Clinton Tough on Terror: A False Legacy

September 26, 2006

Did Clinton actually leave a “comprehensive strategy to combat Al Qaeda, as was claimed by ex-President B.J. Clinton during his temper tantrum on Foxnews Sunday on September 24, 2006? Richard Clarke, former Counterterrorism czar under both the Clinton and Bush administrations, has asserted he did just that. Secretary of State and former National Security Advisor, Condaleeza Rice says he did not.

Who is right and who is lying?

In August of 2002, on the eve of the first anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Time Magazine, under the title of "They Had A Plan", made just that claim, that the Clinton administration through Richard Clarke had left “an aggressive plan to take the fight to al-Qaeda.” Clarke says, according to the Time article, that he drew up this “aggressive plan” after the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole.

The Time article says that Clarke presented the “strategy paper” to national-security adviser Sandy Berger on December 20, 2000, but that Berger decided not to act on it, fearing he would be handing the incoming Bush administration a “War.” An unnamed Clinton aide said, “That wasn’t going to happen.”

Shortly after the August 2002 Time article, National Review reporters spoke to Saxby Chambliss (R. Ga.), who was then a member of the House of Representatives and chair of the House Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security. Representative Chambliss stated, “I’ve had Dick Clarke testify before our committee several times, and we’ve invited Samuel Berger several times and this is the first I’ve ever heard of that plan.” He went on to express wonder that if was such a big deal to them, why it had never been mentioned before.

In an August 2002 background briefing attended by several news reporters, Clarke was asked: “What is your response to the suggestion in the Time article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the — general animus against the foreign policy?”

Richard Clarke replied, “I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesn't sound like animus against uh the previous team to me.”

Further pressed by Foxnews senior White House correspondent, Jim Angle: “You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?,” Clarke responded: “All of that's correct.”

In reply to the question of another reporter, “Are you saying now that there was not only a plan per se, presented by the transition team, but that it was nothing proactive that they had suggested?,” Clarke replied, “Well, what I'm saying is, there are two things presented. One, what the existing strategy had been. And two, a series of issues — like aiding the Northern Alliance, changing Pakistan policy, changing Uzbek policy — that they had been unable to come to um, any new conclusions, um, from '98 on.”

As he was being asked shortly after, “Were all of those issues part of alleged plan that was late December and the Clinton team decided not to pursue because it was too close to ...,” Clarke interrupted the questioner with, “There was never a plan, Andrea. What there was was these two things: One, a description of the existing strategy, which included a description of the threat. And two, those things which had been looked at over the course of two years, and which were still on the table.

QUESTION: So there was nothing that developed, no documents or no new plan of any sort?

CLARKE: There was no new plan.

QUESTION: No new strategy — I mean, I don't want to get into a semantics ...

CLARKE: Plan, strategy — there was no, nothing new.

QUESTION: 'Til late December, developing ...

CLARKE: What happened at the end of December was that the Clinton administration NSC principals committee met and once again looked at the strategy, and once again looked at the issues that they had brought, decided in the past to add to the strategy. But they did not at that point make any recommendations.

QUESTIONS: Had those issues evolved at all from October of '98 'til December of 2000?

CLARKE: Had they evolved? Um, not appreciably.

ANGLE: “What was the problem? Why was it so difficult for the Clinton administration to make decisions on those issues?”

CLARKE: “Because they were tough issues. You know, take, for example, aiding the Northern Alliance. Um, people in the Northern Alliance had a, sort of bad track record. There were questions about the government, there were questions about drug-running, there was questions about whether or not in fact they would use the additional aid to go after Al Qaeda or not. Uh, and how would you stage a major new push in Uzbekistan or somebody else or Pakistan to cooperate?”

“One of the big problems was that Pakistan at the time was aiding the other side, was aiding the Taliban. And so, this would put, if we started aiding the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, this would have put us directly in opposition to the Pakistani government. These are not easy decisions.”

Amid this controversy, an unnamed (you lefties love “unnamed") former Clinton administration official said, “There were certainly ongoing efforts throughout the eight years of the Clinton administration to fight terrorism.” Anonymous added, “It was certainly not a formal war plan. We wouldn’t have characterized it as a formal war plan. The Bush administration was briefed on the Clinton administration’s ongoing efforts and threat assessments.”

In late 2000, early 2001, prior to the Bush administration’s transition into the White House, the Time Magazine article mentioned above, from August 2002, also stated that John O’Neill (who lost his life in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center), led the FBI’s National Security Division was in Yemen investigating the attack on the USS Cole. U.S. ambassador to Yemen, Barbara Bodine opposed the FBI’s “large presence” in Yemen fearing it causing political problems for the Yemeni government (sound familiar to current claims about the U.S. presence in Iraq?), leading her to bar Agent O’Neill from returning to Yemen when he came back to the U.S. for Thanksgiving with his family.

It is extremely difficult for me to believe the Clinton administration, through Ambassador Bodine, made this investigation nearly impossible to conduct. It’s little wonder that administration officials said they couldn’t act against Al Qaeda due to lack of conclusive results.

For reasons that I cannot fathom, Ms. Bodine was appointed the US coordinator for central Iraq, before being recalled shortly after her appointment by the Bush administrations State Department, headed by former General Colin Powell, at the time, 2003.

Regardless of Mr. Clinton’s “meltdown” tantrum on TV this past Sunday, his record is clear and speaks for itself. Richard Clarke can write a book opposing the Bush administration and the ongoing fighting in Iraq, part of the over all War on Terror. James Carville can appear on morning talk shows with the veins popping out in his forehead. Barbara Boxer can go on Foxnews and in the middle of an interview state, in her usual mocking tone, “so I see you agree with the president on this. Okay, fine.” Hillary Clinton can come out in her usual damage control, standing by her man and saying that this shows Democrats aren’t going to take it any more. We are the Vast Right Winged Conspiracy and your words and deeds have been recorded and documented for posterity.

Bill Clinton’s record speaks for itself. Richard Clarke’s record and deeds have also been documented long before he decided to go for a book deal slamming Bush.

It all screams that the Clinton years were negligent, soft if you will, on terror.

Lew

James Carville - They Got It Wrong

September 25, 2006

In an email received today from the DCCC, James Carville, fire-breathing Cajun for the Democratic Party, claims “They Got It Wrong.” Of course, he means the “Republicans” got it wrong.

“When George W. Bush snuck into office almost six years ago he got a gift from the other two branches of government.”

First off, Bush could hardly have “snuck” into office with all the media attention focused on the debacle the Gore camp was making of the endless recounts, of only 3 counties, down in Florida as they tried in vain to steal the 2000 election. If that is “sneaking,” I wonder what he classifies the 2004 selection of Washington States governor, Christine Gregoire who attained the office only after the third recount in a closely contested race here?

What does he classify King County discovering some 3,000 more ballots than registered voters, in their county alone?

“The Supreme Court gave him the election.”

No, Mr. Carville, they forced the Florida Supreme Court to uphold written Law already in the Florida Constitution and prevented them from rewriting election laws during a contested recount to favor one candidate of the Democratic Party.

“President Bush's first priority was a tax cut.”

Democrats really hate that we get to keep more of our money, even though tax receipts have increased due to the tax cuts.

“It created such economic havoc that it gave Bush the excuse he needed to try to destroy Medicare and rob the Social Security trust fund.”

Medicare has been destroyed? Increased funding, a Senior Citizens Prescription plan giving them better coverage is destroying the program? Maybe they see streamlining Medicare payments to where really needed to be “cuts?”

And, Social Security being robbed? Who wants to give Social Security benefits to Illegal Immigrants? Who thinks that those who never paid into the fund are entitled to drawing money from it? Giving benefits to those not entitled to it seems like some pretty heavy “robbing” to me.

“Then came September 11th, 2001. Then, instead of finishing the job of driving Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan and finding Osama bin Laden, President Bush and the Republican Congress invaded Iraq. They misled the public for their reasons for invading. And now we find ourselves in a nightmare of a war with no clear exit strategy.”

1. James, finding and killing Osama, although preferable and definitely a morale booster will not stop terror.

2. Democrats also supported the invasion of Iraq. They may be trying to distance themselves today, but they can’t. You say you wanted Al Qaeda driven out of Afghanistan, what about driving them out of Iraq? Maybe we should worry about driving them out of America as well?

3. No one misled anyone on invading Iraq. In fact, if you weren’t such a Liberal stooge, you would realize that he has acted as Democrats were calling for Clinton to act long before Bush won the election in 2000. Please get some new talking points. These tired old lies just don’t wash any longer with thinking people.

4. James, there is only one acceptable “exit strategy.” Ronald Reagan voiced it long ago. “We win, they lose.” Is that too hard to understand?

From there is the usual litany of begging for donations and justifications for wasting your money on Democrats.

To date, Democrats have not proposed any solutions, just obfuscations and “new direction” which is nothing more than the tired old head in the sand attitude that got us to where we are today.

He ends with,

“I don't want to spend another day ashamed of my government.”

Neither do I, James. That’s why I don’t want the likes of Kerry, Pelosi, Murtha, Reid, Kennedy, Boxer, McKinney, Jefferson, Clinton or the rest of the Socialistic clowns of the left representing my country again.

My vote will go against Cantwell this year. In 2008, you can bet it will go against whoever the Socialist left proposes.

Lew

NIE Report: Iraq War Hurting Fight Against Terror

September 24, 2006

From an article in the Washington Post dated September 24, 2006, we read that the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) states, contrary to President Bush’s claims, that “the "centrality" of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and the insurgency that has followed, as the leading inspiration for new Islamic extremist networks and cells that are united by little more than an anti-Western agenda. Rather than contributing to eventual victory in the global counterterrorism struggle, it concludes that the situation in Iraq has worsened the U.S. position.”

That I can find, this 30-page report has not yet been made public. At least, I haven’t been able to find a copy online just yet. With that in mind, my comments will be based off of the article appearing today, Iraq war hurting terror fight, spy agencies say.

This “estimate” does appear to hurt President Bush after he has been saying we are winning and decimating Al Qaeda as we progress in the War on Terror. In fact, according to another article, in the New York Times, Prominent Democrats can’t seem to wait to “pile on” against the President.

John Kerry, failed 2004 Democratic Party candidate for President and self proclaimed war hero (you do realize he visited Viet Nam) said, “The National Intelligence Estimate provides jarring confirmation that the disastrous policy in Iraq is a giant recruiting poster for terrorists.”

Arianna Huffington, mush mouthed SUV hater added, “There is a real battle going on to define who is going to keep America safer.”

Ted Kennedy, robust lifelong Senator and rich boy stated, [The assessment] “should put the final nail in the coffin for President Bush’s phony argument about the Iraq war.” (Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment).

Nancy Pelosi, noted Bush hater and prospective and hopeful Speaker of the House chimed in, “President Bush should read the intelligence carefully before giving another misleading speech about progress in the war on terrorism.”

Arlen Specter, notorious Republicrat and RINO couldn’t wait to add, “the war in Iraq has intensified Islamic fundamentalism and radicalism,” although he added “that’s a problem that nobody seems to have an answer to.”

Maybe these rapid condemners forgot that this same NIE is the same that was responsible for the 2002 “estimate” that stated Iraq had "continued its weapons of mass destruction [WMD] programs," possessed stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons and "probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade."

Of course, just because they have been wrong in the past doesn’t necessarily make them wrong today. So, for sake of argument, let’s say the situation in Iraq is getting worse and our presence there is being used as recruiting tool. WHY?

Is it merely our presence, or could it be the negative reports constantly being printed and broadcast worldwide by our lamestream media?

We have Congressmen and Senators stating our troops are “killing innocent civilians in cold blood,” “Terrorizing women and children in the dead of night,” comparing the troops to Nazis, Soviet Gulags and other nefarious accusations.

We have our lamestream media showing every picture claiming torture or humiliation of detainees they can, while not showing photos of the 9/11 attacks or of our troops be murdered and drug behind trucks as their bodies are mutilated and set on fire.

We have wild card Senators like John McLame claiming we have been torturing detainees unmercifully and demanding what Rush Limbaugh tagged as a “terrorist bill of rights” to ensure our troops and intelligence cannot aggressively draw information from them. Information that just might prevent the next attack against us.

These reports, almost on a daily basis, are broadcast around the world being translated into the language of the people viewing them. Those with a disposition towards radical Islam also see these and hear nothing from our own media other than we are the bad guys, we don’t belong there, our President lied to justify stealing their oil in a war, to get vengeance against Saddam for trying to assassinate his father and that this war was pre-planned even before he became President. They hear and read that we wish to maintain a permanent presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. They hear that our troops drag 14-year-old girls out, rape them and then murder their families.

About the only thing they don’t hear or read is that we wish for them to step up and take over, once they are strong enough. That we prosecute any who violate “rules of engagement” or commit crimes like rape.

They are told by the likes of Zawahiri, Zarqawi (now deceased), Bin Laden, Ahmenijad, Chavez and others that we are the “devil,” “the Great Satan,” and desire to annihilation of all of Islam. Our lamestream media prints or broadcasts NOTHING to the contrary, just anything they feel with hurt President Bush.

Is it any wonder that terrorist numbers just may be growing?

Where are stories of the heroes? Where are the stories of magnificent efforts our troops have made in securing the countryside and rebuilding the infrastructure? Where are the stories of this ALL VOLUNTEER Force re-enlisting and returning for more tours?

If our presence is truly adding to the growth of terror, we need only look at what our own media has been continually claiming ever since President decided “enough is enough” and launched an all out effort to finally fight terrorism at its roots.

If we truly value freedom and liberty, we cannot afford to lose this fight. We cannot afford to elect officials who aren’t serious about defeating terror. We cannot stop supporting our Brave Troops and their Mission.

Lew

U.S. fatalities in war exceed those from Sept. 11

U.S. fatalities in war exceed those from Sept. 11

Military deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan reach 2,974
The Associated Press
Updated: 7:44 p.m. PT Sept 22, 2006

U.S. military deaths from Iraq and Afghanistan now surpass those of the most devastating terrorist attack in America’s history, the trigger for what came next.
The latest milestone for a country at war came Friday without commemoration.
..........................
Not for the first time, war that was started to answer death has resulted in at least as much death for the country that was first attacked, quite apart from the higher numbers of enemy and civilians killed, too.
..........................
“There’s never a good war but if the war’s going well and the overall mission remains powerful, these numbers are not what people are focusing on,” said Julian Zelizer, a political historian at Boston University. “If this becomes the subject, then something’s gone wrong.”
..........................
A new study on the war dead and where they come from suggests that the notion of “rich man’s war, poor man’s fight” has become a little truer over time.

I can remember, during and after my time in Viet Nam, we were treated to weekly reports of "body counts" and the left found it just horrid that such a thing was being reported. It seems I also remember hearing they would never want to hear these reports again.

Now, fueled by the anti-Iraq war leftists, we seem to be treated to "DAILY" body counts, but only of U.S. Military, regardless of how their deaths came about.

The article mentions "something going wrong" due to the public focusing on these counts. Could it be the constant drone of negativity being reported on by our Lamestream media? Could it be due to they themselves are the ones making sure the public focuses on the count?

To put things in proper perspective, it should be noted that far fewer Military members have died in both theaters of this war that the average that die from murders and crimes in some of our major cities. FBI statistics for 2004-05 have Washington at 45.9, Baltimore at 37.7, and Atlanta at 34.9 per 100,000, while the Iraq War has a rate of 25.71 per 100,000.

This constant drone of death while reporting each and every negative story they can find or invent is a sure fire method to make sure the public loses it's support for President Bush in executing this war. It was done to us in Viet Nam and is being done once again, but on a much larger scale.

In November 2005, as we hit the "milestone" of the 2,000th death, I wrote a letter to our paper, The Columbian and was fortunate enough for it to be published, right after one advocating the anti-war leftists. The numbers have increased but my feelings of sadness as well as pride in these volunteers has not:

Terrorism continues, too

With the all the mention recently of families mourning the 2,000th loss of loved ones in Iraq, I also think of the families still mourning from 9/11. I also think of the families mourning from the USS Cole as well as others mourning the Khobar Towers bombing.

There are literally thousands of families, American, European, Arab, and Asian, who mourn the loss of loved ones at the hands of terrorists. These terrorists have to be stopped. This war on terror should have been started 30 years ago, before they gained the support and power they have today. Appease them now and imagine the power they will have 10 or 20 years from now.

At the same time as I shed my tears over these 2,000, I also beam with pride that this latest generation has produced such fine young men and women who willingly placed themselves in harm's way for the protection and liberation of others and have paid the ultimate sacrifice. Their sacrifices are not to be taken lightly, denigrated or sensationalized but deserve to be held up to the entire world as among the finest people this country has ever produced.

As in John 15:13, "Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

Lew Waters
Vancouver

Support our troops. Support our President and let's end this threat once and for all.

My God, What Have I Done?

September 21, 2006

This closing line spoken by the character of Colonel Nicholson, played by Sir Alec Guiness in the 1957 movie, “The Bridge Over The River Kwai,” is one I can imagine being uttered in the future by those who have been supporting the Democratic Party in their quest to unseat George W. Bush ever since he won the election in 2000.

Thinking back to the movie, Colonel Nicholson (Alec Guiness) unwittingly collaborates with the Japanese captors holding him and his men in the jungles of Burma in World War Two in the designing and building of a bridge spanning the Kwai River. Desiring to prove the British could build a better bridge than his Japanese captors, he becomes obsessed with the building of the bridge, losing sight that he is a Prisoner of War and completion of this bridge would help the enemy forces holding him and his men win the war against his country. Acts of sabotage are ceased and he directs the men to build it to exacting standards, to be a testimony to British skill and worth.

Towards the end of the movie, the bridge is completed, but unbeknownst to Colonel Nicholson, a group of commandos have showed up to destroy the bridge before the first Japanese train can cross. The Colonel discovers the plot and following the detonation cord up river, he finds a commando ready to detonate the charges and destroy the bridge. He fights the commando, killing him, but is attacked by another. After another fight, he returns to his senses and realizes that he has been helping the enemy fighting his country, as he utters the famous line, “My God, what have I done,” before falling on the detonator, blowing up the bridge.

Unlike the ending of a movie, what Democrats and those virulently opposing President Bush won’t have is a detonator to fall on to destroy what they have been building. There will only be those words as they realize how they knowingly gave up the very Liberties our founding fathers worked so hard to give us when they realize their support for the radical leftist agenda of the Democratic Party has brought the country to ruin. As terrorists engage in their tactics within our country, they will realize that it was they and their agenda of opposition that empowered, protected and blocked every effort to discover and stop the very ones that will be trying to kill them.

We have recently seen two small despotic leaders of third world nations show up on American soil and engage in their rhetorical bashing of President Bush at the United Nations. One even made speeches in Harlem before an audience of Americans that gave him a standing ovation as he stated Bush was the Devil. The other vaguely insinuates Bush and Americans should convert to his religion, while we strongly suspect his country is secretly striving to develop nuclear weapons. We do know his country has a long history of supporting terrorist acts against America. What they state really isn’t that much different than what we have heard from Democrat Party leaders in the past few years.

We have heard Democratic Party leadership using every opportunity to denigrate the President, accusing him of lying, concocting a war, hating Black Americans, betraying the country, playing on fears, of being stupid, yet misleading all the elite Democrat leaders on Weapons of Mass Destruction and the War on Terror. They have accused him of targeting American citizens, intercepting their everyday telephone calls and violating the civil rights of these same citizens. They accuse him of fraudulently stealing the Presidential elections and of orchestrating the horrific September 11, 2001 terrorist acts that took the lives of nearly 3,000 innocent people.

Conspiracy theorists have concocted some of the wildest theories of how he destroyed the buildings in New York and sent a cruise missile into the Pentagon, all to justify a “needless war.”

Much like the Bridge that was built over the Kwai River, Democrats and moderates, the Colonel Nicholson’s, accept these conspiracies and lies about the President by the Democratic Party leaders, the World War Two Japanese captors. The lies and conspiracies become that Bridge they wish to show they can build much better, but have lost sight of the greater purpose of America, liberty and freedoms for all, personal responsibility and the opportunity to build wealth, if you work hard enough.

As they build their Bridge Over the River Kwai, we are being tested and scanned by terrorists as to where they may execute their next attack. Granting Constitutional protections to the terrorists captured and imprisoned, giving them legal rights to representation in our courts and ensuring they receive better protections than do our Military Service Members, just lengthens the span over the river. Using our Constitution to undermine the very principals our country was founded on, saying you are protecting freedoms and civil liberties, while you fight others freedoms and liberties, erects more spans of that bridge.

Just as the bridge neared completion, connecting both sides of the river, or a Socialist America, along comes the commando, George W. Bush. After the attacks of 9/11, he saw the need and attacked those that murdered our citizens. Like Colonel Nicholson, the left has seen the detonation cord attached upriver and are fighting the Commando that is trying to destroy the bridge and return America to its original principles, as well as preserve it.

Our Colonel Nicholson’s have yet to realize what they have done and are doing. Should that bridge ever be completed and totally span the river, there will come the day when they realize their tax rates are astronomical, their parental rights are gone, their freedoms of thought and speech as well as ownership of a gun, has been stripped by the new Japanese captors. Every time they vote one of these Socialist Democrats into office, they add planks to the bridge and bring it closer and closer to the other side of the river. They fail to see these Socialist Democrats have slyly maneuvered them into building the very bridge that will strip them of the freedoms and liberties, losing the war.

On the day this realization hits home, they too will look around uttering, “My God, What Have I Done?” There may not be a detonator hooked to explosives on their bridge by then, for them to fall on.

If we don’t support the commando trying to destroy the bridge, if we become complacent and think someone else will support the commandos, it’s too hard or too dangerous to fight, we too may wake up that same day in the future and realize, “My God, What Have I Done?”

Lew

Marxist Hugo Chavez Stumps for Democratic Party

September 20, 2006

In a speech before the General Assembly of the Useless Nations on September 20, 2006, Marxist Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez came out swinging against President George Bush. That such a small minded despotic oppressive would travel to America to unleash his tirade against our President should be very distressing to Americans. However, given the left’s propensity for wallowing in their BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) we should not be surprised.

In fact, what I heard of the speech reminded me of what the leftist Democrats have been saying all along. Could it be that Hugo Chavez is also vying for the Democratic Party nomination in 2008?

From his rant today advocating a copy of another Marxists book, Noam Chomsky, we see:

Chavez Translator: “I think that the first people who should read this book are our brothers and sisters in the United States, because their threat is in their own house. The devil is right at home. The devil, the devil himself is right in the house. And the devil came here yesterday. Yesterday, the devil came here, right here, right here. And it smells of sulfur still today. This table that I now standing in front of, yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, from this rostrum, the president of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer to as the devil, came here, talking as if he owned the world, truly, as the owner of the world.”

I remember a time words as this, spoken about a sitting President while in America, would have drawn the ire of the entire nation. Given statements by prominent Democrats during the past six years, his words sound more like an every day campaign speech by any other Democrat.

Howard Dean, May 2005: “President Bush, for example, goes to these town meetings and doesn't allow Democrats or Independents who disagree with him into the town meeting. He has a crew of people who keep them out.”

October 2005: “The Bush White House is the most corrupt administration in U.S. history since President Warren G. Harding's.” "I'm tired of the ayatollahs of the right wing," Dean said. "We're fighting for freedom in Iraq. We're going to fight for freedom in America."

John Kerry, January 2006: Winning the 2006 congressional elections is the only way to change the dangerous path George W. Bush has put us on. We need to defeat those Republicans who have overlooked this administration's incompetence, turned a blind eye to its failures, and lent a helping hand to its dangerous ideology.

September 2006: "The administration's Afghanistan policy defines cut and run." "Cut and run while the Taliban-led insurgency is running amok across entire regions of the country. Cut and run while Osama bin Laden and his henchmen hide and plot in a lawless no-man's land."

Nancy Pelosi, June 2005: “The President's frequent references to the terrorist attacks of September 11 show the weakness of his arguments. He is willing to exploit the sacred ground of 9/11, knowing that there is no connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq.”

September 2006: "The president's words need to be matched by sustained diplomatic engagement with our allies, and directly with our adversaries when necessary - not just when elections are near, but all the time. Mr. Bush's rhetoric must be matched by policies that are well devised and competently implemented - unlike the policies that have made the United States less safe…”

Al Gore, May 2004: "The unpleasant truth is that President Bush's utter incompetence has made the world a far more dangerous place and dramatically increased the threat of terrorist attacks against the United States.” "He planted the seeds of war. He harvested a whirlwind, and now the corrupt tree of a war waged on false premises has brought us the evil fruit of Americans torturing and sexually humiliating prisoners who are helpless in their care."

February 2004: "He betrayed this country! He played on our fears. He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place."

Ted Kennedy, Sep 2004: “President Bush has given a new meaning to the letters G.O.P. -Get Old People. While senior citizens are suffering, HMOs and drug companies are profiting.” (Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment)

Sep 2006: By riding roughshod over our laws, the Bush Administration has made America less safe and made the war on terror harder to win.”

Jack Murtha, May 2006: “U.S. forces [are] under undue pressure in Iraq because of poor planning and allocation of resources by the Bush administration.”

July 2006: “We have become occupiers. We cannot win this militarily. I decided this over a year ago. But I hesitated to say anything. I waited probably too long.”

Dianne Feinstein, May 2006: "The president is usurping power from both the legislative and the judicial branches and destroying this balance that has served our country so well." "I believe we are on our way to a most serious constitutional confrontation.''

April 2006: "It is deeply disturbing to learn that President Bush may have authorized the selective disclosure of our most sensitive intelligence information to the media to help justify a war and discredit critics.”

John Edwards, April 2006: "I think that George Bush deserves to be censured." "Leaking classified information for political purposes is really ugly."

November 2005: “President Bush promised to be a "uniter, not a divider." Apparently that was just talk. Under his watch our nation has become bitterly divided…”

Harry Reid, June 2005: There is a growing feeling among the American people that the President's Iraq policy is adrift, disconnected from the reality on the ground and in need of major mid-course corrections.

January 2006: "President Bush needs to quit stonewalling about his White House's connection to corruption, and finally tell us how he's going to reform Washington."

Hillary Clinton, May 2003: “I am sick and tired, of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic, and we should stand up and say we are Americans, and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration!”

January 2005: “The fear factor has become the overriding strategic approach that this administration uses."

Russ Feingold, March 2006: "This conduct is right in the strike zone of the concept of high crimes and misdemeanors, [Bush has been] openly and almost thumbing his nose at the American people."

March 2006: "The president authorized an illegal program to spy on American citizens on American soil."

Maria Cantwell, October 2005: "Recently, the administration has rejected conservation attempts like more accurate fuel mileage for cars and bipartisan proposals for reducing our dependence on foreign oil by a million barrels a day."

I don’t see much difference between what Chavez spouted today and what Democrats have been saying for years. Have the Democrats aligned themselves with Marxists now? Is their hatred of George W. Bush so deep that they would subject our country to the ideals that brought the nation of Russia to its knees a few years ago?

I only have my suspicions about this, but it appears we are headed for very dangerous ground if we return power of the country back over to Democrats.

Lew

Ahmadinejad Doesn’t Care For U.S. Policy

September 19, 2006

Well, Wah, wah, wah!

Imagine that, Iran’s Ahmanutjob doesn’t care for our policies. As if he is the most peace-loving dictator in town? Disturbing is that NBC’s Brian Wilson sat down with this man for an “interview.” A few quotes:

“The time for world empires has ended. The U.S. government thinks that it's still the period after World War II. That when they came out as a victor. And enjoyed special rights. And can rule therefore, over the rest of the world. I explicitly say that I am against the policies chosen by the U.S. government to run the world. Because these policies are moving the world towards war.”

We wish to “rule the world?” Even a lamebrain like Ahmanutjob knows better than that. America does not have any empire. Nations we conquered in the last century were given the chance to form new and peaceful governments and today are thriving democracies, some even opposing our efforts to do the same for Iraq.

What is really moving the world towards war is radical Islamofascists that highjack passenger jets and fly them into buildings loaded with thousands of innocent people.

What is moving the world towards war is suicide bombers strapping bombs onto women and children and sending them into crowded squares, market places, shops, wedding receptions and the like.

What is moving the world towards war is a third world countries quest for nuclear weapons and refusal to allow open inspections to prevent such an acquisition.

Addressing questions on the holocaust, he said:

“In the second World War, over 60 million people lost their lives. They were all human beings. Why is it that only a select group of those who were killed have become so prominent and important?”

Why? Perhaps because they were innocent women and children systematically marked for extinction and sent to slaughter by another brutal regime. They had little chance to defend themselves and dies by the droves. If not mistaken, they were also the largest single group to be slaughtered en masse during the war.

After the war, they only sought a homeland of their own, one that was theirs 2,000 years ago and was promised them by other nations at the end of the First World War. Every reason possible has been trumped up by many Arabs and several Muslims to deny them that homeland, even threatening them with annihilation if they don’t relocate.

Speaking of the holocaust, he says,

“The second and more important question that I raised was, if this event happened, and if it is a historical event, then we should allow everyone to research it and study it.”

There is no single event or crime in the history of man that has been better researched, documented or verified than the Holocaust of World War Two. Anyone claiming to be such an Academician as he does and who attended University knows how well verified the holocaust was. All one needs do is visit Europe and see Dachau, Auschwitz and the like. They are still there will immense photographs and captured documents pertaining to the holocaust.

To state “if this event happened, and if it is a historical event” is an insult to the intelligence of every thinking person alive.

“Did the Palestinian people have anything to do with it? Why should the Palestinians pay for it now? Five million displaced Palestinian people is what I'm talking about.”

Can he explain why the Palestinian Arabs weren’t a problem before Israel handed the Arab nations their asses in 1967, after being attacked by them? Did it ever occur to Ahmanutjob that there were other Palestinians living there throughout history, the Jews? Perhaps the Academician should research items like the Balfour Agreement of the 1920s instead of questioning the holocaust.

In reply to “thousands of people have signed up to be part of suicide brigades,” he said:

"Think if America is attacked. What would you like your son to do? Do you want him to defend America or not? I think you would like your son to defend America. It's the same with our son. When you don't have arms, when you don't have power, what can you do? You will sacrifice yourself for your country. It's not a bad thing. Although we are against war. We hate it. The war was imposed on the Middle East.”

NO SIR! You cannot wiggle out of this that easy. America did not invade and occupy a sovereign embassy, holding hostages for almost two years. America did not highjack aircraft and a ship, killing innocent civilians, demanding freedom for convicted terrorists. America did not blow up a passenger jet in flight over Scotland. America has not sent suicide bombers into clubs, set off bombs under the World Trade Center, American embassies or bombs an Iranian destroyer in Yemen.

Finally, it wasn’t American’s that high jacked passenger jets and flew them into buildings occupied by thousands of people, people from all over, all races, all religions, killing nearly 3,000 on September 11, 2001. It is clearly radical Islamofascists that started this war and it is America that needs to finish it.

I think the most disturbing part of this is that NBC chose to show more respect to this man than to our own President, while we are at war with radical Islamofascists. Behind the slick glib talk lies the eyes and heart of a very evil man.

Any National Leader than can coldly call for Israel to be wiped off the map, promising to do such and later trying to explain he only meant moving it to Europe isn’t a man I’d trust.

He can speak eloquently and can play act like he desires peace, but another did the exact same thing 70 years ago, plunging the world into the Second World War.
That Kofi Annan and the useless Nations embrace this tyrant isn’t surprising at all. They would like nothing more than to continue with the corruption and destruction of America they seek.

Bush should continue discussions with Ahmanutjob on ending the nuclear standoff, but while he talks, he needs to be holding a really big stick behind his back.

Lew

Jack Murtha’s Ridiculous

September 18, 2006

Yes, I know he is, but in this case, that is the title of an email just received with his name affixed, from the DCCC. In the email, he calls all of the Republican “attacks” as “ridiculous.” Attacks?

“I'm not too sure what these Republicans are trying to accomplish with all their attacks:

• The Republican Leader in the House says, "I listen to my Democrats friends, and I wonder if they are more interested in protecting the terrorists than protecting the American people."

• Dick Cheney says on national television that anybody who questions him is emboldening the enemy.

• Donald Rumsfeld compares anyone who questions their "stay the course" strategy to Nazi appeasers.”

Are these attacks? I don’t think so. I see them as eye opening revelations about one party that desires to be back in power while we are engaged in War!

Given all the obstacles, blocks and opposition Democrats have placed before President Bush since this war started; I would say what Republicans have been saying is fairly true, even if he misrepresents their words.

Wasn’t it John Kerry (D. Ma.) who repeatedly stated during the last campaign, “Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time?”

And, Harry Reid (D. Nv.) who was boasting, "We killed the Patriot Act?"

Nancy Pelosi (D. Ca.) who said, “This is a massive invasion of the privacy of the American people, not just some idle threat,” when addressing the extension of the Patriot Act that has been being used to discover and prevent another terrorist attack.

Former senator Max Cleland (D. Ga.) declared, "It's time for a strategy to win in Iraq or a strategy to get out." Amazingly, Cleland is listed as a “war hero” due to visiting a battlefield in Viet Nam, after the battle was long over, picked up a live hand grenade that exploded, causing him to lose 3 limbs. A “war hero” that didn’t even get a Purple Heart for such injuries?

Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) calls for all troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by a specific deadline, December 31, 2006. As was seen in Viet Nam, pronouncing your date of surrender in advance gives the enemy ample time to sit back and wait and after the Democrat imposed retreat, waltz in and conquer the nation, slaughtering innocents along the way.

John Kerry has been accusing President Bush of abandoning the hunt for Osama bin Laden and deceiving Americans about the war in Iraq, even though investigation after investigation says differently. And what if we do find Osama? Will the Democrats flock to his side to ensure his {American Civil Rights} are not violated?

Retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark said in 2003 that he "probably" would have voted for the congressional resolution last fall authorizing war. “Probably?”

Former Democratic President Clinton can’t seem to make up his mind on Iraq. After the attacks he justified back in 1998, he seems now to think attacking Iraq is somehow wrong, when a Republican is in office. Clinton called the Iraq invasion "a big mistake," while his wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D. NY), voted for a Democratic bill that would announce a timetable for U.S. withdrawal.

Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) said, "[The Administration was] wrong about every single thing about Iraq."

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D. Ca.) says, "Iraq was a war of choice, not a war of necessity."

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D. Ma.) said, "The President wrongly and repeatedly insisted that it was too dangerous to ignore the weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein and his ties to Al Qaeda."

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D. WV) said, "I thought [President Bush] distinctly misled the American people…”

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D. Wa.) says, "[T]o me, we had had a cease-fire agreement with Iraq."

Every single one of the Democrats made pre-war statements in support of the Iraqi War and now tries to claim President Bush “misled” them. How convenient considering some made pro-Iraq War statements even before Bush was elected.

These statements are not “questioning,” they are accusations and obfuscations against the effort in Iraq while we have troops in harm’s way.” Is it any wonder that Republicans would question Democrat responses to the war?

Murtha goes on to say,

“Let there be no doubt that Democrats are united behind the fight against terrorism. Democrats are united behind our troops. And Democrats are united behind a strong America.”

Is that why they all abandoned Joseph Lieberman in the primaries in Connecticut in favor of Ned Lamont, a decidedly anti-war candidate?

He goes on to brag,

“Sixty percent of the American people disagree with the direction in Iraq because nobody is being held accountable and we're not making any progress.”

Typical left-winged Democrat misrepresentation. In the polls, where are any broken down as to how many wish an even stronger response from the President in Iraq? And, no progress? I guess once again, comments of those who are actually there mean nothing to Jack Murtha. Of course, admitting any progress would deflate their attempts at regaining political power.

Towards the end, we see what we expected,

“There's only one hope to get that change and get a new direction; that's a Democratic majority in the House.”

Politicizing the war in Iraq just to re-grab power in the Country. That’s not only ridiculous, it is shameful.

Murtha himself has recently made calls to withdraw the troops, then to reinstitute a Military Draft as well. He has said our troops have murdered innocent civilians in “cold blood” before any investigations were finished. He has called America in Iraq, “[M]ore dangerous to world peace than nuclear threats from North Korea or Iran." When called on it, he whined he didn’t say it, then he was misquoted, misrepresented and taken out of context since he claimed it was someone else’s quote.

Just as progress is being made in Iraq, their forces are growing, their people are taking control of their government and graducally taking over their own defense, he introduces legislation to force Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to resign and replace him with either Lieberman or Armitage, the one who has admittedly revealed Valerie Plames name, after her husband, Joseph Wilson did.

This is the world Jack Murtha would give us, more confusion, surrender when we are winning, possibly more graft from the unindicted co-conspirator in the ABSCAM scandal and who knows what else.

Don’t be misled by the Democrats “New Direction.” It is nothing more than the old cut and run retreat that will end up seeing millions of Iraqis slaughtered after we flee and empowerment of the terrorists as they perceive our weakness of fleeing from before them, just as they did when we fled Somalia after the infamous Black Hawk Down incident.

Ridiculous? You bet it is. But not Republicans taking a stand to protect freedoms and liberties as well as our safety against terrorists. It’s ridiculous to even consider keeping this man in the House.

Pennsylvania, you only hope to help America is to vote Diana Irey for Congress

Lew

Islam’s "Disproportionate Outrage"

September 16, 2006

I, for one, am growing a bit weary at having to watch every step we take as a Nation and apologize every time someone else takes something out of context or when they hear truth.

I would like to remind the Muslims and the world of the recent fighting between Hezbollah and Israel. Over the murder and kidnap of Israeli soldiers a major battle in the on again off again war between the factions was started. The world became incensed at Israel for what they called “Disproportionate Response.”

Now, we see Muslims threatening a war over a quotation by the Pope (I am not Catholic, by the way) of a medieval leader. I read elsewhere that a Muslim group has threatened to kill all Christians in Iraq if the Pope does not apologize within 3 days. A Somali hard lined cleric has called for the death of the Pontiff.

Where are the outcries over that?

Other than towards the radical terrorists, I harbor no ill will against Islam. I do not regard them as the demonic group others do. I purchased a Qu’Ran a few years ago and read it from time to time trying to gain some insight and understanding of the religion. I even worked with a young Palestinian man a few years ago and we discussed the tensions between the two religions and Israel. We both agreed there was no good reason for people not to co-exist and respect each other. Save egos.

So here we are on the brink of another war over the words of the Pope that he quoted. He did not order any Muslims beheaded, slaughtered or even kicked out of the country. He did not ask their Mosques to be burned and he has not burned any Korans that I know of. On the other hand, radical Islamofascist Muslims have done all the above and more at one time or another in recent times.

While I can pray it isn’t so, maybe we are witnessing the start of the battle between the King of the North and the King of the South mentioned in the Book of Daniel. If it isn’t, then I pray to hear and see similar outcries from the world over what is definitely a Disproportionate Response from Muslims over historical and quoted words.

A final word to Muslims. You have complained about being profiled and stared at by others. You say you aren’t associated with the radical terrorists and for the majority of you, I agree. However, this disproportionate outrage and the silence from mainstream Islam do nothing to further your cause. It only causes people to distrust you more.

It’s time we put some of the pettiness behind us and joined forces to combat those that have highjacked your religion. It’s time we showed the nay Sayers from both sides that the majority of us wish to live in peace and we won’t tolerate the intolerant any longer. It’s time we realized Israel has as much right to exist, even where it is, as anyone else. Above all, it’s time we realize we are all human and regardless of what we call him, we all look to the God of Abraham.

Lew

America Has the “Moral High Ground” Now

September 15, 2006

As we all know by now, the Senate Armed Services Committee rejected President Bush’s proposal for interrogations of battlefield detainees captured in the War on Terror. It was defeated by a vote of 15 to 9, with Republican’s John Warner, John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Susan Collins defecting to join the Democrats in voting against the proposal. Retired General and former Secretary of State, Colin Powell, joined in with disapproval of President Bush’s proposal.

While this will obviously spell trouble for President Bush and the over all War on Terror we are currently engaged in, several are lauding the outcome and claiming it keeps America on the “Moral High Ground.”

Colin Powell says the world's beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism.

For some time now, McCain has been saying we have lost the "Moral High Ground" and need to regain it by treating detainees with kid gloves lest they mistreat any of our troops they may capture. The Supreme Court has basically granted captured terrorists the rights and protections of our Constitution with the full approval of Senator McCain and others. Do they also extend our Second Amendment Rights to Battlefield Detainees held in Guantanamo as well?

Senator McCain, time to wake up and smell the coffee. As someone who endured the suffering of torture when you were a POW at the hands of the Communist North Vietnamese, you should know what torture really is. Techniques we are using and that President Bush is asking for is NOT torture. Add to that the treatment of any of our troops, or even journalists, to date at the hands of terrorists and you will see while we may get aggressive, we do not hack them to pieces with machetes or behead them on video for the world to see.

Much is being said about America having the “Moral High Ground" now that the Senate Armed Services Committee has rejected the Presidents call for aggressive and legal interrogations. They feel that by tying the hands of our troops and interrogators limiting them to aggressive conversations gives us "Moral High Ground." We can show the world that we are soft and most likely not obtain the necessary information needed to prevent the next terrorist attack or save the lives of our brave troops. But, we have the “Moral High Ground.”

Sherman did not worry about “Moral High Ground” in his march through the South. We didn’t worry about "Moral High Ground" when we fire bombed Dresden and dropped the first Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, bringing the enemy at that time to their knees and bringing an end to the bloody conflict of World War Two. Both countries now live in peace after their oppressive leaders of the time failed to conquer the world.

We are dealing with a brutal and bloody enemy that really doesn’t give a hoot about “Moral High Ground,” only forcing the world to submit to their radical control. It is submission or death, their choice.

Senator McCain, and others, you may walk around today, puffing out your chests and bragging about how you brought “Moral High Ground” back to this fight. Unfortunately, Moral High Ground will never deflect bullets, stop shrapnel from an i.e.d., arm against a sharpened machete or encourage terrorists to stop fighting to enslave the world under their perverted view of Islam.

The death of each and every Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine, journalist and innocent civilian that dies because we were unable to extract the needed information to prevent terrorist attacks and eventually bring this fight to an end, will be on your hands.

You may feel you have the “Moral High Ground,” but you also have “Bloody Hands.”

Lew

Senator Kerry Threatens to “Kick Veterans Asses”

September 14, 2006

Well, well, well. What have we here? The phony war hero that was soundly defeated in the 2004 election issuing a threat to “kick ass?”

Tell me, Senator Kerry, where does this courage come from after your willingness to adopt the Communists side in the Viet Nam War and now advocating your “Somewhere Over The Rainbow” plan for redeployment (cut and run) from the War on Terror in Iraq? Is it only aging Veterans you think you can “Kick their asses?”

Speaking of the Swift Boat Veterans campaign that exposed him, he states, “They had money behind the lies, and we did not have sufficient money behind the truth.”

Kerry, you could have deflated the whole campaign against you had you stood up like a man and opened your Military Jacket to the public, as President Bush did.

The “money” behind the SBVT campaign was from Veterans like me that wanted to repay you for your treasonous allegations against us back in 1971. Did you forget all the lies you told the Fulbright Commission? We haven’t. We have been living with them for 35 years now. We have been trying to regain the Honor you stole from us with your lies. We have been trying to set the record straight of what we were actually doing there, Senator, exposing even more of your lies.

When asked about the possibility of more Swift Boat campaigns against him, he replied, “I’m prepared to kick their ass from one end of America to the other,” he declares. “I am so confident of my abilities to address that and to demolish it and to even turn it into a positive.”

Kerry, all you need do is open and authorize public access to your COMPLETE and non-Sanitized Military Records. Show us how you managed to win 3 Purple Hearts honorably and truthfully, in three months without ever spending a day in a hospital.

Show us why there is a six-year lag in your “Honorable Discharge” and why all of your medals, the ones you claimed to have thrown away, had to be all reissued on the same day.

Show us how you turned a standard “Navy man overboard” drill into a Bronze Star with “V.”

Show us how killing a wounded, downed and fleeing Viet Cong merits a Silver Star, as well.

Show us how you have a memory “Seared, seared into your memory” of your Christmas in Cambodia while President Nixon was saying we weren’t in Cambodia, months before he even became President.
Explain to us why you privately met with representatives of an enemy nation, while still in the Naval Reserve, and returned home advocating the enemy’s position.

Then, show us how you formed the basis of your lies to the Fulbright Commission. You remember those lies, don’t you? Where you claimed, “They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war….” “The country doesn't know it yet, but it has created a monster, a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence…..” and “there will be some recrimination but far, far less than the 200,000 a year who are murdered by the United States of America…..”

Explain to us how a small handful of Veterans that support your surrender policies holds more “Moral Authority” than the millions of us who opposed your ascension to the Presidency.

You spout that no one should ever question your Patriotism, but it seems to have no problem not only questioning, but also demeaning others Patriotism. Others that actually fought honorably, not cut and ruin as soon as possible to return to the anti-war goons you paraded around with.

And now, you claim ready to “kick the asses” of truly honorable Combat Decorated Veterans, including a Medal of Honor recipient? Bring it on, Johnnie. But prepared to “kick the asses” of the rest of us as well.

We that you dishonored so long ago, are ready for you to “Kick our asses” as well.

Lew

Post script: John O’Neill, spokesman for the SBVT issued a reply;

“Well, he’s got eight times as much time to prepare for us as he spent in Vietnam,”

Mr. O’Neill also said, “Kerry and his friends certainly seem to show much greater anger and hatred toward us than toward the murderous al Qaeda terrorists. This is actually a positive thing. Based on his record of switching to adopt the North Vietnamese position in 1971 and (after voting to send our kids to Iraq) proposing to cut and run in Iraq, it is likely that Kerry will be endorsing our positions by 2008 and (in his words) “Swift Boating” himself. If not, it is OK. After living for 34 years with his claim that our comrades, living and dead, were like the army of Genghis Khan, we will always remember and be grateful for the support of the American people in 2004. Nothing he will ever say can demolish that or will speak nearly so loudly.”

Nancy Pelosi: Despicable!

September 13, 2006

As tempting as it may be, no, that is not my description of the Leader of the House Democratic Party. It is the title of the email I received from her staff today. In the Democrats quest to retake control of our government from Republicans, while we are in a war they don’t like, these emails are coming at an every increasing rate. Excerpts from her email reads:

The only thing the Republicans have left to offer the American people is fear. And the fear-mongering has turned up to full volume in congressional races across America.

Let’s put this to rest once and for all. Their mantra is as silly as is their stance on terrorism and as dangerous as is their minimizing the threat to our nation after the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001, which as we all remember, resulted in the loss of nearly 3,000 innocent civilians. Read more about their tactics at Instilling Fear and Divisiveness.

In fact, on last Sunday's broadcast of "Meet The Press," Vice President Dick Cheney warned Americans who dare to question the Administration's policies in the war in Iraq that they are emboldening the enemy.

Sorry, Ms. Pelosi, but you haven’t been “questioning,” you have been blocking and opposing nearly every step and measure suggested. Your party has misrepresented the NSA Eavesdropping program to have it squelched. In opposing the extension of part of the Patriot Act, you stated, “We have a duty to protect the American people from terrorism, but also to protect law-abiding American citizens from unaccountable and unchallengeable government power over their personal lives, their personal records, and their thoughts.” Does it matter that citizens are not being subjected to any abuses, regardless of cries of the ACLU and the left?

Instead of all the “questioning” and opposition, Ms. Pelosi, how about supporting the effort and give both the President and our brave Military the resources and abilities needed to defeat the worst enemy our country has ever had to face? Have you or your party tried viable solutions to defeat this enemy? Or, is “cut and run” all you can muster?

Karl Rove and his political hatchet men know that Republicans cannot win if they run on their record of failure, incompetence and corruption.

Ms. Pelosi, no one can win if all they have to offer is a “record of failure, incompetence and corruption.Maybe that is what led the country to dump the Democrats out of power 12 years ago. From what I read and seen in your email, you haven’t yet cured your own record of failure, incompetence and corruption.

The left’s constant droning of Republicans record of failure, incompetence and corruption doesn’t make it so. Yes, they have some that shouldn’t be there, but your party seems to have even more.

It would appear to me that your email would also constitute a “Political Hatchet job.”

They are coming at our candidates in full-force, but I promise you that we will not be intimidated for one second by this despicable attempt by the White House to scare Americans and silence critics.

Silence critics? Who was it recently that issued a veiled threat to Mr. Robert Iger, President and CEO of The Walt Disney Company, for the movie “The Path to 9/11?” I didn’t see Roves, Cheney’s or Bush’s name affixed to that letter. I see 5 of your Democratic Party leaders.

Looking back at previous emails I have received from the DCCC, I find:

“If Donald Rumsfeld spent less time thinking about the midterm elections and more time figuring out how to clean up the mess this administration made in Iraq, perhaps we would not be where we are today…. It is clear now that abiding by Donald Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary is simply untenable, and that another two years of his tenure will bring even greater regrets and disaster than the last six.” Rahm Emanuel, September 8, 2006

"Can Democrats win the House is no longer the valid question. The question is whether Republicans can do anything about it." Amy Walter, Political Analyst, 8/10/06.

“[A] Republican Congress that will vote against raising the minimum wage, in favor of endless corporate welfare, and against decent wages and labor standards for working Americans everywhere. Karin Johanson, DCCC Executive Director, August 23, 2006. In a recent bill raising the minimum wage offered by Republicans in the Senate, how did Democrats vote? Seems I remember they heartily rejected it if it meant inheritance taxes would be cut. Guess the minimum wage isn’t all that important after all, huh?

“And you can bet your sweet you-know-what that they are looking for new, even uglier ways to suppress votes.” James Carville, August 22, 2006 Uh, Ms Pelosi, who was it that blocked so many Military absentee ballots in the 2000 Florida elections? Hint: It wasn’t Bush.

Let’s look back at the recent funeral of Coretta Scott King, wife of the famed Civil Rights leader, Dr. Martin Luther King, shall we? Have we forgotten the Bush Bashing when Rev. Joseph Lowery said, “We know there were no weapons of mass destruction over there, but Coretta knew and we knew there are weapons of misdirection right down here,” and, “For war, billions more, but no more for the poor." Did you forget those, Ms. Pelosi?

What about former President Carter when he said of the Kings, "It was difficult for them then personally with the civil liberties of both husband and wife violated as they became the target of secret government wiretaps," and when he said that Hurricane Katrina showed that all are not yet equal in America? Did those slip your memory when you state They are coming at our candidates in full-force?

You titled this email as “despicable” when you sent it out. Looking back over the condition of the country and the constant drone of “impeachment” when there is no need or call, the constant obstruction of efforts to defend our country, calls by members of your party saying our troops have been terrorizing innocent women and children in the dead of night and that they have killed in cold blood and then parading a handful of Veterans who might agree with you as those with any “moral authority” to speak, while attacking Honorable Decorated Combat Veterans like the Swift Boat Veterans and POWs for Truth as “Republican stooges” is truly “despicable.

Problem is, Ms. Pelosi, it has been your party acting in a “despicable” manner.

Lew

Read more at

Yes Pelosi, There Is A War On

John Kerry, “We Are The Troops”

In an email I received today, John Kerry spouts the following:

"I remember when I was back home from Vietnam and veterans were speaking out against the Vietnam war policy, someone yelled at the vets: "You should support the troops." One of those veterans said simply: "Lady, we are the troops.""

Of course, this is meant to garner support for 4 Veterans who have chosen to run for office as Democrats. As we all have, they too enjoy the freedom to run and campaign as they see fit, in accordance with the law.

But, does being a Veteran give one more of an insight into what needs done to run government? Apparently, Kerry believes so as he says, “there's nothing more important this fall than electing veterans to Congress who can speak out about Iraq with a special moral authority.”

So, according to Kerry, being a Veteran gives one Moral Authority?

I am a Viet Nam Veteran, 18 months boots on the ground in the Central Highlands in the U.S. Army. I have never considered being a Vet gave me much more than my own unique insight into what I saw and did there. No, I didn’t go medal shopping as Kerry did. I don’t consider myself a “war hero,” or feel I have any more “moral authority” to speak out than anyone else does.

I think back to the 2004 campaign season when the Swift Boat Veterans and POWs for Truth stepped up and opposed Kerry. All are Decorated veterans themselves who all spent much longer than Kerry’s scant 4 months in country. According to Kerry, they too should have had “Moral Authority” to speak out. Anyone who was watching the campaign saw how their “Moral Authority” was challenged, even to making the term “Swiftboating” out to be something dirty against politicians.

Do they have no “Moral Authority”, Senator? Was it due to their “Moral Authority that your minions sued them over the movie Stolen Honor? Was it because they had “Moral Authority” that your campaign threatened Sinclair Broadcasting if they showed the film?

What of the upwards of 80% of Veterans that opposed your run for the Presidency?

Kerry claims in the same email that the fighting in Iraq is going bad. He demeans Republicans who say differently, coincidentally the very ones his “4 Veterans” with “special moral authority” as a “disconnect with reality or refusal to level with the people.”

One of the Congressmen, Don Sherwood, A veteran of the U.S. Army, is called “another rubber-stamp Republican incumbent who has failed to ask tough questions about the Bush administration's aimless policies in Iraq.” Where is his “moral authority,” Senator Kerry?

Just as it was back when Kerry’s anti-war group yelled back at the lady mentioned above, “we are the troops,” he would have us believe his 4 today are as representative as the small handful he had back then. Over 2.5 million served in country in Viet Nam. VVAW, at its height, boasted of some 30,000 members. At it’s height! That’s about one percent of those who served. It should also be noted that a significant number of those claiming Veteran status back then did not serve or served elsewhere other than Viet Nam. Many others were discharged for disciplinary measures, some for drug usage.

In Iraq today, troop levels are at about 140,000 at its peak. Total numbers of troops going to Iraq will yet be determined, but they are significantly higher over all. That would make the percentage of his 4 infinitesimally small, less than 2 ten thousandths of one percent.

We are to believe these 4 are representative of all once again? What of those that do think matters are going well in the Iraq War? From the Multi-National Forces website, we find a Staff Sgt. Rowland who says, “"I am doing what I love to do. So I'm loving it." He is a Senior Mechanic.

Tech. Sgt. Watkins, Joint Area Support Group – Central DPW contract manager says, “It’s important to be here to protect the rights of individuals who didn’t have any before.”

Gen. George W. Casey Jr., Commanding General Multi-National Force – Iraq says, “Shops are opening. People freely walk the streets. Work crews clean the streets and neglected infrastructure is repaired. Operations like these will progress into other districts and neighborhoods around the capital as Coalition and Iraqi security forces cordon and clear the neighborhoods, protect the citizens and build long-term stability by executing civil infrastructure projects to help the people.”

Gunnery Sgt. Erik Duane, a Civil Affairs Group Marine in Al Asad, is a friend and now brother of Shu’aib Barzan Hamreen Al Aubaidy’s Aubaidy tribe, Shu’aib saying, “Gunny has helped improve our lives greatly.”

Letters home from the troops, discussions with many at the local VFW and articles not readily printed by our drive-by lamestream media tells me Senator Kerry’s 4 Veterans are not representative of how the War in Iraq, or even the overall War on Terror is really going.

Kerry was miserably wrong back in 1971 when he claimed, “They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war….” And “The country doesn't know it yet, but it has created a monster, a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence…..” “there will be some recrimination but far, far less than the 200,000 a year who are murdered by the United States of America…..”

History and millions of dead Vietnamese, as well as Cambodians shows just how wrong Kerry was then.

Iraqis can’t afford to listen and see how wrong he will be today. America can’t afford to listen either. This time, we will not have an ocean’s distance between them and us.

If we leave this time, they will follow us.

Lew

Instilling Fear and Divisiveness

August 10, 2006

"He betrayed this country! He played on our fears," so shouted former Vice President and failed Presidential candidate Al Gore in a 2004 speech before Tennessee Democrats, eliciting a roaring approval from his audience.

"This policy of fear will not win the war on terror," wrote Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on September 7, 2006. Reid also accused the Bush administration of using "fear, fear, fear and more fear as a national-security policy," adding, "We need to do more than frighten the American people."

"They exploit the politics of fear," Whined Senator Ted Kennedy (D.Ma.) in early 2005.

In the 2004 campaign, Senator John Kerry (D. Ma.) (you do realize he served in Viet Nam?) stated, "The Bush campaign and its allies have turned to the tactics of fear and smear."

In his September 10, 2006 speech “Real Security for America,” Kerry also says of the Bush administration, "they have nothing to offer but fear itself."He adds, "we need national leadership capable of raising hopes and inspiring trust, not raising fears." Closing this speech, he bemoans, "Let him play the politics of fear. As Democrats, we choose to offer a real plan to attack the terrorists and free Americans from fear."

(AUTHORS NOTE: I am still waiting to hear just what this plan is.)

The above are but a small sample of the times Democrats have invoked “fear” and accusations of “fear” into their campaign rhetoric while we are at war. Rolling out the ‘fear-card’ seems to be the number one campaign tactic for them since before the 2004 elections.

Every chance they get, it seems they are more than willing to accuse George W. Bush of instilling “fear” into the American public and scaring the population into keeping Republicans in office. In an article on the DNC homepage (dated August 14, 2006) we are greeted with the opening line of, “The failed policies of Washington Republicans continue to make America less safe.”

Another article on their website, dated March 31, 2006, the third paragraph of the article leads off with, "The failed policies of President Bush and the Republican-led Congress have undermined the safety and security of our country and left Americans less safe."

John Kerry, in a release on his website dated August 31, 2006, adds,”America is less safe and more divided because of President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld.” It would seem to me that that in it self is also “instilling fear into the population.”

They have been accusing President Bush and Republicans of “fear-mongering” for some time now, but it is they who keep screaming, “America is LESS safe.”

On the other hand, President Bush, on August 15, 2006 said, “America is Safer, But Not Yet Safe.” "They've got to be right one time and we've got to be right 100 percent of the time to protect the American people," Mr. Bush added. While the left may see these words as “fear-mongering” and “divisive,” I disagree.

As a Veteran, my mind wanders back to my time in Viet Nam. We that were there, whether we admit it or not, learned was fear really was. Any Veteran who has seen combat or the effects of combat knows real fear. We may have hidden it by bravado or youthful exuberance, but we felt it at one time or another.

I don’t see it as “fear-mongering” for the President to be reminding us all that we have an enemy that wants nothing more than us to be dead. Raising “awareness” to a ruthless enemy who might be walking amongst us isn’t “fear-mongering.” It is saving lives.

It doesn’t mean we attack all Muslims when he says the terrorists are “Islamofascists.” It identifies and separates a group from mainstream Islam that has been hijacking a religion.

Telling us this is a new and long war isn’t making us afraid, it is being honest and letting us know we aren’t in a video game, we are in a real war, unlike we have ever been in before.

Democrats, on the other hand, claim they have a “new direction” to take the country. What direction is that? The old plan of “surrender?” “Isolationalism?” “Cut and Run?” Instead of admitting that the fighting in Iraq is part of the War on Terror, which it is, they call it a side step of the WoT. A distraction. They cry Osama Bin Laden has not been captured and vow to devote maximum resources to hunting him down, as if his death or capture will stop terror. It won’t.

Devoting maximum resources to hunting one man, who is either dead or hiding in caves in the most remote area of the world, would be a distraction from fighting terrorists. It would be lessening our efforts against terror to possibly devote whole Army Divisions to seeking one elusive man who has become non-consequential in his flight and hiding, or death.

On this fifth anniversary of the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001, Democrats are sparing no effort in bashing the efforts and gains of the Bush administration. At every turn today, they accuse him of “fear-mongering” and “dividing the nation.” They accuse him of pre-planning the invasion of Iraq before he was even elected President. Some even accuse him of fabricating the 9/11 attacks to justify forcing us into a senseless war.

In their efforts at dividing the nation and convincing us their hippieish approach to terror is better, they have once again used our troops in harms way as a means to grab power back. Rep. Jack Murtha (D. Pa) stated that U.S. Marines “had murdered innocent civilians in cold blood,” before any investigation had been completed into an accusation of wrongdoing on the part of a squad.

Sen. John Kerry claimed, in December of 2005 in an interview with Bob Schieffer, “And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the – of – the historical customs, religious customs."

In Mid 2005, on the Senate floor, Sen. Dick Durbin (D. Il) in regards to those being held at Guantanamo, "you would most certainly believe this must have happened by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners."

This is the Democrats that want us to believe they will keep us safer than the Republicans have. Maybe they have missed there has not been another terrorist attack on our soils since 9/11? To me, it appears more as if they are willing to gamble with the lives of Americans to regain power. They have opposed and blocked nearly every effort the administration is using to discover and stop terrorists in their tracks.

As citizens, we must fight the urge to feel that everything is okay around us. We are at war, and it is a real war, a war for the very survival of our lifestyle.

President Bush is not fear-mongering when he reminds us of the dangers we face, he is acting as our parents did when we were little when they taught us to look both ways crossing a street or to not talk to strangers. He is making us aware of what we need to look out for to stay alive and protect our families and loved ones.

The Democrats, on the other hand, are using everything they can muster to oppose, divide and make us fearful of being aware of the very dangers we face. Sorry, Democrats, pulling the covers over our heads won’t make it go away. Waving a white flag will only enslave us.

Our only prayer is to fight these despots and destroy them wherever they are.

Lew

Preemptive CYA Turns to Threats - Smacks of Censorship

Not content with complaining and demanding the Docudrama, The Path to 9/11, be watered down and cleaned up to hide the Democrat Party and Bill Clinton's complacence and ineffectiveness with dealing with Terror throughout the 1990s, party leaders are now issuing veiled threats of pulling the license of Disney, maker of the film.

The entire Democratic Party leadership has signed and sent the following letter today; (emphasis added)

September 7, 2006

Mr. Robert A. Iger
President and CEO
The Walt Disney Company
500 South Buena Vista Street
Burbank CA 91521

Dear Mr. Iger,

We write with serious concerns about the planned upcoming broadcast of The Path to 9/11 mini-series on September 10 and 11. Countless reports from experts on 9/11 who have viewed the program indicate numerous and serious inaccuracies that will undoubtedly serve to misinform the American people about the tragic events surrounding the terrible attacks of that day. Furthermore, the manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well respected news organization like ABC. We therefore urge you to cancel this broadcast to cease Disney’s plans to use it as a teaching tool in schools across America through Scholastic. Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.

The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events.

Disney and ABC claim this program to be based on the 9/11 Commission Report and are using that assertion as part of the promotional campaign for it. The 9/11 Commission is the most respected American authority on the 9/11 attacks, and association with it carries a special responsibility. Indeed, the very events themselves on 9/11, so tragic as they were, demand extreme care by any who attempt to use those events as part of an entertainment or educational program. To quote Steve McPhereson, president of ABC Entertainment, “When you take on the responsibility of telling the story behind such an important event, it is absolutely critical that you get it right.”

Unfortunately, it appears Disney and ABC got it totally wrong.

Despite claims by your network’s representatives that The Path to 9/11 is based on the report of the 9/11 Commission, 9/11 Commissioners themselves, as well as other experts on the issues, disagree.

Richard Ben-Veniste, speaking for himself and fellow 9/11 Commissioners who recently viewed the program, said, “As we were watching, we were trying to think how they could have misinterpreted the 9/11 Commission’s findings the way that they had.” [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]

Richard Clarke, the former counter-terrorism czar, and a national security advisor to ABC has described the program as “deeply flawed” and said of the program’s depiction of a Clinton official hanging up on an intelligence agent, “It’s 180 degrees from what happened.” [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]

Reports suggest that an FBI agent who worked on 9/11 and served as a consultant to ABC on this program quit halfway through because, “he thought they were making things up.” [MSNBC, September 7, 2006]

Even Thomas Kean, who serves as a paid consultant to the miniseries, has admitted that scenes in the film are fictionalized. [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]

That Disney would seek to broadcast an admittedly and proven false recounting of the events of 9/11 raises serious questions about the motivations of its creators and those who approved the deeply flawed program. Finally, that Disney plans to air commercial-free a program that reportedly cost it $40 million to produce serves to add fuel to these concerns.

These concerns are made all the more pressing by the political leaning of and the public statements made by the writer/producer of this miniseries, Mr. Cyrus Nowrasteh, in promoting this miniseries across conservative blogs and talk shows.

Frankly, that ABC and Disney would consider airing a program that could be construed as right-wing political propaganda on such a grave and important event involving the security of our nation is a discredit both to the Disney brand and to the legacy of honesty built at ABC by honorable individuals from David Brinkley to Peter Jennings. Furthermore, that Disney would seek to use Scholastic to promote this misguided programming to American children as a substitute for factual information is a disgrace.

As 9/11 Commission member Jamie Gorelick said, “It is critically important to the safety of our nation that our citizens, and particularly our school children, understand what actually happened and why – so that we can proceed from a common understanding of what went wrong and act with unity to make our country safer.”

Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon.

Sincerely,

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid
Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin
Senator Debbie Stabenow
Senator Charles Schumer
Senator Byron Dorgan

Democrat Threat at Ameriblog

As I stated in the post before, where was their outcry of inaccuracies and bias when Michael Moore released his fraudulent movie, Fahrenheit 911?

Even more disturbing is that the leadership of a major political party would issues threats against a private business concern because they don't appreciate the content of a docudrama. Big Brother? Is this still America where Freedom of Speech and expression are guaranteed to all?

As a Liberal recently told me, “I'm proud that you may still exercise your American right to choose not to see the film.” Too bad that doesn’t apply equally to the Democratic Party leadership.

Should Democrats regain power, will they now dictate what we may see and hear on the airwaves under threat of a broadcaster losing their license?

We have fought very major wars and waited over 60 years for an oppressive regime and system to fail that engaged in this very manner of censorship, the former Soviet Union.

Democrats seem to feel they now have reinstituted that Communist system here in America.

God help us if they win any more elections.

Lew

Preemptive CYA by Democrats

September 6, 2006

On September 10 and 11th, ABC (of all networks) plans on running a two part mini-series titled “The Path to 9/11.” It is described as look at the build up to the attacks from the time of the first attack on the World Trade Centers in 1993.

Due to the time period, it takes a very critical look at the Clinton Administration and their efforts, or lack thereof, in dealing with terrorism and terrorists.

A pre-showing of the docudrama drew the ire of Clintonistas and other Democrats almost immediately. The outrage from the left, who have been diligently trying to make President Bush solely responsible for the attacks of 9/11, is predictable. Truth be damned.

Rep. Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY), Ranking Member of the House Rules Committee, called on ABC to make it clear to viewers that is not a documentary account of the events shown. Slaughter also expressed concern over the timing of the mini-series as we near the mid-term elections this year. She then goes into the expected political diatribe, “"The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that we stand for real security..” She fails to define “real security.”

Richard Clarke and Sandy Berger, two real life figures portrayed in the movie, both have raised “factual objections.” Richard Ben-Veniste, one of the 10 members of the Sept. 11 commission, denounced the veracity of a key scene involving Clinton national security adviser Samuel R. Berger.

In the scene Berger freezes in apprehension when a CIA agent radios in from Afghanistan to say that he and a band of local tribesmen have Osama bin Laden within sight and begs for the green light to terminate him. In the film, the line goes dead before Berger offers any reply.

At the screening, Ben-Veniste stood up and said that the Berger-bashing scene didn’t square with the research he and the other commissioners conducted. “There was no incident like that in the film that we came across. I am disturbed by that aspect of it,” Ben-Veniste, a loyal Democrat, told the panel.

Sandy Berger later seconded Ben-Veniste’s criticism. “It’s a total fabrication,” he said tersely. “It did not happen.”

However, reading the book “Dereliction of Duty,” by Lt. Col. Robert “Buzz” Patterson, USAF (Ret.), former Air Force Aid to President Clinton, one of the ones who carried the “nuclear football” everywhere Clinton went, I ran across the following account;

“THE WHITE HOUSE SITUATION ROOM was buzzing. It was fall 1998 and the National Security Council (NSC) and the "intelligence community" were tracking the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden, the shadowy mastermind of terrorist attacks on American targets overseas. "They've successfully triangulated his location," yelled a "Sit Room" watch stander. "We've got him."

Beneath the West Wing of the White House, behind a vaulted steel door, the Sit Room staff sprang into action. The watch officer notified National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, “Sir, we've located bin Laden. We have a two-hour window to strike.”

Characteristic of the Clinton administration, the weapons of choice would be Tomahawk missiles. No clandestine "snatch" by our Special Operations Forces. No penetrating bombers or high speed fighter aircraft flown by our Air Force and Navy forces. No risk of losing American lives.

Berger ambled down the stairwell and entered the Sit Room. He picked up the phone at one of the busy controller consoles and called the president. Amazingly, President Clinton was not available. Berger tried again and again. Bin Laden was within striking distance. The window of opportunity was closing fast. The plan of attack was set and the Tomahawk crews were ready. For about an hour Berger couldn't get the commander in chief on the line. Though the president was always accompanied by military aides and the Secret Service, he was somehow unavailable. Berger stalked the Sit Room, anxious and impatient.

Finally, the president accepted Berger's call. There was discussion, there were pauses and no decision. The president wanted to talk with his secretaries of defense and state. He wanted to study the issue further. Berger was forced to wait. The clock was ticking. The president eventually called back. He was still indecisive. He wanted more discussion. Berger alternated between phone calls and watching the clock.

The NSC watch officer was convinced we had the right target. The intelligence sources were conclusive. The president, however, wanted a guaranteed hit or nothing at all.

This time, it was nothing at all. We didn't pull the trigger. We "studied" the issue until it was too late - the window of opportunity closed. Al-Qaeda's spiritual and organizational leader slipped through the noose.

This lost bin Laden hit typified the Clinton administration's ambivalent, indecisive way of dealing with terrorism. Ideologically, the Clinton administration was committed to the idea that most terrorists were misunderstood, had legitimate grievances, and could be appeased, which is why such military action as the administration authorized was so halfhearted, and ineffective, and designed more for "show" than for honestly eliminating a threat.”

Dereliction of Duty, page 129 –131, Lt. Col. Robert ‘Buzz” Patterson, USAF (Ret.) 2003, Regenery Publishing Inc., Air Force Aid to President Clinton, May 1996 to May 1998

While not exactly like presented in the mini-series, it does appear that at least one witness spoke of a similar “missed opportunity” before this film was even thought of.

Former Republican Governor Thomas Kean of New Jersey, the chairman of the Sept. 11 commission and a consultant to the production, defended the film, saying it showed "a colossal failure of government.” "If you portray that accurately," he added, "people from both (the Clinton and Bush) administrations will complain."

As of yet, I have not come across anyone from the Bush administration complaining. I also have failed in finding Democrats complaints about Michael Moores piece of garbage, Farenheit 911, which was an obvious attempt at skewing the efforts of the War on Terror, especially the battle in Iraq.

I also remembered seeing two movies in 1993 and 1995 after the Presidential election of Clinton. The films, “Falling Down” and “The American President,” both took critical looks at the right and the left, painting the left in a favorable light while showing the right somewhat unhinged.

Searching high and low, I have been unable to find Democrats condemnation of those films.

Lew