwhile and validate the sacrifice of so many of our countrymen. There is only one strategy that has a chance of promoting peace and stabilizing the Middle East. It is the exit strategy of both candidates, though voiced with varying volumes and differing degrees of clarity. I will speak of Iraq because that is where I am, though I feel the underlying principle applies to both Iraq and Afghanistan.
The American military must continue to help train and support the Iraqi Police, National Guard, and Armed Forces. We must continue to give them both responsibility and the authority with which to carry out those responsibilities, so that they eventually can kill or capture the former regime elements and foreign terrorists that are trying to create a radical, oppressive state. We must continue to repair the infrastructure that we damaged during the conflict, and improve the infrastructure that was insufficient when Saddam was in power. We should welcome and encourage partners in the coalition but recognize that many will choose the path of least resistance and opt out; many of our traditional allies have been doing this for years and it should not surprise us. We must respect the citizens of Iraq and help them to understand the meaning of basic human rights, for those are something the average Iraqi has never experienced. We must be respectful of our cultural and religious differences. We must help the Iraqis develop national pride, and most importantly, we must leave this country better than we found it, at the right time, with a chance of success so that its people will have an opportunity to forge their own destiny. We must do all of these things as quickly and efficiently as possible so that we are not seen as occupiers, but rather liberators and helpers. We must communicate this to the world as clearly and frequently as possible, both with words and actions.
If we leave before these things are done, then Iraq will fall into anarchy and possibly plunge the Middle East into another war. The ability of the United States to conduct foreign policy will be severely, and perhaps permanently, degraded. Terrorism will increase, both in America and around the world, as America will have demonstrated that it is not interested in building and helping, only destroying. If we run or exit early, we prove to our enemies that terror is more powerful and potent than freedom. Many nations, like Spain, have already affirmed this in the minds of the terrorists. Our failure, and its consequences, will be squarely on our shoulders as a nation. It will be our fault. If we stay the course and Iraq or Afghanistan falls into civil war on its own, then our hands are clean. As a citizen of the United States and a U.S. Marine, I will be able to sleep at night with nothing on my conscience, for I know that I, and my country, have done as much as we could for these people. If we leave early, I will not be able to live with myself, and neither should you. The blood will be on our hands, the failure on our watch.
The bottom line is this: Republican or Democrat, approve or disapprove of the decision to go to war, you need to support our efforts here. You cannot both support the troops and protest their mission. Every time the parent of a fallen Marine gets on CNN with a photo, accusing President Bush of murdering his son, the enemy wins a strategic victory. I cannot begin to comprehend the grief he feels at the death of his son, but he dishonors the memory of my brave brother who paid the ultimate price. That Marine volunteered to serve, just like the rest of us. No one here was drafted. I am proud of my service and that of my peers. I am ashamed of that parent's actions, and I pray to God that if I am killed my parents will stand with pride before the cameras and reaffirm their belief that my life and sacrifice mattered; they loved me dearly and they firmly support the military and its mission in Iraq and Afghanistan. With that statement, they communicate very clearly to our enemies around the world that America is united, that we cannot be intimidated by kidnappings, decapitations and torture, and that we care enough about the Afghani and Iraqi people to give them a chance at democracy and basic human rights. Do not support those that seek failure for us, or seek to trivialize the sacrifices made here. Do not make the deaths of your countrymen be in vain. Communicate to your media and elected officials that you are behind us and our mission. Send letters and encouragement to those who are deployed. When you meet a person that serves you, whether in the armed forces, police, or fire department, show them respect. Thank the spouses around you every day, raising children alone, whose loved ones are deployed. Remember not only those that have paid the ultimate price, but the veterans that bear the physical and emotional scars of defending your freedom. At the very least, follow your mother's advice. "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all." Do not give the enemy a foothold in our Nation's public opinion. He rejoices at Fahrenheit 9/11 and applauds every time an American slams our efforts. The military can succeed here so long as American citizens support us wholeheartedly.
Sleep well on this third anniversary of 9/11, America. Rough men are standing ready to do violence on your behalf. Many of your sons and daughters volunteered to stand watch for you. Not just rough men- the infantry, the Marine grunts, the Special Operations Forces- but lots of eighteen and nineteen year old kids, teenagers, who are far away from home, serving as drivers, supply clerks, analysts, and mechanics. They all have stories, families, and dreams. They miss you, love you, and are putting their lives on the line for you. Do not make their time here, their sacrifice, a waste. Support them, and their mission.
-Lt. Brown, USMC
Please visit the website I got this letter from.
Open Letter to Americans from a Senior Citizen
To All American Voters,
I am a senior citizen. During the Clinton Administration I had an extremely good and well paying job. I took numerous vacations and had several vacation homes. Since President Bush took office, I have watched my entire life change for the worse.
I lost my job.
I lost my two sons in that terrible Iraqi War.
I lost my homes.
I lost my health insurance.
As a matter of fact I lost virtually everything and became homeless. Adding insult to injury, when the authorities found me living like an animal, instead of helping me, they arrested me. I will do anything that Senator Kerry wants to insure that a Democrat is back in the White House come next year. Bush has to go.
I just thought you would like to know how one senior citizen views the Bush Administration.
Thank you for taking time to read my letter.
Sincerely,
Saddam Hussein
Veteran's Day
 Veteran's Day is the anniversary of the cessation of hostilities in World War I (Nov. 11th, 1918) and of the signing of an armistice between the Allies and Germany. Immediately after the war, November 11th was set aside in the U.S., Great Britain and France as a day of remembrance for those who had given their lives in the war and was generally called Armistice Day. After World War II it was recognized as a day of tribute to the dead of that conflict as well as of World War I. In Canada it came to be known as Remembrance Day. In Great Britain, the Sunday nearest November 11th was proclaimed as Remembrance Sunday and was devoted to honoring the dead of both world wars. After the Korean War, the president of the United States signed a bill (June 1st, 1954) designating November 11th as Veteran's Day and proclaiming it as a day for honoring veterans of all wars.
This Veteran's Day, our squadron was honored to be selected as the color guard for a memorial service in Sauk City, which is a few minutes' drive from Baraboo, where we have our Civil Air Patrol meetings in the National Guard armory. Cadet Commander Carroll held the American flag, I held the Civil Air Patrol flag, and Cadet Richardson (my sister) and Cadet Carroll (Cadet Commander Carroll's brother) both held rifles on either side of us.
We began with a prayer by a chaplain; then a VFW member spoke to the group that gathered, about the road to freedom and the cost of the freedom that we enjoy. Americans truly have no inkling what freedom is, perhaps because it has never been taken away. Sometimes, we cannot see what we have until we don't have it anymore.
To end, they played "Taps", and to sum it up I felt greatly honored to participate in such an event.
But on the way to the ceremony, NPR was blasting things I could not seriously believe. The host was trying to sell a book called "The Iraq War: Told Entirely in Lies", an entire book compiled of supposed lies told by the Bush administration. I don't like to be insulting when I can help it, because it is childish and certainly not professional, but this time I'm going to have to violate that rule because the callers that called in then were the absolute slime of humanity. No, below that. And even worse than them was the author of the book who answered their supposed questions. I almost died with rage, and he doesn't know how lucky he was that he wasn't within six feet of me. The whole program was a hellish liberal party that systematically ripped into President Bush and the war in Iraq, shredding him and what is going on over there with a vengeance, and saying things that I couldn't believe were actually allowed on public radio. And oh man, were they ever having a good time.
I could see the grins and feel the triumph in their voices. They speculated as to how they were going impeach Bush, saying that anyone could see that's what needs to happen; just how to go about it (there's this little problem of having too many GOP folks in the Senate and Congress). They trashed the war in Iraq, dishonoring the troops fighting over there as they spoke - fighting to keep the freedom of these worms to say what they were saying. These people live in their own rotten, stinking, selfish, blind, ignorant world in which nothing matters so long as their coffee is hot, their house is warm, their gut is full, and their agenda succeeds.
This would be bad enough on any other day of the year. It would be bad enough in peace time. But on VETERAN'S DAY!!! It completely blew my mind. Here is the one day out of their wretched lives that has been set aside to honor those who have fought for us - too small a price for so great a debt - and they can't keep their filthy fingers off of it! The ONE time we recognize veterans, and they have to smear what veterans are doing and have done. It could not have been coincidence, and it's appalling. Truly appalling.
And secondly, they may be so into themselves and buried in their own little world that they don't have half a clue as to what's going on outside of it, but there's a war on. Like it or not; support it or not; vouch for it or not! The fact of the matter is, we are fighting a war! You may be even morally against it, but once it has begun, you'd better get behind it and push for all your worth, or this country is going to be a few thousand men lighter than it would have been, had we put our best foot forward. As I said in the article below, say all you want to BEFORE we go, but once there, shut your selfish mouth and hope that we win it, because if you try to make it fail, you are playing God with people's lives - all in the sickening name of their personal political agenda!!!
Alright, I'm sorry. I was cool and collected when I wrote the article below, and at the start of this one, but a person can be provoked.
What right do they have to say these things? How dare they criticize a war they haven't fought in and a president whose shoes they've never walked in? They may be called intellectual, but they aren't even as smart as our dog, and can't see past the end of their noses. Who do they think they are? Since when is some rich boy who never joined the military or wanted to, much less fought in the war he condemns; never worked for a living; went to Harvard and has spent years being steeped in liberal tripe, qualified to tell ANYONE what's what?!
What bothers me even more than the fact that our veterans are being dishonored is that the number of people who could speak out is fading with the setting sun. Today, there are less than 50 veterans of World War I alive. Of course, there are more from World War II, but they won't be here forever. Someday, there isn't going to be a single person alive from that era. Who, then, will stand up and tell these devious, slinking liberals and revisionists how it really was? Anyone can speculate, but having never been there, why would my word be any better than theirs?
Iraq: Another Vietnam?
JAKARTA, Indonesia; October 29th, Saturday — Unidentified assailants attacked a group of high school girls who were on their way to a private Christian school in Indonesia's tense province of Central Sulawesi, beheading three and seriously wounding a fourth [the "unidentified assailants" were later identified as Muslim terrorists. Of course the media wouldn't tell you this, but persecution of Christians by Muslims in the forms of vandalism, torture, rape and murder is more common over there than roadside bombs in Iraq].
KABUL, Afghanistan; October 29th, Saturday — A U.S. paratrooper was killed after his patrol came under fire in a volatile province near the eastern border with Pakistan and a British soldier was shot to death in northern Afghanistan. Officials said at least 21 other people were killed in fighting last week.
BAGHDAD, Iraq; October 29th, Saturday — A bomb hidden in a truck loaded with dates exploded in the center of a Shiite farming village northeast of Baghdad, killing 26 people and injuring at least 34. Three American soldiers died in separate bombings in Baghdad and northern Iraq.
BAGHDAD, Iraq; October 29th, Saturday — Insurgents used a land mine and a roadside bomb to kill three U.S. Army soldiers and wound four in attacks that brought to eight the number of American service members who have died in the last three days.
BAGHDAD, Iraq; October 30th, Sunday — A roadside bomb struck a car being driven by a police colonel in northern Iraq, killing him and his two sons as well as two young girls nearby, and insurgents killed more than 15 other Iraqis in shootings, bombings and suicide attacks.
COPENHAGEN, Denmark; October 29th, Saturday — Two more men suspected of belonging to a terrorist network planning a homicide attack in Europe were arrested.
Alright. Here we have a series of incidents, all over less than the past two days. The common thread? Muslims. Or, lest I sound racist, terrorists - but all of them Islam-abiding Muslims.
Now, two people can look at these facts and when asked for the obvious solution, you will get two different answers. One will conclude, "What better illustration of the harm we have caused by being in Iraq; let's get out of there now" and the other will say, "What better illustration of why we need to be over there! Go Marines!" This is just like the Republican who says, "I support our troops; elect President Bush" and the Democrat who says, "I support our troops; bring them home and impeach Bush". Of course, I have my theories that most liberals really don't support our troops and just say that for political advantage, but that's another story. To sum this up, they can't both be right.
Here are my theories about Iraq. It is indeed like Vietnam in that we are defending another country and other people overseas in a conflict that many Americans do not feel is directly related to the defense of our country. Much like Vietnam, some are starting to question what we are doing fighting another country's battles; losing our sons, fathers and husbands for other people's freedom. I cannot say that I have not thought that myself at times. And when the outcome is uncertain, it makes the sacrifice of a loved one all the more painful.
But there is one thing we are forgetting: September 11th, 2001. How quickly Americans forget; how fickle the selfish, impatient heart! Liberals everywhere will tell you that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the attacks on the World Trade Center; that Bush is waging a war for oil, blah blah blah blah. But if that's the case, where did those attacks come from? Again, left-wing propagandists have their theories - most of them laughable at best - but it deserves an honest look.
The honest look came from the 9/11 Commission, or something like that, which did indeed find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Something the doubting Thomases fail to realize, while screaming that they were never there in the first place, is that they have undoubtedly been moved. Why would Saddam Hussein sit on his thumbs during his ultimatum, knowing an attack and search for WMDs by the U.S. was imminent? He wouldn't. No sane person would. Saying that they never existed because they are not there now is as foolish as Johnny chewing on a stolen cookie, and then swallowing it when brother tattles, causing Mother to conclude that he never did snitch it in the first place after inspecting his now-empty mouth. You get the point.
Syria is a very likely possibility. There are alot of likely possibilities, which I won't go into now. The question is, "Is Iraq worth it?"
Well, who can say that? If not for the fact that Muslims have long since declared Jihad ("Holy War") on Israelites, Christians and, in fact, all non-believers*, it would be harder to say - much like Vietnam. While Communism's goal is the world, that wasn't the case in Vietnam, at least not at that moment. I think we probably could have left South Vietnam alone to fight its own battles without being directly affected, if all that matters is how things affect us.
But would that have been the right thing to do? South Vietnam was not in a position to defend itself against the Communist North, as the bloodbath that followed our withdrawal proved. Because of what American stands, or at least stood for, we have a God-given obligation to free the oppressed, especially when we have the capability to do so. And when it DOES directly affect us - and make no mistake, the Muslims are indeed after us, not just Iraq and not just oil - there is no excuse for the kind of mutinous, treasonous vibes the liberal media is constantly brainwashing Americans with.
So is Iraq worth it? Is it worth American blood? How high a price are we willing to pay for other people's freedom? At the moment this is just about the Iraqis, but Americans don't seem to realize that soon it will be about us and our freedom, not just theirs. Planting a Democracy in the middle of the Arab world is the best thing we can do for our own national defense right now, not to mention theirs.
I should add, however, that it's too late to be debating the rightness or wrongness of going to war over there. The fact is, we are there, and to pull out now would be to sign the Iraqi people's death warrants, leaving them to the kind of blood bath we left the South Vietnamese with in Vietnam. Regardless of whether or not you think it was right to go to war in the first place, we are at war, and to pretend otherwise or scream for an end to the hostilities would be criminal at this stage of the ball game, to put it lightly.
But, how high a price? Ask the parents of a son who has been killed in Iraq or Afghanistan and you will get different answers, many of them more patriotic and courageous than those of a liberal who hasn't sacrificed a thing over there. Don't tell the families of the beheaded civilian contractors you don't think it's worth it. Ask the soldiers; you can bet the overwhelming majority of them know exactly why they're there and what they're fighting for, as is illustrated in the soldier's blog I posted below. But you'd better be sure of one thing: you can be darn well thankful they're willing to sacrifice their sons over there so you can be free now. Because if they weren't, God only knows how many other "9/11"s America would have suffered by now.
*see my article, "Common Sense on Islam" farther down the page.
HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN?
Click on the title to hear the song and see the lyrics on a different page (if you do, you should go to the bottom of this page first and pause the song currently playing).
I hear people saying we don't need this war
I say there's some things worth fighting for
What about our freedom and this piece of ground?
We didn't get to keep 'em by backing down
They say we don't realize the mess we're getting in
Before you start preaching,
Let me ask you this my friend:
Have you forgotten how it felt that day
To see your homeland under fire
And her people blown away?
Have you forgotten when those towers fell?
We had neighbors still inside
Going through a living hell
And you say we shouldn't worry 'bout Bin Laden
Have you forgotten?
They took all the footage off my T.V.
Said it's too disturbing for you and me
"It'll just breed anger" - that's what the experts say
If it was up to me I'd show it every day
Some say this country's just out looking for a fight
After 9/11, man, I'd have to say that's right
Have you forgotten how it felt that day
To see your homeland under fire
And her people blown away?
Have you forgotten when those towers fell?
We had neighbors still inside
Going through a living hell
And we vowed to get the ones behind Bin Laden
Have you forgotten?
I've been there with the soldiers
Who've gone away to war
And you can bet that they remember
Just what they're fighting for
Have you forgotten all the people killed?
Yes, some went down like heroes in that Pennsylvania field
Have you forgotten about our Pentagon?
All the loved ones that we lost
And those left to carry on
Don't you tell me not to worry 'bout Bin Laden
Have you forgotten?
The answer is YES. Most Americans, not just the liberals, have forgotten. After September 11th we were ready to do what was necessary and lay all on the line to put an end to this. Then American blood starts to flow and we turn on our own country. Ask Kerry or Michael Moore if they've forgotten. Kerry would say, in a fake voice, so artificial and put-on it's scary, "No, I have not forgotten, and that's why we have to replace this administration. President Bush is risking soldier's lives over there for oil..." The extent of acting that is so perfect it can make lies seem like truth is so sickening I can hardly help but puke. The fact that an AMERICAN SENATOR can be so treasonous and treacherous and lie so much, sacrificing soldier's lives for political advantage is frightening, dastardly, disgusting and seems impossible. But no, it ain't.
We cannot help the fact that good men die in war. It is one of the greatest tragedies on Earth. What we can do is see to it that they do not die in vain, and that their sacrifices are not dishonored by people like John Kerry, Bill Clinton or Michael Moore.
Draw me not without cause
Sheath me not without honor.
Anti-war protestors are constantly at odds with those of us who believe that war is sometimes necessary. In reality, most of them are not anti-war, they are just anti-Bush or anti-America. But some truly are anti-war. I do not blame them; war is an ugly thing. But I have one thing to say to them. I think the answer is summed up in the Spanish inscription on General Custer's sword (and other swords of the time): "Na tarraing mi gun adhbhar; 's na pill mi gun chliu". Translated, it means: "Draw me not without cause; sheath me not without honor."
I don't think anyone could ever say it better than that. To me it means that a country should never be quick to start a war, ever. There would have been less regrets before the Civil War had they listened to that. Do not draw your sword without just cause. And secondly, do not sheath it without honor: do not run from your duty until you have won the war and your job is finished: Do not sheath your sword in defeat or cowardice, or refuse to fight when it is necessary.
A Soldier's Blog
This blog was posted by a soldier serving in Iraq, shortly before the 2004 Presidential Elections (I think it was a link at Rush Limbaugh's site). Sadly, I don't know his name or much of the particulars, but he's a patriotic American - the kind you want to know is out there protecting the country. He doesn't represent all of the military, but he represents the good parts. Here's what he wrote, in its entirety (I will not edit his writing at all, though some of the links are not functional anymore - sorry). Hopefully he won't mind that it's posted on another website for all to see, and wherever he is - thank you, keep up the good work and HOOAH!!
I am a sergeant serving in the 3rd Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division at Ft Benning, GA. Along with my brothers and the rest of 3rd ID, I was a small part in a massive push toward Baghdad. In January I will again return to Iraq for a year. I am honored to have the opportunity to go fight against terrorism and those that wish to stop the rising tide of democracy in Iraq. I am proud to have a Commander-in-Cheif in President George W. Bush, who with courage and intestinal fortitude is willing to take the fight to our enemies before the fight reaches the shores of our homeland.
In short, I'm thankful to have a Commander-in-Cheif with the guts to pick a fight with the terrorists instead of waiting and foolishly hoping they won't eventually attack us at home.
If you are a member of the United States Armed Forces and you don't vote to re-elect President George W. Bush, you are essentially voting in support of those that want to destroy the very thing you vowed to protect.
September 20th, 2004
-John Kerry, who actually thinks he has a chance at winning the election, says that he wouldn't have ousted Saddam Hussein. Never mind that John Kerry once said that anyone who doubted that Iraq and the world were safer because of Saddam's capture, don't have the judgement required to be President of the United States.
-Kerry's campaign coordinated with CBS over President Bush's Guard documents. Maybe if Kerry wasn't so busy trying to decide where he stands on every issue, he would be able to keep a tighter rein on his campaign operatives.
September 21st, 2004
-President Bush told world leaders at the U.N. today that the proper response to spreading violence "is not to retreat, it is to prevail".
-U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, referring to the United States said that "No one is above the law." I guess he means that no one is above the law except himself and the illegitimate institution that he heads. Read about the scam that was the U.N. oil for food program. Kofi Annan is almost a bigger joke than Dan Rather.
-John Kerry came up with yet another position on Iraq today.
-Group in Iraq kills second U.S. hostage. I'm looking forward to going back to Iraq for a number of reasons, oneof which is to help the Iraqi people continue the road to a thriving Democracy, but I would be lying if I said I wasn't looking forward to hunting down these ******* that are beheading the civilian contractors. My brothers and I are hoping these cowards come out of their hiding places and provide us some targets. I have a feeling they will know when 3rd ID rides back into town.
September 22nd, 2004
-Iraq hands over decapitated body to U.S. Is there any question in anyone's mind that we have to kill as many of these terrorists as we can? I hope that every terrorist in the world makes their way to Iraq, so that we will have them all in one central location. Let's see, would we rather have soldiers like us, doing what we signed up to do, and fight them in Iraq, or have them come to the U.S. and threaten our families? John Kerry is more concerned about how our first responders would react to an attack.
September 23rd, 2004
-Kerry says draft may return under Bush. Wrong, the only people in congress who are proponents of bringing back the draft are Democrats. Kerry doesn't seem to understand that there are men and women all over the country, who are willing to volunteer to serve their country. I know a lot of guys that feel honored to have the opportunity to go fight for our country. I happen to be one of them.
-Retired General Tommy Franks has some great comments on Kerry's speech on Iraq.
-I can't imagine ever having to salute John Kerry, and thankfully, I will never have to. John Kerry doesn't even have the intestinal fortitude to give a sharp salute. Fortunately for us in the military, he will never be 'Reporting for Duty'.
September 24th, 2004
-I saw the Democrats new ad on Fox News this evening. One of the statements that flashed up on the screen, imposed over an American flag was, 'Terrorists are flooding into Iraq'. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I think that is a good thing. I can't imagine a better location for them to be going into to than a place that has around 150,000 U.S. troops who are armed and ready for a fight. It's better than them being spread around all over the Middle East. I don't have to mention how much better it is for them to be flooding into Iraq than flooding into the United States.
September 25th, 2004
-Blogs for Bush has a great post about how shameful John Kerry has become. Kerry said, "The prime minister and the president are here obviously to put their best face on the policy, but the fact is that the CIA estimates, the reporting, the ground operations and the TROOPS all tell a different story." I find this to be yet another shameful attempt by Kerry to use us as pawns for his flawed campaign focus on Iraq. The biggest problem I have with this statement is it is simply not true. I'm not in Iraq right now, so I can't speak about the current situation first hand, but I have been there(Kerry hasn't), and I'm going back in a few months, but everything that I hear and read from fellow soldiers over there right now, as well as soldiers who have recently returned, doesn't match what Kerry is purporting. The fact that Kerry seems to have no problem speaking untruthfully about what the troops are experiencing in Iraq shows once again his inability to be in command of those very troops. Kerry is essentially lowering the morale of the very troops he hopes to one day command. This statement has another adverse effect that he is either too stupid to realize or is so blinded by his political and personal aspirations, that he fails to see it. He's aiding the enemy. In lowering our morale, he in turn, raises the enemy's morale. He not only raises the enemy's morale but strengthens their resolve to fight. He has reached a new low in what he is willing to say at the expense of our fellow soldiers.
-William F. Buckley Jr. has a great idea about what to do with Saddam. He says, "Why is it taking so long to try Saddam Hussein? He was captured in December. Do they really need a thousand witnesses in order to establish his guilt? Why not schedule his beheading to coincide with the next beheading of an American hostage?" Hopefully there won't be another beheading of an American, in which case, we could plan Saddam's beheading on the anniversary of his capture.
-House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi calls the Iraq war a "grotesque mistake". That it has "siphoned resources and attention away from the broader war on terror and the hunt for Osama bin Laden". It's nice to see that the Kerry campaign's ridiculous talking points are making their rounds. It amazes me that the great state of California could elect someone so uninformed. News flash Nancy, there are terrorists in Iraq and we are killing them everyday. There also happens to be quite a few brave Marines, Special Forces, and Rangers still out hunting for Osama every day, while you spew your grotesque filth, undermining their hard work and courage. Keep it up Demo's and you will lose California to President Bush before this election is over.
September 26th, 2004
-There are some great editorials from the boys over at The Weekly Standard that everyone should read. Bill Kristol on the disgraceful behavior of John Kerry, Fred Barnes on Kerry's lack of a plan in Iraq, and Powl Smith on Iraq and the war on terror.
September 27th, 2004
- Read about the good news that is coming out of Iraq. You will never hear about this on your nightly news. Winds of Change and "Opinion Journal". Don't ever doubt that we did a great thing by liberating Iraq.
-If you do choose to watch the news, you will likely hear Sen. Ted Kennedy say things like this, "The president's arrogance toward the world community has left our soldiers increasingly isolated and alone", and this, "The war in Iraq has made the mushroom cloud more likely, not less likely". I just love it when a burnt out, old Senator from Massachusetts speaks for soldiers. That blowhard certainly doesn't speak for me. I would also say that our chances for a mushroom cloud are lowered dramatically by going after the people that would use them. He also said that the war in Iraq had created a breeding ground for terrorists. I'd be willing to bet that the terrorists that we've already eliminated won't be producing any offspring in the near future.
September 28th, 2004
- A Marine says troops in Iraq are terrified of a possible Kerry presidency. I couldn't agree with him more. September 29th, 2004
-Read about missions in Iraq that you will never find in the mainstream media.
September 30th, 2004
- Debate over. All of the talking heads are basically saying that President Bush didn't deliver the knockout punch that he could have and should have delivered. Now you would expect to here this on most of the mainstream media networks, but it bothers me to read the same thing on all of these blogs that bill themselves as conservative. One of the most famous, powerlineblog, who were instrumental in exposing the fake documents over at CBS, said, "candidly, I don't think it went that well for the President. I think Kerry helped himself tonight. " I couldn't disagree more. Kerry didn't look presidential, he looked and sounded like a professor lecturing to an uninterested class that has grown bored of hearing the same droning over and over. And what about Kerry's much talked about debate experience? According to what we have heard about his vast debating skills he should have blown President Bush out of the water. He didn't. President Bush looked presidential, resolute, and determined. The kind of character traits that are needed in leading a nation and a world in the fight against terror. Kerry looked anything but. It looks like some of those conservative blogs bought into the hype of what they were earlier criticizing the media for.
I'm amazed that the news networks haven't talked more about Kerry essentially saying that we should worry about how Osama bin Laden will react when we enforce our foreign policy. Since when do we allow a world renown terrorist to dictate our foreign policy.
- Read the facts for debate 1 on www.georgewbush.com.
- Unbelievable- Kerry now wants to let Osama dictate American foreign policy. I was sitting here hoping the President would point this out, and he did just that. Kerry is all doom and gloom. He continues to use our brave brothers fighting in Iraq for is own personal gain. Is there any question who the real leader is in this debate. Thank God we have President Bush as our leader in this fight and not his opponent.
October 1st, 2004
-Why isn't anyone talking about this? In last nights debate John Kerry said, "And I believe that a fresh start, new credibility, a president who can understand what we have to do to reach out to the Muslim world to make it clear that this is not, you know -- Osama bin Laden uses the invasion of Iraq in order to go out to people and say that America has declared war on Islam."
"We need to be smarter about how we wage a war on terror. We need to deny them the recruits. We need to deny them the safe havens. We need to rebuild our alliances."
So we now need to be smarter about how we wage the war on terror because we might upset Osama bin Laden. Are you kidding me, and this man wants to lead the fight against terror. He would rather not offend Osama than to defend America. Let's be more sensitive to the terrorists. God help us if this guy is ever our Commander-in-Chief.
October 2nd, 2004
-Unlike me, a lot of people on our side seem to be worried about the outcome of the debate the other night. For those of you that are, this will reassure you. Rush sums it up nicely. Stay positive and upbeat, the real winner, the real leader, the only Commander-in-Chief, President Bush, will triumph on Nov. 2.
-How Kerry demoralizes the troops. Read this from Jed Babbin at National Review.
October 3rd, 2004
- Swift Vets and POWs for Truth have an online petition asking John Kerry to set the record straight.
(the rest to be posted later)
Common Sense on Islam
"We will continue fighting Zionists until either the last drop of our blood or the end of Zionist occupation. It is Jihad to victory or martyrdom." -Hamas
Read this carefully, folks. These are excerpts from the Koran - in short, the marching orders of the terrorists we are fighting in Iraq and those who flew into the World Trade Centers on September 11th. These verses are their orders in regard to the "infidels": Jews, Israelites, Christians, or anyone who aids them, as well as anyone else who has a religion other than Islam.
Treatment of the Infidels
IV.89: They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
IV.93: And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his punishment is hell; he shall abide in it, and Allah will send His wrath on him and curse him and prepare for him a painful chastisement.
IV.92: And it does not behoove a believer to kill a believer except by mistake, and whoever kills a believer by mistake, he should free a believing slave , and blood-money should be paid to his people unless they remit it as alms; but if he be from a tribe hostile to you and he is a believer, the freeing of a believing slave (suffices), and if he is from a tribe between whom and you there is a covenant, the blood-money should be paid to his people along with the freeing of a believing slave; but he who cannot find (a slave) should fast for two months successively: a penance from Allah, and Allah is Knowing, Wise.
XVI.8: It may be that your Lord will have mercy on you, and if you (again return to disobedience) We too will return (to punishment), and We have made hell a prison for the unbelievers.
II.161: Surely those who disbelieve and die while they are disbelievers, these it is on whom is the curse of Allah and the angels and men all;
IX. 5-6: Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them.
IV.76: Those who believe fight in the cause of God.
IV.74: Let those who fight in the cause of God who barter the life of this world for that which is to come; for whoever fights on God's path, whether he is killed or triumphs, We will give him a handsome reward.
VIII.39-42: Say to the Infidels: if they desist from their unbelief, what is now past shall be forgiven; but if they return to it, they have already before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God's.
Torture of Non-Believers
4.56: (As for) those who disbelieve in Our communications, We shall make them enter fire; so oft as their skins are thoroughly burned, We will change them for other skins, that they may taste the chastisement; surely Allah is Mighty, Wise.
No Tolerance for "Unbelievers"
3.85: And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers [in other words, he won't go to Paradise like the believers, but rather to the "hell prison" prepared for him by Allah].
Shun Unbelieving Relatives
9.23: O you who believe! do not take your fathers and your brothers for guardians if they love unbelief more than belief; and whoever of you takes them for a guardian, these it is that are the unjust.
Clearly Hate Jews
5.82: Certainly you will find the most violent of people in enmity for those who believe (to be) the Jews and those who are polytheists, and you will certainly find the nearest in friendship to those who believe (to be) those who say: We are Christians [not meaning that they follow Christ, but meaning that they are the Holy Ones who have assurance of paradise]; this is because there are priests and monks among them and because they do not behave proudly.
More Orders Pertaining to Infidels
The Torment of Hell
44.43: Surely the tree of the Zaqqum,
44.44: Is the food of the sinful
44.45: Like dregs of oil; it shall boil in (their) bellies,
44.46: Like the boiling of hot water.
44.47: Seize him, then drag him down into the middle of the hell;
44.48: Then pour above his head of the torment of the boiling water:
44.49: Taste; you forsooth are the mighty, the honorable:
44.50: Surely this is what you disputed about.
44.51: Surely those who guard (against evil) are in a secure place,
44.52: In gardens and springs;
44.53: They shall wear of fine and thick silk, (sitting) face to face;
44.54: Thus (shall it be), and We will wed them with Houris pure, beautiful ones.
44.55: They shall call therein for every fruit in security;
44.56: They shall not taste therein death except the first death, and He will save them from the punishment of the hell,
44.57: A grace from your Lord; this is the great achievement.
44.58: So have We made it easy in your tongue that they may be mindful.
Forms of Torture
8.12: When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
22.19: These are two adversaries who dispute about their Lord; then (as to) those who disbelieve, for them are cut out garments of fire, boiling water shall be poured over their heads.
22.20: With it shall be melted what is in their bellies and (their) skins as well.
22.21: And for them are whips of iron.
22.22: Whenever they will desire to go forth from it, from grief, they shall be turned back into it, and taste the chastisement of burning.
56.41: And those of the left hand, how wretched are those of the left hand!
56.42: In hot wind and boiling water,
56.43: And the shade of black smoke,
56.44: Neither cool nor honorable.
(Read much more of what the Koran has to say about us here .)
So you see, folks, this has nothing to do with the terrorists who flew into the World Trade Centers being just a bunch of Arabs who have been driven and provoked to wrath by America. The Koran was written hundreds of years ago. It's their marching orders to wipe us off the face of the Earth, and they won't rest until they have.
As you can see in verses 39-42, when they catch an infidel they are to give them the choice between converting to Islam, or torture and death (if they "desist from their belief [in other words, convert], the past [unbelief] shall be forgiven"). Doesn't sound too peaceful to me. This has been going on since the Catholic/Muslim crusades; since Bible times when there was an altercation between Abraham's sons, Isaac and Ishmael. Ever since then, the offsprings (Palestine and Israel) of the two sons (half brothers) have been eternal enemies. If you'd read the Bible you'd get a good history lesson, ladies and gentlemen.
And obviously, the Koran has been around for centuries - they weren't suddenly and recently angered by Bush's "harsh" foreign policies.
Bill O'Reilly explained this rather clearly last night on "Talking Points". As he said...
Setting the record straight on Islamic terrorism -- that is the subject of this evening's talking points memo. Writing in the LA Times today, columnist Margaret Carlson continues the left-wing mantra that the Bush administration is responsible for Arab anger against the USA. Says Carlson, "It's understandable that the Bush administration might want to flush Newsweek down the toilet and pawn off the blame for its own mistakes in its long adventure in the Arab world. The administration has hatched few strategies as hollow as holding a magazine responsible for its own failings."
Now, the liberal press wants Americans to believe that the administration's war tactics have turned the Muslim world against the USA. That's what the left is selling. Talking points is not buying.
For eight years under President Clinton, the Jihadists grew in power and ferocity; they attacked the world trade center in 1993 and continued attacking throughout the nineties, killing Americans all over the Middle East and Africa. America's response was tepid, to say the least, and the terrorists grew bolder. When President Bush took office, he didn't pay very much attention to the Jihad. If you believe Richard Clark, Bush continued the policy of allowing Al Queda to base and train.
Then came 9/11, and everything changed. The Bush administration became aggressive in hunting down and incarcerating terrorists. The invasion of Iraq was part of the strategy to fight terrorism by spreading democracy; that strategy is still unfolding; time will tell.
But let me ask you one simple question. Who would you rather have fighting the Jihadists: Margaret Carlson, or President Bush? How about Carlson and the entire editorial staff of the New York Times? How about--- well, you get the picture.
The Bush administration has made mistakes, no question, but I think it's ovious that the soft approach on terrorism didn't work, and to say the Jihadists are angry because of Iraq and Guantanamo is simply stupid. The Jihadists have hated us for decades, and no country could wage war against them the way the liberal press in America wants to. During World War II mistakes were made every hour of every day by American forces. What does Margaret Carlson think about that?
The terror war is indeed hell, and so is the liberal media's coverage of it.
A Tale of Two Americas
"The Star Spangled Banner". The Fourth of July. The American flag.
Things that used to make my heart fill with pride.
Now when I see the flag, I don't know whether to cheer or cry. I don't know if I should feel triumph or defeat when I hear patriotic songs. Sometimes it sounds so true, and other times it sounds like such a mockery.
I don't even know what America there is more of.
Yes, there are two Americas, two countries. One America is the one that was founded over 200 years ago, the one we fought to keep. That America is still alive, sometimes, in some places, but it is dying. It was the country the World War II generation fought and died to preserve. And now these veterans have to watch what they suffered to protect turn to garbage before their very eyes?
The other America is the one we see on TV. It's Janet Jackson's half-time show, it's Dan Rather, it's Bill Clinton, it's John Kerry. It's perverted, twisted, stolen, sold to our enemies and destroyed from within. It's homosexual, it's liberal, it's a heathen lie, all in the name of freedom of speech or self expression. That America is the one that is steadily growing. This isn't the real America.
But where does this put our soldiers? It redefines what it means to be patriotic. They are defending the good along with the bad. Though they are defending my right to speak what I want here, are they also defending a person's "right" to homosexual "marriage"?! Are they defending Bill Clinton's "right" to lie under oath and John Kerry's right to burn the American flag?
What we make America is what they die for when they fight to keep it alive. They spill their blood to protect America, and if America is wicked, they die so that the wicked may continue on in their wickedness. When they leave their families, do they do so to defend the good America, or the bad America?
Both.
It does not have to be like this!!! Which America does the American flag represent? It represents both, and so I cannot look on it with complete pride and a sense of honor. When I see the good, I cannot help but also see the bad.
Heck, I don't even know who I'm for sometimes. "This is not the America I fought to defend", I heard a World War II veteran say on the radio. I'm as patriotic as they come, but I can't look at the flag without having mixed feelings. It represents freedom, yes - freedom to do trememdous good and freedom to do tremendous evil (and the evil just gets worse). I don't know if I should honor it or spit on it. I feel like doing both.
What are our soldiers defending when they defend America? What are they dying for when they die for America? Where do they leave their families when they leave to protect them? What can we do to make sure that their sacrifices are not in vain?
These are the questions that each and every American must ask himself/herself. We MUST NOT dishonor the memories and sacrifices of those who died for America by letting her become what she is becoming! It is already almost too late.
This goes for the military too. There used to be nothing that inspired me more and nothing I admired so much (other than my father) as soldiers. I looked up to those who served there and spoke of it with great respect.
I still do. But there is something wonderful there that has been ruined. I can't look at a recruiting poster without feeling a mixture of awe and disgust. I cannot fully admire it because I know there are many there who don't know a hoot about honor, and yet I can't hate it completely because I know that there are so many honorable, selfless soldiers who really are what defined the old code of honor, duty and country.
I know there were goons in the military in the old days too. I'm not saying it has to be perfect for me to respect it. But what it is today is not the kind of military Robert E. Lee or Richard Winters came from. And yet, neither is it all bad. When I start to think it's hopeless, I see someone like Pat Tillman or Sgt. Paul Smith and I remember why I thought of it with such admiration.
Those are not the men who should be dying. Those are the men we need leading the country. But no. Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and other childish fools do the "leading" - ordering good men to go do the dying for our country.
The Draft
Yes, folks, this awful horrible monstrous thing called The Draft.
Some say it will come back, some say it won't, and it seems that almost everyone is scared to death that it will.
Will it be brought back? It's funny that John Kerry used it as a scare tactic before the elections, considering that when it has ever been brought back, it has always been a Democrat who made strides to do so!
Go ahead and do some research of your own. Go ahead! A Republican has never brought back the draft. This doesn't mean it can't happen, but it certainly makes the odds a little less imminent.
But ah yes, I forgot. You read Michael Moore's articles at his website, right? And he wouldn't dare tell a lie, would he?
Wrong again. If you want to talk about lies, you are looking at the king. The master of evil, the father of lies, the leader behind the dishonoring of our troops, the organizer in organized "hang Bush" campaigns, and whatever else you can think of. But the media wouldn't tell you that, now would they? After all, he was one of Diane Sawyer's Ten Most Fascinating People. So why doesn't she marry him?
First of all, what is so horrible about bringing back the draft? Well, I suppose if Mr. Moore tells you it's just a consipracy by President Bush to kill all your children, you'll believe him.
My opinion? They oughta bring it back! But that's just me. And sadly, they probably won't. So what's the sweat about?
What is so wrong about taking a bunch of overweight kids - that Bill Clinton has to start an obesity program for - and turning them into muscle men? What's the matter with taking a boy and turning him into a man instead of letting him sit on his rear and eat potato chips and play video games all day?
Unless I'm mistaken, it seems like this sort of a thing would most likely transform your misbehaved children into slightly more mature people. And your child suffering from ADD - which is really a deficit of work and activity, not attention, parents - would get so much physical work in a day, at least in basic training, that when it's time to sit down and listen, he would probably do it gladly.
It seems to me that a country suffering from inactivity, with a medical label called "Attention Deficit Disorder", obesity, boredom, childhood behavior problems and ingratitude would benefit tremendously from this awful scary thing known as the draft.
Your wierd teenager would lose his or her tongue stud, cell phone, chat rooms, and video games and trade them in for a gun, field radio, ruck sack and combat boots.
Terms such as "Oh my God", "Cool", and "Sucks" - among other vile terms - would be replaced by "Yes sir", "No sir", "Affirmative" and "Negative".
They'd forget how to play the anti-hero video game and instead learn marksmanship, discipline, and how to take orders for once.
Such boring and routine tasks as school, cleaning your room, or whatever the heck it is that teenagers are always whining about would be done away with. Instead you have a barracks - no radio, posters, telephone, and absolutely no messes.
Push-ups, sit-ups, running, marching, drilling, climbing, falling, swimming, yelling and memorizing would take care of the ADD and boredom problems in one sweep.
Sorry, no surfer dude or spike hairdos. Come to think of it, no hairdo - and no hair. How very convenient and low maintenance.
Forget about having a personality or being an individualist. You'e just another digit in the line of recruits. Great training!
And yes, the "hip" Faded Glory or Riders jeans that show your underwear line (girls) or baggy crotches that sag to your knees (boys) would be replaced by a set of BDUs that would most likely get some authentic fading of their own.
Gone are the days of cooking trouble, and presently, it's time to cook chow - and dish it out - to your fellow recruits.
No more cool friends or peer pressure. How about that! Now your friends are just trying to not get yelled at and not get some extra IT in PT (Intensive Training in Physical Training).
 Worse, you'd have to answer to a roaring, perfectionist drill sergeant who may insult you at best and assign you extra time on the night watch for the smallest infraction. And you thought your parents were demanding?
After all, what does it mean to be bored?! You'd be kept hopping, I can promise you that! To someone out of shape and unaccustomed to following orders or being disiciplined, I suppose it would be quite an ordeal.
And maybe, just maybe, if your commanding officer so chooses, you'll be shipped out to actually fight for the country and the priviledges you take forgranted and enjoy.
It's refreshing just thinking about it!
P.S. I'd like to add something else regarding the draft. A blog written by a soldier serving in Iraq stated awhile back, "Kerry says the draft may return under President Bush. Wrong, the only people in congress who are proponents of bringing back the draft are Democrats. John Kerry doesn't seem to understand that there are men and women all over the country who are willing to volunteer to serve their country. I know alot of guys that feel honored to have the opportunity to go fight for our country. I happen to be one of them." AMEN!!!
Now, the media never told you that, did they? This man also said, shortly after the elections, "I can't imagine ever having to salute John Kerry, and thankfully, I will never have to. John Kerry doesn't even have the intestinal fortitude to give a sharp salute. Fortunately for us in the military, he will never be 'reporting for duty'."
This soldier's blog is absolutely chalk full of good stuff. I've posted the rest of it at the top of the page.
Wanted
Men who are strong without being immoral and arrogant, who are moral without being weak wimps; men who have a gentlemanly attitude and special appreciation for women and aren't ashamed to admit it.
Women who are feminine while being capable, who are capable without being feminists; women who have a respectful, special appreciation for men, their strength and their leadership and protective abilities.
A society that is sane like it used to be. A country that has more good influences than bad. A culture that is family-centered, morality-based; patriotic and God-fearing. A land that uses its freedom for honorable pursuits, not evil. Honest citizens who know what real honor, truth, courage and character are - and who live their values in the midst of the insanity. A country that soldiers can fight for wholeheartedly without knowing that they are defending alot of good but even more bad.
Quotes and Rules to Live By
"Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists." - G.W. Bush
A mother asked General Robert E. Lee for a bit of wisdom for her young son. He simply answered: "Teach him he must deny himself."
A true soldier avoids war at all costs, but when it is required of him, he willingly lays down his life.
"A winner is not someone who wins often, but someone who, when he's down and out, will come back with everything he's got."--Roger Staubach
"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out where the strong man stumbled or how the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly. Who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions. Who spends himself in a worthy cause. Who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high acheivement; and who at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly so that his place will never be with those timid souls who know neither victory or defeat. --Theodore Roosevelt
Never forget how you got here.
"These are the times that try men' souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country, but he that stands it now deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like Hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us: that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon goods, and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be so highly rated."
--Thomas Paine, quoted by George Washington to his weary men on Christmas Eve, 1776, just before the battle of Trenton and the turning point of the Revolutionary War.
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and
degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing
is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he
is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own
personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free
unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
-John Stewart Mil
It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it. -General Douglas MacArthur
Robert E. Lee - Brief Biography
 Of all the great generals of all the great wars in the world, one stands out in my mind, in stark contrast to the others.
I still admire the others. General Patton, George Washington; MacArthur. There are some very amazing soldiers that I respect. But none quite like this one.
Robert E. Lee.
When great names are spoken of and great deeds are remembered, when is his name spoken? When character is noted, does he come to mind? How many Americans have actually studied his personal life?
I've done a good deal of reading and research on the man. The stellar character and personal discipline that he practiced was rare enough back then in the 1800's. And today? Practically nonexistent.
In Virginia, and all of the South at that time, honor and a person's family name actually meant something, and the Lee name had been known as a good one, until his father and grandfather ruined it.
His father, Henry Lee (known as "Light Horse Harry") was a born soldier who soared to the rank of major before retiring. But a series of catastrophic events - most of them financial situations - plunged him into a bottomless pit of debt that he couldn't recover from. His wife died of illness, and the army wouldn't take him back (at least not at the rank to which he considered himself entitled). He remarried, but got into more trouble. It was 1812 and the U.S. was at war with Britain. He and several others got into a fight over something published in a newspaper, which turned into an angry mob. In the end, eight men had been killed and Henry was beaten, disfigured, half paralyzed and nearly dead. He died when Robert was only six years old.
Worse, his married grandfather (known as "Black Harry") had, at some point in his life, gotten involved with another woman. In those days when the moral conscience and sanity of public was still there, it totally shredded his honor and that of his family.
These elements, among others, contributed to a bad family name by the time Lee came along. He had every right to curl up and turn his back on the desperate moral and financial situation. After all, none of it was his fault. He was born into it. But Robert was a different person. His character, even at an early age and with no father, was impressive to say the least.
His mother - Light Horse Harry's second wife - was by now an invalid. Robert's brothers, Charles and Smith were pursuing law and studying for a hoped-for commission in the Navy. It fell to Robert, a tall, lanky, thirteen year old boy, to take care of his mother.
The hardships that followed only helped to shape his character and strength. When not taking care of his mother, he went to William Leary's "Alexandria Academy", which was only a few blocks from his house. That and his duties at home kept him busy for another three years. He did so well that eventually Leary had taught him everything he knew - including Greek, Latin and mathematics.
At sixteen he was dark haired and serious. Around this time, his brothers came to visit. They asked his what he was planning on doing since he was through with school. He didn't know.
He did know that he didn't want to study law. Charles suggested that one of them should go into the Army, as their father had. The other boys' futures were already spoken for. And when Robert heard that he could get into West Point - and free - well, he was pleased, to say the least. The Secretary of War was in favor of granting free tuition to sons of fathers with fine military records.
So it was decided, and in June of 1825, Robert entered the United States Military Academy at West Point to begin the four year grind that would make him into a soldier.
(to be continued)
I couldn't say this better....
"Charlie Daniels' Open Letter to the Hollywood Bunch"
(Go to the real site by clicking here!)
OK - Let's just say for a moment you bunch of pampered, overpaid, unrealistic children
had your way and the U.S.A. didn't go into Iraq.
Let's say that you really get your way
and we destroy all our nuclear weapons
and stick daisies in our gun barrels
and sit around with some white wine and cheese and pat ourselves on the back,
so proud of what we've done for world peace.
Let's say that we cut the military budget to
just enough to keep the National Guard
on hand to help out with floods and fires.
Let's say that we close down our military bases all over the world and bring the troops home, increase our foreign aid and drop all the trade sanctions against everybody.
I suppose that in your fantasy world this would create a utopian world where everybody would live in peace. After all, the great monster, the United States of America, the cause of all the world's trouble
would have disbanded it's horrible military
and certainly all the other countries of the world would follow suit.
After all, they only arm themselves to defend their countries from the mean old U.S.A.
Why you bunch of pitiful, hypocritical,
idiotic, spoiled mugwumps. Get your head out of the sand and smell the Trade Towers burning.
Do you think that a trip to Iraq by Sean Penn did anything but encourage a wanton murderer to think that the people of the U.S.A. didn't have the nerve or the guts to fight him?
Barbra Streisand's fanatical and hateful rantings about George Bush makes about as much sense as Michael Jackson hanging a baby over a railing.
You people need to get out of Hollywood
once in a while and get out into the real world. You'd be surprised at the hostility you would find out here.
Stop in at a truck stop and tell an overworked, long distance truck driver that you don't think Saddam Hussein is doing anything wrong.
Tell a farmer with a couple of sons in the military that you think the United States
has no right to defend itself.
Go down to Baxley, Georgia and hold an anti-war rally and see what the folks down there think about you.
You people are some of the most disgusting examples of a waste of protoplasm I've ever
had the displeasure to hear about.
Sean Penn, you're a traitor to the United States of America. You gave aid and comfort to the enemy. How many American lives will your little, "fact finding trip" to Iraq cost? You encouraged Saddam to think
that we didn't have the stomach for war.
You people protect one of the most evil men
on the face of this earth and won't lift a finger to save the life of an unborn baby.
Freedom of choice you say?
Well I'm going to exercise some freedom of choice of my own.
If I see any of your names on a marquee,
I'm going to boycott the movie. I will completely stop going to movies if I have to.
In most cases it certainly wouldn't be much of a loss.
You scoff at our military whose boots you're not even worthy to shine.
They go to battle and risk their lives so ingrates like you can live in luxury.
The day of reckoning is coming when you will be faced with the undeniable truth that the war against Saddam Hussein is the war on terrorism.
America is in imminent danger.
You're either for her or against her.
There is no middle ground.
I think we all know where you stand.
What do you think?
God Bless America!
Go to:
My Home Page
The Thunderbird |
